TVA BOK 0012154 Sarvodaya

SARVODAYA
AND THE PROBLEM OF POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY
BY
Dr T. S. DEVADOSS, ™.a.. BL., Ph.D. DP. & PA

Centre for Advanced Study in Phitosophy
University of Madras
UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS
1974
Thesis approved for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the University of MADRAS in 1969
First published, 1974
© UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS
Price Rs. 25
PRINTED IN INDIA
AT ELANGOVAN PRINTERS, MADRAS-600014.
PREFACE
This book embodies an attempé at presenting the
fundamental ideas of the socio-political philosophy of
Mahatma Gandhi and of his followers, especially
‘Acharya Vinoba Bhave. The ideal envisaged is best-.
expressed by the term Sarvedaya—the allround well-
being of all. ்‌
Gandhian thought is not explicitly and narrowly
an analytical and positive body of political knowledge.
Gandhi had a comprehensive approach to life. Man is
the centre of consciousness and power of the Infinite.
Gandhian philosophy takes a whole-view of man and
emphasizes his essentially spiritual nature. It extends
beyond the conflicting interests of life toa spiritual
view of thesame. It strikes a happy mean between a
spiritualism which derides life and the prevailing
materialism which rejects spiritualism. Itis in terms
of this harmonious and comprehensive outlook that one
can best study Gandhi's socio-political philosophy. -
In view of the fact that the political philosophy of
Gandhi has its anchorage in his deeper vision of life
and society and considering the fact that for Gandhi,
the moral and the spiritual govern the political and the.
social, a comparison between them seems natural and
almost inevitable.
The comparative perspective has been maximized
by the structure of the book. In Part One, the spiritual
basis of Sarvodaya is analysed. It covers differant
aspects of Gandhi’s philosophy and the relevant areas
of Hindu thought. Philosophical interest in political
analysis has often tended to focus on the notion of
‘Sovereignty’ which is regarded by all political scien-
tists as the basis of modern Political Scienve. Part
Two is concerned with the Political Order of Sarvodaya
with special reference to the problem of Political
Sovereigntv. This is discussed against the background
of ancient Hindu and Western Political thought. In
the Epilogue, the author indicates how Sarvodaya
shows the way out of the present day crisis and pro-
vides the basis of the hope for mankind.
The studies embodied herein do not claim the
virtue of totality and comprehensiveness. The author
iv
ewes a heavy debt to the many scholars who have

dealt, more adequately than he could do, with specific
aspects or problems of the subject. —~ ~
A bibliography at the end of the book directs the
reader to the most scholarly studies of various aspects
of this subject.
This work was approved for the award of ‘the
Ph.D. degree in Philosophy of the University of
Madras in 1969 which was the Gandhi Centenary Year.
There remains for me a pleasant duty of acknow-
ledgements. I am indebted to my revered guru
Dr T. M. P. Mahadevan a true Gandhian, who sug-
gested the topic of the present work, and whose advice
and guidance in writing roy thesis for the Ph. D. degree
has been invaluable. JI desire to express my profound
gratitude to Professor Mahadevan who very kindly
read the entire manuscript of my thesis at the
time
of my submission-for the dezree. *
To me, the influence of Dr T. M. P. Mahadevan
has been much more than a mere intellectual
stimulus.
On the innumerable occasions since my
joining the
department of Philosophy in 1962, I have felt the
Magnetism of his remarkable Personality.
As stated
by me in the Epilogue, Professor Mahadevan
is ona of
the greatest philosophers of the world, who
combines in
himself, Gandhi’s passion for Satya and Sankara
’s dedi-
cation to the cause of peace, goodness
and welfare of
all.
My thanks are due to my former Profes
C. T. Krishnamachari who taught me sor Dr
Western Philo-
sophy and to Dr Chandran Devanesan,
former Prinei-
pal of Madras Christian College, Tambaram
“presently and
Vice-Chancellor of North-Eastern
University, Meghalya who taught me Hill
Political Philo-
sophy at Christian College, Madras. To Professor
VA. Devasenapathy M.A., Ph.D,, and to my other
colleagues in the Centre for Advanced
Study in Philo-
sophy, fam erateful for their friendly and
gestive counsel, sug-
v
It is a pleasure to acknowledge my obligations to

the many distinguished scholars whose works have
been of immense help to me in preparing the present
book. To mention all their names is difficult but these
can be found in the course of the book. Mention,
however, be made of Messers Acharya Vinoba Bhave,
Jaya Prakash Narayan, R. R. Diwakar, U.N. Dhebar,
Pyarelal, Tendulkar, G. Ramachandran, Karan Singh,
N, K. Bose, Shriman Narayan, Professor 8, Radha-
krishnan, Professor V.P.Varma, Professor Amia
Chakravarthy of U.8.A., Professor Santosh Sen Gupta,
Professor P. Nagaraja Rao, Tagore Professor of Huma-
nities, University of Madras, Professor Bondurant and
Professor H. D. Lewis of London University. I have
profited much by their instructive counsel.
I owe a special debt of gratitude tomy revered
Vice-Chancellor, Padma Sri Thiru N. D. Sundaravadi-
velu and to the authorities of the University of Madras
for sponsoring the publication of this book. My thanks
are due to the University Grants Commission for
having awarded a Fellowship to me for the entire period
of my research work and also for sanctioning the
publication of the present work.
Acknowledgement of the sources has been made at
the proper places, and my thanks go to all of them. I
‘ wish to express my appreciation to Mrs. Ranee Padmaja
Sanjeev, m.a., for assisting me in preparing the Glossary,
Bibliography, Index and for her help in seeing the
book through the press. To Messers Elangovan Printers,
Madras, I offer my thanks for the neat execution of
their printing.
Tt is my hope that this book will prove to be useful
for study and research, but even more that it will serve
to stimulate further research on Gandhian thought.
Centre for Advanced Study in Philosophy

UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS. T. S. Devadoss
March 25, 1974.
‘CONTENTS
PAGE
Preface we tit
PART ONE
Spiritual Basis of Sarvodaya
CHAPTER ONE Introduction
A The Doctrine of Sarvodaya against

the background of Indian Spiritual
Tradition with special reference to
the Spiritual Values ee 1
B Forerunners . =
Cc Early Glimmerings and Influences ... 66
D Sarvodaya and Utilitarianism w= «OS
CHAPTER Two
Ethical Principles and Discipline .... 125
A The End and the Means wv 127
தீ The Virtues required w ~=178
Vili
CONTENTS
CHAPTER THREE PAGES
Social and Economic Orders of

Sarvodaya 207
A Social Order 209
B Economic Order 247
Part Two
Political Order of Sarvodaya and the
problem of Political Sovereignty- 291
CHAPTER FOUR
Analytical Exposition of The

Theories of the State, Its Purpose
and End in Indian and Western
Political Thought 293
A | The Origin of the State in Indian
and Western Political Thought «. 295
B The Purpose and End of the State
in Indian and Western Political
Thought ்‌ 333 -
CHAPTER FIVE
The Concept of Sovereignty In

Indian and Western Political
Thought 363
A The Concept of Sovereignty in
Indian Political Thought 365
B The Concept of Sovereignty in
Western Political Thought 390
1x
CONTENTS
CHAPTER SIX PAGES

Sarvodaya and The Problem of
Political Sovereignty we = 445
CHAPTER SEVEN
Epilogue . we 493
Glossary | ws =: 553
List of Abbreviations «-- 572
Bibliography we =—593
Author Index உ 021
General Index (643
PART ONE
SPIRITUAL BASIS
OF SARVODAYA
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
A
‘FHE DOCTRINE OF SARVODAYA AGAINST

THE BACKGROUND OF INDIAN SPIRITUAL
TRADITION WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO
THE SPIRITUAL VALUES
India, for ages, has been the sacred land of

people who have shown great reverence for spiritual
values. Each nation is a power (Sakti) of the
evolving spirit in humanity and lives by the prin-
ciple which it embodies. India is the Bharata-Sakti,
the living energy of a great spiritual conception
and fidelity to it is the very principle of her exis-
tence. Swami Vivekananda describes India as ‘the
blessed punya-bhitmi”! and as the land from where
came the founders of religions from the ancient
times, deluging the earth again and again with the
pure and perennial waters of spiritual truth.’2
Spiritual life is the true genius of India. She has
stood like a “Rock of Ages’ and has survived the
ravages of time because her civilization which is
inspired by the spiritual, insight of holy men is
marked by a certain moral integrity, a fundamental
loyalty, a fine balance of individual desires and
1. Holy Land.
2. Swami Vivekdnanda, The Complete Works of Swami

Vivekananda, Part II, 1922, p. 105.
2: INTRODUCTION
social demands. It is through this sustaining power
that India has preserved through tumultuous ages
the eternal words that have issued from the illumi-
nated consciousness of her great spiritual precep-
tors—satyam jridnam anantam brahma: Brahman is
Truth, knowledge and is infinitude: santam Sivam
advaitan® : Atman which is Brahman is free from
desire and aversion, is blissful consciousness and is
absolute. The two words anantam and advaitam
occuring in the two passages affirm that Brahman
is infinite and absolute suggesting thereby that all
beings orginate from it and hence have no indepen-
dent existence apart from it.
In India, great philosophers, from the age

of
the Vedas down to the present era, have shown
that the central conception of religion is that of
the Eternal. The test of religion is
realization
(anubhiti). ‘The Atman is to be seen’, says the
Upanisad* Spirituality is the core of
religion. If
the divine Reality is man’s true nature,
hope his
for a fuller and better life becomes
well founded;
for he can become the Divine
by realising the
Divine; and this is the purpose
and goal of life,
according to Vedanta.
It is true that all existence and

all life is a part
of the great spiritual reality, but
man has a unique
3. Manditkya Upanisad, 1-7.

4. atma va are drastavyah, Brhadaranyaka Upanisad,
IL iv, 5.
THE DOCTRINE OF SARVODAYA 3
place in the world-process, because he has the
eligibility for action (Karma) and knowledge (jfiana),
All other forms of life will have to rise to the
human plane in order to advance and realize the
goal of all life which is spiritual freedom. We may
quote in this connection, an illuminating passage
from Sankara’s commentary on the Taittiriya
Upanisad, which is as follows: ‘When every form
without any distinction is a modification of matter
and lineal descendant: of Brahman, why should
man alone be singled out here? The reason is that
he is the principal. Why is he the Principal? Because
he has the eligibility for action and knowledge.’>
This passage means that all forms of life and exis-
tence that we come across in the world are, in a
sense, modifications of matter (anna); without mat-
ter no life is possible, no manifestation is possible.
The highest truth that in the absolute Brahman all
things are comprised, that Brahman is free from
characteristics (nirguna) and free from any distinc-
tions (nirvisesa), can best be understood only by man
who is endowed with the power to reflect upon the
nature of himself and also of the world of objects.
It is this reflection that makes for spiritual advance-
ment, and it is this characteristic of his that
5. sarvesam api anna-rasa-vikaratve

brahma vainSatve ca avisiste
kasmat purusa eva grhyate ?
pradhanyat.
kim punah pradhanyam ?
karma-jiiana-adhikarah
—Sankara Bhasya, Taittiriya Upanisad, Ii, \.
4 INTRODUCTION
distinguishes him from animals. Sankara defines
this characteristic as the eligibility for willed action
(karma) and knowledge (jitana), and cites in this
connection a scriptural text which says: ‘The Atman
is expanded only inman. He, indeed, is most endow-
ed with intelligence. He gives expression to what
is known. He sees what is known. He knows what
is tocome. He knows the visible and the invisible
worlds. He perceives the immortality through
the mortal. Thus is He endowed. But with other
animals, eating and drinking alone constitute their
knowledge.’ Sankara holds that birth as a human
being is precious because of this fundamental
characteristic.”
The following verse from the Mahabharata also

tells us that, there is nothing higher than man on
earth:
guhyam brahma tadidam vo bravimi

na manusat sresthataram hi kificit
6. puruse tu eva avistaram atma

sa hi prajianena sampannatamah
vijnatam vadati vijriatam pasyati
veda Svastanarit veda lokalokau
martyena dmrtam tksati ityevam
Sampannah atha itaresan) pasinan
asanapipase eva abhivijianam,
-—Sruti referred to in Sankara’s’
commentary on the Taittiriya
Upanisad, Il, I. ,
7, Vivekacidamani: jantinam narajanma durlabham.
THE DOCTRINE OF SARVODAYA J
‘T tell you this, the secret of Brahman: there is
nothing higher than man.’8
In the ultimate analysis, man is the epitome
of the Absolute. God forms the substratum of the.
panorama of the phenomenal world. The Isa
Upanisad says: “The entire universe is pervaded
by the Absolute’® The Mandikya Upanisad also
states: ‘Everything of the universe is Brahman,
the individual soul is identical with Brahman.’
According to the Vedas which form the main

foundation of Hindu religion, ultimate reality is
all-pervading (sarvagata), self-luminous (svayampra-
ka@Sa), eternal spirit (nitva), the primal-cause of the
universe, the power behind all tangible forces, the
consciousness which animates all conscious beings.
This, in short, is the central philosophy of the
Hindu and his religion consists of meditation on
the eternal spirit and prayer for the guidance of
his intellect along the path of virtue and righteous-
ness. The truths enshrined in the Hindu doctrines.
are held to be eternal because they pertain
to the order of spiritual reality. All forms of
theism recognise a cosmic creator called God,
whereas absolutism reduces the plurality of things
to one non-dual spiritual reality. In the Purusa
Sikta, we have a view of God as immanent in the
8. S. Radhakrishnan and P.T: Raju, The Concept of Man,

George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, p. 9.
9. “Gsavasyam idam sarvam’ ISavasya Upanisad, verse 1.
10. sarvam hyetad brahma, Mandiikya Upanisad, verse 2.
6 INTRODUCTION.
world as well as transcendent. In the Ndasadiya

hymn" which is an example of pure metaphysics,
the nature of the Absolute is indicated as what lies
beyond the reach of all categories. The seeds of
theism and absolutism that are to be found in the
Vedas germinate and grow to huge proportions in
later Hinduism. The Absolute, which is called
Brahman, or Atman in Vedanta, is free from attri-
butes, it is not a creator producing the world
either out of itself or out of extraneous matter.
For it, there is no real becoming. The world as
conceived by us is only an appearance of the
Absolute.
It may be asked, what is the nature of man?

The reply obviously is that man is essentially the
‘soul’ or ‘spirit’. Every sentient being is a soul.
But man alone has the prerogative of making spiri-
tual progress and of marching towards perfection.
All other sentient beings must be born in the
human species before they can aspire for such a
path. Most of the Hindu Schools of thought agree
in holding the soul to be eternal. Even God does
not create a soul. The pluralistic systems also main-
tain that the souls are co-eternal with God.
Al-
though the self is eternal and free from limitat
ion,
11. nasadasinno sadasittadinimn
nasidrajo vyomi no paroyat
kimavarivah kuhakasya sSarman
ambhah kimasit gahanam gabhiram.
—Rg. Veda,
10. 129. 1,
it finds itself as endowed with a body-mind complex
in the phenomenal! world. It is this complex which
accounts for the bondage of the soul. However, it
is well-known that the highest truth is the truth of
the spirit; a supreme spirit-which is above the
world and yet immanent in the world and in all
that exists, sustaining and leading all towards the
goal of perfection. This aspect of existence gives
a clue to the secret of our being and a significant
meaning to the world.
Man’s being has two dimensions, the inward

and the outward. The Katha Upanisad says that
the Lord created the senses as outward looking
(pardiici), and so man perceives with the senses only
external objects; but one who aims at self-realiza-
tion with the senses turned inward looks at the
inner spirit. All the Indian philosophers except
the Carvakas are mainly interested in explaining
and up-holding the importance of the process of
inwardness.
All activities of man, whether religious or

social, political or economic, ethical or aesthetic,
prayer or practice of yoga—all these can be viewed
as spiritual activity, provided its inward signifi-
cance is recognized. At this stage, the question
may be raised as to what is meant by spiritual life
according to Indian thought? We are not con-
cerned here about the life of Atman, spirit itself, or
of the soul when dissociated from the body. We are
concerned with the spiritual life of human beings,
the kind of life extolled by all religions, the life
8 INTRODUCTION
bent upon the realization of its spiritual essence.

Only in the context of answering this question can
we get a significant meaning of the term ‘spiritual’.
The answer is: Spiritual life is life directed to-
wards the realization of Atman. Spiritual activity
is activity directed toward the same end.
It is true that nothing on earth is utterly per-

fect or utterly imperfect. Those who have the
vision of perfection strive continually to increase
the perfection and diminish the imperfection. Life
in this world is for ever striving for its fuller crea-
tive manifestation. The purification of the intellect,
the centering of the emotions in the Divine, and.
the surrendering of the personal will to God’s
will are the necessary preliminaries if one is to have
a ditect experience of the nature of the Self either
as the one non-dual Reality (as in Sankara), or as
an individual spirit unrelated to God and prakrtj
{as in Sankhya-Yoga), or as liberated from associa-
tion with phenomenal things but united with God
{as in the dualistic schools of Vaisnavism, Saivism
and Saktism), or as the non-dual Reality which has
become everything and with which it has a dynamic
identity (as in Kashmir Saivism and $ri Auro-
bindo).
A deeper reading into man’s spiritual quest
reveals that spirituality is to be regarded not as one
segment of experience, but as the synthesis of all
experiences and as the plenitude of all existence.:
To realize the Self in and all is the highest spiritual
experience. When we are blessed with Spiritu
al.
'
THE DOCTRINE OF SARVODYA நி
vision (divyacaksus), God will become to us as the
real of the real (satyasya satyam). Spiritual ex-
perience is the same all the world over. It is the
triumphant glory and final consummation of man’s
existence on earth. The central teaching of
Hinduism in its quintessential form is the attain-
ment of spiritual perfection in this world itself.
In short, the entire world is supported by

Brahman or Atman and in this sense the world has
Atman as its source (praj?idnetram), and is rooted in
Atman (prajfiane pratisthitam). It is repeatedly said
that Atman though neither speakable nor thinkable,
nor provable, has yet to be known as the eternal
principle, though not amenable to being made
an object of knowledge, it is the eternal unchang-
ing ground of all. This supreme truth is the
fundamental idea of Hindu religion. All life and
thought are in the end a means of progress towards
self-realization or God-realization.
It is the emphasis on spiritual freedom as the

summum bonum that makes the message of Indian
culture supremely significant to the modern man
who is afflicted with the malady of excessive out-
wardness. One need not go elsewhere in the quest
of perfection or happiness; it is within us and can
be discovered if one turns inwardly towards oneself.
“Higher than the Self there is nothing whatever’
12. ekadhaivanudrastavyam etadapramayam dhruvam,

Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, IV, 420.
க
10 INTRODUCTION
dealers the Katha Upanisad, ‘That is the end. That
is the final goal.’3
The facts and forces of life are indeed mani-
fold. Some of them make up the vital part of our
being, others belong to its psychical part and others
again are turned towards its spiritual part. It
follows that the make-up of our complete being in
life is a moving equilibrium, in the sense that there
is a perpetual drawing out and readjustment of the
vital and mental parts of our being by the urges of
its spiritual part which is essentially dynamic. This
perpetual readjustment of the vital mental part
of our being by its dynamic urges brings about
gradual unfoldment of our life’s possibilities—
progressive realization of the full stature of our.
being.
Values are but those spiritual entities which

manifest themselves in the course of progressive
realization of the fuller stature of our being. They
are eternally existent realities. They become pro-
gressively appreciable by the finite spirits as the life
of the finite spirits attains its fuller being by the
gradual devitalization and dementalization respec-
tively of its vital and psychical parts. The Samskrit
term for value is Purusartha meaning that which is
‘valuable for the Purusa or the finite spirit. As such
it becomes ‘the object of desire’ (ista). Hence value
is ‘that which, being known, is sought to be
realized in one’s own experience.’
13. purusan na param kijicit sq kastha sa para gatih, iii,

1L
/
“Dharma, the moral value, and moksa, the
spiritual freedom constitute the spiritual values,
and pursuit of these is possible for man who
alone is endowed with the power to discriminate
value from disvalue.'4 ‘Disvalue’ may be taken as
‘that which is shunned or avoided’ (dvista). “Artha,
.the economic good and kama, the hedonistic good
are of empirical value. Hence, they are not ends
properly so called. Yet they find their place in the
Indian scheme of values for, man, after all, has
to live before he could live spiritually.”!5 What,
then, is the relation of dharma to kdma? It is in
helping us to discriminate between good and bad
kama or in rationalizing life, consists the superio-
rity of dharma which is reckoned as the highest of
the ‘tri-varga’. It is obvious that desire grows by
what it feeds on. “Never are one’s desires satisfied
with their indulgence’, says the Mahabharata, ‘but
they flare up like the fire with clarified butter
poured into it.7!© The Kathopanisad declares: “Both
the good and the pleasing come to man. One who
is wise considers the two all round and discrimi-
nates them. He chooses the good in preference to
the pleasing. One who is stupid chooses the pleas-
ing for the sake of acquisition and prosperity.’!”
14. See the present writer’s Spiritual Basis of Sarvodaya
in the Journal of the Madras University (Sec. A.
Humanities, Vol. XXXV, July 1963 and Jan. 1964,
p. 65.
15. Ibid., p. 65.
16. Mahabharta, I, 75, 49.
17. T. M. P. Mahadevan, The Upanisads (Selections),
G, A. Natesan & Co, Madras, p. 3}.
22 INTRODUCTION
The samskrit term for wealth is artha which
means what is sought after as good. But it is a
misnomer since not seldom wealth is the source of
what is evil. As Sri Sankaracarya says in one of
_ his popular poems, artha is anartha. True, man has
his desires and he seeks pleasures in the objects of
sense. Indian thought does not attempt to suppress
the desires and emotions that spring from the
human heart. On the contrary, its purpose is to
make them flow within bounds and so canalise them
that through them one may reach higher levels of
experience. The Lord of the Gita emphasises the
importance of dharma thus: ‘I am kama, not
at strife with dharma’ (dharmayiruddho bhiitesu
kamosmi).'8 Commenting on this verse, Dr. S. Radha-
krishnan observes: ‘Our desires and activities, if
they are expressive of the spirit in us and derive
from the true spiritual personality, become a pure
overflowing of the Divine will.’
Etymologically, the word dharma is derived

from the root dhr which means ‘to uphold, to sus-
tain, to nourish’. The concept itself may be traced
to the rfa of the Rg-veda which means both the
order of nature and the moral order. Man’s life,
individual as well as collective, would be impossible
but fora certain measure of morality. In this sense,
dharma is man’s inner nature. The greater the
18. Gita, VII, Il.

19. 8. Radhakrishnan, Gita, George Allen & Unwin Ltd.,
London, 1960, p. 216. .
-THE DOCTRINE OF SARVODAYA 13.
approximation to the moral standard, the more
truly does man realize his own nature. Each man’s
dharma—what the Gita calls sva-dharma is to per-
form the duties that pertain to his station in life-
True, it is considered that dharma assumes the role
of an instrumental value, but it is instrumental not
to the realization of any secular ends, however
purely they may be conceived, but for achieving
what is regarded as the supreme spiritual ideal. As
Dr. S. Radhakrishnan observes: ‘The principle of
dharma rouses us to a recognition of spiritual reali-
ties not by abstention from the world, but by bring-
ing to its life, its business (artha) and its pleasures
(kama), the controlling point of spiritual faith.’
Dr. S. Radhakrishnan continues, ‘Dharma’ is the
‘whole duty of man in relation to the fourfold pur-
poses of life (dharma, artha, kama and moksa) by.
members of the four groups (cdturvarnya) and the
four stages (caturd$rama).’2
Like the four castes (varnas), there are four

stages (4Sramas) in life: the period of studentship
(brahmacarya), the stage of a householder (grhastha),
the stage of a forest-dweller (vanaprastha), the life of
renunciation (sannydsa). The four stages are intend-
ed for helping man to gain perfection by successive
stages. In exceptional cases, some of the stages
may be skipped. As Dr. T. M. P. Mahadevan
points out, ‘Suka was a born sannydsin. Sankara
20. S. Radhakrishnan, Religion and Society, George

Allen& Unwin Ltd., London, 1956, p. 105.
21. bid , 107.
14 INTRODUCTION
renounced from the stage of brahmacarya. When

Buddha took to sanmnydsa, he was a house-holder.
Whether the progress be quick or slow, the goal
should always be kept in view, viz., the attainment
of spiritual perfection and freedom.’
We now come to the last of the human goals
which is described as the supreme end (parama-
purusartha, viz., spiritual freedom (moksa) which
is release from individuality, and not release for the
individual. It is eternal (nitya) and is absolute in
the sense that it can never become the means to
any other end (phala). Even righteousness (dharma)
is but a means to the supreme end, viz., spiritual
freedom. Freedom is the essence of the soul of
man. It is obscured by ignorance (avidyd) and its
trail of evil. When ignorance is dispelled through
wisdom of the nature of Brahman, one gains release
even though the physical body may continue to
appear for a while. This is known as the doctrine
of jivan-mukti, release while being embodied,
according to Advaita. In fact, the goal is not some-
thing to be newly achieved; it is the eternally
realized end. Only, man in the Stage of bondage
is oblivious of this eternal truth. Realization
or release is nothing but the, recognition of this
truth.
It is not enough if the ideal is sketched. What

is more important is that the way to its reali
zation
22, T.M.P. Mahadevan, Outlines of Hinduism, Chetana

Ltd., Bombay, 1960, pp, 78~79.
THE DOCTRINE OF SARVODAYA is
should be shown. Of the paths to perfection out-

lined in Indian thought, especially in Vedanta,
three are main ones: karma-Yoga, bhakti-yoga and
jiiana-yoga. The term yoga means union with
ultimate Reality. ்‌
According to karma-yoga, one ought to do

one’s duty without a desire for its reward. When
the duties are performed disinterestedly, the mind
gets purified. Through devotion (bhakti,) the pas-
sions get sublimated, the attention is shifted from
the plurality of finite ends to the supreme spiritual
end which is liberation. By pursuing the path of
jiiana which is the way of self-knowledge, one can
attain release. The path of knowledge consists of
two stages. The first is the stage of moral, intel-
lectual and emotional preparation. The next stage
consists of three steps: study of the sacred texts
(Sravana), reflection on what one has listened to or
studied with the help of canons of reasoning
(manana), and repeated meditation on the supreme
truth of which one is convinced (nididhyasana).
The ultimate end that one gains through the pro-
cess is self-realization.
Can the ideal as envisaged above, be achieved?

Prof. Hiriyanna replies thus: “In one sense, the
question is not legitimate, because moksa, standing
as it does, for a progressive attainment is being
realized at every stage.’ He adds further, ‘all the
Indian systems, including the non-vedic ones, are
of the opinion that the process is directed to a
definite goal, and that the goal can assuredly be
16 INTRODUCTION
achieved.” Sankara also holds that perfection can

be realized in the present life. This does not mean
that all will attain it here and now. The implica-
tion is that ‘there is nothing inherent in the nature
of the goal of perfection to prevent its achievement
in the present life.” We have noted earlier that it
is possible for one to gain liberation while living in
the body. Such souls are known as jivanmuktas
according to the doctrine of Advaita. Since all that
stands between us and release is nescience, when
that is removed by knowledge, we are released. It
is in fact wrong to speak of an individual attaining
release. Release itself is a timeless experience and
so devoid of all limitation. Freedom (moksa) is
release from individuality and egoistic narrowness,
and not release for the individual. It is only when
there is universal release or universal freedom
{sarvamukti), we shall have grasped the inner
meaning and purpose of life. Hence there is no
room for selfishness either in the Vedantic teaching
or in the Vedantic conception of the goal.
Thus, the stress in Indian thought is on ‘in-
wardness’ which has often been wrongly under-
stood as an emphasis on otherworldliness. But it
is unjust to regard the Indian attitude towards this
world and its people as one of indifference or
hatred. Some critics of Indian thought believe
that the Indian pursuit of spirituality is a selfish
quest, and that the saint and the sage are concerned
23. M. Hiriyanna, Philosophy of Values, The Cultural

Heritage of India, Vol. II, Calcutta, 1962, p. 654,
THE DOCTRINE OF SARVODAYA Iv
with their own salvation. This criticism, observes
Dr. T.M.P. Mahadevan, ‘is the result of a gross mis-
understanding of the Indian ideal of spirituality...
God realization or self-realization is a state of per-
fection where there can be no room for even the
least trace of selfishness. For the man of wisdom
there is not the distinction of ‘mine’ and ‘not-
mine’. He regards the whole world as his house-
hold.’*4 Liberation is only for him who gives up
everything for others. To quote Dr. V. A. Deva-
senapathi in this context, ‘If only the soul can
realize that its interests are really prompted not
when it works for itself but in accordance with the
will of the Lord, for others, it will cease to be in
bondage to its deeds and get emancipated.....’25
Self-suffering for the welfare of all should be the
rule of life. It is stated that Gautama the Buddha
after achieving enlightenment willingly undertook
the burden of everyone’s suffering in order to bring
relief to the world.
To an age which has become overburdened

with matter, Sri Ramakrisna imparted the mes-
sage of the supremacy of spirit. Swami Viveka-
nanda was concerned not only with the spiritual
24. ayan nijah paroveti ganana laghu cestasam

udara-caritanam tu vasudhaiva kutumbakam,
25. V. A. Devasenapathi, Principal Miller Lecture on

* Towards Conquest of Time’, Supplement to Madras
University Journal, Vol. XXXIV, No. 1, July 1962—
ற. 36.
18 ‘INTRODUCTION
progress of all but also with the material well-

being. He conceived of a social service programme
with the twin-ideals of self-perfection and common-
weal (loka-sangraha). He believed that through
sheer selfless and disinterested service a person can
reach the supreme goal coveted by the wise. To
Sri Aurobindo, the goal is human perfection; per-
fection of the individual as of society and spiritual
perfection in a sense that does not exclude material
and vital being. He holds that the true individual
is not exclusive but inclusive. According to Sri
Ramana, Self-inquiry is the basis of true service,
and self-knowledge is its end.
So far we have analysed briefly the Indian
scheme of values. In the West a notable charac-
teristic of the present situation in philosophy is the
general use of the term ‘ Axiology’ to stand for a
theory of values. The mergence of the new philoso-
phical discipline and the rapidity with which it has
been cultivated make it clear that the problem of
values is of central concern to western philosophi-
cal thought also. A number of tendencies in the
West have contributed to bring the problem of
values to the forefront; some of these tendencies
are broadly social and cultural, whereas others are
of a strictly philosophical nature. Of the cultural
forces, Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals is un-
doubtedly of first importance. Not only does it
propose the transvaluation of values which is the
characteristic cultural phenomenon of our era but
it also marks out the problem of values as the dis-
tinctive philosophical task of the future. It would
be impossible to exaggerate the influence, direct or
indirect, which Nietzsche has had on the develop-
ment of modern axiology. Nicolai Hartmann’s
ethics is an outstanding case of this influence. Of
the more technical aspects of the movement,
Meinong’s Psychological and Ethical studies in value
theory is certainly the chief factor. Part of this
technical side of this axiology is due to the Neo-
Kantian movement of Windelband and Rickert.
Axiology as understood at present is mainly

interested in the clarification of the following pro-
blems: First, relation of value to knowledge;
second, relation of Cosmology to value, and finally
relation of value to Reality. The main focus of
modern axiological discussion is centred on the
epistemological and metaphysical aspects of values.
Under the epistemological aspect, the problem, is
to determine the possibility and nature of know-
ledge of values, while under the metaphysical as-
pect, the task is to clarify the relation between.
facts and values.
These two concerns of axiological theory are-

t
being pursued in the form of several distinc
schools. These separate schools may perhap s be
classified under three heads: (1) Value Nomina-
lism (Logical Positivism), (2) Value Realism (G.E.
Moore and R.B. Perry), (3) Phenomenological
schools (Scheler and Hartmann). According to
ive
Nominalism, what are called value or normat
judgme nts are really not judgme nts at all but merely
expressions of feeling. Its essential thesis is that
20 INTRODUCTION
value words are mere names for feelings and emo-
tions and have no other reference. There are two
forms of value Nominalism, the one holding strict-
ly to the view that so called judgments of value are
mere expressions of emotions and the other, that
they are disguised factual judgments, As opposed
to value-nominalism, value-realism holds that
value judgments are as objective as factual judge-
ments; that values are real as facts although they
are non-natural facts. Value realism holds with
Plato that values are objective, to be discovered or
intuited and that they can in no sense be reduced
to psychological states such as feelings and emo-
tions. In the continent Meinong, and in the United
Kingdom, G. E. More, could be regarded as classi-
cal representatives of realism in values. Closely
connected with value realism are the newer schools
of phenomenological value theory of which Hart-
mann and Scheler are the best examples. Accord-
ing to Scheler, values are data which are given
directly and intuitively in an emotional experience
{Erlebniss). The fact that values are given only in
and through emotional experiences need not, accord-
ing to Scheler, lead us to conclude that they are
subjective. On the contrary, just as we distinguish
between the sensation and the sense-datum, so also
we must distinguish between the emotional experi-
ence and the value (Wertdatum) which is given in
it.
Values, therefore, according to Scheler, are objec-
tive metaphysically considered and grasped by
an emotional intuition, epistemologically consi-
dered.
From the general stand point of Indian philo-

sophy what is perhaps most interesting in modern
axiological discussions is the problem of values to
Reality. While the epistemological problems of
valuational knowledge is no doubt crucially rele-
vant to a general theory of values, yet to an Indian
philosopher it would appear that the metaphysical
problem of values and reality is more basic than
the epistemological one. From this point of view
the Indian hierarchy of values (purusarthas)-dharma,
artha, kama and moksa acquires a special signifi-
cance, Indian philosophy of values is first and fore-
most centred on the supreme value, i.e., moksa.
In an illuminating article, ‘Value and Reality: A
Comparative Study’, Dr. T.M.P. Mahadevan obser-
ves: ‘The self that is the reality is the supreme
value in the sense that there is nothing else that can
serve as the ultimate human goal (parama-puru-
sartha). When the self is realized, the final goal-
perfection (kaivalya), release (moksa) is reached.
This is not gaining something which one is not; it
is a gaining of the already gained. The self that is
ever-free is freed (vimuktaSca vimucyate).® It is
self-knowledge that constitutes the supreme end for
man.’27 (samyag-darsanat purusartha-siddhih)8
We have traced briefly the historical back-
ground of the spiritual and social philosophies of
26. Katha-Upanisad, 11, ii, 1.

27. International Philosophical Quarterly, Vol, VI. No. 1;
March 1966,
28. Sankara, Siitra-bhasya, 111, i, 1.
22 INTRODUCTION
India. Our study confirms the view that the history

of the spiritual renaissance of India is the history
of the reaffirmation of the concept of Brahman, not
only as the ultimate principle of thought, but also.
as the central principle of living. The study of the
traditional values of India brings into focus and
confirms our contention that the entire philosophi-
cal and spiritual tradition of our country has been
uniform and harmonious, inspite of the apparent
diversity which vanishes the moment we recognize
that both non-dualism and pluralism have been
accepted by the Vedas. This acceptance of the
spiritual oneness and the physical manyness of the
universe is what may be called the ethico-meta-
physical nature of Indian philosophy.
In the East, especially in India, philosophy has
always been regarded as a way of life, an avenue
to spiritual realization. It is the realization of the
fact of moral and physical evil that makes man
reflect over the mysteries of life. The essence of
Hindu religion is to realize the Supreme directly
and bring into life and society something of the
creative light of that realization. Thus philosophy
in India is the pathway to religion. By this happy
co-ordination the Hindu thinkers have made philo-
sophy a living source of life. It is interesting to
note in this connection that philosophy in India is
called darsana which means ‘intuition’ and religion,
mata which means ‘what has been reflected upon.’
The charge levelled against Indian philosophy that
it is pessimistic, digressive, and altogether imprac-
tical in the modern age of scientific investigation,
logical analysis, and material progress; is baseless.
On the contrary, if we view with an unprejudiced
and dispassionate attitude, we shall be able to
understand that Indian philosophy is far-sighted,
progressive, ever-developing, ever-evolving and
giving rise to new ideas and new ideals which aim
at the highest goal, the summum bonum. Well-
being, not only of human beings but of all living
creatures is the cherished goal of all Indian philoso-
phers. The following verse sums up the Indian
ethical ideal:
sarve bhavantu sukhinah sarve santu niramayah

sarve bhadrani pasyantu ma kascit duhkhabhag
bhavet
May all be at ease; may all be sinless; may all

experience happiness; may none experience suffer-
ing.’29 ,
Thus India’s greatest treasure is her ancient

Spiritual wisdom. The greatest men of India have
been exemplars of the gospel of spiritual freedom.
That India has made it possible for such illustrious
men to appear inevery age is the glory of her
ancient and yet living culture.
The call of the age is to rise into a higher cons-

ciousness from which alone man can learn to look
upon and use material objects not as material in
29, An ancieat Hindu Prayer.

24 INTRODUCTION
themselves but as things instinct with the spirit.

The starting-point of Indian thought is its emphasis
on man himself. If we take the utterances of the
important philosophers of each tradition into con-
sideration, ‘Man know thyself’ may be said to be
the chief advice of all the four traditions. Socrates
said it inso many words. The Upanisads did the
same when they exhorted man: Gitmanam viddhi
(know thyself). Confucius also gave the same
advice. He said that in order to organize one’s
state well, one had ultimately to study the nature
of things. But ‘things’ meant for the Chinese
philosophers, human relationships orginating out
of nature of man. One thing is certainly clear:
that the values of life are not mere delusions of
the human mind, but are real spiritual forces, how-
ever, dimly envisaged. It is to be admitted that
the truths are truths for man and that values are
values for man. Man becomes the common
denominator of all truths and values and therefore
of all philosophies. Thus there is emphasis on the
spiritin man. If man, according to the Upanisadic
theory of the paficakoSa, is an integrated whole of
matter (annamayakoSa), 1175 (pranamayakosa),
mind (manomayakoSa), intellect (vijfidnamayakosa)
and spirit (G@nandamayakoSa), and if body depends
on life, life on mind, mind on intellect, and intellect
on spirit for growth, regulation, development, then
the emphasis on spiritual development by Indian
thinkers is justified.
The physical environment, biological needs,

and the nationalising tendencies of the physical
level’ may have ‘sometimes set the limits and

narrowed the channel of evolution, but the superior
urges of the spiritual principle in man has ever
overcome these barriers and limitations and have
directed the course of progress in steadiest steps.
Gandhi’s conception of Sarvodaya becomes
significant against the background of the spiritual
philosophy of India that we have so far traced
briefly. To the modern world professing atheism,
vitalism, agnosticism, mechanism, realism, Gandhi’s
has been the most determined attempt to bring into
focus the substantive rationality of the ancient
religious and moral tenets. Being a votary of the
creative role of spiritual ideas, Gandhi stood
as a critic of the political and materialistic concep-
tion of the occidental philosophers who are unmind-
ful of the workings of the soul-force in human
society. In Gandhian thought, we find the funda-
mental stress on the spiritualization of politics to
be attained by the use of soul-force, the develop-
ment of the dynamic creative altruism of ahimsé
and the technics of satydgraha. ‘At the apex of his
beliefs, is the Hindu concept of satya.”
_ Thus Gandhi advocated a meta-political app-
roach to the solution of the maladies of modern
civilization. In 1909 in Hind Swaraj, Gandh!
characterized modern civilization as ‘a disease’ and
30. M.K. Gandhi, From Yervada Mandir: Ashram Obser-

vances, trans. from the Gujarati by Valji G. Desai,
Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1945,
pp. 1-4.
26 INTRODUCTION
“a nine days wonder’ for it ‘takes not neither of
morality nor of religion.”! But ‘civilization’
Gandhi holds, ‘is not an incurable disease,’3? though
it needs a revolutionary remedy. The remedy is,
according to him, ‘the search after Truth through
non-violent means’, which is the essence of Hindu
religion. In fact the above statement is true of
every religion. Sarvadharmasamabhdava was an article
of faith with Gandhi. To him it meant an attitude
of reverence towards all the great religions of the
world. In the words of Gandhi, ‘I have of course,
always believed in the principle of religious tole-
rance. But I have even gone further. I have
advanced from tolerance to equal respect for all
religions.’> The Mahatma’s religious outlook was
universal. Yet he was convinced that for him the
the best way to seek God lay through Hinduism. In
the Rg-veda, many centuries before the beginning
of the Christian era, we find it proclaimed ‘ ekam
sat viprah bahudha vadanti’ (Truth is one, and the
sages call it by many names!). Thus the concep-
tion of the unity behind diversity has been a funda-
mental fact in the Indian religious consciousness
right from the earliest times. Gandhi was loyal to
this tradition not merely in theory ‘but in life. In
him Hindu tradition and culture flourished richly
and authentically. He embodied this tradition
fully and carried the same into new spheres of
31. M.K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, Navajivan, Abmedabad,
1956, pp. 20-22.
32, Ibid
, p. 22. ட
33. M.K. Gandhi, Harijan, 12-1-1947,
thought and activity. The entire Gandhian philo-

sophy is derived from the principle of spiritual
unity. In the words of Gandhi, ‘Ido not believe
that spiritual law works on a field of its own. On
the contrary, it expresses itself only through the
ordinary activities of life. It thus affects the econo-
mic, the social and the political fields.’* To him, the
individual is the one supreme consideration. Man
being rooted in Satya, his growth and self-expression
require him to be a true satydgrahi. ‘Non-violence
‘has come to men and will remain’ declared Gandhi,
‘it is the anunciation of peace on earth. The
greatest truth being the unity of all life, self-expres-
sion consists in striving after ‘the welfare of all’
which is the essence of Sarvodaya ideology. This
was his life-mission. To achieve this, he advocated
pure means. The sum and substance of the teach-
ing of Gandhi is to be found in the two words:
spirituality (Siva) and service (சன்‌), The goal of
man is spiritual freedom. In order to attain this
goal, man must lose his ego in devoted service to
all beings, i.e., to seek the welfare of all. Conse-
crated life is life lived in the consciousness of the
supreme self that pervades all, and is the All. In
the words of Gandhi, ‘My own experience has led
me to the knowledge that the fullest life is impossi-
ble without an immovable belief in a living Law in
obedience to which the whole universe moves. A
34. M.K. Gandhi, Young India, 3-9-1925, ற. 304.

35. T.M.P. Mahadevan, Outlines of Hinduism, op.cit.
p» 321,
28 -INTRQDUCTION
man without that faith is like a drop thrown out of
the ocean bound to perish. Every drop in the
ocean shares its majesty and has the honour of
giving us the ozone of life.”36 Gandhi acknowledged
without any reservation, his indebtedness to other
scriptures and teachers like the Sermon on the
Mount, Tolstoy, and prophets like Muhammad,
The Buddha, Sri Ramakrisna and Swami Viveka-
nanda, whose teachings shaped his career and
helped him in his pursuit to establish Rama Rajya,
He was humble enough to confess that he endea-
voured to follow and represent truth as he under-
stood it, and repudiated all claim to divinity. This
was Gandhi’s judgment on himself: ‘I claim to be
a humble servant of India and humanity and would
like to die in the discharge of such service. I have
no desire to found a sect. I am really too ambi-
tious to be satisfied with a sect for a following, for
‘T represent no new truths. I hope that this declara-
tion will satisfy my inquirer and others like him.?37
Gandhi, like every other great thinker of the world,
was a product of his times. He absorbed the ideas
and forces of his times and showed a way, to over-
come the moral, social and political maladies.
This, in short, is the essence of Sarvodaya as

enunciated by Mahatma Gandhi. Sarvodaya,
today, does not represent a mere vision or an
utopian notion. Gandhi strove hard throughout
his life to lead mankind to the realization of its
36. M. K. Gandhi, Harijan, 25-4-1936, p- 84, .
37. M. K. Gandhi, Young India, 25-8-1921, p. 267.
intrinsic oneness in the spirit. India was hailed by
rsis of yore as the one land on earth which is
destined to lead mankind to the realization of its
intrinsic oneness in the spirit. That spiritual India
has produced in the present age such a glorious
constellation of spiritual luminaries as Raja Ram
Mohan Roy, Keshab Chandra Sen, Dayananda
Sarasvati, Sri Ramakrisna, Swami Vivekananda,
Bagavian Ramana and Maharshi Sri Aurobindo,
coming one after another in an unbroken succession
can hardly be considered as no mere freak or as a
phantasy of a blind chance. India is not for herself
but for God and as the chosen instrument of God,
for the entire humanity. ‘The integration of social,
religious, and political changes by individuals and
by society as a whole stands as a tribute’, observes
Charles H. Heimsath ‘to the versatility and adapt-
ability of Indian minds and has a made a critical
and unique contribution to the stability of modern
Indian nation.”28 If India could succeed in breaking
through the barrier of political convention and
habit, and rise to that spiritual level that Gandhi
has set for her, she would then open up a new
path—the path of Sarvodaya, along which the rest
of mankind could follow. And this spiritual level
js the one on which unity has to be achieved if this
unity is to be constructive. Since life is a unity
and man is a part of that life, the racial solidarity
of man must inevitably follow therefrom. We wish
38. Charles H. Heimsath, Indian Nationalism and Hindu

Social reform, Princeton, New Jersey, 1964, ற்‌. 8.
30 INTRODUCTION —
for the flowering of that life in a world enlightened
by knowledge, guided by reason and united by love.
It will not be an easy task to accomplish but
accomplish it we must.
We shall examine briefly in the following

section the substance of the teachings of the spiritual
fore-runners of Gandhi who have interpreted the
ancient wisdom in their own ways. True, as we
shall presently see, the impact of the West, the
scientific advancement and human values have
moulded the mind of Indian renaissance thinkers.
The men of God who preceded Gandhi and others
who followed him felt that the salvation of India
did not lie in imitating the west but in holding fast
to Indian ideas and institutions and in purifying
and elevating them. Their world-view had an
undeniable influence as a practical guide to life,
individual and collective, national and transcen-
dental.
FORERUNNERS
In the previous section we have analysed briefly

the essence of Gandhian thought against the back-
ground of the spiritual tradition of India. We
shall now review the history of modern Indian
thought which is essentially a story of a long line
of great and influential thinkers blessed with un-
usual creative and speculative talent. Because of
the emphasis on the unity of thought and action
which has always characterised Indian philosophy,
we shall now seek to understand the modern Indian
thinkers like Raja Rammohan Roy, Keshab-
Chandra Sen, Dayananda Sarasvati, §ri Rama-
krisna Paramahamsa, Swami Vivekananda, Sit
Aurobindo and Sri Ramana Maharsi in the context
of their life and socio-religious surroundings.
All great movements of life in India have begun

with a new spiritual thought and religious outlook.
“What more striking and significant fact can there
be than this’, asks §ri Aurobindo ‘that even the
new European influence, which was influence intel-
lectual, rationalistic, so often anti-religious and
which drew so much of its idealism from the
increasingly cosmopolitan, mundane and secularist
thought of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,
precipitated in India from the very first an attempt
at religious reformation and led actually to the
32 INTRODUCTION
creation of new religions?’ ‘The instinct of the
Indian mind’, observes Sri Aurobindo, ‘was that,
if a reconstruction of ideas and of society was to
be attempted, it must start from a spiritual basis
and take from the first a religious motive and
form.’49
The best efforts of the Indian mind have always

moved towards religion and philosophy. The Indian
contribution to world—culture is in its emphasis on
values that are spiritual. The thinkers of modern
India claim to be not orginators of new thinking
but only interpreters of the rich ancient tradition
which they have imbibed. There is hardly a
philosophical idea in the contemporary thinkers
that cannot be traced to the perennial spring of
ancient Indian philosophical thought. Their method
of approach to philosophical and logical problems
has moved in the direction of analysis and interpre-
tation of the ancient truths. In essence, the mes-
Sage of contemporary India is unity and harmony
of unitive life and knowledge.
The Arya Samaj and the Brahmo Samaj worked
for the eradication of social evils, religious supersti-
tions, and other hindrances in the way of creating
an atmosphere of freedom, fearlessness and self-
reliance. They gave a message of hope and self-
confidence and preached an optimistic view of life.
39. Aurobindo, The Renaissance in India,

Sti Aurobinde Aéram, Pondicherry, 1951, p. 44.
40. Ibid., p. 52. ,
FORERUNNERS 33
During this period, Indian thought came under

the spell of Christianity because it found that the
teachings of Jesus were in harmony with important
aspects of the oriental tradition. As we shall see
presently, the Christian influence was deep in the
case of individual thinkers — Rammohan and
Keshab, Tagore and Gandhi. But Christianity was
not the most powerful factor which drew Indian
thought towards the West. It was the divine spirit
and the varied manifestations of this spirit, in social
life, philosophy, art, science, culture and scholar-
ship that produced the deepest impact.
But Indian spirituality was not an exclusive

one. ‘To her’, observes S.K. Maitra, ‘the powers
of matter, life and mind were no less reai than
those of the spirit; and in the search after their
truth her seers discovered that in them is inherent
the spirit which is seeking to unfold itself in the
earth-nature. Life, mind and body were therefore
regarded as the field and condition for the spirit to
fulfil itself in the terrestrial existence of man.
Thus did India make the first attempt to solve the
most vital problem, the problem of harmony bet-
ween life and spirit, of which the vision came
to her seers almost at the very dawn of her his-
tory.
The present age of reform in Hinduism com-

menced with Raja Rammohan Roy in the last
4l. §.K. Maitra, The Vision of India, Cultural Publishers,

Calcutta, 1947, pp. 2-3.
34 INTRODUCTION
century. The most important landmark in the
career of Rammohan was the establishment of the
Brahmo Samaj in 1828. He founded the Brahmo
Sabha (later Samaj) for propogating the religion
of the Upanisads interpreted in a monotheistic
manner. The ideas of the samaj gradually spread
far beyond Bengal and created the atmosphere of
liberalism, rationalism, and modernity which trans-
formed Indian thought. The Raja never sought to
create a new religion. He only wanted to preserve
Hinduism by reforming it. He was against the
idolatries and superstitions of all creeds. He tried
to lay acommon foundation of Universal Religion
in the doctrine of the Unity of the Godhead. His
maiden publication Tuhfat-ul-Muwahhidin (A Gift
to Monotheists) which was published in 1803, con-
tained the essence of his teachings on Universal
Religion. In fact he paved the way for the compa-
rative study of religions and composed an exceed-
ingly charming bouquet of rich spiritual fragrance,
having culled together the finest flowers from the
different religions of the world. A distinguishing
feature of this universal theism was social reform.
He fought bravely with the evils of caste system
and the subjection of women. But for his coura-
geous persuasions one of the greatest evils of India,
the practice of the Sutee,* could not have been
42, Sati (in Samskrit) means a virtuous woman, or a

faithful wife, it acquired the meaning of a widow who
was cremated on the funeral pyre of her dead husband
in theory willingly; it also referred to the custom of
widow-burning.
FORERUNNERS 35
abolished. As the Raja was the first great religious,
social and political reformer of the British India,
Rabindranath Tagore has rightly described him as
the ‘inaugurator of the Modern Age in India.’
In fact Rammohan belongs to the lineage of India’s
great seers who, age after age have appeared in
the arena of history with the message of eterna-
lism.
While Rammohan was a rationalist to the core,

Maharshi Debendranath Tagore (1817—1905) on
whom the mantle of leadership of Brahmo Samaj
fell, after the death of the former, often swung
from reason to intuition and vice versa. Out of
his desire to know more of metaphysics and
religious texts Debendranath founded Tattva-
bodhini Sabha (Society for the perception of know-
ledge of Truth) on October 6, 1839. The result of
Debendranath’s quest for religious truth was in
essence the religion of bhakti; or as he put it, ‘the
pure, unsophisticated heart was the seat of
Brahmaism.’* This break with the tradition was
a great mistake on the part of the Brahmo Samaj
since Vedic revelation too was the embodiment of
spiritual experience. However, as a devotee and
as one who professed the objective existence of the
mundane world, Debendranath’s compassion
towards men was a potential force in his life, and
43. See Tagore’s article on the Raja in Ram Mohan Roy:

The Man and His Work, ed. Amal Gouse, p. 3.
44, Debendranath Tagore, Autobiography, p. 161.
36 INTRODUCTION
he was in quest for an adequate formulation of a

moral code to parallel the religious principles of
his Brahma Dharma. The outcome was a sincere
statement of ethical duties which recognized the
need for changes in Hindu social life particularly
in matters relating to the treatment of women.
Besides Debendranath, Iswar Chandra Vidyasagar
(1820—1891) condemned the Hindu treatment of
widows on grounds of humanitarianism and the
more specific doctrine of the equal rights of indivi-
duals. He was a great social reformer, a lover of
humanity, and a promoter of education and
culture. In his later years, Debendranath was
drawn towards mysticism which marked the culmi-
nation of his theism. Though drawn towards
Hinduism, Debendranath, however, was full of
praise for some of the Christian missionaries who
were making noble and selfless efforts towards the
uplift of the Indian society.
Keshab Chandra Sen (1838—1884) who suc-

ceeded Debendranath was the most dynamic of all
the leaders of the Brahmo Samaj. In Keshab were
found the conflicting strains of Brahmo rationa-
lism, Vaisnava emotionalism, Christian super-
naturalism and Vedantic mysticism. Keshab had
rendered service to the ‘Brahmo Samaj of India’
by introducing the Bhakti cult into the religion.
The spirit of Vaisnava faith entered into Brahmo
devotions. Towards the close of his life he was
seeking to create an advanced type of Hinduism
under the name of Nava Samhita (New Dispensa-
FORERUNNERS 37
tion) which would harmonise all scriptures and
prophets and dispensations.* Apart from preach-
ing an eclectic faith, Keshab was greatly interested
in social reforms, such as elevating the status of
women and in removing some of the inequalities
of caste. The passing of the Brahmo Marriage
Bill was the greatest triumph in Keshab’s career as
asocial reformer. As a result of this Act, early
marriage was abolished, polygamy was made penal
and it sanctioned widow remarriage and inter-caste
marriages. He laid down some broad principles
of social life which he called Nava Samhita to be
followed by an Indian, irrespective of caste,
religion or creed. When Keshab died in 1889, Sri
Ramakrisna said: “‘One half of mine is dead”.
Particularly deep was the influence of Keshab
Chandra Sen who was imbued with the best tradi-
tions of Western liberalism and rationalism.
The Prarthana SamAj was inagurated in 1867,

its leader being Dr. Atmaram Pandurang (1823—
1898). Two years later, R. G. Bhandarkar and
M. G. Ranade (1842—1901) joined the Samaj and
infused new strength init. As Ranade wrote, the
Samaj seemed to have been ‘perfectly satisfied
with a creed which consists of only one positive
belief in the unity of God, accompanied witha
special protest against the existing corruption of
Hindu religion, viz., the article which denounces
45. See Keshab’s letter of May 16th, 1881, to Max Muller

(F, Max Muller. Biographical Essays, ற. 117)
38 INTRODUCTION
the prevalent idolatory to be a sin, and an abomi-
nation.” The greatest service of the Samaj was
the organization of social reform movement.
Throughout his life, Ranade worked steadily, and
not without some success against such glaring
social evils as child-marriage, the purdah system,
and the prohibition of widow-marriage.
The Arya Samaj founded by Swami Dayananda

in 1875 was more conservative than the Brahmo
Samaj. Swami Dayananda sought to found a
religious reform movement on national and indi-
genous fines. ‘More radical than most of the
Western-Oriented reformers, his revolt and refor-
mation’, observes Charles A. Heimsath, ‘were based
on the principle of the primacy of the individual
needs over the demands of society.45 He sought
to liberate society from poverty and ignorance.
The assertion of the soul’s uniqueness coupled
with the injunction to work for social amelioration
and liberation were intended to revolutionize
Hindu life. The fact that Dayananda could pre-
sent those ideas acceptably in the context of Vedic
truth was a remarkable accomplishment.47 To
counteract the proselytising activities of some reli-
gions, Swami Dayananda established two move-
ments—the Suddhi and Sanghatam. But. these
movements are misunderstood and misinterpreted
46. Charlies H. Heimsath, Indian Nationalism and Hindu

Social Reform, Princeton, 1964, p. 130.
47, Ibid., p. 130.

FORERUNNERS 39
and even taken advantage of by the communally
minded to spread communal hatred. Daydnanda
was not a Hindu fanatic. He was a ‘liberal ortho-
dox’ according to Max Muller.
Dayananda worked for the national, social

and religious unification of India. For this pur-
pose it was necessary to abolish foreign rule,
eliminate caste and class distinctions and integrate
India religiously. He said that the hereditary
caste system, based on birth and not merit and the
outrage of untouchability, had no sanction in the
Vedas.*8 He attacked polytheism and idolatory as
being inconsistent with the teaching of the Vedas.”
He also opposed child-marriage and supported
widow remarriage and female education. This
approach to the problem of untouchability was yet
another step in the direction of secularisation
which has been carried to the fullest extent by
Mahatma Gandhi and his followers.
All these multifarious activities and reforms

stressing as they did the greatness and the glory of
India’s past infused into the minds of the Hindus
asense of national consciousness, which further
stimulated into growth by the frictions and exploi-
48. Dayananda, Light of Truth, (tr. by C. Bharadwaja)

Allahabad, 1915, pp. 97-98.
49, Ibid., p. 203.

50. B. C. Sing, The Teaching of the Arya Samaj, pp.
286, 296.
40 © INTRODUCTION
tation resulting from foreign domination. Ulti-
mately all the causes and effects coalesced and
produced the Swadeshi Movement of 1905. The
Arya Samaj had stimulated the awakening: Tilak,
Swami Vivekananda and in recent times Mahatma
Gandhi gave it additional vigour.
Lokamanya Tilak (1856—1916) is the other
great son of India whose work for the indepen-
dence of resurgent India is significant. Tilak’s
devotion to the Mother expressed itself in his
heroic struggle for her Swaraj. He believed that
freedom was the basic condition of all progress.
“‘Swaraj is my birthright and I will haveit,’ was the
flaming utterance of his soul. ‘Without Swaraj,
our life and Dharma are in vain.” ‘His was among
the spiritual forces that sustained the movement
of liberation and its final victory. A Vedantin by
instinct and training, he was a true democrat. He
held that society should be based on social duty
and that all have equal dignity and equal reward,
viz., salvation. He advocated the idea of (loka-
sangraha) in his Gitd-Rahasya, ‘His Gita~Rahasya
takes the scripture which is perhaps the strongest
and most comprehensive production of Indian
spirituality and justifies to that spirituality, by its
own authoratative ancient message, the sense of
the importance of life, of action, of human exis-
tence, of man’s labour of mankind which is indis-
pensable to the idealism of modern spirit.’ Further
he admitted that disinterested service of humanity
was the future form of religion. His attitude may
therefore be summed up as ‘spiritual humanism’
FORERUNNERS 41
and if he had divorced metaphysics from ethics,

his attitude would have been termed as ‘rational
humanism’. Gandhi who always acknowledged
the greatness of the heritage given to India by
Lokamanya Tilak had an attitude quite different
from his. Gandhi did not subscribe to the belief
that the ideal of equality or for that matter, any
ideal such as non-violence, would have to be
modified in practice. Gandhi accepted the two
main propositions of Tilak that ethics must have a
spiritual basis and that the validity of mystic
experience has to be acknowledged. He, however,
laid stress on knowledge and more on intuition.
Whereas Gandhi talked of the purity of heart,
Tilak always referred to the pure reason (Suddha~
buddhi). ‘Two things we had in common in the
fullest measure’ said Gandhi, ‘the love of the coun-
try and the steady pursuit of Swaraj.’
It is significant that the four great prophets

of Indian Nationalism —Lokamanya Tilak, Sri
Aurobindo, Lajpat Rai and Bipinchandra Pal-‘were
upholders of the ancient Indian ideal of Dharma,
the ideal line of self-development alike for the
individual and the collectivity ; and this line at the
stage of Indian history was love of country and
work for her freedom.’ They proclaimed : janani
janmabhimisca swargddapi gartyasi, “ Mother and
Motherland are superior even to Heaven.’ Tilak
made it the prime object of his life to diffuse
the spirit of patriotism and nationalism among
the masses. National sentiments found expression
42 INTRODUCTION
in, and was deeply stimulated by, a number of

beautiful songs which have survived to the present
day. Bankim Chandra Chatterji’s famous novel
Anandamath contains the hymn Bande Matdram
which had been the national anthem of India up to
1947.
Among the important factors that contributed

to the development of patriotic and national feel-
ings must be reckoned the activities of some great
personalities like Surendranath Banerjea, Phero-
zeshah Mehta, Dadabhai Naoroji and Gopala-
krishna Gokhale.
Surendranath Banerjea was one of the two

original founders of Indian National Congress in
1885. Pherozeshah Mehta was a leader of the
Moderates and he played an important part during
the tussle between the Moderates and the Extre-
mists. Dadabhai, affectionately knownas the Grand
Old Man of India, served the Motherland with
undeviating purpose and complete selflessness.
According to Gokhale, ‘if ever there is the divine
in man, it is in Dadabhai Naoroji’. Gokhale was a
true representative of the Moderate School of
thought in the begining of the Twentieth Century.
His patriotism was of the highest and noblest type.
His interest in social reform led him to found the
Servant of India Society in Poona in 1905. The
society carried on work for social reform, for the
spread of education, for the uplift of low caste men
and for the development of Hindu-Muslim unity.
Gandhi when he came to India from South Africa
FORERUNNERS 43
was closely associated with Gokhale. In short,

Dadabhai, Surendranath and Gokhale were the
three great moderate leaders who laid the founda-
tions of modern constitutional development in
India. According to Mahatma Gandhi, ‘Sir Phero-
zeshah had seemed to me like the Himalayas unscal-
able ; the Lokamanya like the ocean one could not
easily launch forth on the sea. But Gokhale was
as the Ganges—it invited one to its bosom. In the
sphere of politics, the place that Gokhale occupied
in my heart during the lifetime and occupies even
now has been and is unique.’ Describing the great
qualities of Gokhale, Gandhi observes: “All of us,
can cultivate virtues like fearlessness, truthfulness,
fortitude, justice, straightforwardness, firmness
of purpose, and dedicate them to the service of the
nation. Thisis the religious way. This is what
the mahavakya, that political life should be spiri-
tualized, means. He who follows this line will
always know the path he should take. He will earn
a share in the legacy left by the late Shri Gokhale.
It is the divine assurance that anyone acting in this
spirit will come by all the other gifts he needs. The
life of the late Shri Gokhale is an irrefutable proof
of this.’5!
Like the Arya Samaj, the Theosophical Society
and
founded by Madame Blavatsky, a Russian,
Colonel Olcott, an American, stimulated the spirit
of cultural rationalism among Indians. Olcott
Tributes
51. U.S. Mohan Rao (Edt. by), Pen-Portraits and
i, Nation al Book Trust, India, 1969 p. 83.
by Gandhij
44 INTRODUCTION
spoke about the majesty and sufficiency of Eastern

Scriptures and appealed to the sentiment of patrio-
tic loyalty of Indians to cherish and uphold the
religion of their forefathers.
The most important propagator of Theosophy
in India was Mrs. Annie Besant. Her ardent efforts
to further the cause of national education and pro-
mote the study and propogation of ancient Hindu
culture of which she herself was an enlightened
exponent, is significant. She had an inner percep-
tion of India’s great past and of her glorious future
for which she dedicated her life. She was confident
that India would take her place in the world ‘as
evolver of the inner man, as teacher of the possibi-
lities of the human soul.’? In fact she lived for
truth and she died for truth.
Jt must be admitted that, though at times Mrs.

Besant’s zeal for Hinduism outran her discretion,
she often brought to bear upon her interpretation
of Hindu ideals the sobriety, the humanity and the
sweet reasonableness of her western culture. Due
to her differences with Gandhi, she could not
retain her popularity. However, the Theosophical
Society stands as a monument to her contribution
52. A. Besant, India: A Nation: A plea for Indian Self

Government, p. 84; and Henry Steel Olcott, Old
Leaves, Second Series, p. 255.
53. Speech on the 6th November 1893, (A. Besant, The

Birth of New India, p, 59),
FORERUNNERS 45
to the renaissance of India. Whether we approve

of all the teachings of the Society or not, this
society is continuing to do its best to bring together
men from the East and the West on terms of equa-
lity and brotherhood and this, not as a matter of
policy, but on religious principles, not in mere
theory but in actual practice. This alone would
entitle it to a higher place in the “Kingdom of spirit’.
The first awakeners of modern India were Sri

’ Ramakrisna and Swami Vivekananda whose careers
we shall seek to understand. A child of the Mother,
Sri Ramakrisna Paramahamsa (A.D. 1836—-1886)
possessed a colossal spiritual energy by which he
mastered in an incredibly short time the truths,
himself having practised them, of every religion
and of every form of spiritual discipline, and drove
straight to the divine realisation, taking as it were,
the kingdom of heaven by violence. Sri Rama-
krisna has been aptly characterized by one of his
biographers, Romain Rolland, as ‘the consumma-
tion of two thousand years of the spiritual life of
three hundred million people. To Sri Rama-
krisna, life has no meaning if it cannot be an
expression of the spirit. He is the greatest exem-
plar of the mystical tradition which runs right
through the religious history of India from the
‘days of the Vedic rsis.
Sri Ramakrisna, after gaining the experience
54. Quoted by T. M.P. Mahadevan in ‘ Outlines of Hin-

duism’, Chetana Ltd., Bombay, 1960, pp. 216-217.
46 INTRODUCTION
of the non-dual reality, turned his direction

towards the relative plane of consciousness and to
the practice of alien faiths such as Islam and
Christianity. He found that his own realizations
were in fundamental agreement with the teachings
of all religious scriptures. Dr.T.M.P. Mahadevan
observes, ‘ Not only did the saint of Dakshineswar
reveal to us anew the excellence of the Vedantic
truth that God alone is real and nothing else, but
also, he showed the way of realizing this truth
through service to humanity. We cannot take a
leap to the plenary wisdom without proper equip-
ment. Disinterested service (karma yoga) is the
best preparation for leading the soul to its goal.
He who is callous or indifferent to the sufferings
and needs of his fellow-beings cannot make even
the least progress towards the spirit. The Self that
is sought to be realized by the seeker after Truth
is not the narrow self of the individual. It is the
Self that is the same (sama) in all—the universal
spirit in which there is no division. Hence ego-
centricism is a great enemy of spirituality." The
same truth is embedded in the Gandhian ideology
of Sarvodaya which aims at the welfare of all.
Swami Vivekananda proclaimed this truth in the
two words: Siva and Seva, spirituality and ser-
vice. I short, Sri Ramakrisna taught that alf
religigns are true and enunciated the concept of
the divinity of man. He stressed that people should
practice ethical and religious teachings and try to
55. Ibid., p. 222.

FORERUNNERS 47
be better men in order to gain spiritual realization.
Describing Ramakrisna’s life ‘asa story of religion
in practice’, Gandhi observes: ‘His life enables
us to see God face to face. No one can read the
story of his life without being convinced that God
alone is real and that all else is an illusion. Rama-
krishna was a living embodiment of Godliness.
His sayings are not those of a mere learned man
but they are pages from the Book of Life. They
are revelations of his own experiences. They,
therefore, leave on the reader an impression which
he cannot resist. In this age of scepticism, Rama-
krishna presents an example of a bright and living
faith which gives solace to thousands of men and
women who would otherwise have remained with-
out spiritual light. Ramakrishna’s life was an
object-lesson in ahimsa. His love knew no limits,
geographical or otherwise. May his divine love
be an inspiration to all...’
The revival of the old religious tradition as a

bulwark against the encroachments of an alien
western system of civilization has been very much
pronounced in Swami Vivekananda (1863—1902)
who formulated the conception of ‘practical
Vedanta’ as the way to success in individual and
national life. It was Sri Ramakrisna who choose
Swami Vivekananda or Naren as he was then called
to preach the gospel of love and devotion to the
56, Foreword to Life of Shri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa,

December 12, 1924.
48 INTRODUCTION
suffering humanity. Swami Vivekananda moved
from place to place till he covered the whole of
India from the Himalayas to Cape Comorin. As
he travelled he saw India, real India-poor, famished
and downtrodden. Evils of casteism and the
appalling poverty of the masses shook his mighty
heart. The service of the poor, the ignorant, the sick
and the downtrodden, ‘of God among the wretched’
(Daridra - Narayana) as Swami Vivekananda
puts it, is the first duty of man. He emphatically
declared ‘National ideals of India’ are renuncia-
tion and service. Intensify her in those channels
and the rest will take care of itself.’ Gandhi taught
the same to the teeming millions of Indian people
who were unconscious of the tdmasik state they
were in, and made them come out of it and realize
in their own lives the power of the Vedanta which
upholds the right of all to tattva-jiana (the true
knowledge of the Self). Swami Vivekananda
visualized that the truth, ‘ tattva—jfidna’ which had
no place in our every-day relationship with our
fellow beings was useless and inane.’ He recalled
his master’s words: ‘Religion is not for empty
bellies’ and dedicated himself to the task of raising
the world conscience so that India could be saved
from her plight. He therefore conceived of a pro-
gramme of service with the twin-ideals of self-per-
fection, and commonweal (loka-sangraha). He
57. See the present writer’s ‘The Ideal of Service as

expounded by Swami Vivekananda’ in The Vedanta
Kesari, Madras, Vol. L., No. 12, 1964, p. 659.
FORERUNNERS 49
therefore conceived of a programme of service with

the twin-ideals of self-perfection, and commonweal
(loka~sangraha). He believed that through sheer
selfless and disinterested service a person can reach
the supreme goal coveted by the wise.’58
Vivekananda placed a new emphasis on the

ideal of social service. Service discharged in a
spirit of detachment or divine service can never be
regarded as a snare, because this type of work is
not for one’s happiness (svakalyana buddhih). Al-
though Vivekananda had mastered all the discip-
lines of yoga, he gave the highest place to jnana~
yoga ot yoga through knowledge. It should, how-
ever, be noted that service can be synthesized with
knowledge even from the stand point of Advaita,
if by service, we mean only those actions which are
perpetuated by the wise for commonweal (loka-
sangraha). Actions do not become his duty in the
sense that they are obligatory on him. On the
otherhand, any humanitarian service done by the
wise is a spontaneous manifestation, in a dynamic
form, of the nectar of wisdom that he has drunk.
He becomes the master of all actions by cultivating
detachment and faith in the Absolute. It is the
Absolute, the Self that serves as his light (dtmai-
vasya jyotir bhavati). The free soul works for the
guidance of men who are still immersed in ignorance
(avidya). He is the doer of the work and is yet not
the doer, because he has no sense of *}? and ‘mine’
58. Ibid., p. 659.

50 INTRODUCTION
as taught not only by the rsis but carried to its

fullest extent in our daily life by Swami Viveka-
nanda.”®
Service rendered in a spiritual attitude, uplifts
both the giver and the receiver. The central teaching
of Vedanta is that man must grow spiritually and
morally. By doing service in a spirit of reverence
an individual not only ensures the welfare and,
happiness of his fellow human beings, but also
gains in spiritual stature himself. This is also the
central message of the Gita and the meaning of its
pregnant utterance: yogah karmasu kauSalam-
Vivekananda echoed the same truth thus: dtmano
moksar tham jagadd hitaya ca—‘ For one’s own Spiri-
tual freedo m and the welfare of the world.’
Swami Vivekananda presented to the West, the

religious philosophy of India, the message of
Vedanta. It is in the spiritual universal outlook
of Ramakrisna- Vivekananda that we find embodied
for the twentieth century the millenium-old tenets
of universal religion (Sandtanadharma).
According to Swami Vivekananda, this doctrine
of religious harmony is intended not only to unify
religions but also to cultivate a sense of equal res-
pect for other religions (sarvadharma samabhava).
Further it seeks to promote a national as well as
jnternational unity and harmony and understand-
ing in the various races and creeds. This is possible
59. Ibid., p. 660.

FORERUNNERS JT
if only we realize that we are spirit or Atman

essentially, and that we must look upon each life
or each being as a manifestation of the Divinity
within. Another essential feature of this doctrine
is that it will enable us to form a perfect character,
ideal to this age, in which there is a harmonious
synthesis of j#ana, yoga, bhakti and karma. Itisa -
grand synthesis in which the highest catholicity is
blended with intense spirituality.
Now the question we have to consider is how
does this aspect of the Swamiji’s teachings influence
the present age? As a result of the growth of
democracy which gives essential value to the dignity
of human personality, the ideal of service from the
political point of view gains a significant meaning
at present. The goal of democracy is to seek the
welfare of all. Swamiji’s ideal of service to the
poor, the ignorant, and the afflicted has become a
living religion of India at present. For example, the
uplift of the depressed classes both physically and
mentally is now the declared policy of the Govern-
ment of Free India. In fact, the worship of the
poor, the ‘ Daridranarayana as visualised by Swami
Vivekananda has been expressed practically by
Gandhi in his campaign of the uplift of Harijans.
Surely the men of God do not live for themselves;
they seek the welfare of all. The great ones like the
Buddha, Sri Ramakrisna, Swami Vivekananda,
were always concerned about the welfare of all.
Romain Rolland observes: In the two words

equilibrium and synthesis, Swami Vivekananda’s
32 INTRODUCTION
constructive genius may be summed up. He

embraced all the paths of the spirit; the four
yogas in their entirety, renunciation and service, art
and science, religion and action from the most spiri-
tual to the most practica].’®
What, then, is the practical way of achieving
this consciousness? It is by reverentially serving all
as God—nothing less. Says Swami Vivekananda:
* First let us be Gods and then, help others to be
Gods. Be and make, let this be our motto.’ The
universality of this noble sentiment is attested by
these lines of Coleridge, the English poet, which
seems to be an echo of the Vaisnaya doctrine: viz.,
“name ructh, jive dayd’
“He prayeth best who loveth best
All things both great and small”
In attempting to use religion as a guide to
action and to adjust social relations so as to make
Indians socially progressive, Swami Vivekananda
made a significant contribution. In short Swami
Vivekananda preached a philosophy and religion
which helps to convince every quest of the human
intellect and to quench every thirst of human
heart. The Swami spoke of national awakening.
Himself awakened like the Buddha, he strove to
awaken men and women everywhere to the highest
human excellence. This was his clarion call, and
60. Romain Rolland, The Life of Vivekananda and the

Universal Gospel, Advaita Ashrama, Calcutta, 1961,
ற. 281.
FORERUNNERS , 53
adapting the verse of the Katha Upanisad, Uithis-

thata, jagrata, prapya varan nibodhata, he proclaimed:
‘Arise, awake, and stop not till the goal is reached.’
An India spiritually strong, economically progres-
sive, socially stable and imbued with ethical excel-
lence -this was his cherished goal. He worked
unceasingly towards this glorious consummation.
Rabindranath’ Tagore (1861—1941), master

mind of the contemporary world, preceptor, poet
and unique literary giant is primarily a poet-philo-
sopher the equal of whose versatility, strengthened
by deep insight into human nature, is hard to find
in the East or West. Tagore is an idealistic,
spiritualistic, non-dualistic philosopher who believes
both in the theory of qualified monism and the
practice of ethical life to attain self-realization.
His sole purpose of philosophizing was to reconcile
spiritualism with empiricism, and mysticism with
realism. He pleaded for the unity and fulfilment
of mankind ona cultural plane. A poet of huma-
nism and culture he has distilled the Upanisads in
song and sunburnt mirth.
The ethicalidea, according to Tagore, is self-

realization, i.e., the realization of the Universal
Manin Art. His notion of beauty as truth links
aesthetics with ethics through metaphysics. In
short Tagore’s message for mankind is the message
of love, harmony, peace, universal brotherhood,
and spiritual unity. He will always be remembered
as a poet-prophet of integral humanism. He is a
24 INTRODUCTION
philosopher whose main interest centres round

man.
It is generally well known that Tagore’s philo-

sophical message is embodied in his subtle and
intense creations as a poet, as an artist of huma-
nity. But few recognize that to Tagore the central
problem for the modern age is not political, nor
social, nor educational, nor economic. The supreme
problem is the application of religion to daily life.
As Professor Amiya Chakravarty observes:
‘ Tagore’s religion indicate that his religion features
four important concepts: first, inward sensitiveness
and cultivation of the feeling of relationship will
deepen the spiritual values; second, renunciation of
the world which is a manifest part of the divine
creation, is a rejection of reality; third, sympathy
must be extended to the entire human world; and
fourth, the necessary and enriching cultural diffe-
rences of East and West have a common core of
spiritual aspirations.”
Here is Rabindranath’s vision of India:
‘Heart—Charmer of the universe!

O thou earth, bright with peace
beams of the Sun!
Our ancestor’s Mother and Nurse!’
61. Amiya Chakravarty, Modern Humanism—An Indian

Perspective, University of Madras, Madras, 1968,
pp. 57-58. ,
FORERUNNERS 22
‘The first dawn broke out in the sky

of love,
The first hymn rang out in the

mystic grove,
The sylvan arbours first proclaimed

to man,
The lore of light and parables of stars.’
In the poetic words of Ezra Pound, ‘Tagore

has sung his land into a nation,’
$r7 Aurobindo (1872—1950) is one of the most

outstanding products of Indian nationalism and a
brilliant exponent of ancient Indian wisdom. He
is a synthetic thinker in the sense that for him the
truth of evolution lies in the assimilation of the
Indian and Western theories in a spiritual, integral,
cosmic and dynamic philosophy of evolution which
is the process of the reveleation of the Spirit. As
spirit is involved in matter, its manifestation in
grades of consciousness is the ‘truth’ of evolution.
The goal of spirituality in short is ‘the flowering
of the Divine in collective humanity’. His integral
aims at divinising humanity. Indeed it is
yoga
the boldest promise of Indian idealism.
In the context of modern Indian political

on of
thought and practice the greatest contributi
62. Ibid., p. 58
56 ; INTRODUCTION
Sri Aurobindo has been the theory of an exalted

and sanctified nationalism. We should, however,
note that his political philosophy was not limited
to nationalism; he was thinking in terms of a world
state. His is a vision not of the mechanical politi-
cal unity of man, but that of an inner oneness of
all human beings. He thinks that the ideal law of
social development must harmonize the claims
both of the individual and the collectivity. In
short, Sri Aurobindo emphasises a universally
oriented political philosophy committed to the
pursuit of unity, freedom, peace, and good of all
humanity. He has thus given a new lease of life to
idealism in politics.
The concept of the good of all (sarvabhitahita)

is the prime gospel of Hindu moral philosophy.
Gautama Buddha was one of its earliest and staun-
chest protagonists. In recent times, Mahatma
Gandhi also strove for the welfare of all. The
doctrine of Sarvedayais similar to the concept of
sarvabhitahita. tis Sri Aurobindo’s merit that he
has taken up the ancient aspirations of man for a
Kingdom of God on earth and for the reign of
peace, unity, freedom and good will among man-
kind. Though the Sandtana-~dharma was a univer-
sal religion, Sri Aurobindo believed that India,
more than any other country had been the guardian
and exemplar of the truths of Sandtana-dharma®
63. Aurobindo, Uttaropara Speech, 8. A. A, Pondicherry,

1962, pp. 7, 16-17.
FORERUNNERS 57
The philosophy of Sti Aurobindo is all-com-

prehensive in that it integrates the diverse elements
from the past and prophetic in its vision of the
future. ‘A spiritual oneness which would create a
psychological oneness not dependent upon any
intellectual or outward uniformity and compel a
oneness of life not bound up with its mechanical
means of unification, but ready always to enrich
its secure unity by a free inner variation and a
freely varied outer expression, this would be the
basis for a higher type of human existence.’
Sri Aurobindo believed that the ever-growing

spiritual and intellectual advance of India was
bound to come. ‘The Renaissance of India is
inevitable as the rising of tomorrow’s.sun, and the
renaissance of a great nation of three hundred
millions with so peculiar a temperament, such
unique traditions and ideas of life, so powerful
an intelligence and so great a mass of potential
energies cannot but be one of the most formidable
phenomena of the modern world.”® Sri Aurobindo
has been hailed by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan as ‘the
greatest intellectual of our age’, and ‘a great force in
the realm of spirit.” As Dr. Karan Siagh observes:
‘Gifted with a highly sensitive and orginal mind,
64. Aurobindo, The Human Cycle, The Ideal of Human

Unity, War and Self determination, Sri Aurobindo
International Centre of Educational Collection,
Pondicherry, p. 776.
65. Aurobindo, The Ideal of Human Unity, 8. A.A,

Pondicherry, p. 69.
58 INTRODUCTION
langu-
and an astonishing mastery over the English
age, his political writin gs are almos t unequ alled
for their deep spiritual fervour and flaming nationa-
lism.’ Sri Aurobindo’s greatness as a nationalist
par excellence is beautifully analysed by Dr. Karan
Singh thus: “He was largely responsible for
imparting an esoteric and spiritual significance to
the national movement, for placing before it the
inspiring ideal of complete independence, for
invigorating the spirit of India by a reassessment
of the true bases of her great cultur al heritage, for
expounding a practical syste m where by the goal of
independence could be achie ved, and for placing
the whole movement in the broad er context of
internationalism and the ideal of huma n activity.
For a person to have done this in the short period
of hardly five years of active political life is an
achievement of no mean significance. Sri Auro-
bindo must be count ed among the great builde rs of
modern India, as he contr ibute d nobly towar ds
laying the found ation s for the edific e of natio nal
freedom which Mahatma Gandhi and others
reared.’®
That India has produced a continuous line of
spiritual leaders is indeed remarkable. It is in this
context that we are viewing the great work and life
of Bhagavan Ramana and what it can do to enrich
66. Karan Singh, Prophet of Indian Nationalism, George

Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1963, pp. 9~10.
67. Ibid., p. 154.

FORERUNNERS 59
and ennoble our spiritual and cultural life in this
age.
The philosophy of Sri Ramana (1879—1950),
the Sage of Arunachala, is similar to the teach-
ings of Advaita Vedanta. He was a great exemplar
of the truth of Advaita and in him we had a
glorious contemporary example of one who, though
appearing the tenant a body, was not in the least
bound by it. His teachings are in Sutra-form and
are called Ulladu Narpadu. Wis central teaching
is: Self-inquiry. “Who am1I?’. This is the greatest
japa. This is the true pranayama.
It is interesting to note that Sri Ramana took
keen interest in things that happened around him.
Even creatures belonging to the sub-human species
claimed his attention. He treated all alike. To
him who had seen the non-dual Spirit which is
sama, the same, there was no plurality, no diffe-
rence.
According to Sri Ramana, one cannot do real

service to society unless one seeks to know the
true Self. Self-inquiry is the basis of true service;
and self-knowledge is its culmination.
On 18th August, 1938, Dr. Rajendra Prasad,
former President of Indian Union visited Bhagavan
Ramana and said: ‘I have come here with Mahatma
Gandhiji’s permission and I must return to him
soon. Can Sri Bhagavan give me any message for
him? Maharshi’s reply was: ‘Adhyatma is work-
ing with him and leading him on. That is enough.
60 INTRODUCTION
What more is necessary’? Indeed great souls

work for the same object.
All the leading figures in the Indian Renais-
sance whom we have so far dealt with briefly have
emphasised the need for a spiritual reorientation
is
of our outlook in life. The divine light in man
the truth of his life. It is to be aware of and live
in it that the call has repeatedly come to him from
the saviours of the race. Indeed, Christ’s ‘The
Kingdom of God is within You’, the Buddha’s
‘Be a lamp Unto yourself’, Sri Krsna’s ‘seek refuge
in the Lord seated in the heart’, the declaration
of the rsis in the Upanisad ‘Thou art That’ are
verily the same gospel in the teachings of all God-
men and seers of the world.
Hinduism is more a way of life than a corpus
of theological doctrines and ecclesiastical forms
and so, the Hindu social life and the religious
practice have been so intimately inter-related that
the changes in the religious sphere made them-
selves felt in the social sphere, irrespective of
whether the change in the social sphere were
intended or not by those who found it necessary to
reform the purely religious side of Hinduism. Con-
sequently the regeneration of Indian society was
integral.
The stress on moral and spiritual outlook in
life only serves to illustrate the prophetic character
68. Quoted by T.M.P. Mahadevan, Talks with Sri Ramana

Maharshi, Tiruvannamalai, 1963, p. 591.
FORERUNNERS 61
of Gandhi’s role in modern Indian thought who
made the religion of service his life-mission. The
three words satydgraha, sarvodaya, and andsakti
(Non-attachment), convey Gandhi’s philosophy of
life in its entirety. Gandhi was a moral and spiri-
tual genius and had a rare combination of both
thought and action in him. He was a karma-yogi
and the study of the Gita led him to believe that a
life of ceaseless activity dedicated to the service of
one’s fellowmen was the ideal life. His entire life
history was an experiment with truth, and the
experiment ultimately proved the victory of truth
over untruth, of love over violence. True to his
convictions, Gandhi, was replete with deep love
for all human beings because he actually lived up to
the ideals which identified love with truth and truth
with God. The essence of the philosophy of human
nature is revealed thus: ‘Man is higher than brute
and has a divine mission to fulfil...To find Truth
des-
completely is to realize oneself and one’s
to the concept of spiritual
tiny.’ He adhered
nature as the antecedent to
remaking of human
changes. His is a
any lasting social and political
on the conviction that every man
religion based
has the spark of truth, non-violence or love in
him.
ethiciza-
The theory of the spiritualization and
Gand hian thou ght dema nds the
tion of politics in
nature. The
fundamental remaking of human and
n conscience
principle of the sanctity of huma
12, 1946.
69. M. K. Gandhi, Harijan, May
62 INTRODUCTION
its incorporation in the structure of society and
politics necessarily implies the purification of
means and ends. His prophetic nature is apparent
in his emphasis on the purity of means. He was
sanguine that political action could be made to
conform to the ultimate values of the spirit. The
supreme concept relevant for the ethicization of
politics is non-violence (ahimsa), which according
to Gandhi is implicitly latent in all human beings
and the supreme vocation of man is the purposive
evolution of non-violence. His acceptance of spiri-
tual determination gave him supreme faith in the
inevitable emergence of the non-violent society in
the future. The notion of inevitability is a conse-
quence of Gandhi’s faith in the redeeming power
of the spirit. His theory of the ethicization of
politics certainly represents a great land-mark in
the direction of political idealism.
It may be asked ‘What is the place of Gandhian

political philosophy in the world of thought? At the
outset we should know that his political philosophy
is merely the application of moral truths to the
facts of life. Political science, understood in a
general way is a systematised knowledge of the
relation of man as a political animal to society.
In order, therefore, to build a sound system of
political philosophy, we must have an adequate
notion of what is man and what is society.
Gandhi’s views on the nature of man and of society
are implicit in his religio-metaphysical background.
It is from this background that he deduces the
moral truths, that is, what an individual ought to
FORERUNNERS 63
do. The application of moral truths to the facts

of social life is the essence of Gandhian way of
life. |
Gandhi’s dynamic philosophy can make possi-

ble the advent of a radically transformed huma-
nity. It can serve as a system of norms and moral
values that can guide our conduct and action in
society and state. True, it is an intellectual
attempt to build a plan of political and social
reconstruction on the basis of metaphysical idea-
lism. Sarvodaya is indeed an attempt to develop
Gandhian ideas regarding decentralization and
villagism. Gandhi visualised a stateless society
and repudiated the authority of the state at every
level and in every form. He was convinced that
mere institutional structures will not suffice for the
concrete realization of rights and hence he postu-
the ideal of Ramardjya, which means the
lated
This
Kingdom of love, justice and righteousness.
amounts to the synthesis of the Augustinian con-
-
ception of the De Civitate Dei with the democra
Like the
tic ideal of the sovereignty of the people.
Gandhi
pluralists and anarchists of the West,
based on
believes in the ‘Sovereignty of the people
desired
pure moral authority’. If freedom is the
wants people to take to
object, then Sarvodaya
Thoreau which Gandhi
heart the famous dictum of
best which
used to repeat ‘ that Government is the
the cultiva-
governs the least’. It is the stress on
strength of
tion of real janasakti—the power and
nt contri-
the people, which is the most significa
64 INTRODUCTION
bution of Gandhian thought to the world political

thought. Only this can be an effective antidote
to the dominance of danda-Sakti—the power of
coercive violence. As an ultimate ideal, however,
Sarvodaya is satisfied not with limiting or regulat-
ing the state-machine but with the total elimi-
nation of the state by gradual process of time.
The time required to realise the ideal of Sarvodaya
may be long. However, we should note that in the
twentieth century, perhaps, this is the only politi-
cal philosophy that has genuinely and sincerely
clung to the formula that democracy and a self-
government of the vast millions have to be made
real. Gandhi hoped that ere long non-violence
would be accepted as the means for the regulation
of international relations and believed that free-
dom of India could never be a danger to the world,
but also that India’s success would serve as a great
example to other nations of how the freedom of
peoples could be effectively defended against all
oppression by non-violent means even in the
thermo-nuclear age. The future of non-violent
movement in India depends on the sincerity of a
negligible minority. The present Sarvodaya
workers under the leadership of Acharya Vinoba
Bhave and Sri Jaya Prakash Narayan, on whom the
mantle of leadership fell after Gandhi’s demise,
have now taken the lead towards the fulfilment of
Gandhian ideals. To such ardent followers,
s
Gandhi’ message is: ‘Let those who believe in
non-violence as the method of achieving real free-
dom, keep the lamp of non-violence burning
FORERUNNERS 65
bright in the midst of present impenetrable gloom.
The truth of a few will count, the untruth of mil-
lions will vanish even like chaff before a whiff of
wind.”° The vision of Sarvodaya is definitely
exalted and inspiring. To realise the goal is our
prime concern.
70. Ibid., May 12, 1946.

EARLY GLIMMERINGS AND
INFLUENCES
To understand correctly how Gandhi’s mind

was moulded one has to go back to his childhood
and see what ideas and impressions influenced him
most. The influences of childhood generally make
a deeper impression and are more permanent. Very
often they form a focus around which later impres-
sions are grouped.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born on

the 2nd October 1869 at Porbandar in a coastal city
northwest of Bombay, in a family belonging to the
Bania division of the third ranking Vaisyas. Being
born in a coastal city within the sound of sea, a
certain mysticism had perhaps entered Gandhi’s
composition—a mysticism which, in later life,
linked with a vivid practical sense to make the
most formidable of all combinations. His home
life was cultured and the family, by Indian stan-
dards, was well-to-do. As a boy he admired the
‘ practicality of his father’ but he loved his mother
Putli Bai and was greatly influenced by her ‘ saint-
liness’ and her ‘deeply religious’? nature which
later helped him to possess an unquenchable faith
in God and made his life a lesson for all ages to
come. It was during his maiden visit to South
EARLY GLIMMERINGS & INFLUENCES 67
Africa that Gandhi became conscious of a life-

mission and throughout his life thereafter he made
it his sole concern to be devoted to that mission
which was to champion the cause of the victimised
and the oppressed as against insolence and might
of those who enslaved and oppressed them.”!
Gandhi struggled hard to wipe off racialism that
was widely prevalent here. His non-violent strug-
gle against social discrimination strengthened the
basic philosophy of life.
It is well-known that Gandhi's life was greatly

influenced by his contacts with Leo Tolstoy.
Gandhi came to know Tolstoy through ‘ The King-
dom of God is within you’ and his essay on
‘Christianity and Patriotism.’ The name of the
first volume is the Gospel of its author.
Tolstoy’s simplicity of life and purity of pur-

pose influenced Gandhi very much. His views on
Christianity, its Church, its teachings roused
Gandhi’s feelings. No professing Christian will
disagree with Tolstoy’s main contention that man
must ‘ die to live’ nor fail to be stimulated by the
vigour and sincerity with which he restates and
elaborates these words of Jesus Christ to suit the
exigencies of his day. His famous book “My Con-
fession’ followed by ‘Criticism of Dogmatic
Theology’, ‘What I believe’ and such works
reveal his spiritual conflicts and experiences. He
71. T.M.P. Mahadevan, Outlines of Hinduism, op. cit.,

றற. 78-79.
68 INTRODUCTION
came to consider the ‘organized’ church as the
greatest enemy of true Christianity, and found a
profound human meaning in Christ’s ‘Sermon on
the Mount’ where, among the fine preachings, he
laid special emphasis on ‘Do not resist evil by
force.”
Tolstoy accepted love to be the law of life. It

was his ambition to revive this law of love and to
go back to a simple life of peace and equality. He
was so much critical of western countries because
they, in their practical life, violated the law of
love which was preached by Jesus. The principles
of non-violence is based on love for the entire
mankind. Both Tolstoy and Gandhi adopted the
instrument of love to solve all problems in their
lives. ‘Love’, says Tolstoy, ‘is the aspiration for
communion and solidarity with other souls, and
that aspiration always liberates the sources of
noble activities. That love is the supreme and
unique law of human life, which everyone feels in
the depth of one’s soul.” In his celebrated book,
“The Kingdom of God is within you’, we find a
political force creating an indelible mark on
Gandhi. Gandhi confessed that its reading cured
him of the scepticism and made him a firm believer
of ahimsd. Tolstoy and Gandhi firmly believed
that non-violence can cure all social maladies,
remove political ills, and establish peace on earth
72, Leo Tolstoy’s letter to Mahatma Gandhi, dated 7th

Sept, 1910.
and goodwill among mankind. Gandhi says,
“Ahimsa, truly understood, isin my humble opinion
a panacea for all evils mundane and extramun-
dane,...Mahavira and Buddha were soldiers, and
so was Tolstoy. Only, they say deeper and truer
into their profession and found the secret of a times
happy, honourable and godly life. Let us be joint
sharers with those teachers, and this land of ours
will once more be the abode of gods.’”% Thus we
find that both Tolstoy and Gandhi believed in the
efficacy of Jove for the cure of evil and suffering
in this world. Tolstoy perceived the truth, love
and non-violence and Gandhi grasped the essence
of these virtues and lead his life directed towards
these paths.
It was Tolstoy who impressed upon Gandhi’s

mind the importance of Bread Labour. For Tols-
toy, the man who abstains from manual labour is
a thief of the society. Gandhi acknowledged his
debt to Tolstoy. He says, ‘The Law, that to live
man must work, first came home to me upon read-
ing Tolstoy’s writing, “On Bread Labour’....Only
those men deserve to eat bread who actually till
the ground, spin cloth and produce things.’ Tolstoy
says, ‘Let us get off the shoulder of our neighbours’
and Gandhi adds that if everyone performed that
simple operation, he would have rendered all
service God requires of him. Since every man has an
73. Speeches and Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, N. Pp. H,

Ahmedabad, Fourth Edn., p. 384.
70 ட. INTRODUCTION
obligation to society and to oneself, bread-labour
becomes an imperative duty which must be per-
formed by each and every man.
Tolstoy strongly preached against the assump-

tion of Darwinism, Ecclesiasticism and contem-
porary science and art and he preached a return to
the simple innocence of the teachings of the gos-
pels. In his interpretation of the trends and foun-
dations of contemporary civilisations, Gandhi was
gteatly influenced by Tolstoy. Gandhi’s moral
and spiritual approach to the problem of Indian
civilisation and his quest for a spiritual Teleology
in the world resulted in his bitter disillusionment
of western civilisation. In common with Rousseau
and Tolstoy, Gandhi’s attitude to Western civilisa-
tion was moral and philosophical rather than socio-
logical and scientific.
Tolstoy’s philosophical anarchism inspired

Gandhi much. The ideal society, according to
Gandhi is the stateless society, society of enlighten-
ed anarchy where social life has become so perfect
as to be self-regulated. The pure ideal of Gandhi
is an ideal of philosophical anarchism, a stateless,
classless society marked by voluntary co-opera-
tion. Tolstoy’s view bears close resemblance to
the Gandhian ideal. He placed his immense faith
in the mora] development of the people as a final
solution to what he considered as the universal
oppression of the many by the few. For Tolstoy,
the progressive march toward a classless and state-
less condition of mankind depended upon the
moral stability and perfection of each individual

through observance of the supreme law of love and
the consequent repudiation of every form of
violence. Profound faith in God, commiseration
from the exploited, inherent aversion to violence,
deep-rooted belief in the dignity of man led the
two philosophers to the same goal. Gandhian
ideal, therefore, comes very close to Tolstoyan
anarchism.
Gandhi is, however, not a thorough-going

Tolstoyan. The difference between the two philo-
sophers arises out of the fact that Gandhi is far
more practical than Tolstoy. While Tolstoy in his
later life became more or less a recluse far removed
his
from the social and political struggles of
the
country, Gandhi resolutely championed for
Gandhi,
freedom of his country and moral uplift.
is essentia lly a practica l idealist. He
therefore,
Life, no doubt, basically
was not a visionary.
Tolstoy, how-
involves some amount of violence.
of violence.
ever, recoils from all expressions
of course, that
Gandhi permitted violence, provided
anger but true
the motive for violence was not
doctrine
love. Thus the moral content of Gandhi’s
than that of
of ahimsa is of higher significance was
that Gandhi
Tolstoy’s. This is due to the fact
greatly influenced by the Gita ideal of niskama-
karma, i.e., action without attachment.
of Gandhi is a
In short, the Tolstoy Farm
was not merely a
living monument to Tolstoy. It
72 INTRODUCTION
shelter and source of living to the satydgrahis in

South Africa, it stood for the principles that prom-
ted Gandhi and his fellow satydgrahis to fight for
justice. We cannot forget the fact that the tech-
nique of satyagraha was cradled and perfected in
Tolstoy’s concept of non-violence. ‘The sponta-
neous recognition and spiritual collaboration of
these two representative men of the occident and
the orient’ observes Dr. Kalidas Nag, ‘have some
enduring lessons for our generation, groping pathe-
tically for some way out of the suffocating gloom
of poison gas and mass-slaughter. Whether we
shall succeed or not in stopping the fatal march
towards another global war, we cannot help hoping
for survival in a new world order. We naturally
derive the greatest support and consolation from
the thoughts and actions of a Tolstoy and a Gandhi
who symbolized sanity in a quasi insane world and
vicarious sacrifice for the benefit of mankind.”
As Ernest J. Simmons observes: ‘Though Tols-
toy’s beliefs, derived primarily from the teachings
of Christianity, have so often been dismissed as of
no consequence precisely by the Christian West,
they are much alive in the non-Christian East,
especially in India, where the mass movement of
Sarvodaya aims at the creation of a social order
based on the Tolstoyan principle of love inspired
by non-resistance or non-violence.’75
74. Kalidas Nag, Tolstoy and Gandhi, Pustak Bhander,

Patna, p. 121.
75. Ernest J. Simmons, Leo Tolstoy-Selected Essays, The

Modern Library, New York, 1964, p. IX.
EARLY GLIMMERINGS ம்‌ INFLUENCES 73
Another western philosopher with whom
Gandhi felt spiritual brotherhood was the Ameri-
can pacifist Thoreau (1817-1862) who was the
champion of the free spirit and was repelled by
established political and economic routine of the
time. In him we discover an element of moral
individualism culminating in his concept of “Civil
Disobedience.” He wasa rebel and he challenged
the basis of the state in the name of reason and
wisdom. Thoreau described civil disobedience in
the same terms as Gandhi understood it. He was
an anarchist who refused to pay his taxes as a pro-
test against slavery in America. Thoreau used the
term ‘Civil Disobedience’ in one of his speeches in
1849. It is clear that Gandhi did not derive his
idea of ‘Civil Disobedience,’ from the writings of
Thoreau. In fact, the resistance to authority in
South Africa preceded before Gandhi got the essay
of Thoreau on ‘Civil Disobedience.’ This movement
was then known as ‘Passive Resistance.’ Gandhi
was not satisfied with the term ‘Civil Disobedience’
because it failed to convey the full meaning of the
struggle. Hence he adopted the phrase ‘Civil Resis-
tance.’
It is significant that Gandhi drew his inspiration

from the works of Thoreau, for Thoreau
deeply indebted to the East. He did not
was
in narrow sectarianism and felt that man
believe
was meant to experience God, not to theologise
fellow-
about him. In short, Thoreau sought for his
realzi ation of the
men a fuller and more natural
Self. He once said: ‘To the Philosophers, all
74 . INTRODUCTION
sects, all nations, are alike. I believe Brahma,
Hari, Buddha, the Great Spirit, as well God.’
Man, according to Thoreau was a social being

who is generally disposed to co-operation with
fellow beings for social good. He felt that the
immoral institutions of the state supported by coer-
cive authority hampered the individual’s moral and
spiritual freedom. He, therefore, visualised a
society in which govern ment will disappear. ‘That
government is best which govern s not at all,’ or at
least ‘which governs least’. Like Thoreau,
Gandhi also held that the democracy can be realised
only in a stateless society. It is only in such a
society that an individual can have full liberties
and enjoy utmost freedom, socially and spiritually.
Such a society can be organised on the basis of
Truth and Non-violence. A society organised on
love and non-vi olence would equalise the ambitions
of men by eliciti ng the spiritu al or divine instinct in
man and suppre ssing the irratio nal element in it.
The ideal society is charac terise d by a respect for
individual liberty and free growth and a simul-
taneous respect for the needs, efficiency, solidarity,
natural growth and perfection of the corporate
being, the society or nation. Thus Gandhi heard
an echo of his own thought in Thoreau.
The Gandhian philosophy of Sarvodaya can be
traced to the fundamental teaching of India’s
76. Henry D. Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, The Civil

Art Press, New York, 1952, p. 10.
spiritual heritage although Gandhi had immediate

inspiration from Ruskin’s Unto This Last of which
the term Sarvodaya is his rendering.” Sarvodaya
(sarva and udaya i.e., rise or welfare of all) has
been the basic idea of Gandhi's philosophy right
from the days when he wrote in Gujarati his
famous 30,000 word book ‘Hind Swaraj’ or Indian
Home Rule in 1909. Gandhi called one of the
chapters of his Autobiography ‘The Magic Spell of
a Book’ wherein he describes the effects of Ruskin’s
Unto This Last (meaning uplift of the last). He
translated it later into Gujarati calling it Sarvodaya
(meaning the rise or welfare of all). It is a book
that gripped the imagination of the great man and
he was determined to change his life in accordance
with the ideals of the book.
The essential teachings of Ruskin in his original

book Unto This Last are that ‘men can be happy
only if they obey the moral law.’ He tells us how
men in various walks of life should behave if they
these ideas into action. Says
intend to translate
Ruskin: ‘Five great intellectual professions exist
in every civilised nation: The soldier’s profession
to defend it, the pastor’s to teach it, the physician
justice
to keep it in health, the lawyer’s to enforce
The duty
in it, and the merchant to provide for it.
in 1862.
77, Ruskin’s Unto This Last was first published
was on 19th March 1904 that Gandhi had the
But it
it was given to
opportunity to read that book when
twenty-four
him by his friend Mr. Polak during his
hour’s journey from Johann esburg to Durba n.
76 INTRODUCTION
of all these men is on due occasion to die for it.

For truly, the man who does not know when to die
does not know how to live.’ Socrates in Plato’s
Apology gives us similar ideas of the duty of men
in various walks of life. Gandhi felt that Ruskin’s
Unto This Last was an expression of Socrate’s
ideas. Ruskin suggests that man should not run
after greater and higher fortunes. Simple pleasure
and deeper felicity should be his objective instead.
Ruskin believed that a great era in the history of
man will dawn when freedom from want becomes
areality in the life of each and every individual.
Freedom from want will usher in the Kingdom of
God upon earth.
Gandhi believed like Ruskin that the socio-
economic organization that guarantees the well~
being of all—, the high and the low, the rich and
the poor, the strong and the weak, is the only one
worth striving for. What is good for all must also
be good for each and everyone individually.
Gandhi’s modification of the concept from “Welfare
of the Last (antyodaya) to ‘ welfare of all’ (sarvo-
daya) is profoundly significant. It has been pointed
out by Sarvodaya thinkers that the service of the
neediest should not be at the cost of humanity.
According to Gandhi, the teachings of Unto
This Last are: (1) That the good of the individual
is contained in the good of all; (2) that lawyer’s
work has the same value as the barber’s inasmuch as
all have the same right of earning of their livelihood
78. Ruskin, Unto This Last, N.P.H, Ahmedabad, p. 22.
from their work; and (3) that a life of labour, i.e.,
the life of the tiller of the soil and the handicrafts-
man is the life worth living. The first of these, [
know. The second I had dimly realized. The third
had never occurred to me. Unto This Last made
it as clear as daylight for me that the second and
the third were contained in the first. I arose with
the dawn to reduce these principles to practice.”
The revolutionary idea of Sarvodaya was born
anew on that memorable day. The Phoenix Settle-
ment thus came into existence as an experiment in
Ruskinian Socialism almost within days after
Gandhi had read Ruskin’s ‘ Unto This Last’.
The philosophy of Sarvodaya which aims at the
welfare of all should be the objective of one’s acti-
vity. If there is any parallel to this ideal in the
traditions of the West, we find it not in the ethics
of altruism, but in the parable of Jesus® which
79, Gandhi, Autobiography, N. P. H, Ahmedabad, 1958,

Part IV, p. 22.
80. St, Mathew, Ch. XX. verses 12-14; According to this

parable in St. Mathew, the good house-holder who
hired labourers for work in his vineyard paid those
who joined later the same wage that he had agreed
to pay those who joined early. These labourers who
were hired about the eleventh hour received the same
wage as those who were hired earlier. When the latter
expressed their dissatisfaction saying, ‘those Jast have
wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal
unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the
day,’ the good man of the house replied answering
one of them, and said, ‘Friend, 1 do thee no wrong:
that
dids’t not thou agree with me for a penny ? Take
thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last,
.
even as upto thee.”
78 INTRODUCTION
inspired Ruskin to give to his book the title ‘ Unto

This Last.’
Ruskin, Gandhi observed in 1932, ‘was content

to revolutionise his mind but lacked the strength to
change his life. Ruskin’s Crown of Wild Olives is
also one of Gandhi’s favourites. As Gandhi read
his deepest convictions in the Gita, so he wove his
own notions into Ruskins. These books appealed
to him most which were closest to his concept of
life and where they deviated, he brought them
closer by interpreting them. ‘It was a habit with
me’ Gandhi once wrote, ‘to forget what I did
not like and to carry out in practice whatever I
liked.’
It is necessary to bear in mind the differences

between Ruskin and Gandhi. Unlike Gandhi,
Ruskin distrusts the populace. His ideal like that
of Carlyle, is the rule of the wisest.’8! Ruskin was
no more a Socialist than Carlyle. Ruskin believes
not in democracy but in ‘the eternal superiority of
some men to others, sometimes even of one man to
all others and upholds the advisability of appoint-
ing such persons or person to guide, to lead or on
. occasions even to compel and subdue, their in-
feriors according to their own better knowledge
81. Gopinath Dhavan, The Political Philosophy of

Mahatma Gandhi, N.P.H, Ahmedabad, 1951, p- 33.
and wiser will.’82 Thus Gandhi’s views are moré
akin to those of Tolstoy than to those of Ruskin.
It is thus clear that Gandhi’s anti-chrematistic
tendencies which were born out of his spiritual out-
look in life were strengthened by his studies of
Tolstoy, Thoreau and Ruskin.
Gandhian thought owes much to the scriptures

of Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and
Jainism. While Gandhi was in England and in
South Africa, he made acquaintance with the
world religions. They strengthened in him the
consciou sness of the spiritual aspect of the well-
being of man. He read works on Buddhism and
studied the Gita which he regarded as ‘the spiritual
reference book’. The nineteen verses describing
the sthitaprajfia—‘one with steady wisdom’, Gandhi
said has been inscribed on the tablet of his heart ;
‘they contained for me all knowledge that truths
refer-
they teach are the external verities.’ Gandhi
or gospel of disinter ested
red to the andasakti-~yoga
were to the
action as having given him a key as it
wrote:
secret of public work and its success. He
no personal feelings to be
‘A public servant has
Thought from
82. Quoted by E. Barker in ‘Political
to today’ s Oxfor d Unive rsity Press, p. 193,
Spencer
ragin g major ities is;
Another similar passage dispa
mome nt the right opini on is in the
‘In every vital
set over every
minority of one.~See only that you
one mano f sense, honou r and
business vital to you,
. The Work s of Ruski n (116 ed.), Vol. XXXI,
heart
ற. 505.
80 INTRODUCTION
considered...He must be tulya-niddtmasamstutih.’®
He wrote: ‘My life has been full of external trage-
dies; and if they have not left any visible and
indelible effect on me, I owe it to the teaching of
the Gita.” According to Gandhi, self-realization
which forms the central teaching of the Gitd is
against any line of demarcation being drawn bet-
ween salvation and wordly pursuits and ‘that what
cannot be followed out in day-to-day practice
cannot be called religion.’ Further, renunciation
is possible only through the observance of non-
violence. Religion is not always opposed to mate-
tial good. Gandhi desired that one should trans-
late religion in one’s day-to-day life’s activities. In
short, religion has to be lived and practised in
home as well as in larger political activities of the
state.
Significant for the development of Gandhi’s

premises was his reading of the book—Edwin
Arnold’s The Light of Asia, a romanticised version
of sayings attributed to Buddha. Gandhi propounds
the ethical religion and his views are similar with
those of Buddha, who taught that ethical life alone
helps us to gain salvation. Gandhi’s life was a con-
tinuous effort to apply the supreme values of iruth
and life to all spheres of human existence. Buddha
83. M.K. Gandhi, Harijan, 15-12-1933.
84. M.K. Gandhi, Young India, 6-8-1925, ற. 274,
85. Louis Fischer, The Life of Mahatma Gandhi, Jonathan

Cape, London, 1957 p. 48.
EARLY GLIMMERINGS & INFLUENCES 8&1
wished to steer clear of profitless metaphysical

discussion. ‘Whatever metaphysics we have in
Buddhism is not the original dharma but added to
it (adidharma).8° The same remark holds good in
the case of Gandhialso. Once Gandhi suggested
that his writings should be cremated with his body,
‘what I have done will endure, not what I have
said and written.’ This is the same as what Buddha
said: ‘The Tathagata is free from all theories.’
The philosophy of Gandhi is a ‘practical philoso-
phy’ and not theoretical. It is a coherent philoso-
phy of ethical action of the highest order. In this
respect there is a remarkable similarity between
Buddha and Gandhi. The Buddha, by opening the
doors of Nibbana for all, aimed, quite successfully,
a death blow ai this social injustice of caste which
reduced the people to intellectual slavery. He
declared:
‘Na jacca vasalo hoti—na jacca hoti

brahmano
Kammana yasalo hoti—Kammana hoti

brahmano’
—not by birth but by deed does one become a

brahmin or an out-caste. Therby, the Buddha advo-
of man.
cated social reforms based on the equality
feeli ngs towar ds all, irres pec-
He exercised friendly
and creed . He was the first to
tive of class, caste
e Allen
86. §. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy, Georg
Vol. I, p. 353.
& Unwin Lid., London, 1966,
82 INTRODUCTION
realize man’s social and spiritual progress and to

judge people more by character than by the
accident of birth. Gandhi, like the Buddha believed
in the equality of man. He observes: * Great as
the Buddha’s contribution to humanity was in
restoring God to His eternal place, in my humble
opinion, greater still was his contribution to huma-
nity in his exacting regard of all life, be it ever so
low.’8? Gandhi characterised the Buddha as ‘a
Hindu of Hindus who was saturated with the best
that was in Hinduism.’® The basic difference, on
the other hand, is that while Gandhi developed a
social, economic and political philosophy, Buddha
developed a philosophy of the individual. Buddha
was a jfidna-yogi, Gandhi was a karma-yogi
although later on in the Mahayana, social ethics
was greatly emphasised.
That Jaina thought influenced Gandhi even

before Ruskin and Tolstoy is evident in the writings
of Gandhi. In his Autobiography, he mentions
that Rajachandra aroused spiritual quest in him.”
It is universally known that Jaina philosophy
accepts and advocates non-violence (whimsd) as the
87. M.K. Gandhi, Young India, 24-11-1927, pp. 392-393,
88. M.K. Gandhi, All Religions are True, Bombay, 1962,

ற. 197.
89. See the present writer’s ‘Non-violence according to

Jaina Philosophy and Gandhiji’ technique’, in ‘Bhagya
Bharani’, Madras, p. 48-52.
highest ideal of life and as the means of attaining

liberation (moksa). Right Conduct (samyak~caritra)
which is the most important part of the ethical
discipline of Jainism consists mainly of the ‘five
great vows’ (pafica - mahdvrata), of non-injury
(ahimsa), truthfulness (satya), non-stealing (asteya),
celibacy (brahmacarya) and renunciation (apari-
graha); and of these vows, (ahims@), i.e., abstinence
from allinjury to life, occupies the central place.
Influenced to some extent by Jaina thought, Gandhi
singled out ahimsda as the fundamental moral virtue
which ought to be practised at all times by all men.
Gandhi was the first to apply the concept of ahimsa
to practical life. His sole purpose was to spiritua-
lize secular life.
Albert Schweitzer and several other Christian

interpreters of Gandhian thought consider the
emphasis on social service to be indicative of
Christian influence on Gandhi. It should, how-
ever, be noted that the old Mahay ana concept of
by Gandhi . In his
Mahakaruna was imbibed
living beings results in
emphasis that service to
give
God-realization (moksa), Gandhi attempts to
the above
a modern realistic interpretation of
He is attemp ting in a
concept of Mahdakaruna.
at social and politica l levels
sense, to concretize
thus, is an
the ideals of Bodhisattva. His ideal,
Maitrey a. He is not content
extension of that of but
form of a pure and good will
with only the
the content ofs
wants to fulfil that moral will with
.
humanitarian duties and altruistic virtues
84 INTRODUCTION
The Principle of non-violence which forms
the crux of Gandhian thought was also advocated
by Patafijali in his yoga-satra, which did influence
Gandhi. Patafijali reveals the meaning of non-
violence in one of the Sttras by declaring that
hatred disappears as soon as non-violence reaches
perfection in the yogi. It takes the form of
positive love for all creation.® Patafijali whose
Yogasitra Gandhi studied in 1903 at' Johannesburg
included ahimsa in his pafica yamas, t.e., the five
cardinal disciplines which have since had the pride
of place in the Hindu technique of spiritual
progress. Patafijali lays down that ahimsa is not
merely a negative doctrine in the sense of avoid-
ance of violence; it also involves goodwill towards
all creatures. Referring to the five cardinal vows
of Patafijali, Gandhi says, ‘It is not possible to
isolate any of these in practice. It may be
posited in the case of Truth, because it really
includes the other four.! Gandhi elaborated
these yamas and made them an integral part of the
discipline of the satyagrahi which we shall examine
later.
Vaisnavism, the family religion, was the earliest

influence on Gandhi during his boyhood days.
The Vaisnaya doctrine of ahimsad and love can,
therefore, be regarded as the basis of his philo-
90. ahitisa pratistayam tat sannidhau vairatyagah, Pataji-

jali Yoga-Siura, Sadhana Pada 35.
91. D.G. Tendulkar, Mahatma, Vol. VIL, 1962, p. 292.

EARLY GLIMMERINGS:-& INFLUENCES 85
sophy of ahimsa. As he grew up; other influences

clarified his faith and confirmed him in his deep-
rooted. conviction. Narasimha Mehta, the friend
of the ‘untouchables’ and composer of Gandhi’s
favourite hymn—Vaishnava Jana to Tene Kahiye
(He is the true Vaishnava etc.), which he had
sung to Gandhi at every important occasion in his
life, inspired him to some extent. But Gandhi did
not believe in narrow sectarianism. In fact, his
implicit faith in Truth as God had deeper roots in
his life than his belief in any sect. Gandhi wrote:
‘That hymn—‘ Vaishnava Jana to Tene Kahiye’ is
enough to sustain me, even if I were to forget the
Bhagavadgita. To tell you the truth, however,
there is one thing which is even simpler, but which
may possibly be difficult for you to understand.
But that has been my pole star all along during
life’s journey—the conviction that Trnth is God
and untruth a denial of Him.” After reading
Light of Asia, he declared that the life
Arnold’s
was similar to that of Buddha. He
of Jesus
‘Look at Gautama’s compassion: It
observed: to
confined to mankind, it was extended
was not
the
all living beings.”*? Thus Gandhi inherited
of Buddhism and Vaisnavis m.
essential principle
his stay in England, Gandhi was
During
infl uenc ed by the writings of the theo-
greatly
had the privilege of being
sophists. Gandhi
India, 40-12-1925, pp. 431 &
92, M. K. Gandhi, Young
்‌
: 433.
Tolstoy and Gandhi, op. cit. p. 34.
93. Kalidas Nag,
86 INTRODUCTION
introduced not only to Madame Blavatsky (whose

Key to Theosophy he read) but also to Bernard
Shaw’s friend Mrs. Annie Besant in London. The
Key to Theosophy, Gandhi wrote: ‘stimulate d in
me the desire to read books on Hinduism and
disabused me of the notion fostered by the mission-
aries that Hinduism was rife with superstition.
Gandhi refused to join Britain’s new theosophist
movement, but he rejoined in Mrs. Besant’s
renunciation and Godliness. Nevertheless, Mrs.
Besant’s ‘How I became a Theosophist’ interested
him.
A visit to a German Trappist monastery near

Durban in 1895 showed him the principles of
renunciation, humility and racial respect in prac-
tice. So did his conversations with Quakers and
missionaries. To the Quakers pacifism and non-
resistance have for their basis the fundamental
belief that each man’s life is guided by an inner
light which transcends even the Bible and which
rules out my right to constrain men.’ The
Gospel of Quakers is to spiritualise politics, freeing
it of all violence and conducting the state on
non-violent lines. But this movement is entirely
different from Gandhian conception of Satydgraha.
A full account of the birth of Satydgrdha was given
by Gandhi himself in the 12th Chapter of his book
Satydgraha in South Africa. He has discussed
94, Ibid., p. 25.

95. A. C.F. Deales, History of Peace, p. 34,
therein the question of the origin of the idea of

Passive Resistance through the activities of the
Quakers, the Non-conformists, the Suffragettes,
etc. In many such cases Gandhi detected devia-
tions from strict non-violence. Only in the case
of Jesus Christ he accepted his resistance as the
purest form of Satydgraha ‘whose example is few
and far between in History.’
Gandhi’s attitude to Christianity is different

to judge. It has been said that Gandhi “embraced
Christ but rejected Christianity.” For Jesus he
had abundant reverance, but many aspects of
Christianity left him uneasy. ‘Much of what
passes as Christianity,’ he once wrote, ‘is a negation
of the Sermon on the Mount....Paul was not a Jew.
He was a Greek, had an oratorical mind, and he
distorted Jesus. Christ possessed a great force—
the Love force—Christianity became disfigured
when it came to the West. It became the religion
of kings.’%7 Nevertheless, Gandhi saw the positive
side of the Christian faith in England and renewed
his study of the Bible. ‘Jesus played a great part
in my life,’ he said many years later, ‘ unconsci-
ously how much, I do not know; consciously how
much, I do know. When I began to read the
Sermon on the Mount, I felt the beauty of it. I
cannot say that it is singular, or that it is not to
be found in other religions. But the presentation
96, Louis Fischer, The Life of Mahatma Gandhi, op- cit.,

p. 131.
97. Ibid., p. 132.
56 INTRODUCTION
is unique. So many of my words are chosen from

the Bible. In my talks I cannot avoid reference
to the Bible;I am unable to speak without
reference to it.% Gandhi wrote: ‘Though I
cannot claim to bea Christian in the sectarian
sense, the example of Jesus’ suffering is a factor in
the composition of my undying faith in non-
violence which rules all my actions, worldly and
temporal.” Dr. Stanley Jones says of Gandhi
‘One of the most Christ like men in history was
not called a Christian at all.7!° The Sermon on
the Mount especially created an indelible impres-
sion on his mind. Gandhi’s detachment from
worldly possessions, non-violence, and universal
love owe much to this exalted scripture. The life
and character of Gandhi is more or less similar to
Jesus. The martyrdom of Gandhi was due to his
preaching liberalism in religion and universalism in
love. The powerful and eternal teaching of Jesus
consists in suffering death in following the righteous
path. Satydgraha is the practical application of
the above teachings by Gandhi.
As for Islam, Gandhi declared that in his view,

‘the point of brotherhood is manifested in no other
religion as clearly asin Islam.’ Asa student in
98. Quoted from Gandhiji’s correspondence with Govern-

ment, by C.S. Shukla: Gandhi’s view of life, p. 189,
99. M.K. Gandhi, Harijan, 7-1-1939, p. 417.
100. S.K. George, Gandhiji’s Challenge to Christianity,
N. P. H, Abmedabad, 1947.
England, Gandhi has read the chapter ‘The Heroas
a Prophet’ in Carlyle’s ‘Heroes and Hero-worship’
and learnt of the Prophet’s greatness and bravery
and austere living. He also read Sale’s translation
of the Koran in the early years of his stay in South
Africa. He was encouraged to find that in moments
of despair and confusion Mohammad also fasted
and prayed. Mohammad’s practical instinct as a
reformer and his monotheism has been a ‘constant
strength and support to Gandhi.’ At his prayer
meetings, verses from the Qurdn were invariably
chanted along with those from the Gité and none
objected. This was a lesson in tolerance and
discipline. Can there be a better follower of
Prophet and Jesus than Gandhi? According to
him the chief contribution of Islam has been the
brotherhood of man. The common muslim saluta-
tion As-Salamalai Kum means ‘peace be on you.’
“Many Musalmans’, wrote Gandhi, ‘will not even
allow me to say that Islam, as the word implies, is
unadulterated peace. My reading of the Koran
has convinced me that the basis of Islam is not
violence.” Gandhi regards Christianity, Bud-
dhism, Islam and Hinduism, as religions of peace.
Truly, Gandhi practised the essential principles of
world religions in his daily life and showed the
path of peace to humanity at large. The neo-
Hinduism of Gandhi has a synthetic unity of these
religions. He wrote: ‘My young mind tried to
101. C.F. Andrew, Mahatma Gandhi's Idea, pp. 63-64.

102. M.K. Gandhi, Harijan, 12-11-1938, ற. 327.
90 INTRODUCTION
unify the teachings of the Gitd, the Light of Asia
and the Sermon on the Mount........ Tread the Chap-
ter on the Hero as a Prophet (Mohammad) and
learnt of the Prophet’s greatness and bravery and
austere living.”!©3 Thus Gandhi shows remarkable
catholicity and sympathetic and reverential attitude
towards all religions of the world. His goal of life
was to regenerate moral and social values in the
Indian masses, and through them, in the world at
large. In Gandhian teachings we find religion and
ethics always go together. He wrote: ‘There is
no such thing as religion over-riding morality.’
In fact he spiritualised politics by his firm religious
convictions which were universal in its nature.
Gandhi imbibed the moral teachings of pro-
phets of Asia, viz., Rama, Buddha, Mahavira,
Moses, Jesus, Zoroaster, Confucius, Nanak, Viveki-
nanda, and other prophets, and was content not
merely with an inward realization of the moral
precepts but wanted to make them dynamic. The
revival of the ancient teachings by Gandhi and
incorporating them in his philosophy of Sarvodaya
is perhaps his greatest contribution to world’
‘thought.
_ To sum up, Gandhi is the child of Indian
Renaissance. Schopenhaur regarded Buddha and
Christ as the ideal men of history because they
had renounced home life and taught abnegation.
103. Ibid., p. 328,

104. M. K. Gandhi, Young India, 24-11-192}, p. 385.
Oswald Spengler, on the other hand, regarded fact
and power as more significant elements in history
than contemplation and truth. But Gandhi, as
one of the epoch-making figures in India, combined
both moral idealism and political success. He is
a unique figure because of the simple and straight-
forward views which he preached and practised
without swerving from truth at every moment
during his long career as a social reformer, a poli-
tical teacher, a saint, a true lover of humanity and
an apostle of non-violence, truth, love, goodness
and peace.
The entire life of Gandhi was an experiment

with truth, and the experiment ultimately proved
the victory of truth over untruth, of love over
hatred and violence. Anyone who had closely
followed the career of Gandhi from the time of his
espousing the cause of the Indians in South Africa
till the day of his tragic assassination at the hands
of his own countrymen and of his own faith will
be struck by certain qualities whose combination
went to make him tower like Mount Everest above
his greatest contemporaries in India and abroad.
If there was in him a great deal of the saint, there
was also in him many of the simple traits of the
peasant and the common man.
Gandhi’s autobiography, The Story of My

Experiments with Truth, that extraordinary human
document, is a record of his individual transforma-
tion from an ordinary man into an apostle of truth.
92 INTRODUCTION
In his boyhood he read a play Sravana - pitrbhakti-

nataka. He also saw it enacted. The play created
an everlasting impression on his mind. ‘Here is
an example for you to copy’ he said to himself. He
also saw the play ‘HariScandra.’ This play set him
on a career of seeking truth.
There was a deep religious background in his
life which can be traced to the influence of his
mother Putli Bai, whom he adored. Reciting
Bagavadgita, reading aloud verses from the great
Ramayana and constant reciting of the hymn by
the saint poet Narasimha Mehta ‘Vaisnav janato’
led Gandhi to the conviction that morality was the
basis of things and truth was the substance of all
“morality.
Gandhi had none of the sanctions which

position, power and wealth give; the sanction he
possessed proceeded from his nearness to God and
it was his vision of a new world living in truth and
non-violence, Rdmardjya, which gave him an
authority over the hearts of men. The message of
the Lord in the Gitd that he will take birth again
and again to destroy adharma and_ re-establish
dharma imparts a new vitality in every age.’
The Vasudeva Mahatmya in the Skanda Purana
looks forward to the ‘Kingdom of Dharma,’ which
105. paritranaya sadhunam

vinasaya ca duskytam
dharmasamsthapanarthaya
sambhavami yuge-yuge—Gita, iv, 8.
God will re-establish in his incarnation of Kalki.
In short, the word Sarvodaya epitomises his whole
social philosophy which aims at the attainment of
mental prosperity (abhyudaya) and spiritual
realization (nishreyasa).
Gandhi’s call to each and everyone is a call for

incessant effort and for comprehensive and integral
developments of body, mind and soul. His whole
life was an experiment in evoking this energy in his
individual life, a mighty effort to weld thought,
word and deed in unity. ‘manasyekam, vachasyekam,
karmanyekam, mahatmanam’ was not a copy-book
maxim; it was a code to be inexorably followed.
Gandhi’s achievements, great though they were,
were only a partial expression of this effort.
_ The philosophy of Sarvodaya and the problem

of political sovereignty which we shall attempt to
examine is based on the mystical intuitions and
socio-political experiences of Gandhi in particular
and other Sarvodaya thinkers in general. In his
long life Gandhi attempted the synthesis of the
ideas of Vedanta, Buddhism, Jainism, Christianity,
and the teachings of Prophets like Tulasidas,
Tolstoy, Thoreau and national leaders of the
Indian Renaissance movement. The philosophy
of Sarvodaya takes up the Gandhian synthesis and
tries to work out the implications of their ideas at
more critical and analytical levels. It has tried
to incorporate some ideas from the Western
socialist and political philosophers. The concept
of sovereignty, its location in a state according
94 INTRODUCTION
to Gandhian thought, will be dealt with in detail in
the second part of the thesis. If Gandhism was
mainly a synthesis of moral intuitions and
experiences, the Sarvodaya philosophy tries to build
a synthesis of the theoretical abstractions and
political and economic generalizations. Gandhi
wanted the subordination of political and social
consideration to moral consideration. Hence only
a comprehensive theoretical enquiry can do full
justice to Gandhian thought. If this law of Moral
Causation which is universal and ineluctable, is
worked with a will; man and his environment in
this life and the future will be changed so as to
secure ‘Sarvodaya’—the highest good for all.
Gandhi’s living philosophy of non-violence, based
on truth, love, justice and equality, was perhaps
’ the greatest human attempt made in recent times
to advance the Kingdom of Heaven on this finite
earth—Ramardjya of his vision.
The whole .of this background regarding

Gandhi has to be borne in mind when we consider
his views, his thoughts and his action in life, with
special reference to ‘Sarvodaya’, which we shall
examine presently.
D
SARVODAYA AND UTILITARIANISM

Scholars from different disciplines have during
the last century and a half produced a voluminous
literature concerned with the description, interpre-
tation, and comparison of political ideologies. This
awareness of the contemporary anxieties which
beset men, some of them fairly basic the world over
in a revolutionary age of technological and social
changes, helped to sustain systematic attempts
to understand human action in determinate envi-
ronmental situations. Concern over ideologies have
reflected a more general judgment than any
adequate understanding of man requiresa thorough
knowledge of the social and historical situations
which exist in specific places and periods. As a
matter of historical fact, the quest after knowledge
of society has sometimes affected even philosophi-
cal activity. The emphasis has been concentrated
on practical knowledge rather than on imaginative
speculation unsupported, and often unsupportable,
by clearly marked evidence. Action has become
more central than reflection. Scientific and histori-
cal studies of political issues tend to show how
extensively the members of a group often share the
same, or at least similar opinions about a host of
issues. These opinions form a cluster, pattern, or
style of ideas which depend on one another, ‘hang
togother’ in the associational if not necessarily in
96 INTRODUCTION
a logical manner. These clusters of ideas influence

the action of members of a group. To any instance
of such clusters of ideas scholars apply the term
“‘ideology’—a concrete way of thinking which
marks off one social group from another. Professor
Louis Wirth has thus defined ideologies as those
‘complexes of ideas which direct activity towards
the maintenance of the existing order.!° Professor
Karl Mannheim emphasizes the ideological charac-
ter of political activity in the following way.
‘The concept “‘ideology’’ reflects the one dis-
covery which emerged from political conflict,
namely, that ruling groups can in their thinking
become so intensively interest-bound to a situation
that they are simply no longer able to see certain
facts which would undermine their sense of domi-
nation. There is implicit in the word “ideology”
the insight that in certain situations the collective
unconscious of certain groups obscures the real
condition of society both to itself and to others
and thereby stabilizes it.’107
Various meanings are assigned to the word
‘ideology’. We can get at them best by recalling
that people hold beliefs about the matters of both
fact and value. They believe that certain state-
ments or propositions are true descriptions of
reality, and they believe that certain other propo-
106. Karl Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia, Harcourt,

New York, 1951, Preface, p. xxiii.
107. Ibid., p. 36.
SARVODAYA & UTILITARIANISM 97
sitions are true descriptions of reality, and they
believe that certain other propositions indicate
what is good or right. They entertain beliefs
about what is and what ought to be. Beliefs that
are exclusively matters of fact are not termed
ideological, which means that an ideology is never
purely descriptive. Beliefs about questions of
value must be involved before an ideology is said
to exist. This means that ideologies are always
normative, at least in part; they reflect or suggest
conceptions of what ought to be.
Karl Mannheim has modified and added to

the above conception of an ideology. His basic
point is that beliefs are ‘rational’, ie., related
to
the situation of the observer. What people think,
he holds, is socially determined. Their conception
of their interests is shaped by their experience in
society, and inturn, they view social issues in
terms of their interests. Their beliefs, i.e, their
ideologies, are ‘thus reflections of their interests,
and are not to be treated as true.
According to Mannheim, there are both

‘particular’ and ‘total’ conceptions of ideology.
Persons gain a ‘particular conception when they
become aware of ‘relational’ nature of the ideology
of their political opponents. The ‘particular’
conception, however, is a step toward a ‘total’
conception. Under the latter, all ideologies,
including one’s own, are recognized to be reflec-
tions of interests in terms of a given situation.
98 INTRODUCTION
Once a ‘total’ conception of ideology has been
gtasped, according to Mannheim, it ‘develops into
the sociology of knowledge.’ That is, ‘knowledge
is from the beginning a co-operative process of
group life, in which everyone unfolds his knowledge
within the framework of a common fate, a common
activity, and the overcoming of common difficulties
(in which, however, each has a different share.)’108
The control of the collective unconscious thus is
seen as a problem of our age. Mannheim granted
that ‘the ultimate criterion of truth or. falsity is to
be found in the investigation of the object.” But
he held that ‘the examination of the object is not
an isolated act; it takes place in a context which is
coloured by values and collective unconsciousn
ess,
volitional impulses.” Thus all beliefs, all know-
ledge, are ideological and relational, with universal
agreement unobtainable.
Gustav Bergmann offers a definition that reflects

a different point of view. He distinguishes between
fact and value, and suggests that the propositions
in which people believe compromise a ‘rationale?
as long as the distinction is understood and
maintained. An individual proposition or state-
ment is to be labelled ‘ideological’, however,
when
“a value judgment is disguised as or mistaken
for,
a statement of fact.’ And a ‘rationale’ becomes
an
ideology when it ‘contains ideological statements
108. Ibid., p. 26.

109. Ibid., p. 49.
in logically crucial places. No matter which
definition of ideology is employed, ideological
explanation has much in common with explanation
in terms of reasons. Ideological beliefs provide
reasons for action, with accompanying rules, reasons
and doctrines. When they comprise an ideology,
they are not haphazard, scattered, and inchoate
but fit together in a system—a coherent whole.
Talcott Parsons who has been hailed by his

followers as a contemporary emperor of sociology,
holds the view that ‘an ideology isa system of
beliefs, held in common by the members of a
collectivity, i.e., a society, ar a sub-collectivity of
one-including a movement deviant from the main
culture of the society—a system of ideas which is
oriented to the evaluative integration of the
collectivity, by interpretation of the empirical
nature of the collectivity and of the situation in
which it is placed, the proces by which it has
developed to its given state, the goals to which its
members are collectively oriented and their relation
to the future course of events,’!1
In ordinary usage, ‘ideology’ refers to:
1. The body of doctrine, myth and symbols
of a social movement, institution, class,
or large group.
2. Such a body of doctrine, efc., with
reference to some political and cultural
- 110. Talcott Parsons, The Social System, The Free Press

of Glencoe, London, 1964, p. 349.
100 INTRODUCTION
plan, as that of Fascism, along with the
devices for putting it into operation.
3. Philos. (a) the science of ideas. (b) a
system which derives ideas exclusively
from sensation.
4. Theorizing of a visionary or unpractical
nature.
To relate these definitions to the present
discussion, it is only necessary to distinguish their
several elements. As Professor Reinhard Bendix
observes: ‘In the socio-political and philosophical
realms, the definitions refer ideas back to a non-'
ideational basis, whether it be a social movement,
an institution, a class, or a physiological and
psychological substratum called ‘“‘sensation.”............
Second, the definitions specify that doctrine, myth,
symbol or theory is oriented to the future, in the
sense that it embodies a political or cultural plan
of action..........., Lastly, the definition refers to
theorizing as visionary or impractical thus raising
a question about the use of theories......... These
three aspects together—the reductionist tendency
in the analysis of ideas; plans of action for man
and society, including the pursuit of knowledge for
the sake of human progress; and the invidious
contrast between realism and illusion-—-are the
constituent elements of ideology.7!!!
111. Reinhard Bendix, The Age of Ideology: Persist

ent
and Changing, in ‘Ideology and Discontent’,
edited
by David E. Apter, The Free Press of
Glencoe,
London, 1964, pp. 296-297,
As contrasted with ideological thinking the
Utopian mind, observes Professor Mannheim, is
‘incongruous with the state of reality within which
it occurs.” The word ‘Utopia’ was coined by
Thomas More. The words ‘Utopia’ and ‘Utopian’,
have been put to many uses besides the one
suggested by More in his book ‘Utopia’ published
in 1516. Common to all uses is reference to cither
the imaginary or the ideal or to both. Almost any
kind of idealistic thought—-a view of moral life,
a statement of fundamental political principles,
any revolutionary reform —may be dubbed as
‘Utopia’. Indeed, the use of this word ‘Utopia’
is often symptomatic of the prevailing attitudes
towards social change in general. A Utopian state
is one that seems to be unrealizable only from the
point of a view of social order which is already in
existence. The four types of Utopian thinking are:
orgiastic, liberal-humanitarian, conservative, and
socialist-communist. The organic thought conceives
of a catastrophic change that will bring in a millen-
nium. It represents a closed system of thought.
The liberal-humanitarian ‘is characterized by a
positive acceptance of culture and the giving of an
ethical tone to human affairs.’ Conservative Utopian
thought suggests a new order feasible ‘here and
now’. The Socialist-communist utopian would
‘radicalize the liberal utopia’ and yet guard itself
against the anarchistic elements in its own structure.
At this stage an attempt may be made at least
for purpose of analysis to distinguish theory from
ideology. “Following Professor Andrew Hacker,
702. ' INTRODUCTION
we may distinguish between theory and ideology as
follows:
Theory Ideology
Philosophy: A dis- Philosophy: A ratio-
interested search for the nalization for current
principle of the good or future political and
state and good society. 80018] arrangements.
Science: A disinte- Science: A distorted
rested search for know- description or explana-
ledge of political and tion of political and
social reality. social reality.!12
To sum up, it is one of the minor ironies of

modern intellectual thought that the term ‘ideo-
logy’ has itself become thoroughly ideologized.
A concept that once meant a collection of political
ideas, ideals and proposals, perhaps somewhat
intellectualistic and impractical but at any rate
idealistic, has now become, to quote Webster, ‘the
integrated assertions, theories, and aims consti-
tuting a politico-social program, often with an-
implication of factitious propagandizing; as
Fascism was altered in Germany to fit the Nazi
ideology’."3 It is of singular interest to note in
this connection that almost universally now the
112. Andrew Hacker, Political Theory: Philosophy,

Ideology, Science, The Macmillan Company, New
York, 1961, pp. 4-8.
113. Quoted by Clifford Geertz; Ideology and Discontent,
edited by David E. Apter, London, 1964, p. 47,
familiar paradigm applies: ‘I have a_ social
philosophy; you have political opinions; he has an
ideology.’ Professor David Braybrooke observes:
‘Ideology did not begin as a term of abuse, and in
current usage it often so far escapes any implica-
tions of expose or denunciation that it embraces any
subjectively coherent set of political beliefs.’!!4
The present era is marked by deliberate attempts
to formulate social values and ideals and
the political ends and means which they cherish.
In the broad literate world of today, ideologies or
‘isms’ characterize all dynamic societies. Current
ideologies represent social philosophies in support
of some ‘way of life’ conceived of as ideal. Each
ideology has its own version of the ideal relation-
ship between the individual and the society, of the
best government, of the proper balance between
individual liberty and the general welfare, and of
all the evils and dangers in opposing ideologies.
It might be asked: under what category does

Sarvodaya fit in? Is ita theory or an ideal or
ideology or a utopia? It goes without saying that
Gandhi cannot be considered as a theorist because
he himself confessed in his autobiography that he
did not construct any system of thought. As such,
he was not a theorist as used in the Western sense.
He was not a conceptualist either. In a way,
114, David Braybrooke on /deology, in The Encyclo-

pedia of Philosophy, edited by Paul Edwards, The
Macmillan Company & The Free Press, New York,
- 1967, Vol. IV, p. 124.
104 INTRODUCTION
Gandhian thought may be looked upon both as an
ideal as well as an ideology. Was Gandhi then an
idealist? It is obvious that Gandhi called himself
a ‘practical idealist’. It should be noted that
every man who does anything in the world works
by virtue of an idea and in the force given to him
by ideals, either his own or other’s ideals, which
he may or may not recognise but in whose absence
nevertheless he would be impotent to move a
single step. There is a difference between the
fanatic of an idea and the true idealist: the former
is simply the materialistic, executive man possessed
by the ideas of another, not himself the possessor
of it; he is haunted in his will and driven by the
force of the idea, not really illumined by its light.
A true idealist is not the servant of the letter or
the form, it is the idea which he loves and the
spirit behind the idea which he serves. The
greatest men of action who are endowed by nature
with the most extraordinary force of accomplish-
ment owe it to the combination in them of active
power with an immense drift of originative thought
devoted to practical realization. Gandhi and
Vinoba are examples of illustrious men of action.
These great personalities contain in themselves the
combination which humanity most needs; not the
men of action driven by ideas, the pragmatist
stirred by half-conscious exaltation from the
idealistic, almost the mystic side of the nature,
but
the seers who are able to execute this vision
in the
higher terms of human power and knowledge.
SARVODAYA & UTILITARIANISM — 105
The product of Gandhian thought is Sarvodaya.
Sarvodaya ideology is considered as a creative
blend of all humanistic and altruistic tendencies of
the Age. It can, however, be interpreted in terms
of an integrated social philosophy in the age of
- Crisis. Sarvodaya is not a passive resistance to eyil
as much as positive assimilation of good: It is a
creative synthesis of individual happiness and
social good. It is indeed considered as the
integrated social philosophy which redeems ‘the
reform of the individual as the reform of the
society’. It is considered as a synthetic philosophy
of life because it includes in its scope all known
philosophies both human and social. All other
absolute philosophies are its parts. They exist as
infinitesimals. The summing up of an infinite
members of these infinitesimals is ordinarily viewed
as the practical aim of Sarvodaya. However, the
true ideal of Sarvodaya is not mere summation or
integration of the diverse virtues, but their inherent
application towards the service of man to become
real man. All humanistic and altruistic tendencies
are however related to Sarvodaya as much as parts
are related to their wholes. The Sarvodaya integra-
tion is a dynamic process and so it consists in the
development of more and more perfect forms.
Sarvodaya is a pursuit after varndsrama dharmas
which covers all aspects of life. On the otherhand
abhyudaya is a life after lower human ideals and
tank and riches. The Gandhian ideology of
Sarvodaya refuses to be satisfied with the progress
and well-being only of a class ora nation. It
4a
106 INTRODUCTION
advocates the good or (ita), and the emancipation

of all living beings or sarvabhitahita in the language
of the Gita.
The Gandhian ideology is based on the concep-

tion of the unity of ail beings and universal love.
Hence it recognizes a perpetual fight against
untruth and cruelty to human beings and animals.
It has its roots in the famous mantra of the Yajur-
yeda: ISavasyam idam sarvam—the entire universe
is permeated by the supreme omnipresent’ God.
This idealistic conception of the spiritual unity of
existence and the immanance of the divine absolute
in all beings necessarily implies the moral values of
truth, non-violence and justice. It stresses universal
love as the only law of life and seeks to replace
individual egoism by common good through right
means. To Gandhi the means is as important as
the end we seek for. ‘As the means, so the end’,
says Gandhi. The entire substance of Gandhian
philosophy is derived from the principle of spiritual
unity which cannot be realized by divisive means.
As a corollary Gandhi insists that to achieve the
greatest good of all, means must be as pure as the
end, and that there must be no dual code of ethics
for individual and group conduct.
The basis of Sarvodaya being spiritual, the

means for achieving Sarvodaya social order is also
spiritual and philosophy such as this implies a
living faith in the One that pervades all. Gandhi
wanted that men should affirm the higher values
within the social and political order and, in the

process reshape society and state. The objective
of man’s life should be in pursuit of truth which is
the service of God who is Truth. The over-all
transformation of the entire race of mankind at all
levels of human existence is the goal of Sarvodaya
ideology.
Thus we find that Gandhi was an idealist who

believed in the ever-present reality of God. His
approach to the formation of political generaliza-
tion is both deductive and empirical. He deduces
certain morals, social and political, from his
metaphysical assumptions. He firmly believes in
metaphysical and ethical idealism and hence he
accepts the sanctity of moral technics in politics.
His approach is also empirical because his political
and social propositions are based upon his own
observation and experiences. He did not cast his
views in clear-cut rigid logical categories but made
suggestions to solve immediate problems.
Gandhi, however, was not a mere philosopher

or Utopian and his ideas did not grow out of
context with the great national struggle which he
led for about thirty years. In understanding
Gandhian political thought, one must, therefore,
understand these two different influences at work-
one, of the moral and ethical urge for creating a
better world and the other, the practical needs of
freeing India. In Gandhi’s political thought, the
philosophy of an idealist and the programme of a
108 INTRODUCTION
realist tend to merge. And the outcome of this

rich synthesis is the philosophy of Sarvodaya.
The word ‘Sarvodaya’ is a compound Samskrit

word comprising ‘sarva’ (all) and ‘udaya’ (rising)—
meaning all-round well-being or welfare of all.
This ‘ali’ includes all living beings. There was an
explicit consciousness on the part of the Vedic rsis
about the all-inclusive nature of well-being. The
well-being of even quadrupeds along with bipeds is
quoted in the Vedic prayers.’!!5 Hence there is always
an emphasis on ‘We’ instead of ‘T.!6 The earnest
desire for realization of final contendness for the
whole of creation has been the characteristic of
spiritual leaders throughout the Upanisadic period.
The Bhagavad Gita points out that a person who
considers all living creatures equal to his own self
is the seer.”!!7 Coleridge has said in the same
strain: ,
* He prayeth well who loveth well
Both man and bird and beast’
The idea embodied in the concept of Sarvo-

daya, though not the word, is found in the follow-
ing memorable prayer oft repeated by Hindu saints
115. Sam no astu dvipade Sant no astu catuspade.

116. vayarit syama patayo rayinam.
117. sarvabhitastham atmanam
sarvabhitani ca’ tmani.
iksate yogayuktatma
sarvatra samadarsanah.—Gilta, vi, 29.
and sages from time immemorial.
Sarvepi sukhinah santu, sarve santu
niramayah
sarve bhadrani pasyantu ma kascit
duhkhamdapnuyat.
That the ‘rise or welfare of all’ should be the

objective of one’s activity is an ancient Indian
message taught to us by spiritual thinkers since the
dawn of conscious aspirations. In fact, Gandhi
has borrowed the word ‘Sarvodaya’ from a Jaina
scripture written by Acarya Samantabhadra who
lived about two thousand years ago. The Jaina
Acarya while praising the godly spiritual leader of
the Jains observed:
‘ sarvapadam antakaram nirantam
sarvodayam tithamidam tavaiva’
“Your’s are the sacred waters of the well-being of
all that end the miseries for all times.”'® It is
too much on the part of D. Mackenzie Brown to
emphasise that Gandhi’s Sarvodaya concept,
prompted by Vinoba through his Bhoodan move-
ment is of Western origin’, though he later on
admits that ‘in its emphasis on universal welfare it
has an integral character, consistent with tradi-
tional ideas.”!!9
118. Sankara Rao Deo—Sarvodaya Sastra (in Hindi), p. 3-
119. Mackenzie Brown: Traditions of Leadership and
Political Institutions in India’, Park and Tinker,
Princeton, New Jersey, 1959, p. 11.
270 INTRODUCTION
The term Sarva (all) is one of the names of God

quoted in Visnusahasranaéma.! While emphasizing
the social aspect of religion, the Bhagavad-Gitd
twice refers to holy men as ‘advesta sarvabhitandim
maitrah karuna eva ca’, that is those ‘who re-joice
in the welfare of all living beings (sarvabhitahite
ratah), The wise men, according to the Gita, are not
partial to the good and just tothe virtuous alone;
they consider all creation with the same respectful
outlook, irrespective of moral and natural distinc-
tion.”! Further, self-suffering for the welfare of
of ali should be the goal of life. It is stated that
Gautama the Buddha after achieving enlighten-
ment willingly undertook the burden of everyone’s
suffering in order to bring relief to the world. The
problem of misery arises due to the false disfinc-
tions of ‘mine’ and ‘thine’. Unless and until the
boundary between ‘J’ and the ‘World’ breaks down
and the well-being of the individual is seen to be
inextricably connected with the well-being of all,
there can be no end to misery in this world.
To an individual living in a society, his neigh-
bour is the representative of mankind. Hence the
reason why the Bible Commands—‘Thou shalt love
thy neighbour as thyself.”!” Thus love is the foun-
tain of activities that spring out for the betterment
120. ‘ sarvassarva Sivasthanuh bhitadirnidhirarvyayah,

Verse 17.
121. Suni caiva Svapake c@ panditah samadarsinah, V, 18.
122. St. Mark, 12.

of all leading on to the universal brotherhood.
The law of love and respect for life if courageously
practised is bound to lead to the elevation of the
accent, quality and character of politics and civili-
zation. Gandhi agrees in many respects with the
Christian conception of love or charity. Mutual
trust and mutual love are no trust and no love.
The real love is to love them that hate you, to love
your neighbour even though you distrust him.’!3
The New Testament expresses a similar attitude: ‘if
you love them that love you, what reward shall you
have?! Love which lies on response only is
passive, it does not urge one to moral effort. But
active love, so to speak, makes new positive rela-
tions. Gandhi says like a Christian that ‘love never
claims, it ever gives. Love ever suffers, never
revenges itself."5 Thus we find that all the great
religions of the world can be said to be echoing
the ideas of universal love which is the central
teaching of Sarvodaya. Sdnti Parva gives clear
expression to this equal regard for friend and foe,
advising one to cultivate ahimsd towards all crea-
tures and compassion for all, and do good to all
(sarvabhitahita). One is then expected to cultivate
non-enmity, forgivenness, goodwill towards friend
123. Gandhi, Non-violence in Peace and War, Volume Ul,

N. P. H, Ahmedabad,p. 42.
124. St. Matthew, 5, 46-47.
125. Gandhi, My Religion, p. 50 (Young India, 9, 7-25,
ற. 240). cf. St. Luke 6, 27, St. Matthew, 19.19
and 23.29).
172 INTRODUCTION
and foe, friendship for all, and equal treatment of

311,126
Let us now consider the implications of the
second component ‘Udaya’ which means ‘rising’ or
“reaching one’s aim’. It implies all-round well-
being or perfection. An integrated spiritual out-
Jook and a ceaseless endeavour to convert every
human activity into a means for spiritual elevation,
is the key to the life and teachings of Gandhi.
While it is an undeniable fact that spiritual perfec-
tion is the goal, it should be recognized that the
necessities of existence should be made available
to everyone. According to Gandhi, non-violence
implies social, economic and political non-exploita-
tion of sentient creatures for the benefit of others.
Gandhi refers to this by saying that a non-violent
activity is such as involves no exploitation.
Thus, economic and social reforms, communal

harmony, political independence, religion, were all
to him of a-piece and spiritual in essence, since
they were means for the realization of the basic
and fundamental human aspiration to rise above
himself and establish the truth of a higher kind of
human existence based on non-exploitation, love,
harmony, mutual co-operation and above alt
friendly relationship. There was no division in his
mind between individual and social salvation. In
fact, individual salvation lay only in the endeavour
126. Santi Parva, 124, 87,

to social salvation through means pure, righteous,
truthful and non-violent. His identification with
the poorest of the poor and the humblest of the
humble was the corollary to his intense and
earnest endeavour for social salvation at all levels
and in all fields. Gandhi observes: ‘The Swaraj
of my dream is the poor man’s swaraj. The
necessaries of life should be enjoyed by you in
common with those enjoyed by the princess and
the monied-man... I have not the slightest doubt
that swaraj is not purna-swardj until these amenities
are guaranteed to you under it.”!?”7 ‘My notion of
purna-swardj is not isolated independence but
healthy and dignified interdependence......... T believe
in the eternal Truth of Sic utere tuo ut alienum non
loedus (use thy own property so as not to injure
thy neighbour).!28
‘Swaraj’ and ‘ Swadeshi’ are words often used
by Gandhi to explain his economic and political
ideas. These two terms express certain ideas
which in their spiritual meaning reach right back
to early Indian thought. In the Chdndogya
Upanisad it is stated that he who finds delight in
the Atman, who finds bliss in the Atman, is
autonomous (svarat) and has unlimited freedom
in all worlds.’ Here the word ‘swaraj’ is to
connote ‘one who rules himself? and is therefore
127. Young India, 26-3-1931, p. 46.

128. Ibid., p. 51.
129. Chandogya Upanisad, 7.25.2.
il4 INTRODUCTION
spiritually free. The spiritual tradition of ‘swaraj’
can be further explained by the assertion of the
Bhagavad Gita, that one should lift oneself by one’s
own efforts (Gtmana) and should not degrade
oneself.30 §.K. Maitra commenting on this basic
ideal observes: ‘Hindu morality primarily aimed
at the autonomy of the individuals, i.e., at making
him self-sufficient and self-dependent and free from
ali external bonds, physical and social.’13!
Gandhi was imbued with this tradition of spiri-

tual swaraj, but he applied it to secular condition
in a unique way. His social and economic objective
of Sarvodaya, the good of all, was the outcome of
his spiritual outlook in life. His ethics, his broad-
based religious outlook, his humanism, his ideas
about decentralised economy and diffusion of
political power are all based on his philosophy of
life indicated above. It must be remembered that
Gandhi looked upon his own life as a spiritual
adventure and would not tolerate any compart-
mental outlook of his different activities. It was
his inner spiritual development which reflected
itself in ali his actions. Spirituality meant the
experience of identity with the truth of life and
existence, with the Creator and his creation.
Identity means love which must express itself in
selfless service and sacrifice for the uplift of all.
130. Bhagavad Gita, VI, 5.
131. §.K. Maitra: The Ethics of the Hindus, 1% Ed., p. 8-

In short, it can be said that the word ‘Sarvo-
daya’ epitomises Gandhi’s whole social philosophy
which aims at the attainment of both abhyudaya
(material prosperity) and nisreyasa (spiritual
realization).
The term utilitarianism, designating a philo-

sophical theory in ethics and politics, has played a
conspicuous part in English ethics since the time of
Paley and Bentham. But it is not commonly
realized that the fundamental features of the
systems were roughly stated and in part developed
by acontemporary of the Cambridge Platonists. It
is true that Bishop Cumberland’s treatise, De legibus
naturae like most ethical works of the time,
was largely controversial in character having been
written to refute Hobbes. Further, it is hardly
consistent with facts to think that utilitarianism,
which represents the distinctive British contribution .
to political philosophy, began with Bentham. It
was Francis Hutcheson who first made use of the
formula ‘the greatest good of the greatest number’.
Bentham himself took some of his views from
Priestley. Nevertheless, Bentham may be considered
the real founder of the utilitarian school of think-
ing because he gave a systematic exposition of
utilitarianism.
Strictly speaking, utilitarianism is not a body

of political doctrines expounding the theory of the
state and government. It is an ethical theory based
upon the psychological doctrine known as hedonism.
It deals with the motivations of human conduct
116 INTRODUCTION
and is reformatory having in view the constant

elevation of human life and the furthering of human
progress. According to hedonism, every man seeks
pleasure and avoids pain. Earlier hedonism was
egoistic in character, while the modern variety of
it is altruistic. Hence it is sometimes called
altruistic or universalistic hedonism. [ts goal is
the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
In so far as psychology in general is concerned
utilitarianism at the beginning accepted the English
tradition, going back to Locke. Its method is
inductive, its bases experimental, and its end
practical. It does not regard man merely as a pure
intellect, but insists on taking account of his
complexity of nature and diversity of interests,
recognizing that his interests are determined by his
likings and aspirations. Hence, the question comes
_ to be: what is man, the social being, moved by?
What does he aim at? The usual utilitarian answer
is: happiness. Bentham holds the view that this
happiness is not a man’s own alone. As the in-
dividual is from birth a member of society, these
feelings and desires have necessary reference to
other men and other sentient beings and can neither
exist nor be satisfied apart from them. Hence his
own ‘good’ is realized in conjunction with that of
others ; and he and they alike are eager for a life of
satisfaction and contentment. But a satisfied,
contended life is, in the ultimate analysis, a life of
‘pleasure’; and so to the utilitarian, pleasure is the
individual’s ultimate end - the aim of his being and
the object of his desire. Hence, every man’s own
happiness is necessarily dependent on the existence
and organization of the state. Given the position
that happiness is universally desired, the attain-
ment of it in a community is conditioned by the
encouragement and limitations imposed by custom,
law and legislation. Hence, the utilitarian cannot
dissociate the ultimate end of desire from political
and state action. In this way, politics to the utili-
tarian implicates ethics: for him, ethical and
political philosophy go together.
Bentham and J.S. Mill are of the view that

pleasures differ only in quantity and that one
pleasure is as good in itself as another: as
Bentham puts it, ‘Quantity of pleasure being
equal, push-pin is as good as poetry.’ But John
Stuart Mill regards it as quite compatible with the
principle of utility to introduce into the concep-
tions the distinction between quantity and quality
of pleasure, and to lay emphasis on quality. He
differs from Bentham innarrowing the gulf
between self-interest and general happiness. While
Bentham recognizes only external sanctions for
constraining the individual to promote the general
happiness, John Stuart Mill admits both external
and internal sanctions. He observes that every
man possesses a feeling for the happiness of man-
kind. This is so because Mill conceives the
individual as essentially a member of society, with
strong social instincts, sympathies, and feelings ;
so that, in his desire, we have so far represented
the desire of his fellows and any desire that is
118 INTRODUCTION
shared in by mankind in general may well be
Tegarded as a natural desire, and, therefore, be
trusted.132
The utilitarians were individualistic in the sense

that they conceived the welfare of the society in
terms of individual desire. The society was just a
collection of individuals and social welfare was just
a sum-total of the welfare of the individuals. It is
because of this consideration that the utilitarians,
particularly J. S. Mill gave to individual liberty a
large content. Bentham valued liberty, not for its
own sake, but because it was an incident of his
utility. The end of man was maximum happiness,
not maximum liberty. J.S. Mill holds a different
view, of liberty divorced from the Benthamite
principle of utility. Liberty was a good in itself
and was a precious right of the individual. Mill’s
assertion that the entire mankind was not justified
in suppressing the liberty of thought and expression
of one individual was not in accord with Bentha-
mite principle of the greatest good of the greatest
number. Mill’s revision of Benthamism makes his
132. J. S. Mill states his position thus: ‘When I said the

general happiness is a good to the aggregate of all
persons, I did not mean that every human being’s
happiness is a good to every other human being,
though I think in a good state of society and
education it would be so. {I merely meantin this
particular sentence to argue that since A’s happiness
is a good, B’s a good, C’s a good, etc., the sum of
all these goods must be a good.’ Letters, ll, p. 116.
SARVODAYA & UTILIT. ARIANISM lg
thought more humane and realistic. Whereas
Bentham holds that political institutions are based
on interest and utility and not on will, Mill gives
prominence to will in the growth of institutions.
To the utilitarians, the state is a human necessity,
for it promotes general welfare. Utilitarianism is
experimental, experience being the ultimate criterion
of the work of any policy or measure. Now, what
kind of experience is it to which the utilitarian
appeals? In the first place, it is experience as
opposed to abstract theory or speculation-to theory
divorced from actual trial in life. In the next place,
it is experience regarded as the source and origin of
knowledge. Locke had analysed this into ‘sensations’
and ‘reflection’; and the analysis was generally
accepted by the early utilitarians. Whether this is
sufficient or not will depend upon the meaning
that we read into the term ‘reflection’, over and
above what is contained in ‘sensation’; and it is
only fair to say that utilitarians like J. S. Mill
read considerably more into it than was done by
Bentham.
The utilitarians assert that despite its hedoni-

stic basis, utilitarianism is not egoistic but
altruistic. It seeks the happiness of the individual
by securing the greatest happiness of the greatest
number. They hold that all men possess self-
regarding and other-regarding impulses in varying
degrees. If the emotional satisfaction of impulses
is a powerful factor in human conduct, so is reason
which compels a man to be other-regarding.
720 INTRODUCTION
Reason impels a man to reconcile his self-regarding
with his other-regarding impulses. It must be
pointed out that pleasure and pain represent an
individual’s subjective experience and are nota
sound basis for a theory of general happiness.
While referring to general happiness, the utili-
tarians mean general welfare rather than general
pleasure. Bentham holds that an individual
becomes other-regarding and seeks his own happi-
ness in general happiness because of certain
sanctions like Jaw, public opinion and religion. In
short, utilitarianism claims to make a powerful
appeal to the altruistic impulses of man.
The philosophy of Sarvodaya which aims at

the welfare of all is a regulative principle in
human relations, transcending history, politics
and the pattern of existing social institutions. The
Gandhian philosophy is the affirmation of the
relations between man and man, between the
citizen and the state, of the truth that man is spirit
that changes individuals and institutions. This
fundamental truth links religion, ethics, and
politics in Gandhian thought.
The concept for which the term ‘Sarvodaya’

stands should be distinguished from the utilitarian
ideal of ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest
number’. In the first place, the goal of Sarvodaya
is not happiness, in the sense of a feeling of pleasure
but all-round well-being or goodness. And secondly,
it is the well-being not of the greatest number but
SARVODAYA & UTILITARIANISM — 12]
of all. Being a metaphysical idealist and an ethical
absolutist, Gandhi pleaded for the good of all and
like Buddha, he was concerned with the good of all
living beings. Thus the term ‘Sarvodaya’ has the
same meaning as the concept of saryabhitahita or
the good of all living beings, advocated in the Gita.
While Sarvodaya aims for univesal good, i.e.,
Jokaniti of mankind in the pursuit of its universal
ideal, i.e., Sarvadharma-samanatva, the utilitarian
on the other hand will sacrifice the minority for
the sake of majority, if necessary. That life is one
and indivisible is the basic principle underlying the ©
philosophy of Sarvodaya. All that we see around
is the manifestation of the same life in various
shapes and forms, ignorance (avidya) obstructs our
vision. We find that Gandhian ideal is spiritualistic
while the utilitarian thought is directed towards
material progress of an individual in society.
Utilitarians hold that the end justifies the

means. But Sarvodaya, Gandhi clearly states, can
be achieved only through pure means, i.e., through
non-violence (ahimsa). ‘Ahimsd is the means;
Truth is the end. Means to be means must always
be within our reach, and so ahimsa is our supreme
duty. If we take care of the means, we are bound
to reach the end sooner or Iater....°. According to
Gandhi, ‘a votary of ahimsd cannot subscribe to
the utilitarian formula (of the greatest good of the
greatest number). He will strive for the greatest
133. N. K. Bose, Selections from Gandhi, N. P. H,

Ahmedabad, p. 14. .
122 INTRODUCTION
good of all and die in the attempt to realize .the

ideal. He will therefore be willing to die, so that
others may live. He will save himself with the rest,
by himself dying. The greatest good of all inevi-
tably includes the good of the greatest number,
and therefore, he and the utilitarian will converge
on many points in their career but there does come
a time when they must part company, and even-
work in opposite directions. The utilitarian to be
logical will never sacrifice himself. The absolutist
will even sacrifice himself.™.
But the question arises: why should the indivi-
dual sacrifice his own happiness for the sake of
others? Why should each desire the good of all?
Bertrand Russell demands more than enlightened
self-interest or prudence to regulate the lives of
individuals and nations. But even this is not
sufficient. Russell requires something like a dis-
interested interest in other people’s interest. He
takes up a precarious position between the
‘Felicific principle’ of Bentham and Mill (‘aim at
the greatest possible pleasure’) and the ‘Optimific
principle’ (‘aim at the greatest possible intrinsic
non-hedonic good’).
It is difficult to bridge the gulf between egoism

and altruism unless a principle is recognized in
individual which could be the basis of a transcen-
dence of the individual. The philosophy of Advaita
which lies at the root of Sarvodaya doctrine
provides such a principle.
134. Young India, 9-12-1926, p. 432.
According to the philosophy of Vedanta, the
spirit in man called the Atman is non-different from
the ultimate reality known as Brahman. This is
true of every individual. In other words, all are
partakers and manifestations of the Ultimate
Reality (Brahman). Gandhi holds the view that
the soul is the Godhead within man and the barriers
between the ego and the alter do not exist. The
unity of God and man is thus revealed. Yet,
apparently, there isa gulf between the two because
the soul is immersed in what is called avidyad or
ignorance and emerges as the empirical self. The
removal of the gulf is the goal of life and is called
self-realization. All religions require us to look
upon life as an opportunity for self-realization.
The basic philosophy which inspired Gandhi
is, of course, the philosophia perennis which
Hinduism teaches in its loftiest form known as
Vedanta. Gandhi said: ‘I believe in Advaita. I
believe in the essential unity of man, and for that
matter of all that lives. Therefore I believe that,
if one man gains spiritually the whole world gains
with him and if one man fails, the whole world fails
to that extent.155
Unlike the utilitarian conception, Sarvodaya is
pre-dominently a spiritual activity, participationin
which is different from participation in material
goods. It is not something which a few can gain or
enjoy to the exclusion of others. It is essentially
an activity in which all must partake if it is to
135. Young India, 4-12-1932, p. 398.
124 INTRODUCTION
amount to a complete realization of the faculties of
the human soul.
The Advaitic doctrine of sarva-mukti (release
of all), observes Dr. T. M. P. Mahadevan, “lays the
spiritual foundation for Sarvodaya.’ According to
the Advaitic view, no single individual soul is
finally released until all souls are released. The
great souls like the Buddha, Sri Ramakrisna, Swami
Vivekananda were always concerned with the wel-
fare of all. ‘There issaid to be a class of muktas
{released souls) called adhikadrika muktas whose
sole purpose in retaining even after release their
apparent individuality is to help other souls gain
release’. 16
Now since there is spiritual] unity, self-realiza-
tion consists not in advancing the good of isolated
individuals but the good of all, which for Gandhi
implies the love of all; that is to share the lot of
the poorest and the lowliest. He was an apostle of
humanitarianism to whom the poor were, Daridra
Narayana (God in the guise of the poor) and their
service was the best worship of God. He declared
further that God-realization is to be achieved
through the service of afflicted humanity. And
that is what Sarvodaya stands for. Hence, the
question why there should be the welfare of all and
not of a few is meaningless, for all are the expres-
sions of the supreme spirit (absolutism) or the
children of the same God (Theism).
136. T. M. P. Mahadevan, Collected papers of the late
Prof. S, S Suryanarayana Sastry, University of
Madras, Madras, 1961.
CHAPTER TWO
ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
AND
DISCIPLINE
THE END AND THE MEANS
The means-end problem is one of the toughest
problems in philosophy, almost as difficult to disen-
tangle as the conception of part and whole. The
problem of end and means like many other problems
arises only at a comparatively developed stage of
experience. When experience first came to be
consciously studied, probably men attached impor-
tance to ends. Soon, however, it was realized that
there is many a slip between the end and the means
and therefore regard was soon had of the means as
well. The pendulum has been swinging from one
side to the other at different times and this would
ever continue to swing as long as the finite mind
gropes in darkness failing to realize the supreme
end, viz., spiritual realization in whatever way it is
conceived.
The question of end and means is of supreme
importance in Indian philosophy. The schools of
Indian thought, whether orthodox or heterodox,
Vedic or non-Vedic, are deeply concerned with the
destiny of man and the method of achieving it. It
is in this respect that Indian philosophy is distinct
from modern western philosophy, in general, viz.,
that it is value-oriented. The identification of
reality and value by the Indian thinkers is a notable
contribution to the world-thought. According to
128 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES & DISCIPLINE
the Upanisads, which have influenced all the schools ;
of Hindu thought in one way or another, the Atman-
Brahman which is the foundational-reality (sa#) is
also the final value (@nanda); it is the ground of
existence as well as the goal of life.
Philosophy, it has been said, takes its rise in
the practical needs of man. Man cannot live with-
out a metaphysics. It is the philosophy of life that
makes him what he is. In India, at any rate,
philosophy has always had a practical aim, namely
to find out the means whereby man can attain un-
mixed happiness. The aim of various systems of
philosophy is explicitly stated to be this and
nothing else. Suresvara, the foremost disciple of
Sankara, says that he wrote and expounded the
system out of compassion and pity for the suffering
humanity in order to help them get out of the
miseries of life! No one can realize the state of
bliss except in a well-ordered society. So one has
necessarily to consider the problem of social
theory. What are the conditions which will facili-
tate the realization of such a life? It is no doubt
true that supreme bliss can be attained only by
inward enlightenment or insight. But as environ-
mental influences are bound to determine the pace
of our spiritual progress, one has to discuss and
evaluate them.
Philosophy is concerned with three vital ques-

tions: What can we know? What ought we to do?
1, Suresvara, Naiskarmya-siddhi,
THE END’ AND THE MEANS 129
What may we hope for? The second of these is
recognized as constituting the fundamental problem
of ethics. It is that aspect of the human problem
in its entirety which gives to ethics the. character
of practical philosophy.
Every moment we stand face to face with the

question: What ought we to do. Every new situa-
tion brings it up afresh. Step by step in life we
must answer it anew, and no power can deliver us,
or lift us above the necessity of answering it. To
the ever-new question of our action, our actual
conduct, is the ever-new reply. For our action
already contains the decision. And even when we
are not conscious of it, we can recognize it in our
act, and perhaps repent of it. Whether in every
choice we decide aright or not is dependent upon
one’s own action. Here everyone is thrown upon
himself and makes the decision alone and for him-
self. If he has erred in his decision, he alone bears
the responsibility of the guilt. The same thing holds
good of an act, when it has occurred. Its effects
extend to ever-wider circles, it propogates itself
after its own kind. When it is once woven into
existence, it lives on, it never dies out. It is immortal
as ali reality is. And what holds good on a small-
scale concerning the conduct of the individual is
-also true on a large scale of the conduct of a
community, a generation, or an age.
The ethos of man includes both the chaotic and

the creative. In the former lie his possibilities but
also his danger; in the latter he finds his vocation.
To fulfil it is to be human. Ethics applies itself to
the creative power in man. Here human intelli-
gence is seeking and finding the pathway to the
meaning of life. In this sense it is practical. Man
thus moulds his life. ,
We are now confronted with another problem.

Every individual is governed in all his actions by
certain motives. He always pursues one or the
other values of life. The only thing is that what
one considers as his good may not be found to be
so by another. Is there a unity in morals? Does
not the ethos itself vary from people to people and
from age to age? And ought one then to believe
that the nature of the good itself changes accord-
ing to the actuality of the moment? Would not
that again meana denial of the autonomy of the
ethos, a casting of suspicion upon the essential
meaning of the ‘ought’ and the ‘good’?
Thus at the first step ethics brings us face to

face with its insurmountable difficulty. How are
ethical principles to be arrived at and how can one
be certain of them? No experience can teach
them ; in contrast to that which can be experienced,
they must be intuitively discerned. But where, in
contrast to the actual, we find them intuitively
discerned and set up as claims, there we find
them
variable, displaceable, exchangeable,
transformed
and dislocated. To what, then, can ethics as a
science cling ?
THE END AND THE MEANS {31
To this question the peculiar meaning of the
term ‘practical’ in ethics corresponds. Other
domains of practical knowledge are always aware
through other sources what in the last resort the
goal is. In all techniques, hygiene, jurisprudence,
politics, pedagogy, the ends are more or less fixed,
are presupposed; there is only a question as to the
ways and means. Ethical discipline directs one to
point out the ends themselves for the sake of which
all means are there, the highest, the absolute ends,
which cannot be regarded as means to anything
else. It is the highest claim which confronts him.
Ethical man is in everything the opposite of

the precipitate and apathetic man. He is the seer
of values, he is sapiens in the original sense of the
word; the ‘taster’. He it is who has a faculty for
the fullness of life’s values, that moral faculty of
which Franz Hemsterhuis prophesized: ‘to it
gleaming riches open.’
In fact evaluation is the prerogative of man.

It is just possible that other creatures also seek
ends. But itis given to man alone to judge the
worth of ends as well as means, and choose from
among them. Finally it is man alone who quests
after the eternal and eventually succeeds in gain-
ing it.
Individual spiritual perfection is the ultimate
end of society. It cannot be considered as a means
to any other end. But as subsidiary to it, there
may be many other goods such as love, money,
power, fame, benevolence, etc., which ordinary
persons would always try to pursue. Indeed every
individual cannot be expected to be conscious of
the highest end. For such people it is necessary to
devise a graded hierarchy of ends which, while
satisfying their general needs, will yet form an
instrument for the highest end. From this point
of view, all the activities of a society may be inter-
preted as the expressions of values that its members
respect. Sankara lays it down that an ideal society
should be a spiritual community, spiritual perfec-
tion should be the highest end of every individual
in a society and society must help him in this. By
trying to perfect himself, every individual will be
raising the world to perfection. The ideal may
also be said to be common, because all individuals
want to realize the same ideal. Individuals no
doubt have to separately try to reach the ideal, but
the contents of the ideal are the same. This makes
it acommon ideal. The pursuit of this ideal brings
the individuals together, makes them live together,
and induces them to help each other in its reali-
zation.
- If every individual, however, were entirely
independent ‘and separate, rivalry, compétition,
and struggle are bound to be the result. Forces
of separation would work havoc and make worldly
existence a veritable hell. We know that attach-
ment to the body and the things that it wants is the
foot cause of all evil. Men identify themselves
with bodies and fight with each other. So Sankar
a
shows that individual differences are more appare
nt
THE END & THE MEANS 133
than real. What seems to separate man from man
does not really constitute his essence. As bodies,
as senses, as prdna, as mind (buddhi), we are diffe-
rent. But we are none of these either separately or
in combinations. We are pure spiritual beings.
Spirit (cit) is one and identical and constitutes
one’s nature. It is not limited by time, space and
causation. It is Truth, Consciousness and Bliss
(sat, cit, G@nanda). The realization of this unity
of spiritual existence would remove all sense of
separateness. Every individual’s supreme effort
will have to be directed towards the realization of
the Real which is sat-cit-dnanda. The ideal, there-
fore, is common. The pursuit of this would mean’
happiness to all.
The structure of society must.be planned: in
such a way that the realization of both the aims
becomes possible and easy. The subsidiary ends will
be the immediate ends of actions for the majority.
of people. But it is possible to make the ultimate
end the basis of regulatory norms which would
guide and control action in the pursuit of immediate
ends.
Indian thinkers commonly speak of two func-
tions of knowledge - one which is theoretical, viz.,
revealing the existence of some object (arthaparic-
chitti), and the other which is practical, viz., afford-
ing help in the attainment of some purpose in life
(phalaprapti).2 The results of these two functions
உ: Vatsyayana’s commentary on Nyaya Sétra, I, I, 3.

134. ETHICAL PRINCIPLES & DISCIPLINE
of knowledge are respectively what we mean by
“fact’ and ‘value’. A thirsty traveller, who happens
to come upon a sheet of fresh water, discovers a
fact; and when ljater he quenches his thirst by
drinking the water, he realizes a value. These
functions are regarded as closely connected with
each other, since the knowledge of a fact usually
leads to the pursuit of some value. The number of
facts that may be known, it is clear, is innume-
table; and the values that may be realized through
their knowledge are equally so. It is with the Jatter
that we are concerned here. The samskrit word used
for value means ‘the object of desire’ (ista) and the
term may therefore be generally defined as ‘that
which is desired’, or, in other words, ‘that which
being known is sought to be realized in one’s own
experience.’
ந
We have pointed out in Chapter that spiritual

perfection by the individual is the ultimate end of
society. Social progress can best be achieved by
following the twin principle of varnas and dsramas
which are accepted as the bases of Hindu society.
All social institutions must be considered as instru-
mental. By their nature, all human relations and
behaviour are values. Values play an important
tole in the integration and fulfilment of man’s basic
impulses and desires in a stable and consistent
™manner appropriate for his social being. They are
generic experiences in social action made up of
both individual and social responses and attitudes.
They build up societies, integrate social relations,
mouid the ideal dimensions of personality and the

range and depths of culture. A society, if it is to
survive, must regularly fulfil the supreme value of
personality. We have shown that the selection of
means and ends is significantly important in order
that the equilibrium of society is not disturbed and
that the interrelationship of means and ends is
justifiable and self-consistent.
This leads us to the main problem at issue.
The two opposite views are: (1) Does the end
justify the means? (2) Does the means justify the
end. One point, however, needs to be borne in mind.
When we say that the end justifies the means, one
should understand by ‘means’ not something which
is a part of a whole process whose culmination is
called the end, but just a cause or condition which
is chosen by a moral agent to bring about a certain
effect, and which therefore acquires a peculiar value
of its own - the value that any contributory object
would acquire. The means is an instrumental cause,
and so there is a certain distance between the means
and the end which is generally not to be found
between an efficient cause and its effect. Not that
the means is thus always an instrumental cause.
To illustrate: IfI get sleep by means of ortal, ortal
is the efficient cause of my sleep. But if a pair of
spectacles is the means whereby I am enabled to
study books, in what sense, can the spectacles be
said to be the cause of my study? Only in the sense
that they are instrumental causes. Nothing more.
Means and ends may altogether be separate from
each other. If, on the contrary, means and ends
formed different stages of one process only, the
whole process would stand self-justified or self-
condemned, and we could not possibly talk of the
end justifying the means. Intensive study, e.g., is
the means of acquiring knowledge but only in the
sense that it is itself part of the whole process
which culminates in full knowledge. The whole
process is one and integral and it is difficult to say
here which is means and which exactly is end, since
at every stage knowledge is being acquired. The
case is Similar when we say that eating is the means |
of satisfying hunger; moral practice and discipline
are the means of moral perfection ; wide travelling
is a means of liberal culture; deep meditation ‘is a
means of spiritual self-realization, etc. In all such
cases, the whole process must be regarded as having
value and it would be difficult to say what amount
of value belongs to the end and what amount to
the means merely. The dictum that the ‘end justifies
the means’ falls to the ground if applied to the
above illustrations. This shows how shallow the
dictum is when applied to the ordinaty day-today
affairs.
The upholders of the above dictum observe

that means must be taken as an instrumental cause
of a possible effect which is regarded as an end.
Let us examine some illustrations: The interest
of health, ¢.g., justifies the surgeon’s knife. The
interests of urgent social reforms may sometimes
justify the application of drastic legal remedies to
cure chronic social maladies, such as removing
unbearable suffering may sometimes justify even
putting an end to the life of the sufferer, as Gandhi
once put an end to the life of a calf suffering from
an incurable disease. And in moral life generally
it may become necessary to perform surgical opera-
tions in the interests of a higher moral develop-
ment. In such cases, it is to be noted, the means
is adopted out of pure motives. Naturally the end
is justified.
The end of state action arises for the promo-
tion of the best life-development of reason and
character. The means at its disposal are automatic
action and compulsion appealing only to their
lower motives, of threats of punishment and hopes
of reward; means and ends are not in pari materia,
as we say with each other and yet a certain amount
of the material means, if we may call it—undesir-
able in itself—has the value of liberating a great
amount of moral value and in this sense both
values are commensurable or in the old termino-
logy—-the end justifies the means. If we generalise
on the basis of such commensurability and say as
the Communists, Fascists and practical politicians
argue that any means would be justified so long as
the end is good, that violence, bloodshed, trea-
chery, falsehood, deceit, hypocracy, promise-break-
ing, plunder, invasion, murder, treason, efc., are
all permissible in the interests of a larger good, say
the consolidation and expansion of state territory,
or that bribery, unfaithfulness, disloyalty, efc., on
the part of jail-keepers could be justified if they
could thereby achieve some greater ‘hedonistic
good’, say the release of greater prisoners unjustly
confined in cells,—the proposition that the end
justifies the means sounds rather absurd. For we
are saying here that to obtain a great material
good, a small moral value may be sacrificed. We
are saying that to do a great right we may doa
little wrong. Gandhi would never subscribe to this
view of immoral action which is dangerous in prac-
tice and unsound in theory.
In Gandhian philosophy, the distinction bet-

ween ends and means fades away and the two are
considered as constituting a continuous process,
an organic whole. Gandhi’s basic attitude towards
life is spiritual; that is, he attached great impor-
tance to the elevation of the human spirit, the
body and mind being subordinate. According to
Hindu thought, belief in a supreme intelligent
power of the nature of conscionsness, transcendent
and immanent simultaneously, is the basis of the
Spiritual attitude. It is a picture of this attitude
that Gandhi saw in all religions, and endeavoured
to realise the truth, i.e., God. His approach to all
beings as so many seekers after truth or spirit or
God,is a corollary of the above belief. For Gandhi
spiritual realization is the highest goal of manand
all else must be sub-servient to that goal. Life to
him is integral and therefore it cannot be split into
watertight compartments such as public and private,
political and religious, social and economic. They
are all inevitably and organically interrelated.
Self-realization means seeing God face to face.
He believes in the principle of spiritual unity.
Gandhi reconciles self-realization with service to.
Society. Solitude as the means to self-realization
is not acceptable to him. Self-realization means
realization of ‘the greatest good of all’. The wel-
fare of all, or as he calls it ‘Sarvodaya’ also includes
political progress, for political degeneration is a
great hindrance to comprehensive moral and spiri-
tual progress.
Gandhi’s emphasis on means is partly due to

the fact that man can only strive, he cannot com-
mand results. In his own words, ‘means are after
all everything. As the means so the end. There
is no wall of separation between means and end.
Indeed the creator has given us control (and that
too very limited) over means, none over the end.
Realization of the goal is in exact proportion to
that of the means. This is a proposition that
admits of no exception.’? According to him, the
‘means may be likened to a seed, the end to a tree,
and there is the same inviolable connection between
the means and the end as there is between the seed
and the tree.* The Gita doctrine of niskama karma
(action without attachment) also teaches us that
a good deed produces only a good result. Hence
Gandhi believes that ‘if we take care of the means,
the end will take care ef itself.> We should note
3. M. K. Gandhi, Young India, _17-7-1924, p. 236;

N. K. Bose, Selections from Gandhi, N. P. H.,
Abmedabad, 1948, p. 37.
4, M.K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p, 60.
5. M.K. Gandhi, Harijan, Feb. 11, 1939, p. 8.
here that xiskama-karma-yoga stresses the motiva-

tion of action. It points out that the motive of
one’s action should not be the transitory satisfaction
of sensual desire, but rather the highest motive of
self-realization.
Gandhi’s ideal seems to be the only right view
of the relation between the end and the means.
Good means alone can lead us to everlasting peace
and progress. Past history teaches us that violence
engenders violence, revenge leads to counter -
revenge and a war sows the seeds of further wars.
A careful enquiry will convince one of the truth
that means should be compatible with the end
concerned. Both should be homogeneous so as to
assure that the extreme of means is itself the end.
In fact the end cannot be something to be attained
all at once ina distant future. The end progres-
sively realizes itself through the means, and then at
each step the means itself is turned into the end.
To Gandhi, end and means are convertible terms.
The Upanisads have often identified the way that
leads to the realization of Brahman with the reali-
zation itself (tapo Brahma iti Vyajandt}. The end
is to achieve the peaceful and blissful state of self-
realization in and through individual and social
Strivings. It is necessary to remove separatistic
tendencies and conflicting superficial interests that
come in the way of that Realization. One cannot
hope to reach a moral destination by means of
immoral means. It is a universal dictum that hate
begets hate and violence is reinforced by violence.
There can be no valid contention against the
universal truth of what the Buddha said - ‘Anger
and evil should be won by love. One should suffer
and peacefully resist through love instead of answer-
ing a blow with a blow’. So did Jesus ask his
disciples to love even their enemies.
If we believe in the ultimate goal and in the
fundamental unity of life, good ends will mean in
the words of Aldous Huxley, ‘a state of greatest
possible unification’. This can be obviously achie-
ved by intrinsically unifying, 7.e., good means and
not by separative or divisive, i.e., bad means.”®
It is of relevance to trace briefly the manner
in which Western political thought has treated the
ends-means relationship, Miss Joan V. Bondurant
makes a brilliant analysis of the problem of ends
and means. She observes: ‘It is suggested that
traditional political theories have failed to deal
adequately with the problems of means. Some
have admitted defeat by uneasily relying upon
techniques of violence as the only alternative in
the last resort. Others have made vacant gestures
in the direction of a new approach, but have thus
collapsed of their own weight. Still others have
frankly embraced the means of violence, and in
approaching an ends-means convertibility based
upon violence, have gone down in the ashes of
total truth destruction.’ She further observes.:
6. A. Huxley, Ends and Means, pp- 320-321: .
7. Joan V. Bondurant, Conguest of Violence: The
Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict, Oxford University
Press, 1959, p. 32,
“Traditional political thought assuming a separation
of ends and means has proceeded to eclipse means
consideration by emphasising concern for ends,
Where political theory has evidenced an awareness
of the unity of ends and means, the problem has
tended to be stated in terms of machinery or of
form and device.’® There is truth in the above
statements of Bondurant. We find that the Marxist
Politico-philosophical thought concerns itself with
the problems of means. But it obscures a satisfac-
tory solution by centering upon a dialectic depen-
dent upon a determinist philosophy of history.
Bondurant states that ‘in the case of Marxist
thought, it has attempted to bridge the gap by intro-
ducing a determinist philosophy which operates
in an abstract realm to reconcile oppositional
forces by effecting a pre-determined, inevitable
synthesis in which human individuals are inescapa-
bly acting as puppets pulled by the strings of their
economic circumstances on their peculiar stage of
advancing history. For Marxist thought - as for
Fascist - violence has sufficed for a means in the
hands of individuals.? The Marxist ideal of the
millennial classless society is an end-in-itself.
Bondurant exposes the weakness of the English
Conservative theory. At the outset it is to be
noted that conservatism holds that individual will
and reason are relatively powerless to deflect
society from its appointed course. Order and
Stability are its highest values. Tradition and the
8, Ibid., p» 189.
9. Ibid., p. 230,
power of customs are the elements which secure
these values. Bondurant points out that conser-
vative freedom is a passive value. Conservatives,
she holds, tend to make the community or society -
and not the individual- the ultimate consideration.
She sums up her critical analysis of conservative
theory thus: ‘Conservative theory is most evident
and most serious in its failure to approach: a
philosophy of action’. ‘Its difficulties in allowing
for change-a change is accepted as desirable by
most conservatives -its fear of extended freedoms,
its failure to meet or to deny the growing insistence
of the developing social forces demanding partici-
pation - these are all failures traced to an insensibi-
lity, an inability or unwillingness to face the
question of ‘how’ to tackle the problem of means
in the aspect of social action and to consider the
relationship of such means to conservative end.’!
The authoritarian Idealistic school headed by
Hegel, Kant, and Fichte embodies an historical,
evolutionary doctrine which transforms the will into
an aspect of pure abstract intelligence. The meta-
physical theory of Hegel has even Jess need than
conservatism to concern itself with the problems of
means for man to achieve his political ends. For
the state is an end in itself; it is Mind realizing
itself through history. Hegel is not concerned with
a technique of action whereby specific ends could
be achieved. Bondurant observes ‘the refusal to
deal with man-determined ends, together with the
10, Ibid, pp. 210-211.

failure to understand the functions and importance

of a man-controlled technique for achieving ends
understood in terms of man’s needs, have signalled
the terrible defeat of an impressive political
philosophy.*!!
The liberal democratic theorists like J. S. Mill,

T. H. Green and L. T. Hobhouse have concerned
themselves with mechanism not with action, with
form rather than performance, with instrument and
not technique. Liberal democrats rely ultimately
upon violent force for the maintenance of their
thought. They do not challenge, but depend upon
violent force as the operative sanction provided in
its basic law. Their one technique which, however,
provides a dynamic is compromise.
On a re-examination of the dichotomy of ends

and means it was Spengler who said that what man
needs above is not only a noble end but also cons-
tructive and creative means. John Dewey has made
a significant contribution to this problem. He
argues that ‘only recognition in both theory and
practice that ends to be attained (ends-in-view) are
of the nature of hypotheses and that hypotheses
have to be formed and tested in strict correlativity
with existential conditions as means, can alter
current habits of dealing with social ideas.’!2
Whereas Dewey has called attention to the need
11. Ibid., p. 214.
12. John Dewey; Logie, The Theory of inquiry, Henry
Holt and Company, New York, 1949, ற, 497.
‘THE END AND THE MEANS 145
for considering means and ends as ‘two ways of
regarding the same actuality’ and has insisted that
ends be developed with the fullest considerations of
existential circumstance, he has stopped short of
that step which could lead to a yet more rewarding
approach to a philosophy of action.
Today, all of us are constantly on the brink of
violence in this rapidly changing present-day world.
The restraint of violence by mutual tolerance and
forbearance is an essential condition for social life
in all circumstances. In this atomic age this is also
one of the necessary conditions for mere survival;
and here we believe, the present generation has a
lesson to learn from the Indian tradition pre-
eminently represented by Gandhi. Gandhi had the
practical ability to translate an Utopian - looking
vision of satydgraha into an immense practical
political achievement. The challenge of Gandhian
satyagraha centres upon the necessity of reconciling
ends and means through a philosophy of action.
Oliver Lacombe asks the pertinent question in the
book ‘In the Emerging World’: ‘Is the future likely
to provide mankind with opportunities for the
development of non-violence, in political, social,
and economic affairs.’!3 He hopes that ‘the solution
of our difficulties lies ahead of us. Only the force
of the soul, the force of love, some sort of satya-
graha on a world-scale can make the beneficial
potentialities of the nuclear era overpower its
13, Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Volume, The Emerging

World, Asia Publishing House, 1964, p. 93.
threatening dangers. And the force of the soul
normally depends on the free generosity and the
effort of the few whose example ought no less to be
followed by the masses, when more and more light
permeates through the social body.’
The present political order in China bears

ample testimony to the fact that wrong means Jead
to wrong ends. Every nation seeks to gain un-
limited power over others. Not only nations but
individuals also crave for power. Power is the root
cause of all evil in this world. Lord Acton warns
us: ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely.” Throughout Gandhi’s life the idea of
nobility of means remained his stead-fast convic-
tion. As far as India is concerned, the strees placed
on the means adopted and the method employed
during the Independence movement were highly
influential factors in moulding India into her
present form.
Gandhi was clear in his views about the social

and political ends which he was pursuing. After
all, what are ideals? They are ends that are regarded
as being worthy of pursuit, ends that call forth
activity which would conserve value. And it is
scarcely possible to think of any one more jealously
concerned with ideals than Gandhi. Gandhi like
many humanists of our age, Aldous Huxley and
Gibbert Murray, for instance, has felt that an end
which either demands or justifies unworthy means
14. Ibid:, pp. 95-96,
cannot be good. Gandhi’s conception of the rela-
tion between ends and means is very closely linked
with the moral principles’ expounded by him.
Conflict is the most equivocal phenomenon of
human life. Gandhi attempted to show that satypa-
graha is the method of transforming the nature of
conflict so that it is made creative in situations
where hitherto it has remained wholly destructive.
It has been necessary to dwell at considerable

length on the problem of means-end relation from
the general stand-point of ethical and political
theorists in the West. Against this background,
Gandhi’s conception of Truth and Non-violence
which chalks out a way of life and principles of
ethics and morality to be followed by individuals
and masses of men becomes meaningful.
The highest purpose of all human action is the

realization of absolute Truth. Gandhi distinguishes
between relative truth as perceived by finite indivi-
duals in relation to a particular set of ideas and
circumstances and Truth as the summum bonum i.e.,
Absolute Truth which he identifies with God.
The supreme, absolute, ever present Spirit or

God is both the starting point and the final goal of
Gandhian thought. To Gandhi, Truth is the end
-and non-violence the means. Gandhi’s main em-
phasis is on the integral approach to truth which
pervades life, which when found or even in the
process of finding must guide life itself. It is the
very nature and the law of Being and Becoming
which Gandhi wants to discover and not only an
intellectual and logical explanation of things and
their relationships. The object of discovering the
Law is to live accordingly and not only to achieve
the satisfaction of intellectual curiosity. Truth is
something to be realized in the inner being of one’s
own self and therefore it is to be experienced by
one’s whole being. Gandhi’s experiments with, and
discovery of, Truth is that of a mystic, intuitionis-
tic, religious seeker rather than of a curious in-
tellectualist who wants to probe into the how and
the why of things.
_ The basis of Sarvodaya being spiritual, the

means for achieving Sarvodaya social order is also
spiritual. A philosophy such as this implies a living
faith in the One that pervades all. This requires
self-discipline and training and development of
soul-force. The moral law for Gandhi is the eternal
and immutable law of life, which rules the whole
universe and is ingrained in the human heart. He
calls it the Law of Truth and sometimes simply
Truth or Satya. Since Truth is the highest being-
Satbrahma - it necessarily follows that the attain-
ment of truth can be considered as complete
freedom. This Truth is to be nourished not by
hand-granades but by reverence for life, ‘satyannasti
paro dharmah.’ There is no religion or duty higher
than Truth to Gandhi, a view which finds full
expression in every thought, word and deed of his.
19, M. K. Gandhi, Ethical Religion, Madras, 1922, p. 51.

THE END & THE MEANS . [42
He expressed it in the words: ‘I often describe my
religion as Religion of Truth. Of late, instead of
saying God is Truth, I have been saying Truth is
God, in order more fully to define my religion... ..
Nothing so completely describes my God as Truth.
Denial of God we have known. Denial of Truth
we have not known. The most ignorant among
mankind have some Truth in them. We are all
sparks of Truth. The sum-total of these sparks is
indescribable, as yet unknown Truth which is God.
I am being daily led nearer to It by constant
prayer.’!6 ்‌
Gandhi dedicated his life to the searching quest
of truth in its varied aspects in his own life and in
trying to seek self-realization, he made his life into
“numerous experiments with truth.’ He said, ‘... .. I
am but a seeker after Truth. I claim to have found
the way to it. I claim to be making a ceaseless
effort to find it. But I admit that I have not yet
found it. To find Truth completely is to realize
oneself and one’s destiny, that is, to be perfect. I
am painfully conscious of my imperfections and-
therein lies all the strength I possess, because it is
a rare thing for man to know his own limitation.’!”
Gandhi, therefore, was concerned with the means
whereby the realization of absolute Truth might be
advanced. He humbly admitted that he claimed
16. Radhakrishnan and Muirhead, Contemporary Indian

Philosophy, George Allen & Union Ltd., London,
1936, ற. 21.
_ 17, . Gandhi, Young India, 17-11-1921; Also D. G. Tendul-
kar, Mahatma, Vol. I, p. 98.
no new truths. ‘I simply endeavour to follow and

represent truth as I know it. I do not claim to
throw a new light on many an old truth. I hope
that the declaration will satisfy my inquirer and
others.’ Gandhi admitted that the path towards
the realization of God is difficult. He says: ‘I know
the path. It is straight and narrow. It is like the
edge of the sword. I rejoice to walk on it. Iweep
when I slip. God’s word is ‘‘He who strives never
perishes”. I have implicit faith in that promise.
Though, therefore, from my weakness I fail a
thousand times, I will not lose faith but hope that
I shall see the Light when the flesh has been brought
under perfect subjection, as some day it must.’!9
Further he felt that this Truth could be realized by
one and all. The essential qualification required
by the aspirant is that he should be humbler than
dust. He says, ‘The seeker after Truth should be
humbler than the dust. The world crushes the dust
under his feet, but the seeker after Truth should so
humble himself that even the dust could crush him.
Only then, and not till then, will he have a glimpse
of Truth.’2
Such humility is the outcome of perfect

non-violence or love in its broadest sense. To
Gandhi, the means and ends are convertible terms,
18. N. K. Base, Selections from Gandhi, N. P, H,

Abmedabad, 1948, p. IX.
௩
19. M.K. Gandhi, Young India, June 17, 1926, p. 92.
20. M.K. Gandhi, My Experiments with Truth, N. P. H,
Ahmedabad, 1961, p. 4. ° :
THE END & THE MEANS ISI
as we have seen earlier, The extreme of means is
itself the end. Hence, according to Gandhi, Gad
as Truth is also God as Love. Then naturally
compassion follows. It was Gandhi’s inner ex-
perience of God as love, and of all phenomena as
the manifestations of God which were the spiritual
foundations of his ethics. We should, however,
note that Gandhi’s idea of truth (satya) is not
merely an ethical virtue confined only to individual
behaviour, but also extends to the whole field of
human activity and human relationship including
politics and international relationships. He was
against double standards, one for individual
morality and another for social, national and inter-
national relationships. He dedicated his life and
strove hard to spiritualise politics and the main
emphasis was on truth and insistence on truth.
Critics might hold the view that the adoption of
double standards in life is inevitable. But history
has taught us that it only brings in disaster.
Suspicion and ill-will beget hatred. On the
contrary Truth and Love beget harmony and good-
will, not only between individual and individual,
but also between group and group and nation and
nation. Thus the Gandhian way of life alone will
ensure peace in the world by bridging the gulf
between-nation and nation.
We have amongst us many thinkers who have

advocated the adherence of truth in life. One such
is Acarya Vinoba Bhave, the trusted disciple of
Gandhi. After the demise of Gandhi, the mantle
of leadership fell primarily on Vinoba who has put
to a practical test some fundamental assumptions
of Sarvodaya philosophy: by seeking to bring aboait
4 social transformation on a national scale.
Like Gandhi, Vinoba lays great stress on

Truth, Non-violence and self-restraint. Truth, he
declares, is the measuring rod of all virtues.
According to Vinoba also Truth is Brahman.
“Truth’, he says, ‘is greater than saints, saints are
the products of only a fraction of Truth’. When
Gandhi was asked to define God, he pointed out
that ultimately his faith rests on the inner voice.2!
And when Vinoba refers to his faith in the Vedas,
Upanisads, and the Gita, he makes it clear that
to him these scriptural texts mean words of experi-
ence. Both Gandhi and Vinoba,often speak about
the ultimate inadequacy of reason as the final guide
in the search of Reality. In fact, belief in God has to
be based on faith which transcends reason. Vinoba
categorically maintains the supreme unity of ulti-
mate Reality (Parama Sdmya). In spite of the
manifoldness of existence there subsists the ulti-
mate and final unity. It is spiritual. The word
samya which Vinoba use - meaning
s Brahman
- it-
self shows the way to reach the ultimate Stage-
the way passes through strenuous efforts to establish
equality and justice in social and economic fields
and such a plane of mutual understanding in
psychological level in society.
21. M. K. Gandhi, Young India, 31-12-1931.
22. Vinoba, Samya Sutre, p. 5. (Hindi).

THE END AND THE MEANS 153
We have pointed out earlier that to Gandhi,
Truth is the end and non-violence the means. If
the philosophy of Gandhiis to be summed up in
one word, that word would be ‘non - violence’
(ahimsa) which stands for the love born of the
universal element of spirit in man. No doubt,
Gandhi gives a very wide connotation to the term
ahimsad. Being etymologically of great age, but
extensively applied by intuitive methods to modern
Indian conditions, it deserves our careful study and
appreciation. For an explanation of the philosophy
of Gandhi it will be useful to interpret it in terms of
ancient Indian traditions, and to point out similari-
ties and differences between these and the ideas of
Gandhi. Further, it will be useful to analyse this
moral issue—non-violence and see how far it is
practicable in our times, among fallible men and
self-seeking nations.
The Samskrit term for non-violence is ahimsd.

Ahimsa has been the first.and foremost among the
five-fold virtues, which form the essence of Hindu
ethics and are known by various names, such as
paiicayama, paticasila or paficamahavrata. Etymologi-
cally ahimsda is composed of three elements; a (not),
hims (verb to kill or injure); and a (nominal suffix),
so the first meaning is often thought to be non-
killing of living beings. We should note that it
does not mean mere non-killing or abstention from
inflicting injury. It also means harmlessness in
thought, word, and deed, as also engulfing the
entire universe in boundless love. A Samskrit
dictionary gives a short definition of the Vedic

ahimsa stating that ‘the negation of all violence to
any sentient being (prana) which has no sdstric
sanction is @himsa’> A Jaina sétra illustrates the
relation between celibacy (brahmacarya) and non-
violence (ahimsd) thus: ‘He who being thus
contented with a few limited enjoyments, renounces
the vast majority of them, observes ahimsa par-
excellence because of abstention from considerable
himsa.”4 Jn the Sandilyopanisad, ahimsd is defined
as ‘abstinence from causing pain always, in all
beings, by thought, word and deed.°25
Contemporary Indian ideas on ahimsa are

largely influenced by Gandhi and also partly by
Western thought. The modern conception of
ahimsa@ lays emphasis on the object and on his or
her rights to live and enjoy the means to live.
Love (prema) and friendliness (maitri) which are
part of ehimsaé focus attention on a sentient being
outside the agent whereas traditional ahimsa is a
negative concept whose purpose is to control our
instinctive violent tendencies. Gandhi gave a
positive import to the negative word ahimsa by
incorporating love into it. In the words of Gandhi
“Ahirisdé means love in the Pauline sense and yet
23. Taranath's Sanskrit Dictionary, Vol. I, pp: 582-83.

24. iti yah parimitibhogath samtustastyajati bahutaran
bhogan bahularhimsaviraha ecarva ahinnsa visist syat,
Purusartha Siddyupaya.
25. Srinivasa Ayyapgar: The Yoga Upanisads, p. 449.,
Sarvatha sarvada sarvesarit anabhidroghah
something more than love defined by St. Paul,
although I know yet St. Paul’s beautiful definition
is good enough for all practical purposes.... Besides
love in the English language has other connotations
and so I was compelled to use the negative word.’26
Gandhi explains the reason for this: ‘All life in the
flesh exists by some violence. Hence the highest
religion has been defined by a negative word,
ahimsa. The world is bound in a chain of destruc-
tion. In other words, violence is an inherent
necessity for life in the body. That is why a votary
of ahimsa@ always prays for the ultimate deliverance
from the bondage of the flesh.?” He adds: ‘Love
is the strongest force the world possesses and yet it
is the humblest imaginable.’* In short, life with-
out love is life lived in vain.
T. H. Rhys Davids claims that ahiynsa is used

for the first time, say 7th century B. C., as a sub-
stantive in the Chandogya Upanisad: Whatever
penance, charity, sincerity, the desire not to do
harm and truthfulness are, these are his contribu-
tions towards a symbolic sacrifice.% In the
Brhadéranyaka Upanisad, extinction of desire for
26. M.K. Gandhi: Harijan, March 14, 1936.

27. Verrier Elwin, A Philosophy of Love, Publication
Division, New Delhi, 1965, pp. 34-35.
28. N.K. Bose, Selections from Gandhi, N. P. H, 1948,

ற்‌, 152.
29. ‘atha yat tapo danam arjavam ahimsa
satyavacanam iti, ta asya daksinah—Cu, Ul, 17.4.
sons (Putraisana), desire for wealth (vittaisand), and

desire for power in this world (lokaisand) are men-
tioned as necessary for realization of the Atman.*
In the Chandogya Upanisad we find an important
Vedic verse regarding the practice of ahimsa:
“he who concentrates all his senses in the self,
who practices non-hatred (ahimsda) to all creatures
except at holy places, he who behaves thus through-
out his life reaches the Brahma-world, does not
teturn hither again, yea, he does not return hither
3281ற.31 We have seen that the root of ahimsd is
found in the Vedas and Upanisads.
In the Santi Parva of Mahabharata, Bhisma

Says that the enjoyer of happiness (sukha) is he
who practices abstention from injuring all creatures
and possesses other virtues like truthful speech
(satyapravacana), gentleness (4rjava) and forgiveness
(ksama).? Ahimsa in the' Mahabharata is no doubt
a cardinal virtue of great importance, but not
extended equally towards all creatures.
30, brahmanah putraisanayas ca vittaisanayas

ca—lokaisanayas ca vittutthaya—BU, TW, 5-1.
31. a@tmani sarvendriyani sampratisthapya
ahimsan sarva-bhitany anyatra tirthebhgah,
28 84219 evam vartayan yarad ayusarn brahma lokam
abhisampadyate, na ca punar avartate,
na ca punar avartate—CU, VIII, 15-1;
Dr. §. Radhakrishnan (edt), The Principal Upanisads,
George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1953, p. 512.
32 Santi Parva, 215, 6.

THE END & THE MEANS நா
The Gita allows war or hanana for the purpose
of restoring dharma as the last resort and that too
without any feeling of aversion. It does not
sanction himsa, which arises from the passions of
anger, hatred, ill-will and jealousy. In the:Gia,
ahimsa is not prescribed as common duty but asa
relative duty (varnaSramadharma), i.e., relative to
one’s station in life. Yet it can be practised ina
limited way by all, provided it does not interfere
with the performance of caste-duties, e.g., a
warrior’s profession. There is no particular
philosophy of ahimsa in the Gita. It is simply
mentioned in a long list together with many other
virtues.*
. The Jainas and Buddhists are the greatest

advocates of ahimsd. They reiterate the principle:
ahimsa paramo dharmah in all its significance.
Amrita Chandra Suri, tries to derive all other
Virtues, viz., satya, asteya, brahmacarya, and
aparigraha from ahirsa, which is considered as the
greatest virtue. In fact, the whole of the Jaina
Gcaya isa derivation of the principle of ahimsa.
The Sutrakrtdnga exhorts us to regard ahimsd as
33. amanitvam adambhitvam

ahimsa ksantir arjavam
acGryeplsanant 82/11
sthairyam atmavinigrahah—Gita, XIU, 7.
ahimsa samata tustis
tapo danatit yaso’ yasah
bhavanti bhava bhiitanant
matta eva prthagvidhah— Gita, X, 5.
the quintessence of knowledge.*4 Further, ahinsa

is considered asthe pure and eternal dharma.*5
The Jaina scholar Amritacandra adopts the view
that the appearance of sense of passion on the
surface of the self is himsad, and the self in its
purest form is ahimsd36 For the observance of
ahimsad, the householder, belonging to the Jaina
tradition, should avoid the use of wine, meat,
honey and certain kinds of fruits known as Umara,
Kathumara, Pakara, Bada, Pipala.27 According to
the Jaina tradition, every vow should be observed
with great purity, since only such vows serve as a
means to the moral and the spiritual upliftment.
According to Jaina school of thought,

ahimsa means refraining from all injury and
violence, whether such violence pertains to the
subtlest invisible living beings or to animals or to
human beings. Whena Jaina ascetic adopts non-
violence (ahimsa), he tries his best to follow it
absolutely and not to cause injury to any living
being, physically, mentally and verbally. Thus
ahimsa requires three principles (guptis). In other
words, following the principles of non-violence
through mind, word, and deed implies three Guptis,
the Guptis of mental non-violence, verbal non-
violence and physical non-violence. Non-violence
34. Siitra Krtanga, 1-1-4-10; 1-11-10,

35. Acaraiga Sitra, 1-4-1, p. 36.
36. Purusarthasiddhyupiya, 44,
37, Amitagati Sravakacava, V, 1.
THE END & THE MEANS _ 159
is also regarded as equivalent to compassion. But
the Terapanthi sect of the Jaina Svetambara school
is of the opinion that absolute non-violence accord-
ing to which violence to subtle as-well as to gross
life is equally immoral, can become the ideal only
for the ascetic. They do not accept difference
between compassion to human beings and to subtle
lives, though they recognize the weakness of
ordinary men who make the distinction.38
The Buddhistic preachings about karuna and
maitri (compassion and friendship) have a signifi-
cant appeal. The Dhammapada defines nobility as
harmlessness to creatures. It recommends non-
violence on the basis of self-knowledge. Ahimsa in
Buddhism can be understood primarily as non-
hatred (adosa) or non-ill-will towards sentient
creatures, men or animals. It is predominantly
a mental state of mind which is reflected in the
spoken word and in physical action. In Jainism
the reverse is true. As we have noted earlier,
Jaina ahimsd is predominantly a physical mode of
action. The spoken and mental aspects are only
38. We do not propose to discuss in detail the difference

between the fayman’s and the monk’s ahinsa.
Herman Jacobi in ‘Encyclopaedia of Religion and
Ethics’ (Vol. VII, p. 470) remarks that the state of a
lay-man was preliminary and preparatory to the State
ofa monk. This means that a detailed discussion of
. Jayman’s ahimsa and the cauistie rules and exceptions
which refer their practice of akinisa involves, would
not be so helpful as to refer to the more extreme
ahinid of the monks.
taken into consideration in so far as such trans-
gressions are bound to lead to physical injury
while the Hindu and Buddhist conceptions of
ahimsa have developed a good deal, the Jaina
ahimsa has remained static. This may be explained
by the dogmatic structure of the Jaina philosophy.
Let us now examine the concept of ahimsé in

Indian philosophical systems. The Indian Carvakas,
unlike the Western utilitarians are not inclined to
accept ahimsd asa value. Nevertheless, ahimsa
would be acceptable from the Cdrvaka point of
view if it is defined as ‘not causing pain to sentient
creatures.’ It is of interest to note that it is indeed
the English utilitarians who have placed greater
emphasis on moral duties towards animals because
animals are also sensitive to the feeling of pleasure
and pain. Further, even a hedonist who considers
pleasure as an intrinsic value presupposes the
existence of life in the sentient creature.
We find that according to the Nydya-vaisesika

system, ahimsa is advocated as a form of ethical
discipline. Prasastapada divides duties into common
duties (sdmdnya-dharma) and special duties
(visesa-dharma). The former differs from Manu’s
sadharanadharmas by including ahimsé as the
common duty of all castes (varnas) and Stages in
life (a@framas). The Nyaya ethics advocates the
doctrine of psychological hedonism. All voluntary
actions involve the idea of an end (prayojana) and
the idea of a means (upaya). The self acts in order
THE END & THE MEANS. i61
to obtain pleasure (sukhaprapti) and to avoid pain
(duhkhaparihara).*° Ahimsa therefore can be under-
stood as a means to seek pleasure or to avoid
causing pain to sentient creatures, man and
animals.
In the Sankhya-yoga, ahimsa is of prime
importance. The yogic interpretation of சர்ப்ர்டிச்‌
emphasizes more the mental aspects than the
physical. Patafijali holds the view that there are
eighty-one kinds of Himsa. It is often stated that
yogic ahimsa is a universal categorical imperative
(sarvabhauma) not limited by caste (jati), place
(desa), time (kala) or occasion (samaya). Vyasa,
however, makes concessions which resemble the
small vows (anuvratas) of the Jainas. According
to this interpretation ahimsd can make concessions
to caste (ahimsa jatyavacchinnah) as in the case of a
fisherman killing fish (matsyesu), but no other
injury is allowed. But apart from these limited
concesssions, a yogi should practise absolute non-
violence.
As arule Pirva Mimamsa approves the Vedic

Commandment of non-injury (ma himsyat sarva
bhitani). Destruction of life which has scriptural
sanction (Sdstriya himsa)is good and is justified
because it causes more pleasure than pain. Killing
an enemy is evil if it is not sanctioned by the
39. Cf. S. Radhakrishnan, Zetroduction to Indian Philoso-

phy, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1966, p. 93.
40. Yoga Sutra, Il, 34.
Sastras. From this we find that according to the
Mimamsakas destruction of life as well as non-
destruction is amoral as such. The only real injury
is violation of Vedic dharma or law. Hence ahimnsa
does not, in the proper sense, have much signifi-
cance in the Mimamsa ethics. It is totally sub-
ordinate to Vedic justice and is a part of it.
According to the Advaita Vedanta of Sankara,

nothing is real apart from absolute spirit which is
referred to by such terms as Brahman and Atman.
‘The non-duality of Brahman, the non-reality of
the world, and the non-difference of the soul from
Brahman-these constitute the teaching of
Advaita." Sankara holds that the knowledge of
the Atman (atmavidyd) is the highest good. This
means participating in the experiences of all
creatures. All beings from Brahma to a blade of
grass become one with the Self, and there is no
distinction. Asaresult of the communion all
enmity, hatred and_ self-love disappear. The
Knower of the Atman-Brahman treats all creatures
as equals."8 Avyidya (nescience or ignorance) is to
believe wrongly that self and body are identical.
From ignorance arise passion or attachment (raga)
and hate (dvesa). Thoughts of injury to the body
41. ©. M. P. Mahadevan, Outlines of Hinduism,

Chetang
Ltd., Bombay, 1960, p. 141.
42. Saikara’s Commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, VI, 29.
43, Ibid., V, 18.
THE END AND THE MEANS 163
‘then create fear (bhayam). So avidya is the root
cause of violence.
If we try to find an ontological origin of
ahimsa@ there are three possibilities, the belief in the
unity of all life (Upanisads), (2) the autonomy of
every life-unit (Jainism), and (3) the non-violence
of the individual soul (Buddhism). Each of these
can be used for the ontological justification of
ahimsa@ and because they are contrary to one
another (the Jaina interpretation of autonomous or
separate character of individual life unit differs
fundamentally from the other two), it is necessary
to claim that ahimsd must be based on the
particular ontological doctrine. Another possible
metaphysical basis for ahimsd could be the theory
of transmigration. Swami Abhedananda seems to
accept the doctrine of karma as a basis for
morality. “As every good act brings its own
reward by the law of compensation, every crime or
wrong act brings its own punishment by the law of
retribution, whether it is found in this life or
next.’ Sankara says, ‘let not your motive be the
fruits of your action. When a person performs
work thirsting for the results of those works, then
he will be subject to rebirth as the result of
action.” If one is desirous of being reborn ona
44. Sankara’s Commentary on the Brahma-siitra, I, 3.

45, Abhedananda, Doctrine of Karma, p. 33.
46. The Bhagavad-Gita, with the commentary of Sri
Sankaracarya, ற. 63.
highest level, then even that isa kind of attach-
ment and binds the soul to samsdra. Therefore a
good action done for the sake of rebirth in a higher
form or freedom from rebirth cannot be a proper
motive for ahimsa because in that case performance
of non-violent action would not lead to a freedom
from samséra. Gandhi tried to justify ahimsa by
the metaphysical statement that in the last resort
ahimsa is of no avail to those who do not possess
a living faith in God.” Although we can say that
the acceptance of ahimsd does not primarily depend
on the ontological ground, yet those who have
different ontological points of view may have a
different interpretation of ahimsd. It may, thus,
be true that ontology as well as psychological and
economic factors, influence to some degree the
interpretation of ahimsa. They do so by presenting
certain problems which cannot be solved without a
careful examination of that particular definition
of ahimsa.
Thus we find that Hinduism, Jainism and

Buddhism all seem to have based the ethical
principle of non-injury on a similar kind of human
experience. Looking at all living beings through
the analogy of one’s own self seems to be the basis
of ahimsa. The Anusdsana Parva also seems to
agree with a passage in the Gita.“® The Vyasa-
47. Gandhi, Towards Lasting Peace, Edt. by T. Hingorani
Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1956, p. 11.
48. Cf. VI 32. The Commentary of Sri Sankaracarya,
pp- 129-130.
Bhasya pronounces ahimsé to be the root of both
yama and niyama and further tells us that yama
and niyama are pursued to observe ahimsa in its
pure and unadulterated form, Thus they all agree
that the root of ahimsd is the recognition that all
life is valuable and justified.
So far we have analysed briefly the concept of

ahimsa. We shall now attempt to contrast it with
himsa which would enable us to understand
thoroughly the concept of ahimsd. Himsa means
injury to vitality (pranavyaparopanam). The Buddha
considers a man guilty who causes death through
avoidable carelessness. According to the Jaina
tradition, Aimsad commences with the appearance
of passions, whether mild or intense, on the
surface of self.“ The term himsd is defined as the
committing of injury to the dravya - prdnas and the
bhava ~ pranas through the operation of intense-
passion—infected Yoga. Himsd is of two kinds:
intentional and non-intentional.®! The latter
has been subdivided into: Vdyami, adrrambhi and
Virodhi. In one of the Jaina writings it 15
affirmed: ‘And, if one acts carelessly, moved by
passion, himsa is certainly present whether a living
being is killed or not. Thus itis clear that
49, Purusdrthasiddhyupaya, 44.

30. Jbid., p. 43.
51. See Jainadarsanasara, p. 63.
52. vputthanavasthayam ragadinam vasapravythayam mriyan-
"tain jivo ma va ghavatyagre dhruvam himsad—Jaina
Gazetteer, Vol. XXVI, p. 77.
himsad does not only mean intentional injury

to sentient creatures, but also unintentional
avoidable injury. While commenting on the Indian
traditions, Charles Moore, points out that most
suffering is caused ‘unintentionally’, ‘but this is a
real part of the immortality of the act, that is, that
the actor thought so little of his actions and their
‘effects that he did not realize what he was
doing.’
Turning briefly to Gandhian thought, D. M.
Datta writes on the psychology of fear from the
stand point of Gandhi’s teachings: ‘with psycho-
logical insight Gandhi seeks that in most cases,
violence is the expression of fear. It is out of fear
from known or unknown sources that man arms
himself and goes out to attack others. One who
has love enough for others, does not entertain
any fear of them.’5 This means that from Gandhi’s
point of view violence is mostly a sign of weakness.
. When Gandhi states that he does not see anything
good coming out of violence his ideas are based on
the traditional heritage. He says that violence
appears to do good but the good is only temporary;
“the evil it does is permanent.” Good cannot be
achieved by violent means. Richard B. Gregg
says that violence does not solve any conflicts. It
53.. A. R. Wadia, Essays on Philosophy presented in his

honour, Edt. by S. Radhakrishnan and others, Madras,
1954, p. 21.
54. D.M. Datta, The Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi,
The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1953.
‘THE END AND THE MEANS — 167
can change their form, but will not end them.’5¢
Ends realized by causing injury or fear are achieved.
only. from the external point of view. Even if the
end is good a violent action will necessarily
include some negative element.
Gandhi always objected to the use of violence

as ameans to obtaining national freedom-an end
which is supposed to be good-stating that nothing
lowers the morale of the nation so much as
violence, and that as a result of violence, fear
becomes a part of the national character.57
Gandhi holds that himsd is an inherent

necessity for life in the body. Life lives upon life.
Ahimsa means an effort to abandon the violence
that is inevitable in life.°® Ahimsa stands for the
ultimate deliverance of man from thé bondage of
the flesh so that he may attain the state in which
life is possible without the need of.a body which
is perishable and whose sustenance inevitably in-
volves destruction. Ahimsa in its negative aspect _
does not mean merely non-killing. Himsa includes, as
Gandhi points out, ‘harsh words and harsh judge-—
55. M.K. Gandhi, Sarvodaya, Ed. by Bharatan Kumar-

appa, N. P. H, Ahmedabad, 1954. p. 144.
56. Richard B. Gregg, The Power of Non-violence, New
்‌ York, 1944,
57, M. K. Gandhi, Hindu Dharma, N. P. H, Ahmedabad,
1950, p. 191.
58. M. K. Gandhi, Harijan, Sept. 1, 1940, p, 271,
ments (i.e., those intended to hurt), ill-will, anger,
spite, cruelty, the torture of men and animals, the
starvation, wanton humiliation and oppression
of the weak, the killing of their self-respect, etc.’59
Non-violence would therefore mean complete
innocence, and absence of ill-will against all living
creatures. In its active form, non-violence is good-
will towards all life. It is love of the purest kind.
It is the goal of life. It is to reach this goal that
Gandhi strove hard. He says: ‘The goal ever
receeds from us. The greater the progress, the
greater the recognition of our unworthliness.
Satisfaction lies in the effort, not in the attainment.
Full effort is full victory. Therefore, though I
realize, more than ever, how far Iam from that
goal, for me the Law of complete Love is the law
of my Being. Each time I feel, my effort should be
all the more determined for my failure.’
True, the world is full of himsd,. but if we

remember that man is higher than the brute, then
59. M.K. Gandhi, Young India, I, p. 860; R. B. Gregg

definesviolence thus: ‘Violence is any act, motive,
thought, active feeling or outwardly directed attitude
which is divisive in nature or result in respect to
emotion or inert attitude; that is to say, inconsistent
with spiritual unity...... It would include, for example
pride, scorn, contempt, anger, impatience, grumbling
exploiting, deceiving, poisoning, tempting to evil,
flattering, deliberate weakening of character and
similar wrong’—The Power of Non-violence, N. P. ந.
Ahmedabad, p. 282,
60. M.K. Gandhi, Young India, March 9, 1920,
_is man really superior to that Nature. The divine
spark in man will ennoble him to fulfil his mission-
ahimsa. One of the aspects of Gandhi’s constant
endeavour to make his life a living example of non-
violence was his large-heartedness, his catholicity,
his for-bearance. All those who had contact with
him during his life time will testify to his unbounded
forgiveness. Anger, ill-will, jealousy, are all, ac-
cording to Gandhi, subtler forms of violence. Here,
as in the case of truth, Gandhi insisted on non-
violence in thought, word and deed. Thus killing
is not Ahimsa when life is destroyed for the sake of
those whose life is taken."©! The destruction of the
bodies of tortured creatures helplessly suffering the
pangs of a slow, certain death, is ahimsd. He
writes: ‘Should my child be attacked by rabies and
there was no helpful remedy to relieve his agony [I
would consider it my duty to take his life.’©2 Gandhi
61. M.K. Gandhi, Young India, I, p. 971.
62. M.K. Gandhi, Young India, Il, p. 978,

M.K. Gandhi lays down four conditions the fulfil-
ment of all of which can warrant the taking of life of
an ailing individual from the point of view of ahimsa.
These are :
(a) The disease should be incurable.
(b) All concerned should have despaired of the life of the

patient.
(5) The case should be beyond all help or service,
(ல்‌ It should be impossible for the patient in question to
express his or its wish. (See Young India, IU, p. 897.)
once had a calf in the &§rama poisoned because its

intense, unbearable agony was beyond remedy.
Similarly, forcibly preventing a child from rushing
towards the fire and smacking a child bitten by a
snake to keep it awake are instances of non-vio-
lence, provided the motive is not anger but the desire
to save the child from injury. Gandhi said:
‘Fatalism has its limits. We leave things to fate
after exhausting all the remedies. One of the
remedies and the final one to relieve the agony of
a tortured child is to take his life.
Gandhi states that if the votary of ahimsd is to

remain true to his faith, the inevitable Aimsd that
he has to commit must be spontaneous, though not
thoughtless, must be the lowest minimum, must be
rooted in compassion and must have discrimination,
restraint and detachment at its back.© It must be
committed after all remedies to avoid it are ex-
hausted. Therefore, Gandhi holds that so long as
man continues to be a social being he cannot but
63. M.K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, pp. 65-66; Harijan,

Feb. 6, 1937, p. 414.
64. M.K Gandhi, Young India, 18-1-1926, p. 395.
65. M.K. Gandhi wrote in Young India thus: “...... the

destruction of bodies of tortured creatures being for
their own peace cannot be regarded as his#sa, or the
unavoidable destruction caused for the purpose of
THE END & THE MEANS © 171
participate in the himsa that the very existence
of
society involves.
Now the problem is: if absolute non-violence

is not of this world and if each man is left to decide
for himself as to what extent he can practi
ce non-
violence, the question arises as to where one shoul
d
draw the line of distinction between non-violen
ce
65 (continued)
protecting one’s words cannot be regarded as hisisa.
(1) It is impossible to sustain one’s body without
the
destruction of other bodies to some extent.
(2) All have to destroy some life : (4) for sustain

ing
their own bodies: (b) for Protecting those under
their care; or (0) sometimes for the sake of those:
whose life is taken.
(3) (a) and (b) in ‘2° means himsa toa greater or lesser
extent. (c) means no Aimsa and is therefore ahimsa.
Himsa in (a) and (b) is unavoidable.
(4) A-progressive abimsa-ist will, therefore, commit

the hims@ contained in (a) and (b) as little as possible,
only when it is unavoidable, and after full and mature
deliberation and having exhausted all remedies to
avoid it. He writes further that...‘even man-slaughter.
_May be necessary incertain cases. ‘Suppose a man
runs amuck and goes furiously about sword in hand,
and killing anyone that comes in his way, and no one
dares to capture him alive. Anyone who despatches
the lunatic, will earn the gratitude of the community
and be regarded asa benevolent man — Young India
4-11-26, p. 385.
66. M. K. Gandhi Autobiography, op. cit.II. p. 229.

"172, ETHICAL PRINCIPLES & DISCIPLINE
and violence? Is the non-violence of the coward

also superior to violence?
Gandhi distinguishes between three levels of

non-violence: The highest of this is what he calls
the enlightened non-violence of resourcefulness or
the non-violence of the brave. It is the non-
violence of one who adopts it not by painful
necessity but by inner conviction based on moral
considerations. This non-violence pervades every
sphere of life.”
The second level of non-violence is the non-
violence of the weak or the passive non-violence of
the helpless; for it is weakness rather than moral
conviction which rules out the use of violence.
This method is adopted only in certain spheres of
life as a measure of expediency. This would
permit the use of violence if necessary, i.e., it can
sanction the treatment of men as mere means.
The Indian National Congress, for example, has
been non-violent by expediency. Gandhi enter-
tained doubts about the efficiency of the non-
violence of the weak adopted by India in her
struggle for freedom. He saw that India’s struggle
was based not on non-violence but on passive-
resistance which was essentially a weapon of the
weak and which changed into armed resistance
whenever possible. He realized that ‘there was no
such thing as non-violence of the weak. Non-
67. M.K. Gandhi, Harijan, Aug. 31, 1947, p. 302,
68, M. K. Gandhi, Young India, I, ற. 265,
violence and weakness was a contradiction in
terms.’
The third type is the non-violence so called by.
mistake, the passive non-violence of the coward and
the effiminate. Fear and love are contradictory
terms. And so ‘cowardice and ahirmsa do not go
together any more than water and fire.’ Where
there is a choice between cowardice and violence,
Gandhi would advise violence. ‘It is better to be
violent if there is violence in your breasts than to
put on the cloak of non-violence to cover
impotence.) However, Gandhi believes that non-
violence is indefinitely superior to voilence, for-
giveness more manly than punishment. It is -a
weapon of matchless potency. It is the summum
bonum of life. It is the special attribute of the soul:
That is why it has been described as the highest
dharma. Gandhi sums up the difference between
non-violence and cowardice thus: ‘Non-violence
is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice.
Non-violence springs from love, cowardice from
69. M.K. Gandhi, Harijan, July 27, 1947, p. 253.

Gandhi lays down, as an axiom of non-violence the
principle that ‘Man for man the strength of non-
violence is in exact proportion to the ability, not the
will, of the non-violent person to inflict violence.
But the real strength behind such ability comes from
fearlessness and an indomitable will and not from
mere physical capacity. Speeches, p. 790; Hind
Swaraj, p. 40.
70. M.K-Gandhi, Harijan, Nov. 4, 1939. p. 331.
71. M.K. Gandhi, Harijan, Oct. 21, 1939, p. 310.

hate. Non-violence always suffers, cowardice

would always inflict suffering. Perfect non-violence
is the highest bravery. Non-violent conduct is
never demoralizing, cowardice always is.’ There
is no defeat in non-violence. The end of violence
is surest defeat. Non-violence is not a cloistered
virtue confined only to the hermit and the anchorit.
Even the masses can practice non-violence, ‘not-
with full knowledge of its implications, but because
it is the law of our species.”
It is to be noted that Gandhi’s teachings and
values are a part of the moral evolution of man.
He discovered the technique of non-violence and
found its efficacy in South Africa where he
challenged racial domination on behalf of the
workers. We have noted that non-violence is not
only. the law of our species but also a soul force.
It is a positive attitude to life. The non-violence
of Gandhi is based on the faith in the unity of
existence and fellowship of man. It necessarily
follows that happiness and sorrow are indivisible.
Gandhi writes: ‘I have no pleasure from living in
this world if it is not united.......The world is one
in fact, andit must become one in truth in the
minds and all hearts of men........ All my actions
have their rise in my inalienable love of man-
kind....... All men are brothers. The welfare of all
(Sarvodaya) should be our aim.’ Thus Gandhi
72. M.K. Gandhi, Young India, Oct. 31, 1929.

73. M. K. Gandhi, Harijan, Nov. 4, 1939, p 331,
74, M.K. Gandhi, Harijan, 1-4-1947.
THE END & THE MEANS © 175
was a universal humanist who believed in the
fundamental unity of man and humanity. ‘It is
this principle of unity of all life that forms the
basis of the teachings of ahirns@ which is the
corner stone of the entire Gandhian edifice.’75
Satyagraha is primarily and fundamentally

a
new way of life. It is also a new technique of
social change. Satya in samskrit means Truth,
agraha means adherence to Truth. Similarly we
have words for instance, Saty - sandh
a a (wedded
to truth), Satya-vrta (one who has taken up a vow
to speak and act truth), Satya-van (one who is
truthful), Satya-dhrti (one whose determination
is firm), SatydSraya (one who relies on truth) and
so on. To Gandhi, satyadgraha meant a science
and an art of life. Gandhi identifies satydégraha
with ‘love force’ or ‘soul force’. It is the ‘vindica-
tion of truth, not by the infliction of suffering on
the opponent but by one’s own self.’ co
The life of a true saty@grahi is a life of

universal service. He must work for Sarvodaya.
Gandhian conception of Sarvodaya has gained
universal significance. As Dr. R.R. Diwakar
observes: ‘There is one unique feature of Gandhi’s
75. Kasthuri Vasudev, The Metaphysical basis of

Gandhian Political Philosophy, indian Philosophical
Annual, (edt.) by Dr. T, M. P. Mahadevan, Univer-
* sity of Madras, Vol. V, 1970, p. 18.
76. M. K. Gandhi, Speeches, N. P.H, Abmedabad,

p. 501.
Saty@graha. \t has the quality of being contagious.

The Pathans who had no traditions of non-violence,
took it up as a means of resistance to tyranny and
injustice. In distant U.S.A, the Negro leader,
Dr. Martin Luther King (Jr) adopted it with
Significant results. India and Indian traditions
have been known to the world for several centuries.
Yet no one in the world had discovered anything
like Satyadgraha. This itself proves once again that
it is a new way evolved by Gandhi. It was reserved
for Gandhi to initiate this new kind of civilized
non-violent yet powerful way of fighting evil and
injustice.’?7
Thus Gandhi tried to unite philosophy with

life, abstract principles with concrete realities,
religion with politics, and ethics with a programme
for social evolution. Like a scientist, he made
experiments about some of the eternal verities of
life. Right from his childhood his ideal had been
to become a votary of truth in life; and later on,
through its application to the varied actual problems
of everyday life he demonstrated how eminently
practical this idea! was.78
79. R.R. Diwakar, Satyagraha and Soctal Change, in The

Relevance of Mahatma Gandhi to the World of thought,
{edt.) Dr T. M.P. Mahadevan, University of Madras,
Madras, 1969, p. 13.
78. See the present writer’s, ‘Gandhi's Conception of
God’ in The Indian Philosophical Annual, Vol. VII,
1971, University of Madras, Madras, p. 219.
THE END & THE MEANS £77
Truth and non-violence are no new ideals.
Gandhi has restated and reinterpreted these funda-
mental laws in terms of modern life. His special
contribution was to make the concept of ahimsa
meaningful in the socio-political spheres by mould-
ing tools of non-violent action to use as a positive
force in the search for ultimate truth. ‘My life is
dedicated to the service of India through the religion
of non-violence which I believe to be the root of
Hinduism.” India has attained her freedom by
following Gandhi’s gospel of non-violence. ‘Non-
violence has come to men and will remain’, declared
Gandhi, ‘it is the anunciation of peace on earth.’
79. M.K. Gandhi, Young India, Aug. 11, 1920.

THE VIRTUES REQUIRED
Let us now examine Gandhi's attempt to place
ethics upon what he regards as the only sure
foundation, viz., that of human experience. Truth
is God, according to Gandhi, and non-violence is
the means of realizing Him. Truth and non-vio-
lence, however, have to be achieved by discipline
of mind and body. This discipline is described as
sannydsa - the equanimity of mind-literally meaning
renunciation. He believes that the human body with
its lust for power and pleasure is a hindrance to the
highest flights of the soul. He further believes that
suffering and renunciation, ‘the incessant crucifixion
of the flesh are not identical to life but its central
facts, indispensable for moral and spiritual growth.’
Self-suffering is an appeal to his better nature, as
retaliation is to his baser. Gandhi warned men not
to use the spiritual weapon as a coercive tool to
achieve baser objects in life. He resorted to the
vow of fasting whenever he felt a need for self-
purification and hence he called such a fast tapas
(austerity), Just as prayer is addressed by a mystic
for His mercy and kindness, so is fasting. Fasting,
according to Gandhi is not an act of coercion. It
is the fast weapon in the armoury of ahimsd. When
80. Jbid., Oct, 11, 1935.

THE VIRTUES REQUIRED 179
human ingenuity fails, the votary fasts. This fast-
ing quickens the spirit of prayer. It is a spiritual
act addressed to God. Jesus and Muhammad fasted
so as to see God face to face. Bhagavan Rama
fasted so that the sea might give way for his army
of monkeys. Gandhi fasted in order to become
one with serving humanity. Renunciation, accord-
ing to Gandhi does not mean abandoning the
world and leading a secluded life of austerity in the
forest. On the contrary, the spirit of renunciation
should rule all activities of life. Prof. N. A. Nikam
observes : ‘The lesson of the Gandhian philoso-
phy is that the natural activities of man ought
to be transformed into an activity in the pursuit of
Truth.’#!
Gandhi followed the footsteps of Manu who

aims at making the transition from pravrtti to
nivrtti possible. The motive of renunciation is ‘the
liberation of the individual and welfare of society.’
It is only the liberated or wise man that can
effectively serve society. Gandhi writes: ‘No
sacrifice is worth the name unless it is a joy.
Sacrifice and a long face go ill together. Sacrifice
is ‘making sacred’. He must be a poor specimen
of humanity who is in need of sympathy for his
sacrifice.®@ ‘Forced sacrifice is no sacrifice. It wilt
81. N. A. Nikam, Gandhi's Discovery of Religion, Bhara-

tiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1963, pp. 32-33.
82, M.K. Gandhi, Young India, 25-6-1925, p. 217.
not last. He states further ‘Renunciation of

objects, without the renunciation of desires, is
shortlived, however hard you may try.’
A fine Samskrit poem beautifully explains the

ideal of self-sarcrifice in the following lines :
‘tyajedekam kulasyarthe gramasyarthe

kulam tyajet
gramam janapadasyarthe hyatmarthe
prthivim tyajet’
“One should sacrifice oneself for the sake of one’s

family, family for the village, village for the.
country, and one should sacrifice even the whole
world for the sake of self-realization.’® This poem
exemplifies the truth that one should sacrifice lower
values for the sake of the supreme and ultimate
value.
It is interesting and relevant to compare the

above poem with a saying of Gandhi: ‘Just as the
cult of patriotism teaches us today that the
individual has to die for the family, the family has
to die for the village, the village for the district,
the district for the province and the pro-
vince for the country, even so, a country
83. Ibid., 11-8-1920, ந. 410.

84. Gandhi, Autobiography, op. ci tp. 20.
85. K. B. Parab, Selections, Subhasita-Ratna-Bhana-
garam, p. 160,
vs
has to be free in order that it may die, if
necessary, for the benefit of the world.’%
We find that the spirit of sacrifice and renuncia-
tion are embedded in Gandhian philosophy. If
this spirit of sacrifice and renunciation is adopted
today, then Gandhian vision of non-violence would
be accepted as the means for the regulation of
international relations. This was the vision of
Gandhi. Not only did he believe that the freedom
of India could never be a danger to the world, but
also that India’s success would serve asa great
example to other nations of how the liberty of the
individuals could be effectively defended against all
violence by non-violent means. Thus self-sacrifice
is not as a rule violence against oneself but rather
is non-violent attitude towards oneself, because,
one’s own higher spiritual or ethical end is
benefitted.
The spirit of self-sacrifice is possible by those

who have a sense of sense-control. It is the
Brahmacarin who is best fitted for it. Brahmacarya,
in the sense of self-control, has received general
recognition by Indian thinkers as being one of the
cardinal virtues, except by the Cdrvaka school
(materialists). The Tattvarthddhigama sutra of the
Jainas states ‘unchastity is coition.”*?’ However, it
is clear that brahmacarya does not narrowly mean
abstinence from physical coition only; it can also
86, M.K- Gandhi, My Religion, N. P.H, Abmedabad,

1955, p. 132.
87. Tativarthadhigama sutra, VII, 16.
be defined as abstinence from self-indulgence. For

the Buddha, brahmacarya is a condition of ahimsa.
It may be noted that brahmacarya is the first

of the four successive stages marked out as Asrama
Dharma in Hinduism. The other three are Grhastha
(house-holder), Vdnaprastha (anchorite) and San-
myasa (wandering mendicant). The Brahmacarin
has to lead the life of unbroken continence,
inculeating the utmost simplicity and humility.
He should have complete control over all sorts of
temptations, desires, and freedom from lust in
thought, word and deed.
Gandhi declared that ‘what is of abiding

worth is my insistence on truth, non-violence and
brahmacarya which is the real part of me.’ This
reveals his hierarchy of ethical values. He connects
ahimsda, love for all and brahmacarya thus: ‘since
true ahims@ must mean equal love for all,
one cannot fully live up to this ideal and indulge
in carnal desire. One cannot share carnal love
with all women. But one can give equal love to all
by regarding all women as mothers and sisters.’8
Gandhi’s conception of brahmagarya, while

being essentially positive, is not ascetic in
the
proper sense of the word. Strictly speaking,
brahmagarya rules out marriage. But Gandhi was
fully conscious that strict adherence to the rules of
88. Gandhi, Self-restraining versus Self-Indul gence,

N. P. H, Ahmedabad, 1947, p. 67.
brahmacarya may not be possible for everyone.
He
was a practical idealist. He observed that marriage
would be allowed provided it is for the sake of
progeny. Here lies the reply to his-critics who
complained about his extremism. ‘Procreation’,
Gandhi observes, ‘is a natural phenomenon indeed,
but within specific limits. A transgression of these
limits imperils womanhood, emasculates the race,
induces disease, puts a premium on vice, and
makes the world ungodly.®® Gandhi’s ideas about
brahmacarya are criticised as a form of repression
which is dangerous for the individual. He advises
self-control, not birth-control and positively not
even repression of one’s feelings. He holds the view
that the use of contraceptives is infinitely more
tempting than the whisky bottle. It is a vain
attempt to practice brahmacarya or restrain one’s
actions when the mind is uncontrolled. ‘The ideal
that marriage aims is that of spiritual union through
the physical. The human love that it incarnates is
intended to serve as a stepping stone to divine or
universal love.’ Marriage, says Gandhi, is a fence
that protects religion. In the words of Vinoba,
‘The life of brahmacarin, a celibate consists of
penance and self-control. But when related to the
lofty idea before his eyes, all that continence is just
play to him........ If one keeps service of the poverty-
ridden masses as an ideal of life before him, that
service itself becomes Brahman for him. Whatever
he may do to achieve his objective would be
89, Ibid., p. €9.

184 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES &. DISCIPLINE
regarded as brahmagarya. In brief, some grand,

noble idea must be in view for observing the vow of
celibacy, then practice of celibacy becomes easy.
Soaring idealism and practice of self-restraint for
implementing it is what I term ‘brahmacarya’. This
is the main thing about brahmacarya.. But there is
another that I want to relate to you. It is that there
must also be self-restraint in the smallest details of
life. Even minor matters such as eating, drinking,
speaking, sitting, sleeping efc., must be properly
regulated. To behave wantonly and to expect to
succeed in achieving self-control is futile. Even if
there be a small hole in an earthern pot, it becomes
useless for storing water. The same is indeed true
of our mind.” In short, a brahmacdrin, according
to Gandhi, is one who controls his organs of sense
in thought, word and deed. Gandhi describes
thought control as ‘maximum of work with mini-
mum of energy.” This is also an old idea which
can be traced, for example to the yoga-sittras :
‘brahmacaryapratisthayam viryalabhah
(vigour is obtained on the confirmation of contj-
nence).’% Sankara comments on the Gita by explai-
ning that brahmacarya consists in directing the body
and the mind exclusively along the right path when
they are by nature pulled in all directions.3 In
90. Vinoba Bhave, Revolutionary Sarvodaya, pp. 32-33.
91. M.K. Gandhi, Harijan, 10-6-1939, ற. 160,
92, Yoga-Sitra, I, 38.
93. Gitd with commentary of Sankaracha
rya, Ramaswamy
Sastrulu, Madras, 1947, p. 340.
‘other words, for Patafijali, Sankara and Gandhi,
brahmacarya means the concentration of all one’s
mental and physical powers upon the task of reali-
zing higher values.
Control of the palate (Gsvuda) is very closely

connected with the observance of brahmagarya.
Gandhi observes : ‘Experience teaches that animal
food is unsuited to those who would curb their
‘passions. But it is wrong to overestimate the
‘importance of food in the formation of character
or in subjugating the flesh........ahimsd is not a mere
matter of diatetics, it transcends it. What a man
eats or drinks matters little, it is the self-denial, the
self-restraint behind it that matters....... [have found
from experience that the observance of celibacy
becomes comparatively easy, if one acquires mastery
over the palate. Self-control eliminates the
motives for violence. Thus, Gandhi extends the
application of non-violence to food as well as sex.
Fasting occupies a central place in Gandhi’s

philosophy of life. We have noted earlier that
Gandhi looked upon it as a weapon in the armoury
of satyagraha and was not prepared to give it up
because of its possible misuse. Fasting is in accor-
dance with the Indian tradition and practice. It
helps those who aim to gain self-purification and in
a national struggle, it is used as an instrument of
national penitance. ‘A genuine fast’, claims Gandhi,
94. Speeches and writings of Mahatma Gandhi, G.A. Nate-

san, Madras, p. 383.
“cleanses the body, mind and soul.’ As in the case

of Jesus, fasting was a prayer to Gandhi. ‘All
fasting’, Gandhi writes, ‘if it is a spiritual act, is an
intense prayer or an preparation for it. It is the
deepest prayer coming from a lacerated heart.
Mortification of flesh is a condition of spiritual
progress. A complete fast is a complete and literal
denial of self.’%
Against the charge that fasting is a form of

moral coercion, Gandhi vigorously defended himself
saying that it was in accordance with an inner voice
and that it was ‘against nobody in particular.’ ‘It
is practically against myself....... It is a heart-prayer
for the purification of self and associates for greater
vigilance and watchfulness.’97
Gandhi has stated time and again that his was

a guided life in the sense that he communed with
his inner spirit and did the bidding which came. It
was no logic, reason, or past experience which
guided him so much as the spiritual instinct or
higher intuition. In this connection, we must note
what he says about conscience. ‘For me, the voice
of God, of conscience, of truth, or the stilt small
Voice mean one and the same thing.’ About Harijan
fast in 1933, he said: ‘I have no form... .. what I did
hear was like a voice from afar and yet quite near.
95. Ibid., p. 385.

96. Ibid., p. 385.
97. Mahadev Desai, Dairy, N, P, H, Ahmedabad, p. 275.
Our experience stands quite distinctly in my memory
«that kind of experience has never in my life
happened before or after that date.’
About this matter, Mahadev Desai's diary

quotes Gandhi as saying, “My claim to hear the
voice of God is no new claim. The inner voice
defies description. While speaking about the
decision to launch Individual satyagraha in 1940,
Gandhi said, ‘It has come from the recesses of the
heart where dwelleth the innermost. It is He who
has given it. It was born at the end of infinite
travail.” About this last fast in Delhi, he said,
‘with God as my supreme and sole counsellor, I
felt that I must take the decision without any other
advisers.’
When asked, how different people think diffe-

rent and contrary truths, Gandhi replied that the
human mind works through innumerabie media,
and that the evolution of the human mind is not
the same for all. It, therefore, follows that what
may be true for one may be untrue for another,
and hence those who have made these experiments
have come to the conclusion that there are certain
conditions to be observed in making their experi-
ments.
What are the motivating factors of Inner voice?

Just as for conducting experiments, there is an
98. Ibid., p. 275.

99. Ibid., 12-1-48,
indispensable scientific course of instruction,
in the same way strict preliminary discipline is
necessary to make experiments in the spiritual
realm. Everyone should, therefore, realize his
limitations before he speaks of ‘Inner voice’... We
have the belief, based upon experience, that those
who would make individual search after Truth as
God, must go through several vows, as for instance,
the vow of truth, the vow of bramagarya, for you
cannot possibly divide your love for Truth and
God with anything else-the vow of non-violence,
of poverty and non-possession. Unless you impose
on yourself the five vows, you must not embark on
the experiment at all.’ Gandhi further adds to
say that those who have made their experiments
know that it is not proper for anyone to claim to
to hear the voice of conscience, and it is because
we have at present moment everyone claiming the
Tight of conscience, that there is so much untruth
being delivered to a bewildered world.
It is clear that Gandhi’s spiritual life was based

on ‘truth’ as ‘reason’ was too poor an instrument
for knowing, understanding and communing with
what is usually named the Supreme spirit. It is
only through faith that the spirit in man can com-
prehend and hold communion with the supreme.
To Gandhi, the human spirit is ‘that mortal being
which informs the human body and which is
imperishable. Spiritual progress is that which pro.
motes the realization of the imperishable essence...
100. M. K. Gandhi, Harijan, 11-3-1933,

Spirit itself is capable of intellectual dissection:
only upto a point. It transcends reason and hence
it is a matter of faith, Nothing can be more
explicit than this.’
From the above analysis, it would seem that the
test of whether a fast is violent or non-violent is the
under-lying motive. This resembles the Jaina
opinion on the Sallekana (fasting unto death). If
one eliminates the three Kasdyas, raga (attach-
ment), devsa (aversion) and moha (infatuation),
then one is not held guilty of suicide by putting
an end to one’s life through voluntary starvation.
On the otherhand there is a remarkable difference.
The Jainas observe sallekhana purely for the sake
of individual religious merit, while fasting for
Gandhi was resorted to not only for achieving
social and political goals but above all for purifying
himself and others by non-violent means.
As important as purity and fasting is fearlesness

(abhaya) which is indispensable for the growth of
the other qualities. Just as ahimsd carries in the
Gandhian ethic, the positive meaning of love and
good will, self-suffering requires the positive attri-
bute of courage. Gandhi instilled into the minds
of his countrymen, self-confidence and a sense of
fearlessness, by himself setting an example for
others to follow. According to Gandhi, ‘fearless-
ness connotes freedom from external fear,—fear of
disease, bodily injury and death, of dispossession,
101. Jbid., 11-3-1933.

of losing one’s nearest and dearest, of losing repu-

tation or giving offence, and so on.’!0
What are the means by which one can become

fearless? Gandhi replies, “Let us fear God and we
shall cease to fear man. All the fears revolve
round the body as the centre and would therefore
disappear as soon as one gets rid of attachment
for the body.” This is possible only when we
conquer our passions and possess a balanced state
of mind. This state of mind (sthithaprajfia) is
possible to one who has had a ‘glimpse of the
atman that trancends the body.’ Such an indivi-
dual would be willing to sacrifice everything in the
quest of Truth, if one were to practice Truth,
ahimsa, one must immediately see that one also
practises fearlessness.
Fearlessness is the first requisite of spirituality.
In the Gita, fearlessness is declared as the first
essentia] quality of a Brahmin. One who fears
God will certainly not fear any earthly power.
Ahimsa as we have noted earlier, is a spiritual

force. The power of non-violence is the power of
spirit. Ahimsa, therefore, implies fearlessness. A
preacher of non-violence, Gandhi, however, pro-
_claimed that ‘where there is a choice between cowar-
dice and violence, I would choose violence....1 would
102. Gandhi, From Yerwada Mandir, Ashram observances,

N. P. H, Ahmedabad, 1945, p. 43.
103. Gandhi, Harijan, June 20, 1936.
THE VIRTUES REQUIRED 19]
rather have India resort to arms in order to defend

her honour than that she should, in a cowardly
manner become or remain a helpless witness to her
own dishonour,™ It is well to bear in mind that
Gandhi did not recommend non-violence to his
nation as a means of expediency. Jt was not
because armed rebellion was impossible that he
asked his countrymen to put up non-violent fight
for independence. Therefore Gandhi declared that
fearlessness is the first requisite of spirituality.
Cowards can never be moral. ‘To see the danger
clearly and yet to remain unperturbed in the face
of it, trusting to God’s goodness, is true wisdom.”!5
To obey the Divine Law and be indifferent to the
fruits of our action will help us ultimately to over-
come all obstacles in life. This is what Gandhi
stood for and his greatness lies in the fact that he
practised what he preached to others.
Another virtue which a votary of ahimsda should

implicitly observe is ‘asteya’ (non-stealing). Etymo-
logically dsteya means ‘non-stealing.” The opposite
term of steya is defined by the Jaina Tattvarthadhi-
gamasiitra as ‘Gdattadanam steyam’, 4.2, taking
something which is not given. Asteya accordingly
means ‘not taking anything which is not given.’
In the Srimad Bhagavatam the following lines

further define the meaning of ‘that which is given.’
104 M.K. Gandhi, Young India, 11-8-1920, p. 3.
105. Ibid., p. 24. ்‌

‘A man should have enough money for food to fill

his stomach. A man who desires more than what
he has is a thief who is worthy of punishment.’!0°
It is this idea that has influenced Gandhi who

observes: ‘If I take anything that I do not need
for my immediate use, and keep it, I steal it from
somebody else.”!07 One who follows the observance
of non-stealing will bring about a progressive
reduction of his own wants. It is to be noted that
much of the distressing poverty in the world has
arisen out of breaches of the principles of non-
Stealing. Vinoba also stresses the point of view
that everybody has the right to satisfy their basic
needs but that is all.
Gandhi accepted the Indian religious tradition

of not satisfying unworthy needs. We note that
the modern conception of dsteya does not exclusi-
vely emphasize the self-regarding aspect of the
principle. Gandhi affirms, ‘whatever cannot be
observed with the masses is taboo to me.’ We infer
from this statement that the criterion for dsteya
according to Gandhi is social justice. He observes -
‘In India we have three million people to be satis-
fied with one meal a day...you and I have no right
to anything that we really have until those three
millions are clothed and fed better. You and I,
ought to know better, must adjust our wants and
106. Srimad Bhagavatam, VIL, 14.

107. M.K. Gandhi, My Religion, N. P. H, Ahmedabad,
1950, p. 120.
even undergo voluntary starvation in order that
they may be nursed, fed and clothed,’108
The meaning of the term ‘want’ must not be

taken literally. Gandhi observes: ‘God is the
hardest task~master. I have known on this iruth,
and He tries you through and through. And
when you find that your faith is failing, or your
body is failing you and you are sinking, He comes
to your assistance, somehow or other, and proves
to you that you must not lose your faith and that
He is always at your beck and call, and on His
terms, not on your terms. I cannot really recall a
single instance when, at the eleventh hour, He has
forsaken me.” This passage illustrates, how God
always helps the needy people who seek his help.
Gandhi holds that one who takes up the observance
of non-stealing has to be humble, thoughtful, vigi-
lant and simple and pure in habits.
The concepts of Gsteya and aparigraha (dis-

owning of possessions are very similar, both refer-
ring to material possessions. The former requires
non-acceptance, the Jatter non-accumulation of
these things. Thus it may be said that dsteya,
while of primary importance to aparigraha, is a
larger and more practical concept. In short, the
vow of non-possession is the corollary of the vow of
108. M.K. Gandhi,Servedaya, Ed. by Bharatan Kuma-

rappa, N. P. H, Ahmedabad, 1954, p. 14.
109. G.A.Natesan, Speeches and writings of Mahatma
Gandhi, G. A. Natesan, Madras, p. 384.
non-stealing. Non-possession leads to the ideal of
trusteeship in relation to the possession of anything
by an individual beyond his bare necessity.
The problem is: on what moral principle can
the accumulated wealth be given away? Is it to
be given away as a charity? Positively not, as
charity because it is against the principle of social
equity. Further the person who receives it as
charity is obliged to the giver; therefore what is
given away is to be given away in the spirit of yajiia,
as a free gift on a mutual basis. Whatis given
away belongs to all and the rich are only “trustees”
of the poor.
Detailed analysis of this concept will be made
elsewhere in the book. The doctrine of Trustee-
ship is a notable contribution of Gandhian thought
and Vinoba’s Bhitdan Yajiia has put Gandhian
social ethics into actual practice for the establish-
ment of a non-violent social order. Says Gandhi:
‘the swardj of my dream is the poor man’s swaraj.
The necessaries of life should be enjoyed by you in
common with those enjoyed by the princess and the
monied man... have not the slightest doubt that
swaraj is not piirna-swardj until these amenities
are guaranteed to you under it...My notion of
purna-swardj is not isolated independence but
healthy and dignified interdependence. I believe
in the eternal truth of “‘sic utere tuo ut alienum
non loedus”’ (use thy own property so as
not to
injure thy neighbours).!#0
110. M.K. Gandhi, Young India, 26-3-1931, p. 51.
It is obvious that there will be inequality of

possession of wealth between the rich and the poor.
But those who have more should hold what they
have in excess. as trust for society. In this, honesty
on the part of the trustee is assumed. ‘Economic
equality is the master key to non-violent indepen-
dence’ observes Gandhi. To him ‘property is a
necessary condition for the free play of a capacity
which can be extended for the common benefit.
And on this ground he defends property in capital.
Capital as such is not evil but its wrong usage
brings evil. Gandhi for his part did not like the
wealthy to be dispossessed of their wealth. On
the contrary he wanted them to be trustees of the
people for the wealth they possess. In other words,
everyone including the rich will give for society
according to his capacity, and receive according to
his needs. To the objection that the possessor of
wealth does not usually act that way, Gandhi’s re-
joinder is that, that does not make the theory false.
It only proves the weakness of the wealthy. That
if a proper approach is made to the rich the princi-
ple of trusteeship does appeal to them, has been
shown by Gandhi in his nation-wide experiments
with Truth, and by Vinoba through his peripatetic
campaign (i.e., padayatra) appealing to the people
for the common sharing of wealth and talents,
beginning with the land-gift (4#uddn movement).
The way by which economic equality could be
brought above is by the non-violent transformation
of society through a trusteeship as advocated by
Gandhi. He affirms that ‘if only we could make
the people conscious of the power of non-violent,

non-co-operation, the realization of the ideal of
trusteeship would follow as surely as morning
follows night." The second phase of Trusteeship
is where the rich give up their individual property
to bring about an equalitarian social order. It
demands the use of all capacities of every human
being rich or poor, @é. g., intellectual, bodily, artis-
tic, etc., for the good of all—Sarvodaya. The diffe-
rent facets of the land-gift movement for non-
violent social revolution cover up these two phases
of trusteeship. In fact Vinoba accepts Sankara’s
definition of ‘gift’ (dana) as equitable distribution.
The vow of physical labour or bread-labour
SariraSrama is one related to the vow of non-posses-
sion. Gandhi came across this idea of bread-labour
in Tolstoy’s writings. Later it took deep root in
him, when he came across the same idea in Ruskin’s
Unto This Last of which the term ‘Sarvodaya’ is
the rendering which Gandhi coined. Bread-labour,
Gandhi holds is a veritable blessing to one who
would observe non-violence, worship Truth, and
make the observance of Brahmacarya a natural
act.!2_ Manual labour is essential for existence in
the world. No one should shirk the duty of bodily
labour. Gandhi heard an echo of his own thought
in Ruskin. He believed like Ruskin, that the socio-
economic organization that guarantees the
111. Pyarelal, ‘Towards New Horizons’, N.P.H, Ahmeda-
bad, p. 93. "
112, M.K. Gandhi, From Yervada Mandir, Ch. IX.
well-being of all—the high and the low, the rich
and the poor, the strong and the weak—is the only
one worth striving for. What is good for all must
also be good for each and everyone individually.
In Gandhi’s opinion, every kind of work has its
own dignity. The work of labour is as dignified as
that of a medical man. Vinoba shows that this
vow helps one in freeing oneself from the clutches
of loathsomeness or tamas."3 Gandhi believes it
to be a divine law which has been set forth in the
third Chapter of the Gita where we are told that he
who eats without offering sacrifice eats stolen food.
Sacrifice ((yajfia) here means only bread-labour.!!4
Today, mankind lives by yajfia, sacrifice. To
Gandhi, the spinning wheel is the auspicious
symbol of ‘ Sarir Yajfia’ (body-labour). This idea
is derived from the Gitd."!5 ‘ Work’ writes Gandhi,
113. Vinoba, Samya Sitra, p. 40.

114, M.K. Gandhi, From Yerwada Mandir, Ch. IX.
115. ‘Work is more excellent than idleness
The body’s life proceeds net lacking work
There is a task of holiness to do,
Unlike world-binding toil, which bindeth not
The faithful soul; such earthly duty do
Free from desire, and thou shalt well perform
Thy heavenly purpose. Spake Prajapati
In the beginning, when all men were made,
And, with mankind, the sacrifice—‘Do this!
Work! Sacrifice! Increase and multiply
With sacrifice! This shall be Kamadhuk,
Your ‘ Cow of plenty’, giving back her milk
‘here refers to physical labour and work by sacri-

fice can only be work to be done by all for the
common benefit. Such work, such sacrifice can
only be spinning. I do not wish to suggest that the
author of the Divine Song had the spinning
wheel in mind. He merely laid down a fundamental
principle of conduct. And reading it and applying
to India, I can think of spinning as the fittest and
most acceptable sacrificial body-labour.6 The
115 {continued)
Of all abundance. Worship the gods thereby;
The Gods shall yield ye grace.
Those meats ye crave
The gods will grant to Labour, when it pays
Tithes in the alter-flame. But if one eats
Fruits of the earth, rendering to kindly heaven
No gift of toil, that thief steals from this world
Who eat of food after their sacrifice
Are quit of fault, but they that spread a feast
All for themselves, eat sin and drink of sin.
By food the living live ; food comes of rain,
4nd rain comes by pious sacrifice,
‘And sacrifice is paid with tithes of toil.
Thus action is of Brahma, who is One,
The only, All-pervading ; at all times
Present in sacrifice. He that abstains

To help the rolling wheels of this great world
Abetting his idle sense a lost life
‘Shameful and vain’—
‘Divine Song’, Edwin Arnold.
116, M.K. Gandhi, Young India, Oct. 20, 1921.

vow of * bread-labour’ is preached by all religions
of the world. Gandhi holds that obedience to the
law of bread-labour will bring about a silent revolu-
tion in the structure of society, which Sarvodaya
stands for. ,
Swadeshi is another important vow and a key

concept in Gandhian philosophy. It is symbolic of
an all-sided patriotism of an exalted spiritual type
which aims at the final emancipation of the soul
from its earthly bondage. Such an exalted spiritual
concept as ‘Swadeshi’, should not be constructed
merely as a political weapon. Gandhi believes that
the teaching of the Gita, viz., ‘It is better to die
performing one’s duty or svadharma but paradharma
or another’s duty is fraught with danger’ applies
to swadeshi also, for swadeshi is svadharma applied
to one’s immediate environment.""!7 Swadeshi is a
spiritual discipline and if properly carried out by
us, will enable us to reach the goal of Sarvodaya,
which aims at the welfare of all, not merely
materially but towards the ultimate end of spiritual
realization.
Gandhi also recommends the removal of

untouchability which follows from the principle of
Spiritual unity of all life. With a view to purify
Hindu religion, Gandhi declared: ‘Untouch-
ability is not only not a part and parcel of
“Hinduism, but a plague, which it is the bounden
duty of every Hindu to combat...... None can be
117. M.K. Gandhi, From Yerwada Mandir, Ch, IX, p.91.

born untouchable. To consider so is to support
rank irreligion fit only to be destroyed® Thus
Gandhi welcomes inter-caste marriage, particularly
between savarna and untouchables and open
temples for them. At least those who belong to
the same faith should not be refused entrance
in
the places of prayer and worship. ‘Harijan’ is
another name given by Gandhi to the sectio
ns of
Hindus who were considered as untouchables.
Untouchability itself has been declared illegal
by
the Government under Article 17 of the
Consti-
tution of India." The very fact that the consti.
tution-makers felt the need for including
Article 17
shows that the conscience of the Hindu
s has been
roused to action and is now set on Temov
ing this
shame. Mere legal enactments wil]
not hold good.
The general conscience of the people
at large
must change. As Gandhi observes: ‘Removal of
untouchability means love for,
and service of the
whole world, and thus merges into ahimsa.
Removal of untouchability spells the breaking
down of barrier between man and
between the various orders man and
of Being. In dealing
118. M.K. Gandhi, From Yerwada Mandir, Ch.
TX, p. 32,
119, ‘Untouchability is abolished and its pract
ice in any
form is forbidden. The enfo
rcement of any disability
arising out of ‘antouchabil
ity’ shall be an offence
punishable in accordance with
law’. The legal impli-
cation behind the term “in accordan
ce with law’,
means that under the prese
nt article, read with
article (35{a) iii Parliament
has enacted the Untouch-
ability (offences) Act 1955, which must
with the present article. be read along
'. THE VIRTUES REQUIRED 207
with the problem வ பபப பட தவ ய்‌

even went to the extent of calling himself a
Sandtana Hindu. He comes to the conclusion that
whether his theory is correct or not, untouchability
is repugnant to reason and to the instinct of
mercy, pity, and love, which are ihe divine
attributes of God. And as we are the children of
God, we should love and treat one and all equally.
He says, ‘I believe in the rock-bottom doctrine of
Advaita and my interpretation of Advaita excludes
totally any idea of superiority at any stage
whatsoever. I believe implicitly that all men are
born equal. And when I ask you to purify your
heart of untouchability, I ask of you nothing less
than this - that you should believe in the funda-
mental unity and equality of man.
Gandhi, was essentially a2 man of religion.

spiri-
The sources of Gandhi’s basic and essential
tual tendencies are not far to seek. Sometimes
ion’ and ‘relig ious’. He
he calls them ‘relig
tion of religi on. “By religi on’,
gave his own defini
of custo-
Gandhi means ‘not formal religion
mary feligion but that religion which brings
He further says,
us face to face with our maker.’
one of our
‘indeed religion should pervade every
actions. This religion transcends Hinduism,
y. In short,
Christianity, etc., and gives him realit
sarvadharma samab hava i.e.,
Gandhi advocated
It is that deep and
reverence for all religions.
My Philosophy of Life, ed. by
120.. M.. K. Gandhi,
T. Hingo rani, Bomb ay, 196], ஐ. 194
ardent hunger in the man’s soul which earnestly

and constantly seeks union with the universal
soul-God. The human spirit calling to the spirit
which eternally pervades everything is the essence
of what Gandhi called ‘religion.’ ்‌
Religion is the most potent of all the human
forces working to mould the destinies of the human
race. The bonds of religion have in many cases
proved stronger than the bonds of race or climate.
‘Religion involves an intimate relation between man
and God. The object of every religion is the same
to unite human hearts and bring them into unison »
with the eternal Truth, by whatsoever name the
different religions may seek to call it. All religions
require us to look upon life as an opportunity for
self-realization. We are expected to strive inces-
santly and wrest the immortal from the mortal.
God is the universal Reality, Wisdom and love and
we are His children, irrespective of race or religious
beliefs. Within each incarnate soul dwells the God-
consciousness which we must seek out and awaken.
Gandhi claimed that he was not only a Hindu

but also a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist and so
forth. Of course, Gandhi was not claiming to bea
muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, in the accepted
senses of the terms. His claim was simply that
though a Hindu by birth and conviction, he
could
assimilate all that which in Christianity and
Islam
he found to be precious. He welcomed the best in
every tradition. Thus he advocated sarvadharma-
samabhava, which will enable one to have a glimpse
ef the universal and absolute truth which lies
beyond the “dust of creeds and faiths.’ It is for us
to act according to the teachings of Gandhi which
alone will pave the way for establishing a spirit of
brotherhood with other peoples of the world.
Vinoba also advocates a universal Religion

which will unite all humanity and establish friend-
ship with the whole of creation. The unity of man
through equality should be its motto. Vinoba says
that if religion is to be re-established, it must be
made to rest on the support of scientific thought.
The call of the hour is for ‘religious science’. True,
science can neither be ‘religious’ nor ‘irreligious’.
Itis moral. But the man working in the field of
science should be a ‘whole’ man, if science is to
proceed on the path of the well-being of all. And
in this sense science should bear the imprint of the
spititual outlook of the scientist. Vinoba expresses
this by saying that Vedanta (unitive knowledge)
effect
and Vijfidna (Science) should come together to
peace and prosperity for humanity. In the absence
trust, there will be mere names of
of mutual
should
brotherhood and unity. Hence visvasa (faith)
together
come to join hands with these two.21 They
will revolutionise man’s mind and the institutional
set up of social dealings thus shaping the universal
man loyal to the universe as a whole.
tisrah, yasarn
121, ‘Vedanto vijftinam visvasasceti saktayah
Santi samrd dhi bhavis yato jagatt,
sthairya nityam
‘Towards New Horizons’ by Pyarelal,
—preface:
ந, நர.
\
Thus Gandhi refers to ethical preparation (yama
and niyama) which he also terms the ‘eternal guides
of conduct’ as the essentials for the realization of
Truth. These vows were the result of Gandhi’s
long and conscious experimentation with his own
mind and action, as well as with community living.
The aim of these observances is not only the spiri-
tual progress of the individual but also harmonious
community Living on the basis of spirituality,
mutual aid and collective salvation. The practice
of humility, observes Gandhi, forms the criterion
which integrates these observances. The manner of
integrating act and thought, of thinking in terms of
the act, of renouncing in the midst of action, and
of renouncing the fruits of action is the essence of
Gandhi’s philosophy which is carried out by
Vinoba. To him Jfiana-karma-samuccaya i.e., the
integration of action with knowledge and know-
ledge with action is the summumbonum of integral
philosophy. It is with this kind of intense inspira-
tion that Gandhi started his spiritual discipline for
the attainment of his goal. He continued it to the
last moment as he knew that there should be no
relaxation on the way or even at the end. In this
path, what begins as a burden and a duty and
continues as a discipline and habit ends in being
the means of extreme joy and ecstasy. The means
and ends at last coincide since the means them-
selves are but another form of ‘ends’. Gandhi.
preceived by his unerring moral instinct the integral
and indivisible character and the unbreakable
and
inseparable nexus between the two—ends and
means.
Gandhi’s call is to each and everyone, a call for
incessant effort and for comprehensive and integral
development of body, mind and soul. Sarvodaya
epitomises his whole social philosophy, which aims
at the attainment of both material prosperity
(abhyudaya) and spiritual realization (nifsreyasa).
Such a vision carries within itself detailed impli-
cations regarding the social and economic ordering
of the society. - Accordingly the next chapter will
spell out these socio-economic implications of the
philosophy of Sarvodaya.
CHAPTER THREE
SOCIAL & ECONOMIC

ORDERS OF
SARVODAYA
SOCIAL ORDER
The importance of a proper social, economic
and political structure cannot be over-estimated.
These structures not only embody the social value
established in society, but they also aid or hinder
the establishment of those values. The Sarvodaya
philosophy gives primacy to the individual. Gandhi’s
own life is the best example of the role which the
individual can play in society. Gandhi, true to his
conviction, was filled with a deep love for all
human beings because he actually lived up to his
ideals which identified love with truth and truth
with God. In an age when the place of the indivi-
dual is being threatened and the spectre of total
mass-control is raised at every time Gandhi insisted
that no power on earth can make a man do a thing
against his free-will. The technique of satydgraha
formulated by Gandhi provides the means and
suggests the discipline through which resistance
could become a dynamic force. The element of
self-suffering or sacrifice provides the ultimate
alternative. For Gandhi, freedom and preservation
of individual integrity were of supreme importance.
To Gandhi, an individual is the measure of all

things, and though Vinoba speaks in terms of social
organism, the individual with him is a reality.
Spirit in man is the central reality, the basis of his
210 SOCIAL ORDER
physical existence, biological growth, mental
development, and intellectual evolution. Defining
spirit, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan says, ‘It is not the
physical body or the vital organism, the mind or
the will, but something which underlies them all
and sustains them. It is the basis and background
of our being, the universality that cannot be
reduced to this or that formula.*! Dr. S. Radha-
krishnan emphasises the need of conviction in the
spiritual powers of man, for without such convic-
tion neither the spiritual development of man’s
personality is possible, nor can he penetrate the
depth of the reality.
The fundamental belief which underlies the

Gandhian view of manis that there is a spiritual
principle,—‘an indefinable mysterious power that
pervades everything’? and that ‘human society is a
ceaseless growth, an unfoldment in terms of
spirituality. Sankara sums up the unique nature
of man thus: karma jiia@nadhikarat. He is one who
is capable of both knowledge and moral freedom.
The spiritual concept of man is that he is a super-
sensible entity called ‘soul’. It is eternal, immortal,
and is essentially of the nature of sat, chit and
ananda. Thus, the real nature of man is spiritual
and moral. As a moral agent, man is responsible
1. S. Radhakrishnan, An Idealist view of Life, George

Allen & Unwin, Ltd., London, 1922, p. 226,
2. M. XK. Gandbi, Young India, October 11, 1928.
3. M.K. Gandhi, Ibid, September 16, 1926.
SOCIAL & ECONOMIC.ORDERS — 21]
both in his personal and impersonal relations with
his fellow beings in society. .Man has to live in
society. He is gregarious, selfish and yet a
rational and moral animal. Self-development is
possible only through his active social participa-
tion, which implies the observance of ethical codes
of life. Gandhi observes: ‘There is nota single.
virtue. which aims at or is content with, the
welfare of the individual alone.. Conversely, there
is not a single moral offence which does not
directly or indirectly affect many others besides
the actual offender. Hence, whether an individual
is good or not is not merely his own concern, but
really the concern of the whole community, nay,
of the whole world.’* According to Gandhi the
personal good is thus inseparably connected with
the common good or welfare of all. | Gandhi
further observes: ‘willing submission to social
restraint for the sake of the well-being of the
whole society enriches both the individual and the
society of which one isa member. The real
essential nature of man which is non-violent has to
be sustained by society. Thus, society is the
training ground where an individual can try to
learn the art of self-development through disci-
plined, self-sacrificing social participation. Though
man is basically good, evil forces somehow shroud
his goodness and compel him to commit wrong
"4 NL K. Bose, Selections from Gandhi, N. P, H, Abmeda-

்‌ bad, 1948, ற. 27.
5. M. K. Gandhi, Harijan, May 27, 1929.
212 SOCIAL ORDER
actions in life. Gandhi does admit that there is

‘repulsion enough in nature.’ However, man can
overcome this conflict because he possesses good
qualities, viz., reasoning power and self-sacrificing
spirit which will enable him to conduct himself as
a human personality. Self-love compels regard for
others. Thus Gandhi envisaged universal brother-
hood in which the gain of one will not be a loss to
another, while the loss sustained by an individual
will be a dead-weight on others. This is possible
only by ‘a change of heart’ through non-violent
means. Herein lies the uniqueness of Gandhian
thought which differs from.other kinds of social
philosophy.
_ According to Gandhi, what is real in the indi-
vidual is the immortal Spirit (Atman). While as a
spirit he is good, as a brute he is nothing. The
‘essence of Gandhi’s philosophy of human nature is
contained in this statement: ‘Man is higher than.
the brute and has a divine mission to fulfil. To find.
Truth completely is to realize oneself and one’s
destiny."° Man’s true destiny is not the conquest
of external nature but the conquest of his own self
because dtma-nigraha or the suppression of the
lower self alone indicates the greatness of the.
human spirit. Hence Gandhi adhered to the view
that the religious re-making of human nature is
the antecedent to any lasting social and political
transformation. According to Vinoba, an indivi-
dual ‘is he who reflects God in himself, who is good
6. M.K. Gandhi, Young India, 11-10-28, p. 340, -

SOCIAL & ECONOMIC ORDERS 213
by nature, who is to seek truth and to walk
alone in the world if need arises, and with
whom the task of any social transformation’ is
to begin. But he is no isolated being. He infiuences
society and is in turn influenced by it. If in spite
of his innate goodness, he goes astray, such fault
lies with the wrong social structure. Hence the
establishment of a proper type of society becomes
essential, and to do so one must have some idea of
it. However, any delineation of its shape is a
difficult task, and if attempted in detail, it is bound
to prove utopian. Therefore, only outlines can be
drawn and trends indicated.’ It is on these lines.
that Sarvodaya workers are trying to reconstruct
Indian Society.
Since the individual is the basis of all social
progress, Gandhi places greater reliance on the
development of the individual than on any institu-
‘tional devices. Gandhi's belief is that man is not’
a ‘lost’ creature. He is ever capable of self-deve-_
lopment. He observes: ‘J have been taught from
my childhood and I have tested the truth by experi
ence that primary virtues of mankind are
possible of cultivation by the meanest of the
human species. It is this undoubted universal possi-
bility, that distinguishes the human from the rest
of God’s creation.’ This aspect of human quality
andon, The Social and Political Philo-
7 ven “of பட்லு after Gandhi, Sarva Seva Sangh
‘ ட
Prakashan, Varnasi, 1965, p. 86.
8. M. K. Gandhi, For Pacifists, N. P. H, Ahmedabad ,
5,
1949, p. 82.
214°. » SOCIAL ORDER. —
or trait places him distinctly far above the other
non-human creation. With such faith in human
nature the cultivation of primary virtues in all—
strong and weak—is the Gandhian pleading. ‘The
source of moral force is the human heart. It comes
from the determination to do something and to-
sacrifice something for the sake of the human
௦2186.
The world teaches that there are two opposing

forces which are wholly different in kind. The one
is the moral or spiritual force; the other the physi-
cal or material force.'! The moral force is infinitely
superior to the physical force which by its nature
has anend. The force of the spirit is ever progres-
sive and endless. Its full expression makes it un-
conquerable in the world. That force resides in
everybody. Though in many it lies dormant, it is
capable of being awakened by judicious training.
Without the recognition of this truth and due effort-
to realize it, there is no escape from self-destruc- .
tion, The remedy lies in every individual training
himself for self-expression in every walk of life. In
saying this, Gandhi was conscious of the fact that
he had said nothing new and he merely bore wit-
9. M.K. Gandhi, Non-violence in Peace and War, Vol. I,

N.P.H, Abmedabad, p. 52.
10. Ibid., Vol, Il, p. 95.

11, Ibid., p. 95.
SOCIAL & ECONOMIC ORDERS 25.
ness to the facts of life.'* He did not plead for the
balancing of the spiritual and the material forces for
the consummation of the personality of man. On
the contrary, he laid stress on the development of:
moral qualities without a materialistic basis. The
spirit dominates matter totally’ and completely in
his philosophy of self-culture.
Gandhi's conception of society is broadly des-

cribed as Sarvodaya. He envisages a society based
on dharma which is free from seven evils: “(1) Politics
without principles, (2) Wealth without work,
(3) Pleasure without conscience, (4) Knowledge
without character, (5) Commerce without morals,
(6) Science without humanity and (7) Worship
without sacrifice.” Gandhi observes: ‘I claim that.
human mind or human society is not divided into
watertight compartments called social, political
and religious. All act and react upon one
another.”3 The Mahatma looked upon the ideal
society as an indivisible whole. He wrote: ‘T
subscribe to the belief or the philosophy that all
life in its essence is one and that the humans are
working consciously or unconsciously towards the
realization of that identity.“ Thus society,
‘according to Gandhi, is an unfolding of man in
terms of spirituality, ora perpetual creation of
12. Ibid., p.’95.
13. M: K. Gandhi, Young India, 2-3-1922.
14. M, K. Gandhi, Gandhiji’s correspondence with the

Government 1942-44, 2nd edition, p. 88,
216.0 - SOCIAL GORDER-
values, symbols and purposes and embodying them

in forms of social institutions, relationships and
harmonious adjustments and settlements. In fact,’
the existence of manasa human person depends’
upon and arises fromthe process of interaction
and interrelation that constitute society. Society:
does not acquire and possess a personality trans-
cending and eclipsing the individuals who belong
to it.
That life is surrounded by strife and bloodshed

is an undeniable fact. But the core of truth is that’
it is not through strife and bloodshed but through
non-violence that man can fulfil his destiny and his
duty to his fellow-creatures. In the regulation of
social order, equal stress is laid upon rights and
duties. But it is a common observance that rights
are more claimed than duties discharged. It is this’
imbalance existing between the claims of rights and.
the discharge of duties that is creating disturbances
in the social order. To Gandhi, there is a correla-
tion of rights and duties. Their existence is inter-
dependent and inseparable. According to Gandhi,
rights flow from duties and duties confer tights.
He writes: ‘If all simply insist on rights and no
duties, there will be utter confusion and chaos. If
instead of insisting on rights, every one does his
duty, there will immediately be the rule of order
established among men.’ We shall discuss this
aspect in detail elsewhere.
15. M.K. Gandhi, Non-violence in Peace and War, Vol. I,
N. P. H, Ahmedabad, p. 271. - °
SOCTAE; & ECONOMIC..ORDERS = 217
+: Love,’ fearlessness, tolerance, :. humility, and
above allnon-violence, are virtues which individuals
must imbibe in order to usher in a democratic and
free society. In a society based on non-violence,
thé smallest nation will feel as strong as the
strongest. The idea of superiority and inferiority
‘will be wholly obliterated.!© Holding the view that
without the recognition of non-violence on @
national scale there is no such thing as a constitu-
tional or democratic government. Gandhi says: ‘I
devote my energy to the propagation of non-violence
as the law of life - individual, social, political,
national and international.’!7 The sphere of non-
violence as the manifestation of the law of life is
wide enough to include individuals, societies and
nations. Therefore, the widening of the range of
non-violence from an individual to the national
base is to visualize the establishment of a constitu-
tional or democratic government based on full non-
violence. A society organized and run on the basis
of complete non-violence would be purest anarchy.
The nearest approach to the purest anarchy would
be a democracy based on non-violence. The true
democrat is he who with purely non-violent means
defends his liberty and therefore his country’s and
ultimately that of the whole of mankind. Gandht
holds that non-violence is not merely a personal
virtue but also a social virtue to be cultivated like
other virtues. Undoubtedly society is largely regu-
lated by the expression of non-violence in mutual
16. Ibid., Vol. I, p- 199.
17. Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 199.
218 SOCIAL ORDER
dealings. “What I ask for’, says Gandhi, ‘is an
extension of it on a larger, national and internatio-
nal scale.’!8
A critical appreciation of the ups and downsin
human evolution reveals man’s incessant struggle
for freedom and self-reliance. He is subject to-
nature’s dictates but is independent in thought and
POssesses a capacity to mould his own nature.
Hence in his life, there is a dual-spell, both regres-
sive and progressive. All the attempts aimed at
man’s freedom from external and internal entangle-
ments can therefore be said to be moved by the
progressive urge. Gandhi observes: ‘I value in-
dividual freedom but you must not forget that man
is essentially a social being. He has risen to his
present status by learning to adjust his individua-
lism to the requirements of social progress. Un-
restricted individualism is the law of the beast of
the jungle. We have to learn to strike the mean
between individual freedom and social restraint.
Willing submission to social restraint for the sake
of the well-being of the whole society, enriches
both the individual and the society of which one is
a member.”!9 In short, the individual is for society
and society is for the individual. Thus Gandhi
strikes a golden mean between the two extremes,
viz., selfish individualism and effacement of the
individual by social and political control. In an
ideal society therefore, the individual will be a sort
18, M.K, Ged i, Harijan, Jan. 7, 1939,

19. M.K. Ga -dh , Harijan, Feb. 1, 1942.
of embodiment of the social good. He expresses.

through his action all that is demanded by common.
good. His spiritual anarchism, therefore, steers
clear both of social authoritarianism and exclusive
individualism.
For Gandhi, society must provide opportunities
for the maximum growth of the individual, and the
final decision as to what constitutes that growth
lies with the individual. ‘If the individual ceases to
count’, Gandhi asked, ‘what is left of society? It is
by virtue of individual freedom alone that an
individual will be prepared to voluntarily surrender
himself completely to the services of society.” And
if that freedom is wrested from him, he becomes
merely an ‘automaton’ to the ruin of society.
Gandhi holds the view that no society can possibly
be built on a denial of individual freedom. It is
contrary to the very nature of man. Just as a man
will not grow horns or tails, so he will not exist as
man, if he has no mind of his own. In reality, even
those who do not believe in the liberty of the
individual believe in their own.
Gandhi insisted that the individual should look
first to duty and not concern himself with rights,
He observes: ‘Rights accrue automatically to him
who duly performs his duties. In fact the right to
perform one’s duties is the only right that is worth
living for and dying for. It covers all legitimate
rights. All the rest is grab under one guise or
another and contains in it seeds of himsd.° He
20, M.K. Gandhi, Harijan, May 27, 1939.
220 SOCIAL ORDER
adds: “The true source of rights is duty. ' If we all
discharge our duties, rights will not be far to seek.
If leaving duties unperformed we run after rights,
they escape us like a will-o’ the wisp. The more we
pursue them, the farther they fly. The same teaching
has been embodied by Krsna in. the immortal
words: ‘Action alone is thine. Leave thou fruit
severely alone.’ ‘Action is duty: fruit is the right.’
In the Gandhian view, the purpose of the state

is to enable man to realize to the fullest his potential,
and the state should secure obedience from its
members in return. Its supreme consideration is
‘man alone. And when the state ceases to perform
services for its members which will fulfil their needs,
then the individual has the duty to disobey and to
resist. It is for him to determine when disobedience
is in order, and this he is increasingly better able to
do as he gains experience of satyagraha. Gandhi
observes: ‘I have found that it is our first duty to
render voluntary obedience to law, but whilst doing
that duty, I have also seen that when law fosters
untruth, it becomes a duty to disobey it. How may
this be done? We can do so by never swerving from
truth and suffering the consequences of our dis-
obedience. This is Civil Disobedience. No rules
can tell us how the disobedience may be done and
by whom, when and where, nor can they tell us
which laws foster untruth. It is only experience
that can guide us, and it requires time and know-
ledge of facts." Gandhi had a passionate longing
21. M.K. Gandhi, Young India, September 13, 1919. ஆ
SOCIAL & ECONOMIC ORDERS 22]
for the reign of right (dharma). in the world, and
both in his actual life and his writings, one finds the
deep anguish of his heart revealed, whenever he
had to meet a situation that oppressed the indivi-
dual.. His profound belief in the supremacy of the
inner voice was only a religious and prophetic way
of stating his belief in the right of - individual
conscience.
Gandhi championed the concept of equality on

metaphysical grounds. Every man is equal in the
eyes of God as the Gitd points out. Hence every
man should be legally and politically equal. He
never would confuse equality with patronization or
condescension. According to Gandhi, racial and
social equality is a necessary accompaniment of
freedom. Hence, he felt that political freedom
without social and racial equality was thoroughly
inadequate and even illusory. Gandhi was a great
champion of the right to equality. This presupposes
his faith in justice. He observes: “The first condi-
tion of non-violence is justice all round in every
department of life. The chief evils against which
Gandhi fought were racialism, imperialism,
22. M. K. Gandhi, Economic and Industrial Life and

Relations, N. P. H, Ahmedabad, Vol. III, pp- 123-25.
M. K. Gandhi makes a distinction between the
ancient conception of justice which is permeated
with fellow-feeling and mercy and the modern one
which clamours for the recognition of one’s right
without any regard for the convenience of the other
- party.
222 SOCIAL ORDER
communalism, and untouchability. In South Africa,
hé fought against the racially discriminatory policies
of the whites. In India, as a reformer, he fought
against social injustices and oppressions. According
to him, no one could be actually non-violent and
not. rise against social injustices. His crusade for
the liberation of the suppressed lower classes in
India shows his deep attachment to the concept of
social and economic justice.
In the social sphere, Gandhi upholds the
varnasramadharma, though not the caste-system as
it exists today. Varna in its real meaning, Gandhi
thinks, is extinct today. In its ideal sense, varna is
not only for Hindus but for the whole humanity.
He defines the law of varna thus: ‘The law of varna
means that every one shall follow as a matter of
dharma-duty-the hereditary calling of his forefathers
in so far as it is not inconsistent with fundamental
ethics. He will earn his livelihood by following
that ‘calling. He may not hoard riches but devote
the balance for the good of the people." Gandhi
lays stress on functions being hereditary, because
heredity is a law of nature. But he is not for rigid
divisions. Thus varna is intimately, but not
indissolubly, connected with birth. He explains why
varha restricts man, for the purpose of holding body
and soul together, to the occupation of his fore-
fathers, varndSrama-dharma defines man’s mission
on earth. He is not born day after day to explore
avenues for amassing riches and to explore different
23, M.K. Gandhi, Harijan, Sept. 28, 1934, pp. 260-261.

means of livelihood; on the contrary, man is born
in order that he may utilize every atom of his
energy for the purpose of knowing his Maker, It
restricts him, therefore, to the occupation of his
forefathers. That and nothing more or nothing
less is varndsrama-dharma.
Much corruption and confusion have arisen
today in Hindu Society due to the wrong interpre-
tation of Varna. Gandhi and Bhagavan Das consi-
dered the varna system to be an alternative to
socialism. Bhagavan Das contrasted to mechanical
and violent character of the latter with the organic-
co-operative and peaceful character of the former.
Vivekananda held the view that the caste system
had saved Indian society from being submerged and
deculturized under the pressure of barbarian hordes.
Varna, according to Aurobindo, is a symbolic typal
institution which, with the passage of time, got con-
ventionalized into caste.24 Dr. Radhakrishnan
24. According to Aurobindo, the varna was the charac-
teristic feature of spiritualized typal society (The
Human Cycle, § A.A, Pondicherry, p. [54). But the
typal principle cannot be the foundation of an ideal
society because the type aims to establish the signifi-
cant elements in man’s nature—his svabhava, as the
criterion of his action and operation of svadharma.
So far as the social philosophy of Aurobindo himself
is concerned, he aims to go beyond the varna princi-
ple. He pleads for an integral manifestation of the
concealed divinity within the individuals and the
collectives. Hence he says:*.....cach man contains
in himself the whole divine potentiality and therefore
the Shudra cannot be rigidly confined within his
shidrahood, nor the Brahmin in his Brahminhood,
224 SOCIAL ORDER:
@bsérves’! The system ‘of caste’ insists that thé law
Of! soeial life should not be cold dnd cruel competi*
tion, but harmony and co-operation........ The castes
are not allowed to compete with one another ...Each
man is said to have his own specific nature (svabhava)
fitting him for his own specific function (svadharma);
and changes of dharma or function are not encou-
raged. The author of the Bhagavad Gita believes
that the divisions of caste are in accordance with
each man’s character and aptitude.*
But what determines the particular service of

man? The answer is svadharma. Svadharma,
according to Gandhi is fulfilment of the duties that
naturally come one’s way. One does not have to
go out in search of one’s own dharma. It is there
even before we are born; for it is the purpose of
our being born. We are born to fulfilit. To fulfil
one’s svadharma i.e., serving and working for the
_ ‘welfare of all’, is the highest ideal, practised and
preached by all the great ones in the past as well as
(24 Continued)
but each contains within himself the potentialities
and the need of perfection of his other elements of a
divine manhood.’ (The Human Cycle, §. A. A,
Pondicherry, p. 155). Thus, it is clear that on the
foundations of a spiritual metaphysics, Aurobindo
would plead for going beyond the social conservatism
of the Varna order.
25. §. Radhakrishnan, The Hindu view of Life, George

Allen & Unwin Ltd,, London, 1961, p. 79.
in the present. Syadharma, according to Vinoba, is
’ constituted by individual’s unique qualities, special
knowledge and his particular duty determined by
his position in the society in which he is born. It
is unavoidable. There can be no choice about it.
The circumstances that control our svadharma are
preordained for us and perhaps by us. Society
exists only because people do their respective duties.
That is why dharma has been defined as that which
protects and nourishes society.’ From bodily
maintenance up to the rearing of a particular
culture everything that is demanded by an ideal
social order depends on the performance of duties
by the people. To do duties is to make sacrifice
(yajfia) for the working of the society. Observances
of svadharma brings spiritual liberation to indivi-
dual and material well-being to society. But actions
in themselves have no capacity to free man from
the bondage of three strings-sattva, rajas, and tamas.
All actions bear their stamp. But at the same time
living itself presupposes acting. The way out of
this dilemma is suggested by the Gita. Action will
be the purifying agent if it is accompanied by
continuity (satatya - Om), aloofness - (aliptata - Tat)
and illuminating purity (sd¢tvikata - sat). Gandhi
spoke of the ‘matchless remedy’ that the Gita has
suggested. ‘It is the renunciation of fruits of
action.’ This is ‘dedicating all activities to God, i.e.,
by surrendering oneself to Him, body and soul.”
26. dharanat dharma ityahuh
27, Mahadev Desai, The Gita according to M. K. Gandhi,
N. P, H, Ahmedabad.
226 ‘ SOCIAL ORDER
The liberated person is one who is truly free

from the psychological conflict of choice experi-
enced by all the aspirants of spiritual life. True
freedom of desire comes only at the cessation of all
desires. Freedom of will is in fact freedom from
self-will. This state is not lawlessness; it is beyond
the reign of law (Sdsanamukti). Even the aspiration
for liberation disappears at this stage. And then
even the idea of duty vanishes. He is the ideal man
performing all his duties and showering his love for
the good of all. He raises above all moral law. In
fact, the moral law springs from his being and takes
shape through his all-moral and all-religious life,
Hindu thought has unequivocally accepted

varnaSrama or socio-individual duties as necessary
and unavoidable for the ethico-spiritual develop-
ment of individuals and society. F.H. Bradley’s con-
ception of “My Station and its duties’ is similar to
the concept of varnasrama-dharma. Referring to the
devotion to duty, it has been remarked in the Gita
that one should prefer death, while performing
one’s own dharma to a change of professional
duty.’8 Even to Bradley, the Soul of the individual
is saturated by the universal life around him that
decides his duty. ‘......If he thrusts it from him, he
tears his own. vitals: if he attacks it, he sets his
weapon against his own heart.” In his attempt to
28. க்காக nidhanam sreyad, paradhatmo bhayavahah-

ili, 35. ‘
29. F.H. Bradley, Ethical Studies, p- 172,
fill the empty universal of Kant’s moral Law, he

binds the individual with details of duty, and leaves
no chance for revolt against the socially approved
morality. For him, society is an organism of which
individuals are organs. Individuals find their fulfil-
ment by obeying the state laws and following the
sanctions of traditionally revered institutions.
According to Bradley the fundamental unity of
individual and society ‘speaks its universal language
in the usages and laws of his (individual’s) people.”
As amoral person, the individual can function only
as an organ of the moral organism represented by
his community. And then ‘to wish to be better than
the world is to be already on the threshold of
immorality.”3!
Gandhi pleaded for the restoration of the
essential principle on which the original varna was
based—the elimination of competition and the
realization of common good through duties done
in proportion to one’s attainments and faculties.
In varndSrama there was and there should be no
prohibition of intermarriage or interdining. Gandhi
observes: ‘People of different varnas may inter-
marry and inter-dine........a brahmana who marries
a stdra girl, or vice versa, commits no ‘offence
against the law of varna.’ He adds further: “if
30, Ibid., p, 186,

31. (bid, p. 199.
32. ஆர. 8. Gandhi, Young India, June 4, 1931,
Section 5 of the ‘Hindu Marriage Act’, Act 25 of 1955,
gays that a marriage can be solemnized between any
two Hindus. Further the 1956 statute has clarified
the validity of inter-caste marriages.
228 SOCIAL ORDE R
the law of varndsrama was observed there would -
naturally be a tendency, so far as marriage is con-
' cerned for people to restrict the martial relations
to their own varna........If India is one and indivisi-
ble, surely there should be no artificial divisions
creating innumerable little groups which would
neither interdine nor intermarry."33 Though Gandhi
did not always favour marriage between Indians
professing different religions, neverthless he had
come to the conclusion long ago that an inter-
religious marriage was a welcome event whenever it
took place voluntarily.
Gandhi’s crusade against untouchability and

his leadership of Indian independence movement
were based on ideals of social and political justice.
His fight against untouchability was an advance
in
the direction of the recognition of human rights.
To Gandhi, the curse of untouchability was
only
a prominent phase of the great devil of inequality
in action, in diverse forms and manifestatio
ns. As
a Vedantist and a Vaisnava, Gandhi believ
ed in the
spiritual oneness of all life and hence he was
fundamentally opposed to untouchabillity and
considered its removal as an issue of great
import-
ance, surpassing even _ political independence.
Gandhi wrote: ‘Untouchability as it is
practised
in Hinduism today is, in my opinion, a sin agains
t
God and man and is, therefore, like
a poison slowly
eating into the very vitals of Hinduism........ That
33. M.K. Gandhi, Harijan, July 2, 1936.

௩
untouchability is an old institution, nobody has ever
denied. But if it is an evil, it cannot be defended
on the ground of its antiquity. If the untouchables
are the outcastes of the Aryan society, so much
the worse for that society. And if the Aryans at
some stage in their progress regarded a certain
class of people as outcastes by way of punishment,
there is no reason why that punishment should
descend upon their progeny irrespective of the
causes for which their ancestors were punished....the
existence of untouchability amongst untouchables
is an additional reason for cultured Hindu society
to rid itself of the course, with the quickest des-
patch........ Tn its inception, untouchability was a rule
of sanitation and still is in all parts of the world
outside India. That is to say, an unclean person or
a thing is untouchable but immediately his or its
uncleanliness is shed, he or it is no longer untouch-
able. We should, from our childhood, have
the idea impressed upon our minds that we are all
scavengers, and the easiest way of doing so is, for
every one who has realized this, to commence bread
labour as a scavenger. Scavenging, thus intelligently
taken up will help one to a true appreciation of the
equality of man.’34 In Gandhi’s view ‘untouchability’
is a universal menace and all oppressed people have
to oppose it. It has taken various guises in various
countries with differences in degree. Everywhere,
its basis is economic which is miscalled ‘politlcal’.
Indian ‘untouchability’, arose Gandhi observes, out
34, M. K. Gandhi, India of My Dreams, N. P. H, ~
Abmedabad, 1962, pp. 251-254,
430 SOCIAL ORDER
of conquest of Aryan over the so-called ‘Aborigi-

nees’ to whom the present-day Harijan has to trace
bis ancestory. American ‘untouchability’ towards
the Negroes is rooted in the land-greed of the white
men who first, travelled to America in the ‘May
Flower’. The Hitlerian hatred of the Jew, the
Bolshevik’s hatred of the Burgeoisic, the Chinaman’s
fear of the’ Mikads’ are all traceable to the same
source, viz., economic exploitation, euphemistically
called ‘politics’. The Indian ‘asprsyata’, the
American ‘lynching’, the Belgian ‘Congo’, the
Nazi persecutions of the Jews are outstanding
examples of this injustice and world wars are their
natural culmination.’
Gandhi condemns the present social systems
that exists in many countries of the world because
it is immoral and unjust. The present social system
allows one class of men to live upon the toils of
another. Lenin believes that a man is the creature
of the circumstances. Moral changes inhim have
to be effected by changing the social and economic
environment in which he is placed. But Gandhi’
believes in reforming the man from within. Every
individual should become more moral and more
sublime from within. No amount of external
arrangement can create in him any morality.
Gandhi by his devotion to the ideals of liberty,
equality, justice, and welfare, succeeded in welding
the Indian people into an organic political com-
munity.
35. M.K, Gandhi, Harijan, October 19, 1935, ற. 284.
SOCIAL & ECONOMIC ORDERS 237.
Gandhi was a protagonist of the concept of
common good of all. As a religious man he believed
in the spiritual unity and equality of mankind.
Gandhi writes thus: ‘Everybody is agreed about the
necessity of this (communal) unity. But everybody
does not know that unity does not mean political
unity which may be imposed. It means an unbreak-
able heart unity. Religious bitterness is a sign
of lack of non-violent atmosphere. The last sixteen
months of his life were devoted to the eradication
of communal violence which broke out in India as
-a result of the decision to divide the country. To
the end of his life, Gandhi refused to accept the
“Two Nation Theory” and was absolutely
unreconciled to the ‘vivisection’ of India. His
pilgrimage in Noakhali will remain one of the
brightest chapters in his life. He proved that no
disaster could shake his implicit faith in the
fundamental goodness of men and in the efficacy
of non-violence. In conditions of civil war in 1947,
he became a one-man force in Bengal and preserved
peace there. The Pathan Afridis in Pakistan had
attacked the state of Kashmir, and forced the
The
Maharaja to accede to the Indian Union.
Indian Government had to rush troops to Srinagar
transfer
to protect the state. That means peaceful
shape of a civil war. The
of power had taken the
of India was
responsibility of the Government
nearly five
greater, because even after partition,
Constructive Programme, N. P. H,
36. MK. Gandhi,
Abinedabad, 1958.
232 டா $ி007/42 0288 ..
hundred million Muslims had remained in India
and similarly two or three crore Hindus had
remained in Pakistan. Gandhi’s last fast and his
martyrdom for Hindu-Muslim unity for which he
worked all his life showed how he stood unflin-
chingly for his principles undaunted by the conse-
quences. In short, Gandhi upheld communal
harmony, for he believed in sarvadharma sama-
bhava.
If spirituality reveals the unity of all life,

morality which is an offshoot of spirituality should
not tolerate partial application to a section of the
human species. One should not morally suffer in
society because of sex-difference. Non-violence
rules out suppression of women also. ‘In a plan of
life based on non-violence, woman has as
much right to shape her own destiny as man has
to shape his.37 Gandhi holds the view that
the salvation of India depends upon the sacrifice
and enlightenment of her women.38 Gandhi
advocated equality of sexes. ‘I am uncompro-
mising in the matter of women’s rights. In my
opinion, she should labour under no legal dis-
ability not suffered by men, I should treat the
daughters and sons on a footing of perfect
equality.”? Rules of social conduct would have to
be framed mutually by men and women. The
37. Ibid., p. 14.

38. Nirmal Kumar Bose, Selections from Gandhi,
N. P. H, Ahmedabad, 1948, ற. 241,
nationalist stage in the development of woman’s
personality brougt to light two antithetic elements
which needed to be reconciled: the suffering and
the assertive. These were inherent in the ethic of
women’s rights and of non-violent non-co-opera-
tion. Could they be completely reconciled in the
constructive work of society? Both were active. in
the minds of those who participated in the decisive
decades of modern Indian history. When Indepen-
dence was finally achieved they were suggested as
a standard for future national activity. As
Shrimati Sarojini Naidu said to the nation on
August 15, 1947, “Let us work for justice, for equity,
for human rights but no privileges: for human
duties ; but no prerogatives4,
No man in India has done more than Gandhi

‘In recent times for the elevation of women and the
occupation by them of their rightful place in
domestic and public life. A passionate lover of
humanity, an implacable foe of injustice in what-
ever form or sphere, it is small wonder that
Gandhi early espoused the woman’s cause.
Throughout his long life of service, he preached
forcefully against the wrongs done to women in
the name of law, tradition and even religion. He
has spoken out fearlessly against enforced widow-
hood, purdha, the dedication of girls to temples,
prostitution, early marriage, dowry system, the
39, M. XK. Gandhi, Young India, Oct. 17, 1929.

40, Indian Information, Sept, 1, 1947, p, 108.
234 SOCIAL ORDER
economic bondage and material slavery of

women.”
Gandhi championed the cause of women. He
considered woman as ‘the incarnation of ahimsd.
Ahimsa means infinite love, which again means
infinite capacity for suffering. Who but woman, the
mother of man, shows this capacity in the largest
measure?.... .. let her forget she ever was or can be the
object of man’s lust. And she will occupy her proud
position by the side of man as his mother, maker
and silent leader. It is given to her to teach the art
of peace to the warring world thirsting for that
nectar.? Gandhi, in short, considered women as
‘the personification of self-sacrifice.’ Gandhi was
against the purdha system. He wrote: ‘chastity is
not a hot-house growth. It cannot be superim-
posed. It cannot be protected by the surrounding
wall of the purdah. It must grow from within,
and to be worth anything, it must be capable of
withstanding every unsought temptation......... The
real purdah is of the heart. A woman who peeps
through the purdah and contemplates a male on
whom her gaze falls, violates the Spirit behind it.
If a woman observes it in spirit, she is truely
: carrying out what the great Prophet has said.”
41, See the- present writer's article: Socio-Ethical and

Legal Aspects of Dowry; in Vivekananda Kendra
Patrika, August 1973, pp. 78-79.
42. M. K. Gandhi, Harijan, Feb. 24, 1940.
43. M. K. Gandhi, Harijan, March 23, 1947,
Gandhi did not believe on cotton-wool morality
and refused to set up inhibitions against men or
women celibates seeing, or speaking to, or having
any contact with, persons of the opposite sex. The
celibacy which breaks down so easily is a brittle
commodity of not much value. Gandhi considered
that ‘marriage is a natural thing in life, and to
cosider it derogatory in any sense is wholly wrong.
The ideal is to look upon marriage as a sacrament
and therefore to lead a life of self-restraint in the
married state.“ Gandhi was as much a friend of
children as of older people. They instinctively saw
the light of love in his eyes and were attracted to
him. About Kanyadan, Gandhi says, ‘what is
Kanyddan in the case of little children? Has a
father any rights of property over his children? He
is their protector, not owner’... The father forfeits
the privilege of protecting when he abuses it by
seeking to barter away the liberty of the காம்‌.
Thanks to the modern legislators for their wisdom
in declaring such marriages as null and void by the
enactment of The Special Marriage Act 43 of 1954.
curb
-and The Hindu Marriage Act 25 of 1955 which
these social evils including dowry. Here is Gandhi's
a
advise: ‘Any young man who makes dowry
and
condition of marriage discredits his education
The
his country and dishonours womanhood.
that they
parents should so educate their daughters
a
would refuse to marry a young man who wanted
44. M. K. Gandhi,Harijan, March 28, 19425

11, 1926.
45, M. K. Gandhi, Young India, November
236 SOCIAL ORDER
price for marrying.” He said that ‘it was nothing
but the sale of girls.47 He further observes:
‘Marriage must cease to be a matter of arrange-
ment made by parents for money. The system is
intimately conected with caste. The girls or boys
or their parents will have to break the bond of
caste, if the evil is to be eradicated. Then the age
for marrige has also to be raised and the girls have
to remain spinsters, if need be, 7.e., if they do not
get a suitable match. All this méans education of
character that will revolutionize the mentality of
the youth of the Nation.’
Today, the question of dowry versus no-dowry

is a vital one. It is significant to note that The
Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961, came into force
on July 1, 1961, and it repealed the previous State
Dowry Restraints Act of 1960. The Present Act
makes it an offence to give, take or demand dowry,
or to abet the giving or taking of a dowry. Punish-
ment for contravention extends up to six months
imprisonment and a fine up to Rs. 5,000/-.
It is most depressing to note that in spite of

legal prohibition, the evil custom of dowry still
prévails widely throughout India. No reform has
46. M. K. Gandhi, Harijan, June 1, 1928.

a1. See the present writer’s article: Socio-Ethical and
Legal Aspects of Dowry, in Vivekananda Kendra
Patrika, Madras, August, 1973, p. 76.
48° Ibid., p. 79.

ever been brought about. except through intrepid
individuals breaking down inhuman customs or
usages. Merely to introduce cetain legal restric-
tions, as The Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961, will
not in any way remove the bane of dowry system
from our society unless there is a change in the
moral outlook of individuals. Moreover, a law
which is not enforceable strictly is a dead law.
Dowry system flourishes openly in society like that
of prostitution. Just as administrative steps are
taken by government to check tax evasion, similarly
government must take drastic steps against those
who demand dowry. It is not beyond the control
of government to enforce such prohibition. A step
in the direction will ensure social progress.
The dowry custom isintimately connected with
the institution of marriage and family in India.
Marriage is a sacrament to the Hindus. The
Companionship, biological satisfaction (sex), pro-
creation and economic prosperity are the basic
needs in marriage. In other words, a Hindu seeks
three distinct purposes in marriages, Kama, artha,
and moksa. Moksa is to be attained through
dharma, the performance of religious ceremonies.
There are two important factors which help young
people achieve greater happiness in their married
life. The first is the preparation for the marriage.
‘It is surprising enough that men and women are
educated today for all vocations but not for the
task which will play a very important role in their
49. Ibid., ற. 79,

338 SOCIAL ORDER
life—that of marriage and parent-hood. The second

factor is the selection of the mate wisely.
In both these factors, parents or guardians have
to play a big role in shaping the young minds of
their children to shoulder heavier responsibilities
in life. They must train them to be good husbands
or wives. On the contrary, today, we find that most
parents fix the marriages of their daughters arbit-
rarily. Many educated parents still perfom child
marriages. The millions living in villages have their
own customs and consequent woes, of which we
have as yet but little knowledge. Many ‘dispose of”
their daughters in order to relieve themselves of
the burden of keeping an un-married girl at home
exposed to all kinds of social restrictions and
taboos. In the poorer sections of the people, as
well as in the middle classes, parents do not find the
means to provide sound education for their sons or
daughters. Even inthe highly sophisticated families
marriage has come to mean a matter of arrange-
ment by parents for money. How is it that so many
boys or girls who have even passed through colleges,
and who have secured high academic qualifications
and distinctions are found unable or unwilling to
resist the manifestly evil custom of dowry which
affects their future so intimately as marriage does ?
Why should educated girls be found to commit
suicide because they are not suited? Of what value
is their education, if it does not enable them to dare
to defy a custom which is wholly indefensible and
repugnant to one’s moral sense? There is something
radically wrong in the system of education that fails
to arm girls and boys to fight against social or
other evils. As Gandhi observes: ‘that education
alone is of value which draws out the faculties of a
student so as to enable him or her to solve correctly
the problems of life in every department’.
Excellence of life is not confined to its outer or
abstract forms, but with its concrete actions and
results. It is not the ordering of life, but the ordered
life that is good. Itis for the youth of today to
take up the challenge. Young men and women
must first mobilise public opinion against the evil
of dowry system, which he or she is out to eradicate
by means of a wide and intensive agitation. When
public opinion is sufficiently roused against a social
abuse, even the tallest will not dare to practise or
openly lend support to it. An awakened and intelli-
gent public opinion is the most potent weapon with
which they can seek to establish social justice.
Whena man supports a social evil in total disregard
of an unanimous public opinion, it indicates a clear
justification for his social ostracism. Social ostracism
means complete non-cooperation on the part of
society with the offending individual, nothing more,
nothing less, the idea being that a person who
deliberately sets himself to flout society has no
right to be served by society.
It is for the young woman of today to face the

chalJlenge to ostracise the man who demands money
50. M. K. Gandhi, Women and Social Injustice, Ibid.,

p. 29.
240 SOCIAL ORDER
(dowry) either directly or indirectly, by refusing to
marry him. She could prefer to remain a spinster
rather than marry a person for money. She must
develop the moral courage to face such a situation,
if it arises. A father must refuse to purchase a
match for his daughter but choose or let the
daughter choose one who would marry her for love,
not for money. This means a voluntary extension
of the field of choice. Casteism must be up-rooted.
Inter-Caste marriages must be encouraged. This
will pave the way for social, emotional and national
integration.
The dowry system has reduced a father to

penury and driven many a desperate girl to suicide
as a relief from ignominious virginity. In some
cases, where a husband has ‘purchased’ his wife at,
a costly price, he is subjected to ill treatment by
his wife. This has led to family frictions and even
to moral disintegration. If marriages are analysed
in consideration of mutual love, they are ever-
lasting. “ Marriages by Purchase” quite often
lead to “broken homes” and divorces. Dowry
system is as bad as a prostitution. In both, there
is a lack of a moral code of life.
Today, we need a new philosophy of marriage.
Education for successful marriage begins in infancy.
On the success of today’s families depends the
success of those established a generation hence’
We are aware of the fact that marriage and
family living will continue to- change, just as
everything in life changes. Changes are brought
about in many ways. Education is one such means.
The highest service that education can render to
humanity is to contribute to the flowering of an
integrated personality. While the past takes care
of itself, we have to cultivate the habit of seeing
into the future. The future rests with young men
and women of Bharata Desa. Will they rise to the
occasion to face the challenge of the evils of social
customs and help to establish a society based on
the principles of social justice and equality 25!
Gandhi pleaded for widow re-marriage,

“Voluntary widowhood consciously adopted by a
woman who has felt the affection of a partner adds
grace and dignity to life, sanctifies the home and
uplifts religion itself. Widowhood imposed by
religion or custom is an unbearable yoke and
defiles the home by secret vice and degrades
religion ...If we would be pure, if we would save
Hinduism, we must rid ourselves of this poison
of enforced widowhood. The reform must begin
by those who have girl widows taking courage in
both their hands and seeing that the child widows
in their charge are duly and well married—not
remarried. They were never really married.’
Today, the Kasturba Gandhi Memorial Trust aims
at the welfare and education of women and
children in rural areas only through the agency of
women workers. The Trust has been training
51. See the present writer’s artiele: Socio-Ethical and

Legal Aspects of Dowry, Op. cit., pp. 80-31.
242 SOCIAL ORDER
women in basic education, health, sanitation,

village industries, village service, etc. .
If the constructive programme is to convert

people to the new way of life and to lay the founda-
tions of the future non-violent state, the education
of children and adults must be conducted along
non-violent lines. The attitude of detachment to
the self-created new social life can be aroused only
through proper education. In a sense, human
minds will have to be conditioned to decondition
themselves, if no set ideology or terminology, no
dogma or pattern of living is to dominate
humanity. This means that the faculty to delibe-
rate and the capacity to think and create will
have to be developed side by side. Such an educa-
tional process will work only if educationists
believe in the fundamentally incorruptible purity
of human nature. Such an education for spiritual
revolution will alone hasten the dawn of a new
world for which Sarvodaya thought stands.
Gandhi was an absolutist in the sense that his
non-violence does not stop at man but reaches out
to the tiniest creature, and he believes that ideally
speaking, every situation of life can be dealt with
non-violently. He believed in the doctrine of
sarvabhitahita. \n Indian ethics we notice the
terms lokahita, pursuit of the good of humanity,
‘and sarvabhitahita, devotion to the good of all
creations. Lokahita parallels western humanism
to . .
32. M.K. Gandhi, Young India, August 5, 1926.
but sarvabhitahita aims at the good of all living
beings and is much more emphasized in Indian
thought than /okahita. According to Indian tradi-
tion, ahimsa is applicable to all sentient creatures.
Gandhi held that protection of the cow means

protection of the whole dumb creations of God.
He writes: ‘Hindus will be judged not by the
tilaks, not by the correct chanting of mantras, not
by their pilgrimages, not by their most punctilious
observances of caste rules but their ability to pro-
tect the cow.” The appeal of the lower orders of
creation is all the more forcible because it is
speechless. Regarding killing of animals, Gandhi
held that it is Himsa, to cause pain or wish ill or to
take the life of any living being out of anger or a
selfish intent. He said that the final test as to its
violence or non-violence is after all the intent
underlying the act. Gandhi held that animal
sacrifice cannot stand the fundamental tests of
Truth and non-violence. A votary of ahimsda cannot
‘tolerate animal sacrifice to any extent. The Kural,
sacred text of the Tamils, disapproves of sacrifice
and claims that to save the life of one being and
abstain from its meat is better than performing a
thousand sacrifices and offering havis (whatever is
given as an offering, e.g., ghee).’** The author of
the Kural does not seem to deny that by performing
a sacrifice one can obtain good results. Not to kill,
however, is an even greater virtue. Gandhi observes :
53. M. K. Gandhi, Young India, Sept. 6, 1921,

54. The Kural, 1-26-259.
244 SOCIAL ORDER
‘In the purest type of Hinduism a Brahmana, an
ant, an elephant and a dog-eater (Swapdka) are of
the same status. Hinduism insists on the brother-
hood not only of all mankind but of all that lives,
படறது moment we have restored real living
equality between man and man we shall be able to
establish equality between man and the whole
creation.”*
Man is the animating motive of all altruistic
impulses, while society is the inspiring focus of all
virtue. The sacrifice of man is the normal creed of
man (niyama) and again, his sacrifice is the essential
morality (niti). Sarvodaya adopts satydgraha as the
sole weapon of social change. Satydgraha is not
merely an ideal state but is something more than
that. It is both a human ideal and a living faith
(Sraddha). The Sarvodaya ideal of sacrifice is both
tdttva-tyagam and dhana-tydgam which denotes the
involuntary surrender of man and his possessions.
The society envisaged by Sarvodaya thinkers is a
synthesis of the ancient and the modern ideals.
The value of an intelligent rural civilization, the
dignity of manual labour and its need not only for
a healthy physical metabolism, but also for spiri-
tual, moral, and social health are emphasized. This
society would be permeated by a real spirit of
equality which would be reflected to the utmost
degree in the external as well. It would do away
with the caste system, but retain its healthy princi-
ples to build upon the new society. It would be a
55. M.K. Gandhi, Harijan, March 28, 1936.

classless society in the sense that there would be no

vertical division into classes and all could share
both mannual and intellectual labour toa greater or
less extent. The stature of man would not be reduced
to the requirements of the society. He would
become much more than the custodian of its culture
or protector of his country or producer of its
wealth. Vinoba has inspired the masses to adopt a
higher life of renunciation and detachment. The
detachment, according to Sarvodaya, is the detach-
ment of the ego, a life of selfless action and dedica-
tion.jThe social imperatives and the social incentives
are at race in the sacred social ideology of Dan.
Thus, the concept of social gift, charity, and
philanthropy is deemed always as a dynamic social
ideal. The creation of Sdnti-sena or peace brigade
to promote world peace and human harmony
through mutual love and good will is indeed an
ideal achievement of Sarvodaya. In the recent
years, Gandhi preached a social life which can tally
with one’s own moral experience. The ends of the
society are nowhere except in the means. In the
contemporary period, Vinoba gave a new outlook
to society, i.e., shoshana-vihina Samdj. The social
gains and the individual gains are inseparable
entities in Sarvodaya philosophy. There is both an
instantaneous and simultaneous growth of the
of
individual and the society in a single ideal out
social good. There is thus a contemporancous
process, a process of individual realization and a
process of social evolution. The idea of the welfare
of all engenders a new social outlook of morality.
246 ' SOCIAL ORDER
The universal social ideal of Sarvodaya samaj is fast

tending to establish a universal social order, more
particularly from the dawn of the latter half of this
century. It is to be hoped that it succeeds in
bringing about a superior life upon this superan-
nuated system of society. The ultimate spring of
hope is the faith in man’s reason, good will, and.
sanity.
ECONOMIC ORDER
Sarvodaya is both an all-comprehensive and

all-inclusive ideology. It pervades each and every
aspect of society, economic, social, ethical, moral
andreligious. In the ancient. economic thought
of India the centre of activities was man and not
wealth, and economics and ethics were interdepen-
dent. This is also true of the economic ideas ‘of
Gandhi for whom man was the primary considera-
tion and economics was not divorced from ethics.
A careful study of Gandhi’s writings on economic
issues discloses the common ideas which underlay
his views on the different aspects of life. ‘The
emphasis may differ according to the circumstances
but the basic ideas germinate from the common
source-his intense and ardent love for the suffering
humanity and his unflinching adherence to the
fundamental principles of Truth and non-violece
as the legitimate means for achieving the objects
in view.’ On the economic plane, Sarvodaya
teaches a living principle of equal advantages.
The economic needs of man and his non-economic
puisuits are well apportioned in Sarvodaya
sociology. It is a golden means between rigid
economic determinism and complacent 500181
liberalism. Gandhi tried to evolve a socio-economic
system that would contain the indigenous ways of
248 ECONOMIC ORDER
life and value system. In his book, Hind Swaraj

written in 1908, Gandhi gives a clear analysis of
his approach to revive the Indian system of life and.
its values and his deep concern to rescue India from
putting on ihe modern material garbs of life.
As we read Gandhi’s thoughts, we find that he

laid emphasis on: (a) village-oriented economy ;
(b) on a simple way of life; and (c) on a co-opera-
tive socio-economic texture. His aim and purpose
in emphasizing this obviously was to make it
possible and easy for all to lead a life dedicated to
the cause of truth and non-violence. This was the
central theme of his life. Gandhi’s emphasis on the
non-violent basis of economic order of Sarvodaya
is stated thus: ‘Under the new outlook we shall
cease to think of getting what we can can, but we
shall decline to receive what all cannot get. It
occurs to me that it ought not to be difficult to
make a successful appeal to the masses in terms of
economics and a fairly successful working of such an
experiment must lead to immense and unconscious
spiritual results. I do not believe that the spiritual
law works on a field of its own. On the contrary,
it expresses itself only through the ordinary activi-
ties of life. It thus affects the economic, the social
and the political fields.’
Gandhi accepted the ethical orientation to
economics. He wrote ‘I must confess that I do not
draw a sharp or any distinction between economics
56. M.K. Gandhi, Young India, Sept. 3, 1925.
and ethics. Economics that hurt the moral well-

being of an individual or a nation are immoral and,
therefore sinful .. ....True economics never militates
against the highest ethical standard, just as all true
ethics to be worth its name must at the same time
be also good economics. An economics that incul-
cates Mammon worship, and enables the strong to
amass wealth at the expense of the weak, is a false
and dismal science, it spells death. True economics,
on the other hand, stands for social justice, it
promotes the good of all equally including the
weakest, and is indispensable for decent life.’*”
There is no doubt that, quantitatively, the major
part of man’s life depends on economics, but that
is not be-all and end-all of a life. The fulfilment
of human life consists in the satisfaction of its
higher urges for development and “expression
through truth, love and beauty. However much
economics may be necessary, the spirit of man
always yearns for higher fulfilment. The Upanisad
says: ‘na vittena tarpaniyo manusyah,’8 ,
The fundamental ethical proposition of

Gandhian economics is that man is essenti ally
good. If this be the essential nature of man,
whence comes the evil? Indian ethics states that
evilin man comes from the six weaknesses of the
human mind-~passion, anger, greed, infatuation,
pride and jealousy-which arise froma preponderance
ed by
57, M.K. Gandhi, India of My Dreams, Compil
, N. P. H; Ahmeda bad, 1962, pp. 70-71.
R. K. Prabhu
58. Kathopanisad, 2, 27.
250 ECONOMIC ORDER
of the quality of rajas in the individual. This

preponderance is not essential to the human
personality and can be balanced and controiled by
the development of the quality of sattvé in him.
And this is the task of the process of conversion
which is the basis of Sarvodaya thought. Gandhi’s
idea is today reborn and is being pursued with
spectacular success by Vinoba, through his Bhidan
movement. Where man is materialistic, Vinoba
bids a seeking for Ram Raj, Where man is acqui-
sitive, he counsels that ‘it is more blessed to give
~ than to receive.’ Where man is ineffective in reach-
ing desired and desirable goals, Vinoba asserts
that human personality has an innate capacity for
good as for evil and so only when human nature
undergoes a moral mutation and conversion, the
possibilities of all round progress will find full
scope. —
The Sarvodaya thinkers lay great emphasis on

the human element as the criterion for economic
efficiency. Gandhi writes: ‘Man is an engine
whose motive power is the soul. The largest
quantity of work will not be done by this curious
engine for pay or under pressure. Jt will be done
when the motive force, that is to say, the will or
spirit of the creature, is brought to its greatest
strength by its own proper fuel, namely by the
affections. The universal law of matter is that,
assuming any given quantity of energy and sense
in master and servant, the greatest material result
obtainable-by them will be not through antagonism
to each other, but through affection for each other.
Unselfish treatment will produce the most effective
return ...°° Unfortunately, the cordial relationship
between the master and the servant, between the
employer and the employee is lacking. The result
is that strikes are the order of the day. They are
a symptom of the existing unrest. Gandhi holds
the view that strikes for economic betterment
should never havea political end as an ulterior
motive. The outcome of such a mixture would only
bring disaster to the strikers. True social
economics teaches us that the worker and the
employer are parts of the indivisible organism. One
isnot smaller or greater than the other. Their
interests should not be conflicting but identical
and interdependent. Picketing, Gandhi observes,
is a dharma only when it is absolutely non-violent.
Those who have no faith in non-violence had better
give it up altogether. Even sympathetic strikes
must be taboo until it is conclusively proved that
the affected men have exhausted all the normal
means at their disposal and until the government
has been proved to have betrayed or neglected their
interest or until the government has called for
sympathetic strikes in order to secure justice from
obdurate and unsympathetic authorities. The
passive type can be more dangerous than the active.
These conflicts could be avoided if there is a code _
of rights and duties of workers. Gandhi writes:
‘It is simple to understand that their (workers)
59, M. K. Gandhi, Sarvedaya ed. by Bharatan Kuma-

rappa, N. P. H, Ahmedabad, 1958, pp. 29 to 30.
252 ECONOMIC ORDER
right: is to receive as high a wage as the industry

can bear and their duty is to work to the best of
their ability for the wage they receive. The real
hunger of workers which needs to be satisfied is not
for morsels of food but for decent living .as_ self-
respecting, equal citizens, for a square deal as
human beings, for freedom from fear, inculcation
of clear and sanitary habits, thrift, industry and
education. They must become men of culture and
must cultivate an exemplary purity, honesty, up-
rightness of conduct. That requires perseverance,
self-sacrifice and patient, intelligent labouring on
their part.’
_ Gandhi holds a strong view that men are
wealth, not gold and silver. He writes: ‘ The true
veins of wealth are in people—and not in rock but
in flesh. The final consummation of all wealth is
in producing as many as possible full-breathed
bright-eyed and happy~hearted human beings.......
Therefore, there is no wealth but life. That country
is the richest which nourishes the greatest number
of noble and happy human beings.; that man is
richest who having perfected the functions of his
own life to the utmost, has also the widest helpful
influence, both personal and by means of his. pos-
sessions, over the lives of others.’ cs
60. M. K. Gandhi, Economic and Industrial Life and
Relations, compiled and edited by V. B. Kher, Vol. i,
Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1959,
pp. XXXVI to XXXVIII.
61. நா, xX Gandhi's paraphrase of Unto This Last, 1951,
ட ட தத se
In considering the important problem of the
earnings of the workers, Gandhi did not generalize
but focussed attention on concrete cases by analysis
and marshalling of facts and figures that he care-
fully studied, though he indicated the principles on
which the wage structure was to be based in general
terms. He declared that wages must be standardized
and there should be a schemé for automatic adjust-
ment whenever there is a demand for cut or rise in
the wages. True, such a scheme of automatic
adjustment of wages is undoubtedly a complicated
matter. “It demands for its fruition a spirit of give
and take on both sides. And any such scheme must,
in the nature ofthings, be of a temporary character,
subject to periodical revision.’ Gandhi pleaded
for a ‘Jiving wage’ for the workers. As he said in &@
famous article on the Ahmedabad-industry in the
Harijan ‘I am not concerned with the name. Call
it the minimum wage, if expression sounds the
sweeter. Living wage to my mind is the most
accurate description for the irreducible wage. And
the acceptance of the principle of a living wage
implies an examination of what may be included in
it. They touch the very existence of labour. Its
efficiency depends very largely upon the right kind
of living. And the greater the efficiency, the greater
the possibility of enhanced profits.” Thus Gandhi
pleaded for a just wage which would promote the
62. M. XK. Gandhi, Economic and Industrial Life and

Relations, Op. Cit., Vol. II, N.P.H, Ahmedabad,
1959, p. 214.
63. M. K. Gandhi, Harijan, Feb. 13, 1937.
254 ECONOMIC ORDER
good of all equally, including the weakest, and is
indispensable for decentralizing.
Another aspect of Gandhian thought relates to

economic equality which is the master key to non-
violent independence. Gandhi says: ‘Working for
economic equality means abolishing the eternal
conflict between capital and labour. It means the
levelling down of the few rich in whose hands is
concentrated the bulk of the nation’s wealth on the
one hand, and a levelling up of semi-starved naked
millions on the other. A non-violent system of
government is clearly an impossibility so long as
the wide gulf between the rich and the hungry
millions persists.’ Gandhi tried to bring about
economic equality through non-violence-by conver-
ting the people to his point of view by harnessing
the forces of love against hatred. To bring this
ideal into being the entire social order has got to
be reconstructed. A society based on non-violence
cannot nurture any other ideal. We may not
perhaps be able to realize the goal but we must
bear in mind and work increasingly to reach it. It
is true that it is difficult to reach. But it has to be
built up brick after brick by corporate self-effect.
Gandhi mentioned equal distribution of wealth
as one of the thirteen items in his constructive
programme. In short, the real implication of equal
distribution is that each man must have the where-
withal to supply his essential and natural needs. So
64. Jbid., Feb. 13, 1937.

the real meaning of economic quality is “to each

according to his needs.’ Gandhi did not want to
produce a dead equality where every person becomes
or is rendered incapable of using his ability to the
utmost possible extent, for such a society carries
with it seeds of ultimate destruction.
This leads us to the crucial problem of economic
thought advocated by Gandhi, viz., the doctrine of
Trusteeship. Gandhi discovered a great similarity
in the conception of aparigraha (non-possession) of
the Gita and Shell’s discussions of the maxims of
equity. Being influenced by the idealism of the
ISopanisad which inculcated that things of the world
should be enjoyed by renunciation, Gandhi wanted
the rich men to hold their wealth in trust for the
poor or give it up for them. He wanted that the
tich should become trustees of their surplus wealth
for the good of society. Thus the society was to be
extension of the family. We
regarded only as an
in the
have to realize that if wealth accumulates
efforts alone.
hands of any, it is not due to bis own
and so it
It is due to the collective effort of all
belongs to all in society. We have to understand
to produce
that the individuals are only the means
it for the benefit of all. The
wealth and each holds
thinks that whatever he earns is
father rarely
entirely his and due to his sole effort. He works
for the family-thus giving every member of the
family the right to his earnings and the family
wealth. This is true of all undivided Hindu families.
If man can care for the limited circle of his family,
he can surely realize that the entire wealth in his
256 ECONOMIC ORDER
hands belongs to the society.in general. He is only
the guardian of the wealth and should use it for the
good of all.
It may be asked whether such a change is pos-

sible in human nature, Such changes have certainly
taken place in individuals. What is to be done, if
the rich do not become trustees of their wealth in
spite of the utmost effort? Gandhi advocates non-
violent non-co-operation and civil disobedience as
the right and infallible remedy, for the rich cannot
accumulate wealth without the co-operation of the
poor in society.
It is a fundamental law that nature produces
what is strictly needed for our wants from day to
day. Hence, if everybody ‘is self-sufficient and
took just what is needed for himself and nothing
more, no one would die of starvation in this world.
Any one who appropriates more than the minimum
that is necessary for him is guilty of theft. This is
a grand ideal. But in actual practice, is it possible
to follow? Can such an ideal be realized ?
The doctrine is born out of common sense and

a sure belief of what is practical. Change of heart
is all that is needed on the part of individuals. To
those who are already wealthy or would not shed
their desire for wealth, Gandhi’s advice is that they
should use their wealth for service. True, Gandhi
first enunciated the theory vis-a-vis the socialists
who wanted to deprive the zamindars and ruling
chiefs of all their privileges and wealth.
With the passage of time, Gandhi added
economic and sociological content to the rather
moralistic conception of trusteeship, The basic
assumptions of the doctrine are ‘(i) Trusteeship
provides a means of transforming the present
capitalist order of society into an egalitarian one.
(ii) It does not recognize any right of private
ownership of property except in as much as it may
be permitted by society. (iii) It does not exclude
legislative regulation of the ownership and use of
wealth. (iv) Thus, under state-regulated trustee-
ship an individual will not be free to hold or use
his wealth for selfish satisfaction or in disregard of
the interests of society. (v) Just as it is proposed
to fix a decent minimum living wage, even soa
limit should be fixed for the maximum income that
could be allowed to any person in society. The
difference between such minimum and maximum
incomes should be reasonable and equitable and
variable from to time so much so that the tendency
would be towards obliteration of the difference.
(vi) Under the Gandhian economic order, the char-
acter of production will be .determined by social
necessity and not by personal whim or greed.”
The formula is realistic and also flexible. The
question, “How many can be real trustees?” is
beside the point. Gandhi felt that if the rich do
not become trustees voluntarily, force of circum-
stance will compel them to ‘do so unless they have
no desire for averting the disaster. Trusteeship is
65. M. K. Gandhi, Harijan, October 25, 1952.

258 ECONOMIC ORDER
an attempt to secure the best use of property for
the people by competent hands. Gandhi’s basic
belief was that “everything belonged to God and
was from God, Therefore, it was for His people
as a whole, not for a particular individual. When
the individual had more than his proportionate
portion he became a trustee of that portion for
God’s people.......If this truth was imbibed by the
people generally, it would become legalized and
trusteeship would become a legalized institution.’
Gandhi hoped that the ideal of Trusteeship would
become a gift from India to the peoples of the
word. It should be noted that Trusteeship is the
first step towards the realization of decentralized
economic order. Decentralization is the technique
of non-violent democracy.
Economics of decentralization according to

Gandhi would relieve us from the evils of excessive
industralization which he considered it as a ‘curse
for mankind.” Though Gandhi was opposed to
many aspects of modern industrialization, it is not
correct to think, that he was today against the use
of machinery in any form. What he objected to.
was the ‘indiscriminate multiplication of machi-
nery’. Gandhi observes: ‘Mechanization is good
when the hands are too few for the work intended
to be accomplished. It is an evil when there are
more hands than required for the work, as in the
case in India.’ Industrialization on a mass scale,
66. M.K. Gandhi, Harijan, Nov. 16, 1934.

Gandhi holds, ‘will necessarily lead to passive or

active exploitation of the villagers as the problems
of competition and marketing come in.’?
Sarvodaya seeks to aim at the welfare of all.
Gandhi never wanted the concentration of wealth
at the hands of rich people. He feared that the rich
industrialists would exploit the poor workers and
labourers. Gandhi wrote: ‘I consider it is a sin
and injustice to use machinery for the purpose of
concentrating power and riches in the hands of a
few. Today the machine is used in this way.’®
Gandhi did not agree with Pandit Nehru who stood
for industrialism. Gandhi wrote: ‘Pandit Nehru
wants industrialism because he thinks that, if it is
socialised, it would be free from the evil of capita-
lism. My own view is that the evils are inherent in
industrialism and no amount of socialisation can
eradicate them.’ Gandhi, in short insisted that
-tnan should be the centre of life and of ali the
processes of production, exchange and distribution.
We are living in an age of industrialization

which is based on the use of machinery. Since the
Industrial Revolut ion, econom ic power has been
increas ingly a domina nt as also an intract able
factor in society. The permanent technological
revolution of recent years multiplying man’s pro-
67. M.K. Gandhi, Harijan, Nov- 2, 1934,

68. Quoted by N. L. Dantwala, Gandhism Reconsidered,
1944, p. 22. :
Bombay,
69. M.K, Gandhi, Harijan, Sept. 29, 1940.
260. ~ ‘ECONOMIC ORDER
ductivity and complexity of the industrial organi-
zation to an unimaginable degree, has greatly
augumented that power.
The question of controlling economic power

and using it forthe benefit of society has been in
the forefront of social thought since the early
years of the Industrial Revolution. Several answers
to the question have been attempted. The answer
that took by far the greatest hold in the minds of
men was socialism-communism. The heart of the
answer of socialism-communism was, and still is,
that economic power could be efficiently brought
under social control and used for the common weal
of ownership and management of economic enter-
prise were transferred from private hands to those
of the State. The experience, however, of such
transference (in the welfare democracies) or forci-
ble take-over (in the Communist countries) has
been disillusioning.
Jaya Prakash Narayan who holds the above
view states that state ownership of economic enter-
prises as such does not bring the latter under social
control except in a formal and legalistic sense. It
does not by itself make for democracy in industry
and mitigate the centralisation of economic (and
therefore, political) power. All the fundamental
problems remain after the transfer of ownership to
the State—to alter the status of the worker and
give his work meaning.and purpose or open for him
any opportunity for initiative; to alter industrial
and make of the personnel in industry a fellowship
or community with a community of purpose and
interest, to make industry responsible to those who
have a stake or concern in it ; namely, the workers,
the consumers, the local and the larger community.
While private enterprise holds itself responsible
only to the share-holders, the responsibility of the
state enterprise would also tend to be limited, in
effect, to responsibility to the Government.
Gandhi was highly critical of state enterprise

and thought it to be rather inadequate. His popular
saying that while socialism - communism wanted to
take away the enterprises of the capitalists he
would take away the capitalists too together with
their enterprises, penetrated deep into the heart of
the matter. That meant that Gandhi wanted to
persuade the capitalists to run their enterprises as
trustees in the interest not only of themselves and
their fellow-owners (the share-holders), but of
society at large.
A crucial question is bound to be asked at this
point. What is the source for the motivation to
work for a trusteeship economy ? How far can that
motivation become a social force so as to be able
to transform society? The answer is that it should
come from the idealist outsiders - intellectuals and
persons with a social concern-whose passion in life
is to bring about a more sensible, ethical and satis-
fying economic order than both private enterprise
(of the 19th and-the 20th centuries) and state
enterprise (Communist or Democratic socialist). The
movement should soon be joined by such business,
262 ECONOMIC ORDER
management and technical men as have a quickened

sense of responsibity and enterprise. Workers would
not be found to be much behind in rallying to the
new movement attracted by the vision of new
status and significance and the new fellowship.
The Gandhian theory of trusteeship has a perma-
nent truth and its validity is being more and more
realized in the West today. A. E. Morgan writes,
‘Modern life, with its rapidly growing complexities,
greatly increases the number of situations in which
the only sound relation is that of trustee and the
growth of a sense of responsibility has not been
sufficiently rapid to meet these changing condi-
tions.’? In the field of industrial ownership and
management too, some thinkers and practical men
of affairs in the democratic West are coming to the
conclusion that a superior alternative to both the
Capitalist and state ownership and management is
a new form of ownership and management based
on what might be termed the “principle of Trustee-
ship.’
As compared with the situation here in India,
we could say that considerable work has been done
in Europe. The practical steps taken by business
men in Europe who voluntarily turned as trustees
in the Gandhian sense and the systematic studies
such as The New Form of Ownership and The
Responsible Company have performed a vital and
essential service. They have lifted up trusteeship
economy from mere good intentions and ethical
70. A. E. Morgan, The Long Road, p. 75,

formulations and given it concrete, practical and
judicial shape. It is felt here in India whether
state-regulated trusteeship would solve the problem.
It is feared by some that the actual achieve-

ment of non-violent transformation of society
appears to be a distant goal in the world which, to
use the words of Pandit Nehru, ‘tolerates covetous-
ness, selfishness, acquisitiveness, the fierce conflicts
of individuals for personal gain, the ruthless
struggle of groups and classes, the inhuman
suppression and exploitation of one group by
another.””! To this, Gandhi’s reply is: ‘Absolute
trusteeship is an abstraction like Euclid’s definition
of a point and is equally unattainable. But if we
strive for it, we shall be able to go further in
realizing a state of equality on earth than by any
other method.’ He further said: “If only we could
make people conscious of this power- the power of
non-violent, non-cooperation, the realization of the
ideal of trusteeship would follow as surely as
morning follows night.’” .
The Sarvodaya movement on account of
Gandhi’s lead has shown some concern with the
problem of trusteeship. But this concept has been
little developed since Gandhi’s time, except in the
case of landed property. True, Vinoba’s bhidan,
71. Jawaharlal Nehru, Towards Freedom, The Autobio-

praphy, 1942, p. 320.
72. M.K. Gandhi, Trusteeship, Series 13, p. 12.
73, Pyarelal, Towards New Horizons, p. 93.
264 ECONOMIC ORDER
buddhidan, Sramdén, sampattidan, have made some
appeal to the masses. The bhadan approach stems
from the faith in the essential goodness of man and
prescribes as a solution, renunciation of ownership
rights and property. Explaining the need for a
philosophic support to every step that one sought
to take in India, Vinoba said: “The bhitddn and
other dan movements are only a lever. In the
beginning, this is a process of liberating oneself
from attachments and temptations. How is one to
liberate oneself? Begin by renouncing the owner-
ship of land. You do not oblige anybody by offering
gifts, dan. In the end, all the land in a village is
to be owned collectively by the entire village. And
finally comes the complete picture. The gift of total
land in a village is not a donation. I call it samar-
Pana or dedication-a dedication in order to establish
gram raj and produce a picture of Sarvodaya.*4 ,
The birth place of Bhiddn movement (yajfia)

was Pochampalli, a small village in Nalgonda
district in Telangana. The first donor was one Sri
Ramachandra Reddy who donated one hundred
acres of land wholeheartedly to Acharya Vinoba
‘Bhave. Thus, the Bhidaén movement took its birth
in 1951. This unexpected miracle at Pochampalli
overwhelmed Vinoba and he fully recognised the
hand of God in this unexpected event. Vinoba
declared in a prayer meeting: ‘ Man does not act
74. Bhidan, English Weekly, Akila Bharat Sarva Sangh,

Rajghat, Kashi, Volume I, 1957.
merely on the strength of his own thinking. There
is always a Divine hand behind such actions. Iam
aman of faith, and work. in the name of God. If
Providence desires to take work from me, I will
walk from village to village to seek land donations
for the poor.’ The word ‘Bhidan’ was, in truth
used by Vinoba at the next halt after Pochampalli.
Yajna was added to Bhidan some days later.
Success crowned Vinoba in all his attempts, as he
moved from village to village appealing for land
gift. As Shriman Narayan observes : ‘The historic
Telangana tour lasted fifty one days and Vinoba
passed through some two hundred villages and
received 12,200 acres of Jand for distribution among
the landless. He worked ceaselessly for bringing
about a total land reformation. His ultimate object,
no doubt was to establish Rama-Rajya. He has
dedicated his life to bring about a peaceful revolu-
tion. He has shown to the world the non-violent
and peaceful way of achieving far-reaching land
reforms through a change of hearts.
Explaining the significance of Gramddn, Vinoba
enumerated seven basic objectives :
1. Elimination of poverty.
2. Awakening the feelings of affection and

love in the hearts of the land-owners, thus improv-
ing the moral atmosphere in the country.
75. Quoted by Shriman Narayan in Vinoba: His Life and

Work, Popular Prakashan, Bombay, 1970, p. 192.
266 ECONOMIC ORDER
3. Strengthening the society by forging bonds

of .mutual help and fellow-feeling, thus avoiding
what is as a rule witnessed elsewhere in the form of
class hatred between the big land-holders on one
side and the up-rooted landless on the other.
4. Revival and furtherance of Indian culture
based on our unique philosophy of yajfia, dana and
tapas, thus strengthening the faith of man in true
religion.
5. Building a new social order on the basis of
voluntary bodily labour, non-possession, co-opera-
tion and self-reliance.
6. Giving an opportunity to all the political
parties in the country to come together on a
common platform and work unitedly, thus rooting -
out bitterness and self-aggrandisement, and
7. Helping world peace.”6
Bhidan and gramdan are primarily movements
for changing the land systems of the country, i.é.,
abolishling private property in land and developing
fully its production potential through the efforts of
the community. It, however, involves not only
crop planning, introduction of better farming
methods, greater use of fertilizers, provision of
irrigation and all other aids. to larger produc-
tion, but also full utilization of available man-
power through development of rural industries
purposive regulation of exports from and
16. ei Narayan, Vinoba: His Life and Work, Ibid.,
imports into the village and making it a commu-
nity in the best sense of the word, i. e., con-
verting it into a family in which the formula of
* from each according to his ability and to each
according to his need * may be applied in economic
organization, social relations and norms of beha-
viour. Autonomy of the village as the basic unit
of the national economy has to be provided in
order that it may plan production, fully develop
the resources and produce its own leaders who
may work for the people and be accountable
to them, This would lead to direct participa-
tion of the people in making policy and its
execution, in matters directly related to their
well-being and thereby create real democracy
at the basic level, throw the responsibility for
its success on: the people themselves and create
the necessary interest in and enthusiasm for crea-
tive work for the village community and through
it for the country. This object or complex of
objects is expressed through village self-sufficiency
—Gandhi’s prescription for new fife in the villages
—and Gramraj (village government as the founda-
tion of the whole polity), which Vinoba is now
putting before us as the goal of our national endea
vour. This involves devolution of authority from
the centre on to the institutions, political and
economic, i.c., Panchayat and Co-operatives, but a
great deal more. Decentralization in this sense
means making the basic units truly basic—the
centre of the entire life of the community—the
source and the seat of its strength, viability and
268 ECONOMIC ORDER
process of growth. People’s power, as distinguished

from state power, is to be its essence which
amounts really to reliance upon people’s own initi-
ative and dynamic for building up and sustaining
the economy based upon freedom and equality. In
theory, decentralization in this sense means chang-
ing the whole scheme of, things and making state-
less economy the goal of social change, It makes
the withering away of the state not a vision of
the remote future, but the supreme objects of
immediate endeavour.
The whole problem of achieving integration in
combination with decentralization is the point on
which differences in theory and practice between
the Sarvodaya thinkers and other advocates of
social change cannot but arise and there should be
achieved awareness and understanding of the issue
which should be dealt with adequately from a prac-
tical standpoint. That there is. need for reliance
upon intelligent consent, active co-operation, and
initiative of the people as prime requisites for
_ introducing and developing social changes would
be readily conceded by non- sarvodaya social
revolutionaries, but it is when concerted action on
a broad basis is called for and has to be realized
that differences of degree almost become a diffe-
rence of kind and the Sarvodaya thinkers, in spite
of their catholicity of outlook, are likely to find
the gulf between them and the others most un-
bridgeable. Their whole attitude towards organiza-
tion as a factor in human affairs creates practical
difficulties, reduces their effectiveness in practice,
and makes their emphasis on moral values merely

a general exhortation for working for the establish-
ment of a new kingdom of heaven on earth. Their
moral earnestness, deep sense of unity of life, faith
in the goodness of man and his ability to live up to
the tenets of this faith and the belief in the capacity
of the people to bring about and support funda-
mental change through their spontaneous action
and drive generated from within are all qualities of
inestimable value, and can be truely social assets
for total social transformation. All these can be
put into the pool of common ideas and efforts and
turned to very good account.
The impact of the Bhidan and gramdan move-
ments of Vinoba, i.e., donation of land and
villages, so far has been more moral than economic
and social, but it has in it several ideas with far-
reaching implications and its appeal may have an
abiding value. Critics point out that ‘the gram-
dan movement looks like being on the decline-and
the flow of the new gramddans is withering.” A
movement which, it was hoped would help in solvy-
ing in some measure the most difficult land problem
of our country, is facing a serious setback. The
donations of land and villages in quantitative terms
mean more land given to the landless labourers and
more nuclei of fundamental work than what has
been achieved under land-reforms legislation,
and the work of the community development
77 A.W. Sahasrabudhe, Report on Koraput Gramdan

ற்‌. 15.
270° ECONOMIC ORDER
administration. That is, however, nof saying much
and is more a measure of failures of the state policy
and not of the achievements of this movement.
This is so, and yet it may be repeated that the
ideas propogated by the movement have seminal
significance and they and the social earnestness
which has gone with their propogation are assets
of great value for the future of socialism in this
country. It may be pointed out that though well-
being of all has to be the object of social endea-
vour-the good of the lowliest and the last has to
come first and be achieved largely by the democra-
tic process of making them the chief motive power
of the march forward.
The general consideration of mutual confi-
dence and urge to do good in the economic sphere
of the Sarvodaya society. For equality of oppor-
tunity and peace new orientation of economic life
is of utmost importance. Gandhi called it econo-
mics of non-violence. According to him produc-
tion in a non-violent society will not be for distant
profitable markets. It will be first of all for the
‘immediate neighbour.’ He called it Swadesi.’ In
the domain of economics, swadesi means that ‘one
should use only things that are produced for the
immediate neighbours and serve those industries by
making them efficient and complete where they may
be found wanting.’ He defined a swadesi article
78. M. K. Gandhi, Speeches and Writings of Mahatma

‘ Gandhi, G. A. Natesan & Cc., 4th Edn., p. 336.
as any article which ‘subserves the interest of the
millions even though the capital and talent are
foreign but under effective Indian control.’ He
pleaded strongly for stiff protective duties upon
foreign goods in order to nurture national industries.
The principle of swadesi suggested him the ‘univer-
salizing of Khddi or the spinning wheel to enable
the crores of our semi-starved countrymen to live.’
Khadi has been conceived as the image of swadesi.
Khddi has passed through several phases showing
its history. From being an antique rarity, it became
the symbo] of India’s non-violent struggle for
freedom. In hand-spinning Gandhi saw not only
the economic salvation of India, but also an answer
to the psychological and political problems of the
nationalist movement. Furthermore, Khddi was a
potent instrument of mass uplift and mass educa-
tion. The Spinning wheel was a divine instrument
and one calculated to satisfy the needs of the
meanest and humblest of human beings. Gandhi
felt that centralization necessarily leads to the
enshrinement of violence. Hence in the production
and sale of Khadi he wanted decentralization. This
decentralization leading to the elimination of the
control of the All India Spinner’s Association would
prepare the country for the pursuit of decentraliza-
tion in other fields. Among the social deficiencies
which have been very clearly set forth in the
79, M.K. Gandhi, Harijan, Feb. 25, 1939.
80. M. K. Gandhi, From Yerwada Mandir, Ashram obser-

_ vances, N; P. H. Ahmedabad, 1945.
272 ECONOMIC ORDER
Evalution Committee Report are, (a) fall in the

level of real wages as compared with the pre-war
level, (b) development of khadi production without
any reference to the incidence of unemployment
and local demand and market, (c) Complete non-
participation of the producers in the plans for
development of khadi and their execution, (d) lack
of any improvement in the technology of spinning,
(6) failure of khddi to make any material impact on
rural employment, (f) hardly any evidence of social
earnestness among the bulk of the field worker, (g)
inability of the khddi workers to identify them-
selves with the village communities or assume any
role in their development and (h) most of the benefits
of khadi work having accurued to the middle peasant
and even non-agricultural middle class, the poor pea-
sant and the landless labourers having been practi-
cally excluded from the rage of khadi production.’8!
Expounding the idea of decentralization in a Sarvo-
daya society, Vinoba observes: ‘Decentralization
presupposes a comprehensive all-pervading idea
behind the various village industries. In: the absence
of any such idea, small non-centralized industrial
units mean merely scattered industries. There
were plenty of them before the machine age. But
they were easily swept off with the first impact of
the machine age, Decentralization will stand on a
firm foundation. Not only will it not be blown off
81]. For detailed report, vide The Village Industries,
Commission Report and The Khadi Evaluation Com-
mittee Report, 1961, pp. 298-299; Jagrit, Vol. V,
r No. 46, Oct. 10, 1961, p. 6.
off, but will disintegrate the machine age itself.
The present machine age, in spite of its name, is
wholly unlike a machine, being totally uncontrolled.
The Communists want to replace it by a well-
controlled machine age. But like all other weapons,
the machines, too, though invented by man, are
inherently non-human. Hence, they cannot be
humanized beyond a certain limit.’
The chief principle of Sarvodaya economy is

simplicity of life. It distinguishes between ‘a high
standard of life’ and ‘a high standard of living’
and considers it even a misnomer to call the present
standard of living in the West as ‘high’. It would
be more appropriate to designate it as ‘ The com-
plex way of life.°82 Simplicity of life means neither
poverty not asceticism. As one concerned with
spiritual values, Gandhi would never allow luxury
and pomp to encroach upon human life. He was
all for the control of passions and believed that it
will lead to glorious civilization. His convictions
may sound like asceticism. But this does not mean
that he regarded scarcity and want as leading to
virtue. Craze for multiplicity of goods is destruc-
tive of contentment, peace, and tranquility. It
results in exploitation, enormous waste of nature’s
material and human labour, and in ever prepared-
ness for war.”®3 Dr. Bharatan Kumarappa rightly
observes: ‘A man whose needs are few such as
82. J. C. Kumarappa, Gandhian Economic Thought, p. 23.

83. K. G. Mashruwala, Gandhi and Marx, N.P.H,
Ahmedabad, p. 53.
274 ECONOMIC ORDER
can be met by himself can afford to raise his head
high and refuse to bow to any power which seeks
to enslave him. Not the man with so-called high
standard of living. Every new luxury he adopts
becomes an additional fetter preventing him from
freedom of thought, movement, and action.’
Pandit Nehru who was so anxious to raise the
standard of living of the Indian masses admits that
such piling may {ead to an emptiness in the inner
life of men.® A soft living undermines vitality
and this realization made Adalai Stevension
observe, ‘The. dreary failure in history of all
classes committed to pleasure and profit alone, the
vacuity and misery accompanying the sole pursuit
of ease, the collapse of the French artistocracy,
the corruption of Imperial Rome, all these facts of
history do not lose their point because the pleasures
of today are no longer the enjoyment of the elite.’
The Sarvodaya thinkers are not deceived by
superficialities and going deep into the matter they
advocate satisfaction with self, which is something
spiritual and should not be confused with satis-
faction with little.’8?
The second important principle of Sarvodaya
economy is decentralization which is a product of
84. Bharatan Kumarappa, Capitalism and Socialism or
Villagism, N .P. H, Ahmedabad, p. 28.
85. Nehru, India Today and Tomorrow, p. 33.
86. Quoted by George Murray in Bhitdan 14-11-1952,
p- 227.
87. Vinoba, Vichar Pothi (Hindi), pp. 33-34.
this age and aims ‘to ensure that the benefits of
science and technology enable us to preserve the
essence of democracy even while avoiding drudgery
and maximizing production and employment.’88
For Gandhi, non-violence and centralized industry
was incompatable. To allow centralization of
industries and agriculture was to permit exploita-
tion of others and unemployment at home. He
advocated ‘production by masses’, as against ‘mass
production’ through decentralization. Decentraliza-
tion should not be confused with dispersal of
industries. Dispersal of industry is no remedy for
the ills of industrialism. It may mean only greater
exploitation of the countryside. In the words of
Pyarelal, ‘It turns the farm into an adjunct to the
factory and the countryside into a ladder for the
non-producing industrial city proletariat to draw
upon, ‘but it means absolutely no lessening of the
political and economic control of industry and high
finance, rather than the reverse.’?
Was Gandhi against scientific advancement as
such? It is true that he abhored the craze for time-
saving devices. It pained him to see that the mad
race for comforts was making man indifferent to
the nobility of fellow-feeling and compassion. He
civiliza tion man was
could see that in the modern
being estranged in the human world. And his main
individual well-being. This seems to
concern was
have made his approach to science hazy. But this
88. Planning for Sarvodaya, p- 74.

p- 22.
89. Pyarelal, Towards New Horizons, op- cit,
276 ECONOMIC ORDER
does not mean that his approach was essentially

anti-scientific. Gandhi observes: ‘.....I am not
opposed to the progress of science as such. On
the contrary the scientific spirit of the West
commands my admiration and if that admiration is
qualified, it is because the scientist of the West
takes no note of God’s lower creation. I abhor vivi-
section with my whole soul. I detest the unpardo-
nable slaughter of innocent life in the name of science
and humanity so-called, and all the scientific dis-
coveries stained with innocent blood, I count as of no
consequence.....° The later Sarvodaya thinkers have
a positive approach to science. They recognize and
value the contribution of scientific advancement to
the sense of the unity of the whole humanity. The
laws of nature, in fact can well be utilized for the
benefit of decentralized industries. That is why
Vinoba says: ‘It is wrong to think that I do not
favour the use of modern science for improving
the technique of village industries. In fact, I think
that modern science is not satisfactory and
progressive enough.’! According to the present
Sarvodaya thinkers, there is a good deal of misuse
of science these days. In the words of Jaya Prakash
Narayan, ‘commercialization of science has to be
replaced by humanisation of science, it has to be
90. M. K. Gandhi, Young India, Dec. 17, 1925, p. 440;

Gandhi, Economic and Industrial Life and Relations,
Vol. II, N. P. H, Ahmedabad, 1959, pp- 50-51.
91. Shriman Narayan, One week with Vinoba, p- 58,

used for peace and happiness.°2 Commenting on
the present day progress of science, Nehru observes:
‘The very progress of science, unconnected with,
and isolated from, moral discipline and ethical
considerations, will lead to the concentration of
power and the terrible instruments of destruction,
which it has made, in the hands of civil and selfish
men seeking domination of others and thus.to.the
destruction of its own great achievements. Some-
thing of this kind we see happening now, and
behind this war there lies the internal conflict of the
spirit of man.”
The third principle of Sarvodaya economy
is self-sufficiency. ‘Self-reliance’, observes
J.C. Kumarappa ‘is the basis of freedom, while
dependence on others is the essence of slavery.’™
Sarvodaya as a practical philosophy has advocated
regional self-sufficiency, if it is not possible in a
village, but it would be incorrect to argue for the
extension of this area on the ground of efficient
production. The socalled efficiency in production
is only one aspect of the matter. if other aspects,
and more important ones, militate against it, effici-
ency has to be sacrificed. The same is true of the
benefits of specialization and division of labour.
The fourth cardinal principle of Sarvodaya
‘self-
economy intimately connected with that of
92. J. P. Narayan, A Plea for Reconstruction of India

Polity, ற, 53.
1.
93, Jawaharlal Nehru, Discovery of India,Ch.
94. Bhiddan, 2-1-1960, p. 285.
278. - ECONOMIC ORDER
sufficiency’, is ‘co-operation‘ or ‘corporate economy’.

The ideal of Sarvodaya implies that laws of the
family should govern individual and social life. In
other words, Sarvodaya stands for a co-operative
way of life, and the principle of. ‘corporate
economy’ is only its application to the sphere of
the economic life of society. This clearly
differentiates Sarvodaya from capitalism wherein
competition plays an important part. Sarvodaya
cannot re-concile itself to a competitive economy,
which no matter how much modified, remains an
application of the law of the jungle in the sphere
of economic life and leads to every form of injustice,
exploitation and moral corruption. At the same
time, the ‘Corporate economy’ of Sarvodaya should
not be confused with the’collectivization of the
communists. Vinoba writes, ‘Co-operation is an
eternal principle of life. But it is only when it is
given voluntarily and with full knowledge that it is
useful and that it is non-violent, and only then it is
truely co-operative. In short, Sarvodaya is not’
prepared to sacrifice individual liberty. With the
above ideas, Sarvodaya seeks to build up a society
with a bias towards rural civilization, in which
industries would be decentralized and village would
be as self-sufficient as possible.
In the foregoing pages an attempt has been
made to present an epitome of Gandhi’s teachings
addressed to a society where life has been revolu-
tionized by the machine and scientific inventions
95. Swaraj Sastra, p. 45.

SOCIAL & ECONOMIC ORDERS — 272
and discoveries. Gandhi was not interested in
theory and whenever he analysed a problem, politi-
cal or economic, he examined it from the point of
view of the twin principles, non-violence and ‘truth.
‘He introduced into the ordinary life of the work-a-
day world the spiritual values. His undying faith
in the goodness of man and the efficacy of non-
violence is beyond doubt.
Today more people have felt: the need for

adopting the Gandhian approach to the economic
problem in India. No less than the well-known
economist of international reputation, Dr. Ropke,
after referring to the double standard of the mate-
rial prosperity of masses as an objective in under-
developed countries to be attained, observed: ‘It
is regrettable that India seems to follow materialist
socialism rather than Gandhi’s humane wisdom. 796.
Doubts have, however, been expressed by some
economists and publicists about the Gandhian
technique which may be a stumbling block to
economic progress. Thus Prof. John P. Lewis
observes: ‘The neo-Gandhians and the ultra-
laissez-faireists both are highly articulate, and in
diversity-tolerant India, both get a good hearing.
The new-Gandhians, in fact, have an affectionate,
almost deferential audience, they offer Indian intel-
lectuals and men of affairs a vicarious asceticism
that appeases one traditional strain in their culture.
But the point is, that both the neo-Gandhians and
96. Wilhelm Ropke, Humane Economy, p. 112.

280 ECONOMIC ORDER
and the ultra-laissez-faireists, are now cast inescap-

ably in the role of respected crackpots.’”
We must consider Gandhian economic ideals

if not for anything else, at least for getting the
refreshing confidence, that in studying the economic
ideas of Gandhi we are paying attention to an
economic thought that is native to our soil. This
is essential at present because we have been exposed
to the legitimate accusation that foreign economic
models have been tried with doubtful results. Prof.
Myrdal has advised young economists in the under-
developed countries to have the courage to throw
away large structures of meaningless, irrelevant
and sometimes blatantly inadequate doctrines, and
theoretical approaches and to start their thinking
afresh, from a study of their own needs and
problems. This would take them far beyond ‘the
realm of both outmoded western economists and
Marxism.”8 Viewed from this angle, Gandhian
economic ideas, however impractical they may
appear perhaps offer the best starting point for an
economic thinking relevant to Indian conditions.
It is not correct to say that Gandhi’s rejection

of Western civilization was due to his political
vision. He sensed a conflict in values for he felt
97. John P. Lewin, Quiet Crisis in India, ற. 21.
98. Gummar Myrdal, Economic Theory and Under-

developed Regions, p. 112.
that the modern civilization would mean multipli-
cation of wants and moral impoverishment of man.
What the west needs today is a ‘combination of
supreme moral sensitivity and economic knowledge.
Economically ignorant moralism is as objectionable
as morally callous economism.’”
It is the intense aversion to certain aspects of

Western Civilization that made him discourage the
use of machines and industrialization generally.
Gandhi considered machinery from two angles,
both of which Ied him to condemn it. The first
would banish all machinery, because it atrophied
the man; the second considered it from the purely
economical point of view, where he assessed the
role of machinery in creating underemployment.
G. D. H. Cole could understand the rationality
behind Gandhi’s case against machinery in the
context of India’s economy. ‘The notion that India
can be lifted speedily to a level with the great
industrialised countries by intense capital invest-
ment is un-realistic. It would be achieved only by
impossible feats of abstinence by a rapidly growing
population, that is already perforce quite abstinent
enough, or theoretically, by immense borrowing of
capital from abroad, namely from United States...
I am not suggesting that India does not need capital
development but all that can be done in these ways
will for a long time make only a small impact on
the poverty of the people, and unless it is combined
99. Wilhelm Ropke, Humane Economy, p. 104.

292. ECONOMIC ORDER
with the development of the village industries and
village construction designed to make better use of
the abundant resources of labour rather to rely
mainly on methods which require expensive machi-
nery..© The crucial question is: what is the
objective of economic development? It is for the
purpose of human development then, we have to
take an overall view of the entire problem of
industrialization, not omitting the long list of
adverse effects which will disrupt our society.
At the centre of Gandhi’s economic programme
for India, is his plan for revival of village economy.
Gandhi has been accused of looking back and paving
the .way for the low consumption standards and
rejecting the introduction of machinery generally,
It is a trite saying that the prosperity of a country
must depend upon industrialization. The country
must produce all the machinery that it needs and it
must manufacture the tools which will make those
machines. The terrific drain on our foreign exchange
can only stop when, like the United States or the
United Kingdom, we are industrially self-sufficient.
That is our target but we do not propose to achieve
that target by starving our people of the necessities
of life, or by making the worker lose his dignity
as
a human being; because we realise that
in the
ultimate analysis it is the freedom and
the
happiness of the individual that must determine
whether the state has properly discharged
its
100. G. D. H. Cole, Mahatma Gandhi, Ed, 8, R:
adhakrishnan,
Pp. 379-380.
function. Therefore in our Five Year Plans, the
Government has attached as much importance to
agriculture and irrigation as it has to heavy
industries. The use of tractors in Indian agriculture
cannot be adequately appraised in terms of direct
effects as increased output but calls for an antici-
pation and evaluation of a whole series of potential
catalytic effects. If properly planned and nurtured,
the mechanisation of agriculture can be made
to serve as an inducement mechanism for the
introduction of new forms of organization, new
ways of doing things, new skills, a new discipline
and precision:—in short it can lead to a variety of
desirable socio-cultural changes. By mechanization
is meant a gpradual substitution of - tractors
for bullocks in major farm operations such as
ploughing and land improvements. Turning briefly
to some of the direct effects, it may be said that the
shift to tractors would make it possible to plough
the soil more thoroughly than with the traditional
wooden plough drawn by a pair of bullocks. The
soil can be worked when it is dry and ready for
ploughing, if necessary even at night , whereas bul-
locks require regular rest periods which at times,
cause delays and expose the soil to renewed heavy
rainfall. In areas with relatively short seasons, and
for crops with relatively short production periods,
tractors may actually make it possible to
increase the number of times a field can be
cultivated. Finally the use of tractors would release
farm labour for such, practices as hoeing, cultiva-
tion and weeding, which would also make for more
284 ECONOMIC ORDER
intensive agriculture and higher yields. It should

be noted that the potential effects of the mechani-
zation of farm operation in India are such that it
is possible to speak of a strong prima facie case in
favour of the transition from a bullock to a tractor
economy. The mechanization of Indian agriculture
aust be viewed as a major socio-cultural reform.
Without incentives and without an adequate frame-
work of social and administrative reforms, it is
unlikely that cultivators will be willing to pool
their resources, to accept the new discipline which
the mechanization calls for and to take advantage
of the lower costs of ploughing and the new
opportunities of increased production for steadily
expanding markets. The problem is an old and
indeed perennial one: namely, how to enlist the
voluntary co-operation of a large number of indiv-
duals ina common effort essential for social econo-
mic reconstruction.
A programme of rapid industrialization in
India has led to a centralised planning, and the
other grave dangers which have not yet been fully
comprehended is the fast urbanization of certain
areas in the country. Today, in India, we see the
sorry spectacle of ever-mounting social tensions
and economic planning of the present type. Instead
of bringing about the realization of economic
objectives spelt out in the directive principles of
State policy, planning has brought out a new
unhealthly trend in economic regionalism confined
to linguistic areas. These trends clearly point out
the need for rethinking in our plan strategy, not in
terms of the size of the plan, but in terms of a

decentralized plan. In this regard, there is scope
to adopt the path indicated for the economic
regeneration of our country by Gandhi.
Dr. V. V. Giri observes: ‘Gramdan and Gram

Swaraj are noble concepts and it requires strenuous
work to translate them into reality....... Today this
movement has spread over the length and breadth
of the country and has attracted the attention of
the world.”!! If we really desire economic prospe-
rity, it is imperative to combine spirituality with
science. As Vinoba observes:
‘Politics + Science = Annihilation
Spirituality + Science = Sarvodaya.’
The implication here is that if scientific knowledge
is misused by power politics, it would endanger
the very existence of man on this planet. On the
other hand, if scientific knowledge is combined
with spiritual wisdom, it will bring peace on earth
and goodwill among mankind, establishing a peace-
ful society, Sarvodaya.
Nehru was greatly impressed by

Pandit
Vinob a’s origin al ideas on econo mic plann ing and
an
development in India. Nehru once told Shrim
Narayan: ‘...whenever I am in diffic ulty about a
iji. But since he is no
problem, I think of Gandh
n’s book
101, V. V. Giri, Foreword to Shriman‘ Naraya
Vinoba: His Life and Work, op. cit, p- vii-
286 ECONOMIC ORDER
more, my thoughts invariably turn to Vinoba whom
I regard as the best interpreter of Gandhian thought
and tradition.” Gandhi addressed Bhave as Kritayugi
Vinoba and observed: ‘If something must be said,
it is enough to say that the fiery ordeal you are
going through would build a bridge between heaven
and earth.’ Gandhi described Vinoba’s qualities to
Rev, C. F. Andrews in these words: ‘He is one of
the few pearls in the Ashram. They do not come
like others to be blessed by the Ashram but to bless
it, not to receive, but to give!’
The Bhiudan and Gramddadn movements are

essentially in line with the Gandhian tradition of
non-violence. The former President of India,
Dr. Rajendra Prasad termed Bhidan as not merely
“a social gift of land.’ ‘The spirit behind it gives a
vision of the social order that Mahatma Gandhi
envisaged, and kindles and enlivens the hope of its
attainment.’ Dr. 8. Radhakrishnan also believed
that Bhidan was ‘an act of faith’ and would bring
‘a unity of mind, thought and purpose in India.’
Louis Fischer has rightly described it, ‘as the most
creative thought coming out of the East’. In short,
the Bhidan movement initiated by Acharya Vinoba
Bhave forms an important landmark in the annals
of India’s socio-economic progress since the dawn
of swaraj for the Bharata Desa.
How far Gandhian thought will project itself in

the future depends on the interpretation which the
Gandhians like Vinoba and J. P. Narayan will put
on the present economic development. Whether
SOCIAL & ECONOMIC ORDERS _ 287
we approach the question of Khddi or the use of
electricity or tractors or any other problems we
must constantly think out ways and means of
making our activity dynamic. Mere affirmation
of what Gandhi said is not enough. With both
scientific knowledge and faith as our guides, we
must carry forward the torch of progress that was
lit by Gandhi. The touchstone of all economic
progress is the promotion of human welfare. To
the extent that we are able to translate our
economic policies in terms of the well-being of all,
our progress is real. This, in short, is the essence
of Sarvodaya.
PART TWO
POLITICAL ORDER
OF SARVODAYA
AND THE PROBLEM
OF POLITICAL
- SOVEREIGNTY
CHAPTER FOUR
ANALYTICAL EXPOSITION OF
THE THEORIES OF THE STATE,
ITS PURPOSE AND END
IN INDIAN AND WESTERN
POLITICAL THOUGHT
THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE IN
INDIAN AND WESTERN
POLITICAL THOUGHT
The most potent legacy, Gandhi left to the

modern world was the technique of Satyagraha.
Gandhian thought is not explicitly and narrowly
analytical positive body of political knowledge.
He had acomprehensive approach to life. Man is
the centre of consciousness and power of the
Infinite. Gandhi stood by the moral order unequi-
vocally and uncompromisingly. He wanted the
subordination of political and social considerations
to moral considerations. Hence a comprehensive
theoretical enquiry alone can do full justice to
Gandhian thought. If the law of Moral Causation
which is universal and ineluctable is worked with a
will, man and his environment in this life and the
future will be changed so as to secure Sarvodaya,
the highest good for all.
The political philosophy which Gandhi deve-

loped has elements traceable to a multitude of
sources, Eastern and Western. Primarily shaped.
its
by 1909, this philosophy is more remarkable for
elastic character than for its formal consi stency
or sophistication; however, it served him well in
296 THE THEORIES OF THE STATE
his ‘experiments with truth’ till his death in 1948,

and it inspired others to follow him and his ideals.
It is impossible to appreciate political theory

without an understanding of history. Knowledge
of the present, no matter how pervasive, gives no
standard for judgment and no perspective for
analysis. The institutions and behaviour we
observe in our brief span of time are the products
‘of centuries: the principles and precepts we
acknowledge are embedded in a long tradition.
The proper study of history must be broad in con-
ception. It need not embrace sweeping ‘laws’ of
development, but it should ask questions about the
evolution of a society’s structure, about the growth
‘of its economic organization, and institutions of
government. Social classes, productive processes,
and political power do not emerge overnight and
they cannot be understood if they are examined
only in their contemporary setting. The historical
writers and political thinkers as well were all aware
of this fact, and their theories are not snapshots of
a single moment, but rather dynamic portraits
of the evolving relationships between man and
society,
An attempt will be made to trace briefly the

evolution of Sarvodaya state against the back-
ground of ancient Indian political thought with
particular reference to the theories of origin,
purpose and end of the state, which study will
enable us to have a proper perspective of Gandhian
political thought.
THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE 297
It is generally believed by western thinkers that
politics did not form a subject of serious study
among the Hindus: that the fundamental question
of political organization such as the theory of
sovereignty, the principle of obedience, the struc-
ture of the state and society were not subjects of
enquiry for a people presumed to have been steeped.
in metaphysical speculation. The state as a realised
ethical idea, with a- philosophical conception in
justification of its existence and activities was said
to have been unknown in India. All oriental
monarchies were ‘ex Aypothesi despotic and the
varieties of political experience on which alone a_
comprehensive theory of state and sovereignty
could be developed were presumed not to have
existed in India.
The reason for such a general misconception
was the assumption that the only state organization
in the East known to the early writers on Politics
was the Persian empire. Furthermore the western
scholars who devoted themselves to the study of
Indian civilization were not generally students of
history or politics. Samskrit scholarship began with
literature and philosophy and after Max Muller it
came to have definitely a philological bias. More-
over, the political weakness of the Hindu commu-
nity extending over many centuries gave colour to
the idea that at least so far as the science of politics
was concerned, Indian thinkers have made no
significant contribution.
The discovery and publication of Kautilya’s

Arthasdstra' gave the first shock to the complacent

ignorance in which the western and eastern scholar-
ship had buried itself. This monumental work has
now for some yeats been before the scholars for
critical study, and it is no longer correct to say that
the Hindu mind was not conducive to the develop-
ment of political theories. Further it is wrong to
affirm that the Indians never freed their politics
from their theological and metaphysical environ-
ments and never set up the science or art as an
independent branch of knowledge. The very first
chapter of Kautilya’s work enlightens us on this
point. It deals with the branches of knowledge
(vidyas), which were prevalent in his time. All
human knowledge known to India was, at the time
of Kautilya, divided into four branches. They were
anviksiki (Philosophy), Trayi (Theology), Varta
1, The book refers to several previous teachers and

claims to be a systematic compendium of the ancient
teachirgs. The authenticity of the book had long been
4 controversial issue among Indologists but Jayaswal
and Jacobi have strongly pleaded that the work is a
genuine treatise written by Kautilya, the Prime
Minister of King Chandragupia- vide Sten Know,
Kautilya’s Studies (Oslo. 1245), p. 65; Jayaswal, Hindu
Polity (Calcutta, 1924), p, 203-219 for a different view,
Arthur B. Keith,
‘The Authenticity of Arthasastra’, Sri Asbutosh
Memorial Volume, Patna, 1926-28, pp. 8-22; Accord-
ing to Winternitz, Geschichte der Indischen Literatur,
iii, 509, the work belongs to the 3rd Century A.D.,
while Joliy, Punjab Sanskrit Series, No. 4, 1923, holds
that it is a work of the 4th Century A.D.
(Economics), and Dandaniti (Polity). One school of

politicians, namely, the B4arhaspatyas, distinctly
held that theology (Trayi), which consisted of
Vedic literature and lore, was a pious fraud.2
Another school, namely, the Ausanasas went to the
extreme of reducing all the vidyds to one, namely,
Dandaniti, and asserted that Dandaniti alone
deserved to.be called vidya, Theology and Philosophy
were thus subordinated by them to the science of
Polity which alone engrossed the mind of this
school. When such was the state of things, as we
can clearly see from Kautilya’s ArthaSastra, it will
be incorrect to affirm that the Indians had for ever:
subordinated the study of the science of Politics to
that of Theology and Philosophy and had ever
developed it as an independent branch of know-
ledge. -
Quite in consonance with the above view we
find that there was in existence an extensive litera-
ture bearing upon Dandaniti or Arthasastra prior to
the time of Kautilya.? In the first place, there were.
no less than four schools of polity, namely, those
of the Manavas, the PardSaras, thc Barhaspatyas
and the Ausandsas. Besides these, there were at
least seven big treatises on statecraft, namely, those
attributed to Bhdradvaja, Visalaksa, P4ardSara‘,
2. Ind. Ant., 1918, p. 104.

3. Carmichael Lectures, 1918, p- 89.
Parasaraya sa-
4. Compare Manare Vachaspataye Sukraya l Series,
sutaza in Tantra khyayi ka (Harwa rd, Orienta
Parasara and
Vol. 14), V. 2. This clearly shows that of polity.
his son Parasara were known as authors
PiSuna or Narada Kaunapadanta> or Bhisma, Vatav-

yadhi and Bahudantin or Mahendra. Kautilya is not
the only writer who refers to those authors of
Hindu Polity. They have almost all been mentioned
in Santiparvan of the Mahabharata,’ which also
gives the additional name of GauraSiras. Further,
there were no less than four schools of polity known
to India in Kautilya’s time. There were, again,
some independent treatises on this subject, which
do not seem to be connected with any school. Ali
‘things considered, we may reasonably infer that
the study of polity must have begun as early as the
seventh century B.C., if not earlier. This seems
quite in keeping with the fact that tradition assigns
the orig'n of this science of Dandaniti to the God
Brahma.’
Even before the epoch-making work of Kautilya
was brought to light, we had before us the treatise of
Kamandaka calied Nitiséra which quoted the tradi-
tional view of the old authors of the Hindu Polity
with regard to their idea of the state. That the
ancient Indians, even in those early days of the
Vedas, the Samhitéds and the Brahmanas, were
aware of important concepts relating to their
5. Kaunapadanta’s work is most probably represented by

the Rajadaram-anusasana of Bhishma, which forms
the first part of the Santiparvan of the Mahabharata.
This work scems to have been incorporated into the
epic like the Bhagavadgita.
6. Chapter 55, V. 58.
7. Santiparvan. Ch, 59.
socio-political life is proved by the existence of such
terms like rajya, svardjya, simrajya, bhaujya, varagya
the maharajya and ddhipatya which are met with
especially in the ancient texts like the Atharva Veda,
Taittiriya Samhita, the Aitareya Brahmana and the
the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brahmana. Of these terms
the first is taken to mean ‘sovereign power’, which
when coupled with another term dsandi (sitting on
the throne) came to be one of the characteristics of
the samrajya8
_ The foregoing brief analysis will make it clear

that the ancient Hindu writers had written several
formal treatises on various aspects of dharma.
For instance, the dharma-sutrds of Gautama,
Baudhayana and Apastamba refer to dharmasastras
and the word dharmaSastra occurs in Baudhayana
also. Baudhayana speaks of a dharmapathaka.
He states several writers on dharma, viz.. Aupajan-
ghani, Katya, Kasyapa, Gautama, Maudgalya,
and Harita. We note that there is a vartika which
speaks of dharmasastra. Patanjali quotes verses
and dogmas that have their counterparts in the.
dharmaSiutras. These works were considered as
authoritative texts by all schools of thought.
The earliest discussion about the origin of

Kingship is contained in the Brahmanas. The
subject on hand in these Vedic compos itions is :
the sovereignty of Indra. But man makes gods
after his own image and consequently the celestial
8. Vedic Index, 11, 821.

sovereignty of the divine Indra was but a reflection
of the earthly sovereignty of the human king.
Indra, it is stated, derived sovereignty from the
election of the gods, Prajapati, being one, though
the chief, of these electors. Some scholars like
Prof. Sinha hold the view that this bears some
resemblance to the social contract theory of the
western political thinkers, in that Indra was
elected to kingship by the class of beings to which
he belonged. The most important feature, however,
- of the theoryis conspicuous by its absence, namely,
the governmental pact entered into by both the
parties. So this is a theory of social contract
which is yet in an inchoate condition and has not
become full-fledged.
Very little of political thought is traceable in
Buddhist literature, whose main, object was not to
expatiate on things mundane, but rather to describe
whatever contributed to the spiritual growth of an
individual. The story in the Digha-Nikaya, which
is called the Aggaiifiasuttanta or a book of Genesis?
shows that the sovereignty orginated in a social
contract. Because he was chosen by the whole.
people (mahdjana-sammata), he was called Maha
sammata (the Great Elect). Because he was the
lord of the fields (Khettanam patiti) he was called
Ksatriya (Noble). And because he delighted others
by observing the established law (dhammena pare
raijetiti), he was called Rajan.
9. Rhys Davids, Sacred Books of the Buddhists,

Vol. IV,
p. 77. ்‌
It is necessary to remember in this connection

that there will scarcely be found any theory pro-
pounded in Hindu books of polity and scriptures
which will be exactly indentical with the social
contract theory of the West. Nowhere in the
Mahabharata, the Puranas or ArthaSastra has been
found any Hindu theory which is exactly parallel
to that of the West in all respects. The difference
is, of course, natural, because the Hindu mind
worked in a different environment and in a different
direction. But what seems to be a most important
thing here to insist upon is that there should be
clear evidence of a governmental compact
drawn up between the two parties, that is, between
. the people and the ruler elected. In this respect
the story of the Digha-nikaya entirely agrees with,
and marks an improvement on the account of the
origin of kingship furnished by the Aitareya
Brahmana. The latter stops with the election of
the kings, and gives us no inkling as to the forma-
tion of any contract. The story of the Digha-
there
nikaya, however, unmistakably indicates that
king elected, that is,
was this contract between the
and the people. Aryasura in his
Mahasammata,
Jaétakamala refers to the king’s moral obligations
of
of protection in return for the willing obedience
his subjects, while Aryadeva in his Chaluhsataka
of
asserts outright the doctrine of the sovereignty
for wages. The
the people with the ruler serving
justifies the
author of the Suvarnaprabhasa sitra
of
. king’s authority by an evident adaptation
Manv’s well-known theory of Divine creation of

the temporal ruler.
The Jaina theory of the evolution of man and

his social and political institutions, like the Bud-
dhists, has no direct bearing on the mutual relations
of the temporal ruler and his subjects. While
Somadeva! and Hemachandra!! follow the smrti
principle of the ruler’s authority or obligation or
both, Jainasena mentions a sectarian theory of the
ruler’s obligation based on an equal sectarian
view of his origin.
Kautilya amplifies the old smrti clauses of state

law relating to the king’s authority as well as his
obligations. Kamanolaka bases the king’s authority
upon the smriti principle of the high significance of
his office adding to it the further familiar concep-
tion of the indispensable qualifications of the ruler.
Lastly the author of the Sukranitisadra, slightly
varying the smrti precedent, conceives the king’s
authority to be derived from his super-human
origin on the ground of his virtue and past merit
as well as from his office and functions, while he:
repeats the smrti principle of the King’s ethico-:
religious obligations of protection. The author
further reproduces the smrti - Arthasastra clauses of
the state law in support of the King’s authority.
10. For detailed analysis vide Somadeva’s Nitivaky-

" dmrtam.
11. vide Hemachandra, Laghavrhanniti; Goshal, Ibid,,..
: pp- 475-493,
In the Rdmdyana'!? the principle of the King’s

authority is founded upon the conception of the
high significance of his office and his functions as
well as that of his equivalence to the minor deities.
From this the author draws the corollary of the
subjects’ duty to honour the person and respect the
authority of their ruler. But he condemns by
implication the extreme development of this
doctrine implying the king’s absolute immunity
from punishment and the subjects’ unlimited obli-
gation to honour their ruler. With the above the
Ramdyana combines the triple principle of the
King’s obligation in the smrtis. References to the
smrti conception of the authority and obligation of
the ruler are found singly or collectively in other
literary works of the same period, such as Patica-
tantra, and Pratima-najaka, a drama of the poet
Bhasa belonging to the classical Samskrit literature,
as well as the Kural® -and the Silappadikaram of the
Tamil classical literature. The two-fold doctrine
of Divine Creation of the ruler and bis quasi-
contractual relation with his subjects, forming in
part the basis of the smrti theory of the. King’s
authority and his ebligation respectively 18 evident
in the theories examined above. -
, Ed,
12,: The Ramaynna of Valmiki with 3 commentaries
Katti Mudhol kar, Bombay ,
by Shastri Srinivasa
1912-20, Ch IV. °
13. V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar, Kural, Text in Roman

s,
transliteration with English translation; Madra
1949, Ch. XV, p. 72
We may observe that, whereas there is evidence

of the concept of sovereign power, and of the exis-
tence of kings, in the Vedic and post-Vedic periods,
there is nothing to suggest that in those ancient
times, there prevailed the idea of a strong unified
and centralized state that wielded power over
a large territory. It cannot be made out how long
it took for the ancients to evolve such a state, but
it appears that many centuries must have elapsed
before it was brought into existence.
This leads to the question: how did the state

in ancient India arise? There is no definite answer
to this question, since thé beginnings of ancient
Indian society cannot be determined but it seems
that here in India as elsewhere the state emerged
within the society, and that the ties of kingship,
religion, and economic needs were primarily respon-
sible for the formation of the rudiments of the
state.
The primary justification of the state was

protection. It should be noted that there‘existed a
society prior to the formation of the state. Secondly,
the members of that society were afraid of the
strong coercing the weak. And thirdly, in order to
protect the latter, the king, whose punitive power
had a divine sanctity about it, inflicted punishment
compelling the turbulent members of society to
acknowledge his authority, Hence the need of a
state. The simile of the stronger fish eating the
smaller fish as given in the manusmrti is to be traced
‘THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE 307
to the following statement in the Satapatha Brah-
mana: ‘..wherever there is drought, then the
stronger seizes upon the weaker.’ There is
frequent reference to the ‘law of the fishes’ in the
Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Manusmriti, the
kamandakiya-nitisdra and the Matsyapurana. That
this was the greatest justification for the creation
of the state is also evident from the graphic des-
cription of the state without a King as given in the
Ramayana and also from Kautilya who writes that
when the law of punishment is kept in abeyance, it
gives rise to such disorder as is implied in the
proverb of the fishes.: Further, Kautilya makes an
approach to the welfare state, where he calis upon
14, Satapatha Brahmana, XI, 1. 6.24, ற, 18.

Compare a statement about the Jaw of fishes in the
western thought: Commenting upon the state of
nature as described in Hobbes’ The Citizen, xiii, 37s
Pufendorf says: ‘This is very much like the state
of fishes as described by Oppian, On Fishing, Bk.
(44 ff): ‘For they al] swim about hostile and at the
other, intent upon his death, one furnishes food for
another.” And again: ‘The others live in a state of
mutual hostility. Therefore, you will never see fish
asleep, rather are their eyes and ears always alert and
wakeful, since they always fear the approach of a
stronger and set upon the weaker.’—Samuel von
Pufendorf, The Law of Nature and Nations, translated
by C. H. and W. A. Oldfather, Oxford University
Press, 1934, p. 165.
15. Vide: Ramayana, AyodhyaKanda, XVII, 31; Manu-

smrti, vii, 20; Kamandakanitisara, ii, 41.
the king to protect the country from great calami-

ties, viz., fire, floods, diseases etc.‘!®
- It appears that we have to construe from the

above that the authors of Satapatha Brahmana,
Manu and Kautilya had little faith in the ultimate
goodness of human nature and that they believed
that the ordinary men were so depraved that they
could be kept on the proper path only by the fear
of punishment. This lack of faith in man is
echoed in later works like the Mahabharata and
those of Ydgflavalkya and Kdmandaka and in the
Sukraniti. It may be asked: . what was the object
of inflicting punishment? This leads us to the
antiquity of the idea of protection. We find that
there was complete unanimity amongst ancient
political theorists in regard to the supreme impor-
tance of the duty of protection on the part of the
state; and that it was directed not only to streng-
thening the power of the monarch but also in
maintaining and preserving the social order which.
comprised the varndsramadharmas and even those
‘who were outside the pale of orthodox Aryan
society. The ancient Indian concept of punishment
for the sake of punishment is of interest to us in
modern times in three ways. ‘Firstly, we could
understand it in terms of force as a primary cause
16. Kautilya, A. §. IV-3. 1-2,
The Dharmasitras and Srirtis also state that
it is the
duty of the king to protest his subjects from
great
calamities. Vide A. D. §. If 10-26; Manu VII.
13334...
of the origin of the state; secondly as an incidental

factor in the origin of the state; and thirdly as a
justification for the maintenance of the social good.
The ancient Indian conception of force as a

primary cause of the origin of the state presupposes
an inherent propensity of man to encroach on his
weaker neighbour, and to be prone to commit acts
of disorder and aggression.
If it is only recalled here that in ancient India,

as elsewhere, society had existed prior to the state,
it is possible to see how the ancient Indian concep-
tion of the origin of the state is intelligible even
from the modern standpoint that restricts force to
its contributory nature.
_ The last idea that force is a factor for maintain-

ing social good affords a connecting link between
the modern concept and the ancient Indian one.
On the basis of the many statements of Manu and
Kautilya, we may note that the sceptre or danda
was to be used by the King as typifying the state
not for his personal profit but for the furtherance
of the social good of all sections of the people. , In
this connection, we may well appreciate the state-
ment of Kautilya who, while commenting on danda
(punishment or force), wrote thus: “That sceptre
on which the well-being and progress of the sciences
of Anyiksiki (which comprises the philosophy of
Sankhya yoga and Lokayata), the triple Vedas, and
varta (agriculture, cattle breeding, and trade),
depend is known as danda and more particularly
that upon danda the course of the progress of the

world depends.’!7 Manu looks upon danda as the
real king, leader (neta) and administrator (42272):
it is the danda which governs the people, protects
all and is the custodian of dharma.”'8 Thus Manu
enunciates the role of danda in the maintenance of
social cohesion and political order. If the king
does not exercise coercive power, the strong devour
the weak in the same manner as the fishes are fried.
The Santi Parva states that it does not become a
Ksatriya to remain without coercive power, for
neither he nor his subjects can enjoy prosperity.’
Both Manu and the Sdntiparva, however, enjoin
that force should be exercised according to law. In
enforcing his authority, the King should take into
account the precepts of the saStras and the advice
of the ministers according to Manu and the vyava-
hara based on the Veda and dharma according to
the S@nti Parva. Yajfiavalkya states that having
obtained the seven-element state the King should
use his authority (danda):in punishing the wicked,
for dharma was created in the form of danda by
Brahma in ancient times.°2!_ For the realization of
17 ArthaSastra, VI, 1.
18. Manu, VII, 17-8.
19. ‘naidandah ksatriyo bhati nadando bhiitimaSnute,
nadandasya praja rajfiah sukhamedhanti bharata’-Santi
Parva, 14.14, ்‌
20. Manu, VII, 31; Santi Parva, 121, 50-4.
21. tadavapya nrpo dandam dururttesu nipG@tayet,
dharmo
hi dandariipena brahmana nirmitah purd - 1353-4.
universal prosperity, Sukra recommends both niti
and danda. The King, therefore, according to him,
should wield the sceptre of danda and be an adher-
ent of the paths leading to the maximization of
intelligence, power, vigour, and niti.’22 Thus the
element of danda seems to have assumed conside-
rable importance in post-Maurya times when
centrifugal forces had been set in motion on account
of foreign invasion and internal uprisings.
In order’ to understand the nature of the

ancient Indian state, it is necessary to examine
briefly some fallacious theories.
Sir Henry Maine, followed by T. H. Green,

Maintained the view that the ancient Indian state
was nothing but an irresponsible tax-collecting
machinery. T.H. Green stated that “the empires
of the East are, in the main, tax-collecting institu-
tions. They exercise coercive power on their sub-
jects of the most violent kind....(and) do not impose
laws as distinct from particular and occasional
commands.’3 That this view is erroneous has been
pointed out by Professor Rangaswami who shows
that there is no evidence, either in the writings of
the ancient Indian thinkers or in the available
historical accounts, of rapacious governments in
ancient India which lived a life of perpetual extor-
tion, unmindful of their own duties and obligations
2௯3, Sukra, Niti Sara, 1.45;1,7-11.

2 . Quoted by Beni Prasad, The State in Ancicnt India,
The Indian Press, Allahabad, p. 498.
to their subjects. Even in the confused conditions

prevailing in the eighteenth century, it should be
remembered that in spite of onrush of new ideas,
the Indian states, on the whole, continued to main-
tain and foster some of the ideals of ancient Hindu
monarchy.
Another theory considers the ancient state as

being entirely under the influence of priests and of
their writings. The injunctions of Kautilya enable
us to arive at two important conclusions. In the
first place, the members of the sacerdotal class
were by no means immune from the ordinary laws
of the land. Secondly, they were, along with the
king, subject to the dharma Sastras which were
higher than the King himself. Thus the theory
that Brahmins in ancient India were the controlling
factor in the state is baseless. ்‌
The Divine Right Theory of the origin of the

state may be examined now from the stand-point
of different scholars. The first version of Dr.
N. C. Bandyopadhyaya refers to the existence in
Vedic literature of traditions relating to Manu and
Prithu Vainya to the recognition of the earliest
King as the greatest benefactor, not to his evolu-
tion for a military chieftain. The second version is
advocated’
by Professor Radha Kumud Mookerjee
who distinguishes between dharma which he inter-
pretes as the state and danda as the king. He writes:
“Hindu thought counts dharma as the true sovefeign
of the state, as the rule of the Law. ‘The King is
the executive called the Danda to uphold and
enforce the decree of the Dharma as the spiritual

sovereign....In this way democracy descends to the
villages and the lowest strata of the social structure
and operated as the most potent agency of uplifting
the masses. Thus ancient Hindu monarchy was a
limited monarchy under the very constitution of
the state.°*
The above theory propounded by Prof.
Mookerjee is rather misleading. It is true that
dharma reigned supreme in the public and private
life of the ancients but to equate it with the Rule
of Law is erroneous. Further, it is true that the
King wielded the danda, and to that extent was the
supreme executive. But he was also the supreme
judiciary and as such was the upholder of the sacred
law. This is proved by the Sutapatha Brahmana in
which it is mentioned that ‘the king is indeed the
upholder of the sacred Law.’25 It would, therefore,
be incorrect on the basis of this statement to style
him as a spiritual sovereign. Further Prof.
Mookerjee’s idea of self-government extending
from the sovereign to the villages is hardly borne
out by the facts of ancient Indian history.
tains
_ The third view held by Dr. Jayaswal main
y uphel d that Kings hip origi-
that the Vedic theor
Gupta Maurya
24, Radha Kumud Mookerjee, Chandra
cited by Prof. V.N. Ghoshal,
and His Times, pp. 79-84,
ngs, pp. 136-42 , where Prof. Mookerjee’s theory
Begini
is refuted. \
25. Satapatha Brahmana, V. 4, 4, 5, P- 106.

3/4 THE THEORIES OF THE STATE
nated under the stress of war; that the idea of

kingship was borrowed by the Aryanas from the
Dravidians ; that it was a contractual theory which,
while being monarchical adopted the republican
theory of contract, that the king was the servant of
the state, virtually a constitutional slave who held
his office on trust.
Another version of this theory is put forward

by Professor Ghoshal which may be summarized
thus : The origin of Kingship was due to the will
of the supreme Diety, as is substantiated by a
passage from an unknown annaya by ViSvaripa, the
author of the earliest extant commentary on the
Yajiiavalkya smriti. This theory, in short fails to
establish the central point in the problem, the
divine creation of the ruler so as to invest him
with divine attributes or even with divinity itself.”
The viewpoints expressed by different scholars

cannot be maintained in terms of ancient Indian
political thought. Admitting that the King as
stated in Manusmrti was the result of divine crea-
tion, as well as the laws and even the social
divisions with their respective duties, there is
nothing to prove that Svayambhit Brahma took an
active part in the direction of public affairs in the
ancient Indian state. Further, even supposing that
there existed a divine element in the composition
26. Ghoshal, A History of Indian Political Ideas, Oxford

University Press, 1959, pp, 28, 329-30; 540-42,
of the dharmaSdsiras, as taught to Manu, the law-
giver, it cannot be affirmed that the ancient state
and its laws were theocratic in nature. Manu him-
self discarded the divine origin of the laws. The
theory of divine origin of Kings, therefore, as
understood by some Indian scholars, to be a part
of the ancient Indian political thought fails to
stand a critical examination.
We cannot properly conclude our enquiry into

the origin of the state without taking note of the
remaining two theories which present what may be
called the paternal view of Kingship and the
organismic view of the origin of the state.
The paternalistic theory is based on the assump-

tion that, since the King is compared to a father
(piteva), especially in the sphere of protection, it
necessarily follows that he was nothing more than a
patriarch, who, like a benevolent head of a family,
merely guided his subjects, the latter like children
carrying out his orders. This theory is held to be
based on the Manusmrti, in which it is declared that
the King should behave like a father towards all
men.’27 No trace of paternalistic theory is found
in the Vedic literature. Kautilya was an advocate
of paternalistic theory of kingship.’
The partiarchal theory is by no means unknown

to Buddhist literature, for we find stated that the
27. Manu, VH, 30, p. 221,

28. Arthsastra, ii, 1; also Manusmrti, vii, 80, 135.
316 “THE THEORIES OF THE STATE
ideal relation of the King towards his subjects is

not only that of father and mother to their sons
but also that of the preceptor towards his disciples.”
The same view seems to have been countenanced
by Kautilya who in two places refers to it in his
ArthaSastra by using the expression ‘piteva anugr-
nhiya?, Further we find that Asoka, who is not far
removed from Kautilya in time, seems to have been
guided by this ideal. He distinctly says: “All men
are my offspring. Just as for (my) offspring I desire
that they be united with all welfare and happiness
of the world and of the next precisely do I desire it
for all men.’ This clearly shows that Asoka had a
paternal conception of his duty as King.3!
Professor Rangaswami Ayyangar has rejected
the above theory on the following grounds : First,
since individual responsibility as signified in Karma
was the keynote of ancient Indian religion, the
theory is inapplicable to India. Secondly, the.
recognition of custom and usage of local, family,
professional or a corporate kind does not warrant
the assumption that the state treated the subjects
like children. And finally the many restrictions on
the liberty of the individual, etc., which are found
in Kautilya’s Arthasdstra ‘are equally explicable on
other grounds.’ In fact it is not the king who was
in the last resort powerful but the people in whom
29. neta pita uggato ratthapalo, Jataka, Vol. V, p. 223.

30. A, R. Bhandarkar, Asoka, pp. 309-10; Kalinga Edict ii.
31. Arthasastra, ii, 1.
lay his strength, as is described in the Satepatha
Brahmana which aptly says that he (the King) was
‘mighty through the people.’2 It is here we see how
the modern concept of the general will of Rousseau
is reflected in the determined will of the bulk of
the people in the ancient times. Hence, we have
to reject the paternalistic theory as being incompa-
tible with the principles of ancient Indian Polity.
Having rejected all the fallacious theories of
the state we shall find that the nature of the ancient
Indian state can be best understood when we see
the organismic theory.
According to it the state is a living organism,

like animals and plants, possessing organs each of
which performs a specialized function, and is
subject to development and decay. The organs
are dependent on each other and on the whole for
‘their continued existence. The theory can be
studied from two points of view~ that of the com-
ponent parts of the society, and that of the consti-
tuent elements of the state.
Ancient Indian society had definite organs or
institutions which performed specialized functions
which became more definite and distinct in the
the
course of ages, but which were all directed to
furtherance of the ends of the state. From the
yani
3%. .Satapatha Bra@hmana, V. 4, 4, 11; p- 109; Maitra
, U, 1.8 117.8) 17. 4.3; Taittri ya Samhita,
Samhita
ll. 6.5; Vedic India, ரர்‌. ற. 213,
ordinances of both Manu and Kautilya, we have

the proof of not only the specialized functions of
the various classes but of their interdependence as
indispensable units of a composite society, in a
Manner suggesting that no class could hope to live
‘by itself without the co-operation of the other.
Turning to the other aspect of the organismic

theory, we may observe that the state had seven
‘elements each of which was dependent on the
others. All the seven elements that comprised the
state constituted its living and growing orga-
nisms. ‘Since the state was made up of interdepen-
dent parts each of which performed a specialized
function all contributing to its well-being, there is
every justification for upholding this theory.
Further we find that the ancient Indian view fully
satisfies the conditions of the theory as understood
by modern Western thinkers. The clearest exposi-
tion of the organic theory of the state is found in
the late work of Suka, who establishes a beautiful
analogy between different parts of the state and
those of the human body.33 This theory not only
bears some resemblance to the modern ‘definition
of the state, but also possesses certain basic
elements typical of the theory of the state pro-
pounded by Engels. Perhaps the resemblance to
the modern organic view of the state’ can be
explained on the basis that in the interests of the
33. ‘drgamatyah suhrechrotran mukham keso balam

manah hastau padau duryarastrau rajyangani Smrta@ni
hi—Sukra, 1.62.
ruling class in all ages attempts have been made to |
emphasize the unity of the state. But, if we apply
the term ‘modern’ to the concept of the state in
western democracies, we find that the modern
definition is characterised by that abstraction and
abstruseness which are wanting in its ancient
counterpart. Hence it would not be appropriate
to say that the ancient Indian conception of the
state is ‘surprisingly modern in character.”>*
At this stage we shall make an attempt to.

review briefly the various theories of state pro-
pounded by Western thinkers, in order to under-
stand and judge the significant contributions by
both Indian and Western thinkers. ,
At the outset, it might be asked: What is the
meaning of the state ? The state occupies the central
theme of political science. Still, however, opinions
differ as to the connotation of the term ‘state’ and
as to when the concept emerged in the vocabulary
of political science. The ancient Greek city-states
contained distinct political patterns as do the
modern. states. The Greeks hit upon an organiza.
tion of life known as Polis, a term for which there
is no exact translation but which we render rather
inadequately as the city state. It was much more
than what we mean by a city aad a great deal more
than what we understand by a state. According to
the Greeks, the Polis was free. Its liberty was the
breath of lifé to the Greeks. The individual and
~ 34.“ History and Cultural of the Indian People, U, 307.

the city-state were indissolubly bound up together,

both being necessary for the existence of each
other. However, we should note that the conceptual
frame of a modern state was largely unknown to
the Greek political thinkers. To Aristotle, to live
in the state and to be a man were identical, for
whoever was not a member of the state or was
unfit to be one was either a god or a beast ; he was
either above the State or below it. In the opinion
of Catlin, Aristotle’s Polis ‘could more appropri-
ately be described as the ‘City Community’ than
as the ‘state’.3> To the Sophist, ‘man is the
measure of all things.” They orginated the idea
that the State rested upon a social contract. To
them, the laws often based on political expe-
diency were divorced from morality, and therefore,
obedience to them was a question of personal
interest.
Socrates was the heir to the Sophists. The

Socratic view of the state was different from the
view of the pro-Socratic Sophists. Socrates
believed that man was essentially social and the
state performed a necessary and useful function.
If the citizen disobeyed the State, such disobedience
would result in the nullification of his own purpose
of life. Therefore, ‘where mere material interests
were involved, one should submit to the State in
all ways. But where the dominant opinions were
in the light of one’s own examination mistaken,
35, Catlin, The Science and Methods of Politics, p. 139.

one’s conscience was a higher guide.” In short,
the State was-primarily an educational institution.
Plato’s theory of the State is an organic theory.
In The Republic or ‘Callipolis’ (365 B. C.), and
especially in the Political core of Books II - V,
Plato delineates his famous Ideal State, from every
point of view. He maintains that the supreme
good of the state is the unity of the whole. This,
however, does not mean that Plato sacrificed the
individual to the state. The real interest we find
in The Republic is in Justice in the Individual and
Justice is examined in the state only because ‘the
state is the individual writ large.’ For Plato is
concerned not with civics but with souls-a concern
not to be found in writers who can be Jegitimately
accused of sacrificing the individual to the state.
For Aristotle, ‘man is a political animal’,
one who can fulfil himself in the Polis. Men live
in society not only to live but to live well. There-
fore, the functions of the state too were based on
morality. He held that ‘A State is a community,
and every community exists for the sake of some
benefit of its members......: the state is that
kind of community which has for its object the
most comprehensive good.”’ To Aristotle, the
36. T. J. Cook, History of Political Philosophy, Prentice

Hail, Inc., New York, 1936, ற, 29.
37. F. Pollock, An Introduction to the History of the
Science of Politics, Macmillan & Co. Ltd., London,
1906, pp. 17-18,
state is a moral institution. It is “prior to the

individual’. Like Plato, he observes that the state
and the individual are complementary, not contra-
dictory.
Whereas with Plato and Aristotle, the state
absorbed the individual completely and while the
Epicureans thought the state to be unnecessary
encumbrance, the Romans held that the state is a
‘Res Populi’ or the ‘Res Publica’. The Romans
laid down emphasis on the rights of both the
‘individual and the state. Both of them were
separate entities eniitled to and bound by their
own rights and duties. In short, the state is nothing
else than a partnership in law. While St. Thomas
Aquinas agrees with the Greek philosopher’s view
of the state, St. Augustine contends that the state
had a divine sanction. To him, the state was due
to sin and represented a divine remedy for sin. In
spite of its divine origin, the state represented the
Kingdom of the Devil whereas his own Civitas Dei
was the Kingdom of Christ. The state conferred
rights and could take them back. The Laws of the
state must be obeyed but if the decrees of the state
violated laws of religion or morality they must not
be obeyed.
Before discussing the origin of the state it is
necessary to examine the essential elements of the
state. An analysis of the state shows its essential
factors to be as follows: (1) Population, that is a
considerable group of human beings, (2) Territory,
that is a definite area of the earth’s surface upon
ச
-THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE 323

which the population reside; (3) Government, that
is a political organization through which the will
or law of the state is expressed and administered;
(4) Sovereignty, that is, the supremacy of the state
over all individuals and associations within it and
the independence of the state from external control.
The absence of any one of these elements destroys
the state; all must exist in combination. The
state is not the people, nor the land, nor the
government but all of them, and in addition the
state must posses that unity which makes it a dis-
tinct and independent political entity.
In discussing the origin of the state, it is useful

to distinguish the primary or pre-historical origins
of the state from the evolution of the state in
historical times. Various theories concerning
the primary or pre-historical origin of the state
have been propounded by historical and political
writers. The theories are: (1) The Divine
Origin theory, (2) The Social Contract theory,
(3). The Force Theory, (4) The Patriarchal and
(5) The Matriarchal theory.
Kranenburg groups these theories under (a)

Theocratic, (b) Natural Law and (c) Power
theories.
The Divine Origin theory is the oldest theory

concerning the primary origin of the state. It
states three propositions: the state has been estab-
lished by an ordinance of God: its rulers are
divinely appointed: they are accountable to no
authority but God. Thus we are told in the Bible.**
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.
For there is no power but of God: the powers that
be ordained of God. Whatsoever therefore resisteth
the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and
they that resist shall receive to themselves damna-
tion.” This obedience to the state becomes a
religious as well as a civil duty:. disobedience,
sacrilege. The importance of the theory is chiefly’
historical; it helped to support the claims of cer-
tain rulers, like James I of England, to govern
absolutely and without being accountable to their
people.
It is interesting to note that in ancient India

the divine right theory was not stretched to include
the view that the bad as well as the good ruler was
the representative of God and as such entitled to
unconditional obedience. The idea of the divinity
of a King is not confined to India alone. It is well-
known that the Pharaohs of Egypt were styled
Si-re or sons of Sun-God. Their example: was
followed not only by Bactro - Greek Kings but also
the Parthians. Thus we find Euthydemos receiving
the posthumous homage of being styled Theos. And
Antimachos and Agathocles actually called them-
selves during their life times Theos and Theothropos
(Son of God). The theory is now generally dis-
credited, because it necessarily involves propositions
that are to be accepted as matters of faith rather
38. Romans, xii, 1-2.
THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE © 325
than of reason. Nevertheless, it has its merits in
that, idealistically interpreted it may create in the
mass of the people a sense of value of order and
obedience to law, so necessary for the stability of
the state - and in the rulers a moral accountability
to God for the manner in which they exercise their
power.
Social contract is the name given to a group of

related and overlapping concepts and traditions in
political theory. The substance of the social contract
theory is that the state is the result of an agreement
entered into by men, who originally had no govern-
mental organization. Individuals in the pre-political
state must be considered as Thomas Hobbes him-
self said, ‘to have no government at all and to live
at this day in that brutish manner.’ The social
contract proper (pactum societatis, pacte d’ associ-
ation, Gesselschaftsvertrag) is thought of as bringing
individuals together in society, and the govern-
mental contract (pactum subjectronis, pacte de
government, Herrschaftsvertrag) as establishing a
formal government. In Hobbe’s Leviathan (1651),
the state of nature was a state of war, a property-
less anarchy brought to an end only by the contract
of absolute submission. Lock’s Two Treatises of
Civil Government (1689) are known to have been
and
written as an attack on Filmer, not on Hobbes,
of
Locke’s relatively peaceful and sociable state
nature, brought to an end by a very limited contract,
has only a somewhat distant relationship with
Hobbe’s ‘War of all against all.’. As might be
326. THE THEORIES OF THE STATE
expected, the nature and form of the contract or

contracts has been thought of in various ways. In
some systems, the contract is an irrevocable act,
but in others it appears as a continuing understand-
ing that is perpetually being renewed and is regarded
‘ rather as a trust than as a contract (Lock). The
parties to the various contracts differ also.
Contractual political theory is universally

associated with the rights of the individual person,
with consent as the basis of government, and with
democratic, republican, or constitutional institu-
tions. This theory is perfectly reconcilable with the
Most absolute of despotic rule and with the
complete negation of constitutionalism or the
rule
of law. Hobbes is the classic case here, for his
two
alternative accounts of how Society and
government
came simultaneously into being are designe
d to tie
every citizen to unquestioning obedience
to a
supreme, irresistible, indivisible sovereign whose
dictates are the law. Spinoza makes
a rather
similar use of contractual Principles, but
the politi-
cal theory of Rousseau, although
expounded in
contractual form, has collectivist tendenc
ies, since
it endows political Society with the
capacity to
make men moral. Rousseau’s major
political work,
Du contrat social (1762), must be
looked upon as
the point of departure of the quite
separate and
traditionally quite irreconcilable
outlook whose
model is the theory of the general
will. Rousseau
elaborated a doctrine which was
both or iginal and
‘Potentially revolutionary ; the
relation of the
individual to the collectivity was seen as a matter
of will, not of government, and the solution of the
problem of obligation was the discovery of a general
will directed to universal moral ends, which the
individual had only to obey in order to secure
justice. Since Rousseau insisted that a collectivity
which has no general will is unworthy of the
obedience of its citizens, its revolutionary potentia-
lities are also obvious. The most conspicuous
element supporting the interpretation that the social
contract is a statement of tyrannical revolutionary
nationalism is its final chapter. “The Civil Reli-
gion’, which can be interpreted as justifying the
condemnation to death of anyone who flouts
Rousseau’s own dogmatic statement about the
relation of the individual to the state.
It should be noted that it was not traditiona-

lism however, which broke down contractarian
assumption within a generation of the death of
Locke in 1704, but rather the rapid defeat of the
natural law outlook by utilitarian criticism in
England and by general will notions in France and
elsewhere. Contract lost its persuasiveness as the
rationalist outlook on the nature of law gave way
to the historical outlook early in the nineteenth
century. Contemporary appreciations of the great
contractarian writers (for example, by Howard
Warrender, C.B. Macpherson, and A. G. Wernham),
especially of Hobbes but also of Locke, Spinoza,
and Hume, and even of Rousseau, have tended to
insist that the classic theories are strictly in
hypothetical form which makes it entirely unlikely

that they will ever be adopted again by political
theorist.
In spite of the great value of the social-contract

theory in serving as the basis for modern democracy,
this is not a satisfactory explanation of the nature
of the state. This theory has been criticised from
three different angles, the historical, the legal and
the philosophical or rational.
Historically the theory is absurd. Besides it is

possible to argue with the German jurist Von Haller
(1768-1854) that inequality, rather than equality; is
natural. Duguit rejects the theory as an ‘unsustain-
able hypothesis’ because it assumes that the idea of
contract could be present in the minds of men in
the so-called state of nature, which he says is
impossible since men who are not already living in
society cannot have any notion of contractual
relations and obligations.” Furthermore the social
contract theory implies a false notion of rights.
’ ‘T. H. Green contends that the real flaw in the theory
of contract is not that it is unhistorical, but that it
implies the possibility of rights and obligations
independently of society.
According to the theory of Force, the state is

the result of the subjugation of the weak by the
strong. According to this theory, it is war that
begets the state. In its practical form, it reduces
39. Droit constitutional, Vol. 1, p. 13.

itself to the position that government is the out-

come of human aggression. Such a view is found
in the early works of Herbert Spencer where he says
‘Government is the offspring of evil, bearing about
it the marks of parentage’. According to Rousseau,
‘Force is a physical power...to yield to force is an
act of necessity, not of will - at the most, an act of
prudence.” Some of the early Church Fathers also
used the theory to discredit the state. The individua-
lists and the socialists have employed the Force
theory to support the respective doctrines. While
it may be true that force has been one of the
factors for the emergence of the state, it is wrong
to assert that it has been the only factor.
Another theory which we shall presently

examine is the Patriarchal theory. Sir Henry
Maine (1822-88) is the chief advocate of this
theory. H.S. Maine observes: ‘The elementary
group is the Family, connected by common subjec-
tion to the highest male ascendant. The aggre-
gation of Families forms the gens or House. The
aggregation of Houses makes the Tribe. The
aggregation of Tribes constitutes the Common-
wealth. Briefly, the state is an extension of the
family, the head of the state being the father ; the
people, his children. Maine cites the Patriarchs of
the Old Testament, the ‘Brotherhood’ of Athens,
the patria potestas in Rome and the family system
in India as evidence in favour of his theory. The
40. H.S. Maine, Ancient Law, ‘World classics’ edn., p. 106.

most serious criticism of the theory is that it does

not account for the origin of the state. It is simply
@ speculation into the beginnings of early society, :
particularly those of the family. The theory has
the merit, however, that as an explanation of the
origin of the state it emphasises one essential ele-
ment in the making of the state, viz., Kinship.
Among the chief exponents of the Matriarchal

theory are Mc Lennan (Primitive Society 1865),
Morgan (Studies in Ancient Society, 1877) and Jenks
(A History of Politics, 1900). As distinguished from
the patriarchal theory, this theory holds that the
primitive group had no common male head, and
that kinship among them could be traced only
through women. It is to be noted that both the
patriarchal and matriarchal theories are more
sociological than political. They seek to explain
the origin of the family and of the state. The
nature of the family and the state are different in
essence, organization, function and’ purpose. It is
incorrect to regard matriarchal society as the oldest
form of social organization everywhere. The truth
seems to be that ‘there has been a parallel develop-
ment, but the patriarchal line is thicker and
longer.”4!
The theories discussed so far must be rejected
as unsatisfactory for reasons already stated. The
generally accepted theory is known as the historical
41. M. Ruthnaswamy, The Making of the State, William

& Norgate Ltd., Ltd,, London, 1932, p. 18.
or evolutionary theory. It considers the state
neither as a divine institution nor as a deliberate
human contrivance; it sees the state coming into
existence as the result of natural evolution. It
is a continuous development and cannot be referred
back to any single point of time. Its emergence is
almost imperceptible. The chief factors which
have influenced its formation are: (1) Kinship,
(2) Religion, (3) Political Conciousness. All these
necessitate some form of law and a government to
enforce that law, and the state was the next step in
this political evolution. Hence the historical or
evolutionary theory can be regarded as the best
theory, which furnishes a correct explanation of
‘the origin of the state.
An investigation of the origin of the state
gives us two distinct lines of study—one historical,
the other speculative. History tells us the various
ways in which governments came into being or
perished, but it does not tell us how mankind
originally came to live under state conditions. Of
the circumstances surrounding the dawn of political
consciousness we know little or nothing from
history. Where history is silent, we must resort to
speculation. The social contract theory, the theory
of Divine Origin, the theory of Force come under
the category of Speculative theories which are now
practically universally rejected. However, a study
of them is valuable, for many of our modern politi-
cal institutions can be properly understood only
when examined in relation to the political ideas
current at the time of their inception.
A study of the evolution of the state leads to
five broad conclusions. First, the evolution of the
state has been from the simple to the complex.
Secondly, evolution means the growth of political
consciousness and purposeful action. Thirdly, it
means the bringing together under a single state-
system larger areas and greater numbers of peoples.
Fourthly, state development has meant the curtail-
ment of the power of the state to certain areas
and the corresponding increase of it in certain
others. Finally, the significant contribution that
has been the increasing measure of compromise
which has been worked out between the sovereignty
of the state and individual liberty. .
THE PURPOSE AND END OF THE STATE
IN INDIAN AND WESTERN
POLICAL THOUGHT
Even more important than investigation into

the origin and evolution of the state is the question
relating to the purpose and end of the state. The
question we are most concerned with is :why should
there be a state at all? Has the state a rational
basis? Can we not manage without the state? At
a very early time, Aristotle saw the force of these
questions when he claimed that the state first came
into being in order that we might live, but was
Aris-
continued in order that we might live well.
as being essential to
totle thus justified the state
man’s good life.
The concept of the purpose and end of the
state is a complex one. No abstract concept of
appli-
the state can be formulated. It is the practical
shows
cation of any concept of the state which
idual is made
its exact nature. The life of the indiv
prope r adjus t-
up of civic and social relations. The
of the state.
ment of these relations is the function
n,to regulate
The state is nothing but an institutio
ard expression of
human conduct. Itis the outw
inat ion of liberty
human consciousness, a comb
ument of the common
and restraint and an instr
good. Society means a unity constituted through

the development of mutual relations between diffe-
rent individuals living together, and the state is a
system ordering these relations. Hence, the concept
of the state and its sphere have changed according
to the changes in the relations of men with
one another. This change occured due to the
nature of society—from the simple to the complex
and the growing interdependence of individuals.
The practical situation of every period exercised a
decisive influence on the concept of the end of the
state and on the extent of recognition given to the
states. The only way to understand the concept
of the state is the study and analysis of the ideas
of different political theorists who are the social
representatives of their age.
Regarding the proper objects and functions of

the state all political thinking has been divided
according to different phases and the divisions are
called different schools of thought. In fact, the
concept of the state is a reaction to the views and
.Tequirements of the people and of the stress of
events at any particular time; therefore, there can
_be no last word in the theory of the state.
‘The distinguishing mark of the state is simply

the exercise of compulsory organising power by a
selected body of individuals within the state.°42
Peace and order alone provide conditions of good
42. T.D. Weldon, States and Morals, A study in Political

Conflicts, John Murray, London, 1950, p. 50.
THE PURPOSE & END OF THE STATE 335
life. To establish this peace and order is the first
and foremost duty of the state. The concept of the
State in terms of security represents the ideal
of ‘governmental absolutism, the theoretical triumph
of the principle of Order over all conflicting princi-
ples of political construction.’3 According to this
view, the ultimate purpose of the State is nothing
but the promotion of peace and security and this
itself puts a limit on the sphere of state activity.
During the course of time humane ideals took the
place of mere security and absolutism was substi-
tuted by the good of the community. The needs of
security are not the only prime consideration in
community life. ‘The state is not constituted by
laws and institutions alone; the state is based upon
a certain attitude of the minds of its members. The
existence of a state presupposes in the souls of its
citizens the presence of certain common ideas
concerning that which is to be considered as right
and proper.”
The apprehension of common good and the

existence of common interests are the uniting links
between the people and the source of all obedience
to the state. The promotion of these common
interests and the achievement of mutual living
among people is the aim of state. The good life of
the individual being the ultimate end of the state,
,
43, Ibid. p- 52.
44. D. P. Cruis, The Nature of the State, The Open Court
Publishing Company, Chicago, 1894, p. 16.
his freedom, individuality and progress are its

proximate aims which it can realize only with the
voluntary acceptance of its authority by the indivi-
dual. This willingness of the individual is the
ultimate sanction of state actions while there are
other sanctions like expediency, utility, tradition
and custom, each of them having its own impor-
tance and developing through an evolutionary
process of growth. Their combined force is the
basis of the state and the true purpose of the state
can be realized when due place is given to every
aspect of social life, and all these methods are
applied properly in the right direction. The impor-
tance of any of them cannot be diminished. Yet it
remains a fact that we cannot make a final enume-
ration of the functions of the state. . In view of the
necessities of peace and protection of individual
rights, of the humanitarian standards of state, of
consent and freedom as the basis of relations
between the state and individual and also the
extent of individual opposition to state authority,
of the progress of society interpreted in the light of
good life of the individual; the sphere of the state
is specified as far as possible. No clear line of
demarcation can be drawn between the actual
sphere of the state and the individual. Yet the
fields of state —action and individual action have
always been separated to a certain extent accord-
ing to the situations in society and conditions of
buman life. The historical background and the
changing concepts of the end and functions of the
state have revealed the fact that there have been
different trends and there was no possibility of an

agreement among thinkers.
An attempt will be made in this section to put

forward briefly the views of different thinkers
regarding the end and function of the state and to
deduce their implications in the context of times,
practical applications and effects on the institutions
of the state; also to give interpretations to the
ideals of the state which conform to the needs of
the structure of society and of the people according
to the ancient Indian and Western political thought.
The problem of the functions of the state is

intimately bound up with that of the need of the
state which we have discussed earlier. While
explaining the justification of the state, it was
stated in the earlier section that one of the most
important grounds on which it rested was protec-
tion which was also its foremost function. The
Manusmrti relates the following: ‘For, when these
creatures (created by Prajapati), being without a
king, through fear, dispersed in all directions,
the Lord created a king for the protection of
this whole (creation.)*® In a later context in the
same work the following is stated: “Through fear
of him (King) all created beings, both the immov-
able and the movable, allowed themselves to be
enjoyed and swerve not from their duties.“ The
45. Manu, VIL 3, p 216.

46. Ibid., VU, 15, p. 218.
338 © THE THEORIES OF THE STATE
object of protection is given thus by Kautilya: ‘The

people (loka) consisting of four castes and four
orders of religious life, when governed by the king
with his sceptre, will keep to their respective paths,
even devoutedly adhering to their respective duties
and occupations.” Kautilya here merely echoed
the earlier injunctions of Manu and the Dharma-
Sastras. That the duty of protection was the fore-
most duty of the king, which justified the existence
of the state, is proved by the later political thinkers
like Somadeva Suri, who wrote in his work styled
Nitivakyamrta: “How can he be a king, who does
not protect the subjects ? In the tenth century A.D.
the people ascribed the greatest importance to the
duty of protection, as is further proved by the same
Jaina author, who asserts that the protection of
the subjects is the King’s sacrifice’, and that when
the king protects his people in just ways, the skies
put forth all desires.® Thus we find complete
unanimity amongst the ancient political theorists
with regard to the supreme importance of the duty
of protection on the part of the state; and that it
was directed not only to strengthening the power
of the monarch but also to maintaining and
preserving the social order which comprised the
varnasramadharma.
47. Kautilya, Bk. 1, Ch, IV. 9. p,9,

caturvarnasramo loko raja dandena palitah
svadharmakarmubhirato vartate svesu vartmasu.
48. Somadeva Suri, Nitivakyamrta, றற. 17, 66, 105.
Granthartnamala, Bombay.
Paripalana or all-round protection implies a
very wide meaning. It is not merely the preserva-
tion of law and order. It also means that the king
and his subjects should follow the paths of dharma,
artha and Kama. Dharma includes not only the
rights and duties of states and subjects, but also the
rights and duties of individuals per se and inter se.
The protection of subjects involves, as a correc-
tive, the punishment of the wicked. In short, the
King was a real factor to be reckoned with, and
not a roi faine’ant (a do-nothing King). _
The next function of the state was the main-

tenance of the common law as embodied in the
ancient customs and usages of the land. The
evidence of the Manusmrti has already been cited
in this respect. Kautilya affirmed not only that all
the righteous customs practised in a conquered
country were to be maintained by the conqueror,
but that the latter should adopt the same mode of
life, the same dress, language, and customs as those
of the conquered people.”
The third function of the state was the protec-

tion of the dharma of the land, within the sphere of
which both the state and society moved.” * All
creatures depend on the king. He, therefore, is the
49. Kautilya, Bk. XIII, Ch. V, 409, 410, pp. 438, 439;
text, pp. 409-410. ்‌
50. K.V. Ramaswamy Aiyangar, Some Aspects of Ancient

Indian Polity, Madras, 2nd Ed., 1935, p. 109.
true king who maintains dharma.”5! The concep-~

tion of dharma is elastic. Like jus, recht, droit,
diritto, it has several meanings. The duties of kings
(raja-dharma) forms an important part of the
dharma-sastras, as the king is the second of the four
varnas. He is the protector and guarantor of
dharma. ‘Heis the time and epoch, as on him
depends whether dharmas would be maintained or
would undergo change—rdja hi yugam ucayate.™ In
the Narada Smrti, we note that the king as superin-
tending the law is known as danda-dhara or wielder
of danda, the power to punish. Vamadeya-gitd also
dwells on the observance of raja-dharma. It states
that the king must be a jitendriya. Kautilya writes :
“As the duty of a King consists in protecting his
subject with justice, its observance leads him to
heaven. He who does not protect his people or
upsets the social order wields his royal sceptre
_(danda) in vain.’? The duty of maintaining dharma
and the social order was of fundamental importance
to Kautilya.
The fourth function of the state was the levy-

ing of taxes. Thus ordained Manu: ‘A King who
(duty) protects (his subjects) receives from each
and all the sixth part of their spiritual merit; if he
31. Mahabaratha, xii, 3-5.

52, Sukra-Ni tisara, IV.
53. ‘ rajnah svadharmah svarajya praja dharmena raksituh
_ araksituh—va kseptuh-va mithyadandamato’ anvatha’
Kautilya, Bk. iii, Ch. 1, 150, p. 171, 17% p. 150.
does not protect them, the sixth part of their
demerit (will fall on him). Whatever (merit a man
gains by) reading the Veda, by sacrifice, by charita-
ble gifts (or by) worshipping gurus and gods, the king
obtains a sixth part of that in consequence of his
duty of protecting (his kingdom).*4 That the state
was authorised to levy taxes only to the extent of
one-sixth of the produce, after it had afforded the
subjects protection, is proved by the statement of
Somadeva Suri, who wrote centuries afterwards.*
Neither the protection of the social order nor

the levying of taxes was possible without the fifth
important function—that of promulgating laws and
of maintaining the machinery of judiciary. Although
in Manusmrti there is an explicit reference to the
promulgation of laws, yet when we come to the
age of Kautilya, the promulgation of laws was
definitely a function of the state. In the matsya-
nyaya, itis stated that the state is the originator
of law, justice, and duty. The doctorine of dharma
-as justice is organically connected with ‘the theory
of the state.
To the above important function was added

another relating to the promotion of the welfare of
the people. A clear concept of this function of the
state is given in the Arthasdstra of Kautila: In
54, Manu, VIII, 304-305, p. 307.

55. Somadeva Suri, Nitivakyamrta,p. 18, cited by Aiyan-
gar, op, cit., p. 109, note 198.
the happiness of his subjects lies his (the King’s)
happiness; in the welfare, his welfare; whatever
pleases him he shall not consider as good, but
whatever pleases his subjects he shall consider as
good. In a later context in the ArthaSsdtra,
Kautilya lays further stress on the supreme impor-
tance of this function, when he writes thus:
‘Strength is power, and happiness is the end.’>7
While the state was to possess power, its sole object
was to promote the happiness of its subjects. The
basic structure of the state was based on the
ptiticiples of salus populi suprema lex esto. (Let the
‘welfare of the people be the supreme law). Sucha
society would result in the attainment of abhyudaya
and nihsSreyasa, Kautilya thus brought into relief the
function of promoting the welfare of the state in
the above poignant sentence, as perhaps no ancient
Indian writer on politics has done.
The essential functions of the state described

above may be analysed in terms of the relation of
the state with other states, of the states with the
individual, and of the individual with individual.
In regard to the first aspect of the relations of the
state with other states, Kautilya has more detailed
56. BK. VI, Ch. ii, 261, p. 291; Text, p. 261.

Prajasukhe sukham rajjiah prafanam ca hite hitam
na- atmapriyam hitamn rvajRah prajanari tm priyaria
hitam.
57. Bk. VI, Ch. II, 261, p. 291; Text ற. 261,

balam Saktik sukhai siddhih.
information to give than Manu, while the latter
dwells on the measures which a King has to under-
take against his foes, and enunciates the theory of
rajamandala or the circle of states in broad out-
line.58 Mention is made in sufficient detail in the
Manusmrti describing the relations between the
various castes or varnas, of the mixed classes, of
the Aryans in general, of father with son and
daughter, of husband with wife, and of the indivi-
dual with individuals. Kautilya’s elaboration of
these details concerning the relations of the indivi-
dual with individuals is comprehensive.” Indeed,
the entire administrative and military machinery
described in the Arthasatra bespeaks a mighty
military organization as well as immense financial
resources upon which alone the strength and conti-
nuity of the Mauryan monarchy could have rested.
These were essential for preserving the social order
against troubles and external dangers concerning
both of which Kautilya recommended remedial
measures.
58. Vide Manu, VII, 155-203, pp. 240-49.

The Constituents of the circle of states (mandala)
the would-be conqueror (in the
are: the vijigisu or
his immediate neighbour regarded as an
centre),
friend, the enemy’s
enemy, the would-be conqueror’s
friend’s
friend. the friend’s friend, and the enemy’s
friend (the last being in front); the rearward enemy,(the
the rearward friend, the ally of rearward friend the
last four being the rear); the mediatory king and
A.S. Bk. vi-
most powerful neutral king.’—Kautilya,
59. Kautilya, Books Ill & IV, pp» 167-265 may be of
special significance in this connection.
60. Kautilya, Bk. VII, pp. 349; Bk. IX, pp. 367.
The above clearly proves that the ancient state
exercised the most essential functions which were
vitally concerned with sovereignity. In this regard
it affords comparison with the modern state which
also has to exercise similar essential functions in
connection with its relations with other states, and
with dealings of the individual with other indivi-
duals. The modern state also maintains huge
armies, raises colossal funds, has a large array of
executive officials, and exercises vast powers.®!
But there are some differences between the

ancient Indian state and the modern state in regard
to the functions. A close examination of the
essential functions of the modern state shows that
they follow naturally from the definition of the
state and from its essential attribute, sovereignty.
Consequently there is the need for adjusting the
relation of sovereignty or independence externally
to other states, internally to individual liberty.
These functions are therefore compared with
the sovereignty of the state in its two aspects of
power and liberty. The modern state may not
necessarily justify its action on any moral grounds,
or any code of ethics, but may be guided solely by
the exigencies of the occasion, or by the programme
of the party to which it belongs and which wields
61. For detailed study of the functions of the state, vide,

Gettel, Political Science, 1949, pp. 284-89.
62. Ibid., p. 385,

political power. The ancient Indian state, even as
described by Kautilya, did not dare to transgress
the limits imposed upon it by the dkarmasastras
-and the niriSdstras. Moreover, state action in
ancient India was circumscribed by the ancient
usage of the land ; while the modern state, although
recognizing the validity of the common law, is
generally eager to narrow down the sphere of
ancient usage and custom, and impose its will on
both.8 Further the modern state, in the exercise
of the functions, determines its relations with the
‘ citizens so as to decide their share in the wielding
of political power. There is nothing to indicate
that in the ancient state there was any attempt
either on the part of the state or of the individuals
to define the relations of the latter with a view to
making them share in’ political power. Finally,
according to the modern writers on politics, the
function relating to the promotion of the general
welfare of the people is only an optional one on the
part of the state, while, with the ancient Indian
state, that function was an essential attribute of its
existence.
The question of the proper function of state

action was not of such primary importance in the
early days of political speculation as it is in modern
times. What is the purpose of the state? There
are perhaps as many answers to this question as.
there are writers on politics. We shall cite a few.
63. Mac Iver, The Modern State, Oxtord, 1949, pp. 160-61.
346 - THE THEORIES OF THE STATE
Plato and Aristotle taught that the best life of

the individual was possible only in the state. The
state, Aristotle tells us, which originated for the
sake of life, continues ‘for the sake of the best
life. The end of the state is, therefore, ethical.
The ethical end of the state is subordinated to_
convenience in Locke. His concern is not with the~
‘good’ but with the ‘convenient’. The better
preservation of natural rights is the purpose of
political society; the exercise of power by a govern-
ment is conditioned by that purpose. The end of |
the state, as defined by Locke, is intelligible when.
it is remembered that the ‘provocation’ for his
Two Treatises of Civil Government was the arbitrary
exercise Of power by the Stuart Kings, and that its
aim was to justify the principles of the Bill of
Rights and the ‘Glorious’ Revolution of 1688.
Locke believed in the minimisation of state-func-
tions and in the state making as few laws as
possible. He did not favour any rights of govern-
ment against the people, because to him government’
is an agency to secure the interests of the
people and is to act as a trustee for the people.
There are some specific limitations which Locke
puts on the functions of the government. Equality
is the most fundamental law of the state. Locke
tried to put every possible restraint on govermental
.action and to secure individual freedom to the
great extent. The present-day laissez faire
doctrines have their source in his theory of state.
The attitude of mind expressed by Spencer’s phrase
“Man versus the state’ is practically dead today and
is being replaced by the idea of ‘the group versus
the state.’
Locke, Adam Smith, and Spencer agree that the

state is a means to anend, the end being a better life
for the individual whether conceived in ethical
terms or not, whether the state is to interfere more
or less. The opposite view that the state is an end
in itself has had its exponents too, and is perhaps
best illustrated by the school of thinkers known as
Idealists, especially by G.W.F. Hegel.
The conception of the state follows from that
of history. To Hegel, the state is not only a part,
a special province, but the essence, the very core
of historical life. It is the alpha and omega. Hegel
denies that we can speak of historical life outside
and before the state.
To Hegel, the state is not only the representa-
tive but the very incarnation of the ‘spirit of world’.
While St. Augustine regarded the Civitas terrena as
a distortion and disfigurement of the Civitas divina,
Hegel saw in this Civitas terrena the ‘Divine Idea
as it exists on earth’. This is an entirely new type
of absolutism. ‘The state, says Hegel in his System
der Sittlichkeit in which he introduces his sharp
distinction between Moralitat and Sittlichkeit, ‘is
the self-certain absolute mind which acknowledges
no abstract rules of good and bad, shameful and
mean, cunning and deceit." -
' 64. Die Absolute Regiening, in System der Sittlichkeit,

p- 32.:
Laski comments on the organic totality of the
‘nation-state as enunciated by Hegel thus: ‘At
bottom Hegel’s view, and indeed, the whole idealist
theory, rests upon an assumption about social
organization the implications of which are of major
importance. The whole, it is argued, is greater
than its parts. The interest of the nation-state
must therefore be regarded as greater than the
interest of any one, or anybody, of its members.
Those, therefore, who control the sovereignty of
the state, by reason of the superior interest for
whose care they are responsible, have a higher
claim to obedience than can be made by any
charged with the care ofa lesser interest.’ Hegel
developed the idea of will as the ultimate element
in polities and glorified the sovereignty of the
state.
Bosanquet linked Rousseau’s theory of the
General will with the German metaphysical idea of
the state as the ultimate moral being and insisted
that there could be no conflict between the state
and the individual. The state, as an organism with
a personality and a will of its own, absorbed the
individual will and stood forth as the supreme
achievement of human organization. The whole
theory of state action in the formula which we
inherit from Rousseau—that sovereignty is the
exercise of the General will, is summed up by
Bosanquet thus: ‘ First. All state action is general
65. Harold J, Laski, The State in Theory and Practice,

George Allen & Unwin, London, 1960, p. 67.
ர்‌
‘THE PURPOSE & END OF THE STATE 349
in its bearing and justification, even if particular,
or rather concrete,’in its details. It is embodied in
a system of rights and there is no element of it
which is not determined by a bearing upon a
public interest ...... But the immediate point is that
no rights are absolute, or detached from the whole,
but all have their warrant in the aim of the whole,
which at the same time implies their adjustment
and regulation according to general principles.
This generality of law is practically ‘an immense
protection to individuals against arbitrary inter-
ference. It makes every regulation strike a class
and not a single person.
Secondly, all state action is at the bottom the

exercise of a will; the real will, or the will as
logically implied in intelligence as such, and more
or less recognised as imperative upon them ...... yet
the root and source of the whole structure is of the
nature of will, and its end, like that of organic
automatism, is to clear the road for true volition;
it is ‘forcing men to be free........’6
Anextreme modern example of the glorification
of the state, from the point of view of Realistic
politics rather than of idealistic philosophy, is found
in the writings of Treitschke.® He viewed the state
as an end in itself and as‘ ‘the highest thing in the
66. Bernard Bosanquet, The Philosophical Theory of the

State, Macmillati & Co., London, 1958, pp. 216-17.
67. Politics, Translated by B. Dugdale and T. deBille,
- 1916 ்‌ ‘
eternal society of men’. Emphasizing the idea of

will, he viewed the state as power, and argued that
might is the supreme right. ,
The above views clearly state that the indivi-
dual cannot be considered as the ultimate end of
society. Society has its own purposes of presenta-
tion, expansion and perfection, and these are distinct
from, and superior to, the purpose of the individuals
who at any moment compose it. In carrying out
its own proper ends, society must make use of
individuals, the individual must subordinate his
own ends to those of society. It sounds grandiose
to say that the state has ‘ends superior to those of
the single individuals composing it’. But what are
those ends? Why should the individual subordinate
his own ends to those of the state? No conclusive
answer has been given to this question. Answers
involving words and phrases like ‘universal reason’,
‘spirit’, ‘idea’, ‘real will’ are only evasions of the
issue. One doubts that these phrases are only meant
to justify the acquisition of power and prestige by
the state, i.e., for the glory of the ruler, and to
commend to the ruled the sacrifice which this
necessarily involves, for them. The theory is but
one way of justifying absolutism. It is based on
assumptions which are contrary to human
experience. ;
An answer, more satisfactory than most of the
answers given above, has been -provided by the
utilitarian school, of which Jeremy Bentham (1748-
1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-73) are'the best
exponents. Briefly, their point of view is this:

Ail men desire happiness, which may be defined as
the surplus of pleasure over pain. Pleasure and
pain are therefore the main springs of human
action. This has been dealt with in detail in
Section D of the first chapter of the book.
The utilitarian philosophers, who aimed at the
greatest good of the greatest number and the
rationalists, who believed in the ability of man to
perfect his institutions through the use of reason,
paved the way for many reform movements which
led to extensive legislation and to increased
emphasis on the value of the state. Likewise those.
thinkers who, influenced by the scientific theory of
evolution, drew analogies between the state and a
biological organism and viewed the state as an
inevitable and historical evolutionary growth tend-
ed usually to consider the state as more real and
important than the individuals who compose it and
who are mere cells in the body politic.’ The
Fascists in Italy and the Nazis in Germany also
viewed the state as an end in itself, placed it above
state
the individual and laid stress on the ideals of
destiny. On the other hand,
power and political
there have been thinkers who attacked the state
and wished to minimize its value. Anarchistic
the state
doctrines of various types have attacked
destruc-
and proposed the immediate of ultimate
tion. The prominent anarchists mentioned by Paul
Eltzpacher in his monumental work on anarchism
I.
68: J. K. Bluntschii, Theory of the State, Bk. I, Ch.
are: William Godwin, Pierre Joseph, Proudhon,

Max Stinner, Michael Bakunine, Peter Kropotkin,
Benjamin R. Tucker and Leo Tostoy.
Anarchism is an extreme form of individualism.

Etymologically the term anarchism comes from the
Greek word arkhos which means a ruler; and
literally interpreted the term means without an
arkhos or aruler. Anarchists are, broadly of two
types. Those that place the individual above society
and hence called the individualist or philosophical
anarchist and those who stress collective life more
than the individual, the communist - anarchists,
But whether of individualistic learning or collecti-
vist inclinations, all anarchists are onein demanding
that the state must go.
Anarchism as a political’ theory aims at a

stateless society which in addition will be free from
all other types of authorities and coercions and
which trusts to the spirits of “right-mindedness”’
to maintain peace and order. For the purpose of
fulfilling the various social needs, full and complete
reliance is placed on the co-operative instincts in
man. There will then spring up spontaneous and
voluntary associations of every sort. The normal.
unit will be the commune. The communes may:
voluntarily associate for certain purposes, say
transport. In case of disputes ad hoc courts will be
appointed by the disputants. In general the problem
of conflict is ruled out by assuming that in the
absence of all authority and with the abolition. of
private property men will be naturally just, kind
and peaceful.
In the middle ages many ecclesiastics arguing
for the supremacy of the church viewed the state
as a necessary evil, the result of man’s imperfection
concerned with the lower material interests of men
and distinctly inferior to the Church, which was
concerned with the more important spiritual aspects
of life.
In recent years the state has been attacked on

various grounds. Internationalists interested in
world organization and co-operation, oppose the
importance attached to state sovereignty and
independence in the use of the national state, with
its emphasis on state will and power. “The move-
ment towards Internationalism has had for its
chief aim the establishment of the Reign of Law in
the relationship between states.’ Various methods
were adopted to bring this about. Grotius stressed
the value of international arbitration and the hold-
ing of occasional congresses to settle international
disputes. From the time of Grotius, all civilized
states have recognized, at least in theory, the
validity of international law propounded by eminent
‘jurists like Grotius and Byrkershock (Holland),
Pufendorf, Leibnitz and Wolff (Germany),and Vattel
(Switzerland). Hugo Grotius is chiefly responsible
for the formulation of international law. Taking
69. Ramsay Muir, Nationalism and Internationalism,

p- 138.
his inspiration from the universal acceptance and
international import of the Roman Jus Gentium,
Hugo tried to apply it to the regulation of mutual
relations between states. Now, according to Jus
Gentium, all men are equal in the state of nature.
Grotius took up this doctrine and evolved his own
theory of the international equality of all states.
The League of Nations, established after the first
world war, advanced the cause of internationalism.
It was substituted by the United Nations Organiza-
tion which is an organization of States which have
accepted the obligations of the Charter of U.N. OQ,
as superior to their obligations under any other.
international agreements or treaties.
Besides Internationalists, Individualists oppose

the expansion of state functions and the increasing
socialistic interference with individual rights and
freedom.
The Monistic philosophers view the state as @

human institution par-excellence besides which all
other associations are at best corporate or quasi-
corporate individuals, Abstract monism is the
theory that the state is the only association neces-
sitated by the moral and psychological nature of
man and that all others are to be prohibited or
destroyed. Concrete Monism is the theory which
welcomes within the State associations of all types
but attempts to make them part of the state machi-
nery, subordinated to its needs and its officers in
every particular.
The main tenets of monism, assummed up by

Coker, are (a) that inter-relations between the
individual and groups require an- organization of
unification and co-ordination, (b) that this organi-
zation should have the right to compel mem-
bership within a given territority, (c) that it should
be endowed with coercive authority to carry out
its orders, and (d) that there cannot be more than
one organization of this kind ina given territory.”
In revolt from allsuch monistic theories as

those analysed above, there have been movements
generally called ‘pluralist’. The Pluralist doctrine
has been enunciated from various points of view
and with differet emphasis by several well known
modern writers such as Professor Harold J. Laski,
perhaps the leading modern exponent of Pluralism,
Dr. Figgis, the Guild Socialists of whom G.D.H.
‘Cole is the most prominent in Great Britain and
some jurists such as Duguit in France. The essence
of Pluralism is to be found in the work of the
German jurist Von Gierke (1844-1921) whose monu-
mental work on the legal theory of corporations,
part of which was translated with a sympathetic
introduction by the English jurist F. W. Maitland
in his ‘ Political Theories of the Middle Ages’ (1900)
as
gave an impetus to the idea of corporations
egal entities, with a life of their own independent
York,
70. F.W. Coker, Recent Political Thought, New York,
1935: Readings in Political philosophy, New
and the
1950 - vide Chapters on Pluralistic Theories Theory
state Soverei gnty in Politica l in
attack upon
Recent Times by Merriam Barner and others.
of government. According to Gierke, such corpo-

rations or associations have their own rights, duties
and functions. They formulate their own laws, and
exist as corporations irrespective of their wishes or
desires of individual members. Their functions
exist independently of the state; they may be even
prior to the state. Thus the state or government
is only one law-making authority; it may be the
chief law-making body, but it is not exclusive.
According to Laski, the modern state is a
Sovereign state. It is, in fact, ‘the supreme
coercive power in any given political society, but
it is, in fact, used to protect and promote in that
society the interest of those who own its instru-
ments of production. The state expresses a will to
maintain a given system of class-relations. It does
so by the use of its supreme coercive power to that
end. In the last analysis, this power consists of
the defence forces of the state. These are used, in
ultimate challenge to impose the will of the
owners of the instruments of production upon
those excluded from such ownership. . Whatever
the philosophic purpose attributed to the state-
power these, it is said, are the naked facts.7!
The state according to Laski, needs in the first
place, historical analysis. It has become what itis
by virtue of an historical evolution. ° Secondly, it
is a theory of law. Laski holds that the state
represents only one among many forms of human
71. Harold J. Laski, A Grammar of Politics, George

- Allen & Unwin Ltd,, London, 1950, ற. 714.
association. He defines political sovereignty to
the state which must be shared by the state with
many other social groups. The state has no
exclusive, nor even superior claim to the loyalties
of an individual. The acts-of the state are really
acts of those who are in immediate possession of
political power and as such share no moral sanc-
tion behind them.
Lindsay believes that social groups, represent-

ing as they do, closer community of interests may
claim and win greater allegiance of the individual
than the state and may serve as better means of
co-ordination than the state. These pluralists are
for the creation of functional democracy based on
the spontaneous life of the various social associa-
tions, primarily economic, yet they would not
deprive the state of all its controlling and regula-
tive power. Figgis for instance, regards the state
as a ‘society of societies’ and allows it a superior
authority as one agency of social co-ordination and
regulation, though not an unlimited and indivisible
sovereignty. Mac-lver criticises the legalistic con-
may
ception of sovereignty of the state. The state
being itself the source of
have no legal limitations
is only one of the forms of
law, but positive law
social regulation. Political power is the instrument
is not
of social service. The service of the state
unlimited and therefore the unlimited sovereignty
of the state is out of question. Miss Follett in her
interesting volume, The New State (1918) observes
most interesting contribution of the
“that the
338 . THE THEORIES OF THE STATE
pluralists is their clear showing that a single unitary
state with a single sovereignty is not true to the
facts of life today. In the chapter entitled
Political Pluralism and Sovereignt y in her Volume
The New State, Miss Follett says that she wants to
revivify local life ‘not for the purpose of breaking
up sovereignty but, for the purpose of creating a
real sovereignty.”” E. Barker says that every state
is something of a federal society and contains
different national groups, different churches, diffe-
rent economic organizations, each exercising its
measures of control over its members.
Both the views that the state is an end in itself
without regard to the interests of individuals,
groups, and other states, and the view that the
individual is all-important, and that the state is
merely an artificial contrivance of man for the
purpose of promoting and safeguarding separate
individual interests, are somewhat one-sided. As
Gettell observes: “The importance and value of
the state can be judged only by its results... The
state is an organization for enabling the mass man-
kind to realize social welfare on the largest possible
scale. Its value depends upon the degree to which
it accomplishes this purpose.” Among German
writers, Holtzendorff attached importance to the
72. Quoted by Willoughby, The Ethical Basis of Political
Authority, The Macmillan Company, New York,
1930, p 452.
73. R. G. Gettell, Political Science, Ginn and Companys
Boston, U.S.A., 1949, pp. 379-80.
THE PURPOSE & END OF.THE STATE 359
theory that the aim of the state should be the
promotion of general welfare, but pointed out that
there is great disagreement as to what constitutes
general welfare, and that this aim might lead to
arbitrary and despotic action on the part of the
state.”
Attention may be given to certain theories that
have been given practical application in several
modern states. The. views of Anarchists and
Individualists have been examined earlier. The
Syndicalists oppose all forms of political govern-
ment, and favour a noncoercive organization based
on the productive structure of the economic
society. George Sorel was the chief exponent.
Like Anarchism and Syndicalism, Guild socia-
lism manifests a strong dislike of the state, especially
in the control of economic interests. According to
G.D.H. Cole, its chief exponent, ‘Guild socialism
is based on the idea of partnership between
producers and the state in the control of industry.’
Besides they advocated the pluralistic theory of
sovereignty based upon functions. In fact they
prefer to set up a decentralized state in order to
save the individual from institutional tyranny.
The theory of Communism represents the
extreme form of a modern socialism. Karl Marx
(1818-83) is generally regarded as the father of
socialism. His main writings are the Communistic
Manifesto (1848), drafted in co-operation with his
74. Principien der Politik, pp: 219.

friend’ and collaborator Friedrich Engels, The

Critique of Pure Economy (1859), and Capital
(1864-94). The theory of socialism which he
developed is termed as Communism. The essential
principles of Communism viz, the materialistic
interpretation of history, the class war, the theory
of surplus value, a social revolution, the dictator-
ship of the proletariat, the withering away of the
state and ultimately the establishment of a new
society organized on the principle, ‘from each
according to his capacity, to each according to his
needs’ -all these have been subjected to severe
criticism by students of politics and economics.
According to the Communists, the state is not
a permanent institution. It has always been an
origin of tyranny. It teaches that control should
be in the hands of the working class and urges them
to seize the state by revolution and use it as an
agent to crush the remnants of capitalism. Through
the dictatorship of the proletariat a communist
system is to be instituted. The Communist theory
substitutes the international from the national
point of view, believing in the solidarity of interests
of the working people in all nations. ‘Workers of
all nations, unite together.’
A more recent theory of the state was the
Fascist conception. According to Mussolini,
fascism repudiates (i) pacifism, (ii) socialism, (iii)
democracy and (iv) individualism. To the Fascists
75. J.8 Barnes, The Universal Aspects of Fascism; A
Racco, The Political Doctrine of Fascism; P. Gorgo-
lini, The Fascist Movernent in Itallian Life.
the state was more than a collection of individuals.
Jt had a life and a unity of its own; it was a means
to the development of individual personality and is
hot an end in itself. In case of conflict the interests
_ Of the individual must be subordinated to those of
the state. Fascist theory closely approached the
transcendental conception of the state as worked
by G. W. F. Hegel and other German idealists.
The theory of Nazism was developed in

Germany and put into operation during the regime
of Adolf Hitler.” This theory favoured a totali-
tarian state in which every individual and associa-
tion was subordinated to national interests under a
centralized government directed by a strong leader
(Fuhrer). According to the Nazis, the state was a
super-human entity. The Volk or the community
was the raw material out of which the state was
built. According to them ‘the individual is nothing-
Das Volk is everything’. While communism is
essentially internationalistic in the outlook, Fascism
and Nazism are strongly nationalist in their point
of view.
It is evident to us that the purpose or ends of
the state cannot be stated in any exact or absolute
form for all times and peoples. Just as opinions
have differed concerning the best form of govern-
mental organization, 80 opinions differ as to what
the state should do in order to fulfil its proper .
76. Mein Kampf (1925) givesa detailed account of the

growth of Nazism.
362 THE THEORIES OF THE STATE ©
purpose. No phase of political speculation today

is more important or leads to such wide diver-
gences of opinion as that concerned with the
functions of the state. The newer theories of state
organization and function represent certain inte-
Testing and important tendencies in contemporary
political thought. All agree in organizing the state,
to some extent at least, along lines of economic
function and in giving to the economic structure a
large degree of control over the economic activities
of society. The great cleavages in modern society
are economic, and from them political parties
derive their vitality. Recent development in politi-
cal theory centres in attempts to combine political
and economic power, in the hope that unification
of political and economic interests will remove the
conflict between them. How far this is possible is
a much disputed problem. What form the state
will take in the new system of society is a question
that only the future can answer.
The political philosophers of both ancient India

and the West have brought moral passion to the
consideration of political power and the clash of
political ideals. It results from what has been said
so far that we are brought to the conclusion to
accept the conception of a Kulturstaat-of a state that
may legitimately exercise its controlling power for
the rendering of whatever affirmative aid it can for
the enhancement of the welfare of its citizens
besides its concern with the legal rights and liberties
of its peoples. .
CHAPTER FIVE
THE CONCEPT OF ©
SOVEREIGNTY
IN INDIAN & WESTERN
POLITICAL THOUGHT
THE CONCEPT OF SOVEREIGNTY
IN INDIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT
Sovereignty is one of the most important con-_
cepts of political science, yet no term has given
rise to more discussion and confusion. Some of
the fundamental concepts and ideas in the realm
of Hindu-political philosophy were formulated not -
by political thinkers but by metaphysicians and
philosophers. When the latter had given these
concepts a broad and..rich content, the former
incorporated them in their.own works, Such a
process can be traced in the. history of western
polical thought in the development of such con;
cepts as virtue, right, the ideal life; truth, liberty,
etc.} oe
While attempting .to analyse the political

thought of the anciénts, we are confronted with
the problem of our modern concepts intruding
into the ancient theories with the result that we
seem to justify the latter only in the context of the
1. The subject of the religious and philosophic origin

of some of the dominant concepts of western political
thought has been dealt with by Nicolas Berdyaev in
The Origin of Russian Communism, The. meaning. of
ed
History, The Russian Idea, etc.’ Hegel also discuss
this problem in ‘The Philosophy of Right.’
366 THE CONCEPT OF SOVEREIGNTY
former. The proper way of judging the ancient

theories and. concepts is to analyse them against
the background of the past; and if needed, to see
how for they are comparable to those expounded
by contemporary thinkers in the West. But the
temptation of grafting modern ideas on the ancient
soil is so great that the most serious attempts have
been made in India to explain the ancient theories
in terms of the modern trends of political thought.
One of them refers to the concept of the state in
the elucidation of which we were confronted with.
some difficulties in the preceding chapter.
The theoretical concept of the state; as we

now understand it, was non-existent in the past,
and the ancients do not seem to have endeavoured
to differentiate between the state and government
as has been done in recent political philosophy. It.
is rather futile to except that the ancient Indians
ever made such a fine distinction between the three
main concepts of the state, government, and the
general will, although they. undoubtedly were
aware of the concepts of the state, government,
and, to some extent, of even the general will, the
last one in the sense of being the will of the people
to overthrow wicked monarchs.
The analysis of the problem of the concept of

sovereignty is quite important. The Samskrit
words that are usually given as equivalents to
sovereignty are several. According to Professor
Sinha, the Indian equivalent of sovereignty was
INDIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT 367
Ksatra or ksatrasri in the Vedic? literature and
svamitva in the ArthaSastra, the law codes and the
inserptions.? Prof. Ghoshal contends that etymo-
logically the word Rdjyam means royalty or
sovereignty and derivatively it means a kingdom.*
Prof. Sarkar and Shamasastry translate AiSvarya
as sovereignty, while Jayaswal translates it as
tulership or authority. The concept of ksatra
primarily signifies military or physical power. The
word djyam mainly connotes the abstracted
elements of a king and there is nothing to warrant
its translation by sovereignty. Aisvarya primarily
connotes prosperity and wealth and secondarily
can also mean power. Most writers on Hindu
political philosophy translated Prakrti sampadah
as ‘elements of sovereignty’ but.a critical analysis
of the factors constituting Prakrti does not justify
this translation.
The concept of sovereignty according to Bodin,
Hobbes and Rousseau as well as by the Austinians
is a highly abstract juristic notion and it has refer-
ence to the earlier concepts of plenitudo potestatis®
2. A.A. Macdonnel and A.A. Keith, Vedie Index of

names and subjects, London, 1912, 1, 302.
3. H.N. Sinha, Sovereignty in Ancient Indian Polity,
London, 1938, pp- XVili—xix.- .
4, Ghoshal, 4 History of Hindu Political Theories,

Oxford, 1933, p, 84 n.
5. Augustinius Triumphus refers to the plenitudo potes-
tati. Marsiglio of Padua and William of Ockam
developed the Theory of Plenitudo potestatis. Cf.Otto
Gierke, Political Theories of the Middle Ages, p. 35,
auctoritas, etc. In the West® this concept ardse
because there was a search after an ultimate,
supreme and absolute political power. The formula-
tion of this concept in the West was ‘necessitated
and greatly furthered by the growth of bourgeoisie,
positive Jaw and the legal idea of contract. Con-
trasted with this situation, there were no conflicts
in ancient India between rival ideological protogo-
nists for supreme political power. It was assumed
by the theoreticians that the king has supreme
political powers. Hence this problem of ultimate
political power did not arise.’ And it was not
formulated on a theoretical plane, because there
was no problem as such. - This will be clear if we
analyse the “factors of the Kingdom.’ The seven
factors or constituents are referred to with minor
changes in the ArthaSastra, the Sukraniti, the
Kamandakanitisara, and the Vishnupurana, Accord-
ing to Kautilya these seven elements or factors. or
6. J. W. Garner, Political Science and Government,

Calcutta, 1951 says: “The modern terms ‘sovereign’
and ‘sovereignty’ (souverain, souverainete) were first
used by the French jurists, notably by Beaumanoir
and Loyseau in the fifteenth century (Violett, Esta-
blissements de Saint Louis, Vol. H, p. 370; Carre de
Malberg, Theorie general de I’ etat, ‘Vol, I, pp. 73-74),
and later found the way into English, Italian, and
German legal and political literature. Bodin in the
sixteenth century was the first writer to discuss at
‘length in his Six Books on The Republic the nature and
characteristics of sovereignty. In the later edition of
his work he empioyed the term summa potestas and in
the French edition the term souverainete,
constituents are the King or Sovereign (Svamin),
the officials (Amdtya), the territory (Rashtra), the
fort (Durga), the treasury (koSa), the army (Danda),
and the allies (Mitra). Kautilya allots one chapter
to. analyse the best qualities of each of these
elements. There is no word here which could
connote the legalistic notion of the concept of
sovereignty. Besides, we cannot translate the word
Prakrti as sovereignty. Philosophically in the
Samkhya works, the word Prakrti denotes nature
including both the cosmic universe and the human
mind. It is distinguished from the ‘pure silent
selves’. In the Amarakosha Prakrti means only the
elements or organs of a Kingdom.’ That Kautilya
definitely did not mean sovereignty by prakrti is
clearly evident from the following statement: ‘The
King and the Kingdom are the prakrti or the
important elements of the prakrti’.? Therefore, we
find it difficult to equate prakrtisampadah with
‘elements of sovereignty.’ -
It should be noted clearly that we are only

repudiating the existence of the concept of sover-
eignty. We do accept that there were sovercign
states in ancient India. But acceptance of the
historical existence of an object is not equivalent to
acceptance of the conceptual formulation of it. We
7. Quoted in Ghoshal’s ‘A History of Indian Political

Ideas’, Oxford University Press, 1959, p. 84.
8. Kautilya’s Arthasastra, English Translation by

1923, vili, 2. 7
R. Shamasastry, Mysore,
‘maintain that the historical and institutional pro-
blem of locating the seat of sovereign power in
ancient India is a legitimate field of investigation.
After giving a definition of the concept of sover-
eignty one can undertake such investigations. We
have been only denying the conceptual equivalent
in samskrit of the notion of sovereignty and not the
historical existence of actual sovereign states.
We have noted earlier that the earliest allusion.
to Kingship in Hindu literatureis in the Vedas.
They provide us with the notions of Brahm
a and
Ksatra Since the Vedic times and upto
Mahatma
Gandhi, Hindu thinkers have debated the relativ
superiority of spiritual and physical powers
e
. The
Vedas and the Brahmanas posed the
problem thus:
What should be the relation between
Brahm a and
Kaira? In the Brahmanas there
was an attit ude to
to identify the Brahmin caste as
symbolizi ng the
Brahma power and Ksatriya
caste the Ksatra power.
But this caste-wise Tepresentation was
not su Pposed.
to be rigid.” Kanutilya conceives
of the a ccelera-
9, “Ksatra, in the general sense
of d omain, rule, power,
as exercised by gods and men,
occurs frequently from
the ReVeda onwards. The word ts also found in the
concrete sense of ‘rulers
in the Rg Veda and later,
. in no case does it in the but
Rg Veda certainly mean
it regularly denotes in the what
later sambitas, the ruling
class as opposed to Priests, the
subject people and the
servile class. AK 3atrapati
is several times mentioned
88 a equivalent of ‘King’. Op.
cit., Vedic Index, i, 202.
10. Rg Veda, IV, 12, 3; I, v, 69,
1; in the hymns the word
ry is exclusiv
Ksatriya $ ely con nected with royal
or Divine authority, Ibid., authority
1, 203,
tion of Ksatra power by the Brahmins group as
leading to the conquest of the unconquerable.
The word Ksatra or KsatraSri or the luster of
Ksatra, is found in the Vedas." Keith translates
this word by sovereignty.'2 We can accept this
translation provided we understand this word in
the general sense of power and do not read into it
the abstract legal concept of an ultimate irresistible
power of the political head as found in Bodin,
Hobbes, Rousseau and Austin. We shall deal with
‘this concept of sovereignty in greater detail later
on. Eggeling identified Ksatra with the abstract
ruling power. Ksatra in some passages of the
Taittiriya Samhita and the Taittiriya Brahmana
corresponds to Rajanya or the Ksatriya caste.®
The notion of the Brahma and Ksatriya we consider
‘to be one of the basic contributions of the Vedas
and the Brahmanas to Hindu thought.* Since the
Vedas and Brahmanas are books on theology, ritual
and philosophy, our generalization about the origin
11. Rg Veda, 1, 24, 6; IV, 17, 13 V, 62,6; Cf. S. Radha-

krishnan, ibid., 1, 112°; Ksatra (ruler or domain) has
the same meaning in the Avesta and the Persian
inscriptions.
12. Arthur Berriedale Keith, The Religion and Philosophy
of the Veda and Upanisads, Cambridge, Mass., 1925,
ற. 96.
13. Taittiriya Samhita., i, 8,9, 1; Taittiriya Brahmana;

i, 7. 3, 3.
14, Satapatha Brahmaga, IV, 1-4; Cf. Gautama’s

Dharmasitras, X1, 27; X1, 14.
372, THE CONCEPT OF SOVEREIGNTY
of some of the basic political concepts in non-

political works is substantiated. The concept of
Dharma further corroborates our statement.
Scholars have stated that Vedic Kingship was

generally elective in character and was for the
purpose of ensuring leadership in the fight of the
Aryan communities against the local people. From
the Vedas we also know that ‘The Pre-Aryan
population was also. organised on a monarchical
basis. Even in the time of the Brahmanas (Circa
800 B.C.) the Aryan monarchy’ was elective. Bud-
dhist literature, though later in time, also follows
the same line of thought. In the Jatakas there is a
reference to the Mahdsammata - Great Elect. The
Mandhata Jataka speaks of the ‘chosen of all’ as
having been the first king in the beginning of
creation.!° Perhaps no greater commentary on the
Buddhist ‘Great Elect’ theory was written than the
following verse of Aryadeva, a later Buddhist
Philosopher. ‘What supercillousness is thine, (O
King!) those who art a (mere) servant of the multi-
tude and who receiveth the sixth part (of the
produce) as thine wages’.!6
The theory of the ‘Great Elect’ refutes the
charge against Buddhism that it is acosmic, anti-
secularistic and transcendental. The ‘Great Elect’
tules in accordance with the principles of Dharma.
15. N. C. Bandyopadhaya, Development of Hindu Polity

and Political Theories, Calcutta, 1927, p. 317.
16. Ghoshal, op. cit., p. 209. .
This reference to the notion of Dharma is highly

significant in that Buddhism seems to accept that
the existence of a political superior is concomitant
with the emergence of the rule of Dharma. The
full efflorescence of this idea we find in the political
thought of Asoka which we shall analyse later on.
The theory of the elective origin or ‘creation’

_of Kingship is beautifully stated by Kautilya thus:
“People suffering from anarchy, as illustrated by the
powerful tendency of a large fish swallowing a
small one, first, elected Manu, the Vaivasvata, to
be their King, and allotted one-sixth of the grains
grown and one-tenth of the merchandise as royal
dues. Fed by this payment, Kings took upon them-
selves the responsibility of maintaining the safety
and security of the subjects, and of being answer-
able for the sins of their subjects when the principle
of levying just punishments and taxes has been
violated. Hence hermits, too, provide the King
with one-sixth of the grains gleaned by them,
thinking that it is a tax payable to him who protects
us.?!7
Quite often we find reference to the ‘Law of

the fishes’ in Hindu Political works which we have
noted in the earlier section. However, we might
note that the fundamental concept of this theory is
the state of ‘anarchy’. This is expressed in the
following words: ‘Thus those who desired peace
prosperity raised the king to primacy, for the
and
17. ArthaSastra, i, 13, ps 24.

374. THE CONCEPT OF SOVEREIGNTY
benefit of the people-eram ye bhutimiccheyuh :
prithivyam manavah kvagit kuryu rajanamevagre
prajanugrahakaranat,’
From the general principle that power is justi-

fied in the terms of protection, Kautilya draws
certain important conclusions for the political con-
duct of a King. As Dr. Varma observes: ‘First, the
empbasis that a disciplined king should be devoted
to the good of all living beings. This is one of the
most important principles of Hindu ethics. Hindu
writers consider their moral principles to be appli-
cable not only to human beings but to all living
beings. The Upanisads and the Gita, the Puranas
and the Buddhist scriptures do contain a universa-
listic ethical philosophy. The classic formulation
of their doctrine is the doctrine of universal
ahimsa - non-violence. Although Kautilya upholds
aggrandisement of royal power, he accepts the
basic principle of Hindu ethics that strength and
power are to be used for the protection of the
weak. Second, Kautilya states that royal power is
to be exercised not through arbitrary decrees and
edicts but by principles formulated in accordance
with Dharma which is founded upon truth. The
third political implication is the doctrine of politi-
cal paternalism. This paternalism is not to be
conceived in terms of the arbitrary power of
interference of the King in the social life of the
people, but as formulating the logical ideal of
Kingship.’
The Santiparva of the Mahabharata contains

INDIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT 37.
two theories of elective Kingship-the one associated

with the name of Manu and the other with that of
Prithu which we have already sketched in the
earlier chapter.
We have analysed four different accounts of

the origin of Kingship - (1) the origin of Kingship-
amongst the gods to gain victory against the
demons: (2) the ‘Great Elect’ theory of the
Buddhist literature; (3) Kautilya’s theory of the
election of Manu; and (4) the Manu and Prithu
traditions in the Mahdébhérata. Yn all these accounts
there is a strong mythical element which has been
used by the theorists not for narrating any actual
historical event, but to show the logical charac-
teristics of Kingship as an institution.
From this we might conclude that the Kingship
was not an eternal institution. Further the impli-
cation of the elective theory of the origin of King-
ship is the conception of Kingly power asa trust.
In the Satapatha there are references to specific
goals for which Kingship has been instituted.3 In
as a
the Mahabharata the Kingdom is described
hira.’ This notion of
trust in the hands of Yudhist
as a trust is the extensi on
kingly power or kingdom
of
of the idea of aparigraha - non-accumulation
ions as enuncia ted in the Yoga
wealth and possess
sical
philosophy.” It is similar to the metaphy
18, Satapatha Brahmana, V, 2, |, 25.

19. Asramavasika, ix.
20. Yogasitra, ii, 30.
notion of the agent as propounded’ in the Gita.

This idea of the kingly power being only a trust has
been substantiated not only by the political theory
of original election and the metaphysical theory of
absolutistic or cosmic determinism, but also by
concrete historical reference to Kings like Janaka
and Asvapati who are not devoted to power politics,
but concern themselves with the knowledge of the
self and eschatology. For centuries, the Hindu
mind has been dominated by the illustrious example
of the Buddha who gave up the rulership of a state
for the quest of knowledge. In recent times Gandhi
abjured power and secluded himself from active
power-politics in order to work for the uplift of the
masses. Thus the idea of kingly power as a trust
is one of the fundamental principles of Hindu
political philosophy.
‘Less pronounced than the principle of power

as a trust but also related to the general theory of
the election of the first king is the notion of the
murder of an unrighteous king.’ The Mahabharata
also refers to super-terrestrial sanctions against a
non-protecting king. Bhisma and Manu hold the
view that, if the king does not protect, he assumes
one-fourth of the evil deeds of the subjects.2!
Vamadeva sanctions the killing of a king who
transgresses the canons of dharma and fails in the
duty of protection.22
21. Santiparva, LXXVI, 10; AnuSsina parva, LXI.
22. Ibid., XCII, 7-9.

“INDIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT 377
We have already repudiated the conceptual
existence of the theory of sovereignty in ancient
Hindu thought. But we do not deny the historical
existence of .agencies which could be called
sovereign in the sense of exercising or having the
capacity to exercise supreme political power. The
notion of sovereignty of the people is completely
absent in the Mahabharata, No doubt, there are some
historical references in the Mahabharata and other
parts of Indian thought to the deposition or murder
of the king, which we may in modern terminology
call the exercise of sovereign authority or an act of
revolution. From this we cannot interpret every
act of political murder as an examination of the
‘glorious revolution.’
We do not find any Samskrit word that is
equivalent to the modern notion of revolution. It
is true that we find reference to the word Viplava
in the Mahabharata but it does not signify the same
thing as the modern Hindi word, Viplava which
means revolution.22 Further, the word Viplava has
only begun to be used in modern times to signify
the sense of the English word “revolution”. We
find no formulation of the concept of right. It is
23. For the meaning of the word Viplava in the Maha-

bharata, vide Otto Bohtlingk and Rudolp Rath,
1118.
Sanskrit - Worterbuch, St. Peterburg, 1871, VI,
Beni Prasad, Theory of Government in Ancient
24,. Cf.
Allahabad, 1927, p. 8; “The individual and
India,
one in their moral purpose. This
Society become
Rights
conception of life implies a denial of Natural
in the form which the idea assumed in Modern
Europe. The individual is merged in society against
exist.
which he can have no rights. All his rights can
true that in connection with the problem of regi-

cide, there are hortatory statements about killing ,
the king who violates Dharma. But there is no
positive statement of the concept of political right
to do so. It may be noted that a normative state-
ment does not necessarily imply the assertion of a:
right concerning that specific thing about which the.
statement is made. It is possible to make normative.
prescriptions about things, regarding which the
existence of a right cannot rationally be demons-
trated. More than that, a hortatory statement does
not imply the existence of the concept of right.
The dichotomy of right and duty arose in a specific
historical situation in the West.2> It is the product
of speculations generated in a concrete historical
period. In Hindu philosophy ‘the comprehensive-
ness of the notion of Dharma made impossible the
emergence of any conceptual dichotomy of right
and duty. The notion of Dharma emphasizes the
social duties and functions of a person. It involves
25. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Everyman's edition,

pp. 66-67: ‘A Law of Nature, (Lex Natura
lis) is 4
Precept, or a general Rule, found out by
Reason, by
which a man is forbidden to do that, which
is destruc
tive of his life, or taketh away the means
of preserving
the same, and to omit that, by which
he thinketh it
may be best preserved. For though that speak of the
subject, use to confound, Jus, and Lex,
Right and Law;
yet they ought to be distinguished: because Right,
consisteth in liberty to do, or to forbear
, whereas Law,
determineth, and bindeth to one of them;
so that Law,
and Right, differ as much, as obligat
ion, and Liberty,
which in one and the same matter are inc
onsisteth.’
the idea contained in the western notion of right

because if somebody encroaches upon some person
and prevents him in the performance of his own
Dharma the latter can and should fight back but
the conceptual formulation is totally different.’
A further implication of the theory of elective

-Kingship was the idea that taxation is the money
paid by the subjects for receiving the benefit of
protection. The theory was advocated by the
great supporters of monarchy like Kautilya,?”
Bhisma and Suka. This theory was accepted even
by those who adhered to the notion of the divine
origin of Kingship. The Mahabharata definitely
called the taxes to be the wages of the King.” This
idea was referred to even in later works. Sukra
the great champion of monarchy, also talks in a
similar vein: ‘God has made the King, though
masters in form, the servant of the people, getting
his wages (sustenance) in'taxes for the purpose of
continuous protection and growth.”? Thus the
theory of the elective origin of Kingship had some
. important institutional consequences. It is evident
that though originally in the Vedic period Hindu
26. N.C. Bandyopadhyaya, op. cit., Pp- 281-282.

1924, 1,
27. K. P. Jayaswal, Hindu Polity, Calcutta,
173-174, 174n.
28 Santiparva, LXXI, 10; this verse is translated by
Jayaswal, op. cit., II, 192.
is translated by
29. Sukranitisara, I, 188, this verse
Jayaswal, op. cit., Il, 163. ்‌
monarchy was elective, in Epic times it had become

definitely hereditary as no doubt it already was
with the non-Aryan peoples of India. ‘Hereditary
monarchy required a theory to justify it, and the
political thinkers of Hinduism saw in a primitive
social compact the origin of sovereignty and
monarchy. Once Kingship became a tradition, its
power naturally grew, as the very object for which
the social compact was said to have been entered
into, protection, required that the sovereign should
be invested with all powers. Ceremonies were laid,
down which both exalted him in the eyes of the
people, and at the same time impressed on him his
solemn obligation.’
In Post-vedic times, from 600 B. C. onwards

Varna or social class emerged as an important.ele-
ment in law and politics. Considerations of varna
apparently influenced the various organs of the
state such as the King, ministers or high functiona-
ries, the parisad, the paura, the janapada and army.
The origin and growth of the Dharmasastra law
were conditioned by the varna system.
Writers on Hindu political thought hold the

view that in ancient India dharma was the sovereign.
Some translate the word dharma as law and uphold
that the ancient Hindus maintained the idea
of sovereignty of law. Dr. S$. Radhakrishnan
30. Beni Prasad, Theory of Government in Ancient India,
Allahabad, 1927, p. 9: ‘From the very nature of the social
theory, government could not be regarded as sovereign
in the Austinian sense of the term. It did not impart
observes that dharma represents the totality of the
institutions by which the commonweal is secured.*!
Bandyopadhaya contends that in ancient India the
King never became superior to law.3? He states
that the Dharmasiitras consider dharma i.e., law
above the King and above society. Jayaswal inter-
prets Manu to be an advocate of the view that
law, i.e., dharma, is the real sovereign and not the
King.*?
The concept of dharma shows that these claims

on behalf of the political importance of dharma
are exaggerated. Prof. Mookerjee observes : ‘Hindu
thought counts dharma as the true sovereign of the
state, as the rule of law. The king is the executive
(continued from Foot note 30)
validity to the Order; rather it shared its validity.

It could not alter it at will; other parts of it were
as valid as itself. It sustained the social order but
that was merely its function. It embodied the coercive
it in
power of the Community and was bound to use
interest just as the priest or trader was
the social
in the
bound to use his spiritual or economic power
social interest. Sovereignty was really diffused
in the
throughout the community and was embodied
had its ultimate source in the Divine
Law which
Will.’
op. cit-,
31. S. Radhakrishnan, The Hindu View of Life,
pp. 108-9,
32. N.C. Bandyopadhya, op. cif-, pp. 173, 286-7.
33. YJayaswal, op. cit. 11, 58, 158.

called the dunda to uphold and enforce the

decree of dharma as the spiritual sovereign.’**
The problem of the sovereignty of dharma may
be discussed at two levels. ‘First, from the
historical point of view we have no clear evidence
of any concrete state or kingdom in ancient India
were dharma or its decrees were considered to be
sovereign. Secondly, the problem may be discussed
at the conceptual level. We have earlier rejected
the view that the ancient Hindus had a systematic
and abstract notion of sovereignty. They talked in
terms of power of the king or punishment of the
king, but did not conceive of the concept of an
ultimate political power or superior. However,
this does not mean the denial of the historical
existence of political structures embodying sovereign
power. No person who credits Bodin, Hobbes,
Rousseau and Austin with having formulated the
- concept of sovereignty denies the historical exist-
ence of sovereign states in the ancient and medieval
world before Bodin. But if we maintain, there was
no concept of sovereignty as such, there is no use
in speaking of sovereignty of dharma. So far as the
sovereignty of dharma is concerned, we find no
mention of dharma in the classic formulations of
the elements of a commonwealth in Kautilya and
Sukra. In spite of the saying in the Upanisad that
dharma is the ‘force of force’, it remained only a
34. R.K. Mookerjee, Chandra Gupta Maurya and His

Times, p. 79; Mookerjee, Hindu Civilization, New
York, 1936, p. £00, :
moral category influencing political life. At best,

we can say that the concept of dharma was a strong’
factor having political influence, and all theorists
accepted its weight, but no explicit or implicit
reference to its being the ultimate political power
is found. Even in practice, there was no legal
agency to control the transgressions of dharma by
aking. The comprehensiveness of the notion of
dharma prevented its identification with religious
or divine law, and it also never meant exactly
positive Jaw in the modern sense. It remained
always a comprehensive norm for action, but never
was conceived as the supreme political power.’
The fundamental obligations of kings accord-
ing to Hindu theories are: to protect the people, to
give them security of life and property, and to
maintain social stability in order to enable virtue
to flourish. The purpose of kingship being ‘protec-
tion? in the wider sense, all other duties are
subordinate to it. |
The performance of Kingly functions is thus
based on the desire to look after the well-being
of the people, and if the King did his duties well
he would not only gain worldly prosperity, but .
attain moksa as well. Since according to Kautilya
the performance of one’s duties will lead to both
mundane and transcendental happiness, it 1s the
duty of the King never to allow people to swerve
from their duties.36 Thus we find in ancient Hindu _
35. Varma, Hindu Political Thought, op. cit-, p. 169.

36. Arthasastra, 1, 3.
political thought, a greater emphasis. on duties than
on rights.
For the purpose of protection, and for that

only, the King was given sovereign power. He
could in times of extreme crisis collect whatever
amount was necessary; in fact he is even asked to
sacrifice his own family. Prajaparipdlana, the
protection of the subjects, is his supreme duty. It
is protection from injustice, from social anarchy
and from external aggression.
But what was the justice that the king was

supposed to administer? In the Santiparva, the
King asks Bhishma: ‘What is justice? What
is its nature? What is its form? What is its
essence? How again does it remain vigilant, and-
maintain itself among the people ? How does it
keep awake and continuously evolve? Where does
it reside? What are its ways%7 Bhishma’s
answet's to these questions give the best expression
to the Hindu view of justice. ‘Penal justice (danda)
is so called in order that the righteousness of the
king who is wide awake may not suffer extinction ...
It is (an aspect of) the great Vishnu (the protector
of the world). It is the permanent and eternal
form of God himself. The daughter of God is
known (synonymous) by the appellations of
Lakshmi, Goddess of wealth, Niti (Moral law),
Saraswathi (learning) and Dandaniti (coercive
justice).’38
37. Santiparva, Ch, CXXL, verses 5~T.

With the majesty of justice thus established,

the law-givers and preceptors did not leave it to be
exercised at the will and pleasure of the monarch.
Unjust punishment destroys the good karma of a
king. The law-givers further lay down that the
King shall ordain punishment to offenders accord-
ing to the merits of each case. Punishment should
be awarded only after taking into consideration
the entire circumstances - inherited tendency,
motives, time, place, financial condition etc.—
‘anubandham, parijfiaya deSakalu cha tatvatah,
saraparadha u chalokya dandam dandveshu patayet.’
Kautilya explicitly states that ‘that sceptre on
which the well-being and progress of the sciences
of Anviksiki, the triple vedas and varta depend -is
treats
known as danda (punishment). That which
of
of danda is the law of punishment or the science
government (dandaniti)?
the ideas
We need not go into the details of
of dand a and the techn ique of the
of the function
principles as
application along with their justifying
a’s and -
stated in Kautilya’s arthasastra, Kamandak
Our interest
the Jaina Somadeva’s works on polity.
n doctr ine of
is in comparing the ancient India
danda with the conception of sovereignty in Euro-
has been stated
pean political thought. From what
hs it woul d appear that
in the preceeding paragrap
Kauti lya, Manu and Bhishma
danda as conceived by
plena ry execu tive authority of
corresponds to the
38. Ibid, Ch. XXI.
text p. 9
39. Kautilya, Bk. I, Ch. IV. 9, p. 8;
the ruler which is ordinarily held to be irrespective

of the rank or status of the offender, but at the
same time is declared to be governed by the rule of
law. Goshal holds the view that the ancient
doctrine of danda falls short of a conception like
the majestas of Bodin and Althusius as well as the
summa potestas of Grotius, which is held to be the
supreme power in a community making all laws
and magistrates and itself subject to no law other
than the laws of God and nature” He observes:
‘The Ancient Indian Political thought as a whole is
completely alien to the European conception of
sovereignty implying a conscious legislative autho-
rity, since it throughout conceives the law of the
social order and likewise that of the state to be
derived from the two-fold source of the canon and
custom {or convention). As for the doctrine that
the king’s executive edict has the force of law which
was apparently introduced by Kautilya and passed
on by him to Manu and Yajiiavalkya and their
successors, it was hedged round from the first with
the limitations imposed by the fundamental smrti
principles of the supremacy of the law of the social
order and the rule of the state law.4! ன கு
40, Ghoshal, op, cit., p. 566. Carlyle,Cf Vol. VI, majestas
: and souverainete,
41. Ghoshal, op, cit., p. 548
The view ‘Prof. Benoy Kumar Sarkar, Political Institu-
tions and Theories of Hindus, p 201, followed by Prof.
Gettel, (History of Political Thought, Pp, 27) that ‘the
ancient Indian theory of sanction and punishment
corresponds closely to the majestas of Bodin, the
‘summa potestas’ of Grotius and the modern concept
of sovereignty’, completely ignores the fundamental
differences between the two concepts noticed above.
௩
{t may be asked: what value has ancient Indian
political thought today? Has it any influence on
Indian thinking or political life ? and does it contri-
bute in any significant way to the organization of
Indian society or to the shaping of the ideals of
community life or political action? On the face of
it, the answer would be in the negative. True, the
ancient doctrine of the seven prakrtis or kinds of
State and the ideals of paripdlana or protection,
external or internal, seem as valid today as at any
previous time. But the new Indian state in these
respects is based no more on the doctrine of
Bhishma, Kautilya and Sukra, than the new Hindu
Law is erected on the doctrines of Manu, Yajfia-
valkya and Narada. While it is undoubtedly true
that the purely Indian monarchies of Jater times like
thé Vijayanagar empire and the Mabratta state were
founded on Hindu theories as modified to some
extent- by Muslim political practice, the new Re-
public of India takes its form no less than its ideals
from the political thought and experience of West-
ern nations. The federal structure, the parliamen-
tary form, the cabinet system, the theory of
. fundamental rights, the determination of constitu-
tional validity by an independent judiciary - in fact
all the major aspects of our political life - are un-
doubtedly borrowed from the west. If modern
India legislates out of existence Manu, Yajiiavalkya
and other dharma sdstra writers and provides the
Hindu with a new system of laws, its justification
is not based on the doctrine of the R4ja being
Kalasya Karanam or the monarch being the maker
of the age. In terms of India’s political life today

no justification in fact is needed for this kind of
revolutionary legislation, as the state we have
founded represents the omnipotent western concep-
tion of a political community, fully armed with
plenary legislative and executive authority. What-
ever limitation it has placed on its own executive
and legislative functions is not based on the
inviolability of dharma or the incompetence of the
sovereign to legislate in respect of society or reli-
gion, but voluntarily imposed and liable to be
changed by a definite expression of the national
will. In its political and constitutional aspects the
new Republic of India hardly owes anything to
ancient Indian political doctrines.
“Why is it that, with a living tradition of

original thought, our present-day political experi-
ence is based on foreign sources? The reason is
obvious. Indian political thought ceased to grow
after the 13th century as it did not have new politi-
cal experience to guide it. Consequently what the
commentators and the authors of nibandhas wrote
was merely a repetition of what the earlier law
. givers had laid down. Creative political thinking
faded with Kautilya. It has also to be remembered
that in Europe also the leap forward in politica!
thinking was after the Enlightenment, when the
bases of both church and the monarchy were being
questioned by the revolutionary thinkers of the
18th century. It is the experience of the Revolu-
tions, the American and the French — and also to a
much lesser degree the so-called Whig Revolution
of 1688-that provided the foundation for new poli-

tical thinking and brought about a break with the
conception of the Middle Ages. Indian Political
thought was almost on parallel lines with the
doctrines of the Middle ages: perhaps little more
radical and secular than the dominant doctrines of
pre-~Lockean European thought. But the situation
became different after Rousseau and his revolutio-
nary theory of the General Will. “The Hegelian
state clothed with the legalism of Austin is essen-
tially a feature of the 19th century, though the
French Revolutionary government had already
claimed in fact the totality of powers and the
plenitude of legislative authority. To have
endowed it not only with legal respectability: but
broadly speaking with a political universality,
_was the work of the legalistic school. It will
be useful for our purpose to analyse briefly the
development of the concept of sovereignty in
Western political thought, for it is obvious that
of the
what India has borrowed is the conception
of
state not only as endowed with the plenitude
or at
fegal and executive power but as reflecting
the totality of social
least claiming to control
in
activity. A group of perennial problems
from the concepts of
political philosophy arises
” and their
“Society”, “State” and “ Sovereignty
to the individual. To have a proper
relation
of these concepts it is essential to
understanding
briefly the salient features of western
analyse
political thought.
THE CONCEPT OF SOVEREIGNTY IN"
WESTERN POLITICAL THOUGHT
Philosophical interest in political analysis has

often tended to focus on the notion of. “‘sover-
eignty ” which is regarded by all political scientists
as the basis of modern political science, at least
since the early seventeenth century. The concept
of sovereignty is considered essentially as a juristic
concept implying supreme and final power.
Analysis of sovereignty brings one into contact

with the major problems in political philosophy.
The relation of the concept of sovereignty to other
concepts may be distinguished. ‘First, a person or
an institution may be said to be sovereign if he or
it exercises authority (as a matter of right) over
every other person or institution in the legal
system, there being no authority competent to
override him or it. For some writers, though not
for all, this concept also implies unlimited legal
competence; for it is said, an authority competent
to determine the limits of its own competence
must be omnicompetent. Secondly, difficulties
arising from the first concept have led some writers
to ascribe sovereignty to a constitution or a basic
norm from which all other rules of a system derive
validity. Thirdly, sovereignty is sometimes
WESTERN POLITICAL THOUGHT 391
ascribed to a person, or a body ora class of per-
sons, said to exercise supreme power in a state, as
distinct from authority, in the sense that their
wills can usually be expected to prevail against any
likely opposition.
The state itself is often said to be sovereign.
This may mean any of at least four distinct (though
possibly related) things: Fourthly, that the state as
an organized association will in fact prevail in
conflict with any person or any other association in
its territory. Fifthiy, that the rights of all such
associations and persons derive from the legal
order that is supported by the state or that (accord-
ing to Hans Kelson) is the state. Sixthly, that the
state is a moral order with claims to obedience and
loyalty which have precedence over 811 others.
. Finally that the state is autonomous vis-a-vis other
states; according to some theories, the state has
only such obligations, whether in law or in morals,
as it chooses to recognize.”!
We shall examine the above analyses of the
concept of sovereignty after giving a short sketch
ignty.
of the evolution of the concept of sovere
Although the modern concept of sovereignty

lic (1576),
was first analysed by Bodin in his Repub
not compl etely unknown
its essential character was
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed.,

1. StanleyJ. Benn,
Company
"by Paul Edwards, Vol. VIL, The Macmitlan
& The Free Press, New York, Collier - Macmillan
Ltd , London, 1967, p. 501.
to the classical writers such as Aristotle. Aristotle

regarded “legislative authority” as the supreme
authority in a state. Stanley I Benn held that the
‘Supreme legislative authority’ as enunciated by
Aristotle is rather misteading, for the Greeks,
legislation was the local application of a divinely
ordained order, rather than the authoritative
creation of new laws.’ According to the Romans,
the princeps (ruler) who embodied the supreme
authority of the people was legibus solutus (not
bound by the laws). His sole function was to
exercise what was just and right for the public
good.
In medieval thought there is less emphasis on
sovereignty. According to Saint Aquinas, the
Roman Maxim Quvod principi placuit legis habet
vigorem (what pleases the prince has the force of
law) was valid only so far as the prince’s orders.
were reasonable and just. Augustinus Triumphus
refers to the plenitudo potestatis ascribed to the
pope’s supreme ecclesiastical authority.”
Jean Bodin in his Livres de la re’ publique, 1576,.

defines sovereignty as ‘a supreme power unrestrained
by law’. He located the residence of sovereignty
in the monarch. The chief function of sovereignty
2, Ibid,, p. 501.
3. ef: Marsilius of Padua and William of Ockam. Accord-
ing to Padua, supreme authority rested in the
legislator. This brings him closer than his predecessors
to Bodin and Hobbes; cf: Otto Gierke, Political
Theory of Middle Ages, p. 35.
WESTERN POLITICAL THOUGHT 393.
is the making of laws, and according to him the.
sovereign is free from the laws thus made. But he.
is not free from all Jaws, for all men are bound.
by Divine Law and the laws of Nature and of
Nations. Bodin deals with legal sovereignty, for,
he says, sovereignty may reside in one person or
in a body of persons, the former being the better.
Bodin is thus an absolutist, but he makes the
proviso that the law of God or law of nature be
observed.
Where Bodin was concerned primarily with

supreme legal authority, Grotius developed and
elaborated its external aspect. His writings
embodied the theory of equality of the sovereign
states and their independence of external control
or domination.
Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan advocates for
a strong sovereign. Three major views are crucial
to Hobbes’s defense of a powerful sovereign.
According to Deininger, ‘one is that of the ‘state
of nature’, the second that of a ‘social contract’,
and the last that of ‘natural laws’... Hobbes holds
that order is the central problem of politics, that
order requires an extremely strong sovereign (state)
and that a reasonable citizen of a civil order will
even obey some bad laws rather than threaten the
political fabric by resistance. Hobbes regards the
sovereignty as indivisible and inalienable, and the
‘4, Whitaker T. Deininger, Problems in Social and Politi-

eq] Thought, Magmillan, London; 1965, p. 153.
source of all legislative, executive and judicial

authority: Hobbes followed the absolutist lead of
Bodin, and his theory, like Bodin’s is one of legal
Sovereignty only.
Unlike Hobbés, Locke carefully avoids the

term ‘Sovereignty’; instead, he uses the phrase
‘supreme power’. ‘There can be but one supreme
power’, says Locke, ‘which is the legislative,
to which ali the rest are and must subordi-
nate, yet the legislative being only a fidu-
ciary power to act for certain ends, there remains
still in the people a supreme power to remove or
alter the legislative, when they find the legislative
act contrary to the trust reposed on them.”> Thus
according to Locke, there are two ‘supreme powers’
in the state-community and government. Of
these two the community,is always the supreme
power; but this supreme power. of the community
is held in abeyance and is exercised only when the
government is dissolved, and a new government
has to be created; but so long as the government
subsists, the legislative wields the supreme power.
This distinction was worked out in the nineteenth
century into the clear-cut concepts of political
sovereignty and legal sovereignty. Locke can be
said to have held to.a doctrine. of the sovereignty
of the people and toa perpetual reserved right of
revolution. He believed in a form of the separa-
5. T.P. Peardon, The Second Treatise of Government,

Liberal Arts, Ladianapolis, 1952.
"WESTERN POLITICAL THOUGHT 395
tion of powers and in the rule of majorities, but
he shows little sympathy for representative demo-
cracy.§
It is to Jean Jacques Rousseau,’ however, with

his idea of the sovereignty of the general will, that
the modern theory owes its immediate origin.
Rousseau agreed that sovereignty was absolute and
unlimited, although he located it in the general will
of the people, rather than in the ruler. There is
often a considerable difference between the general
will (volunte Generale) and the will of all (Volunte
de tons): the former aims at the common interest;
the latter aims at private interests and is only a
sum of particular wills. But if we take away from
the wills the various particular interests which
conflict with each other, what remains as the sum
of the difference is the general will.2 The general
will is always right and is indestructible. Rousseau
gives his sovereignty just as absolute and supreme
a power as Hobbes assigned to his. But in Rous-
seau’s case, it is based upon consent. Sovereignty,
according to Rousseau, is also inalienable and
The Encyclo-
6. Peter Laslett and Philip W. Cummings,
pedia of Philosophy, ed. by Paul Edwards, 1967,
Vol. VI. p. 378.
main works include: Discourse on the

7. Rousseau’s
of Inequality among Men; Social
origin and Basis
Contract, Emile (1762); The Confessions; Discourses.
Masters of Political Thought, Vol. Ul

8. W.T. Jones,
G. Harrap & Co. Ltd-, London, 1963, p. 270.
George
indivisible. Finally, the sovereign is the source of

all law?
W. T. Jones holds the view that Rousseau’s

sovereignty of the general will is merely an ideal,
in the sense that no general will is completely (or
at least for long) sovereign in the full sense. In no
‘actual state organization is the execUtive completely
and fully responsive to the general will, even
‘supposing such a will always to exist. The channels
through which the general will is meant to express
itself are never perfectly open and unrestricted...
No actual sovereign, not even the most complete
despot, is altogether independent of the will of his
subjects, nor immune from influence by them, even
if this influence be only that of custom and tradi-
tion. According to Rousseau, sovereignty is an
absolute and inalienable prerogative of the people
who enter into a contract by surrendering their
natural rights in order to regain them as the rights
{Liberty and equality) of citizens sharing in the
sovereignty of the “general will’ (Volunte generale)
which is the outcome of the compact. Secondly,
government is not a party to the contract or com-
pact.into which the people enter, The paradox of
-political theory is that the ruler is also the ruled.
Rousseau faced this paradox. Thirdly, since for
Rousseau, Sovereignty is the prerogative of the
‘People and cannot be alienated, there can ‘be no
9. Contract Social, Il, 6 (49-50).

10: . 4.17. Jones} op.-cit., Vol. IL, pp, 288-89...
‘question of the people retaining sovereignty by a

revolution. A revolution at least can mean only that
an existing government is overthrown. T.H.Green
remarks that this raises a perplexity. Though Rous-
seau does not explicitly say this, Green thinks that
‘he means that whereas the people are the sovereign
‘de jure, Certain existing states may have a kind of
de facto sovereignty not justifiable in fundamental
terms. Perhaps this difficulty can be met by re-
membering the sense in which the ‘general will, is
indivisible...It is indivisible in the sense that each
man in principle wills with the common good
and participates in the sovereignty of the “general
will’. We cannot subtract even one will from
the ‘general will’, that will be to divide it. The
‘riterion of indivisibility in this peculiar sense can
be satisfied only by recurrent ‘periodical acts
enabling each man to assert his contribution to the
“seneral will’, A revolution signifies that although
the people enjoy absolute and inalienable sover-
éignty the indivisibility of the “genetal will’ is not
“established satisfactorily.
owes
‘The Idealist~ Ethical political thought
of the
lits ‘inspiration ultimately to the writings
Kant was
‘Greek philosphers, Plato and Aristotle.
ist school of
the founder of the German Ideal
Kant was
“thought. For his theory of the state,
analy sis of Govern-
‘indebted to Rousseau, while his
ieu.
mentis borrowed mainly from Montesqu
Immanuel Kant!! regarded the individual not

as a means to an end, but as an end in himself.
The concept of moral freedom is central to the
philosophy of Kant and is inspired’ by Rousseau’s|
concept of real will. The supreme maxim of Kant’s
practical morality was: ‘So act that thy will can
regard itself as dictating universal laws’. In fact
he bases his political thought on his concept of his
moral freedom. For the free and proper exercise
of his moral freedom, the individual needs condi-
tions of life which he cannot create and maintain
for himself. This renders the state necessary.
‘The State is the product of a contract through
which individuals put their inalienable rights under
the guarantee of the people (Volk). The people
only is the sovereign and the supreme law-maker ;
the general will is the ultimate source of law — is
itself law. A constitution is an act of the general
will through which a crowd (Monge) becomes a
people (Volk). There are three powers in every
state
- the sovereign legislative (Herrschergewalt;
Souverainetat), the executive and the judicial; the
separation of the first two in exercise is indispens-
able to liberty.” The sovereign conceived as the
general will was, Kant said, a concept of pure
reason ~ an abstraction, a ‘Gedankending’. While
creating the state, the individuals surrender all
their rights to it. Though Kant conceives of a
11. Kant’s major works include :. ‘Critique of the Pure

Reason’ (1781), ‘Critique of Practical Reason’ (1788) ;
“Metaphysical First Principles of Theory of Law’
(1796); ‘For Perpetual Peace.’
sovereign state, he narrows the scope of the func-

tions and activities of the state. The attitude of
Kant in political philosophy is individualistic. He
does not prescribe a wide sphere of action to the
state. The state must not, through its laws inter-
fere with the moral freedom of the. individual but
only remove obstacles to such freedom. The
individualism of Kant is evidenced by the impor-
tance he attaches to the rights and duties of the
individual. Every right is correlated to some duty.
A-duty is more important than-a right. It is a
categorical-imperative of man’s conscience.
Kant holds that the people is the sovereign
and supreme law-maker. The general will is the
source of law. The adoption of a constitution is
the means and an act of general will through which
the people set up the state and government. Kant
saw the evolution of mankind to higher and higher
stages. The state was, however, only a stage in the
evolution of mankind. For the fullest development
of the mental, moral andthe material in man, an
state
organization bigger than a national sovereign
to maintain world peace and international harmony
was called for. Kant believed that the states could
In
not be entirely independent internationally.”
plea
his For Perpetual Peace, Kant makes a strong
a federal unton of
for a world-order based on
nations. ்‌
(1762-1814) political thought com-
Fichte’s
the
menced with the rational self consciousness of
il, p- 133.
12. W.A, Dunning, Political Theories, Vol.
individual. According to him ‘the state (Staat)

itself is men’s natural condition (Naturstand).’
Urrechte (Natural right) is according to Fichte,
“the absolute right of the person to be in the world
of sense only cause and never effect’—a conception
which is similar to the doctrine of absolute will.%
Fichte formulates three types of contracts vizZ.,
property contract (Eigenthumsyetrag), protection
contract (Schutzvertrag), and union contract
(Vereinigungsvertrag) which constitutes a sovereign.
Fichte rejects the idea that the end of the state is
‘to make men happy, rich, healthy, orthdox,
virtuous and God willing, saved eternally.’ On the
other hand, he holds the view that the real function.
of the state is: ‘to give to each for the first time his
own, to install him for first time in his property,
and then first to protect him in it.’!4
Fichte believed in the sovereign will of the

people. He conceived an institution named the
éphorate that he regarded as indispensable to a
constitution (vernunft und rechtmassige Staatsver-
Jfassung),!5
Wilhelm von Humboldt contends that the.

legitimate sphere of the state is solely the care for.
13. +...das absolute Recht der Person, inder Sinnenwelt:

nur Ursache zu sein (schlechthin nie Beuirktes).”
Werke, II, 113119.
14, The Geschiossene Handelsstaat is it Werke, Bd. Iil,.
pp- 389-513; Buch], Chi, 9 ,
15. Werke, III, 160, 171.
the security of the citizens. By security he means
“certainity of lawful liberty’ (Gesetzmassige Freiheit),
This notion is purely an ideal of liberty, not ‘likely
to be realized.
Among thinkers who adopt an “ organic

model” of the state, must be remembered
George Wilhelm Frederich Hegel (1770—1831),
who views the state as possessing a reality which
is more than the sum of its parts. This organic
conception of the state and his view of the
nature of sovereign power deserve our considera~
tion. Hegel starts with the assumption that the
universe is a coherent whole. In this organic
unity what he variously calls the idea or spirit or
reason or mind is the only reality. Everything
including the matter and eternal world is the
creation of this idea. To Hegel, the state is not
only the representative but the very incarnation of
the ‘spirit of the world. While St. Augustine
regarded the Civitas terrena as a distortion and
disfigurement of the Civitas divina, Hegel saw in
_ the Civatas terrena the ‘Divine Idea’ as it exists on
earth. This is an entirely new type of absolutism.
Hegel’s political theory has been variously referred
to as an ‘Idealist? or ‘Metaphysical’ or ‘Philoso-
phical’ theory of the state. Of these terms, the
most specific is ‘Idealist’ since it describes one of
the most characteristic features of the general
philosophy upon which Hegel’s political theory is
based.
Hegel’s idealism is essentially the logical

402. THE CONCEPT OF SOVEREIGNTY,
development of Kant’s doctrine of the categories.

If his logic can be defined as an exposition of the
principle that ‘the real is the rational’, his political
philosophy can be stated as an exposition of the
principle that ‘the right is the rational’. According
to Hegel the ‘will of the state’ represents the true
will of the individual, and only in so far as the
latter coincides with the former is the individual
acting morally.
Hegel, like Rousseau, finds the criterion of

political morality in the ‘General will’ of the state.
The ‘state’ says Hegel in his System der Sittlichkeit .
in which he introduces his sharp distinction between
Moralitat and Sittlichkeit, ‘is the self-certain abso-
lute mind which acknowledges no abstract rules of
good and bad, shameful and mean, craft and
deception.” Hegel, in opposition to Kant, drew a
more positive and objective conception of freedom,
and a less individualistic conception of the state.
Freedom, Hegel holds, is positive, objective and
creative. ‘Freedom’, says Ernest Barker, ‘expresses
itself in a series of outward manifestations-first the
law ; then the rules of inward morality; and finally
the whole system of institutions and influences that
make for righteousness in the national state. That
system of institutions and influences Hegel embraces
in the term Social Ethics (Sitilichkeit); and in Social
Ethics he finds the reconciliation of the mere
externality of law and the mere inwardness of
morality. By this Hegel achieved a view of the
Stateless individualistic than that of Kant appeared
him to be 7! As Hegel expresses it in his own
technical terms, “What law (Recht) and abstract
morality (Moralitat) are not, custom (Sitte) is,
namely, spirit (Geist)’, and spirit is ‘unity of the
individual and the universal.’!”
The state, according to Hegel, manifests itself

in three ways: Constitution or internal public law
(Verfassung oder inneres Staatsrecht), as external
public law and as world history.
The state according to Hegel is the spirit
uniting Unity in difference. Hegel’s unity is a
dialectical unity, a unity of contraries. It not only
allows but even requires the strongest tensions and
oppositions. From this point of view, Hegel had to
reject the aesthetic ideals of Schelling or Novalis.
Secondly, the state is an organic spiritual life of
human society flowering into the best. It is not
simply an ethical institution. “Ethical institutions’,
says Hegel, ‘are not perfect, they are in the sphere
of caprice, evil, accident, violence, but in the loyal
dedication to them lies salvation. Salvation must
be worked out in the accidence of life.’
Hegel’s concept of sovereignty is connected

with monarchy (furstliche Gewalt). He defines it
as ‘the moment of ultimate decision, as the self-
determination to which everything else reverts and
16. Ernest Barker, Political Thought in England (1848~

1914), Oxford University Press, London, 1951, p. 19,
17. Phil. des Rechts, Secs. 751, 756.

404 THE CONCEPT OF SOVEREIGNT Y
from which everything else derives the beginning of

its actuality.” This means that the monarch is the
ultimate point of reference in the legal and constitu-
tional system of a given state, and it is because of
the existence of such a point within it that the state
is externally sovereign. While in one sense the
monarchy and sovereignty are identical, in another
they are distinct. In this sense sovereignty means
‘the ideality of all particular authorities within it’.
In this sense sovereignty resides in the state as a
whole, its constitution, of which the monarch, the
executive, the estates, and so on, are only branches
or ‘moments’. Thus the two aspects of sovereignty,
though distinct, are ultimately interconnected
although philosophy alone can prove the connec-
tion to be necessary and rational.!® According to
Hegel, the state’s sovereignty lay in the moral pre-
eminence over all other forms of human association.
The state was sovereign in its relation with other
states because it owed them nothing. Its highest
moral commitment was to its own survival as the
agent of history. Over such world-historical states
as from time to time embody the idea there can be
no judge but history itself. Die Weltgeschitchte ist
das Weltgericht is Hegel’s famous aphorism.!9
The English Idealist school begins with
T. H. Green who drew his inspiration from Kant
18. T. M. Knox, Hegel’s Political Writings, Oxford, 1964,

p. 127.
19. The history of the world is the world’s court of judg-
ment. The phrase was actually first used by Schiller.
and Hegel as well as from Plato and Aristotle.
Green’s, The Lectures on the Principles of Political
Obligation is a classic treatise on political thought.
The state is a product of human consciousness which
postulates liberty. Liberty involves rights: rights
demand the state, i.e., the enforcement of rights
needs a sovereign power, i.e., the state. ' The state
creates freedom and rights necessary for the fulfil-
ment of the moral end in society which is the per-
fection of the individuals composing it.
The state,’ or the sovereign representing the

state, ‘does not create rights, but gives fuller reality
to rights already existing.” The state, to Green
‘was not a definite and concrete organization of
final character, but an institutionalised expression
of the general will’ of the community. Green’s
of sovereignty combines Austin with
theory
Rousseau. Sovereignty is supreme power when
supported by the general will. Laws, representing
sovereign authority, emanate from a determinate
behind
body of human beings but the real sanction
but the
them is not the coercive power of the state
will of
recognition that they represent the general
As Ernest Barker observes : ‘The
the community.
authority which was force must in the
sovereign
to the society itself,
ultimate analysis be reduced
consciousness of a
or rather to the common
society. If that
common end which constitutes the the
creates rights, it creates
consciousness
the condition of their main-
sovereignty which is
we give the name ‘general
tenance. If therefore,
will’ to this common consciousness of a common
end, expressed in a common will directed to the
realization of that end, we may say that the
‘general will’ is sovereign.’ Barker holds that the
view is more realistic; in actual practice the
ultimate sovereign, de jure or de facto, is the
people. A common will may thus be expressed in
the whole life of the state. Green is content to
analyse and elucidate the presuppositions implicit
in the actual life of existing states. “Will, not force,
is the basis of the state.’ T.H. Green was a liberal
who struck a balance between the authoritarianism
of Rousseau and Hegel and the individualism of
the utilitarian school.
A critical observation shows that T. H. Green

exposes Rousseau’s concept of sovereignty which
suffers from ambiguity. Rousseau tends to identify
his “general will’ with a coercive power, sometimes
even the power of the majority. He is equally
confused about the tasks to be assigned to the
“general will’. What we do is not always carefully
distinguished from what we should do. Rousseau’s
political theory lacks a moral and philosophic
basis. Green endeavours to provide this. We have
seen that he adduces two complex sets of considera-
tion in discussing sovereignty. There is a determi
nate law-enacting and Jaw-enforcing body in the
Austinian sense and there is also a_ habitual
obedience to and a habitual support for the
20. Ernest Barker, Op, cit, ற. 28.

determinate law-making body necessitating the

recognition of a ‘general will’ in the idealistic sense
of acommon good. The determinate law-making
body cannot be distinguished from the ‘general
will’ by calling one the de-facto sovereign, and the
other, the de-jure sovereign. Ostensible and real
sovereign are equally futile. The “general will’ and
the “determinate Law-making body’ are compli-
mentary concepts contributing to our notion of
sovereignty. One cannot be understood wilhout
the other. Green shows that ‘determinate law-
making’ cannot go on in sheer defiance of the
‘general will’. Even when unscrupulous selfish
individuals hold political posts of responsibility,
it cannot be said that their selfishness or un-
scrupulousness alone contributes to law-making.
Sovereignty is not to be crudely located in certain
areas. It is a spirit sustaining a whole complex of
political institutions, prevailing attitudes, and
prevailing practices that are to be taken into
consideration. Sovereignty is a pervasive identity
in difference. Its contributory factors cannot be
understood and assessed separately. T.H. Green
argues impressively how sovereignty is a synthesis
by considering the exceptional situations in which
the determinate law-making body is opposed to
the common good. Has the enlightened citizen a
?
right to resist the state, or the existing government
In the circumstances, sovereignty is kept in

abeyance. It is not achieved. Jt presupposes a
fruitful synthesis. If the state resists the state, that
its laws are unjust, sovereignty does not’ cease to be
lapsing into a state of nature (as in the theory of
Hobbes), nor does it revert to the people who alone
are supreme (as in the theory of Locke), the point
that Green is concerned to make is that a revolt
against the state means that sovereignty is not yet
achieved.
Green synthesizes these two: First, determi-

nate law-making body. Secondly, habitual obedi-
ence to law presupposing the general will. The
first and the second are synthesized by Green and
the result is Political Sovereignty with which
we are currently interested. According to Green,
political . sovereignty cannot be located. He asks:
why should it be located? It is only a spirit.
It is identity in difference. In the above analysis
sketched by Green, to say that the first is de-jure
and the second de-facto is a misnomer. To Green,
sovereignty is a kind of synthesis, hence it is not
fully achieved. .
There is a striking similarity between Green’s

view of sovereignty and Gandhi’s conception of
sovereignty of the people based on pure moral
authority. This we shall examine in the next
chapter.
If T. H. Green was more Kantian than

Hegelian, F. H. Bradley represents a definite swing
in English Idealist thought towards Hegel.
Bradley, like Plato and Hegel, conceives of the
society and the state as moral organisms and all
his thought is based on this concept.
Bernard Bosanquet, in his The Philosophical

Theory of the State, drops some of the limitations
imposed on the state by T. H. Green and comes
very near the Hegelian conception of the state.
Bosanquet’s thought is considerably inspired by
Rousseau’s theory of the ‘general will’. Like
Rousseau, he distinguishes between the actual will
of the individual which is impulsive, irrational and
self-seeking and his real will which is rational and
other-regarding. The real wills of the individuals,
representing the common good, make the General
Will which finds its perfect expression in the state.
Bosanquet regarded the state as the only

agency for the moral development of man and as
capable of embracing all his social interests, and to
man
regard_the sole moral right and obligation of
positio n in
as being that of faithfully fulfilling the
which he finds himself in that comprehensive
organization conventionally known as the state.?24
To Bosanquet, the ‘state is ap ethical idea, or

is the ethical idea, since it is the final
rather
conception of life as a whole.’ Itis the supreme
It has a life of its own. It has
ethical institution.
The Philo-
21. Fora fuller discussion, see Bosanquet,
Theory of the State, Londo n, 1879, Chs- 6-8,
sophical
Duties of Citize nship’ in
11; and his essay on ‘The
Aspects of Social Proble m, pp. 1-27.
its own mind and its own will which is the General
Will. A national state which represents ‘the
widest organization which has the common
experience necessary to found a common life’ has
a national spirit of its own which moulds the
individuals and associations with it. Bosanquet,
like Hegel, believes that individual ethics does not
apply to the actions of the state. The state itself
is not bound by the system of rights and duties
which it imposes on the individuals. It may be
said that Bosanquet abstracts the doctrine of the
Real or General Will and links it with Hegelian
idealism. His whole argument rests on the
assumption that there is no contrast, no conflict
between the individual and society.
The ultimate end of the society as of the state

is the realization of the best life as ‘determined by
the fundamental logic of-the will. Bosanquet, like
Green, sets limits to state action. In the words of
Bosanquet: ‘First, all state action is general in its
bearing and justification, even if particular, or
rather concrete, in its details. It is embodied ina
system of rights and there is no element of it which
is not determined by a bearing. upon public
interest...... And, secondly, all state action is at
bottom the exercise of a will; the real will, or the
will as logically implied in intelligence as such, and
more or less recognised as imperative upon
them.”
22. Bernard Bosanquet, The Philosophical Theory of the

State, Macmillan & Co. Ltd., London, 1958, p. 216.
‘ According to Bosanquet, sovereignty is essen-
tially the relation in which each factor of the
constitution stands to the whole. Commenting on
Rousseau’s conception of sovereignty, he says:
‘it resides only in the organised whole acting qua’
organised Whole. If, for example, we speak of the
‘Sovereignty of the people’ in a sense opposed to
the sovereignty of the state - as if there was such a
thing as ‘the people’ over and above the organised
means of expressing and adjusting the will of the
community - we are saying what is, strictly
speaking, meaningless ...... we saw that Rousseau
clearly explained the impossibility of expressing
the general will except by a determinate system of
law. But what he seemed to suggest, and was
taken to mean, by popular sovereignty, was no
doubt just the view which Hegel condemns. It is
essentially the same question as how 4 consti-
tution can be made. Strictly, a constitution cannot
be made except by modification of one existing
constitution... ...Law and constitution are utteran-
ces of the spirit of a nation.”
English Idealist theory represents a com-

promise between individualism and collectivism
and brings about a healthy relationship between
ethics and politics. It emphasizes the organic
nature of society and of state and establishes the
true relationship between the individual and the
state,
23. Ibid , pp. 262-63.

“We have earlier analysed the contributions
made by the Utilitarians to political thought. Let
us now examine their views on sovereignty. Jeremy
Benthan gave unlimited powers to the sovereign,
who could legislate for all and everything. Because
_ law is the expression of a will, ‘sovereignty can be
predicated only of a being of which will can be
predicated.” The existence and the location of
sovereignty are a matter of fact, and give no occa-
sion for questions of right and duty. But given the
existence of a sovereign, is the scope of his power
without bounds? Can he legislate on every subject
and to every effect whatever? Is there no line
beyond which his prescripts are ipso facto void?
Bentham can see none. ‘The supreme governor’s
authority,’ he says, ‘though not infinite, must un-
avoidably, I think, unless where limited by express
convention, be allowed to be indefinite.4 The
only check on a sovereign is his own anticipation
of popular resistance, based on popular interests.
The sovereign was not bound to respect any indivi-
dual right. A right involves a correlative duty but
duty has no other basis than interest or utility.
Individual rights emanate from the sovereign.
Thus Bentham offered a legal view of sovereignty.
From the juristic point of view, the state was
considered to be legally supreme and its authority
absolute and final.
24. For a good account of the political doctrines of

Bentham, see his ‘Fragment on Government’, Oxford,
1891.
J. S. Mill (1773-1873), advocated representa-
tive government, i.e., in a government by the
people’s ‘representatives acting as a check on
legislative abuse. Further, the duration of the
powers of these representatives too was to be
limited to ensure their interests being identical
with the public interest.
Mill, true to his utilitarian training, held that
government is made by men for their social well-
being. He developed this doctrine, on the basis of
‘utility, broadly conceived, as the standard of right,
embodies a complete and symmetrical philosophy
of individualism and laissez faire ;
The best form of government Mill held to be
that in which ‘the sovereignty, or supreme control-
ling power in the last resort, is vested in the entire
aggregate of the community,’ every citizen not only
having a voice in the expression of the sovereign
will, but also, at least occasionally, an actual part
in the discharge of some public function. Thus the
sovereign, according to Mill is absolute.’
The teaching of Hobbes and Bentham on
gs
sovereignty reached its culmination in the writin
of the ninet eenth
‘of John Austin, an English Jurist
century, who gave the doctrine of sovereignty a
classical exposition in his book, The Province of
by W. A. Dunning, op. cit, pp- 235-42.

25. Quoted
see J. 8. Mill’s, Essays on Govern-
For the subject,
ment; Considerations on Representative Government,
On Liberty.»
Jurisprudence Determined. The legal ‘aspect of

sovereignty is best explained by Austin thus: ‘If a
determinate human superior, not in the habit of
obedience to a like superior, receive Aabitual obedi-
ence from the bulk of a given society, that determi-
nate superior is sovereign in that society and the
society (including the superior) is a society political
and independent.’ ‘Furthermore’, he continued,
‘every positive law, or every law simply and strictly
so-called, is set directly or circuitously, by a
sovereign person or body to a member or members
of the independent political society wherein that
person or body is sovereign or supreme.’”” Law,
according to H. J. Laski, is simply ‘the will of the
sovereign.” If Rousseau places emphasis on will,
Austin’s emphasis is on force.
The implications of this, the analytical view of
sovereignty and law, are fourfold: First, in every
State there is a ‘déterminate human superior’ who
26. Jurisprudence, Vol. I, p. 226.
27. Quoted by R. N. Gilchrist, Principles of Political
Science, Oriental Longmans, Madras, 1962, pp. 114-115.
The Austinian definition of sovereignty is almost
verbally the same as that offered by Bentham; ‘When a
number of persons (whom we may style subjects) are
supposed to be in a habit of obedience to a person, or
an assembly of persons, of a known and certain des-
cription (whom we may call governor or governors),
such persons altogether (subjects and governors) are
said to be in a state of political society’. It is ‘the
relation of authority’ (and the existence of control)
which constitutes distinctly any political seciety;
including a church as organized.
receives ‘habitual obedience’ from ‘the bulk’ of
citizens ; therefore neither the general will nor all
the people taken together can be sovereign. Second~-
ly, whatever the superior commands is law, and
without him there can be no law. Thirdly, the
power of the sovereign, which is known as sover-
eignty is indivisible. Finally the sovereign power
is absolute and incapable of limitation. Thus the
essence of sovereignty is that it should be determi-
nate, absolute, illimitable, indivisible, universal and
inalienable.
In an independent political community the

sovereign is determinate and absolute. Its will is
illimitable .because if it could be constraine d to act,
it would cease to be supreme since it would then be
subject to the constraining power. Its will is
indivisible because if power over certain functions
or persons is absolutely and irrevocably entrusted
to a given body, the sovereign then ceases to enjoy
universal supremacy and therefore ceases by defint-
tion to be sovereign. Its will is also inalienable for
the obvious reason that if a sovereign authority
parts with its sovereignty it cannot of its own will
resume it.
the
Austin’s theory of sovereignty is subject to
On the histo rical side, it was
following criticisms.
that the
sufficiently shown by Sir Henri Maine,
is artifi cial to the point of
Austinian theory,
that in many of the Empir es of the
absurdity in
determi-
East, there is nothing to correspond to the
of Austin. Further, the theory is
nate superior
altogether abstract and legal. Once more, if the

sovereign’s authority receives only ‘habitual obedi-
ence’, it is somewhat illogical to regard it as
unlimited.
Austin contends that the sovereign in the sense

of a determinate human superior is the supreme
law-maker. Whatever he commands is law. Austin’s
theory, in brief, errs in regarding all laws as merely
‘commands’ and in over-emphasizing the single
element of force. Only as a matter of positive law,
the sovereign is supreme and uncontrolled. From
all this it would appear that Austinian sovereignty
is not the sole creator of laws. Duguit goes so far
as to say that it is not the state which creates laws
but it is law which creates the state. ‘Laws’ he
says, ‘are merely the expressions of social neces-
sity.”
Austin observes that sovereignty is indivisible.

From one point of view, as Lord points out, this is
untenable. In every political society, there is
division of functions (though not of will), and
without such division, no government can be
conducted effectively. The state cannot act in a
self-contradictory way. The end must be single,
however, composite. Interpreted in this manner,
it is true that sovereignty is indivisible. The
Austinian theory of legally unlimited and indivi-
sible sovereignty finds no support in the Indian
constitution which vests the President (Executive)
and the Parliament (Legislative). Austin’s conten-
tion that the English parliament is an omnipotent
‘
legislative, is only an unwarranted generalization

from a dubious interpretation. of the British
constitution.
Critics like Harold J. Laski argue that ‘it
would be of lasting benefit to political science if
the whole concept of sovereignty were surrendered.
That in fact, with which we are dealing is power.’
However, he states: ‘It is by the use or possession
of that the state is distinguished from all other
forms of human association.”® As a pragmatist,
Laski comes to the conclusion that while the
Austinian form is still preserved, the substance has
been surrendered. As a pluralist and internationalist,
Laski wants sovereignty to be limited in the interests
of
of other associations within the state as well as
A further line of attack
those of internationalism.
on the absoluteness of sovereignty comes from the
standpoint of federalism. There are some who
argue that the Austinian theory of sovereignty
would lead to legal despotism. Austin’s theory of
legal point of view
sovereignty is sound from the
As Maxey
although it does not go far enough.
a hurricane of
observes: ‘Though subjected to
political pluralism
ctiticism from the champions of
the totalitarian
it still stands and with the rise of
of the post-war
and authoritarian state concepts
period, seems to be gaining strength’.
theories of
We shall now analyse some recent the
sovereignty which are reactions against
and Practice, George
28. H. J. Laski, The State in Theory
Unwi n, Lond on, 1960, p- 21.
Allen &
Hegelian view of sovereignty. Hugo Krabbe,

Leon Duguit, F. W. Maitland, J. N. Figgis,
H. J. Laski, Ernest Barker and A. D. Lindsay have
substituted a pluralistic for the monistic view of
the state. The pluralists concede that the state
must continue in order to maintain the minimal
conditions of order, determiine conflicts of jurisdic-
tion, and protect members of one association from
the encroachments of another.
The Pluralists would not, like the anarchists
and the syndicalists, abolish the state; but they
would deprive it of sovereignity. The pluralistic
attitude towards state sovereignty may be judged
from the following assertions made:
‘If we look at the facts it is clear enough that
the theory of the sovereign state has broken down.’”
“No political commonplace has become more
arid and unfruitful than the: doctrine of the sove-
teign state.’30
‘The notion of sovereignty must be expunged
from political theory.”3! |
Krabbe’s theory ‘accepts no authority as valid
except that of the law’; under this view
, ‘the
29. A.D. Lindsay, ‘The State in Recent Political Theory’,

in Political Quarterly, Vol. I, 1914, pp. 128-145.
30. Ernest Barker, ‘The Superstition of the State’, London
Times Literary Supplement, July 1968, p. 293.
31. Hugo Krabbe, The Modern Idea of the State, London,
1922, p 35.
sovereign disappears as a source of law from both

legal and political theory’. To him ‘the authority
of the state is nothing except the authority of law’.
In short, the law is ‘the supreme sovereign. Leon
_ Duguit contends that a state as such has no essen-
tial connection with law (droit) and right; its
authority has as such no legal (juridique) or moral
justification. Instead of the term ‘sovereignty’,
Duguit suggested the term ‘social solidarity’. Hugo
Preuss substituted it by the term Herrschaft; while
G. D. H. Cole would substitute ‘a democratic
supreme court of functional equity’ instead of the
power of the state-sovereigniy. According to
Gierke, the will of the state is the sovereigh will;
the state is the highest Machtverband. Dr. Figgis
regarded the state as the communitas communitatum
and assigned to it a superior authority. Lindsay
regarded the state as ‘organization of organiza-
tions’. He does not regard the state as ‘sovereign’.
Maitland’s interest was in establishing a basis for
obli-
the recognition of the corporate privileges,
gations, and liabilities of associations.
under-
We should note at the outset, that Laski
the first
went three distinct transformations. In
Later on
place he was a pluralist pre-eminently.
ht. Ulti-
he represented the Fabian school of thoug
ian appro ach. His views
mately he justified a Marx
the nature of state and sovereignty
tegarding
different changes according to the
underwent
times.
420 THE CONCEPT.OF SOVEREIGNTY
Laski makes a clear distinction between

state and society and between state and govern-
ment. He is against concentration of authority.
He would divide sovereignty and decentralize
power. This division and decentralization of
authority is indicated by the fact that society
consists of many associations of which the state is
just one. He is in favour of decentralization of
authority on the basis of federalism, functional and
territorial. Centralized authority or power becomes
despotic, inefficient and overformal in character.
During the second phase, (Fabianism), Laski

comes very close to the position that state differs
in kind also and not merely in degree from other
associations.
In the third phase, Laski is influenced by the

Marxian thought. He looks at the state as ‘simply
the executive instrument of that class in society
which owns the means of production.’
Laski’s thought betrays influences of positivist
sociology of Duguit, group personality of Gierke
and Maitland, individualist liberalism and collecti-
vist socialism. He rejects sovereignty with its
monistic connotation, as inconsistent with the
pluralistic structure and functioning of society.
The society represents a multitude of groups and
associations competing for the loyaity .of the
individual. The state is only unus interpares. The
claims of the society on the individual aré superior
to those of the state. The happiness of the indivi-
dual is the criterion of the excellence of the state.

The validity of the actions of the state comes from
individual decisions. The state has force but the
individual is the best judge of whether or not he
will submit to this force and take the consequences
of non-submission. ‘The will of the state obtain
pre-eminence over the wills of other groups exactly
to the point where it is interpreted with sufficient
wisdom to obtain general acceptance and no
further.’
Laski, who substantially modifies his original
pluralist position at a later stage, criticises plura-
lism on the ground that ‘it does not sufficiently
realise the nature of the state as an expression of
class relations. He believes that the need for
sovereign power cannot be obviated unless the
socialisation of the instruments of production
ushers in a classless society. In his opinion, politi-
of a
cal pluralism must be tempered with a vision
classless society.’
sovereign
It is difficult to locate unlimited
dent, nor the
power in the U.S.A. Neither the Presi
s. It is said that
Congress possess unlimited power
of sovereignty in a federal state is
the discovery
adventure. From what-
practically an impossible
ever point of view the theory of legal sovereignty
it seems to suffer from serious
may be examined, the
drawbacks. At best we might conclude with
his Grammar of Politics:
following words of Laski in
4 Grammar of Politics, Introduction,
32. H. J. Laski,
ற. 2ம்‌.
“It would be of lasting benefit to political science
if the whole concept of sovereignty were sur-
rendered.’
F. W. Coker points out that it is possible to

repudiate the theory of state sovereignty. He finds
an answer to this in the writings of Kropotkin, the
.Syndicalists and anarchists. Kropotkin, in his
theory of anarchism, points out that ‘if individuals
are left absolutely free to associate themselves as
‘they see fit, all individuals and groups will, respon-
ding to natural impulses of sympathy and mutual
aid, act in mutual helpfulness and in respect for
the interests of one another....discord in society is
due only to the perverting influence of the unnatu-
ral and unjust restrictions inherent in the systems
of political authority and private property.’
- The Syndicalists, in general, eliminate the state

altogether from society. Some syndicalists, how-
ever, while banishing the state, seek to retain
sovereignty. In other words, they believe in limited
Sovereign power being assigned to the state. In
Short, the systems of anarchism and syndicalism
put forward clear and consistent applications of
the pluralistic doctrine of divided, or limited or
discarded sovereignty.
- The value of pluralism in emphasizing the need

for dispersal of power and functional decentraliza-
tion must not be underestimated. Also the plura-
' lists direct our attention to: the fact that ‘the
variety of our group life today has a significance
which must be immediately reckoned within politi-

cal life.’ , mo
It may be asked: Is state sovereignty consistent
with international law? International law is a body
of rules regulative of the conduct of states in
relation to one another. As laid down in Article 38
of the Statute of the International Court, the
sources of international law are: First, international
conventions. Secondly, international customs.
Thirdly, ‘the general principles of law recognised
by the civilised nations.’ Finally, ‘Judicial decisions
and the teachings of the most highly qualified
publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary
means for the determination of rules of law.’
In spite of the wide prevalence of a body of.

well-established rules of international behaviour, it
has consistently been held by the positivists that
international law does not put any legal limitation.
d
on the authority of the state. Austin regarde
law as ‘a kind of positiv e morali ty;
international
properl y
without a sovereign, it could not be ‘Law
so-called.’ The state according to Hobbes, Hegel,
Jellinek, might accept, in honour and good
and
rules of
faith, its treaty obligations and customary
could in no way be
international law; but these
sover-
interpreted to mean legal limitations on the
ts have been made to
eignty of the state. Attemp
ty by what George Jellinek
overcome this difficul
The New State, New York, 1918,

33. M. P. Follet,
pp. 315-16.
a
termed ‘auto-limitation’: international law is bind-
ing because sovereign states have imposed it on
themselves. According to Hans Kelsen, internatio-
nal law is legally superior to municipal law and the
sovereignty of the state is legally limited by inter-
national law. Kelsen wanted to maintain that there
is one all-inclusive world of law and that intér-
national law itself provides the principles validating
the laws of so-called sovereign states as subsystems.
Professor Gilchrist observes that ‘international

law, like the constitution limits the state (i.e., the
legal sovereign) only so long asit wishes to be limited
by it; were it permanently limited, it would hardly
be a legal sovereign.’3* Bluntschli states: ‘There
isno such thing as absolute independence—even the
state as a whole is not almighty; for it is limited
externally by the rights of other states and inter-
nally by its own nature and the rights of its indivi-
dual members.”> Prof. Gilchrist, like Austin,
believes that international law is nothing but inter-
national principles of morality.’ Such duties as
it has are self-imposed and hence could hardly be
legal.
Limitations upon state sovereignty set by the

recognised rules of international behaviour are not
very yncommon in recent times. The subjection of .
State sovereignty to international law is proved by
\
34. RN. Gilchrist, Principles of Political Science,
London, 1921, p, 127,
35. Quoted by Dunning, op. cit., p. 126,
the U.N. Charter which provides that ‘the members

shall refrain in their international relations from.
threat or use of force." To secure observance of
its principles even by the non-members, the
U.N. Charter also mentions that ‘the organisation
shall ensure that states which are not members of
the United Nations act in accordance with these
principles so far as may be necessary for the
maintenance of international peace and security.’>7
A sovereign state in international law must there-
fore be a particular kind of legal personality, like
corporations in municipal Jaw, with characteristic
. powers, rights, immunities and obligations. Never-
theless, states are considered bound by the esta-
blished law and custom of nations, and the obligation
of new state from their inception and. do not wait
upon any consent or deliberate act of acceptance.
Finally, the alleged equality of sovereign states 1s
not, of course, equality in power. Sovereignty in
law is consistent with a large measure of actual
control over a state from outside, though a mini-
mum of independence might be a qualifying
condition for sovereign states. Freedom to act 1s
relative in international as in internal affairs.
The state system, both in legal principle and
a
political practice, comes very close to constituting
-
genuinely anarchial world society. The legal princi
ationa l
ple of sovereignty provides that no intern
ed is
law which a nation has not at some time accept
36. U.N. Charter, Article 2, paragraph 4.

Charter, Article 2, paragraph 6.
37. U.N.
426 THE CONCEPT OF SOVEREIGNTY.
legally binding upon-that nation. There is no world
Jegislature to make law legally ‘binding upon all
snations, no world executive and police force to make
sure that they are obeyed, and no world judiciary
to: adjudicate violations of the law and sentence
the. violator. There is, to be sure, a sort of pseudo-
legislature in the United Nations General Assembly,
a.pseudo-executive in the U.N. Security Council,
and .a pseudo-supreme court in the International
Court of Justice. But, none of these institutions
have any real power above and beyond what
individual nations have given them - and which
individual nations can withhold or withdraw when-
ever they desire, and successfully so if the nations
are powerful enough.
The state.system, in short, means that inter-
national politics is conducted within a framework of
both legal and political anarchy; and this situation
is the basic determinant of the general nature of
international political conflict which is endangering
the security and peace in the world. Technological
developments have made war so unsupportably,
costly and so unbearably tisky that it is unthink-
able as a technique of foreign policy.
_ The United Nations, like its predecessor,
The League of Nations, is not intended to achie
ve
world, peace by abolishing the state system.
So
long as nations and their citizens continue to
prefer national independence and self-determina-
tion to subjecting themselves to a supernatio
nal
government, the United Nations cannot
become
WESTERN POLITICAL THOUGHT. 437
significantly stronger than it is now, whether by
eliminating the veto from the ‘security Council o¥-
by any other institutional tinkering. So long as
powerful nations like the United States and Soviet
Russia continue to clash over such basic issues as
the preservation and extension of democracy or
communism, the United Nations cannot be expected
to bring about world peace. ,
- It should be noted that the essential features

of the state system will remain unchanged for some-
‘time to come, although the atomistic nationalism
and independent action characteristic of world
politics before 1914 will increasingly be replaced by
regional associations of nations with common
interests and similar ideologies, such as NATO,
the Anglo-American alliance, and the Communist
movement. The United Nations will continue to
have its greatest success in its non-political and
technical activities, and its efforts to prevent
aggression and maintain peace as collective security,
disarmament, and peaceful settlement of East-West
tensions and disputes. Even if the frailties of the
United Nations are thus exposed, still it must be
admitted that the existence and operation of this
international organisation are animated by a firm
conviction that the days of absolute sovereignty
aTe over.
A distinction is sometimes made between legal

and political sovereignty. The former represents
, sovereignty as supreme law-making authority. The
charecteristics of legal sovereignty which we have
earlier analysed are: First, it is determinate and

definite; secondly, it may rest in one person or a
body of persons, thirdly, it is definitely organized,
precise, and recognized by law; fourthly, it alone
declares in legal terms the will of the state; fifthly,
disobedience to its commands means violation of
the law and hence punishment; sixthly, rights
emanate from it; and finally it is absolute, illimi-
table and supreme. The legal sovereign thus is ‘the
supreme law-making authority, recognised as such
by the law of the state.’
The term “Political Sovereignty’ is rather diffi-

eult to define. In a democratic country, while the
legal sovereign is the supreme law-making and law-
enforcing body, there is behind it, the will of the
people which is the ultimate and final source of all
authority. It is the authority from whose verdict
there can be no appeal. In the words of Dicey,
“Behind the sovereign which the law recognises,
there is another sovereign to whom the legal sover-
eign must bow.’ He adds further: ‘that body is
politically sovereign, the will of which is ultimately
obeyed by the citizens of the state.’38
The political sovereign is ‘the sum total of the

influences in a state which lie behind the law.’ In
modern democracies it is the electorate which
create public opinion and to which, in practice, the
legal sovereign will usually conform. Whereas the
38. A. V. Dicey, The Law of the Constitution.

legal sovereign is definitely organised and discover-
able, the political sovereign is vague and indetermi-
nate, though none the less real.
It is not possible to give an exact definition of
the term ‘political sovereignty’ because it is rather
vague and indeterminate. Its location cannot be
made with exactness. In a country in which direct
or pure democracy prevails, legal and political
sovereignty are different in countries where democ-
racy is of the representative or indirect type. Some
writers identify political sovereignty with the
collective community, some with the mass of the
people, some with the general will, some with
public opinion, some with the physical power of
that part of the people who can bring about a
successful revolution. Each one of these points of
view contains some truth, but it is impossible to
point out that anyone of them is entirely sound as
against the rest.
It is evident that by this time the whole subject

of sovereignty had become a hopeless confusion of
a number of different issues and view points.
Secondly, there is confusion between final decision
and omnipotence. Thirdly, there is confusion
between legal theory and actual political practice.
It is pointed out that in Britain, behind an Act of
Parliament are the voters, whose verdict can dis-
miss the parliament and secure new policies ; again
in the United States, the verdict of the Supreme
Court can be upset by an amendment to the
constitution, making constitutional what the court
has declared to be unconstitutional - thus in both
countries, as indeed in all democracies, ‘political
sovereignty’ observes Soltau, ‘lies with public
opinion as expressed by the electorate.’
In India at present sovereignty is vested in the

Constitution as such. The constitution provides
for a federal union in which the states are assigned.
alist of powers, with restrictions, suggesting the
well-worn American theme of state’s rights.
Neither are the Justices of the Indian Supreme
Courts unmindful of the great decisions in the
realm of state’s rights handed down by the federal
courts in the United States. It is not likely, how-
ever, that the constitutional history of India will
be punctuated by comparably great legal battles
over states’ rights because the state’s powers in
India are encompassed with complex formulae of
delegated, concurrent, and residual powers which,
in the light of ‘Public interest? for the time being,
would give the states but little legal support,in a
dispute.
However, the situation in India is that political

and parliamentary life of a country designed to
have a federal system derives its stability not-from
the individual federal states but almost exclusively.
from the centre-even while that the very centre
is partly responsible for the growing instability in
the states. The reason for this-is not that: the
centre does not grant the states any real sovereign
39. R.H. Soltau, op. cit., p. 102.

WESTERN POLITICAL, THOUGHT 431
power. Actually, the power vested in the states is
fairly large.
_. Above ali this, it is to be noted that people

themselves may be under the influence of particular
individuals of high repute, or groups, or interests,
or political parties, and be so dominated by them
in their voting that it becomes difficult to say where
sovereignty really lies! (as is evident in the recent
election reverses to the party in power in some
states.) .
_ The problem of. the real location of political

sovereignty has not yet been solved; it is perhaps
enough to say that the real sovereign is normally
only the representative of the real sovereign power,
which actually controls it, and that the location of
that real sovereignty may differ in varying circum-
stances.. ‘That body is politically sovereign’ says
Dicey, ‘the will of which is ultimately obeyed by
the citizens of the state.’
Another confusion arising out of this problem

is between actual authority and its source. 74 is
one thing to say that all authority comes from the.
people and another to say that the people actually
govern. This they obviously cannot do; govern-
ment can only be the action of a few.
Lastly there is a confusion between the theory
actual
of government, both legal and political, and
daily practice. All this detailed argumentation
about the location of sovereign power overlooks
432, THE CONCEPT OF SOVEREIGNTY
the fact that the greater part of our social and
political life ‘rests more on custom and tradition
than on reasoned analysis and conscious approval.”
As Sir John Salmond, the greatest jurist of modern
times observed: ‘Custom is to society as what law
is to the state.’ ்‌
In fact, itis probably just as well not to raise

too many legal issues. ‘Political power may flow
most smoothly when juristic exactness hibernates,
when the question as to ultimate authority is not
too sharply raised, when the Crown remains, as it
were, a fiction. Consistency may well be inconsis-
tent with reality.”
Legal and Political sovereigny should be

different manifestations of the same sovereignty
through different channels. Gettell contends that
‘it is unfortunate that the same term “sovereignty”,
should be applied to two sources so radically
different. It seems preferable to limit the term
“sovereignty” to its purely legal application and
to call the extra-legal forces behind it “ public
opinion” or “general will’.4! Furthermore he
observes: ‘Any attempt to find a ‘political
sovereign’ back of the legal sovereign destroys the
value of the entire concept and reduces sovereignty
to a mere catalogue of influences.’
40. C.E. Merriam, Systematic Politics, Chicago Univer-

sity Press, 1945.
41. K.G. Gettell, op. cit,, p. 129.

WESTERN POLITICAL THOUGHT = 433
It is clear from all these that the only sover-
eignty that the lawyer and the judge can recognize
is the legal. Public opinion, general ‘will, wishes
of the electorate, possibilities of revolution, etc.,
all affect the decisions of the legal sovereign. But
they are neither definite nor organized as in the
legal sovereign. A well-ordered state requires the
supremacy of the legal sovereign. It should pro-
vide at the same time the free scope possible for
the bringing about by constitutional methods of
the change desired by the people.
From political sovereignty to popular sover-

eignty there is a natural transition. According to
the doctrine of popular sovereignty, ultimate
authority rests with the people. The concept of
popular sovereignty is the ideological foundation
of the constitutional structure of modern democra-
tic states. Democracy, as we understand, is built
upon the premise that ultimate authority resides in
the people who in their aggregate capacity are
sovereign. The case of popular sovereignty was
espoused by Cicero of ancient Rome. Locke
repudiated the divine right of the kings and laid
emphasis upon the ultimate sovereignty of the
people. Rousseau and Jefferson were the most
passionate champions of the ultimate authority of
the people. : ,
Two possible meanings that can be given to

the term ‘people’ in defining popular sovereignty
men’,
are (a) ‘the total unorganized indeterminate
People as is unders tood in the
(b) the electorate.
first sense, cannot obviously be the sovereign. As

regards the second, people can act only through
legal channels if they are to be regarded as sovereign
in any sense of the term. In actual practice, popular
sovereignty seems to mean nothing more than
public opinion in times of peace and the might of
revolution ‘in the case of conflict.’ .
Interpreted in this manner, there is little to

distinguish popular sovereignty from political
sovereignty. Gilchrist holds that popular sever-
eignty is practically equivalent to political liberty
or ‘popular control.’ It means the power of the
masses as against the power of an individual ruler
or of a class, Gettell, on the other hand, holds
‘Sovereignty of the people is a contradiction in
terms.’ Laski says that all that political sovereignty
seems to mean is that the interests which prevail
must be the interests of the mass of men rather
than of any special portion of the community. But
‘this is to raise debate, not to settle it’ |
Sovereignty being a question of fact, a distine-

tion is Sometimes made between de jure and de
facto sovereignty. The de jure sovereign is the legal
sovereign and the de facto sovereign is the actual
Sovereign - a sovereign which is actually obeyed by
the people whether it has a legal status or not.
-While a revolution is in progress, there ate two
rival claimants of sovereignty: the former legal or
de jure sovereignty, and the new, illegal, and revolu-
tionary aspirant to supremacy.. If the attempted
revolution ultimately fails, the de faéto sover-

eignty never becomes de jure, and is considered
legally never to have been a sovereignty. If, how-
ever, the revolution succeeds, the de facto sovereign
becomes the de jure sovereign. As Byrce observes,
‘the person or body of persons who can make his
or their will prevail whether with the law or against
the law: he, or they, is the de facto ruler, the
person to whom obedience is actually paid.” John
Austin objects to the distinction between de jure
and de facto sovereignty on the ground that the
sovereignty is essentially a legal concept, and
hence, what is not grounded.in law, cannot be
called sovereign.
One of the most difficult questions for a student

of political science to answer pertains to the loca-
tion of sovereignty in the state. It may be asked:
where within the state, is its sovereignty located?
Warious solutions to this crucial problem have
been offered. According to Gilchrist, the location
of the sovereignty of the state is simply the state
and the state alone. Political sovereignty, lies in -
the will of the people shaped by the various influ-
ences which exist in any body of people. Political
or,
sovereignty is ‘the centre of the national forces,
of national life, majesty,
the concentrated essence
sover-
and powér focussed to a point.’ Political
eignty lies with the people, it is real, ever existing
42. Byrce, Studies in History and Jurisprudence, Vol, Il,

pp. 513-16.
‘436 =THE CONCEPT OF SOVEREIGNTY
power, which is co-terminous with the state itself.
De facto sovereignty or, as Bryce calls it, “practical
mastery’, seems at times practically synonymous
.with political sovereignty in the sense that political
sovereignty is the ultimate deciding factor in legal
sovereignty but de facto sovereignty is really the
actual power which is obeyed at any time, whether
it is de jure or not, or whether it rests on the will
of the people or not. Political sovereignty is the
power the organised issue of which is legal sover-
eignty.8 The location of legal sovereignty in a
state is a matter for lawyers. In some governments
it is easy to tell where legal supremacy lies. The
English constitution is flexible and is not hemmed
in on ali sides, as the American Constitution. In
the United Kingdom, legally speaking, the parlia-
ment including the Queen, Lords and commons is
supreme. It can promulgate any laws and repeal
them. Hence it is described as the legal sovereign.
The political sovereign is the people as a whole, or
strictly speaking the electorate.
In the United States, owing to its rigid cons-

titution, it is not so easy to locate sovereignty.
Neither the president nor the legislatures, federal
or state, enjoy absolute legal powers. Every act of
theirs which exceeds the limits of the constitution
can be questioned by the appropriate courts.
‘Sovereignty, therefore is not vested in them but
rests in that body which is legally entitled to
43. R.N. Gilchrist, op. cit., p. 99.

change the constitution.“* Roucek says: ‘The

American system of checks and balances precludes
the placing of sovereignty in any single branch of
government.’
Gettell and a few other writers take exception
to the point of view which regards legal sovereignty
as vested in that body which can make and amend
the constitution. Their chief contention is that
‘the constitution - making organs act intermittently
and at infrequent intervals, in some cases never’,
while the sovereignty of the state must be con-
stantly exercised. They, therefore, locate sover-
eignty in ‘the sum total of all law-making bodies
in the government.’ According to this view, then
sovereignty includes ‘all the organs of government
except those that are purely administrative.
The theory sometimes advanced that sover-

eignty is placed in the sum of the law-making
bodies within the state, rests on a confusion
of the
44. Whis body is described by the constitution
5, in the followi ng words: ‘The
United States. Article
shall
Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses
ents to this
deem it necessary, Shall propose amendm
the legislature
constitution, or on the application of
a conven-
of two-thirds of the several states, shall cal]
either case,
tion for proposing amendments which, in
of
ghall be valid to all intents and purposes as part
legislatures of
this constitution, when ratified by the
or by conventions
three-fourths of the several states,
mode
$n three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other
of ratification may be proposed by Congress.’
between the state and government. Gilchrist com-
menting on this observes: ‘These law-making
bodies, however, express this will only because
of the sovereignty of the state. The legislature
in any state may delegate powers to country
councils, district bodies, municipalities and se
forth, but these powers of the organs of govern-
ment are merely concrete expressions of the sover-
eignty of the state. They are not divisions of the
sovereignty of the state, but manifestations of its
organic unity.
Donald E. Russell says that the only conclu-

sion to be drawn is that in the U.S. A. no organ
of government, no body or group Within the body
politic exercises in tote the powers of sovereignty.
He regards as a mistake the view that sovereignty
in the U. S. A. is non-existent or shifts every now
and then. This confusion is due to failure in diffe-
rentiating between the state and its agent, viz., the
government. There is diffusion of powers or the
delegation of the powers of sovereignty. The
ultimate source for the exercise of authority within
the state is the sovereign will of the state. The
principal is the state, and government is the agent
of the state.
The theory which locates sovereignty in the

sum total of all the law-making bodies in the
government, is considered as the most satisfactory
Solution to the difficult problem of locating lega
sovereignty within the state. As Gettel] observes
‘It combines the strong points of the popula:
sovereignty theory with the legal definiteness of the

constitution-making theory, and it adheres most
closely to actual facts. Like the popular sover-
eignty theory, it recognizes that in modern demo-
cratic states, sovereign powers are widely distributed
and exercised by a number of the state’s citizens.
Like the constitution-making theory, it recognizes
that sovereignty is a legal concept and can be
exercised only through legal channels and in a
legal manner. It avoids the vagueness and loose
thinking of the first point of view; at the same
time it steers clear of the legal abstraction which,
in the second, by pushing sovereignty too far back,
almost destroys its existence. It corresponds with
the facts in that it conceives of sovereignty as
exercised by the organs of government that are
constantly, yet legally, engaged in framing and.
giving efficacy to the state’s will. Sovereignty
resides in the state, but only through the laws made
and administered by its government can its sover-
eignty be manifested.’®
as the
The concept of internal sovereignty
has been attac ked from sever al
essence of the state
One group of writers denies the
points of view.
of sovereignty or argues that it is not
existence
necessary to state existence. Another group denies
that sovereignty is the source of law, holding that
is superior to its
law exists outside the state and
Still another group denie s that sover-
sovereignty.
‘eignty'is the exclusive possession of the state, and
45. R. G. Gettel, op. cit., p- 135.

argues for a plurality of sovereignties possessed by

various associations.
Bertrand De Jouvenel makes the following

illuminating observations: Absolute sovereignty
is entirely a modern idea. The essential function
of the sovereign is to ensure the reliability of
individual’s environment. Society, he holds, ‘offers
in fact an intricate texture of duces and reges. It
is the sovereign’s business to see that the reges
operate to repair the insecurity caused by initiatives,
not to preclude them; and itis his duty to intervene
to the extent necessary for the adequate fulfilment
of the function of rex.46 He holds that state -
action is a companion to individual initiative. He
contends that ‘if society is so run as to allow
individuals great freedom of initiative, and if by
the enjoyment of the freedom individuals have
exhausted their elbow-room, then they are not free
to demand that the government do some one thing
or another, irrespective of the circumstances
created by their own use of freedom.’4?7 The idea
here advanced is not new; it is fundamental to
Rousseau’s Social Contract. The conclusion to be
drawn concerns the spirit of government and the
spirit of citizen. ‘The public spirit, in short con-
sists in awareness that the sovereign, as such, is
46. Bertrand De Jouvenel, Sovereignty—An inquiry into

the Political Good, Cambridge University Press,.
1957, p. 300,
47, Ibid., p. 302.
unfree to do anything not consonant with the per-

formance of its function.” ‘It should not be
mistaken for a plea of greater political indepen-
dence for those in office. What they stress is that
the performance of the function of sovereignty
depends upon the public spirit.’
The main trend in contemporary political

philosophy consists in the manipulation of the
methods of philosophical analysis developed in the
English-speaking countries in the last few decades.
T. D. Weldon’s The Vocabulary of Politics is
popularly supposed to have proclaimed the death
knell of political philosophizing. Weldon claimed
as
that the various philosophical theories put forth
foundations for liberal democracy, communism ,
are held
and authoritarianism cannot do what they
Either they are logically empty and thus
todo.
mistaken and
have no consequences, or they are
open to refu-
harmful empirical generalizations
tation.”
simply one
Weldon has argued that the state is
h men seek to
of a number of associations by whic
points out that
regulate their social lives." He
more important
some thinkers view the state as
ches, fraternities,
than other associations like chur
48. Ibid., p. 303.

p, 365.
49. Paul Edwards, op. cit., Vol. VI,
of Politits, Penguin
50, T. D. Weldon, The Vocabulary
Books 1953, p. 46, ff.
or recreational clubs. He insists that this some-
what outdated view rested on the mystical convic-
tion that the state derived its authority from God,
and thus was ‘‘seen’’ as possessing supernatural
status-a position no longer tenable now that
scientific developments have shown the error in
‘magical’ explanations of the origins of the world.
Thus Weldon rejects the ancient conception of
state and its authority. Despite his denial of the
usefulness of the possibility of providing founda-
tions for a political view-point, Weldon’s alterna-
tive description of the political process is a good
example of philosophizing about politics, and he
himself claimed that “a great deal needs to be done
about the language in which discussions of political
institutions are conducted.”*!
Ward sum up the discussion of the concept of

sovereignty thus: ‘Sovereignty is a notion that has
been carried over, out of the setting in which its
historical function lay, with its implications of
irresponsible absoluteness and inherent supremacy
of law, to plague and befog contemporary thought
with ideas of national exclusiveness, inhererit
rights, moral absolutisn and legal omnipotence.’
‘The Western impact has profoundly changed
the traditional Indian outlook in every sphere of
life. In fact, it would have been surprising had it
been otherwise. The economic basis of Indian life
51. Ibid., p.172. :

52. Quoted by R. H. Soltau, op. 885, p. 103.
has changed and with changes in economic struc-

ture, there have come social and political changes
that have transformed both individual and commu-
nal conduct. Authoritarianism is steadily giving
place to democracy based on a liberal, rational
outlook.
in India, parliamentary democracy is not the

result of a natural development. It has not grown
organically on the country’s own political and
spiritual climate. It has been introduced, by a
small elite, educated abroad and hardly able to
communicate with the population, the large part of
which is mentally walled in by tradition and
conceptions thousands of years old. The Govern-
ment hopes to overcome this difficulty by reviving
ona democratic basis, the age-old but long defunct
panchayat system which gives each village a certain
autonomy. This is one of the boldest and most
If it
interesting experiments of modern India.
8 solid basis for
succeeds, it will give the country
democracy. It is considered that decentraliza tion
anarchy.
of democracy would lead to enlightened shall
We
Gandhi advocated a stateless society.
ideal of the state in the next
examine the Gandhian
chapter.
CHAPTER SIX
SARVODAYA
AND THE PROBLEM
OF POLITICAL
SOVEREIGNTY
SARVODAYA AND THE PROBLEM OF
POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY
Mahatma Gandhi’s contribution to Indian

politics has been immense. His philosophy depends
on his premise about absolute truth and Satyagraha,
and fundamental conceptions about man, society
and the state. Unlike the Western political philo-
sophers, Gandhi was reluctant to worry himself to
propound a systematic theory of the state. He said
with Cardinal Newman:
‘ 1 do not ask to see the distant scene:
one step enough for me.’
A seeker after Truth, Gandhi had implicit

He
faith in a good deed producing a good result.
with probl ems
lived and acted in the present dealing
iate
as they arose, concentrated on the immed
fruits thereo f.
duties without any attachment to the
belie ved
This is the central teaching of Gita. He
ted the
in the universality of God, hence he accep
concep-
theory of equality of all. Again from his
tion of truth followed his theory of satydgraha
or resistance to untruth, injustice and tyranny.
epitomises the entire philosophy of
Sarvodaya
Gandhi.
rimented with
Throughout his life, Gandhi expe
y it to all spheres of
non-violence, trying to appl
448 SARVODAYA STATE
life and studying its possibilities. The non-violent

state which he envisaged was in accordance with
the principles of satyagraha. Gandhi, felt that to
try to determine in detail the institutional form of
the future non-violent state was premature and
unscientific. Thus he wrote, “‘I have purposely
refrained from dealing with what the nature of
government in a society based wholly on non-
‘violence will be like.”
The well-known ‘one-step-enough-for-me’ prin-

ciple of Gandhi has also to be understood in the
context of his views on the relation between the
means and the end. if the means are tainted with
violence, physical or non-physical, the resulting
state will be neither non-violent nor democratic,
for the strong will seize power and exploit the
weak. The way to non-violent democracy lies
through the adoption of non-violence as the creed
and not as a mere policy. Hence the reason, why
to Gandhi, the problem of the technique of non-
violence included in itself the problem of the insti-
tutional form of ‘swaraj’. ‘For me’, he repeatedly
said, ‘ahimsa comes before swaraj.’
Gandhi’s philosophy of state has to be derived

from a large number of stray passages in his
speeches, writings, statements, interviews and
letters strewn over a period of nearly half a
century. The “Hind Swaraj’ first published in 1938
and The Story of My Experiments with Truth’ also
1. Harijan, Feb. 11, 1939, p. 8.
POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY 449
provide us with materials that help us in construct-

ing his philosophy of the state. .
What is the place of the state in the general

framework of Gandhian philophy? How far, and
in what manner, do we need this political organiza-
tion to attain the ultimate end of Gandhi's thought,
°
namely the greatest good of all? To Gandhi;
good means not the material well-being of the
individual and the society, but the realization of
the self. Does the state contribute to that end?
Ts the state a natural phenomenon as was postu-
lated by T. H. Green or the Greek philosophers?
It is a necessity? A satisfactory explanation
demands a survey of Gandhi’s reflections on the
nature of the state. ~
It is obvious to us that Gandhi was opposed to

the idea of the state. He stood for the stateless
society. State implies force and violence. We
cannot conceive of the state without the element
of force, as an essential attribute. The use of force
as the sanction behind the laws of the state, and its
application in setting international disputes leads
one to think of force as the main feature of the
state. Besides Gandhi, other thinkers, especially.
of
liberals, have accepted the non-violent character
the state as the ultimate ideal. |
The faith of liberalism in individual liberty,

s,
whether on utilitarian grounds or on moral ground
that human personality be free from
demands
coercion. The predominance given to reason both
450 : SARVODAYA
m individual and social life by J.S. Mill throws

the element of force into the background-
T. H. Green gives explicit recognition to what is
implicit in J. S. Mill when he says: ‘Will, not force,
is the basis of the state.’
ச Gandhi is more explicit in adopting the ideal
of non-violence which follows from his metaphysics.
But if force does not play any part in the ideal, it
does not follow that it can be eliminated from the
actual conditions of life. Hence, according to Green
.and Gandhi, an ideal ceases to be an ideal if it is
fully realized. Both Green and Gandhi recognise
the necessity of the use of force in practical politics
‘and refer to it as unavoidable or inevitable because
of human imperfections. Gandhi writes: ‘So long
as he (man) continues to be a social being, he
Cannot but participate in the himsa (violence) that
the very existence of society involves.2 As far as
the state is concerned, it Tepresents for Gandhi,
“Violence in a concentrated and organised form.’
As such the state can never attain the status of
his
ideal. When Gandhi speaks of a non-violent society,
‘it would really mean the negation of the
state
because the state depends on coercion which
is the
negation of non-violence. We could, therefore,
only speak of this as a stateless society,
and this
remains Gandhi’s ideal. What is possible
is the
gradual progression of the actual state towar
ideal.
ds the
‘A government’, says Gandhi, ‘cannot suc-
ceed in becoming entirely non-violent, because it
2, M. K. Gandhi, My Experiments with Truth, N. P. H,
Ahmedabad, p. 292.
POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY 451.
represents all the people. Ido not today conceive

of such a golden age. But I do believe in the
possibility of a predominantly non-violent society.
And I am working for it."2 The ideal non-violent
society only represents for the actual state the
direction, not the consummation. The actual state
is a process rather than a static stage.
Thus Gandhi did not have a fixed idea of the

state, but a progressive one. He believes ‘in the
possibility of the development of human persona-
lity to a higher level of moral experience, and,
consequently, of the emergence of a different
political pattern. The higher the individuals rise in
the moral order, the less the necessity of the use of
force in the state. Gandhi wanted the subordina-
moral
tion of political and social considerations to
An individual can realize his moral
considerations.
nature, which is his real nature, only by pursuing
The
the path of ahimsa, satya. and niskama karma,
to trans-
ethical process-man’s continuous effort
is fulfilled in
late the great vows in personal life -
moral energy. That
the individual by the release of
order is transcribed
is the way in which the cosmic
human conduct. If this law
into the alphabets of
which is universal and ineluc-
of Moral Causation environ-
with a will, man and his
table, is worked
will be changed
ment in this life and the future
good for
so as to secure ‘Sarvodaya’,. the highest
all.
3. Harijan, March 9% 1940,

452 SARVODAYA
The political philosophy of Sarvodaya which is
the ideal state according to Gandhi, is an intellec-
tual attempt to build a plan of political and social
reconstruction on the basis of metaphysical idea-
lism. Sarvodaya is an attempt to develop Gandhian
ideas regarding decentralization and villagism.
Gandhi’s structure of the state is based on the

fundamental ethical principles. We have pointed
out that non-violence is the governing principle of
political life. The state is justified is so far as it
helps the realization of the ethical ideal. But the
State through legal enforcement cannot directly
promote morality, it can only create conditions
necessary for making morality possible. The
primary requirement for a moral life, is individual
initiative and freedom.
In Gandhi we find a comprehensive concept of

freedom.* He claimed that his conception of free-
dom signified ‘the freedom of man in all his
majesty.”> To him freedom is a process of growth
in quest of coherent moral purpose and actions.
4. M.K. Gandhi, ‘Liberty’, Indian Opinion, Collected

works, Vol. X, p. 121, defines liberty as the power to
act according to one’s conscience, Slavery, hence, is
tantamount to renunciation of one’s will and acting
in conformity to the dictates of the government.
Since liberty is the ability to act in accordance with
the voice of conscience, it can be preserved only by
soul force and not by the force of arms.
5. Harijan, June 7, 1942.

Gandhi’s devotion to individual rights made

him a fighter for democratic freedom. He stressed
communal unity and the absolute elimination of
untouchability among the foundations of political
freedom. ‘Only a community constituted by per-
sons imbued with a sense of deep social cohesive-
ness can attain the benefit of Swaraj. Hence it is
essential to combine the quest for political indivi-
duality with the voluntary acceptance of social] and
political discipline which is the basis of social
solidarity and cohesiveness. Gandhi’s scheme of
Freedom as elucidated in the Hind Swaraj can be
thus represented :
(i) True Swaraj = Kingdom of the soul.
(Spiritual and Moral Freedom)
(ii) Satyagraha as the key to it (Political
Freedom) (Satyadgraha - dayabala or
atmabala)
(iii) Swadeshi (Economic Freedom) (Neces-

sary for putting Satyégtaha in
practice)
According to Gandhi, moral and spiritual freedom

two
depend on the effective cultivation of the
of truth and non-vi olence . — He
ancient virtues
never accept ed the view of freed om as arbitr arines s
Genuine swaraj is a function of the
or licence.
devel opmen t of inner sources of power.
the prophet of Satyagraha, Gandhi stood

As
of man
for the inalienable, natural and moral right
ச்‌
454 ' SARVODAYA
to stand against untruth, injustice and wrong in
any form. He stressed the correlation between
tights and obligations. Hence he repudiated the
divine rights of Kings to rule. Gandhi had ‘an
axiological or valuational conception of rights and
he affirmed that without the acceptance of a system
of altruistic aims and goals and moral values and
without the effective ordering of life and its con-
duct by them, a man’s existence would becomé
empty, and devoid of meaning and spiritual orien-
tation.’ Gandhi pleaded for the adjustment of
individualism based on rights to the criteria and
requirements of performance of duties for social
progress.
Gandhi had a comprehensive conception of the

rights and duties of man. His philosophy of rights
represents a synthesis of the individualistic and
teleological conceptions of rights. He does not
teach social compliance and acquiescence or com-
plete political subordination as Hegel and Bosan-
quet do. Gandhi’s conception of political swaraj
is based on the individualistic theory of inalienable
Tights because he is an advocate of resistence to
unjustified social and political authority. ,
The structure of a non-violent state should be
such as to facilitate individual’s. intiative and
voluntary organization. This would mean the
repudiation of the state in any form whatsoever.
Indeed a completely non-violent state could hardly
be called a state. It could only be called a non-
violent society. It is a sort of enlightened anarchy.
‘In sueh a state every one is his own ruler. He

rules himself in such a manner that he is never a
hindrance to his neighbour. In the ideal state,
therefore, there is no political power because there
is no state.” The foremost requirement of such a
society, according to Gandhi, is decentralization
of political life.
‘Centralization as a system’, says Gandhi, ‘is
inconsistent with the non-violent structure of
society.’ ‘It cannot be sustained and defended
without adequate force.’ He looks upon ‘centrali-
zation’ with the greatest fear as it results in the
concentration of power in a few hands and conse-
quent likelihood of its misuse. Above all, is his
fear that centralization would curb the individual
initiative — and individuality, for Gandhi, lies at the
root of ali progress. It is only through individual
initiative and freedom that moral values can be
realised and, consequently, the ideal of self-realiza-
tion achieved.
The nearest approach to his ideal of decentra-

omous
lised society, Gandhi finds in the auton
India. ‘Socie ty based on
village communities of in
only consis t of groups ” settle d
non-violence can
on is the
villages in which voluntary co-operati He
condition of dignified and peaceful existence. based
says: ‘The nearest approach to civili zation
village ic of republ
‘on non-violence is the erstwhile
that
India. J admit that it was very crude, T know
M. K. Gandhi, Harijan, Jan. 13, 1940. |

6.
456 SARVODAYA
there was in it no non-violence of my definition

and conception. But the germ was there.’ He said
in 1916: ‘Following out ‘Swadesh?’ spirit I observe
the indigenous institutions and the village ‘pancha-
yats’ hold me. India is really a republican country,
and it is because it is that, that it has survived
every shock hitherto delivered.” The ideal society
of Gandhi’s conception will consist of more or less
self-sufficing autonomous village communities.
This ‘Panchayat Raj’ is in accord with the ancient
traditions of India which we have analysed in the
earlier chapter.
Before going into the details of Panchayat Raj

let us try to understand Gandhi’s approach to the
-problem of the state.
Gandhi, asis well-known, is considered as ‘a
philosophical anarchist who, ideally speaking,
repudiates the state as such, whatever its forms.’
It has frequently been said that Gandhi was a con-
servative. As we examine these assertions, we shall
judge whether or not he was an anarchist.
There were several aspects of conservatism at

work among the influences which shaped Gandhi’s
development. We have already analysed in detail
the various influences which shaped him. Conser-
vatism, we take to be an attitude toward political
institutions and a philosophy of social relationships
which includes: (1) a respect for the wisdom of
7. Speeches. p. 276,
established institutions, especially those concerned

with religion and property; (2) a strong sense of
continuity in the historical changes of the social-
system; (3) belief in the relative importance of
individual will and reason to reflect societal
change from its course, and (4) a keen moral satis-
faction in the loyalty that attaches the members of
a society to their stations in its various ranks.®
Bondurant observes: ‘From a quick reading of
some of Gandhi’s writings, one might conclude
that such references as those to * Panchayat Raj’
and ‘Ram Raj’ suggest political reaction. «His
nostalgic recollections of India’s past, coupled with
his comments urging the rejection of aspects of
modern Technology, have led some observers to
label Gandhi a traditionalist and a reactionary.’ ®
She adds: ‘Had he not undertaken his ‘ experi-
ments with truth’ the answer might have been
‘yes’. Early in his life Gandhi discarded the
belief in the relative importance of individual will
and reason to deflect the course of historical
‘change. Once ‘he had abandoned this criterion of
conservatism, his experiments began. Frm these
experiments emerged a philosophy and a technique
‘which were to transform the conservative and to
truest sense of striking at
fashion a radical in the
the root.’ .
the four criteria of Conservatism,
8. This statement of
George
only slightly modified, has been adapted from Holt,
, A Histor y of Politic al Theory, Henry
Sabine
New York, 1947, p- 617.
9. Bondurant, op cit., p. 149.
16. Ibid., p. 172.
458 SARVODAYA
Was Gandhi an anarchist ? Agreement or dis-
agreement with the above statement should pro-
ceed with an analysis of the various theories of
anarchism in the West. Anarchism is an extreme
form of individualism. Etymologically anarchism
means No rule and its exponents, while differing in
many other respects, are all opposed to the state
and government. The general idea behind anarch:
ist theories is that human justice cannot be attain-
ed within the state. The state, or government
which is regarded as a means of oppression and
exploitation, must be abolished and its place taken
by some sort of co-operative socia) organization in
which there is the maximum of organized control.
Human nature in essence is good and pure, but the
state has corrupted it. When the state has been
abolished and its place taken by voluntary associa-
tion, the human spirit will gradually reassert
its
natural tendency or reason and justice. Most
anarchistic writers, while assuming the purity of
natural motives, admit that, at least for a time,
some sort of coercive power will be necessary to
prevent lawlessness and invasion. Ultimately, they
think that human nature will emerge pure and free,
So that every one will be a law to himself and will
require no communal restraint.
Anarchists are, broadly, of two types: those

that place the individual above society and hence
are called the individualist or philosophical anarch
-
ists and those that stress collective life more
than the individual, the Communist-anarchists.
Individualistic anarchism flourished chiefly in

Germany. The best known representative was
Max Stirner. He set up as an ideal, the complete |
freedom of the human spirit. The theory of indivi-
dualistic anarchism was also put forward in
America by Josiah Warren and Benjamin Tucker.
The leader of the anarchist movement was the

‘Russian, Michael Bakunin (1814-1876) who favoured
‘a free federation of individuals into groups and of
groups into a federation of the world.! His ideas
were adopted by another Russian, Peter Kropotkin
(1842-1919) who believed that the biological
principle of mutual aid would hold society together.
In France, Elisee, Reclus and Jean Grave repro-
duced Kropotkin’s ideas of Proudhon and Bakunin.
socialism
A mingling of anarchism and Christian
the work of Count Leo Tolstoy. His
appeared in
place of an
ideal was informal co-operation in
who glorified
organized society. Unlike Bakunine
as a method of attaining his end, and
in violence
necessity,
Kropotkin who accepted its probable
in forcible terms.
Tolstoy condemned its practice indivi-
one for the
Tolstoy’s message is, therefore,
dual soul.
stands in
We shall see how Gandhian thought
Bakunine who considered
opposition to that of the state,
y to abolish
-direct violent action necessar associa-
the dissimilarity between Gandhian
and
The Catechism of the
144. Bakunin’s works include: on.
of the Revo luti
Revolution, avd The Principles
460 SARVODAYA
tionist thought and the Proudhonian theory ‘of
‘mutalite’. .
Gandhi asserted that ‘a society organized and
run on the basis of complete non-violence would
be the purest anarchy.’ When asked by Mahadev
Desai, if he considered this a realizable ideal, he
replied: ‘yes’. Itis realizable to the extent non-
violence is realizable. The state is perfect and non-
violent where people are governed the least. The
nearest approach to purest anarchy would be a
democracy based on non-violence. The European
democracies, are to my mind, a negation of
democracy.’ ’
Thus Gandhi advocates ‘democracy based on
non-violence’. ‘Society based on non-violence’, |
he said, ‘can only consist of groups settled in
villages in which voluntary co-operation is the.
condition of dignified and peaceful existence.’
_ Gandhi agreed with the anarchist emphasis

upon individual freedom. It is in Gandhi’s
approach vis-a-vis society and his interpretations
_of individualism that we find a distinct difference
between Gandhi and that school of anarchism
which follows Proudhon in his concept of
“mutualite’. Proudhon would have society become
a “vast network of organized exchanges.’ Proudhon
recognized, as did Gandhi, the ‘ social bond’ as the
underlying principle of the ‘ political’ order.
12. M.K. Gandhi, Harijan, Jan. 13, 1940.

13. N.K. Bose, Selections from Gandhi, op. cit, p. 69.
_ William Godwin, in his Enquiry Concerning

‘Political Justice insists upon the priority of indivi-
dual ‘private judgment’ and his reliance upon
‘reason as the dynamic operating force in society is
remarkably Gandhian in thought. In his Political
Justice, Godwin emphasizes the necessity for
gradual and non-violent elimination of political
institutions.
For Godwin, as for Tolstoy and Gandhi, the

‘problem became one of how and to what extent
government can be eliminated. Where orthodox
anarchists failed in supplying a positive alternative
programme of social organization—Gandhi’s con-
structive programme is a significant contribution
for the promotion of the welfare of all.
n were
The followers of Proudhon and Kropotki
comm unit y organi-
attracted by the type of small The
zation represented in the old Russian mir.
Panchayat is
Indian villages with a functioning
syst em. The Panchayat
similar to the early Russian esenting
view ed as repr
of the Gandhian system was t at
ufficien
a self-sufficient village community—self-s Economic
of life.
least in the basic necessities
‘fro m the bottom upwards’
reconstruction would be the ‘founda-
woul d const itute
and the village unit
departure from the
tion of our planning.’ The
in the hierarchical
anarchist tradition is marked
linking the village
pattern to be established through
district, division,
panchayat with ~ the taluka,
purposes of common
province, and nation ‘for
462 SARVODAYA
policy and interests’ and by a system of indirect
elections except at the village level. The necessity
for government—-and for an administrative hier-
archy, although characterized by revolutionary
rather than devolutionary power channels—is
recognized in the Gandhian approach.
Gandhi’s conception of sovereignty may be
examined. Like anarchists, Gandhi was opposed
to the absolute sovereignty of the state. However,
he could not accept the over-all philosophical
_anarchist position. Despite Gandhi’s distrust of
the state machinery, he would, however, welcome
state action where it is likely to advancc the
welfare of the people.’!4
The Political ideal of Sarvodaya is mildly
anarchist. It regards the emergence ofthe state as
a form of social organization, an improvement
over the earlier condition of violent anarchy. It
marks a stage in the evolution of society from the
condition of the violence to that of non-violence.
But it is no more than an intermediary stage, and
the social fulfilment lies in rising to the higher
condition when men would need no coercive
authority at all to regulate their conduct.’ To
Vinoba, “Swaraj’ connotes a condition when none
would exercise authority over anybody else.
The Sarvodaya thinkers are critical of the state
for three reasons: First, it demands loyalty to itself
14, Loe. cit.
15. Vinoba, From Bhudan to Gramdan, S. S. 8. P, Benares
நி .
m preference to loyalty towards conscience and
humanity; secondly, its ultimate sanction lies in its
coercive power and this militates against the very
principle of non-violence; and lastly, it maintains a
big administrative apparatus and army at the
expense of the toilers and producers and thus
serves as an agency for exploitation of the people.
In short, the state does not stand the test of truth
and non-violence. Therefore, what is advocated is
a form of ‘spiritual anarchism’, a coersion-free
social order in which the people are developed and
enlightened enough to keep themselves on the right
path. In this order the government would not be
totally absent but would continue to exist like the
alarm chain of a railway compartment to be used
whenever emergency arises.”
The political ideal of Sarvodaya, therefore, is

an anarchism of its own type. It concedes that a
fully stateless society is beyond the reach of man,
and the goal of human endeavour can only be to
the
reduce the power and sphere of the state to
believ ed that govern ment to be the
minimum.'® He
governs least, and yet he held that
best which
‘there are certain things which cannot be done
political power’, even though there are
without
‘numerous other things which do not at all depend
16. Vinoba, Lokaniti, p. 176.

17, Vinoba, Pravachan.
ya,
18, Jayaprakash Narayan, From Socialism to Sarvoda
S. 8. S. P, Benares , 1959, p. 37:
464 ்‌ ‘SARVODAYA
upon political power. A nation is truly democra-

tic, he said, when it ‘runs its affairs smoothly and
effectively without much state intervention.’
There is also no question of the abolition of the
state all at once. Its authority is only to be achieved.
through the development of Jana Sakti or the non-
violent power of the masses. Thus Gandhi
opposed absolute sovereignty of the state in favour
of the political sovereign power of the masses.
Hence the problem of political sovereignty in

a Sarvodaya society, rests only with the people.
The emphasis is not on ‘Rdjya-Sakti but on loka-
Sakti, not on the government and governmental
action but on the people and people’s action. Rajya-
Sakti is but the reflection of loka-Sakti and those
who run after rdjya-Sakti neglecting loka-sakti are
chasing a chimera. This again is the utter reality
‘of the politics of democracy.
According to Vinoba, Loka-Sakti, civil power

means the non-violent self-reliant power of the
people. It is a power which is opposed to Himsa-
Sakti or the military power and different from
Danda-Sakti or the legal power of the state. The
difference between civil power and state power is
illustrated by Vinoba thus: “A Zero in combina-
tion with unity yields ten. The zero has its great
utility but without unity it is of no use. So unity
19. M.K. Gandhi, Harijan, Jan. 11, 1936.

' 20. Winoba, From Bhudan to Gramdan, §. P, Tanjore,
1957, Ch. V., pp. 20-28. _
POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY 465.
represents the self-reliant power of the people,

while zero represents the power of a government
circular. The students of mathematics know that
vast researches are conducted to investigate the
qualities of the zero. Yet it cannot be gainsaid
that it has no independent strength of its own.
Likewise, the state power can be effective only if it.
is based on the people’s initiative or loka-Sakti.’®
The Sarvodaya thinkers contend that state

legislation cannot create Joka-Sakti. That power
has to be created by suffering and satyagraha. The
more the civil power, the less the state power. And
the less the state power, the happier the people and.
the better the state. Thus there will the sovereignty
of pure moral authority.
ries
Even in the socialist or Communist count
ering away of the state’ ,
which believe in the ‘with
inuo usly moun ting up. Jaya-
state power is cont
socialists,
prakash Narayan observes: ‘Democratic
as well as welfarists (not to speak of
Communsits,
hope to bring”
the fascists) are all statists. They all
mill enni um by first
about their own variety of the
to the power s and func-
mastering and then adding state has
tions of the state ...... The bourg eois
ical power . The socia list state
monopoloy of polit
of economic
threatens to add to that the monopoly r would
of powe
power. Such a great concentration contr ol and
power , to
require equal, if not greater
and his mission, S. S.
21. Quoted by Suresh Ram, Vinoba
S. P , Varanasi, 1961.
466 _ SARVODAYA.
keep it in check. There would be no such power at
hand in a socialist society. Paper constitutions
could hardly be expected to guarantee freedom and
sovereignty to the citizen. Economic and political
bureaucracy would be so strong and in occupation
of such vantage points that liberties and the rights
of the people, as well as their bread, would be
entirely at its mercy ...J am aware that democ-
ratic socialists are conscious of these dangers and
are trying to devise checks and balances .......Even
decentralisation of authority and functions has
figured of late in socialist thinking. But after all
is said and done the democratic socialist state
remains a Leviathan that will set heavily on the
freedom of the people.’
Thus the generation of loka-Sakti is a perma-

nent necessity today. With the help of loka-Sakti
people will try to solve their problems by them-
selves. Government’s interference would be not
required. As an illustration, we note that Bhudan
envisages the formation of the social structure. on
the family basis of trust, love and co-operation as
against distrust, hatred and what is called as ‘survi-
val of the fittest’. Ina society governed by J/oka-
Sakti, the law of majority rule would be rendered
defunct. Only the unanimous voice of the people
would direct their course, again, as in a family.
There would be no place for power or party-poli-
tics. Society built on the basis of Joka-Sakti and
22. Quoted by Suresh Ram, op. cit., p. 411.:

POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY ~— 467
loka-niti would necessarily be free from present dis-

parities and disabilities. The state action would be
there, not as a binding but skasan-mukta (adminis-
tration-free), sama-ras (homogeneous) and paksatita
(partyless) society that Gramdan ventures to build
up. It would be a society honouring values and
sanctions different from those rampant today. In
Vinoba’s words: ‘The third force that we want to
raise is called constructive force or the force of
love. It has no reliance on military or legal sanc-
tion. It requires that the people should stand on
their own legs more and more and rely on govern-
ments less and less. Thus, the only way to real and
Jasting peace is to enable the people to solve their
problems themselves, i.e., by means of loka-sakt??
Civil disobedience and loka-Sakti, the forging
masses, go
of the sanction of the enlightened
Gramdan provides us the medium to
together.
render, as
generate ‘/oka-Sakti so that people may
what is Caesar ’s and to God
it were, to Ceasar
surest way
what is God’s. This is undoubtedly the
and state-
to establish a classless, exploitation-free
less society or Sarvodaya order.
society is that
The defect with the present-day
loka-niti, the politics of
instead of being based on
niti, the politics of
the people, it is based on raja
contrasted with each
power. These two can well be of
ening
other. While rdjaniti leads to the strength
the chief instrument of
the hold of the state as
23. Bhidan yajia.

468 SARVODAYA
social welfare, lokaniti encourages self-effort and
initiative on the part of the people and wants them
to promote their own welfare through voluntary
and autonomous institutions. Naturally then, while
rajaniti results in the extension and intensification
of administration, /okaniti develops self-control
and. self-discipline in the people. In rajaniti, people
‘compete for the acquisition of power, whereas in
lokaniti there is an anxiety to develop the civil
character of society through service and co-opera-
tion. The former results in an emphasis on rights,
the latter lays stress on the proper performance of
duties." However, the two can be reconciled.
The aim of the politics of a democratic state should
itself be to evolve into lokaniti and thus it can be
made to co-operate in realising it.’
Any idea of reshaping the face of the country
or society without reshaping man is futile even as
that of building a pucca house with old and raw
bricks. Nay, Gandhi went further and in his last
public document—known as his last will and testa-
ment to the nation-—he advised the Indian National
Congress—the oldest national political organiza-
tion and one which had, after many battles, fought
her non-violent way to India’s freedom-——to ‘ dis-
band’ itself and ‘flower into a Lok-seva-sangh’,
whose members would ‘derive their authority or
24. Dada Dharmadhikari : Introduction to Vinoba’s Loka-

niti, pp. 10-11.
25. Jayaprakash Narayan, A Picture of Sarvodaya Social
Order, 8. P, Tanjore, 1961, p. 53. -
power from service ungrudgingly and wisely done

to their master, the whole of India.’
We agree with Jayaprakash Narayan, that
Gandhi never had anything to do with politics in
the sense generally known. He observes: ‘The
movement for freedom that Gandhi led was ‘politi-
cal’ in the sense that its goal was the national
independence of India, it was not ‘politics’ in the
sense that it was a struggle for power for any parti-
cular party........-. Gandhi was not a patty leader
fighting and manouvering for power for his party.
Had it been so, it could never have occured to him
to ask the Congress to quit the field of power
politics. He was a national leader fighting for the
freedom of his country; nay, he was a world leader
from
of humanity working to free his fellowmen
The Indian freedom movement was a
bondage.
It was not rdaja-
peoples’ movement par excellence.
(Politics of
- niti (Politics of the State) but loka-niti
the people).’%6
taught us. But
Such was the politics Gandhi
departure
what followed after swaraj and Gandhi's
me associated
warped our course and politics beca
n of power.
with devotion to party and adoratio
of a true
It is lokaniti which can form the basis
The Sarvodaya thinkers acce pt that
democracy. con-
y so far
democracy is the best form of polit the
asser t that
ceived by human ingenuity, but they
existing democracies are defective.
26. Suresh Ram, op. cit., p- 435.

470 SARVODAYA
The most fundamental defect of democracy is
that it ignores the organic nature of society.’ It
bases itself on the individual voter and the whole
process rests on the arithmetic of votes leading to
an atomization of the individual. The so-called
public opinion is not an expression of the harmony
of purpose and the consensus of the people in
general, it is manufactured in the factory of society
in which different party-machines are run by the
big political bosses guided by the values of the
market. How the technological advancement as
also the diplomatic manoeuvores of power-elites
reinforced by the life-devouring sensate values have
rendered the common man helpness in discriminat-
ing truth and falsity is well discussed by Erich
Fromm in his ‘Sane Society’ and by P. Sorokin in
‘Power and Morality’. The individual is lost in
the midst of the ‘disorganised dust of individual’
which is called society.2”. The capitalistic compe-
titive struggle for wealth, which has also trans-
formed itself into that for power, is playing havoc
in the political field. It works through the instru-
ments of bribery, fraud, threats and murders used
in the elective campaigns." No wonder, the poor,
alienated, abandoned and demoralized individual
lacking in responsibility and effective volition sells
his vote for the government which is run for the
politicians and by the politicians. Besides, when
27. Emil Durkheim, Quoted by E. Fronn, Sane Society,

p. 151.
28. P. Sorokin & N. Lunden, op, cit., p, 132,

a majority-party gets elected it can establish dicta-

torial regime till the next election. Formal parlia-
mentarianism, therefore, has no real democratic
value.
It might be argued that this picture displays

the weakness of the Western Democratic society
which is the legitimate offspring of capitalism and
therefore has no parallel in Asian under-developed
and newly liberated societies. As such, the parlia-
mentary form of democracy, as some suggest, may
prove suitable to preserve and develop democratic
values in Asia. But this may only be outwardly
true. The developmental schemes of the govern-
ments, the tendency of the general elites and
and the proverty-stricken dumb
demagogues
- one and all aspire, to
millions in Asian countries the
of the Western and
attain the prosperity
countries. The danger that Western
communistic
is much
people will choose “security to liberty”
of these backward countries.
more true in the case
Besides in many of them, the old imperialistic
systems are kept intact
centralised bureaucratic
even after liberation.
Bureaucracy is part of the administrative
the more so in
structure under any government, frequently
may
democracy where the ministers bur eaucracy
In recent Ind ian hist ory,
come and go.
ch we inherited in 1947.
is a British creation whi y
cy in India has enormousl
But since then bureaucra
rty and Peace, p- 20.
29. A. Hurley, Science, Libe
472 " SARVODAYA
increased under the demands of a complex adminis-
tration and economic planning. And as bureaucracy
waxes in importance, the parliamentary system
wanes. The importance of technicians and adminis-
trators have grown at an unprecedented speed in
an era of planning in consequence of which bure-
aucracy has now spread up to the village level.
This is a rather serious, trend, which must be
checked immediately.
The present from of democracy has led to so
much centralization that every aspect of social life
has come under state control. Those elected to
power may be good and noble, but it does not alter
the verdict of history that centralization of autho-
rity always acts as a corrosive to human nature.
Since the present democracy is only a democratic
oligarchy in its practical form, it is doubtful if the
free spirit of man would ever remain satisfied
with it.2°
Linguistic provincialism, communalism, cas-
teism and other entrenched reactionary forces have
poisoned the political parties of India. Hence the
ignorant man, not only in India but all over Asia,
is no less helpless and politically exploited than
one in the Western society. It is the idea of the
capture of powers and not the success of democracy
that invigorates the demagogues here. Naturally,
if politics is a game for power, it is divorced from
morality.
40, Jayaprakash Narayan, A Plea Sor Reconstruction of

Indian Polity, 8, 8. S, Kashi, 1951, p. 3.
POLITICAL SOVEREIGNY 473
All this makes Sarvodaya reject many prevail-

ing conceptions and institutions, namely, the
conception of the welfare state, the majority
principle, the party system and even the present
method of direct elections. It would replace them
by welfare society, decisions by consensus of
opinion, partyless democracy and either a modified
system of direct election or of indirect elections
for choosing representatives to provincial. and
national legislatures.
Centralization is one of the worst enemies of
real democracy, even when it takes the garb of a
‘welfare state’, which has come to be looked upon
as a political ideal or rather the logical end of
political democracy. What Sarvodaya opposes 1s
not welfare, but a welfare state, and this opposi-
tion is based on several grounds. A welfare State
will to
robs the citizens of their initiative and
endeavour which are at the root of all progress.
It leaves no scope for the development of the
of love, compassion, sharing for
natural virtues
the common good etc.3! The concentration of
power it entails, makes a few individuals arbiters
of human destiny. It threatens to enslave man by
the welfare state is
totalitarianism. Moreover,
evils of unbridled
simply an attempt to mitigate the
so as to preserve the class of structure
capitalism only
of society. Thus Satvodaya thinkers reject
but concep-
also all the ancient
the welfare state
state in the West,.
tions of various theories of the
31. Vinoba, Bhadan, Sept. 3, 1960, p. 152.
474 SARVODAYA
which we have earlier analysed. Sarvodaya thinkers

envisage a society wherein the people themselves
would plan and carry out wélfare work for them-
selves. The state authority, they hold, may exist
to inspire and encourage them in this task and to
render help when they need it. The Sarvodaya
thinkers are not attracted by power politics which
increases the authority of the state and thereby
the power of those who, control the state, but by
‘strength politics’ which seeks to build up the
strength of the people and thereby to create a more
sturdy and lasting social order. The way to it lies
in educating the people regarding the need of self-
reliance and by training them to improve their lot
by their own initiative and endeavour.
The present-day democracy works ona bare

majority principle, which is inconsistent with the
very conception of Sarvodaya which stands for the
good of all. Political thinkers of the present day
support the rule by majority because of practical
necessity. The underlying principle of democracy
is that the will of the people must prevail and this
implies unanimity. But since unanimity is well-
nigh impossible in practice, a majority view is
taken to be the nearest equivalent to the will of the
people. Three arguments may be advanced in
support of this. First, since the majority is
expected to command greater physical force to
impose its will, it is safer to go by its opinion.
Secondly, since democracy postulates equal worth
‘POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY 475
of every individual conscience, the majority opinion

has a better title to be accepted. Lastly, if the
right of the minority to rule is accepted, an ines-
capable difficulty arises as to which minority should
be accorded this. right. In short, the argument for
the principle is either that of convenience or of the
fear that is not safe to go against the majority
view. There is no justification for the system,
though the second argument takes the garb of
ethics. None can deny that there are qualitative
differences in men, though for the purpose of com-
putation, it is an elusive element. However, it is
really the first argument that the majority com-
mands greater physical and mental power which
lies at the root of the majority principle.”
such
But to base democratic practice on
the very purpo se
dubious ground is a negation of the
no guara ntee that
of democracy. First, there is
minority to
majority would be able to compel the
and, secon dly the very
accept this point of view,
no place in an argu ment
idea of force should, find d
ity, as major ity shoul
for democracy. Thus a major calle d
Any form of gove rnme nt to be
not matter.
elicit and enlist, as
a democracy should be able to
thought, the will
far as is humanly possible, the of its mem-
yone
and the general capacity of ever
word s of Erne st Bark er, ‘It must be
bers.’23 In the
mutu al inter-change
. a government depending on the
rnment, op. cit-, p- 35.
32, E. Barker, Reflections on Gove
33. Ibid., p. 35.
476 SARVODAYA
of ideas, on mutual criticism of the ideas inter-

changed, and on the common and agreed choice of
the idea which emerges triumphant from the ordeal
of interchange and criticism........
The decisions in a
truly democratic government, therefore, should not
merely be the decisions of the majority, but they
must reflect compromises in which all the ideas are
reconciled and which can be acceptable to all
because they bear the imprint of all.4
The problem is how to attain it.. Vinoba

advocates the principle of consensus of opinion or,
of an overwhelming majority for arriving at any
decision.” It has been argued that the system of
the consensus of opinion could provide a minority
with a veto on all social decisions. This danger
seems to be real in the present state of psychology
and habits of men. But it can all be changed for
they are based on the wrong assumption that there
are conflicting interests in society and there is’
nothing like a common good. By proper training
and education people can be made to look at things
from the point of view of the common good and
not to press their opposition too far against any
overwhelming majority. Thus the principle would
be suitable to build a new social order. The need
now is, as pointed out by Marjorie Sykes, that the
individual human being, without letting go the
previous achievements of personal freedom and
- 34. Ibid., p. 35.

35, Vinoba, Pravachan, No. 257 of July 24, 1957,
responsibility, should be re-integrated into society

as a fully mature member of the team.*©
This process of decision by consensus of

opinion can very well begin in modern India, as
has been suggested by Shriman Narayan with
village Panchayats (Executives), Panchayat Samits
(Regional Councils), and Zilla Parishads (District
Councils). Rather, it is necessary for their success.
It could be achieved partly through the process of
intensive education and training of the rural masses
and partly by offering certain moral and financial
incentives to those panchayats or panchayat samitis
which conducted work in a spirit of humanity and
harmony. This incentive could be in the shape of
a greater share in the land revenue. Once such 4
not
beginning has been made with success, it should
to higher bodies
be difficult to extend the system
of government. Therefore the system of decisions
practicable, and
by consensus is both desirable and
to mitigate the evils of the
is the only method
majority rule.
Though partyless democracy is regarded as a

one of its greatest
sort of ‘must’ for democracy,
which has brought it to
internal difficulties and one
political parties. The
ill-repute is the institution of
develop the body-
aim of Sarvodaya is to shape and
politic ern in which the existence of
on a patt
Jan. 28, 1959, ற. 321.
36. Marjorie Sykes in Bhidan,
478 SARVODAYA
parties would be ruled out* the whole system of
political partiesis inconsistent with the fundamen-
tal approach of Sarvodaya. A party, as its very
name implies, stands only for a part of society. It
is a conspiracy against the rest of the people. As
such allegiance to a party is inconsistent with
loyalty to society, with the good of all, which is
the fundamental aim of sarvodaya. And the exist-
ence of political parties works against democracy,
for as M. N. Roy pointed out, with the rise of the
party system, the idea of popular sovereignty
became a constitutional fiction.*”
The experience of India after independence has
been far more unfortunate. Craving for absolute
power, the parties have neglected the good of the
country as a whole. In their anxiety to win power,
they have intensified casteism, linguism, provincia-
lism and such other tendencies as are inimical to
the progress and unity of the country. The remark
of a reputed British scholar is worth nothing:
“Purity has revolted against corruption; patriotism
has revolted against corruption; patriotism has
revolted against inefficiency added to corruption;
and in the name both of purity and patriotism
party politics and democracy at large have been
brought to the bar of judgement.*8
“The Radicai humanists in India also advocate partyless
democracy. They have put up their case in a more
systematic manner. Their arguments have been found
very useful in the discussion of this topic.
37. M.N. Roy, Politics, Power and Parties, Renaissance,
Calcutta, 1960, p, 67,
38. Quoted by M. N. Roy, op. cif., p. 93.
The criticisms levelled against political parties’
are numerous. One of the very serious charges is
that the system is immoral in that it gives birth to
demagogy, depresses political ethics and puts a
premium on unscrupulousness and aptitude for
manipulation and intrigue. The rigidity of the
party system makes individuals act against their,
conscience. Advantage is taken of the passing
moods and passions of the people. Local grievan-
ces are exploited and policies advocated with a
view to gain or retain power even if they are
against public good.” Secondly, the effect of the
on the public is not wholesome. It kills
system
values.
talent, initiative, and sensitiveness for moral
The political
and justice in the ordinary man.
of people’s
parties have become the real arbiters
Thirdly, they are anti-democratic. Their
destiny.
or oligar-
internal structure is essentially autocratic
tends to empha-
chic. Their general development
from democracy, since
size their growing deviation
tightening of discipline
it is towards centralization,
representatives into voting
and transformation of not lead
Lastly, the whole system does
machines.
It involves waste of
to the good of the people.
of sectarianism and
energy and has all the dangers unity
They create dissentions where
fanaticism.
is called.
by all. How-
The evils are no doubt admitted of the
over the desirability
ever, difference. arises
Plea for Re-
39, Quoted b Jayaprakash Narayan: 4A Kashi, 1959,
ரி of Indi an Polit y, S. S.S.
னன்ன
ந. 70
480 SARVODAYA .
abolition of the system itself. The general tendency
both in India and elsewhere is to point out to the
indispensability of the system and other advantages.
that accrue from it, and to advocate a reform of
the system and not its complete extinction.*
_ It is also argued that the party system has

some additional advantages. A partyless democracy
needs for its success greater political consciousness,
social equality, faith is the purity of means, indirect
elections, non-violent dispositions etc. In their _
absence parliamentary democracy with direct elec-
tions and the party system would work better.”
But the need and the advantage claimed for

political parties are refuted in practice. What they
rather do is to exploit the lack of political conscious-
ness, the ignorance and the prejudices of the voters:
It is also doubtful if an opposition party can serve
as a corrective to one in power.
It is doubtful, as pointed out by Elfen Roy, if

the parties are really indispensable.41 A new way
*Acharya Kripalani,-is also a staunch advocate of a
reformed party system. On this matter he has not been
able to agree with other Sarvodaya thinkers. His
advice is that Sarvodaya should have a parliamentary
wing of its own and should not keep aloof from power
politics. (vide - Sarvodaya and Democracy, pp, 9, 10,
12 & 13.)
40. P. N. Bhattacharya on Partyless Democracy (Synopsis
of papers presented at 1959 Indian Political Science.
Conference).
41. Ellen Roy: A New Way of Politics, The Radteal
Humanist, 7-9-1958 and 14~9-1958, -
of politics has to be distinguished. Sarvodaya

thinkers do not insist on complete and immediate
abolition of the party system, but suggest a cautious
programme. Vinoba emphasizes the need of a third
group which would assume no political office, but
which will influence all political parties. At the
same time he desires the various political parties to
co-operate in a common programme of all-round
development of the country. Jayaprakash Narayan,
for the time being, advocates that elections to
and other local bodies should not be
panchayats
contested by parties, a suggestion which has the
support of U. N. Dhebar.’”
party system
One of the main reasons why the
method of direct
is considered inevitable is the
e the general
election in huge constituencies wher
ed with the candi-
body of voters is not acquaint is defective
This method of direct elec tion
dates. and healthy
to 4 soun d
because it is not conducive eye d inte rests
e that mon
democracy. It is so expensiv e unio ns
tions like trad
or large sectional organiza to exer cise
coffers come
contributing to the party
e on the policies of the parties.
an undue influenc
men dislike to stand for
Many good and capable
general calibre of the
these elections, and the Hence most of the
.
persons elected is not high
D. Malaviya: Village Panchayats

42, Introduction to H.
in India, p- xii.
on of
A Plea for Reconstructi
43. Jayaprakash Narayan,
cit. , p- 71.
Indian Polity, op-
482 SARVODAYA
present Sarvodaya thinkers favour like Gandhi the
substitution of direct elections by indirect elections
except at the village level.
According to Jayaprakash Narayan, each gram

sabha (village assembly) in every constituency
would select at a general meeting two delegates to
an Electoral Council. There would be repeated
ballots, and the elimination of names one by one
would continue till only two names are left for the
Electoral Council. The next step would be for the
Council to meet at a central place and set up
candidates for election. Persons nominated by it
and obtaining more than a given minimum of votes
should be declared ‘candidates’, and. then finally
their names would be voted upon by the village
assemblies. Hereafter two alternatives have been
suggested. Either the person receiving the largest
number of gram sabha votes is finally declared
elected, or the candidate who receives the largest
number of votes of the people voting at the gram
sabha meetings all over the constituency is declared
elected.“ It is hoped that such a system of election
would bind structurally the upper storeys of the
democratic eddifice with the lowest, lending
prestige, strength and meaning to the gram sabha
and lifting it out of the possible morass of localism.
it would further give a direct opportunity to every
adult citizen to participate in choosing the highest
. 44. Jayaprakash Narayan, Swaraj for the people, 8.8. Sy

Varanasi, 1961, pp. 26-28,
POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY - 483
organs of democracy.© Thus Jayaprakash Narayan
would modify the present direct election system to
lessen. its evils. Theoretically, the method of in-
direct elections may be said to hold the ground
still, and though this method has been vehemently
criticized for reasons admited by J. P. Narayan
himself, it has its own support both in India
and abroad.*© Sarvodaya, as it will be observed
later on, stands for the utmost measure of political
decentralization and autonomy to the lower units.
If this comes to be realised, indirect elections would
not entail appreciably the dangers envisaged by
them.
The Sarvodaya thinkers propose to reconstruct

the polity in accordance with their basic ideas. In
that polity decentralization would replace the
present centralization; instead of there being a
state, the people themselves would work
welfare
for their own welfare, decisions would be arrived
at, not by the majority vote, but, by consensus of
and the
opinion, political parties would not exist tuted
of present direct elections substi
systems
ed form
either by indirect elections of by a modifi
the defects of the
‘of direct election so as to obviate
This polity would rely best on
present system,
its coercive
police and army, and as time passes,
e less and less percept ible. The
aspect would becom and
n people
initiative would be with the commo
45. ரக) ற. 28.

Bhidan, p. 141.
46. Salvador de Madariaga,
484’ ~ SARVODAYA
the fate of the country would not be in the hands
of a few individuals. However, with the solitary
exception of Jayaprakash Narayan, Sarvodaya’
thinkers do not describe their polity in detail, and
he also simply gives a bare outline, discussing the
underlying principles and indicating a general
pattern of political organization.” The proposed
structure is a pyramidal in form with the general
village body constituted of every adult villager at
its base. The villagers would elect an executive
called panchayat to run the village administration
by consensus of opinion. The general body would
have all the state powers, including regulation of
village ‘exports and imports. The village would
arrange for its own education, medical service and
judiciary.
In order that panchayat Raj may become the

base of a true participating democracy, Jayaprakash
Narayan formulates certain conditions which must
be fulfilled. First, education of the people, under-
stood in the widest sense of the term, is an essential
condition for the success of the experiment. This
education can best be imparted by disinterested
non-partisan bodies like the Union Community
Development Ministry, the All-India Panchayat
Parishad, other All-India Local Self-Government
Organizations, the Akhil Bharat Sarva Seva Sangh,
and other All-India Rural Service Agencies. Such a
centre could help by way of producing literature,
conducting of surveys, studying of problems, etc.
47, Jayaprakash Narayan, op. cit., p. 98.

| POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY 485.
‘Second, it is well worth emphasizing that the

success of Panchayati Raj would depend upon the
extent to which organized political parties refrained
from interfering with it and trying to convert it
into their hand-maiden, and use it as a jumping off
ground to climb to power. There is no doubt that
as consciousness grow among the people at the
ground level, they would be less and less liable to
be moved about as pawns by political parties and
ambitious politicians. It is necessary for. political
parties, in the interests of the people whom they
claim to be anxious to serve, to place themselves
under a self-denying ordinance and keep away from
either setting up party candidates or putting pres-
sure on the elected representatives to become party
so as to be able to control the basic
members,
institutions of democracy.’
luation of
‘Thirdly, there should be a real deva
is possi ble to
power and not a make-believe. -It Raj
of Panc haya ti
construct the outward structure like a
_That woul d be
and to give it no substance. still-
body without a soul: dead from the start, a
What is needed here are sincerity,
born child. must _be
imagination and courage. The people
harge responsibi-
trusted. No one can learn to disc
democracy to be
lity unless it is given to him. For
the people are pre-
a success, it is necessary that shoulder
full opportunity to
pared and given
responsibility.’
Raj three tiers of
‘There are in the Panchayati
the village Panchayat,
authority and administration:
A86, SARVODAYA —
the Block Panchayat Samiti and the Zilla Parishad.

At each of these tiers the people must be given the
opportunity to do for themselves all that might be
within their competence. In the British administra-
tive system the District Magistrate and Collector
was the Keystone: his position still remains the
same. But if the devolution of power in Panchayati
Raj is real, then eventually the District Magistrate
should disappear or remain only like the Governor
(in the state as a representative of the Central
Government, as representative in the district of the
state Government.) Panchayati Raj even in Raja-
sthan, where it started from is a far cry from this
consummation. True, such a process will take
time, but it is not yet clear that there is agreement
about the ultimate goal.’
‘Fourth, it is imperative that at each level the
local authority should be given its own minimum
resources. If control of resources remains in the
hands of the state government, the devolution, is
bound to be |rather nominal. In this connection,
land revenue, even though it does not amount
to very much, should be the first source to
be placed totally at the disposal of the Village
Panchayat and the Panchayat Samiti.
Fifth, Panchayat Raj should be able as soon

as possible to exercise real authority over the civil
servants under its charge, who should be held fully
accountable to it.’
Sixth-that elections to village panchayats
‘should be held without any electoral contests, It-
might appear to the political parties in the country
that if there were to be no elections, they would
have no place in the village. Far from it: they
have a constructive job to do there. If they accept
the idea that it is in the best interest of the village
to choose uncontested panchayats, that should be
a challenge to them, and they should all join
together to educate and persuade the villages to do
so. [f one leaves aside personal ambitions, this
should not be difficult for the parties to do, because
all the affairs of the village hardly admit of party-
political differences.
The six conditions discussed above are all of a
political nature. Political decentralization, how-
ever, cannot be effective without economic decen-
tralization which we have discussed in the first part
of the book. The Gandhian or Sarvodaya Move-
ment, of course had been emphasizing the point
all along but it did not receive attention until very
recently. The difficulty, however, is that no one
has any clear ideas as to how a decentralized
economy in this age of science and technology
and in the given conditions of India could be
created.
It is a matter of satifaction that India is com-

society.
mitted to a democratic socialist pattern of
Democratic socialists have come to realize that if
they are not to give up aim of economic demo-
ional
cracy, they must not be content with the tradit
of decen-
means of nationalization, but seek ways
tralization.
488 SARVODAYA
While the attempt to establish Panchayati Raj

is a step in the direction of a more stable, popular
_ and satisfying form of democracy, a step that when
properly executed, mignt succeed in taking swaraj
to the people, it is not adequate by itself. J.P.
Narayan observes: ‘In order that the edifice of
democracy might be strong and invulnerable, the
top layers of it must be built into the foundation
structure. But as the situation stands at present,
the foundational structure will rise only up to the
district level, beyond which, i.¢.,at the state and
union levels, a completely different structure will
continue to exist, resting on nothing more solid
than a sand heap, namely the amorphous mass of
individual and disparate voters.
The question that now remains is in what

manner should Panchayati Raj be extended to the
highest levels? Jayaprakash Narayan answers
thus: “Though it would be logical that each lower
Jevel should elect the higher—that is to say, the
village Panchayats, the Panchayat Samiti, the
Samitis, the Zilla Parishad, the Parishads, the
State Assembly, the Lok Sabha - it would be better
to give a broader base to the state assemblies and
the Lok Sabha. For this purpose it might be found
reasonable to go down to the Village Panchayats
and forming electoral colleges out of them and
basing representatives chosen to the Assemblies
and the Lok Sabha. However, since it is, after all,
only a technical question there is no need to be

dogmatic about the matter.
The political philosophy of Sarvodaya is an
intellectual attempt to build a plan of political and
social reconstruction on the basis of a metaphysical
foundation. It is based on the insights of Gandhi.
Sarvodaya tries to develop Gandhian ideas regard-
ing decentralization and villagism. But although
modern Sarvodaya derives the concept of decen-
tralization from Gandhi, the concept of partyless
democracy is an original contribution to political
thought. In its hostility to the omnicompetence
reminds
of the centralized state machine, Sarvodaya
us of the pragmatic and pluralistic political
the welfare
doctrines of the West. In rejecting
ta break new
state for welfare society, they seem
Gandhi's
ground, but in doing so they corroborate ‘if it
view that a state is perfect and non-violent
governs least.
reignty in a
The problem of political sove The
the people.
Sarvodaya society rests only with loka-sakti.
but on
emphasis is not on Rajya-Sakti
Loka-sakti (civil power)
According to Vinoba,
self-reliant power of the
means the non-violent
is opposed to himsa-
people. It is a power which
powe r and different from
éakti or the military
powe r of the state. The
danda-sakti or the legal punishment
and
present Sarvodaya views on crime
Socialism, Sarvodaya and Democracy ,

43. J. P- Narayan,
House, Bombay, 1964.
Asia Publishing
490 SARVODAYA
are also similar to those of Gandhi. The Retribu-

tive Theory of punishment has no place in Sarvo-
daya, even if it be in the form of social satisfaction
at the punishment of the evil doer. The principle
of deterence too cannot be acceptable to Sarvodaya
if the object is to set an example to others, for that
would be treating a person to be a means rather
than as anend. If the object is to deter a habitual
offender, it might be better done in a humane
manner, so that he might be reformed. Thus it 1s
only the principle of reformation which can be fully
approved by Sarvodaya. A study of Criminology
shows that it is important to study each crime
against the background of the personality of the
criminal to discover what kind of punishment will
be most fruitful to him. Therefore it is useful to
consider crime ‘contextually’ - the individualistic
approach is necessary. It is reported that Turkey
and Russia have experimented with a method of
voluntary imprisonment. Criminals voluntarily
confine themselves to chosen areas. Astonishingly
enough, these prisons without lock and key have
not been failures.
The Sarvodaya thinkers do not tell us anything
about the organization of the judiciary except that
village panchayats would exercise judicial functions.
However, since they can only try village civil
disuptes and petty criminal offences, it may be held
that some higher judicial organization would also
be needed, though as crimes lessen, their work is
bound to decrease. It is obvious, that, in a Sarvo-
daya society, notions regarding crime and punish-
POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY 49]
ment, criminal law and procedure, should be
Tadically modified. The conception of Santi-sena
(peace brigades) has found great application at the
hands of Sarvodaya thinkers, especially, Vinoba.
They have extended the scope of their functions,
laid down qualifications for their members and the
- type of training necessary for them. Their concep-
tions of world peace and world order are novel, but
clear and consistent with the whole trend of Sarvo-
daya thought. Like Gandhi, they lay stress on
unilateral disarmament-and express faith in non-
violence for national defence. But since such faith
has yet to grow in the public, they suggest concréte
steps that can lead society to it. Meanwhile this
attitude towards wanton foreign aggression is in
accordance with the advice of Gandhi. Since the
country has yet to gain mastery over non-violent
action, they would not oppose the armed measures
taken by the government and yet they would do
nothing which might be interpreted as co-operation
with violence. These aspects of Sarvodaya will be
discussed in the last chapter.
the Sarvo-
To escape the charge of ‘Utopian’,
are content with making only
daya thinkers
pressure groups,
‘realistic’ studies of social progress, ve
n, administrati
leadership, and mass communicatio
regulation ete. Even if Sarvodaya society is not
its picture has the
realizable in its completeness, refe-
value of an ideal. Gandhi said in 1946 with
‘If Euclid’s
rence to the society of his conception,
point, though incapable of being drawn by human
492 SARVODAYA
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 com-
pleteness. We must have a proper picture of what
we want, before we can have something approaching
it.” To reject Sarvodaya as an utopian dream is
not only to deprive man of a noble philosophy but
of one which he very badly needs today.
49. M. K. Gandhi, Rebuilding our Villages, N.P H,

Ahmedabad, p. 58. ்‌
CHAPTER SEVEN
EPILOGUE
EPILOGUE
ர
Eminent leaders of men fall into two categories;

to the first category, belong all those who affect the
life and thought of their contemporaries in varying
degrees, but whose influence steadily fades away
after their death. To the second, belong those few
who combine to influence humanity through their
life and message long after their physical exist in
death. The latter phenomenon bespeacks a type of:
greatness capable of defying time itself which
dissolves everything else in its relentless flow. Such
abiding
greatness discloses something universal and
is narrow and fleeting in
in the midst of much that
by the leader by his
the ideas and values radiated
to this
life and message. Mahatma Gandhi belongs
second category.
ly one of the
Mahatma Gandhi was undoubted
res of the Re-
most outstanding and dominant figu
pat excellence.
surgent India. He was a Karma-yogi,
means, almost the
Gandhi, more a man ‘of the
represented the
embodiment of the Indian peasant,
a, that of renunci-
ancient Hindu tradition of Indi
ation, sacrifice and asceticism.
closely inter-
Gandhi’s life and thought is so
tica issues of the
l
woven-and involved with the prac
ly to miss the larger background
day that one is like
y a practical idealist
and context. He is so imminentl
496 SARVODAYA
that one might, at times, even forget the idealism

on which his practice was based. Perhaps, one
could claim to see in Gandhi, the rich tradition and
culture of India, the philosophical and the practical,
complementing each other and transforming the
larger life of the country. The sage of Sevegram
has shown us the path to perfection and peace
through his philosophy of Sarvodaya.
The preceding chapters have dealt at conside-

table length with the various aspects of the present-
day social, economic and political philosophy of
Sarvodaya which is essentially the philosophy of
spiritual revolution. It has assumed the dimensions
of a political movement and a socio-economic force
of great potentialities and power. Sarvodaya is
based on the mystical intuitions and social and
political experiences of Mahatma Gandhi. In his
long life, Gandhi attempted the systhesis of the
ideas of Vedanta, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam,
Tolstoy, Thoreau, Tulasidas, and others. If
Gandhian thought was mainly a synthesis of moral
intuitions and experiences, the Sarvodaya philoso-
phy tries to build a synthesis also of theoretical
abstractions and political and economic generali~
zations.
It is the belief that man can make and unmake
the human world that assures the possibility of
revolution. Only if he can rise above the instinc-
tive psychological plane through the understanding
that he can hope to bring integral revolution.
Spiritual understanding is the realization of the
EPILOGUE ட மர
fundamental unity of life. The firm belief that in

the overwhelming supremacy of the divine spirit.
provided a meaningful integration, poise and
equanimity to Gandhi's life which was full of
diverse and multifarious activities. This spiritual
orientation and devout faith of Gandhi has left its
impact on the other leaders and workers in this
movement of Sarvodaya.
The search for truth cannot coexist with attach-

ment to a set of finished and final dogmas either in
the field of physical sciences, or in social life, or in
political life or in the spiritual quest. In the light
of this, a foolish consistency does indeed appear to
be the hobgoblin of little minds. If Gandhi showed
traits of inconsistencies in his opinions in social
matters, it was On account of the concessions .he
made in order to adjust them to dynamic social
path of
needs and to his own desire to ‘follow the
non-violence in pursuit of truth’. If we understand
this significant factor, that is to say, to understand
of its
Gandhian philosophy from the viewpoint
origin and founda-
originator we must consider its
Any other
tions, namely non-violence and truth.
ideas.
attempt may not do full justice to his
The two words ‘Satyagraha’ and ‘Sarvodaya’

hy of Gandhi.
explain the entire life and philosop
to establish
He coined the two words in order
what he preached
without any possible doubt that
prod uct, but
and practised was no second-hand rds
cont ribu tion towa
represented his own original
498 SARVODAYA
the solution of the problems with which he was:
confronted in the world. These problems arose out!
of the circumstances prevailing in the world during:
his active life. And though the circumstances have
changed and are changing, the remedies he dis-
covered being founded on immutable principles are
bound to have a universal appeal for mankind.
Satyagraha and Sarvodaya, therefore, will be integ-
rated with the thought-structure of humanity as
the days pass. And as their discoverer, the name of
.Gandhi will be perpetuated as a saviour of mankind,
like the other saviours of bygone days.
The idea contained in the Jsdvasya verse?

Isavasyam idam sarvam-.-..--kayasvaviddhanan’ is the
cornerstone of Sarvodaya which, according to
Gandhi; will satisfy the cravings of the socialists
and the communists, the philosopher and thé
- economist. While satya (Truth) is proclaimed in
the first half of the mantra, asimsdé (non-violence)
is stated in the second half. Truth and non-
violence are two different aspects of the same
principle. Some will deny God. But none will
deny Truth. Hence Gandhi holds that Truth is
God. He admits that he derived all that is good if
politics and economics from the text. ‘If it is
universal brotherhood - not only brotherhood of
all human beings, but of all living things I find it
in this mantra. This mantra tells me that I canndt
hold’ as mine anything that belongs to God, and
that my life, and-that of all who believe in this
mantra’ has led to a life of perfected dedication, it
EPILOGUE 499
follows that it will have to be a life of continued
service of fellow creatures.”!
Gandhi declared further that God-realization

is to be achieved through the service of afflicted
humanity. And this is what Sarvodaya stands for.
All human misery is due to the ignorance of the
basic oneness of the essence of all manyness. The
greatest contribution of Sarvodaya ideology to
world-thought is its emphasis on the need for man’s
discovery of the true self. For ages, this cardinal
principle was taught by India’s great prophets,
saints and spiritual leaders. The message is that
spiritual freedom is the common goal of all. Thus
Sarvodaya is a synthetic, regulative principle in
human relations, transcending history, politics and
the pattern of existing social institutions. It is a
synthetic ideology and an universal concept. Many
a prophet and preacher of the past has invariably
attempted to establish general human integration
Vinoba
in his own period. In modern times Gandhi,
turned the course of human
and Jayaprakash have
of human revolution.
history towards new vistas
bringing
They have overwhelmingly engaged in
from all angles and
about total human integration
of mankind. Truly,
aspects for the present race
of the human race; an
they are the embodiments
and integral
embodiment which embraces the total
well-being of man in modern times.
p. 157.
1. Tendulkar, Mahatma, Vol. IV,
500 . SARVODAYA
The Gandhian solution for the present state
of confusion in the internal and international poli-
tics and economic life of today is to work out a
synthesis between the individual and group, bet-
ween social and economic and political life. This
synthesis, Gandhi believed, can be achieved only
on the basis of morality. Gandhi strove to substi-
tute ethical politics in the place of political ethics.
This means, moralizing politics. An inso far as
morality and religion are not distinct for Gandhi,
to elevate politics to the level of moralty is to
make it live by the spirit of religion.
Gandhi’s insistence on moral means does not

imply that evil, injustice, and tyranny are to be
tolerated. That will not solve any of humanity’s
problembs. Gandhi working in the sociological
field, believed that evil must be resisted and elimi-
nated. He evolved a way of resisting evil through
the organization of truth and non-violence. Satyd-
graha is the unification of these two principles. It
signifies ‘truth force’ or ‘soul force’.
Gandhi’s philosophy which is both individualis-

Aic and social, can be studied under the following
heads: viz., the Fatherhood of God, the Brother-
hood of Man, the supremacy of the spirit and the
moral law, Truth, non-violence or active love and
finally purity of means. We find that there is
greater emphasis on the moral side of life in
Gandhi’s teachings. Only morality based on
spirituality can teach science that in the world of
Man, man should be the primary concern. Life of
"EPILOGUE sor
humanity receives vitality from man’s liberty and
not from comfort. And it is non-violence that
makes for liberty. That is why Sarvodaya thought
urges that unless men drive out violence from each
and every field and substitute in its place, the ways
of mental understanding and love, there is no hope
for the future. As Vinoba has said, a new under-
standing of the true ‘Religion of Man’ should
kind
come forward to unite men irrespective of any
of differences in them. Such a unity will declare
as a sin
homicide-individual or collective in war~
against man and God.
y of all life,
If spirituality reveals the unit
of spiri tuali ty, should
morality which is an offshoot
to a sect ion of the
not tolerate partial applications suffer in
One should not mora lly
human species. umst ances
eren ce. Circ
society because of sex-diff
for the weak, the poor
should be made: favourable
to develop virtue in them.
and the down-trodden so as
for spiritual and moral
Equality of opportunity
characteristic of a pro-
development is an essential
d by Gandhi.
gressive society as envisage
have made attempts to
Scholars in the West n
ology with some wester
compare Sarvodaya ide h-c ent ury , ViZ- »
of the nineteent
political movements also con sid ere d as
vodaya is
Russian populism. Sar ism’,
exp res sio n of ‘Communitarian social
an Indian mpl e.
vides a familiar exa
of which Owenism pro e bee n
er Sarvodayites hav
Gandhi, Vinoba and oth Som e hav e
e Anarchists’.
considered as ‘Gentl A pro per
‘mild anarchists’.
described them as
502 SARVODAYA
understanding of their lives against their socio~

political background will reveal to us clearly that
these thinkers detested the use of such labels.
Gandhi in particular, was essentially a man of
religion. He entered politics only to purify and
spiritualize it. He did not belong to any school of
thought. Much less, did he like others to label him
as an anarchist, or communist, or democrat. We
are familiar with his statement, ‘there is no such
thing as Gandhism, and I do not want to leave any |
sect after me.’ Scholars in India too, have described
his thought as ‘Gandhism.’ It is true that one cannot
avoid such expressions as “‘Gandhism’, particularly
when one tries to conceptualize Gandhian thought
in a systematic way. Isms in the west, arose purely
as socio-political and economic movements. These
movements tried to facilitate the analysis and
understanding of the system of ideas that appeared
from time to time. As in all other epochs. the
industrial forces of the period were chiefly signifi-
cant in their relation to political forms and forces
and to the fundamental political presuppositions.
On looking deeply into their inner significance,
they seem to foreshadow the growth of universal
interest and welfare. They were chiefly develop-
ments of economic, social and political speculation,
‘attempting to nationalize the conflicting claims of
diverse ethnic groups with rival economic, political
and cultural claims.
Gandhian ideal of ‘Sarvodaya’ is no such ‘ism’.
It does not clash or compete with any other ‘ism’
in the world. Gandhi stressed the importance of
EPILOGUE 503.
the universal application of the principles of Sarvo-

daya. The principles enshrined in Gandhian thought
have universal and eternal value. It is not a product
of the age. The fundamentals of Gandhian thought
have their grass roots in the ancient Hindu tradi-
tion. True, Gandhi was influenced by some western
thinkers. He modified the ancient Hindu ideals to
suit the present-day work. In regard to his views
of the state, Gandhi, could at best be regarded’ as
a ‘spiritual anarchist’. He believed in enlightened
anarchism. a
Responsibility should be the watchword of a
truly free society. Pure anarchy is workable when
human life is based on self-discipline and restraint
love. True
that spring from consideration and
one of us will
love is the basis of life. Then each
and will
be a’ proper representative of ourselves,
us. This will
not need the selected few to govern
be a sort of direct democracy.
being ‘my.
Gandhi admitted that for the time of India in
swaraj is the parliamentary government
sense of the term.’ This was the only
the modern to Rama Rajya
way, available to him which lead visualised a state-
and Sarvodaya. Ideally, Gandhi
the authority of the
less society and repudiated
every form. Gandhi was
state at every level and in
titu tional structures will
convinced that mere cons
realization of rights and
not suffice for the concrete
l of ‘Rama Rajya’ which
hence he postulated the idea s-
teou
means the kingdom of love, justice and righ
synthesis of the Augus-
ness. This amounts to the
Kingdom of God on earth
tinian conception of the
504 SARVODAYA
with the democratic ideal of the sovereignty of the

people. Gandhi believed in ‘sovereignty ‘of the
people based on pure moral authority.’ The problem
of political sovereignty in a Sarvodaya society rests
only with the people. The emphasis is not on
Rajya-Sak ti but on loka-Sakti , not on the govern-
ment and governme ntal action but on the people
and people’s action. As we have noted earlier,
‘Rajya-sakti’ is but the reflection of ‘loka-Sakti’
and those who run after ‘Rajya-sakti’ neglecting
“loka-Sakti’ are chasing at chimera.
The crucial problem of the day is the concen-
tration of power in the hands of a few in the
political and economic spheres. It is an intolerable
situation where a few hundreds of people should
decide the fate of five hundred millions of human
beings. Not that Gandhi was against the parlia-
mentary form of government, but he pleaded for
the minimisation of political power vested in the
*
hands of a few individua!s. The state should not

be a ‘Leviathan’. It is to be noted that Sarvodaya
is not running away from politics either in praise
or in disdain. Even while it is not indulging in
power politics, it is seeking to reach down to the
depth, ‘where live the poorest, the lowliest and the
1084.” To the extent it succeeds, in this, it will
carry the masses with it. Under the able guidance
of J. P. Narayan, the Sarvodaya workers are
striving towards this end.
It is pertinent to make a few observations of

the working of parliamentary democracy in India.
EPILOGUE — 505
True, in several respects, parliamentary democracy
does seem to have grown strong roots in India
already. It is equally true that people are taking a
keen interest in parliamentary life. The press
devotes large space to detailed reports on the
debates. Public opinion is getting stronger and is
gaining influence on government and public affairs.
Finally, the fact that in nearly all neighbouring
countries the parliamentary system had to give way
to dictatorship has accentuated the Indians’ already
considerable self-confidence and awakened their
determination to do even better.
in
On the other hand, however, the forces
y are also
opposition to parliamentary democrac
of loyalty
growing stronger every day. Conflicts
common
between caste and party, family and the cal
and nation adversely affect politi
good, district,
en the means
life. The lack of proportion betwe
for development
required and the means available
most enterprising
is apt to discourage even the
epancy between pro-
politician. The existing discr
s the people and
mise and performance disappoint
the present form of
shakes their confidence in
whether adult franchise
government. It is doubtful
has been put to proper use.
Pope rightly warned us against

Alexander
4 ‘form of government.
attaching importance to
which governs well.
That government is best
hasising on minimum
Gandhi modified it, emp In Panchayati
t.
interference by the governmen
506 - SARVODAYA 7
Raj, the people have something in which they can
take the first step in a constructive revolution. It
offers a new orientation of the programme. The
state legislature should move from the state head-
quarters down through the district and the block
to the village panchayat. The new institutions
such as people’s organizations should be responsi-
ble for planning and implementation of program-
mes approved in the Legislatures. Thus democracy
should percolate from the parliament to the
panchayats. In the ultimate analysis, the éstablish-
ment of Panchayati Raj, with a wide devolution of
powers by the State government has to be an act
of faith—faith in democracy. The states, by and
large, enacted legislation which provided for a
three-tier system of local government. The simi-
larities, and differences in their systems and in their
subsequent operating experience like so many other
component of India’s development programme, offer
an opportunity to attempt an analysis of demo-
cracy in the process of evolution. The Panchayati
Raj programme has spread throughout the coun-
try. Hundreds of thousands of village communi-
ties, and millions of village-chosen leaders, are-not
only being permitted but urged to shoulder respon-
sibility for initiating and carrying out local develop-
ment programmes. This movement has bright
prospects of becoming a real people’s movement.
“The extent and speed of development of this
movement will dictate the speed with which a new
pyramid of Indian social structure is built from the
bottom up, and ultimately the extent to which
EPILOGUE 507
India’s government personnel are recruited by the

process of vertical mobility, steadily but surely
rising from lower to higher social status.’ The
establishment of Panchayati Raj, the purpose of
which, Pandit Nehru has emphasized, is to give to
‘the millions of our people the chance to share
responsibility, do good work, and grow in the
process.” If the Panchayati Raj, is well organized
and vigorously supported, ‘it will add to the rich-
ness and growth of rural development in India.
Successful rural development can be achieved only
by liberating the energies of the people. To do so
is the task of the government.
What is now called Panchayati Raj was at first
of
called democratic decentralization, the purpose
utiliz e
which was to decentralize responsibility,
initiat ive.
and develop local area and local group
Vinoba wanted Gramdan as the first step to be
yats.
taken before the introduction of gram pancha
and work
‘Then alone, it can be a force for good
with the present
for the welfare of the whole village,
becomes an
inequalities a panchayat too often
they boss it
instrument in the hands of a few and
over the rest. It is a formal democracy....... The
an attractive
decentralization of power has become
mean. entrus ting power to
slogan....... It should not
the few, however close they may be to the people.
.....
It really means opportunity for seTVice...
ப
ial programme
It is felt by many that the offic
tion is not progressing
of democratic decentraliza
2. Bhidan, Dec. 19, 1956.
208 SARVODAYA
strictly on Gandhian lines. The carry-over of old

cultural values and attitudes, of old class structures,
and old practices of government bureaucracy does
present more obstacles than facilities to rapid
socio-economic changes.
But changes are inevitable. It is a question of
time. Targets have to be set. Even if they have
not been achieved in completness, it should not
affect the morale of the people. Progress if it is
real, is always slow. Success of movement s depends
on the leadership . Vinoba’s charismat ic leadership
constitute a potential strength for the movement .
Jayapraka sh undoubted ly has his own personal
charisma, and it has been shown on many occasions,
particularly on the occasion of his grand declaration
of Jeevandan. He has been responsible for bringing
about a change in the attitude of notorious dacoits
in many parts of northern India, who have willingly
surrendered themselves to him. Vinoba’s charis-
matic direction has paved the way for the success
of such negotiations.
The foundations of the Sarvodaya movement
have been laid firmly by Gandhi on the principles of
Truth, Non-violence, and Love which have eternal
value. Vinoba and Jayaprakash have proved them-
selves to be worthy successors of Gandhi. The
question: ‘After Vinoba, Who?’ posed by some
western scholars is not a problematic one. History
has shown that the line of succession has a conti-:
nuity. Moreover, the Sarvodaya movement is a
peoples movement, based firmly on the Gandhian
EPILOGUE 509
principles and eternal values which are enshrined
in the hearts of one and all. Success or failure
depends on the people themselves.
Let us now pass on to another vital issue. A
question has often been asked: ‘Is Indian planning
consistent with Gandhian thought ?’ It is, surely,
not very easy to answer this question, which has a
variety of implications. It is true that a number
of programmes to which Gandhi attached the
highest importance do not occupy a place of pride
in our developmental plans. While various items
like Khadi and village industries, basic education
and prohibition find a place in our Five Year Plans,
it cannot be claimed that they constitute a suffici-
‘ ently important part of the overa}l plan.
a broad
Planning has come to stay in India. In
with every
sense, planning must concern itself
economic condi-
aspect of social life, but since the
most important
tions are considered as one of the
l life, it is the
determinants of individual and socia
ned keeping in
economic development which is plan
view other considerations as well.
put forward their
The Sarvodaya thinkers have
through ‘Principles
conception of planning in 1950
elaborated it in
of Sarvodaya Plan’, and then
ished in 1957. But
‘Planning for Sarvodaya’, publ
So far to provide any
there has been no attempt
plan , for Sarvodaya ‘1s
blue-print for a Sarvodaya forced into a
yet been
a growing idea and has not
has been stated to
straight jacket.’ Still enough
should guide a Sarvo-
explain ‘the principles that
310 ' SARVODAYA
-daya plan and the methods and programmes of the

transition to a Sarvodaya social order.’
Today, Planning has come to mean raising the
‘standard of living of the people as much as possible.
But the Sarvodaya approach to planning is essen-
tially human and democratic. It is human because
its first postulate is to provide employment to all,
Vinoba says: ‘To give work to a few only in the
name of efficiency is not “national planning” but
“partial planning’.“? Secondly, it pays special
attention to the sorrows and sufferings of the ‘last
man’ before attending to the wants and require-
ments of others. According to Sarvodaya thinkers,
the unit for planning would be the Panchayat samiti.
Plans for individual villages would be prepared by
the respective village panchayats on‘the basis of
their resources, and it would be one of the functions
of the panchayat samiti to co-ordinate the plans of
village panchayats and unite them into a block plan-
Similar functions would be performed by the Zilla
Parishad (District Council), the State Planning
Authority and the National Planning Commission.
The organs at each level would have the necessary
authority to undertake all surveys and conduct
such training as would be necessary to draw up the
plan, and the regulatory authority to facilitate its
effective execution.” ்‌
3. Vinoba Bhave, Harijan Sevak, Dec. 29, 1951, ற. 378.
4. Report of the Seminar on Planning in Bhoodan,
10-12-1960, p. 270; Shri Narayan, op. cit., p. 44; and
Jayaprakash Narayan, A Reconstruction of Indian
Polity, p. 77.
ட EPILOGUE 917
The first objective, as already indicated above,
would be ‘to provide full and integral employment
to every member of society,’ and for this purpose
the industrial structure would be refashioned to
increase production while maximising employment.
The second objective would be ‘to ensure that
every mnember of society receives an optimum of
material requisites of well-being essential for the
development of his personality and for enabling
him to make his creative contribution to the wel-
fare of society.”> Thirdly, since Sarvodaya aims at
regional self-sufficiency, the plan would ‘aim at
maximising self-sufficiency, in the elementary needs
of man in every village and region, to the extent
that considerations of geography and the limita-
tions imposed by the availability of national
resources permit.’ Lastly, it would ‘ensure that
iechniques and instruments of production are not
by
such as to seek to increase material well-being
adopting a predatory and vandalistic attitude to
nature, but are such as to instil reverence for life
and keep the needs of the whole of - humanity
including posterity in mind.’? Therefore attempts
be made to replenish, as far as humanly
would
and to
possible, the natural’ resources utilised,
revolves
protect and provide for all life that
and his social, economic and cultural
round man
pursuits.’§
Planning for Sarvodaya, p. 36.
Fanny
Ibid., p. 39-
Ibid , p. 40.
Ibid., p- 43.
512 SARVODAYA
All this is in perfect accord with the ideas of

Gandhi, the spirit of real democracy and the
conditions prevailing in India. The Sarvodaya
Plan would really be democratic because it would
be no imposition from above. The people them-
selves would plan and execute. True, they would
receive all guidance and help from above, but that
does not vitiate the democratic nature of the plan.
Lastly, the plan would suit Indian conditions better
in that it would be labour-intense and not capital-
intense. As it would consist of small plans worked
by the people themselves, it would enthuse the
people and give them necessary training and experi-
ence to make success of bigger projects. It would
reduce economic inequality in society and give the
benefit of increased national income to the strata
of society which needs it most.
The present national plans in India are of a

different varrety. They are examples of the plan-
ning from the top and they are bureaucratic in
nature. The real issue is to make our planning
dynamic and prevent it from falling into a rut. No
one can take exception to this way of looking at
things. The elementary economic necessities of our
people are so clear and overwhelming that there is
hardly any scope for ideological controversies. The
socialist pattern of society and the welfare state
are no alternative objectives for India. They are
largely identical. It may be suggested that besides
the centralised public sector and the private sector,
there could be a co-operative sector, a municipal
sector and other forms of decentralised ownership
EPILOGUE 513
and management of industry and trade. All

economic and social policies would have to be
directed towards the end of securing for everybody
the basic necessities of life like food, clothing,
shelter, education and health. Although, various
considerations of economic and _ technological
efficiency have to be kept in view, it should not be
forgotten that the human aspect has to be the
decisive factor in our schemes of economic plan-
ning. Mr. Chester Bowles draws pointed attention
to the potentiality of the village institutions in
India and remarks: ‘It would be tragic if the
Gandhian plan of little village republics were
abandoned before it has been fully and vigorously
்‌ 129160.
Professor Gunnar Myrdal oberves: ‘The
development of industries in direct competition
with existing cottage industries would take work
bread away from millions with no immediate
and
. This
alternative source of employment or income
point of
would not be rational from a planning
This is true today of agricul tural produc -
view!
tion. The problem in India is how to promote
by labour
increased agricultural production more
than by mechaniza-
- intense methods of production
an agricultural country,
tion. India is essentially
of the population live in
About eighty percent
villages. The chief problem of the rural areas 1s
Ideas, People and Peace, op. cit.,

9. Chester Bowles,
p- 132.
10, Asian Drama, Vol, II, pp. 1219-20.
514 SARVODAYA
₹
poverty. .This is due to the non-availabilty

of
employment opportunities as also backward
agriculture. Urbanisation in India is slowly and
steadily eating into the very vitals of rural life.
It has resulted in brain drainage from the villages.
Attracted by the urban life, many agriculturists-
have forsaken their traditional professions and
have migrated in large numbers to urban areas
seeking employment in factories, industrial
concerns etc. Why is it that village life in India
is loosing its charm? Is it due to modernisation
of society? None will deny the advantages of
modernised way of life. But the pace of
technological changes and developments will have
to be so regulated that large scale unemployment
in rural areas with consequent hardship and misery
to millions of villagers is to be avoided. This calls
for a different approach to the economic planning
of our country.
Is Gandhian approach an answer to the above

problems? Gandhi’s challenge still continues to
have some relevance in the welter of the modern
technological civization, Gandhian approach to
economic problems has been misunderstood by
many. Professor B. N. Ganguli observes: ‘To
understand Gandhi, one has to look into the
contradictions of the modern industrial civilisation
in relation to man’s deeper instincts and urges, not
necessarily ‘spritual’, as is sometimes assumed, but
essentially bio-physical and psycho-physical.
Gandhi’s interpretation of the meaning-sysem
EPILOGUE 515
underlying the modern industrial civilization has

an eclectic and universal character ?!!
Closely allied to the question of economic and
political decentralization is the problem of provid-
ing fuller employment to the people. The above
analysis leads us to a crucial problem. Few people
would reject the view that mass unemployment is
an evil fraught with grave social, economic and
political consequences. What are the causes for the
most distressing aspect of the unemployment
problem in India. The reasons are many. However,
one notes that it is due to the state of chronic
involuntary laziness or idleness among the two
important sections of the population, viz., the
agricultural class and the educated class.
Let us analyse this problem briefly. Saint
Tiruvalluvar in his Kural pointed out nearly two
thousand years ago that, ‘the agriculturist is the
lynchpin of the whole social chariot.’ The truth of
prac-
this beautiful statement has been ignored in
tice. Urban-oriented fanatics considered industr ial
of progres s. If
expansion as the only true measure
to hold this belief, they are in a state
they continue
of dillusion. That government which identifies
can march
itself completely with the peasants, alone
towards the goal of progress. Unless the millions
of rural people are engaged in building for the
expansi-
future, no amount of glamorous industrial
pments , will
ons, no amount of technological develo
Gandhi's Social Philosophy, Ulkas
11. B.N. Ganguli,
Publishing House PVT Ltd., Delhi, 1973, p. 324.
316 ' SARVODAYA
produce the fundamental economic and social

changes which are vital for national development.
Gandhi has outlined in his ‘constructive Pro-
gramme’, the various positive steps to be taken to
enable ‘the peasant slowly but steadily to develop
his own capacity for growth and increasingly to
use his own benefit and the benefit of his family,
community and society at large.’ Successful rural
progress can be achieved only by making them
active participants in their own development, and
instil into their minds that the government is
genuinely concerned about their future.
In regard to the second aspect of the above

problem, we find that within the last few decades,
the growth of democracy has changed education
from the privilege of a select few to the right of
all, and it is this spirit of a democratic equality that
has led to an appreciation of liberty and the dignity
that is conferred on the human personality by the
sense of liberty. While liberty is a great gift, it is
also a source of danger. It is the latter aspect that
we are facing today. Greater opportunity for higher
education has led to greater unemployment among
the educated. If higher education is job-oriented,
it will reduce unemployment of the educated classes
to some extent. The educational stagnation can be
removed by treating education primarily as train-
ing of the mind and, as Vivekananda defines it, as
‘the life-building, man-making, character-making
assimilation of ideas.’ Surplus energy of the edu-
cated masses, if not properly channelled leads to
EPILOGUE 517
undesirable ends. Fustration among the educated

unemployed is a potential danger to the political
stability of the nation. It is significant to note
Gandhi's scheme of ‘Basic Education’: ‘The
ultimate objective of education is not only a
balanced and harmonious individual, but also
a balanced and harmonious society—a just social
order in which there is no unnatural dividing
line between the haves and have-nots, and every-
body is assured of a living wage and the right to
freedom.’
The complicated problems of capital and

labour, of haves and have-nots, of the educated and
the uneducated, of the employed and the un-
of
employed: these and many other differences
y to the
society are being exploited unfortunatel
supposed to
detriment of the very interests that are
be served.
as are the
Grave as the dangers are, manifold
endeavou r, human
problems of the day, human totally
are not
intelligence, and human feeling,
their capa city to
emasculated that it is beyond ction
s the refle
solve these problems. Therein come
of educ atio n. The main problem
on the purpose to
to educate the people
in democracy is how best
the democratic way of
contribute to the richness of
all. In an underdeve-
life—seeking the welfare of
country like India, it 1s
loped and densly populated
conditions of full employ-
impossible to bring about liza-
ment without unde rtaking industrial decentra
ughout the countryside.
tion or a-very wide scale thro
518 . SARVODAYA
This can be possible only through the organization:

of small-scale, cottage and village industries,
particularly the processing or the agro-industries,
on a Co-operative basis.
It should be reiterated in ciear terms that the

concept of economic decentralization in the form
of small and home industries does not in any way
militate against the idea of utilizing the fruits of
science. Gandhi was never against the use of
science, for improving the techniques of village and
cottage industries: But we have to think ultimately
in terms of economic and social efficiency in the
context of community development. There are so
many things to be done for the whole country and
of such a nature that the higher planning authori-
ties will have to plan much, and the state and the
Centre will have to do much, and of it, a great
deal, permanently.
The main problem is how to realise the goal of

’ Sarvodaya, viz., the well-being of all? It would not
do to realise it anyhow. The technique must be
m consonance with the objective itself, for as
Gandhi said, ‘As the means, so the end.’ Its
methods are constructive work including Nai Talim
(New or Basic Education), proper planning and
non-violence.
Gandhi’s conception of ‘constructive. work’

centered round the spinning wheel. He also instilled
in the masses the spirit of Swadeshi, which was.
EPILOGUE 519
fundamentally a sense of self-reliance and self-
respect. Itisa pity that we very much lack this
swadeshi spirit.in our national life today. True,
India is a developing nation. She has to seek
foreign aid for implementing economic plans,
especially the technical know-how, import sophisti-
cated machines, tools to boost production in the
heavy industries under Public sector. We should,
however, note that.excessive reliance on external
aid would ultimately sap our energies and under-
mine the spirit of self-help.
The spirit of self-reliance is very essential for

our progress in life.’ We have yet to reach self.
sufficiency in our food production. The reasons
are many. As Chester Bowles observes: “Experi-
ence in every developing country has demonstrated
that the sustained increase of agricultural output
simply cannot occur in a social and political
vacuum. It must be at one and the same time a
product and a cause of a general betterment in the
life of the farmer? There can be “Green Revolu-
tion’ only when the Indian farmer is properly
trained in modern farming techniques, and also
introduce new innovations in cultivation. Above all
the farmers must be provided with the all-important
incentive of gaining ownership of their own land to
increase their investment and: production. The
Bhudan movement initiated by Vinoba has brought
about -a revolutionary lJand-movement in our
country. The Gramdan movement too tends ‘to
strengthen democracy at the grass-roots and maké
520 SARVODAYA
people self-reliant and conscious of their obliga-
tions to the community.’
‘Plain living and high thinking’—this ideal is

the foundation of Gandhian constructive work. He
believed in raising not merely ‘the standard of
living’ but also ‘the standard of life.’ He believed
in simplicity of living, which does not mean living
in poverty as some critics observe. Gandhi was
against pauperism. ‘No one has ever suggested
that grailing poverty can lead to anything else than
moral degradation? The wealth of the nation lies
in happy and healthy people, not in terms of gold,
silver or power. If human power is properly
channelled for constructive purposes. India with
her huge man-power will one day become the most
prosperous and developed nation. At present a
vast reserve of human skills and energies, is going
to waste. With a little more encouragement, and
proper direction by the government, these energies
could provide a dynamic force for India’s national
development.
Problems in regard to decentralized system of

production, restriction on wants, proper distribu-
tion, industrialism, mechanization of man, mini-
mum wage, role of trade unionism, economic
equality, relationship with landlord and peasant,
capital and labour and other allied economic
problems—all these find a solution in the all-
comprehensive Gandhian principles of economics,
viz., Sarvodaya which aims at the welfare of all-
Gandhian economic thought may be described as
EPILOGUE 52)
Pragmatic humanistic economy because it is based.
on realistic approach to life with emphasis on
human value and human dignity.
“Constructive work’ signifies a programme

that would lead to the reconstruction of both men
and society by correcting the faults of private and
public life. Gandhi regarded constructive work to
be ‘the fulfilment of swaraj’ and the present Sarvo-
daya thinkers attach to it no less importance.
Jayaprakash Narayan laid emphasis on making a
success of the Panchayat Raj (Democratic Decen-
tralization) system introduced in several states
since such success could result in further political
decentralization. ‘Those who had been engaged
in the work of village industries drew up the Naya
Morh (New direction) programme which laid down
that the work of Khadi and other village industries
should henceforth be conducted taking the village
unit as its basis and with the object of an all round
development of the village. Its aim was village or
régional self-sufficiency. The whole village was to.
plan as a family for the fulfilment of its basic needs
and for providing work to all. Vinoba was of the
opinion that village industries, Bhidan, and Basic
education provided useful opportunities to carry to
the masses the whole concept of a non-violent
society.’ But his greatest insistance was on Bhiadan
and Shanti-sena (Peace Army) work. Shanti-sena
work primarily means preservation of internal
peace in one’s locality in the first instance and its
restoration if violence breaks out. But it also:
522 SARVODAYA
includes Sarvodaya patra work, social service, .
propagation of Sarvodaya ideas and Bhidan acti-
vity. Of late, Vinoba has enunciated the new
‘Gramdan’, a strategic retreat, no doubt, but one
which is proving attractive and holds out a promise
of infusing a new life into the Sarvodaya move-
ment. Besides these, sampattidan (the gift of
money), sufranjali (the gift of hanks of yarn) and
sramdan (the gift of labour) are included in the
programmes of the Sarvodaya Seva Sangh. It
should be noted that Shanti sena is above all politi-
cal and social parties. It is not a sect. As Vinoba
observes: ‘the needs of shanti sena can be met
simply if Sarvodaya-patras are used everywhere, if
the Shanti Sainiks are supported by the people’s
‘vote for peace’ of which Sarvodaya patra is the
symbol, they will have truly non-violent strength
behind them, and their work will be successful.
When the people depend on the army for their
security they lose their independence; this must not
happen with shanti sena, and the way to prevent it
is that it should be maintained by the will of the
people themselves, expressed through the Sarvo-
daya Patra.’
The basis of Sarvodaya according to Vinoba,

rests on the threefold programme—Gramdan,
Khadhi and shanti sena. They are indivisible. The
three would revolutionise the life of man and build
anew world.
The success of any programme of work depends

upon the personality of the worker. The purer his
EPILOGUE 523
life, the more effective he is likely to prove. He

must have the requisite knowledge of all the village
problems. To have such workers, training insti-
tutions will be needed, for it is only after proper
training that persons with noble ideals and desirous
of serving society can become good workers. The
workers have to be imparted a habit of systematic
study and a widened outlook on life. As for the
maintenance.of the workers, the ideal is that they
should maintain themselves on manual labour like
other villagers.
An important question in connection with

constructive work, concerns the place and type of
organization necessary for it. Vinoba argues that
non-violence needs no external machinery to pro-
pogate itself. What are required are self-purifica-
tion, service of living beings, an all-embracing
love and fearlessness. What he permits is a kind
of brotherhood. The organization of the Sarva
Seva Sangh corresponds to his ideas. A construc-
tive worker is expected to keep aloof from power
politics. The above lack of faith in party or
parliamentary politics does not imply any non-
co-operation with the government in such schemes
as are conducive to the good of the people. It may
be stated that the Sarvodaya thinkers are still
experimenting to discover a programme of work as
would create enthusiasm in the people and would
lead society towards the realization of Sarvodaya.
Of all the items of Gandhian Constructive

Programme, the most important is Nai Talim, or
524 SARVODAYA
the New Education; which in the words of Acharya

Kripatani; is the ‘coping stone of Gandhiji’s socio-
political edifice.’ Gandhi has regarded his scheme
of education as ‘a spearhead of silent social revolu-
tion’ and expected it to provide a healthy and
moral basis of relationship between the city and
the village, and to go a long way in eradicating
poisoned relationship between the classes."!? This
was confirmed by the Zakir Hussain Committee,
which said, ‘Socially considered the introduction
of such practical productive work in education, to
be participated in by all the children of the nation,
will tend to break down the existing barriers of
prejudice between manual and intellectual workers,
harmful alike to both.’#
Such is the social significance of Nai Talim,
but it does not entail any sacrifice of the individual
goal of education for its social goal. It was also
Gandhi who said: ‘by education I mean an all-
round drawing out of the best in child and man-
body, mind and spirit.”. Nai Talim serves both the
goals at the same time. The role of Nai Talim,
first suggested for the education of children bet-
ween seven to fourteen (called Basic Education),
was lateron extended to all the stages. Gandhi
had come to hold that ‘It should include the educa-
tion of everybody at every stage of life including
the university stage.’
12. J.B. Kripalani, The Latest Fad, p. 102.

13. Educational Reconstruction, Committee Report, p. 34.
14. Educational Reconstruction Committee Report, p. 10-
- EPILOGUE. 525
. The present ‘Sarvodaya thinkers accept the
whole idea underlying Nai Talim including its
social and individual aims. Acharya Kripalani
observes: ‘Gandhi laid the foundation of a scheme
of national education suited to our needs, require-
ments and genius and our aspirations for the future.
It is for us to perfect it and extend it to cover the
entire field of education. In this process adjust-
ment and adaptation may be necessary. But these
must be undertaken in the spirit of the total philo-
sophy of Gandhi for the individual and society.'
Opinion is sharply divided regarding the utility of
the method of Nai Talim. Whatever may be its
merits or demerits we should not forget the fact
that education to Gandhi meant inspiring the
children with a new ideology based upon personal
purity and unselfish service, resulting in the creation
of a society based upon Truth and Love.
Vinoba, upholding the Gandhian system of

education observes :*........ Basic education stands for
a new outlook, a new approach. The fountain-head
of all the conflicts in the world is that knowledge
has. been separated from work. They have been
separated in thought by a faulty psychology; they
have been separated in life by a faulty sociology;
they have been assigned different market values by
faulty economics. One of the basic principles of
education, to my mind, is that work and knowledge
must never be separated... . Separation of learning
from labour results also in social injustice........ The
15. ‘J. B. Kripalani, Gandhian Thought, op. cit., p. 281.

526 ' SARVODAYA
threefold wrong - wrong mental attitudes, social

cleavages, discrimination in the awards of labour -
has to be done away with; and it is this abolition
of injustice that must be the goal of our educa-
tion........’,16
‘India is a land with many communities living

side by side. They have things in common and also
a character that is distinctive, formed by a history
of co-operation and conflict, of powerful co-exist-
ence, tivalry and hostility, of creative tensions and
sterility and decadence. India is also a land that
can be regarded as a geographical unity, or
conceived as consisting of regions inhabited by
people with their own languages, economic interests,
and way of life. A dogmatic naturalism, disdaining
to distinguish between unity and uniformity would
seek to simplify problems by ignoring differences; a
dogmatic communalism and regionalism would
reduce unity to a pious hypothesis. Education must
face these issues directly. A timid and fearful accept-
ance or an implicit brushing aside of facts can never
be a solution, for nothing enduring can be created
by fear or evasion. In short, education must
regard national integration as an essential objective
and exercise itself in discovering effective means
for its attainment.
Vinoba declared: ‘Knowledge is of no value

without compassion...Gautama the Buddha was
16 Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Volume, The Emerging

World, Asia Publishing House, 1964, றற. 36-37.
EPILOGUE 527
a prince accomplished in many branches of know-

ledge, but he left his home in the name of compas-
sion, not in the name of learning.’ The Buddha’s
practical teachings of Right understanding, Right
thinking, Right speech, Right action, Right liveli-
hood, Right effort, Right mindfulness and Right
concentration—all these if properly put into practice
in our daily life will resolve all socio-political con-
flicts besetting the nations today.
Vinoba’s conception of acharya-kul is significant
to note. He endeavoured to form a federation of
teachers (acharyas) who would dedicate their life
‘in pursuit of knowledge; to strive for mental
purity; to watch over the development of our
Students with affectionate care; to study the pro-
blems of society with a disinterested endeavour to
reach agreed conclusions for the guidance of the
public—all of these are part of the task of establish-
ing the unity of the family. These are the reasons
which lead me to choose the name Acharya-Kul....
is a beautiful word...It implies all teachers;
Kul
great or
there is no question of high or low, of
be equally honoured ;
small. Al/ teachers are to
of
all will work together ; those are the conditions
The crux of Gandhian as well as
success”!
must not be
Vinoba’s teaching is that knowledge .
separated from action.
by itself will
Let us also note that knowledge
it is wisd om that is needed to
not lead us far, and
Dimension) S. S. S. P,
17. Vinoba, Third Power (A New
Varanasi, 1972, p. 99
528 SARVODAYA
make a success of life. It has been aptly stated

‘that:
‘Knowledge is proud that it knows so much

While wisdom is humble that it knows
no more.’
“Knowledge dwells in heads replete with
thoughts of other men;
Wisdom in minds attentive to their own.’
It is to be realized that the sum-total of all

knowledge that one has gained is but a drop in the
ocean and that what one has learnt may have to be
unlearnt in the future, in the pursuit of truth for
its own sake—to such a one there is no room for
despair.
Practice is much better than preaching. To

bridge the gulf between practice and precept,
should be our aim. Mahatma Gandhi has shown
us the path. Reformation or changes must come
from within. The youth of today stands on the
threshold of a future which has yet to unfold itself.
The younger generation is in no mood to accept
calmly obvious platitudes and stale aphorisms.
Within the last few decades, the growth of
democracy has transformed our life to a conside-
‘rable extent and has led to an appreciation of the
value of liberty. The problems of education in
our country today are so many’ and varied. If
academic higher education is to serve the growing
multiplicity of demands made upon it, it must
EPILOGUE 529
succeed in achieving much more coherence in its
functions, imagination inits methods, and rationali-
zation in its proper use of resources, In map-
ping the future of higher education, priority
must therefore be accorded to developing higher
education as a system capable of responsiveness
and self-discipline. In truth, discipline is positive:
and constructive. It is power, power of control of
the means necessary to achieve ends, and also
power to value and test ends. All genuine education
ends in discipline, but proceeds by engaging the
mind in activities worth while for their own sake.
Real freedom lies in intellectual progress. To change
the conception of what constitutes education, is
our immediate task.
Students are willing to learn how to think, but

they want to see the relevance of thought to action.
It is the duty of the educationists to guide them in
the right path.
_ The problem of education for democracy has

been seriously exercising the attention of both
educators and the government, ever since we
attained independence. ‘The urgency and import-
ance of the educator’s task have become greater at
the present juncture when the lop-sided develop-
ment of scientific techniques has made the predica-
ment of modern man and the bases of his culture
and civilization more precarious than at any time
in the past.” We should not forget that a sense of
frustration, of alienation, of lack of integration
530 SARVODAYA
would ensue, if educational reforms are not brought

out to suit the present-day situation.
The spirit of man is nothing if it is not dynamic,

if it is not responsive and adaptive to the surround-
ing forces. The highest service that education can
render to humanity is to teach everyman always to
keep his mind open and free, and in the words of
Buddha, to follow its own inner light—atma dipo
bhava. While the past takes care of itself, we have
to cultivate the habit of seeing into the future. In
the words of Sri Aurobindo, ‘it is not the dawns of
the past but the noons of the future that call us to
our highest destiny.’ .
Literary training by itself adds not an inch to

one’s moral height, and character-building is inde-
pendent of literary training. Character-building,
the development of courage, strength, virtue and
the ability to forget oneself in working towards
great aims - these are more important than literacy.
Academic learning is only a means to this greater
end. That is why India’s great lack of literacy,
deplorable as it is, does not make us feel that India
is unfit for self-rule.
The Sarvodaya Philosophy of Gandhi and of

the thinkers studied here, is capable of meeting the
great challenge of the age. The most urgent need
of today is the abolition of war, but since ‘peace
without depends upon peace within’, the elimination
of war demands domestic peace within countries
as well.
EPILOGUE 531
Mankind ‘today faces a situation without
precedent in which: the prevention of war has
become an issue paramount in importance and
insistent in urgency. No writer has made this
clearer, or has done it with more cogent argument
than Karl Jaspers, who has seen the present situ-
ation in its historical and philosophical perspective
rightly as a final challenge to man to revise his
thinking and his political attitudes in the face of
the imminent threat of annihilation, or else to
suffer extinction.’!8
There are many who say that the permanent
abolition of war is impossible, because pugnacity is
an innate propensity in men, and there is no way,
without changing human nature, of preventing
them from fighting. Does it follow necessarily that
if man is by instinct violent and, as Oswald Spengler
mentioned, by nature a beast of prey, that he
cannot be tamed and schooled to settle his diffe-
rences with his fellow men by peaceful methods?
Secondly, is it true that human nature is essentially
and ineradicably pugnacious?
In answer to the first question, it is clear that
the conclusion of the proposed argument is a non
sequitur. Even if mankind is by nature war-like
and quarrelsome, it does not follow that he cannot
become civilized and peaceable. That
therefore
Atombombe und die Zukunft des Mens-

78, Vide, Die
d,
~ chen, Tr. by E. B. Aston, The Future of Mankin
University of Chicago Press, 1961.
332 SARVODAYA
would require that he should also be essentially

irrational or even insane. Man is by nature acquisi-
tive, but he is not necessarily a thief. By nature
he ran about naked, but he has become accustomed
to wearing clothes. His natural mode of locomotion
is pedestrian, but he now drives cars and aero-
planes. By nature he is terrestrial, but nowadays
he looks forward to flying to the moon. Civilization
is a way of living that curbs, canalizes and modifies
man’s natural propensities. Why should it not do
the same for man’s natural pugnacity ?
There is, in fact no reason at all. On the

contrary this has been done. In civilized commu-
nities people no longer habitually give vent to their
anger by violence. Feuds are no longer tolerated;
duelling has been suppressed; assault is prevented
and punished by law, and the individual man, has
for the most part, learned to control bis temper,
and to settle disputes by negotiation or litigation.
Exceptions, of course, occur but, in civilized socie-
ties, they are not approved and are not tolerated.
If this is possible for individual man, it should be
possible for groups and communities, which are,
after all, composed only of individuals. If there
are special differences and difficulties in the case of
nations, we must examine them in due course to
find out why this is so and whether they are insupe-
rable. A priori it does not seem warranted to main-
tain that because man is by nature pugnacious -
even if that is true- he cannot school himself to
EPILOGUE 533
restrain his pugnacity and prevent the out-break of
violence.’!9
After schemes ‘for balanced deterrence and
arms control, a third type of reaction to the inter-
national predicament is the renunciation on moral
grounds of the use of force altogether. For a
civilized nation, surely, the moral question is the
only relevant one and expediency should, at best,
be a secondary consideration.
The resort to violence as a means of attaining

human ends is seen as the root cause of the perilous
situation in which the world finds itself. This again
is due to a moral atmosphere which permits and
even approves the use of violence for certain pur-
_poses. The remedy recommended is then that we
radically reform our moral attitudes and outlook
and eschew the use: of force in any circumstance.
resis-
This does not mean that we are to offer no
tance against evil and injustice and no opposition
We may
to wrongs done to ourselves or to others.
any-
speak, act, demonstrate and agitate against
but our .
thing we consciously hold to be unjust;
and political
opposition must be confined to social
action, and
activity, persuasion and democratic
force, what-
must never include the use of physical
ever the provocation.
control
Such a policy involves consummate self-
because the espousal of unpopular
and courage,
Harris, Annihiliation and Utopia, George

19. Errol E.
& Unwin Ltd., London, 1966.,
Allen
534 SARVODAYA
causes may well excite violent opposition and if
those who support the causes refuse to retaliate
‘they are liable to suffer injury or even death.
The question then arises whether such non-

violent methods can ever be effective against deter-
mined and forcible opposition. The exponents of
non-violence say that in the end, it is the only
effective method and they point to the triumph of
the early Christians over persistent persecution and
ef Gandhiin India. Violence, they say, whatever
it succeeds in producing solves no problem and
only creates bitterness and hatred which breed
more violence and produce greater difficulties.
Accordingly, they recommend the use of nonyz

violent methods not only in place of revolution,
but also in international affairs, and they advocate
unilaterai disarmament without international agree-
ment and the use of non-violent methods even
against possible armed invaders. The expectation
of success from such a policy in international
affairs is based on the reasoning that tensions are
primarily caused by fear. The vicious circle from
suspicion and fear to an arms race, from that to
crises and more fear, would then be broken. ப
This position, observes Errol E. Harris, ‘though

it appeals to so few, is highly consistent and has
much to recommend it. It also follows a sound
and ancient tradition both in Christian teaching
and in Greek.’
‘EPILOGUE 535
The justiflcation
.of non-violence is implicitly
the exhortation not to resist evil but to turn the
other cheek. This is a corollary of the gospel of love.
From the moral point of view, therefore, it is the
spirit in which these things are done that is impor-
tant, not the amount of force which is used or
neglected. To act non-violently in a spirit of
defiance and opposition is not in keeping with the
moral principle, and would have to be justified, if
at all, on some other grounds. It is not in the
spirit of friendship that civil disobedience is com-
mitted, and to oppose force,’ observes Harris, ‘is to
be inconsistent.’”
Sarvodaya, by laying stress on the goodness of

of man,
human nature, unity of mankind, service
conside red valid
application of the moral principles
for individuals to group fife and inter-state rela-
ட of change,
io , the non-V! jolent process
tions
ng social and
and polit ical decentra-
economic equality, economic
us kinds of
lization, tries to resolve the vario
dome stic and international
tensions that disturb
It is capab le of stre ngth enin g the forces
harmony. been
of life. It has
of love, creativeness and joy
prese nt crisis lies in
said that the way out of the more
meat,
the recognition that life is more than spiritual.
s,
omic and that it is also
than econ
man and empha-
Sarvodaya takes a whole view of
sizes his spiritual nature. The very conception of
ond the seeming
Sarvodaya denotes going _bey of life.
interests, to 8 spiritual view
conflicts of
20. Ibid., p- 129-30.

336 SARVODAYA
It strikes a happy mean between old ‘spiritualism’
which derided life and the prevailing ‘materialism’
which totally rejects the spiritual.
Is peace the real answer to solve conflicts and

violence. The problem arises as to how man can
realize peace. Toynbee observes: “The source of
peace and of war is the interior of life of each
individual human spirit.” We should not forget that
man is the source, the centre and purpose of all
life. Peace begins in our own hearts. The universa-
lity of spirit lies not in knowing much, but in loving
extensively. Peace is really the reflection of Heaven
upon earth. In the Hebrew language, the word
‘Shalon’ means peace with justice. It means inner
security and external excess. He will be a man of
peace who has in him the combination of both,
Arnold Toynbee espousing the cause of peace
observed: “When the pursuit of peace is whole-
hearted, it covers every aspect of human affairs.’
It may not be out of context to say that the.

World Conference on Religion and Peace which
was held in Japan in 1970, was a historic attempt
to bring together men and women of all major
religions to discuss the urgent issue of peace.
Certain important issues which they held in common
were:
‘A conviction of the fundamental unity of the

human family, and the equality and dignity of all
human beings;
EPILOGUE 537
A sense of the sacredness of the individual

person and his conscience;
A sense of the value of human community;
A realization that might is not right; that

human power is not self-sufficient and absolute;
A belief that love, compassion, selfishness, and

the force of inner truthfulness and of the spirit have
ultimately greater power than hate, enmity, and
self-interest.
A sense of obligation to stand on the side of

the poor and the oppressed as against the rich and
the oppressors ; and
hope that good will finally
A profound
prevail.’2!
new in all
The critic may well ask: ‘what is
prop het of the world has advo-
this? Every sage or
of truth and non- viol ence . And
cated the practice to
it is impossible
it is universally recognized that
reply is: There
practise them to perfectio n. The And
them selves.
is nothing new in the principles
to admit that he did
Gandhi was humble enough
ching universal non-
not have the capacity for prea Gandhi's
What is new in
violence-even to India.
Peace, (Proceedings of
21, Homer Jack (ed) Religion for
Religion and Peace.),
the Kyoto Conference on
Bombay-7, 1973, p. IX.
Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan,
538 SARVODAYA
teachings is that he showed the way to apply the

principles of truth and non-violence in the solution
of political problems. His immediate objective was
to win India’s freedom through non-violence and in.
this, he succeeded during his lifetime. His ultimate
purpose was to demonstrate the possibility of
regulating international relations by non-violent
means.
Anthropological pessimists, who consider man

to be wolf to man (homo homini lupus) would
characterize Gandhi as a visionary, a radical
idealist. But, Gandhi’s claim was that he was a
practical idealist, and that he came to the conclu-
sion as to the possibility of rendering politics non-
violent as a result of a close and searching study of
human nature. If mankind was not habitually non-
violent, it would have been destroyed ages ago.
But in the due! between the forces of violence and
non-violence the latter have always come out
victorious in the end.
The critic may further ask: ‘Is Sarvodaya a
practicable philosophy? As an ideal, it may be
commendable, but can one forget the realities of
the present? It has been remarked of Gandhian
Philosophy that ‘it was neither with the age nor
ahead of the age, it was against the age.’ The
arguments that are advanced in favour of the above
doubt are basically two. First, it is questioned if
human nature is, to say the least, as good as is
' presumed by Sarvodaya. This presumption of the
goodness of human nature lies at the base of the
EPILOGUE 539
very principle of non-violence and since it is not
correct, the very foundations of a Sarvodaya
society and the process of its realization are demo-
lished. Secondly, the world is going the other way
in the direction of economic and political centrali-
zation and there seems to be no chance of the
direction being reversed in favour of decentraliza-
tion. To the first objection, the reply may take
three forms. First, it may be reiterated that the
Sarvodaya view of human nature finds corrobo-
ration in many independent thinkers and writers,
and that experience testifies that ‘nobleness enkind-
leth nobleness’. Secondly, man is capable of
changing under the force of circumstances, and
even Marx was aware of it when he wrote in the
Communist Manifesto. ‘Finally, in times when the
decisive hour, the process
class struggle nears the
class, in
of dissolution going on within the ruling
society,
fact, within the whole range of an old
that a
assumes such a violent glaring character
adrift and
small section of a ruling class cuts itself holds
the revolutionary class, the class that
joins did
And though Marx
the future in its hands’.
realize it, the small section ai ded by the force of
circumstance and the social atmosphere, can act as
class to the new way
a catalytic agent to convert its
it be correct that man 1s
of life. Thirdly, even if
er response, there
not good enough to give a prop
to proceed on the
is no other alternative today but
ls* Selected Works,

29, Karal Marx and Frederick Enge
Vol. I, pp- 41- 42.
540 SARVODAYA
assumption of his innate goodness. It is the only

realism one can afford be it in the domestic life
of anation or in international relations. Lester
Pearson truly observes: ‘The true realist is the
man who sees things both as they are and as they
can be. In every situation there is the possibility
of improvement in every life the hidden capacity
for something better. True realism involves:a dual
vision, both sight and insight.’ Sarvodaya proceeds
this very assumption.
To the second objection that the present drift

is towards the other side and there seems to be no
hope of reversal, the answer is that this objection
does not take into account man’s instinct for survi-
val. It should not be surprising if on being con-
vinced that its salvation lies in reversing the trend,
mankind may change its course. The economic and
technological arguments against such a system are
well known and quite convincing. Industrial socie-
ties committed to mass production and mass con-
sumption do not appear to be promising grounds
for Sarvodaya ideals. Yet it has come to light
that decentralization in industrial organization
may be wise for several good reasons such as mili-
tary security, rehabilitation of depressed classes,
location of the production of components in dis-
persed spots suitable for their more economic
manufacture etc. Thus apart from social, political
and spiritual considerations, even economic and
techonological requirements can become compatible
with a new movement away from concentration
and towards decentralization. The abolition of the
EPILOGUE 547
distinction between town and country set forth as
a communist goal in Russia after the revolution is
now an acceptable objective of all societies. Such
modern dispersal or decentralization does not
contradict the Sarvodaya view of small communi-
ties which is not thing of violation but a true
theory of co-operation which presupposes indepen-
dent and autonomous units which have no fear of
enslavement by other units and no desire to acquire
satellites,
We have noted in great detail, elsewhere in the

book, that political decentralization has found
support among many western thinkers and writers,
though only a few of them would go to the length
of Sarvodaya. To cite an instance, G. D. H. Cole,
went very near to Sarvodaya thought when he
wrote, ‘I am neither a Communist nor a Social
of
Democrat, because I regard both as creeds
whereas I feel sure
centralization and bureaucracy,
fo its
that a Socialist society that is to be true
brotherhoo d must
equalitarian principle of human
of power and
rest on the widest possible diffusion
the participati on of as
responsibility, so as to enlist
citizens in the task of
many as possible of its Erich
self-government.” Similarly,
democratic can
of humanistic socialism
From writes, ‘The aim
of a maximum
be attained only by the introduction
compatible with a minimum of
of decentralization
functioning of an
centralization necessary for the
வ
of a centralized
industrial society. The function
Social Thought, Vol. V, p-337-
| 93, G.D.H. Cole, A History of
542 SARVODAYA
state must be reduced to a minimum, while the
voluntary activity of freely co-operative citizens
constitutes the central mechanism of social life.’
The problem which we have earlier discussed is
the application of non-violence in international
affairs. In the confrontation of nations today, we
seem to see a ‘balance of power’ being replaced by
a ‘balance of terror,’ and the attainment of a stale-
mate or deadlock. Renunciation of resort to war,
or non-violence in international affairs is not a very
novel idea. The problem is who will disarm and
when. If it is admitted that this problem is only
different in degree but not in kind from kindred
questions arising every day in interpersonal relation-
ships, it follows that it is not only an ethical but
highly impractical to hold that one should not
abjure violence till everyone else has done. Unilate-
ral disarmament will, on the basis of experience
and reflection, appear to be not the outcome of
idealism but an act of prudence. In the area of
nuclear disarmament, the logic of non-violence has
appeared in the light; and disarmament without
reference to balances of power or terror is quite
feasible for the great powers which are only two
and absolutely necessary for all the lesser powers.
Professor H. J. N. Horsburgh in his book ‘Non-

Violence and Aggression’ makes a brilliant analysis
of Gandhi's moral equivalent of war. He draws
the conclusion that ‘the prospects of non-violence
24. Bhidan, August 20, 1960, p. 142,

EPILOGUE 543
in the sphere of international conflict may be
brighter than is commonly supposed—in spite of
our continued belief in armed force...It is certainly
to be hoped that they are. For, as Gandhi once
said, man ‘either progress towards ahimsa or rushes
to his doom.’5 While violence is a shattering de-
humanising experience, non-violence is really a way
of life. ்‌
The chief obstacle to the decision by a govern-

ment to adopt non-violence in international affairs
is the total responsibility for the total well-being
of all citizens which modern governments assume
to be undividedly theirs. Highly centralized and
all-pervasive as they are, their reluctance to pro-
ceed on the promptings of individual conscience is
quite natural. The Sarvodaya solution to this
of
difficulty is decentralization and decentralization
power. This too is consider ed part
authority and
of non-violence because within the national
state, centrali zation of the direction of social,
y tend
economic and political activities invariabl
to concentrate authority and to demand massive
exercise of
exercise of coercion which is the
is the good of all,
violence. Satvodaya, which
This must, to
desires the good of all nations.
of every one of them
begin with, imply the survival
all which
and the happiest relations among them
degrees of intimacy and contact
will admit varying
ssion, A
25. HJ. N. Horsburgh, Non-Violence and Aggre
Equivalent of War, Oxford
Study of Gandhi's Moral
p. 199.
University Press, London, 1968,
244 SARVODAYA
between them. At the national level, Sarvodaya

advocates a decentralized society in which the state
is shorn of its terror and relieved of its ever
Increasing and vicarious burden of playing provi-
dence to all its citizens. Modern states have shown
tremendous zeal in keeping up with their neigh-
bours in every respect and if one or two states,
resolutely adopt the Sarvodaya view there is every
reason to hold that this éxample too will have
an international recognition. Sarvodaya, acting
through individuals, small territorial and regional
_ communities and occupational groups, can influence
states and governments to renounce war and
relieve society of the economic and social costs of
violence.
Thus speculation on the application of Sarvos

daya to international affairs Points to human
trans-
formation rather than institutional change, to a_
change in content rather than in the form.
Because
Sarvodaya reasoning proceeds from the faith of
non-violence, a conscious and deliberate
renuncia-
tion of force in human relations, it is unlike
other
social philosophies which, with all their differ
ing
and contradictory visions, neverthless, look
to an .
initial or a continuous application of
force to
realise their goals. That entire societies can learn
the virtue of this ideal and practice it
is not a
remote possibility. In doing so, if they do,
they will
encounter less serious obstacles in international
relations than in ordering their own homes and
States.
EPILOGUE 545
Contemporary India is truly the battleground
of conflicting ideas and ideals, powers and passions;
she is subjected to a cross fire of principles and
precepts from varying quarters and the winds of
doctrine blow over the length and breadth of the
land. The problem that she faces range from the
urgent necessities of the hour to the eternal ques-
tions of history. She has to win her own identity
in the modern world and coin her ancient wisdom
in the currency of modern life. Truly, she needs,
not merely the skill and ingenuity of her scientists,
technologists and planners, but also the wisdom
and vision of philosophers and prophets. Even the
burning questions of her political and social life
cannot finally be solved at the level of mere expe-
diency; to be viable and lasting, they have to be
answered in terms of a philosophy which she can
authen-
cherish and call her own. This need for an
to the problems of politics is
tic Indian approach
cannot be
no mere idle demand of a theorist. It
irrelevant to the immediate issues on
dismissed as
empiricism
hand. As history teaches, such a narrow
only for the passing hour has always
which has eyes
been se If stultifying. Even in terms
of workability,
today a philosophical and metaphysical
we need
and ideas.
basis to our political and social concepts
such a philosophi-
But we must also remember that
cannot be made
cal justification of current practices
it must Issue forth
to order; if it is to take root,
bear the credentials,
out of our past. It must
pass the tests of our histori-
possess the validity and in which
cal consciousness. It must me something
546 SARVODAYA
we can discern the threads of continuity which,

though invisible to the eye, are yet unmistakable
to the spirit, bind us to the generations that have
gone before. It is in this sense alone that such a
political and social philosophy can claim to be
authentically Indian.
In Gandhi, we cati catch the voice of the

conscience of India itself; in him, to note of her
ancient wisdom still rings clear and true and the
vitality of her spiritual culture is expressed perhaps
best in this that his thoughts and reflections have
the greatest relevance to the problems of today.
Dr. T. M. P. Mahadevan rightly considers

‘Gandhi as ‘a seer and thinker of unimpeachable
repute who has left an indelible mark on human
history, contributing to its richness and true pro-
gress.'26 He further observes‘ ‘the deep psychologi-
cal insight he had was responsible for his under-
standing and realistic approach to human problems,
and the profound sense of humanity he possessed is
responsible for the universal import of his teaching
and the relevance of his views to the contemporary
situation.’2?
The relevance of Gandhi’s teaching is illus-

trated by Thiru. N. D. Sundaravadivelu, thus:
“‘Gandhi’s proposals and plans were always rooted
26. T.M.P. Mahadevan, (ed.) The Relevance of Mahatma

Gandhi to the world of thought, op. cit., p. 4.
27. Ibid., p. viii.
EPILOGUE 547
in his basic vision of universal and all abiding
truth. It is with this vision that Gandhiji went
out to meet the world and conquer it, not by
means of an enchanting utopia, nor in terms of a
fanciful idealism but in terms of strenuous practica-
lity and immediate relevance.....The Mahatma
shows us the path to perfection and peace. Will the
civilised nations care to understand and follow
Gandhiji’s teachings and save themselves and the
whole world from the catastrophe which may
otherwise befall them?’
Shrimati Indira Gandhi, our esteemed Prime-
Minister observes: ‘Gandhiji is not a collec-
tion of dry thoughts and dicta but a living
man who reminds one of the highest level to
which a human being can evolve. Containing the
best from the past, he lived in the present, yet the
future. Hence the timelessness of his highest
thoughts. Much that he said and wrote was for the
for the
solution of immediate problems; some was
did not
inner guidance of individuals. His intellect
He fashioned his
feed on derived information.
in
ideas as tools in the course of his experiments
life........’ We who were
the laboratory of his own
have a
born in Gandhiji’s own time and country
cherish his image. More than
special obligation to
bis message --..-- > The world
his words, his life was
est Indian since
rishtly reeards Gandhi as the great
the Buddha Like the Buddha, he will continue to
inspire mankind in its progress to a higher level of
28. Ibid., p. Vis
548 SARVODAYA
civilization. In India, it is our endeavour to build

a future which is worthy of him.”
The greatness of the Mahatma is beautifully
depicted by Pandit Nehruji thus : ‘In ages to come,
centuries and maybe millenniums after us, people
will think of this generation when this man of God
trod the earth and will think of us who, however
small, could also follow his path and probably
tread on that holy ground where his feet had
‘In this connection, it may not be out of context

to refer to the valuable ‘Foreword’ written by our
esteemed President Dr. V. V. Giri to a book
written by a Gandhian follower, Shriman Narayan’s
“Vinoba—His Life and Work.’ He wrote: ‘It isa
pity attempts are being made to divert the energies
of our people in a wrong direction. Those who have
the interests of the country at heart will be dis-
tressed at the current spirit of lawlessness and
violence. In the land of Buddha and Mahatma
Gandhi it is travesty of our profession if we seek to
achieve our objects through this method. Lawless-
ness and violence are no substitutes for reason and
constructive work. I have no doubt that the
tapasya of great men like Mahatma Gandhi and
Acharya Vinoba Bhave will not go in vain and
29. Smt. Indira Gandhi, The Years of Challenge, Publi-

cations Division, New Delhi, 1973, pp. 299-304.
30. Pandit Nehru, Speeches, Vol. I, Publications Divison,
New Delhi, 1963, p. 48,
EPILOGUE 549
those who resort to violence will realise their folly

and follow the path of reason.”3! ்‌
Gandhi wanted that men should affirm the
higher values within the social and political order
and, in the process reshape society and state. The
manner of integrating act and thought, of thinking
in terms of the act, of renouncing the fruits of
action, is the essence of Gandhi’s philosophy which
is carried out by Acharya Vinoba. To him ‘jrana-
karma-samuccaya’, i.e., the integration of action with
knowledge and knowledge with action is the
summum bonum of the integral philosophy of
Sarvodaya. The wish of a great soul (mahatma)
will never go in vain. Gandhi hoped that ‘the
fragrance of the non-violence of India would pene-
trate the whole world’, and wondered sometimes
if that hope would materialize.
The fundamentals of Sarvodaya philosophy:

and the outlines of the edifice built upon it are
Details can well vary, and in the
perfectly valid.
of Sarvodaya,
practical task of the realization
Constructive
strategic retreats are not ruled out.
who differ will serve as guide-
criticisms by those
lines. They are welcome. Keeping all this in view,
are doing their
the thinker-workers of Sarvodaya
analysing and
best to realize their ideals, constantly programmes.
tica l
appraising their ideas and prac
hy of Sarvodaya
Thus the evolution of the philosop to strive,
man
goes on. After all, it is only given to
Vinoba, His Life and Work,
31. Shriman Narayan,
and VIII.
Foreword, op. cit-, pp. VI
350 SARVODAYA
and even if those who work for the cause of Sarvo-

daya do not succeed fully, they would benefit the
world to the extent they are able to divert its pre-
sent course. சீ
It has been rightly considered by Bharatan

Kumarappa that Sarvodaya is India’s distinctive
contribution to social philosophy. The overall
transformation of the entire race of mankind on
all levels of human existence, constitutes the being-
qua-being of Sarvodaya ideology. Dr. T. M. P.
Mahadevan, one of the greatest philosophers of
the world affirms firmly that ‘the Indian conception
of allness and the Indian views of the goal of life
have combined to provide a sound basis for the
philosophy of Sarvodaya.’
Mahatma Gandhi has been the symbol of
peace, truth and non-violence. Gandhi, as Bondu-
rant and Fisher observe: ‘generated an ethical
concern in a manner which defined right action not
in terms of withdrawal in pursuit of self-perfection,
but in the individual concern for and involvement
with the welfare of all.’
Sarvodaya is a universal philosophy of life. It

formulates universal social values with emphasis
on the perfectibility of the individual. It tries to
establish Satya Yuga. The major aspects of
Gandhian Weltanschauung find a deep meaning in
the all-embracing ideal of Sarvodaya.
If we are able to live according to the ideals of
Mahatma Gandhi, we may be secure that this
EPILOGUE 957
country of ours will survive, as it has survived for

centuries, for many more centuries and its philoso-
phy will make a healing of nations and bringing of
peoples together. It is this philosophy that inspires,
for instance, an old prayer:
“sarvas taratu durgani

sarvo bhadrani pasyatu
sarvas tad buddhim apnotu
sarvas sarvatra nandatu’
‘May all beings safely cross the hazards and hard-

ships of life! May all see the beaming face of
happiness! May all attain to right knowledge !
Let there be universal rejoicing.’
GLOSSARY
Abhaya fearlessness.
Abhyudaya material prosperity:
Acara tradition.
Acarya-kul federation of teachers.
Adattadanam steyam : taking something which
is not given.
Adhydima individual.
Adhikarika muktas released souls according
to the doctrine of Ad-
vaita.
Adosa non-hatred.
Advaita non-dual.
Aggarifiasuttanta a book of Genesis, sacred
book of the Buddhists.
Ahimsa non - injury, non ~ vio-
Jence.
AiSvarya prosperity or wealth.
Akarma inaction.
Aliptata-Tat aloofness.
Amatya officials.
Ananda bliss.
Anandamaya Kosa spirit.
Anantam infinitude.
Anasakti non-attachment.
554 GLOSSARY
Andsakti Yoga philosophy of non-

attachment, a commen-
tary on the Giita written
by Mahatma Gandhi.
Anna matter.
Annamaya Kosa matter.
Antyodaya welfare of the last.
Anubhiti realization.
Anuvratas small vows.
Anviksiki philosophy, science - of
knowledge which com-
prises the philosophy of
Sankhya Yoga and Loka-
yata.
Aparigraha non-possessi on
of wealth.
Arjava gentleness.
Arkhos ruler.
Artha the economic good, ins-
trumental value, wealth.
Arthaparicchitti revealing the existence
of some object.
Arthasdastra a systematic compen-
dium of ancient tea-
chings written by Kau-
tilya, the law-giver and
prime-minister of King
Chandragupta.
Asandi sitting on the throne.
Asrama stage of life.
Asteya non~stealing.
GLOSSARY டட 555
Asvada control of the palate.

Athato Brahma jijnasa: ‘Now, therefore, the de-
sire to know the Brah-
man or the Supreme-the
first amphorism of the
Brahma sitra, a treatise
propogating the philo-
sophy of Vedanta.
Atman the inner Self of the
individual, means Brah-
man, spirit.
Atmanam viddhi Know Thyself.
Atma nigraha conquest of his own self.
Atma vidya the knowledge of the
Atman.
Avatar
incarnation.
Avidya ignorance, nescience.
Bande Mataram Hail Mother!

a trader.
Bania of
mythological work
Bhagavat
divine glory.
devotion.
Bhakti
Yoga the path of devotion.
Bhakti
India.
Bharat
attitude.
Bhava
fear.
Bhayam
Bhidan
gift of land.
Bhidan Yajiia land-gift movement.
one who has the essence
Bodhisatya
of Buddhahood.
556 GLOSSARY
Brahmacarin celibate.
Brahmacarya first asrama, the period
of studentship.
Brahman Ultimate Reality, the —
Absolute.
Buddha the enlightned.
Buddhi intellect.
Buddhi dan gift of intelligence.
Carvaka Indian Materialism.

Caturdsrama the four stages-
Caturvarnya members of the four
groups.
Catuspade quadrupeds.
Charkha spinning wheel..
Cit Spirit.
Dan gift.
Danda army, penal justice,
punishment, sceptre.
Danda-dhara wielder of danda.
Dandaniti polity, science of govern-
ment.
\ . க
Danda-Sakti the power of coercive
violence. ,
D4an-patra gift deed.
Daridra Narayana God as embodied in the
form of poorest and low-
liest human beings.
மியா intuition.
Desa place.
GLOSSARY 557
Dhana-tyagam gift of money.
Dharma the moral value, what is
- just, duty, religion, law.
Dhr to uphold.
Divyacaksus Spiritual vision.
Droit . law.
Dukhaparihara to avoid pain.
Durga fort.
Durugraha as opposed to satya-
graha.
Dyaitism the doctrine of duality. -
Dvesa aversion.
Dvipade bipeds.
Eigenthumsvetrag . property contract.

Ekam one
Fakir a Muslim ascetic
Geist spirit.
Gita sacred book for the
Hindus, the spiritual
‘reference book for
-Gandhi.
Goonda hooligan, dacoit.
Grama
village
Gramdan gift of the whole village-
" land.
Gram raj village self-government.
Gram sabha village council.
558 GLOSSARY
Gram seva mandal village service associ-

ation.
Gram Udyog village industry.
Grhastha the second stage, the
stage of a householder.
Gupti “ principle.
Hanana war
Harijan literally, the children of
God-Hari, the name
which Gandhi gave to
untouchables, English
weekly journal founded
by Gandhi and pub-
lished under the aus-
pices of the Harijan
Sevak Sangh (1933-
1956).
Hartal strike.
Himsa violence, injury.
Himsa-sakti military power.
Hind Swaraj Indian Home Rule.
Id - muslim festival
ISopanisad first of the Upanisads.
Ista the object of desire.
Jagat world.
Jai Hind victory to India.
Jai Jagat - “victory to the world’
559
GLOSSARY
Jana Sakti the power and strength of

the people.
Janmabhimisca motherland.
J ati caste.
Jawahar : jewel.
Ji an affix added to names
denoting reverence, ¢.g.
Gandhiji.
Jivandan gift of life, ‘life-deduc-
tion’.
Jivan-muktas released souls.
Jivan-mukti ‘release while being em-
bodied’.
knowledge. |
Jiiana
Jitana-karma the integration of action
with knowledge and
samuccaya ion .
_ knowledge with act
Jani man of wisdom possessing

supreme knowledge.
path of knowledge.
4
Jiiana-yoga
light.
Jyoti
spiritual perfection.
Kaivalya
time. .
Kala s
worship of the Goddes
Kalipija . Kali.
the age of degeneracy.
Kaliyuga
muslim prayer.
Kalina good,
the hedonistic
Kama desire, instrumental
value.
560 GLOSSARY
Kénchan-mukti freedom from money or

gold.
Kanyadan giving away of daughter
in marriage.
Kanya-sulka bride-price.
Karma . action, fruit of action.
Karma yoga pathof selfless action.
Karma yogi man of selfless action
Karuna compassion.
Khadi hand-spun cloth. |
Khudu God
Kisan peasant.
Kosa sheaths.
Kritayugi the golden age.
Ksama forgiveness. .
Ksatra sovereign, military or
physical power.
Ksatrasri sovereignty
Kula family.
Kural ancient Tamil classic
written by Saint Tiru-
valluvar.
Lex law.
Lokahita pursuit of the good of
humanity.
Lokaisana desire for power in this
world.
Loka-niti the politics of the people.
GLOSSARY 561
Loka-Sakti : people’s action, evil

power.
Loka-sangraha > commonweal, welfare of
the world.
Loka Sevak Sangh : ~° an organization or society
for the service of the
people.
Mahdasammata : ‘Great Elect’.

Mahatma : a great soul.
Maha vakya : major text of the Upani-
sad.
Maitri : friendliness.
Manana : study with the help of
canons of reasoning.
Manas : mind.
Mandal : association.
Mantra : a sacred incantation.
Mata : religion.
Matsya | : fish.
Maya : illusion.
Mitra : allies.
Moha : infatuation.
release from bondage,
Moksa libe-
்‌ spiritual freedom,
ration.
Monge crowd.
Moralitat : morality.
Muktas released souls.

562 GLOSSARY
Mukti salvation, liberation.

Muni a sage.
Nai Talim Basic Education or New

Education.
Namaj muslim prayers.
Naturstand natural condition.
Nava Samhita ‘New Dispensation.’
Naya Morh. new direction. \
Neta leader.
Neti, Neti not this, not this.
Nibbana freedom from all cons-
traints or bonds accord-
ing to Buddhism.
Nididhyasana meditation on the Sup-
reme Truth.
Nihsreyasa spiritual! realization.
Nirguna free from characteristics.
Nirvana release from the cycle of
rebirth, supreme bliss.
NirvisSesa free from any distinctions.
Niskama karma action without attach-
ment.
Niti moral law.
Nitya Eternal spirit.
Nivrtti the state of abstinence
from work.
Niyamas observances.
Om mystic syllable according

to Hinduism.
GLOSSARY 563
Padayatra peripatetic campaign.

Paksatita partyless.
Patica five.
Pancakosa five sheaths—“annamaya-
kosa, pranamayakoSsa,
manomaya koSa, vijiia-
namaya kos’a and 4nan-
damaya ko Sa.”
Pafica-mahavrata =: five great vows.
Paiica-yamas five cardinal disciplines—
satya, asteya, aparigraha,
abhaya, brahmaearya.
Panchayat village council consisting
of five members.
Panchayati Raj administration through
the panchayat, i.e., the
people.
Panchayat samiti regional councils.
Parama purusartha highest human end, sup-
reme value, moksa.
Parama Samya Ultimate Reality.
Pardaiici outward looking.
Paripalana : all-round protection.
Patanjali Yoga Sutra: a classical treatise written
by Patanjali containing
the basic principles of
Yoga philosophy.
Phala result, fruit of action.
affording help in the
Phalaprapti pur-
atta inme nt of some
pose in life.
564 GLOSSARY
Piteva father.
Polis city-state.
Prajdparipalana the protection of the
subjects.
Prakriti primal nature.
Prakriti sampadah elements of sovereignty.
Prana : sentient beings.
Prandvyd pdropanam : injury to vitality.
Pranayama : control of breath.
Prayriti action.
Prayojana the idea of an end.
Prema love.
Punya-bhumi holy land.
Puranas ancient Hindu classic
texts written: by sage
Vyasa.
Purdha the custom among some
women (muslim) to cover
their faces.
Purna complete.
Pirna swaraj complete independence or
freedom.
Purusa finite spirit: ட
Purusarthas : spiritual values—dharma
artha, kama and moksa.
Putraisana extinction of desire for
persons.
Quaran : the Holy book’ of the

muslims.
GLOSSARY 565
Raga attachment.
Raghupati Raghava a hymn in praise of Lord
Raja Ram Rama.
Rajamandala circle of states.
Raja-niti the philosophy of power.
Rajya-Sakti governmental action.
Ram Incarnation of God, the
son of King Dasaratha of
Ayodhya.
Ramdhun chanting the name of
Rama, Gandhi’s favourite
prayet song.
Ram Rajya the Kingdom of God on
earth, dharmic society.
Ramayana . the epic of Rama by
Valmiki.
Rajyam royalty or sovereignty
(etymologically), King-
dom (derivatively).
Rajya-dharma the duties of Kings.
territory.
Rashtra
seers.
Rsis
Ryot Indian peasant.
society.
Sabha
Sadhana
penance.
Saivism religious sect.
Sakti power.
Sallekana fasting unto death.
Salus populi welfare of the people.
566 GLOSSARY
Sama same.
Sama bhava attitude of reverence.
Samdanya-dharma common duties.
Sama-ras homogeneous.
Samarpana dedication.
Samaya occasion.
Sammelam conference.
Sampatti dan the gift of money.
Samsara wheel of birth and death.
Sdmya Brahman (as used by
Vinoba).
Samyak-caritra right conduct.
Samyavad Communism.
Sandatana orthodox.
Sandatanadharma orthodox Hinduism, eter-
nal refigion.
Sandatani orthodox Hindu.
Sannydsa the final stage, the life of
renunciation.
Santi peace.-
Santi-sena peace brigade.
Sarir Yajiia body-labour.
Sarva all.
Saryabhitahita emancipation of all living
beings.
Sarvabhita hite ratah: good and welfare of all.
Sarvadharmasama-
bhava respect for other religions.
Sarvagata all-pervading.
GLOSSARY 567
Sarvamukti Universal freedom, uni-
versal release.
Sarvodaya rise or welfare of all.
Sdsanamukti the reign of law.
Sasta administrator.
Sastra scripture.
Sastra himsa scriptural himsa.
Sat , Truth.
Satatya-Om accompanied by conti-
nuity.
Sati in samskrit means a
virtuous woman, it refers
to the custom of widow-
burning.
Satya Truth.
Satya~dhrti one whose determination.
is firm.
Satya pravacana truthful speech.
Satya-van one who is truthful.
Satya-vrta one who has taken up a
vow to speak and act
truth.
Satya-sandha wedded to truth.

Satyagraha truth-force, soul- force,
literally, holding on to
truth. -!
one who relies on truth.
SatyaSraya
Satyasya satyam real of the real.
Schutzverbtrag _protection contract.
568 GLOSSARY
Seva service.
Shalon justice.
Shanti Sainik a soldier of peace.
Shoshana-vihina new outlook to society.
Samaj
Silappadikaram Tamil classical literature.
Sitte custom.
Sittlichkeit social ethics.
Siva spirituality.
Smrti secondary scripture.
Sraddha living faith.
Sramdan gift of physical labour.
Sravana hearing, study of the
sacred books.
Staat the state.
Sthitaprajiia one with steady wisdom.
Suddha-buddhi pure reason.
Suddhi pure.
Sukha happiness.
Sukhapra pti to obtain pleasure.
Suprema lex supreme law.
Sutra short aphorism.
Suranjali the gift of hanks of yarn.
Sva-dharma to perform duties that
pertain to his station in
life.
Syamin King, Sovereign.
Svarat autonomous.
GLOSSARY. 569
Svarat autonomous.
Svayamprakasa self-luminous.
Swadeshi literally of one’s own
country, belonging to or
made in one’s own coun-
try.
Swapaka dog-eater.
Swarga heaven.
Swardj self-government, self-rule,
freedom.
Swarajya Sdastra ‘Grammar of ‘Politics.’
Taluka district.
Tamas dulness, the third consti-
tuent of primal nature.
Tapas austerity.
Tattva-jiiana the true knowledge of the
self.
Tativa-tyagam gift of knowledge.
Theosophy a school of thought—A.
Besant-the founder.
Trayt theology.
Tyagam sacrifice.
Udaya rise or welfare.

forty verses composed .
Ulladu: Narpadu philosophy of
on the
Existe nce by Bhaga-'
van Ramanamaharshi in.
Tamil.
Unus interpares one among the equals. 1

570 GLOSSARY
Upanisads ancient samskrit texts

propounding Vedantic
philosophy.
Upaya the idea of a means.
Vaishnava janato He is the true Vaisnava.

tene Kahiye
Vaisnayism theistic school of thought,
Gandhi’s family sect.
VaiSsya third order in Hindu caste
system.
Vanaprastha anchorite, the third stage,
the stage of a forest-
dweller.
Vande Mataram salutation to mother
India.
Varna caste, colour, occupatio-
nal division of Hindu.
society.
Varna dharma caste duties.
Varnasrama dharma : socio-individual duties.
Varta agriculture, cattle-breed-
ing and trade, economics.
Vedanta end of the Veda.
Vedas : scriptures of the Hindus.
Vereinigungsvertrang : union contract.
Vidya education.
Vijfiana science, intellect.
Viplava revolution.
ViSesa-~dharma special duties.
. 571
GLOSSARY
Visnusahasranama one thousand names of

Lord Visnu.
Visvasa faith.
Vittaisana desire for wealth.
Volk community.
Volunte de tons the will of all.
Volunte generale general will.
Vedas Lit. knowledge, ancient
samskrit books, four in
number-Rg. Veda, Yajur-
Veda, Sama Veda and
Atharva Veda.
Vedanta unitive knowledge.
Yajita
sacrifice.
Yama God of death.
747100 vows, disciplines.
Yoga discipline, method of con-

trolling the mind by con-
centration, path.
Yuga age—four yugas.
district councils.
Zilla parishads
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ச்‌
A. B.S. 5. 8S. Akhil Bharatiya Sarva

Seva Sangh, Varanasi.
ATV. A. All India Village Indus-

tries Annual.
A, P. H. Asia Publishing House.
B, V. B. : . Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan,

Bombay.
N. P. H. Navajivan Publishing
House, Ahmedabad.
P. D. Publications Division,
Government of India,
New Delhi.
S. A. A. Sri Aurobindo Ashram,

’ Pondicherry.
S. P. Sarvodaya Prachuralaya,
Tanjore.
5. 8.8. Sarva Seva Sangh, Vara-

nasi.
8.8.8. P. Sarva Seva Sangh Pra-

kashan.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abel, M: Indian Government and Politics, The
Ecumenical Christian Centre, Madras,
1970.
Agarwal, S.N: Gandhian Constitution For Free
India, Kitabistan, Allahabad, 1946.
Aiyangar, K. V. R: Some Aspects of Ancient
Indian Polity, Madras , 1935.
Aiyar, S. P: Modernization of Traditional Society
& other essays, Macmillan, Delhi, 1973.
‘Alexander, Horace: Consider India-An Essay in
Values, Bombay, 1961.
Gandhi, Ranade and Jinnah,
Ambedkar, B.R:
Bombay, 1943.
Mahatma Gandhi’s Ideas, New
Andrews, C.F:
York, 1930.
Development of India,
Anstey, Vera: The Economic
1946.
Longmans Green & Co,
Appadorai, A: The Substance of Politics, Oxford
1954.
University Press, Madras,
Saheb, Patwardhan: Towards a New Society,
Appa 1959.
A. B.S.S.58, Varanasi,
Indians in South Africa,
Appasamy, J. B:
Bombay, 1943.
The
Apter, E. David: Ideology and Discontent,
1964.
Free Press, London,
376 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ashe, G: Gandhi-a study in revolution, Heinemann,

London, 1968.
Asirvatham, E: Herbert Spencer’s Theory of Social
Justice.
Aurobindo: Essays on Gita, S. A. A, Pondicherry,
1954.
Aurobindo: Foundations of Indian Culture, S.A-A,
Pondicherry, 1970.
Aurobindo: Ideals and Progress, S. A. A, Pondi-
cherry, 1951.
Aurobindo: The Doctrine of Passive Resistance,
S. A. A, Pondicherry, 1952.
Aurobindo: The Human Cycle, 8. A. A, Pondi-
cherry, 1949.
Aurobindo: The Human cycle, The ideal of Human
Unity, War and Self-determination, S. A. A,
1962.
Aurobindo: The Ideal of Human Unity, S. A. A,
Pondicherry, 1950.
Aurobindo: The Ideal of Karmayogin, 8S. A. A,
Pondicherry, 1960.
Aurobindo: The Renaissance in India, Arya Publi-
shing House, 1937.
Aurobindo: Uttarpara Speech, S. A. A, Pondi-
cherry, 1962.
Aurobindo: War and Self-Determination, S. A. A,
Pondicherry, 1957.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 597
Austin John: Lectures on Jurisprudence, Fourth

edition, edited by Robert Campbell, Vols.
I & II, London, 1873.
Austin John: The Province of Jurisprudence Deter-
mined, (Ed.) H. L. A. Hart, London, 1954.
Avinashilingam, T. S: Gandhiji’s Experiments in
Education, Ministry of Education, Govern-
ment of India, 1960.
Ayyangar, T. A. Srinivasa: The Yoga Upanisads,
்‌ The Adyar Library, Madras, 1952.
Bailey, F.G: Decisions by consensus in Councils

and committ ees: with special reference to
Village and local government in India,
Tarrsto ck Publicat ions, London, 1965.
Bains, J. S: Studies in Political Science, A. P. H,
Bombay, 1961.
Development of Hindu
Bandyopodhya, N. C:
Polity and Polit ical Theor ies, Calcutta,
1927.
Banerjee, Surendranath: A Nation in the Making,
London, 1925.
Bentham and the Ethics of
Banmgardt, David:
Today, Princeton, N J., 1952.
&
Barker, E: Church, State and Morals, Methuen
Co., Ltd., London, 1930.
: from Spencer to
Political Thought
Barker, Ernest :
London,
today, Oxford University Press,
1951.
சீ
578 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barker, Ernest: Political Thought in England

(1849—1914), Oxford University Press,
London, 1951.
Barker, Ernest: Principles of Social and Political
Theory, Oxford University Press, London,
1965.
Barry, F.R: Secular and Supernatural, S.C. M-
Press Lid, London, 1969.
Bary, T: Sources of Indian Tradition, Columbia
University Press; New York, 1958.
Bealer, A.C.F: History of Peace.
Behari, Bepin: Gandhian Economic Philosophy,
Vora & Co, Bombay, 1963.
Benn, Stanley, 1: The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy,
The MacMillan Company & The Free
Press, New York, 1967, Vol. VII.
Bentham, Jeremy: A Fragment on Government,
edited with an Introduction, by F. C.
Montague, Oxford, 1891.
Berdyaev, Nicolas: The Origin of Russian Commu-
nism, The Meaning of History, The Russian
idea,
Berlin, Isaiah: Four Essays on Liberty, Oxford
University Press, London, 1969.
Bhatta, S. D: And they gave up dacoity, 8.8.8,
Varanasi, 1962.
Bhattacharya, H.M: The Problem of Values in
Indian Philosophy, (Presidential Address of
the Section of Indian Philosophy), The
Indian Philosophical Congress, 1939.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 579
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba: Bhoodan and Congress,

S. S. S, Varanasi, 1955.
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba: Bhudan Yajna-Land Gift
Mission, N. P. H, Ahmedabad, 1953.
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba: Christ: the love incarnate,
8.8.8. P, Varanasi, 1964.
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba: Democratic Values, 5.55,
Varanasi, 1962.
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba: Election and Democracy,
S.S.S. P, Varanasi, 1967.
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba: From Bhoodan to Gram-
dan. S. P, Tanjore, 1957.
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba: Gramdharma, P.D, New
Delhi, 1954.
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba: Gramdan, S. S. S, Vara-
nasi, 1965. ,
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba and Narayan Jayaprakash:
Gramdan for Gram Swaraj, 3. 5. S, Vara-
nasi, 1967.
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba: Gramdan—Villagism of
Land, S. P, Tanjore, 1958.
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba: On World Peace, 5.1,
Tanjore.
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba: Prakhandan, S. 8. 5,
‘Varanasi, 1966.
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba: Revolutionary Sarvodaya,
B. V. B, Bombay, 1964.
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba: Sampattidan, S. 8S. 8,
Varanasi, 1963.
580 - BIBLIOGRAPHY
aya and Commu-
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba: Sarvod |
nism, S. P, Tanjore, 1957 .
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba: Science and Self-know-
ledge, S. S. S, Kashi, 1961.
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba: Science and Spirituality,
S. A. A, Pondicherry.
ore,
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba: Shanti Sena, §.P, Tanj
1958.
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba: Sulabh Gramdan, 8.5.8,
Varanasi, 1965.
.8,
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba: ‘Swaraj Sastra, 8.8
Varanasi, 1963.
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba: Talks on the Gita, S.S.S,
Varanasi, 1964.
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba: The Essence of Quran,
8, 8, $, Varanasi, 1962.
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba: The Present Crisis in
India, 8. P, Tanjore, 1962.
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba: The Principles and Philo-
sophy of Bho oda n Yajna, S. P, Tanjore,
1956. .
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba: The Steadfast intelli-
gence, S. P, Tanjore. 1962.
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba: The Steadfast Wisdom,
S. 8. S. P, Vara nasi , 1966.
Bhave, Vinoba: Third Power, A New Dimension,
Bhave, Acharya Vinoba: Thoughts on Education,
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 987.
Bilpondiwala, Nosir: The Social Order and Sarvo-

daya, 8. S. S, Varanasi, 1963.
Birla, G. D: In the Shadow of the Mahatma,
Calcutta, 1953.
Blavatsky, H.P: The Key to Theosophy, London,
1898.
Bluntschli, J. C: Theory of the State, English
translation, Second edition, Oxford, 1892.
Bodani, V: Some evils of party system, Rashmi
Prakashan Mandir, Bombay, 1962.
Bogardus, Emory S: The Development of Social
Thought, Vakils, Feffer and Simons Private
Ltd, Bombay, 1969.
: the Gandhi-
Bondurant, J. V: Conquest of Violence
an philosophy of Confl ict, Prin ceto n Univer-
sity Press, Princeton, N. J. 1958.
W: Indian appro-
Bondurant, J. V., & Fisher, M.
Institute of
aches to a socialist society,
ersity of Cali-
International Studies, Univ
fornia, Berkeley, 1956.
A Companion to Plato’s Re-
Bosanquet, Bernard:
publ ic, Lon don , 1895.
,
Bosanquet, Bernard: The Philosophical Theory of
Macmillan& Co Ltd., London,
the State,
1958.
N. P. H,
Bose, N. K: Selections _fro m Gandhi,
Ahmedabad, 1948.
Publish-
Bose, N.K: Studies in Gandhism, Merit
ers, Calcutta, 1962.
582 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bose, 8. K: Surendranath Banerjea, P. D, New

Delhi, 1969.
Bose, Subhas Chandra: An Indian Pilgrim, A.P.H,
Bombay, 1965.
Bowles, Chester: Ideas, People and Peace, Bombay,
1961.
Bowles, Chester: The Makings of a Just Society,
University of Delhi, 1963.
Bradley, F. H: £thical Studies, London, 1876.
Brailsford, H. N., H. N. Pethic~-Lawrence, and
H. L. Polak: Makatma Gandhi, London,
1909.
Brown, D. Mackenzie: Indian Political Thought
from Ranade to Bhave, California Univer-
sity Press, California, 1961.
Brown, D.M: The White Umbrella; Indian Politi-
cal Thought from Manu to Gandhi, Univer-
sity of California Press, Barkeley, 1953.
Brunton, Paul: Indian Philosophy and Modern
Culture, Rider & Company, London.
Bryce: Studies in History and Jurisprudence,
Vol. II.
Buch, M.A: Rise and Growth of Indian Nationa-

lism, Baroda, 1939.
Carr, E.H: The Twenty Year’s Crisis, Macmillan,

London, 1949.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 583
Carter, A: Non-violent action theory and practice:
a selected bibliography, Housman’s, Lon-
don, 1966, 1970.
Carus, D. P: The Nature of the State, The Open
Court Publishing Company, Chicago, 1894.
Cassirer, Ernst: The Myth of the State, New
Haven, Conn, 1946.
Catlin, George: In the path of Mahatma Gandhi,
Chicago, 1950.
Catlin, G.E.C: Systematic Politics, Elementa
Politics and Sociologica, George Allen &
Unwin Ltd., Canada, 1962.
Catlin: The Science and Methods of Politcs.
Chakravarthy, Amia: Mahatma Gandhi and the
modern World, Book House, Calcutta,
1945.
Chakravarthy, Amia: Modern Humanism-An Indian
Perspective, University of Madras, Madras,
1968.
Char, Narasimha: A Day Book of Thoughts from
Mahatma Gandhi, Macmillan, 1969.
Chari, C. T. K. (ed.): Essays in Philosophy,
Ganesh & Co. Madras, 1962.
Chari, C.T. K: Some Issues about Social change
University of Madras, 1973.
S. S. 8. P,
Chatterjee, B. B: Gramdan and People,
Varanasi, 1969.
Chodhari, Manmohan: Freedom for the masses,
S.S. 8. P, Varanasi, 1964.
584 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cobban, Alfred: Rousseau and the Modern State,

London, 1934.
Cohen, H. E: Recent Theories of Sovereignty,
Chicago, 1937. \
Coker, F.W: Recent Political Thought, New York,
1935.
Cole, G. D. H: Communism and Social Democracy,
1914-1931, London, 1958.
Cole, G.D.H: Fabian Socialism, London, 1943.
Cole, G.D.H: The Meaning of Marxism, London,
1948.
Cook, T,1: History of Political Philosophy, Pren-
tice Hall Inc., New York, 1936.
Cox, Harvey: The Secular City, Penguin Book,
London, 1966.
Cranston, Maurice: Western Political Philoso-
phers, National Academy, New Dethi,:
5.
Damodaram, 0. 15. (64): Aspects of Higher Edu-

cation, N. D. Sundaravadivelu 61st Birth-
day Commemoration Volume, Coim-
batore, 1973.
Damodaran, K: Indian Thought—A Critical Sur-
vey, A. P. H, Bombay, 1967.
Dasgupta, S: <A great society of small communi-
ties, 8. S. 8. P, 1968.
Dasgupta, S. (ed.): Towards a philosophy of social
work in India, Gandhian Institute of
Studies, Varanasi, 1967.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 585
Datta, D.M: . The Gita according to Gandhi.

Datta, D. M: The Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi;
The University of Wisconsin Press, Madi-
son, 1953. :
Davids, Rhys: Sacred Books of the Buddhists;

Vol. iv.
Davidson, William: Political Thought in England:
The Utilitarians from Bentham to J. S. Mill,
New York, 1916.
Dayananda: Light of Truth; Allahabad, 1915 .
Deininger, Whitaker, T: Problems in Social and
Political Thought, Macmillan, London,
1965. ; ட
Deogirikar, T. R: Gopal Krishna Gokhale, P. D,
. New Delhi, 1969.
Deo, Shankarrdo: Gramdan movement; onward
march: a turning point, Mouj Printing
Bureau, Bombay, 1969.
Deo, Shankarrao: The Voter’s dilemma and Sarvo-
daya approach, 5. P, Tanjore, 1962.
Desai, N: Shanti Sena in India, S. 8. S. P, Vara-
nasi, 1962. ்‌
Desai, A.R: Social Background of Indian Nationa-

lism, Bombay, 1948.
Desai, Mahadev: The Gita according to Gandhi.

Desai, Narayan: 4 Hand Book of Shanti Sainiks,
‘Kusumavathi: Ranade to Gandhi,
Deshpande,
. 1963. ,
586 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Devanesan, Chandran, D.S: The Making of the

Mahatma, Oriental Longmans, Madras,
1969,
Devaraja, N.K: The' Philosophy of Culture, Kitab
Mahal , Allah abad, 1963.
Devasenapathi, V.A: The Ethics of Tirukkural,
Dewey John: Logic, The theory of inquiry, New
York, Henry Holt and Company, 1949.
Dhadda; S$: Gramdan: the latest phase of Bhoodan,
§.S.S. P, Varanasi, 1958.
Dhawan, Gopinath: The Political Philosophy of
Mahatma Gandhi, N. P. H, Ahmedabad,
1951.
Dias. R. W. M. A: A Bibliography of Jurispru-
dence, London, 1964, Chs. 4 & 14.
Dicey, A.V: The Law of the Constitution.
Dikshitar, V.R.R: Kural, Madras, 1949.
Diwakar, R.R: A Practical Philosopher, B. V. B,
Bombay, 1971.
Diwakar, R. R: Satyagraha: its technique and
history, Hind Kitabs, Bombay, 1946.
Diwakar, R. R: Saga of Satyagraha, B. V. B,
Bombay, 1971.
Diwakar, R. R: Gandhi: The Spiritual Seeker,
B. V. B, Bombay, 1969.
Doctor, A. H: Anarchist thought in India, A. P. H,
Bombay, 1964.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 587
Doctor. A. H: Sarvodaya: a political and economic

study, A. P. H, Bombay, 1967.
Doke, Joseph J: An Indian Patriot in South Africa,

London, 1909.
Duncan, Ronald, (ed.): Selected Writings af
Mahatma Gandhi, London, 1951.
Dunning, W. A: A History of Political Theories,
Central Book Depot, Allahabad, 1966.
x
Etzioni,A: A Comparative analysis of comple
organization s, The Free Press, New York,
1961.
Eaton, Jeanette: Gandhi: Fighter without a sword,

New York, 1950.
Ebenstein, William: Modern Political Thought—
Rinchart and
The General Issues, Holt
Inc.. New York , 1960.
L Winston,
The Nazi State, New York,
Ebenstein, William:
1943.
Nehru: A Political Biography,
Edwards, Michael: ்‌
‘ A. P. H, Bombay.
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
Edwards, Paul: New York,
The Macmillan Company,
a .
1967.
Ellwood, Charles A: 4 History of Social Philo-
York, 1938.
sophy, Princeton-Hall, New
Freedom Press, Lon-
Eltzbacher, P: Anarchism,
don, 1960.
‘588 ‘BIBLIOGRAPHY
Elwin, Verrier: A Philosophy of Loyvé; P. D, New

Delhi, 1965..
Elwin, Verrier: Religious and Cultural Aspect. of
Khadi, S. P, Tanjore, 1964.
Etzioni, A: A Comparative analysis of complex
organizations, ‘The Free Press, New York,
1961.
Field, G.C: The Philosophy of Plato, London,
1949.
Figgis, J. Neville: The theory of the Divine Right
. of Kings,. Cambridge. University Press,
1896.
Fisher, Frederick B: That Strange Little Brown
Man-Gandhi, Orient Longmans, New Dethi,
. 1970.
Fischer, Louis: A Week with Gandhi, New York,
்‌ 1942. .
Fischer, Louis: Gandhi: His Life and Message for
the World, New York, 1954.
Fischer, Louis: Life of Mahatma Gandhi, Vols.
' T&It,B. V. B, Bombay, 1971.’
Fischer, Louis: The Life of Mahatma Gandhi,
Jonathan Cape, London, 1951.
Follet, M.P: The New State, New York, 1918.
Foster, M.B: The Political i tilosophy of Plate
.. and Hegel, Oxford, 1935.
Fromm, Erich: Sane Society, Routledge and
Kegan Paul, London, 1956.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 589
Frofom, Erich :. The Heart of Mar, Routledge.&
Kegan Paul, London, 1964.
Fuchs, $: Rebellious Prophets, A. P. H,: London;
1965.
Gadgil,D.R: Planning and Economic Policy in

India, A. P. H, Bombay, 1961.
Gandhi, Indira : The Years of Challenge, Publica-
tions Division, New Delhi, 1973: 7
Gandhi, Kanu: Swaraj through Charkha, Seve-
gram, 1945.
Brothers, Life and
Gandhi, M. K: All Men are
in,
Thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi as told
New
his own words, Columbia University,
York, 1958.
of
Gandhi, M,K: Aa Autobiography or The Story
P. Hs
My £xperiments with Truth, N.
Ahmedabad, 1966.
hea Ith, S. Ganesh &
Gandhi, M. K: A guide to
Co. Madras, 1921.
e-
Gandhi, M.K: Basic Education, N. P. H, Ahm
dabad, 1951.
N. P. H, Ahme-
Gandhi, M.K: Christian Mi ssions,
dabad, 1941.
Abme-
Gandhi, M.K: Communa 1 Unity, N. P, BH,
dabad, 1949.
N.P.H,
Gandhi, M.K: Communis. m & Communists,
Ahmedabad, 1969.
590 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gandhi, M.K: Constructive Programme, N. P. H,
Ahmedabad, 1945.
Gandhi, M.K: Delhi Dairy, N.P.H, Ahmeda-
bad, 1948.
Gandhi, M.K: Democracy—-Real and Deceptive,
N. P. H, Ahmedabad, 1961.
Gandhi, M.K: Diet and diet reform, N.P. H,
Ahmedabad, 1949.
Gandhi, M.K: Economic & Industrial Life &
Relations, Vols I, Ul, HI, N.P.H, Ahmeda-
bad, 1858.
Gandhi, M.K: Economics of Khadi, N. P. H,
Ahmedabad, 1941.
Gandhi, M. K: Ethical Religion, S. Ganeshan,
Madras, 1922. :
Gandhi, M.K: For Pacifists, N.P. H, Ahmeda-
bad, 1949.»
Gandhi, M.K: Hindu Dharma, N. P. H, Ahme-
dabad, 1958. .
Gandhi, M.K: Hind Swaraj, or Indian Home
Rule, N. P. H, Ahmedabad, 1939.
_ Gandhi, M.K: India of My Dreams,’ N. P. H,
Ahmedabad, 1958.
Gandhi, M.K: Jn search of the Supreme, N. P.H,
Ahmedabad, 1961.
Gandhi, M.K: My Non-Violence, N.P.H, Ahmeda-
bad, 1969.
Gandhi. M.K: Non-Violence in peace and War,
N. P. H, Ahmedabad, Part I & Il, 1945,
1949.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 59
Gandhi, M. K: - Rebuilding our Villages,

N. P. H,
Ahmedabad, 1952.
‘Gandhi, M. K.: Sarvedaya, N. P. H., Ahmedabad,
1951.
Gandhi, M K: Satyagraha, N.P. H, Ahmedabad,
1951.
Gandhi, M. K: Self-restraint V. self-indulgence,
Gandhi, M.K: The Art of Living, B.V.B, Bombay,
1961.
Gandhi, M.K: The Selected Works of Mahatine
Gandhi, edited by Shriman Narayan, Vols.
Ito VI, N. P. H, Ahmedabad, 1969.
Gandhi. M.K: Towards New Education, N. P. H,

Ahmedabad, 1953.
Gandhi, M. K: Towards Non-Violent Socialism,
N. P. H, Ahmedabad. 1951.
Gandhi, M.K: Unto this Last, N. P. H, Ahmeda-
bad, 1951.
M. K: Varnashrama Dharma, N. P. H,
Gandhi,
Ahmedabad, 1962.
Gandhi, M.K: Women and Social Injustice, N.P.H,
Ahmedabad, 1942.
Ganguli, B. N: Gandhi's Social Philosophy, Vikas
Publishing House, P. Limited, Delhi, 1973.
Gandhi, B. N: Readings in Indian Economic
” History, A. P. H, Bombay, 1964.
392 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Geoffrey Ostergaard Melville Currell: The Gentle
Anarchists, A study of the Leaders of the
Sarvodaya Movement for Non-Violent
Revolution in India, Oxford University
Press, London, 1971.
Germino, Dante: Beyond Ideology, ‘The Revival
of Political Theory, Harper & Row, New
York, 1967.
Gettell, R.G: Political Science, Ginn ‘and Com-
pany, Boston, 1949.
Ghosal, U.N: A #istory of Indian Political Ideas,
. Oxford University Press, Bombay, 1959. ,
Ghose, Benoy: /fswar Chandra Vidyasagar, P. D,
New Delhi, 1969.
Ghose, Sankar: The Western Impact on Indian
Politics (1885-1919), Allied Publishers,
Bombay, 1967. ,
Ginsberg, Morris: On Justice in Society, Penguin
Books, Great Britain, 1965.
Ginsberg, Morris: Sociology, Oxford University
Glock, C. Y., & Stark, R: Religion and Society in
tension, Rand Mc Nallf, Chicago, 1965.
Goswami, K. P: Mahatma Gandhi, a chronology,
P. D, New Delhi, 1971.
Gouldner, A. W. (ed.): Studies in leadership,
்‌ Harper, New York, 1950. : ,
Graham, Williams: English Political Philosophy
from Hobbes to Maine, London, 1899.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 593
Gregg, R.B: A Compass for Civilization, N. P. H,
Ahmedabad, 1956.
Gtegg,R.B: A Discipline for Non-Violence, N.P.H,
Ahmedabad, 1941.
Gregg, R. B: A Philosophy of Economic Develop-
ment, N. P. H, Ahmedabad.
Gregg, Richard B: A Philosophy of Indian Econo-
mic Development, N. P. H, Ahmedabad,
Gregg, Richard B: The Power of Non-Violence,

Groom, D: War on Want, London, 1964.
Groom, D: With Vinoba, S. S. 85, P, Varanasi,
1961. .
Guha, B.N: Vinoba and Gandhi, Sarvodaya Pra-
kashan Mandal, Calcutta, 1953.
Chitta-
Gupta, Hemendranath Das: Deshbandhu
ranjan Das, P. D, New Delhi, 1969.
S: The Economic Philosophy of
Gupta, Shanti
Mahatma Gandhi, Ashok Publishing House,
New Delhi.
Gupta, Sulekh,C: India’s Agrarian Structure, Main-
1966.
stream Publishers, New Deihi,
Gyan Chand: Socialist Transformation of Indian
Delhi,
Economy, Allied Publishers, New
1965. ்‌
Andrew: Political Theory: Philosophy,

Hacker, Com-
“ Ideology, Science, The Macmillan
,
pany, New York, 1961.
594 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Halappa, G.S. (ed): Dilemmas of democratic par-

ties in India, Manaktalas, Bombay, 1966.
Hallowell, J. H: Main Currents in Modern Political
Thought.
e
Harris, Errol, H: Annihilation and Utopia, Georg
Allen & Unwi n Ltd., Londo n, 1966.
Hegel, G. W.F: The Philosophy of History, trans-
lated by J. Sibree, New York, 1900.
Hegel, G.W.F: The Philosophy of Mind, trans-
lated by William Wallace, Oxford, 1894.
aA
Hegel, G.W.F: The Philosophy of Right, trans-

lated by S. W. Dyde, London, 1896.
Heimsath, Charles H: Indian Nationalism and
Hindu Social Reform, Princeton, New
Jersey, 1964.
"Hertzler, J.O: The History of Utopian Thought,
The Macmillan Company, New York,
1923. "
Hiriyanna, M: The Cultural Heritage of India,
(Philosophy of Values), Vol. III, Calcutta,
1962.
Hiriyanna: The Quest after Perfection, Kavyalaya
Publishers, Mysore, 1952.
Hobbes, Thomas: Leviathan, by Henry Morley,
(ed.) London, 1887.
Hobhouse, L.T: The Metaphysical Theory of the
State, London, 1918. , ட,
Hobhouse, L. T: Social Evolution and Politica
Theory, New York, 1911. .
BIBLIOGRAPHY 595
Hoffman, Daniel P: India’s Social Miracle, Nature-
graph Co., California, 1961.
Horace, Alexander and others: Social and Politi-
cal ideas of Mahatma Gandhi.
Humboldt, Wilhelm von: Sphere and Duties of
Government, translated -by Joseph Coul-
. thard, London, 1854. ;
Hume David: Essays Moral, Political and Literary,
ed. by T. H. Green and T. H. Grose,
2 Vols, London, 1882.
Hume, D: Treatise on Human Nature, 3 Vols,

Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Carew R. N: Marxism, Past and Present,
Hunt,
London, 1954.
Hunt, R..N. Carew: The Theory and Practice of
Communism, London, 1957.
and Communal Unity,
Hussain, S. Abid: Gandhiji
Orient Longmans, New Delhi, 1969.
Huxley, A: Ends and Means, Chatto and Windus,

London, 1938.
and European
Jackson, John H: Marx, Proudhon,
Socialism, London, 1925.
a of Religions
Jacobi, Hermaun: Encyclopaedi
and Ethics, Vol. Vil.
The Ideology of Charka,
Jaju, Shrikrishna Das: .
S. 8. S, Varanasi, 1958
.
Jaya swal, K. P: Hindu Polity, Calcutta, 1924
506 து BIBLIOGRAPHY
Jog, N.G: Balagangadhar Tilak, P.D, New Deihi,
' 1969.
John, Joseph, (ed.): Gandhi as others see him,
Colombo, 1933.
Jones, W.T: Masters of Political Thought, 701. 11.
George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd., London,
1963.
Jouvenel, Bertrand De: Sovereignty: An inquiry
into the Political Good, Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1957.
Kalelkar, Kaka: Stray Glimpses of Bapu, N. P. H,

Ahmedabad, 1950.
Kalelkar, Kaka: The Gospel of Swadeshi, S. Gane-
san, Madras, 1922.
Kalelkar, Kaka: To a Gandhian Capitalist, A.P.H,
Bombay, 1951.
Kalghatgi, T. G: Jaina View of Life, Jaina Sams-
krti Samraksaka Sangha, Sholapur, 1969.
Kane, Pandurang Vaman: History of Dharma-
sdstra, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Insti-
tute, Poona, Vols. I, II, 1968.
Kant, Immanuel? The Philosophy of Law, trans-
_ lated by W. Hastie, Edinburg, 1887.
Kapadia, K.M: Marriage and Family in India,
Oxford University Press, 1968.
Karan Singh: Prophet of Indian Nationalism,
George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London,
1963. “
BIBLIOGRAPHY 597
Kaushik, P.D: The Congress Ideology and Pro-
gramme, (1920-1947), Allied Publishers,
Bombay.
Kautilya: Arthasastra, English translation by
R. Shamasastry, Mysore, 1923.
Keith, Arthur Berricdale: The Authenticity of the
Arthasdstra. se
Keith, Arthur Berricdale: The Religion and Philo-
sophy of the Veda and Upansads, Cambridge,
1925.
Kéla, Bhagavan Das: Bhoodan, Shramdan, Jeevan-
dan, Bharatiya Grandhamala, Allahabad,
1955.
Knox, T. M: Hegel's Political Writings, Oxford,
1964.
Koestler, Arthur: Darkness at Noon, Macmillan,
New York, 1941.
Koestler, A: he Lotus and the Rabot, Hutchinson,-
London, 1960.
Krimerman, L. I., & Perry, L. (eds): Patterns of
anarchy, Anchor Books, New York, 1966.
Kripalani, J.B: Gandhian Thought, Orient Long-
mans, Calcutta, 1961.
Kripalani, J.B: Planning and Sarvodaya, 8.8.8. P,
Varanasi, 1957. mo,
Toward Sarvodaya, Kisan Maz-
Kripalani, J. B:
door Praja Party, New Delhi, 1951.
Krishna, R: Human Values and_ technological
, change, S. S. S. P, Varanasi, 1958.
598 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Krishnamachari, V.T: Planning in India, Orient

Longmans, Calcutta, 1961.
Kumar, 8: Non-violence and non-existence, Christian
Action, London, 1969.
Kumarappa, Bharatan: Capitalism, Socialism or
Villagism?, S. S. S, Varanasi, 1965.
Kumarappa, J. C: An Over-all Plan for Rural
Development, S.S.S, Varanasi, 1958.
Kumarappa, J.C: Economy of Permanence, 8.8.8,
Varanasi, 1958.
Kumarappa, J. C: Gandhian Economic Thought,
8.8. 8, Varanasi, 1962.
Kumarappa, J.C: Gandhian Way to Life, A. 1. V.
I. A, Wardha, 1949.
Kumarappa, J. C: Swaraj for the Masses, 3. 5. 5,
Varanasi, 1957.
Kumarappa, J.C: The Non-Violent Economy and.
World Peace, 8.S.S, Varanasi, 1958.
Kumarappa, J. C: The Philosophy of Work and
other Essays, A. 1. V. J. A, Wardha, 1949,
ப Kumarappa, J. C: Why the Village Movement?
A.I.V.LA, Wardha, 1949.
Lacy, C: The Conscience of India : moral traditions

in the modern world, Holt Rinerhart &
Winston, New York, 1965.
Lanza Del Vasto, J.J: Gandhi to Vinoba: Rider,
London, 1956.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 599
Laski,. Harold, J: ‘A Grammar of Politics, George

Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1950.
Laski, Harold: An Introduction to Politics, George
Allen & Unwin Lid, London, 1968.
Laski, Harold J: Authority in the Modern State,
New Haven, 1919.
Laski, H.J: Studies in the Problem of Sovereignty,
New Haven, 1917.
Laski, H. J: The Foundations of Sovereignty and
other Essays, New York, 1921.
Laski, H.J: The State in Theory and Practice,
1960.
George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London,
Aspects of Ancient Indian Polit y, Ox-
Law, N.N:
ford, 1921.
Empirio-Criticism,
Lenin, V. 1: Materialism and
Moscow, 1947.
ay,
Lewis, J.P: Quiet Crisis in India, A.P.H, Bomb
1963.
The State in Recent Political
Lindsay, A. D: 1914.
-Theory, Political Quarterly,
London,
Lipset, S. M: Political man, Heinemann,
1960. -
the Hum an Understanding,
Locke, J: Essays on don.
Ward, Locke & Co., Lon
Two Treatises of Govern77 ment, edited
Locke,- John: edition, London,
by Henry Mor ley, 2nd
1887.
9 Vols, 12th ed. London,
Locke, John: Works,
1824.
600 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Mabbot, J.D: The State and the Citizen, Hatchin-

sen University Library, London, 1947.
Macdonnel, A. A., and Keith, A. B: Vedic Index

of Names and Subjects, London , 1912.
Mac Iver, R. M. & Charles H Page: Society, An
Introductory Analysis, Macmillan, London,
1969.
Mac Iver, R. M: The Modern State, Oxford
University Press, London, 1966.
Mac Iver, R.M: The Web of Government, New
York, 1947.
Mackenzie Brown: Traditions of Leadership and
Political instituitions in India, Princeton,
New Jersey, 1959.
Mahadevan, T. K: Gandhi National Memorial
Trust: an introduction, The Trust, New
Delhi, 1965.
Mahadevan, T. M. P. (ed.): Collected Papers of
Professor S. S. Suryanarayana Sastry,
Mahadevan, T. M. P: Outlines of Hinduism,
Chetana Ltd, Bombay, 1960.
Mahadevan, T. M. P: Talks with Sri Ramana
Maharshi, Tiruvannamalai, 1963.
Maitra, S.K: The Ethics of the Hindus, University
Press, Calcutta, 1925.
Mathotra, S.L: Social and Political Orientations
of Neo-Vedantism, S. Chand & Co, New-
Delhi, 1970.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 601
Mannheim, Karl: Jdeology and Utopia: An Intro-
duction to the Sociology of Knowledge,
Harcourt, New York, 1936.
Manshardt, Cifford, (ed.): The Mahatma and the

Missionary, Chicago, 1949.
Manu: Dharmasastra, VII, 17-8.
Marcuse, Herbert: Eros and Civilization, Sphere
Library, 1970.
Marcuse, Herbert: Soviet Marxism: A Critical
Analysi s, New York, 1958.
Marriott, J. A.R: The mechanism of the modern
state, Vol. 2.
“Martin, D. A: Pacifism, Routledge & Kegan Paul,
London, 1965.
Manifesto of the
Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick:
Communist Party, Chicago.
Naoroji: The Grand
Masani, R. P: Dadhabhai .
Old Man of India, London, 1939
don,
Masani, R. P: The Five Gifts, Collins, Lon
1957.
a,
Mashruwala, K. G: A Vision of Future Indi
.
N. P. H, Ahmedabad, 1953
dhi and Marx, N. P. H,
Mashruwala, K. G: Gan
Ahmedabad, 1956.
Mashruwala, K.G: Practical Non-Violence, N.P.H,

Ahmedabad, 1954.
Civilization and Gandhian
Mathur, J.S: Industrial ahabad, 1971.
Economics, Pustakayan, All
602 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Maurer, Herrymon: Great Soul, Orient Long-

mans.
Maxey, C.C: Political Philosophies, Macmillan &
Co., New York, 1950.
Mayo, H. B: Democracy and Marxism, New York,
1955.
Mazumdar, H. T: Mahatma Gandhi: Peaceful
revolutionary, Charles Scribner’s Sons,
New York, 1952.
Mehta, Ashoka: Democratic Socialism, B. V. B,
’ Bombay, 1959. .
Mehta, V.L: Decentralized Economic Development,
Khadi& Village Industries Compilation,
Bombay, 1964.
Mehta, V: Social and Political thought of Sarvo-
daya, Laski Institute, Anmedabad, 1963..
Merriam, C.E: History of the Theory of Sover-
‘eignty, The Columbia University Press,
New York, 1900.
Merriam, C.E: Systematic Politics, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, 1945.
Merton, R: Social Theory and social structure, Free
Press, Gencoe, 1947.
Mcllwain, Charles. H: The Growth of Political
Thought in the West, New York. ,
“Mill, J.S: Utilitarianism, Liberty and Representa-
tive Government, Philosophy and Theology.
Mill,J.S: Considerations on Representative Govern-
ment Forum Books, INC, New York,
BIBLIOGRAPHY 603
Mill, J.S: On Liberty, The Liberal Arts Press,

New York, 1956.
Miller, W. R: Non-violence: a christian interpreta-
tion, Allen & Unwin, London, 1964.
Milne, A.J. M: The Social Philosophy of English

Ideali sm, George Allen & Unwin Ltd,
London, 1962.
Misra, B.R: Vinoba: the economics of Bhoodan
movement, Orient Longmans, Calcutta,
1956.
Misra, R.N: Bhoodan Movement in India, S. Chan
& Co, New Delhi, 1972.
Mody, Homi: Pherozeshah Mehta, P. D, New
Delhi, 1969.
Mookerji, R. K: Hindu Civilization, New York,
1936.
Moondara, Damodardas: Sarvodaya Padayatra,
orship and
Moore, B: Social Origins of dictat
democracy, Beacon. Press, Boston , 1966.
A Biography,
Moraes, Frank: Jawaharlal Nehru:
New York, 1950.
More, Sir Thomas: Utopia: In Ideal Common-
y, 6th
wealths, edited by Henry Morle
edition, London, 1893.
the Future,
Morgan, Arthur BE: 7. he Community of
9, S. S, Varanasi, 1963.
Morris -Jones, W. H: Parliament in India, Long-
mans, Green, London, 1957.
604 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Morris-Jones, W.H: The government and politics

of India, Hutchison, 1967.
Motwani, Kewal: Manu: a study in Hindu Social
Theory, Ganesh and Company, Madras,
India, 1934.
Mukerji, B: Community development in India,
Orient Longmans, Bombay, 1961.
Mokerjee, Hireu: Gandhi, A Study, Peoples Publi-
shing House, 1960.
Mukerjee, Radhakamal: Zhe Social Structure of
Values, Macmillan & Co, London, 1949.
Mumford, Lewis: The Story of Utopias, Boni &
Liveright, 1922.
Munshi, K.M: Reconstruction of Society Through
Trusteeship, B. V. B, 1960. 3
Murthi, V. V.R: Non-violence in Politics: a study
of Gandhian techniques and thinking, Frank
Brothers, New Delhi, 1958.
Murthy, K.S: The Indian Spirit, Andhra Univer-
sity Press, Waltair, 1965.
Murti, K. S., & Bouquet, A. C: Studies in the
Problems of Peace, Asia Publishing House,
Bombay, 1960.
Murty, R.H: The Individual and the State, Hut-
chinson & Co. Ltd., London, 1926.
Myrdal, G: Asian Drama, Pantheon, New York,
1968.
Myrdal, Gunnar: Economic Theory and Underdeve-
loped Regions, London, 1961.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 605
Nagaraja Rao, P: Contemporary Indian Philosophy

B. V. B, Bombay, 1971. ்‌
Nag, Kalidas: Tolstoy and Gandhi, Pustak Bhan-
dar, Patna, 1950.
Namboodiripad, E. M.S: The Mahatma and the
{sm, People’s Publishing House, New
Delhi, 1959.
Nanda, B.R: Motilal Nehru, P. D, New Delhi,
_ 1969.
Narashimhan, V.K: Kasturi Ranga Iyengar, P.D,
New Delhi, 1969.
Naravane, V.S: Modern Indian Thought, A. P. H,
Bombay, 1964. ‘
Jayaprakash: A picture of Sarvodaya
Narayan,
1961.
Social Order, S. P, Tanjore,
Narayan, Jayaprakash: A plea for reconstruction
Varanasi, 1959.
of Indian polity, S.S.S,
Jayaprakash: Educational ideals and the
Narayan, P, Varanasi, 1966.
problem of peace, S. S.S.
: From Socialism to Sarvo-
Narayan, Jayaprakash 1959.
daya, 8. 5. 5. 1, Varnasi,
of
~ Fundamental Problems
Narayan, Jayaprakash : ch ayat Pari -
Panchyat Raj, -India Pan
All
4.
shad, New Delhi, 196
‘Gandhi, Vinoba and the
ayan, Jayaprakash :
Nar P, Varanasi, 1959.
Bhudan movement’ S.5.8.
Jayaprakash : Jeevandan, S. P, Tanjore,
Narayan,
1965.
606 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Narayan, Jayaprakash: Socialism, Sarvodaya and
Democracy, A. P. H, Bombay, 1964.
Narayan, Jayaprakash: Swaraj for the people,
S. S.S8, Varanasi, 1961.
‘Narayan, Jayaprakash: The Challenge after Nehru,
S. P, Tanjore, 1964.
Narayan, Jayaprakash: The Dual Revolution, S.P,
Tanjore, 1959.
Narayan, Jayaprakash: The evolution . towards
Sarvodaya, 8. P, Tanjore, 1957.
Narayan, Jayaprakash: Three basic problems of
free India, A. P. H, Bombay, 1964. |
Narayan, Shriman: Principles of Gandhian Plan-
ning, Kitab Mahal, Allahabad, 1960.
Narayan, Shriman: Relevance of Gandhian Econo-
' mics, N. P. H, Ahmedabad, 1970.
Narayan, Shriman: Vinoba: His Life and Work,
Popular Prakashan, Bombay, 1970.
Nargolkar, V: The creed of Saint Vinoba, B. V. B,
» Bombay, 1963. -
Natesan, G. A: Speeches and writings of Mahtma
Gandhi, Madras.
Nathmal, Muni: Acharya Tulasi, His Life and
rhilosophy, Adarsh Sahitya Sangh, Churu,
968.
Nehru, Jawaharlal: Mahatma Gandhi, A.P.H, New
Delhi, 1949.
Nehru, Jawaharlal: Speeches, Vols. 1, I, I, IV,
P. D, New Delhi, 1964.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 607
Nehru, Jawaharlal: The Discovery of India, A.P.H,
. Bombay, 1961.
Nehru, Jawaharlal: The Emerging World—Memo-
rial Volume, A. P. H, Bombay, 1964.
.Nikam, N. A: Gandhiji’s Discovery of Religion,
B. V. B, Bombay 1963.
Noble, M.E: The Web of Indian Life, London,
1904. ்‌
Oommen, T. K: Charismatic movements and

social change: an analysis of Bhoodan—
Gramdan Movement in India,’ University”
of Poona, 1967.
Oppenheimer, F: The State.
Oppert, Gustav: Sukranitisara, Madras, 1882.

,
Ostergaard, G. N: Sarvodaya, the politics of love
University Indian Society.
Birmingham
Political Theory of the Middle
Otto Gieche:
Ages.
al World,
Owen, Robert, The Book of the New Mor
London, 1842.
ernment,
Paerdon, T.P: The Second Treatise of Gov
lis, 1952.
Liberal Arts, Indianapo
Samaj and Indian
Dhanpati: The Arya
Pandey New Delhi.
Nationalism, S. Chand & Co.,
Philosophy,
‘Pandey, R.C: A Panorama of Indian
ana si, 196 6.
Motilal Banarsidas, Var
608 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Panikkar, K. M: Hindu Society at Cross Roads,
A. P. H, Bombay, 1961.
Panter-Brick, S: Gandhi against Machiavellism,
’ A. P. H, London, 1966.
Park, R.L & Tinker, I: Leadership and Political
institutions in India, Oxford University
Parsons, Talcot: Sociological Theory and Modern
Society, The Free Press, New York, 1967.
Parsons, Talcot: The Social System, The Free
Press, Glencoe, 1951.
Patel,H. M: A Socialist Pattern, T. P. D, New
Delhi, 1957.
Patwardhan, A: A plea for shrinking currency,
S. P, Tanjore, 1963.
Patwardhan, A: Towards a new society; S.S.S. P,
Varanasi, 1959.
Peter Laslett and Cummings. Philips, The En-
cyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. VI. 1967.
Philips, C.H: Politics and Society in India, Allen &
Unwin, London, 1963.
Plamenatz, John P: The English Utilitarians, Ox-
ford University Press, 1958.
Pollock, E: An Introduction to the History of the
Science of Politics, Macmillan & Co. Ltd.,
London, 1906.
Popper, K. R: The Open Society and its Enemies,
Princeton, N. J. 1950.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 609
Prabhu, P. N. H: Hindu Social Organization,

Popular Prakashan, Bombay, 1963.
Prabhu, R.K &U.N.Rao: The Mind of Mahatma
Gandhi, N. P H, Ahmedabad, 1960.
Prabhu, R.K: This was Bapu, N. P. H, Ahmeda-
bad, 1945.
Prasad, Bimla (ed.): Socialism, Sarvodaya and
Democracy, selected works of J. P. Nara-
yan, A. P. H, New Delhi, 1964.
Prasad, Beni: Theory of Government in Ancient
India, Allahabad, 1927.
Prasad, Beni: The State in Ancient India, The
Indian Press, Allahabad, 1961.
Prasad, D (ed.): Gramdan: the land revolution of
India, War Resister’s International, Lon-,
don, 1969.
Prasad, Rajendra: Af the Feet of Mahatma Gandhi,
A. P. H, Bombay, 1955.
Pufendorf, San Von: The Law of Nature and

Nations, tr. by C. H. & W. A. Old father,
Oxford, 1934.
Pyarelal: Gandhian Techniques in the Modern
World, N. P. H, Ahmedabad, 1959,
Pyarelal, Mahatma Gandhi: the early phase, 2 vols,
Pyarelal, Mahatma Gandhi: the last phase, 2 vols,
Pyarelal: Towards New Horizons, N.P.H, Ahmeda-
bad, 1959.
610 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Radhakrishnan, S: An Idealist View of Life,

George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London,
1952.
Radhakrishnan & Muirhead : Contemporary Indian
Philosophy, George Alien & Unwin Ltd.,
London, 1952.
Radhakrishnan, S: Eastern Religions and Western
Thought, Oxford University Press, London,
1940.
Radhakrishnan, S: Freedom and Culture, G. A.
Natesan & Co, Madras, 1936.
Radhakrishnan, S: History of Philosophy-Eastern
and Western, George Allen & Unwin Ltd,
London, Vols I & II 1953.
Radhakrishnan, S: Indian Philosophy, Vol. I.
Radhakrishnan, S: Introduction to Indian Philo-
Sophy, Vol. II.
Radhakrishnan, S: Is this Peace? Hind Kitabs
Ltd, Bombay, 1950.
Radhakrishnan, $: Mahatma Gandhi, Essays and
Reflections, Jaico Publishing House, Bom-
bay, 1956.
Radhakrishnan, S: My Search for Truth, Siralal-
Agarwal & Co, Agra, 1956.
Radhakrishnan, S: Recovery of Faith, George
Allen & Unwin, Ltd, London, 1956.
Radhakrishnan, 8: Religion and Society, George
Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1956.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 611
Radhakrishnan, S: The Bhagavad-Gita, George
' Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1960. ‘
Radhakrishnan, S & P. T. Raju: The Concept of
Man, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London,
1960.
Radhakrishnan, S: The Hindu View of Life, George
Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1949.
Raghavan, V: The Indian Heritage, 1956.
Rajagopalachari, C: Hinduism, The Hindustan
Times, New Delhi.
Rajarathnam, K: Agricultural Education for deve-

A. 1. C. C. Economic Review,
lopment,
New Delhi, 1965.
of India, Gcorge
Raju, P. T: Idealistic Thought
1953.
Allen & Unwin Ltd, London.
adevan, T. K (eds):
Ramachandhran, G & Mah times, B. V. B,
Gandhi-his relevance for our
Bombay, 1964.
Mahadevan: Non-vio-
Ramachandran, G & T. K. y of Mar tin Luther
lence after Gandhi, a stud New
Fou nda tio n,
King Jr, Gandhi Peace
Delhi, 1968.
Annie Besant, P. D,
Ramaswamy Aiyar, C. P:
New Delhi, 1969.
and His Mission, 8. 5. 8,
Ram, Suresh: Vinoba
Varanasi, 1958.
s. S. 8,
Ram, Suresh: Vinoba-Man and Message,
Varanasi, 1961.
612 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ranadive, B.T: Sarvodaya and Communism, Com-
munist Party Publication, New Delhi,
1958.
Ranganathananda, Swami: Eternal Values for a
, Changing Society, B. V. B, Bombay, 1971.
Rao, G. R. (Gora): Partyless democracy-its need
and form, 8. 8. S. P, Varanasi.
Rao, G. R. (Gora): Why Gramraj?, 8. 5. 5.1,
Varanasi, 1958.
Rao, M. B(ed.): The Mahatma: a Marxist sympo-
sium, People’s Publishing House, Bombay,
1969.
Rao, G. Ramachandra: Why Village Raj? S.S. 5S,
Varanasi, 1960.
Rao, V.K. R. V. ‘(ed.): Agricultural Labour in
Rao, V.K.R.V: Gandhian alternative to Western
Socialism, B. V. B, Bombay, 1971.
Rastogi, Durga Prasad: Sampattidan, Adarsh
Prakashan Mandir, Allahabad, 1955.
Rau, Heimo: Mahatma Gandhi as Germans see
him, Sakuntala Publishing House, Bombay,
1969,
Rawoof, Abdul: Index to Dissertations in Philo-
sophy, Centre of Advanced Study in Philo-
sophy, University of Madras, 1974.
Ray, Benoy Gopal: Gandhian Ethics, Navajivan,
1950,
BIBLIOGRAPHY 613
Reddy, D.J: Challenges in Higher Education, Sri
Venkateswara University, Tirupati, 1972.
Reddy, Madhusudan V: Sri Aurobindo’s Philoso-
phy of Evolution, Institute of Human Study,
Hyderabad, 1966.
Reddy, V. Narayan Karan: Sarvedaya Ideology
and Acharya Vinoba Bhayve, Andhra Pra-
desh Sarvodaya Mandal, Hyderabad, 1963.
Reddy, V.N.K: Thoreau, Gandhi, Vinoba, Sahiti-
bata, Hyderabad, 1962.
Reyburn, Hugh A: The Ethical Theory of Hegel -
A Study of the Philosophy of Right, Oxford,
1921.
Robinson, Joan: Essay in the Theory of Employ-
ment, Macmillan, London, 1937.
Rolland, Romain: Mahatma Gandhi, New York,
1924.
Romain: Prophets of New. India, New
Rolland,
York, 1930.
Rolland, Romain: The Life of Vivekananda and
the Univer sal Gospel, Advaita Ashrama,
Calcutta, 1960.
Ropke, Wilhelm: Humane Economy, London,
1961.
Ideologies,
Roucek, J. (ed.): Contemporary Political
Vision Press, London.
Jean Jacques: The Social Contract,
Rousseau,
‘translated by Henry J. Tozer, London,
1895.
614 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Roy, Dilip Kumar: Among the Great, Jaico Publi-
shing House, Bombay, 1950.
Roy, M.N: India’s Message, Renaissance Publish-
ers, Calcutta, 1950.
Rudolph, L. 1, & Rudolph, S. H: The Modernity
of Tradition: political development in India,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
1967.
Ruskin, J: Unto this last, Smith, Elder, London,
1962.
Russell, Bertrand: Has man a Future? Penguin
Books Ltd., Middlesex, U.S.A, 1961.
Russell, Bertrand : Political Ideals, George Allen &
Unwin Ltd., London, 1963.
Russell, Bertrand: Power, George Allen & Unwin
Ltd, London, 1967..
Ruthnaswamy, M: The Making of the State,
William & Norgate Ltd, London, 1932.
Sabine, George H: A History of Political Theory,

Oxford Press, London, 1937.
Sachidanand: Sarvodaya in a Communist State
(Kerala), Popular Book Depot, Bombay,
961.
Sahastra Budhe, A. W: Report on Karaput Gram-
dan, 8.8.8, Varanasi, 1959.
Saiyidain, K.G: Significance of Gandhi as a man
and thinker, P D, New Delhi, 1970.
Salt, H.S: A Plea for Vegetarianism and other
Essays, Manchester, 1886.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 615
Santhanam, K: Satyagraha and the State, A. P. H,
Bombay, 1960.
Sarma, D.S: Studies in the Renaissance of Hindu-
ism in the 19th & 20th Centuries, Benares,
1944,
Sartori, Giovanni: Democratic Theory, Oxford &
I BH, Publishing Co, Bombay, 1965,
Schumacher, E. F: Roots of Economic Growth,
The Gandhian Institute of Studies, 1962.
Schweitzer, Albert: Indian Thought and its develop-
ment, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1936.
Segal, R: The Crisis of India, Penguin Books,

Harmondsworth, 1965.
Sen, Mankumar: Gandhian Way and the Bhoodan
Movemen t, S. S. S, Varanasi, 1964. ,
Sen, M.(ed.): The Economic aspects of Sarvodaya:

proceedings of the Calcutta Seminar,
S. S. S. P. Varanasi, 1959.
Shah, K.T: Ancient Foundations of Economics in

India.
Kautilya’s Arthasastra, Mysore,
Shamasastry, R:
1923.
reforms, The
. Shaposh nikova, L: Bhave and Land
Press, 1961.
Current Digest of the Soviet
Vinoba and Bhoodan: a selected
Sharma, J. 8: Bhoodan,
descriptive bibliography of
National Congress, New Delhi,
Indian
1956.
616 ’ BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sharp, G: Gandhi wields the weapon of the moral
power, N. P. H, Ahmedabad, 1960.
Sheean, Vincent: Lead Kindly Light, New York,
1949.
Shetty, K. P.K: Fundamental Rights and Socio-
Economic Justice in Indian Constitution,
Chaitinya Publishing House, Allahabad,
1969.
Shukla, C: Gandhi’s view of life, B. V.B, Bom-
bay, 1951.
Sibley Mulford: The Quiet Battle: Writings on the
Theory and Practice of Non-violent Resis-
tance, B. V. B, Bombay, 1965.
Simmons, Ernest J: Leo Tolstoy~Selected Essays,
The Modern Library, New York, 1964.
Singh, Baljit: Next step in Village India, A. P. H,
Bombay, 1961.
Singh, B.C: The Teaching of the Arya Samaj.
Sinha, H.N: Sovereignty in Ancient Indian Polity,
London, 1938.
Sinha, V.K: Secularism in India, Lalvani Pub-
lishing House, Bombay, 1968.
Sitaramayya, B. P: Gandhi and Gandhism, Vols. 1,
Il, Kitabistan, Allahabad.
Smelser, N: Theory of Collective behaviour, Rout-
ledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1962.
Smith, Adam: The Wealth of Nations, edited by
J, R. M’Cullough, Edinburgh, 1872.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 617
Smith, Donald (ed.): South Asian Politics and

Religion, Princeton, New Jersey, 1966.
Soltau, R.H: An Introduction to Politics, Long-
mans, London, 1963.
Soni, Dayal Chandra: Agriculture and Khadi in
Basic Education, Oriental Longmans, 1959.
love
Sorokin, P. A. (ed.): Explorations in altruistic
and behavi our, Beaco n Press, Boston , 1950.
Sorokin, P. A: Social and Cultural Dynamics,

American Book Company, 1937.
Sorokin, P.A: The ways and powers of love,
Beacon Press, Boston, 1954.
Srinivas, M.N: India’s Villages, A. P. H, Bombay.
Sten Know: Kautilya Studies, Osla, 1245.

The English Utilitarians
Stephen, Sir Leslie:
1900.
Vols. I, 17, 117, London,
Autobiography.
Tagore, Rabindranath :
Nationalism, Macmillan
Tagore, Rabindranath :
- & Co, London, 1950.:
The Religion of Man,
Tagore, Rabindranath:
Ltd, London, 1961.
George Allen & Unwin
E. Wolsely: Gandhi:
Tandon, p.D and Roland
National Book
Warrior of Non-Violence,
Trust, India, 1969.
and his
Tandon, P. D: Vinoba Bhave: The man
bay.
mission, Vora & Co, Bom
618 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Tandon, Viswanath: Sarvodaya after Gandhi,

S. 8. 8, Varanasi, 1965.
Taylor, Carl C: India’s roots of Democracy, Orient
Longmans, 1967.
Tendulkar, D.G: Mahatma: life of Mohandas
Karamchand Gandhi, 8 Vols, Publications
Division, Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, Govt. of India, New Delhi,
1962.
Tennyson, Hallam: Saint on the March-the story
of Vinoba, W. D. Wills, Bombay, 1961.
The Publication Division: The Collected Works
of Mahatma Gandhi, P.D, New Delhi.
Thompson, David (ed.): Political Ideas, Penguin
Book, 1966.
Thorner, Daniel and Alice: Zand and Labour in
Tilak, B.G: Gita Rahasya, Tilak Brothers, Poona.
Tolstoy, Leo N: The Kingdom of God is within
You, Christianity and Patriotism, Tr. by
Leo Wierner, London, 1905.
Tolstoy, Leo: The Laws of Violence and the Law
of Love, The Unicorn Press, London, 1959.
Unnithan, T.K.N: Gandhi in Free India, Wol-

ters, Groningen, (Netherlands), 1965.
Varma, B. N. (ed.): Contemporary India, A. P. H,

Bombay, 1964.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 619
‘Varma, V.P: Hindu Political Thought, Lakshmi

Narain Agarwal, Agra, 1959.
‘Varma, V.P: The Political Philosophy of Mahatma
Gandhi and Sarvodaya, Laxshmi Narain
Agarwal, Agra, 1959.
‘Vasto, Lanzadel: Gandhi to Vinoba, tr. from
French, Philip Leon, Rider and Company,
London, 1956.
Vatsyana: Nyaya Sutra.

Vernon: Human Nature: The Marxian
‘Venable,
View, New York, 1945.
Complete Works, 8 Volumes, Ad-
Vivekananda:
vaita Ashram, Calcutta, 1958.
ns,
Walker, Roy: Sword of Gold, Orient Longma
- Bombay, 1969.
“Ward P. W: Sovereignty, Routledge, 1928.

-Warrender, Howard: The Political Philosophy of
gation, Oxford,
Hobbes; His Theory of Obli
1957.
in
and Morals: A Study
“Weldon, T. D: States , 1946.
Political Conflicts, London
Gandhi as a Social Revolutio-
‘Wellock, Wilfred:
Longton, Preston,
nary, Orchard Lea, New
England.
by
ia’s Social Revolution led
“Wellock, Wilfred: Ind Vinoba Bha ve,
Mahatma Gandhi & now
New Longton.
620 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Wellock, Wilfred: Nai Talim and the Social Order,

Wardha, 1949.
Wellock, Wilfred: Not by Bread Alone, S. P, Tan-
jore, 1961.
Wellock, Wilfred: Off the Beaten Track, Adven-
tures in the Art of Living, 8S. P, Tanjore,
1962.
‘ Wilken, Folkert: New Forms of Ownership in
Industry, 8.8.8, Varanasi, 1962.
Willoughby: The Ethical Basis of Political Autho-
rity, The Macmillan Company, New York,
1930.
Willoughby, W. W: The Nature of the State.
Young India: $, Ganeshan, Madras, 1919-1922,

1924~1926, 1927-1928, Vols. 1, Il, Il.
Young, Pauline V: Scientific Social Survey and
Research, Printice-Hall, Inc. 1951...
Zaehner, R. C: Hinduism, Oxford University

Press, 1962. ,
‘Zimmer, Heinrich: Philosophies of India, Prince
ton, 1951. -
AUTHOR INDEX
AUTHOR INDEX
Abhedananda, Swami: 163 Bhandarkar, R. G: 37
Acton, Lord: 146 Bharadvaja: 299
Agathocles; 324 Bhave Vinoba: 64, 104, 109,
Althusius; 386 151, 152, 183, 192, 194, 195,.
Amritachandra : 158 196, 197, 203, 204, 212, 225,
Andrews, C. F: 286 250, 268, 264, 265, 267, 269,
Antimochous : 324 272, 276, 278, 285, 286, 464.
Apastamba: 301 467, 473, 476, 489, 491, 499,
Aquinas Saint: 392 501, 507, 508, 510, 519, 521,.
Aristotle: 320, 321, 322, 333, 522,523,525 - 528, 548;
946, 392, 897, 405, 414 follower of Gandhi 64; man
Aryadeva: 303, 372 of action, 104; advocated
Augustine, St : 322, 347 the adherence of Truth in
Augustinus, Triumphus: 392, life, 151; on Truth, 152; on
401 : brahmacdrin, 183; on asteya,
Aurobindo, Sri: 8, 18, 29, 31, 192: his appeal for bhudan,
92, 41, 55, 56, 57, 58 195: on dignity of work,
Austin, John: 371, 405, 406, 197; advocates Universal

413-416, 428, 424, 435 Religion, 203; on the integ-
ration of action with know-
Jedge and knowledge with
Bakunine, Michael : 952, 459
Bandyopadhyaya, N. C: 312 action 204: on man, 209;
individual, 212; on
Banerjea, Surendranath: 42, on
43 svadharma, 225; on society,
‘Barker, Ernest : 358, 402, 405, 245; on higher life of renun-
418, 475 ciation and detachment
Baudhayana: 301 245; on bhidan, 268, 264,
_ 265; on gramdan, 265,
Bendix, Reinhard : 100
269, 507, 519, 522; bhidan,
Benn, Stanley J: 392 on
960, a moral force, 269;
Bentham, J: 115-122, on
351, 412, 413 decentralization, 272;
modern science, 276; on Co-
Bergmann, Gustav: 98
operation, 278; on $cienice,
Besant, Annie: 44, 86
624 AUTHOR INDEX
spirituality and Sarvodaya, Christ, Jesus: 67, 68, 77, 85,
285; on his qualities by 87, 88, 89, 185, 186
Gandhi and others, 286; Cicero: 438
on loka-Sakti, 464, 467-489; Coker, F. W: 326, 422
on the force of love (the Cole, G. D. H : 281, 355, 359
third force), 467; on wel- 419, 541
fare state, 478; on majority Coleridge: 52 ~
opinion, 476; his opposition Confucious : 24, 90
to himsa-Sakti, 489; on Cumberland, Bishop : 115
sinti-sena, 491, 522; on
planning, 510; on suranjali Das, Bhagavan: 223
(the gift of hanks of yarn), Datta, D. M: 166 ‘
522; on education, 525-528 Davids, Rhys, T. H: 155
Bhisma: 156, 376, 379, 385, Deininger: 393
387 Desai, Mahadev: 187, 460
Blavatsky, Madame: 48, 86 Devasenapathi, V. A: 17
Bluntschli: 424 Dewey, John: 144
Bodin, Jean: 367, 371, 386, Dhebar, U. N; 481
391-93 Dicey: 431
Bondurant, Joan: 141, 142, Diwakar, R. R: 175
143, 457, 550 Duguit, Leon: 328, 355, 416,
Bosanquet, Bernard : 348,349, 418, 419, 420
409-411 Durkheim, Emil: 470
Bowles, Chester: 513, 519
Bradley, F. H: £08 Edwards, Paul: 441
Braybrooke, David : 103 Elisee ; 459
Brown, Makenzie, D: 109 Engels, Friedrich ; 360
Buddha: 17, 28, 51, 52, 56,
60, 80-82, 85, 90, 110, 121, Fichte: 148, 399, 400
124, 165, 530 Figgs, J. N: 355, 357, 418,
Byrce: 435, 436 419 ‘
Byrkershock; 353 Fisher Louis: 286, 550.
Follet (Miss) M. P: 357, 358
Caesar: 467 Fromm, Erich: 470, 541
Catlin: 320
Chakravarthy, Amia: 54 Gandhi, Indira: 547
Chatterji, Bankim Chandra: Gandhi, M.K: 25-30, 33, 39-
42 44, 47, 48, 51, 56, 58, 59,
AUTHOR INDEX 625
61- 64, 66-94, 102, 104-107, the supremacy of non-vio-
109, 111-115, 121, 123, 124, lent means, 64; his birth on
137-140, 145-155, 164, 167- Oct. 2, 1869 at Porbandar, 96;
205, 209-235, 239-244, 245- tried to wipe off racialism
287, 295, 296, 370, 376, 447- in South Africa, 67; infiu-
458, 460-462, 468, 469, 489- enced by Tolstoy, 67, 69-72;
491, 495-505, 508-512, 514- on non-violence, 68, 112,
518, 520, 521, 524, 525, 528, 147, 167, 172; inspired
530, 539, 542 - 544, 546-550; by Tolstoy’s Philosophical
on modern civilization, anarchism, 70; -Thoreau’s
25, 70, 275; on religion, influence on him, 73; influ-
26, 80, 149; on spiri- enced by the Buddha’s
tual unity, 27, 29; on teaching, 80-82; Inftuenced
individual, 27, 212-2138; his by Rajachandra, $2; Jaina
life-mission, 27; on spiri- influence on him, 83; on
tual freedom, 27; his in- ahimsa (non-violence), 83,
debtedness to scriptures of 111, 153-158, 164-169, 169-
the world, 28; his concep- 171; Patanjali’s influence
tion of Sarvodaya, 28; on on him, 84; Narasimha
Swadeshi Movement, 40; Mehta’s influence on him,
Tilak and Gandhi, com- 85; inherited the essential
parison and contrast, 41; principles of Buddhism and
his return from South Vaisnavism, 84-85; influ-
Africa, 42; his association enced by the writings of
with Gokhale, 43; on Sri Theosophists, 85-86; greatly
Ramakrishna, 47; taught influenced by the teachings
Vedantic truths to the teem- of Lord Jesus Christ, 87-88;
ing millions of Indian influence of Prophet's teach-
people, 48; on Daridra- ing on him, 88-90; his entire
narayana, 51, 124; he strove life was an experiment with
for the welfare of all, 56; Truth, 91; Poet Narasimha
‘Vaisnav Janato’
Aurobindo and Gandhi laid Mebta’s
the foundations for the influenced him greatly, 92;
edifice of national freedom, his call for integral develop-
of body, mind and
58; on Gita, 61, 79; his ment
theory of ethicization of soul, 93; a practical idealist,
62; on Ramarajya, 104, 107; his philosophy is
politics,
63, 94, 503; his belief in derived from the principle
626 AUTHOR INDEX
of spiritual unity, 106; be terion for asteya is social

borrowed the word Sarve- justice, 192; aparigraha is
daya from a Jaina scripture, the corollary of the view of
109; his conception of nou-stealing, 193-94; every
purna-swaraj, 113, 194; his kind of work has its own
conception of Sarvodaya dignity, 197; charka as the
aims at-the attainment of symbol of sarir yajvia 197;
both abhyudaya and nisre- on bread - labour, 199;,
yasd, 115; his views on swadeshiis svadharma, 199;
Utilitarianism, 121; his be- on untouchability, 200, 201;
lief in Advaita, 123; on the his belief in Advaita,201; his
end and the means relation- conception of religion, 201,
ship, 127-177; his concep- 202; advocated sarvadharma-
tion of Truth, 147-151; samabhava, 202; Sarvo-
distinguishes betweenAbso- daya epitomises his whole
lute Truth and relative social philosophy, 205, 497;
truth, 147; ahimsa as posi- on co-relation of rights and
tive love, 154; metaphysi- duties, 216; on society based
cal basis of ahimsa, 164; on non-violence, 217; on
draws a distinction between individualism, 218, 219; on
three levels of non-vio- duties, 220; on’ social jus-
lence—-enlightened நட்‌ tice; 222, 232; on varna,
violence, non-violence of the varnasramadharma,222,223,
weak, the passive non-vio- on svadharma. 224-227; on
lence of the coward, 172- untouchability, 228 - 30;
178; satyagraha is a way of championed the cause of
life, 175; Truth is God, 178; women, 283-241; on the
non-violence as the means evils of dowry system, 238;
for the regulation of inter- on marriage, 241; his em-
national relations, 181; on phasis on the non-vioient
brahmacarya, 182-185; on economic order of Sarvo-
marriage, 183; his views on daya society, 247-287;
the control of the palate, emphasis on the human
185; on fasting, 185, 189; element as the criterion for
the ‘inner voice’ defies des- economic efficiency, 250; on
cription, 187; fearlessness economic equality, 254; on
is the first requisite of the doetrine of Trustee-
spirituality, 190; the cri- ship, 255-258; economics of
AUTHOR INDEX 627
decentralization, 258; on Education, 517, 524; on
industrialization, 259; on constructive work, 518, 520,
swadeshi, 270; on Khadhi, 521, 528; the relevance of
271-272; on simplicity of his thought to the proplems
life, 273; plea for revival of of today, 546, 547, 548; the
village economy, 282; on symbol of peace, truth and
promotion of human wel- non-violence, 550; Sarvo-
fare, 287; stood by the daya is a universal philo-
moral order unequivocally sophy of life, 550, 551.
and uncompromisingly, 295; Ganguli: 5{4
eastern and western influ- ‘Gautama: 301
ence on him, 296; on power Geertz, Cifford: 102
asa trust, 376; his contri- Gettell, R. G; 858, 432, 434,
bution to Indian politics, 487, 438
447; his philosophy of the Ghoshal : 314, 367, 386
state, 448-452; state-less Gierke: 356, 420
society as the ideal one, Gilchrist: 424, 484, 435, 438
450, 508; had a progressive Giri, V. V; 285, 548
jdea of the state, 451; his Godwin, William: 352, 461
conception of freedom, 452; Gokhale, Gopalakrishna: 42,
on democratic freedom, 43
453; his philosophy of Grave, Jean: 459
rights, 454; his conception Green, T. H: 144, 311, 328,
397, 404-409, 449, 450
of non-violent society, 454;
on the evils of centraliza- Gregg, Richard, B: 166
tion, 455; on decentraliza- Grotius, Hugo; 353, 354, 393
tion of political life, 455;
Raj, 456; Hacker, Andrew: 101
on Panchayat
philosophical anarchist, Harita: 301
456; 458-462; his conception Harris, Errol E; 538, 534, 535
of sovereignty, 462, 464; Hartmann, Nicolai: 19, 20
his belief in the sovereign Hegel, G. W.F: 143, 347,
power of the masses, 464; 348, 361, 389, 401-404, 410,
his last will and testament, 411, 423
Heimsath, Charles, H: 29, 39
468; a national Teader, 469;
a karma-yogin par excel- Hemachandra: 304
lence, 495; on Isavasya Hemsterhius Franz: 136
Upanisad, 498; on Basic Hiriyanna: 15
628 AUTHOR INDEX
Hitler, Adolf: 361 Kumarappa, Bharatan: 273
Hobbes: 115, 325. 326, 327, 550 ்‌
367, 371, 382, 393, 408, 413, Kumarappa, J.C: 277
423
Hobhouse, L. T: 144 Lacombe, Oliver: 145
Holtzendorff: 358 Laski, Harold, J: 348, 355,
Horsburgh, H. J. N: 542 _ 856, 857, 414, 417-418, 419-
Humboldt, Wilhelm von: 400 421, 434
Hussain, Zakir; 524 Leibnitz: 353
Hutcheson, Francis: 115 Lenin: 280
Huxley, Aldous: 141, 146,471 Lewis, John P: 279
Lindsay, A. D ; 357, 418, 419
Jack, Homer: 537 Locke, John: 116, 119, 325,
Jaspers, Karl: 531 327, 389, 394, 408, 483
Jayaswal: 313, 367
Jefferson: 433 Mac Iver: 357
Jellinek: 423 Macpherson, C, B: 327
Jenks: 330 Mahadevan, T. M. P: on
Jones, Stanley: 88 Caturasrama,13; on Gandbi,
Jouvenel, Bertrand De: 440 546; on Ramakrishna, 46;
on muktas, 124; on Sarvo-
Kamandaka: 300, 308, 385 daya 550; on self, 21; on
Kant Immanuel : 19; 143, 227, Spirituality; on the central!
397.399, 402, 404, 408 teaching of advaita, 162; on
Karan Singh: 57, 58 the doctrine of Sarva-
Kautilya: 297-300, 304, 307- mukti, 124
310, 312, 315, 316, 318, 338, “Mahavira: 69, 90
339, 340-345, 368.370, 373, Maine, Henry: 311, 829
974, 975, 379, 380, 382, 385, Maitland, F. W: 355, 418
387, 388 Maitra, 8. K: 33, 114, 369
Keith: 371 Mannheim, Karl: 96, 97, 98:
Kelson, Hans: 391, 424 101
King (Jr) Martin Luther : 176 Manu : 160, 179, 304, 308, 309,
Krabbe, Hugo: 418, 419 910, 919, 915, 918, 999, 840,
Kranenburg: 323 341, 343, 373, 375, 376, 381,
Kripalani, Acharya: 480, 525 385, 386, 387
Kropotkin, Peter: 352, 422, Marx, Karl : 259, 539
459, 461 Maudgalya: 301
AUTHOR INDEX 629
Maxey: 417 niti, 468; on democracy,

Max Muller: 297 472; on party system, 479,
McLennan: 330 on elections, 481; on swaraj
Mehta, Narasimha: 85, 92 for the people, 482; on in-
Mehta, Pherozeshah: 42, 43 direct elections and politi-
Meinong: 19, 20 cal decentralization, 483;
Merriam, C. E: 432 on panchayati rij, 484-489;
Mill, J. S: 117-119, 122, 144, charismatic leader, 508;
350, 413, 450 who changed the attitude
Mohammad: 89, 90 of dacoits, 508; on the suc-
Montesquieu: 397 cess_of panchayati raj, 521
Mookerjee, Radha Kumud: Narayan, Shriman : 477, 548,
312 549
Moore, Charles: 166 Nehru, Pandit : 259, 263, 274,
277, 285, 507, 548
Moore, G. E: 19, 20
Newman, Cardinal: 447
Moore, Thomas: 101
340 Nietzsche: 18, 19
Morgan:
Morgan, A, E: 262 Nikam, N. A: 179
Muhammad: 28, 89, 90
146 Olcott, 001061: 48
Murray, Gibbert:
Mussolini: 360 Owen : 50
Myrdal, Gunnar: 989, 518
Pal, Bipincbandra: 41
Pandurang, Atmaram: 37
Nag, Kalidas: 72
Parasara: 299
Naidu, Sarojini: 233 99
Parsons. Talcott:
Nanak, Guru: 90
Naoroji, Dadabhai: 42, 43 Patanjali: 161, 184, 185, 301
Paul, St.: 155
Narada: 387 540
Pearson, Lester:
Narayan, Jaya Prakash: 64,
260, 276, 286, 465-466, 468, Perry, R- B: 19
469, 472, 479, 481, 482, 485- Plato : 20, 76, 321, 346, 397,
487, 488, 499, 504, 509, 521 405
595
upholder of Gandhian prin-
Pope, Alexander:
Pound, Ezra: 55
ciples, 64; on the state
ownership of economic Prasad, Rajendra: 59, 286
enterprise, 260; on humani- Pragastapada: 160
Priestley : 115
zation of science, 276; on
loka-Sakti, 465; on loka- Proudhon: 459, 460, 464
630 AUTHOR INDEX
Pufendorf: 353 Sankara: 8, 4, 8, 12, 13, 16,
Pyarelal: 275 128, 162, 163, 185, 196, on
artha, 12; on brahmacarya,
Radhakrishnan, S$: on Auro- 184; on ideal society, 132,
bindo, 57; on Bhtidan, 286, 183; on man, 4, 210
on dharma, 12, 18, 380-81; Sarasvati, Dayananda: 29,31,
on spirit, 210 38, 39
Raj, Lajpat: 41 Sarkar: 367
Rajachandra: 82 Scheler: 19, 20
Rama, Bhagawan: 90, 179 Schelling: 403
Ramakrisna, Paramahamsa: Schopenhaur: 90
17, 28, 29, 31, 87, 44, 45, 46, Schweitzer, Albert: 83
47, 50, 51, 124 Sen, Keshab Chandra: 29, 31,
Ramana, Bagavan: 18, 29, 31, 33, 36, 37
58, 59 Shamasastry: 367
Ranade, M. G: 37, 38 Simmon, Ernest, J: 72
Rangaswamy: 311, 316 Sinha: 302, 366
Reclus: 459 Socrates: 24, 76, 320
Reddy, Ramachandra: 264 Soltau: 430
Rickert: 19 Somadeva Surj: 304, 338, 341,
Rolland, Romain: 45, 51 385
Ropke: 279 Sorel, George: 859
Roucek: 437 Sorokin, P: 470
Rousseau: 317, 326, 327, 329, Spencer, Herbert: 329, 346,
348, 367, 371, 389, 395.397, 347
402, 405, 406, 411, 414, 499, Spengler, Oswald: 91, 144,531
‘440 ்‌ Spinoza: 326, 327
Roy, Ellen: 480 Stevenson, Adalai: 274
Roy, M. N: 478 Stinner Max: 352, 459
Roy, Raja Ram Mohan: 29, Sundaravadivelu, N. D: 546
31, 38, 84, 85 SureSvara : 128
Ruskin: 75-79, 82, 196 Sykes, Marjorie: 476
Russell, Bertrand: 122
Russell, Donald E: 488 Tagore, Debendranath: 33 ச
35, 36
Salmond, John: 432 Tagore, Rabindranath: 35,53,
Samantabhadra, Acarya: 109 54
௩
AUTHOR INDEX | 631

Tendulkar: 499 Von Gierke: 355, 356
Thiruvalluvar: 515 Von Haller: 328
Thoreau: 63, 73-74, 98, 496 Vyasa: 161, 164
Thulasidas: 496
Tilak, Lokamanya: 40, 41
Tolstoy, Leo: 67-72, 93, 459, Ward: 443
461, 496 Warrender, Howard: 327
Toynbee : 536 Weldon, T. D: 441, 442
Treitschke: 342 Wernham, A. G: 327
Tucker, Benjamin, R: 352 Windelband: 19
Wirth, Louis’: 96
Varma, V. P: 374 Wolf: 353
Vattel: 353
Vidyasagar, Iswar Chandra:
36 Yajnavalkya: 308, 310, 814,
Visalaksa: 299 386, 387
Vivekananda, Swami: 1, 17, t
28, 29, 31, 40, 45, 46, 47, 48,

49, 50, 51, 52, 90, 124 ” ‘Zoroaster: 90
GENERAL INDEX
GENERAL INDEX
Abhaya, 189 178, 182, 185, 189, 190, 191,
Abhyudaya, 93, 105, 115, 205 200, 234, 243, 374, 451, 498,
Absolute, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,14, 49 543
Absolutism, 5, 6, 122, 395, _ Aigvarya, 367
347, 350, 401, 442 Aitareya Brahmana, 301, 303
Action, 3, 4, 40, 49, 52, 61, Aliptata-Tat, 225
62, 63, 71, 72,75, 79,88, Altruism, Altruistic 25, 83,
94, 95, 96, 99, 100, 104, 105, 116, 122
114, 117, 129, 130, 133, 137, Amarakosha Prakrti, 369
138, 140, 148, 144, 145, 159, Améatya, 369
163, 164, 166, 167, 174, 177, Atnerica, American, 388
183, 191, 260, 201, 204, 212, Ananda, 128, 210
219, 220, 225, 228, 289, 264, Anandamath, 42
409, 410, 421, 427, 440, 452, Anandamayakofa, 24
462, 464, 467, 504, 527, 529, Anantam, 2
_ 549, 550 Anarchism, 70, 71, 217, 351,
Adharma, 92 352, 359, 422, 458, 459, 460,
Adhikarika muktas, 124 463, 503
AGhipatya, 301 Anasakti, 61
Adhyatma, 59 Anasakti-yoga, 79
Adosa, 159 Anna, 3
Adult franchaise, 505 Annamayakoéa, 24
Advaita, 2, 14, 16, 49,59, 122, Annaya, 314
123, 162, 201 Antyodaya, 76
Aggafitiasuttanta, 302 Anubiti, 2
Agnosticism, 25 Anusasana Parva, 164
Abirnsa, 25, 47, 62, 68, 69, 71, Anuvratas, 161
82, 89, 85, 111, 121, 153, Anviksiki, 298, 809, 385
154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, Aparigraha, 83, 157, 193, 255,
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 375
167, 169, 170, 173, 175, 177, Arjava, 156
636 GENERAL INDEX
Arrambhi, 165 Bharata, 1
Artha, 11, 12, 18, 21, 237, Bharata Desa, 241, 286
389 Bhaujya, 301
Arthaparicchitti, 133 Bhava-pranas, 165
Arthagastra, 298, 299, 303, Bhayam, 163
304, 816, 341, 342, 343, 967, Bhidain, 250, 263, 264, 265,
368, 385 269, 286, 466, 519, 521, 522
Aryan, 229, 230, 308, 314, 343, Bhodanyajfia, 194
372 Bliss, 128, 133
Arya Samaj, 32, 38, 40, 48 Bodhisattva, 83
Aryasura, 303 Brahma, 300, 310, 370, 371
Asandi, 301 Brahmacdrin, 181, 182, 188,
Asceticism, 273, 279, 495 184
Asprasyata, 230 Brahmacarya, 18, 14, 83, 154,
Agramas, 18, 134, 160, 170, 157, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185,
182, 286 188, 196
Asteya, 88, 157, 191, 192, 193 Brahman, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 14, 22,
asvada, 185 123, 128, 140, 152, 162, 183
Atharva veda, 301 Brahmana, 227, 244
Atheism, 25 Brahmanas, 300, 301, 370, 371,
Atman, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 51, 372
113, 123, 128, 156, 162, 190, Brahmin, 370, 371
212 Brahmo Samaj, 32, 84, 35, 36,
Atma-nigraha, 212 38
Atmavidya, 162 Bread Labour, 69, 70, 196,
Aupajanghani, 301 197, 199
““Ausanasas, 299 Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, 155
Authoritarianism, 441, 443 Buddhi, 183
Avidya, 14, 49, 121, 123, 162, Buddhidan, 86
163 Buddhism, 79, 81, 85, 93, 159,
Axiology, 18, 19, 21, 454 163, 164, 264, 372, 979, 496
Bureaucracy, 471, 472
Bahbudantin, 300
Bande Mataram, 42 Capitalism, 259, 278, 360,
Barhaspatyas, 299 471, 473
Basic Edueation, 517, 525 Carvakas, 7, 160, 181
Bhakti, 15, 35, 36, 51 Caste, 13, 34, 39, 48, 81, 222,
Bhakti-yoga, 15 224, 338
GENERAL INDEX 637
Caturasrama, 13 Dandaniti, 299, 384, 385
Caturvarnya, 19 Danda-Sakti, 64, 464, 489
Celibacy, 235 Daridra-Narayana, 48, 51, 124
Centralization, 473 DarSana, 22
Chandogya Upanisad,113, 155, Darwinism, 70
156 Decentralization, economic,
Christianity, 33, 68, 72, 79, 258, 271, 272, 274, 275, 487,
87, 89, 93, 201, 202, 496 political, 267, 268, 420,
Cit, 183, 210 483, 487, 515, 543; demo-
Civil-Disobedience, 73. 220, cratic, 507; of power, 507;
256, 467, 535 industrial, 517, 540; society,
Civil-Resistance, 73 544
Civilization, 1, 25, 26, 275,278 Democracy, 51, 433, 443, 470,
Communism, 222, 260, 359, 472, 473, 474, 475, 478, 516,
360, 361, 427, 441; Commu- 529
nist, 278, 541 Desire, 1, 11, 12, 15, 28, 35,
Conflict, 67, 251, 361, 526, 536 117, 118, 122, 134, 140, 155,
Conservative, 142. 143
156, 170, 180, 182, 192, 226,
Constructive Programme, 516, 256, 257, 265, 285, 838, 351,
523
983, 426, 438
Dhana-tydgam, 244
Constructive Work, 518, 521,
Dharma, 11, 12, 13, 14, 21,
523
40, 41, 81, 92, 157, 158, 162,
Co-operation, 278 225,
173,182 215, 221, 224,
Consciousness, 2, 5, 23, 26, 27, 310, 312,
226, 237, 251, 301,
39, 46, 48, 52, 55, 61, 79, 341, 372, 378,
108, 133, 138, 202, 295, 931, 313, 339, 340,
332, 333, 399, 405, 406, 480, 374, 976, 978, 979, 380, 381,
, 485, 545 382, 383, 388
Dharmapathaka, 301
Cosmology, 19
Dharmagastras, 301, 312, 315,
Crime, 489
Culture, 9 938, 940, 345, 380, 387
Dharma-sttras, 301, 381
Pin, 245, 264 Digha-Nikaya, 302, 303

Divine, 2, 12, 42, 45, 47, 49,
Dana, 196, 266
Danda, 309, 310, 311, 312, 54, 55, 60, 61, 74, 106, 169,
191, 197, 201, 212, 265, 302,
313, 340, 369, 382, 384, 385,
996 304, 305, 306, 314, 315, 322,
Danda-dhara, 340
954, 991
638 GENERAL INDEX
Divine Right Theory, 312, Evil, 68, 69, 105, 132, 141,
379, 433. 146, 161, 166. 176, 195, 211,
Doctrine, 5, 50, 51, 52, 56, 60, 215, 221, 229, 236, 238, 239,
84,99, 100, 115, 122, 124, 241, 250. 258, 259, 403, 478
139, 148, 163, 201, 242, 255, 477, 479, 483, 490, 500, 515,
256, 280, 303, 305, 326, 329, 588, 585 .
341, 346, 351, 354, 355, 400, Existence, 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 35,
402, 410, 418, 418, 483, 489 40, 57, 404, 412, 427, 439,
Dowry, 233, 235, 236, 237, 450, 454, 455, 460, 477, 478,
540, 241 550
Dravidians, 314
Dravya-pranas, 165 Fabian, 419
Du Contract Social, 326 ‘Facism, 100, 102, 137, 360,
Dubkha parihara, 161 361
Dveéa, 162, 189 Fasting, 178, 179, 185-186,
189
Gast, Eastern, 22, 44, 45,53, Fatalism, 170
54, 297 Fearlessness, 190
Ecclesiasticism, 70 Freedom, 9, 14, 16, 23, 27, 40,
Economic order of Sarvodaya, 63, 64, 76, 209, 218, 219,
267—287 226, 268, 277, 282, 402, 425,
Education, 36, 39, 238, 239, 452, 452, 453, 460
240 - 242, 516, 517, 525, 526, French Revolution, 388, 389
528, 529
Egoism, 106, 122 Gaurasiras, 300
Empiricism, 53 General Will, 395-397, 405,
Epistemology, 19, 20, 21 407, 409, 410, 492
Equality, 68, 195, 221, 231, Gita, 12, 18, 50, 61, 71, 78,
244, 268, 270 79, 80, 89, 90, 92, 106, 108,
Eternal, 2, 5, 6, 9, 14 110, 114, 121, 139, 152, 157,
Ethics, ethical, 36, 41, 46, 53, 164, 184, 190, 197, 199, 221,
61, 80-82, 107, 114, 129, 224, 225, 226, 255, 374, 876,
180, 191, 160, 204, 246, 247, 447 ,
248, 249, 261, 262, 846, 347, Gita-Rahasya, Tilak, 40
974, 397, 402, 409, 452, 500, God, 5, 6, 8, 9, 26, 29, 30, 37,
550 46,47, 48, 52, 56, 60, 66,
Ethical Institutions, 408 67, 68, 69, 71, 73, 74, 76,
GENERAL INDEX 639
. 82, 95, 99, 93, 106, 107, 110, Human, 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 18, 21,
123, 124, 188, 147, 149, 150, 23, 24, 25, 30, 40, 44, 50,
151, 152, 164, 178, 179, 186, 51, 52, 58, 54, 56, 57, 58,
188, 190, 191, 193, 201, 202, 61, 62, 68, 80, 91, 94, 95,
* 909, 212, 218, 291, 295, 228, 100, 101, 105, 106, 107, 112,
247, 258, 264, 265, 276, 800, 115, 116,119, 120, 124, 129,
307, 323, $24, 825, 341, 379, 130, 184, 188, 142, 147, 148,
384, 986, 393, 400, 442, 447, 151, 158,159, 164, 178, 179,
467, 498, 501, 503, 548 183, 187, 188, 196, 202, 209,
God-head, 123 210, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216,
God-realization, 9, 17, 88, 218, 228, 232, 253, 242, 244,
124, 499 245, 249, 250, 252, 256, 268,
Grhastha, 13, 182. 271, 273, 275, 282, 287, 298,
Gramdan, 265, 266, 202, 295, 302, 308, 318, 322, 329, 331,
286, 467, 507, 519, 522 “899, $26, 248,350, 351, 356,
Gramraj, 264, 267 369, 374, 403, 404, 405, 449,
Gramsabha, 482 450, 468, 463, 471 -473,
Gram Swaraj, 285 476, 491, 486, 498, 499, 501,
Guiid Socialism, 359 508, 504, 510, 513, 520, 521,
Guptis, 158
551, 599, 585, 597, 588, 544,
546, 447
Human nature, 61, 212, 214,
Hanana, 157
Harijan, 51, 200, 230, 253 242, 250, 256, 308, 458, 472,
Hedonism, 115, 116, 117
585, 538
Heterodox, 127 . Humanism, 53, 242
Himsa, 157, 158, 165, 166, Humanitarianism, 36
167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 219, Humanity, 1, 28, 29, 36, 40,
248, 450, 464 44, 46, 48, 64, 55, 56, 63,
Hizhsa-sakti, 464
76, 82, 86, 89, 91, 104, 124,
Hind Swaraj, 25, 75, 248, 448,
128, 175, 179, 203, 215, 222,
453 233, 241, 242, 247, 276, 463,
9, 26, 38, 34, 36,
469, 477, 495, 498, 500, 511,
Hinduism,
~ 44, 60, 79, 82, 86, 89, 123, 580, 546
164, 177, 182, 199, 201, 228,
241, 244 Idealism, 40, 55, 56, 62, 91,
ட 107, 255, 401, 410, 452, 496,
Hita, 106
Holy, 1 547
640 GENERAL INDEX
Idealist, 104, 107, 121; 349, Indian Renaissance, 30, 57, 60,
AOL, 404, 408, 411 90, 93
‘Ideology, 27, 95, 97, 98, 99, Individual, 1, 5, 8, 12, 14, 16,
- 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 18, 27, 29, 30, 36, 38, 41,
106, 107 46, 47, 50, 58, 62,71, 74, 76,
Jmmanent, 5, 7, 188 82, 91, 99, 98, 108, 105, 106,
Imperialism, 22 110, 112, 124, 116, 117 -
India, 1, 2, 22, 23, 25, 28 ~ 35 124, 129 - 134, 140, 142,
99 - 45, 48, 50 to 58, 64, 443, 146, 147, 151, 163, 179,
72, 74, 91, 107, 128, 146, 180, 188, 187 - 190, 194,
172, 176, 177, 181, 191, 192, 196, 204, 209, 211, 212, 213,
198, 200, 222, 228, 229, 231, 216-221, 225, 226, 227, 230, _
232, 237, 247, 248, 258, 262, 237, 239, 248, 249; 250, 255
263, 264, 271, 279, 281, 284, “2958, 268, 275, 278, 282,
286, 297, 293, 500, 306, 309, 302, 316, 819, 321 - 897,
“gil, 316, 324, 329, 345, 362, $32 -— 336, 999, 942-959,
366, 868, 369, 870, 380, 387, 389, 398 — 400, 402, 403,
388, 380, 480, 443, 455, 456, 409, 410, 411, 420, 421, 422,
457, 468, 469, 472, 477, 478, 424, 426, 430, 491, 434, 440,
480, 483, 487,492, 495,406, 443, 449, 450, 451 - 458,
_ 502,505, 504, 505, 506, 507 454, 455, 457, 458, 459, 460
— 509, 512 - 517, 519, 526, - 464, 470, 478, 475, 476,
530, 534, 537, 538, 545, 548, 479, 484, 488, 500, 509, 510,
549, 550 517,-525, 582, 535, 536, 537,
Indian, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 643, 544, 547, 550
18, 20 - 24, 26, 29 - 37, Individualism, 360, 406, 411,
40 — 44, 48, 52, 55, 60, 61, 413, 454, 458, 460
70, 75, 90, 91, 109, 118, 127, ’ Individuality, 14, 16, 455
145, 158, 154, 160, 166, 172, Industrialism, 258, 259, 275
176, 181, 185, 192, 213, 223, Inner voice, 187, 188, 221.
228 230, 231, 238, 242, 249 Integral, 55, 60
248, 966, 271, 274, 279, 280, Integral-yoga, 55 ட
989,296 - 900, 906, 908 - International Law, 428, 424,
919, 999, 997, 942, 844, 806, 425
377, 387, 389, 442, 447, 461, Internationalism, 58
468, 469, 471, 495, 501, 505, Islam, 79, 88, 89, 202, 496
506, 512, 519, 545,547, 550 ISopanisad, 5, 255
Indian Philosophy, 21, 22, 23 Ista, 134
GENERAL INDEX 641
Jaiminiya Upanisad Brah- 295, 296, 298, 299, 376, 523,
mana, 301 525, 526, 527. 528, 549, 551
Jainism, 79, 93, 159, 163, 164 Kofa, 369 '
Janasakti, 63, 464 Ksatra, 367; 370, 371
Japa, 59 Ksatrasri, 367, 371
Jatakamala, 803 Ksatriya, 302, 310, 370, 371
Jati, 161 Kural, 243, 305, 515
Jitendriya, 340
Jivan-mukti, 14, 16 Laissez faire, £18
Jnana, 3, 4, 5, 52 Law, 313, 389, 341, 345, 349,
Jiiana-yoga, 15, 49 959, 957, 883 , 386, 411, 414,
Jfiana-yogi, 82 415, 419, 424, 425, 427, 428
Justice, 221, 222, 283, 251, 341, Legal, 236, 237

Liberation, 15, 16, 17, 88, 40,
384, 385, 426
225, 471 ;
Kaivalya, 21. Liberty, 108, 118, 230, 278,
Kala, 161 319, 322, 323, 344; 365, 396,
Kaiki, 93
405, 449, 501, 516
Kama, 11, 12, 18, 21, 237, 389 Lok-seva-sangh, 468
Kamandakanitisara, 207, 368
Loka, 338
Kamanolaka, 304 Lokahita, 242, 243

Kanyadan, 235 Lokaisana, 156
Karma, 3, 4, 51, 163, 316, 385 Lokaniti, 121, 467, 468, 469
Karma-yoga, 15, 46 Loka-Sakti, 464, 465, 466, 467,
495 489, 504
Karma-yogi, 82,
Karuna, 159 Loka-sangraha, 18, 48, 49
Kasayas, 189 Lokayata, 309
Kashmir Saivism, 8
Katha Upanisad, 7, 10,11, 53 Mahabharata, 4, 11, 156, 300,
Khadi, 271, 272, 287, 509, 808, 307, 308, 974, 875, 376,
521, 592 377
Khettanampatiti, 302 Mahajana-sammata, 302

Knowledge, 2. 3, 4, 9, 15, 16, Mahakaruna, 83
Maharajya, 301
19, 21, 97, 80, 89, 41, 46, 49,
, 69, 78, 79, 95, 99, 100, 102, Mahasarhmata, 802, 303, 372
Mahavakya, 48
104, 119 131, 134, 136, 158,
462, 174, 204, 210, 215, 220, , Mahavira, 69, 70
995, 296, 278, 281, 285, 287, Mahayana, 82, 83
642 GENERAL INDEX
Maitri, 154, 159 Monism, 53, 354, 355
Man, 2-8, 11, 12, 18, 17, 24, Moral, 1, 90, 94, 194
29, 74, 120, 128, 188, 144, 7 Mortal, 4
165, 168, 169-171, 174-179, Muktas, 124
192, 201, 203, 209, 210-222, Mysticism, 53, 66
244, 249, 250, 252, 264, 265, Myth, 99, 100
269, 273, 274, 295, 304, 920,
321, 351, 450, 500, 501, 529, Naradakaunapadanta, 300
5380, 532, 535, 539, 540 Naradasmrti, 340
Manana. 15 Nasadiya, 6
Manavas, 299 Nationalism, 55, 56, 58
Mandhata Jataka, 3872 Nationalization, 487
Mandikya Uponisad, 5 Nature, 3, 6,12, 13,14, 16, 18,
Manomayakofsa, 24 19, 29, 24, 58, 61, 62, 393
Manusmrti, 306, 307, 314, 315, ' Nava Samhita, 36, 37
337, 339, 341, 343 Nazism-Nazists, 351, 361
Mantras, 243 ச Neta, 310
Marriage, 182, 183, 233, 285- Nibandas, 388
299, 240-241 Nibbana, 81
Marxist-Marxism, 142, 280, Nididhyasana, 15
420 Nihéreyasa, 205, 949
Materialistic, 25, 104 Nirguna, 3
Matsyanydya, 341 Nirvisesa, 3
Matsyapurana, 807 Nishreyasa, 93, 115
Matsyesu, 161 ‘Niskamakarma, 71, 139, 140,
Means-End concept, 106, 121, 451
122, 127-177, 347, 398, 448, Niti, 244, 811, 384
500 Nitisara, 800
Metaphysics - metaphysical, Nitisastras, 345
19, 20, 80, 107, 121, 149, Nitivakyamrta, 388
168, 297, 298, 348, 875, 376, Nitya, 5
377, 401,452 Nivrtti, 179
Mimamsak4s, 162 Niyama, 165, 204, 244
Modern, 25, 32, 54, 275, 281, Nominalism, 19, 20
319
Non-dual, 5, 8, 22, 46, 53, 59
Moha, 189 Non-violence, 26, 27, 41, 61,
Moksa, 11, 14, 15, 16, 21, 88, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 72, 74, 80,
237, 383 82, 84, 87, 88, 91, 92, 94, 106,
GENERAL INDEX 643
112, 121, £45, 147, 150, 152, Partyless democracy, 477, 480
153, 158, 159, 163, 168, 169, Passive Resistance, 73, 105,
170, 171, 172, 178, 174, 176, 172
177, 178, 181, 182, 185, 188, Patriotism, 41, 42, 67, 160,
190, 191, 196, 216, 217, 221, 478
231, 232, 242, 243, 247, 248, Peace, 53, 54, 55, 68, 89, 91,
251, 254, 270, 275, 279, 286, 140, 177, 234, 245, 206, 279,
447, 448, 450, 452, 458, 455, 277, 285, 884, 335, 336, 352,
460, 462, 463, 491, 497, 498, 536
500, 501, 518, 523, 584, 535, Perfection, 9, 18, 21, 48, 49,
587, 588, 539, 542, 543, 549, 191, 192, 350, 587
550 Phalaprapti, 133
Norm, Normative, 19 Phenomenal, 7, 8
Nyaya-VaiSsesika, 160 Phenomenological Schoois,
19, 20
Old Testament, 329 Philosopher, 2, 7, 21, 23, 24,
25, 58, 54, 71, 76, 107, 449
Organismic Theory, 317, 318
Orgiastic, 101 Piguma, 300
Piteva, 315
Orthodox, 127
Planning, 283, 284, 285, 472,
506, 509, 510, 512, 518, 518
Pacifism, 360
Pluralism, 22, 355, 858, 420,
Padayatra, 195
422
Paksatita, 487
Pancakosga, 24 Pluralists, 418
Pochampalli, 264, 265
Paiica-mabavrata, 83, 153
Political Institutions, 119, 304
Paficasila, 153
Political Parties, 266, 362,
Pavicatantra, 305
84, 153 491, 479, 481, 483, 485
Paficayamas, 56, 62,
Political Philosophy,
Panchayat, 443, 456, 457, 461, 115, 295, 365, 366, 389, 390,
ATT, 481, 484, 485, 487, 488, 399, 489, 496
506, 510
485, Polygamy, 37
_ Panchayati Raj, 267, 484,
486, 488, 505, 507, 521 Polytheism, 39
1, 2, 3, 5, 11, 62, 63,
Panchayat Samiti, 477, 486, Power,
488, 510
64, 268, 345, 350, 959, 957,
199 367, 368, 370, 374, 375, 376,
Paradharma,
339, 387 382, 388, 384, 389, 390, 394,
Paripalana,
395, 406, 415, 417, 425, 432,
Parliamentary democracy, 505
644 GENERAL INDEX
438, £48, 455, 456, 468, 464, Rajas, 225, 250
465, 468, 472-474, 478, 489, Rajya, 300
504, 529, 537,,542, 543, 545 Rajyam, 367
Prajaparipalana, 384 Rajya-Sakti, 464, 489, 504
Prajapati, 302, 337 Ramarajya, 28, 63, 92, 94,
Prakrti, 367, 369, 387 250, 265, 457,
508
Prana, 133 Ramayana, 305, 307
Pranamavakofa, 24 Rashtra, 369
Pranayama, 59 Rationalist, 35
* Prarthana Samaj, 87 Realism, 25
Prasastapada, 160 Realist, 108
Pratima-nataka, 305 Reality,2, 5, 8, 13, 15, 19, 2t,
Pravrtti, 179 46, 54, 76, 96, 97, 101, 127,
Prithu, 375 128, 129, 152, 202, 209, 210,
Prithuvainya, 312 285, 401
Progress, 9, 10, 23, 105, 188, Realization, 2, 8, 10, 14, 22,
279, 287 28, 29, 46, 47, 53, 63, 73,
Psychological, 496 90, 107, 108, 112, 124, 128,
Punishment, 305-308, 373, 132, 133, 139, 140, 147, 149,
382, 383, 385, 428, 489, 490 150, 156, 188, 196, 204, 215,
Punya-bhimi, 1 227, 245, 258, 268, 274/284,
Puranas, 303, 374 910, 406, 410, 449, 452, 496,
Purdha, 38, 233, 234 508, 597, 5809, 549
Purna-swaraj, 113, 194 Realize, 3, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16,
Purusartha, 10, 21 17, 21, 22, 46, 48, 51, 61, 82,
Purusasikta, 5 106, 116, 122, 127, 128, 132,
Purva Mimamsa, 161 184, 140,148, 149, 166, 167,
Putraisana, 156 168, 172, 188, 212, 214, 220,
254, 256, 268, 401, 450, 451,
Quakers, 86, 87 487, 528, 536, 539, 549
Quran, 89 Release, 14, 15, 16, 21
Religion, 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 22, 26,
Racialism, 67, 221 32, 84, 85, 36, 37, 38, 40,
Raga, 162, 182 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51,
Raja-dharma, 340 52, 54, 56, 61, 79, 80, 84,
Rajamandala, 348 87, 88, 89, 90, 110, 111, 112,
Rajan, 302 120, 188, 148, 149, 155, 176,
Raja-niti, 467, 468, 469 177, 183, 199, 201, 202, 208,
GENERAL INDEX 645
233, 241, 266, 305, 316, 322, Santiparva, 156, 300, 310, 374,
331, 457, 500, 501, 502, 536 384
Renunciation, 54, 86, 178, Santi-sena, 245, 491, 521, 522
179, 180, 181, 225, 245, 255, Sarirasrma, 196
264, 5338, 542 Sarir-yajiia, 197
Rg-veda, 12, 26 Sarvabhauma, 161
Rights and duties, 216, 219, Sarvabhitahita, 56, 106, 111,
290, 225, 226, 227, 232, 251, 121, 242, 243
338, 340, 341, 346, 349, 356, Sarvadharma samabhava, 26,
378, 383, 399, 402, 412, 453, 50, 201, 202, 282
454 Sarvagata, 5
Rsis, 29, 50, 60, 108 Sarva-mukti, 124
Russian Populism, 501 Sarvodaya, 25, 27, 28, 29, 46,
56, 61, 63, 64, 65, 72, 74,
Sacred, 1 75, 76, 77, 90, 98, 94, 95,
Sadharanadharma, 160 108, 105-111, 114, 115, 120,
Saivism, 8 121, 122, 123, 124, 139, 148,
Sakti, 1 152, 174, 196, 199, 205, 209,
Saktism, 8 918, 515, 942, 944, 245, 246,
Sallekhana, 189 947, 248, 250, 259, 263, 264,
Salvation, 80, 112, 271, 403
268, 270, 272, 273, 275, 276,
Samanya, 161 277, 278, 285, 287, 295, 296,
Sdmanya-dharma, 160
447, 451, 452, 462, 463, 465,
467, 469, 473, 474, 477, 478,
Sama-ras, 467
Samarpana, 264
481 — 484, 487, 492 - 499,
Samhitas, 300 501, 502 - 508, 504, 508 -
Sampattidan, 264, 522 512, 518, 520, 521, 522, 523,
Samrajya, 301 525, 530, 535, 588, 589 -
542, 544, 549, 550.
Samsara, 164
Sasanamukti, 226
Samya, 152
Samyak-caritra, 83
Sasta, 310
Sanatana, 201
Sastras, 162, 310
Sastriyahirnsa, 161
Sandtana-dharma, 50, 56
Sat, 210
Sandilyopanisad, 154
Satpatha Brahmana, 307, 308,
Sankbya-yoga, 161, 309
318, 317
Sannydsa. 18, 14, 178, 182
Satatya-Om, 225
Santam, 2
646 GENERAL INDEX
Satbrahma, 148 Self-sacrifice, 180, 181, 211,
Sattva, 225, 250 212, 234, 252
Sattivikata-sat, 225 Self-sufficient, 114, 461, 511,
Satya, 88, 148, 151, 175, 451, 519, 537
498 Sermon on the Mount, 28, 87,
Satya-drti, 175 88, 90
Satyagraha, 25, 61, 72, 86, 87, Shasan-mukta, 467
88, 145, 147, 175, 176, 185, Shoshana-vihina samaj, 245
187, 209, 220, 244, 295, 447, Silappadikéram, 305
448, 458, 465, 497, 498, 500 Sivam, 2 :
Satyagrahi, 27, 72, 84, 175 Smrti, 304, 305, 314, 386
Satyam, 2 Social, 2, 7, 18, 27, 28, 29, 35,
Satyapravacana, 156 96, 89, 52, 54, 60, 61, 268,
Satya-sandha, 175 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 284,
Satydsraya, 175 286, 295, 296, 304, 309, 320,
Satya-van, 175 998, 884, 996, 840, 941, 948,
Satya-vrta, 175 952, 957, 358, 360, 499, 445,
Savarna, 200 458, 454, 496, 500, 502, 511,
Scepticism, 47, 68 518-515, 525, 545, 549
Science ~ Scientific, 203, 215, Social being, 74, 116, 450
275, 276, 277, 278, 285, Social demands, 2
299 Social developments, 5, 6
Scriptura] text, 4, 37, 40, 43, Social contract, 302, 308, 220,
, 46, 88, 303 323, 325, 327, 828, 331, 393, .
Secular—Secularist, 31, 83 440
Secularization, 39 ' Social Ethics, 402
_ Self, 6, 8, 9, 21, 46, 48, 49, 73, Social evils, 32, 38
157, 158, 159, 162, 165, 186, Social institutions, 126, 216,
211, 212 274 449 499
Self-dependent, 114 Social justice, 192, 222, 239,
Self-government, 64 241, 249
Self-inquiry, 59 Social-life, 83, 37, 60, 63, 70,
Self-knowledge, 59 224, 242, 245, 278, 460, 472,
Self-realization, 7, 15, 17, 53,” 497, 509, 542, 545
80, 128, 124, 196, 198, 139, Social order, 338, 386, 474,
140, 140, 149, 159, 180, 202, 510
455 Social organism, 209
GENERAL INDEX 647
Social ostracism, 239 de jure and de facto Sover-
Social Philosophy, 21, 105, eignty, 397, 406, 407, 434,
115, 205, 212, 546, 550 435, 436
Social reality, 102 Political Sovereignty, 408,
Social reconstruction, 63, 452 428, 429, 431, 482, 434, 485
Social reforms, 34, 36, 37, 38, Legal Sovereignty, 428, 432
42, 81, 112, 136 436, 438
Social salvation, 112, 113 Popular Sovereignty, 493,
Social service, 49, 83 434, 478
Social values, 80, 90, 103, 209 Prof. Sinha’s view, 3865 -
Socialism, 223, 260, 270, 279, 367; Prof Ghoshal’s view,’
359, 360, 420, 459, 541 367; Jayaswal’s view, 367;
’ Socialism-communism, 260, elements of Sovereignty,
201 367; Bodin, Hobbes and
Socialist-communist, 101 Rousseau’s view — juristic
Society, 25, 70, 74, 133, 134, notion, 367 ; Austin’s view,
135, 209-213, 215-219, 223, 367; Kautilya’s view, 368,
225-227, 229, 233, 245-227, 369; in Mahabharata, 377;
263, 266, 817, 334, 337, 339, dharma as sovereign in
949, 350, 352, 358, 362, 389, ancient Hindu thought 380,
409, 410, 416, 420, 440, 448, 381, 388; concept of sover-
449, 450, 451, 453, 454, 459, cignty distinguished, 890-
460, 461, 464, 466, 470, 471, 391; Aristotie’s view, 392;
473, 476, 478, 503, 504, 640 the Roman‘s view 392;
Soul, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 38, 40, Lock’s view, 294; Rous-
44, 46, 49, 60, 68, 93, 123, seau’s view, 395; the gene-
124, 145,146 162, 163,164, ral will as the source of
178, 174, 186, 202, 205, 210, law-—-Kant’s view, 399;
“922, 295, 226, 250, 276, 322, sovereign will of the people
995, 459 4509, 485 ்‌ -Fichte’s view, 400; Hegel’s
Sovereignty, 63, 93, 297, 301, concept of sovereignty 408,
802, 303, 328, 332, 344, 358, 404; Green’s view, 405-408;
"958, 357, 358, 359, 265, 366, Bosanquet’s view, 411; John
867, 369, 370, 371, 376, 380, Austin’s conception of
382, 386, 389, 390, 391, 392, sovereignty, 418; criticism
998, 994, 895, 401, 403-408, of Austin’s view, 415~416;
413, 419-442, 469, 464, 465, H. J. Laski’s view, 417;
466, 478, 489, 504 Pluralist’s view, 418; Anar-
648 GENERAL INDEX
chists vew, 422; on state 408, 448, 453, 496, 497, 501,
sovereignty, 423; views of 535, 536
western political thinkers, Spiritual aspirations, 54
434-443; Gandhi’s concep- Spiritual Freedom, 74, 453
tion of sovereignty, 462; Spiritual heritage, 75
emphasis not on Rajya- Spiritual humanism, 40
Sakti, but on loka-Sakti, Spiritualism, 53, 536
464; 3. P. Narayan on Spirituality, 2, 8, 16, 17, 46,
Panchayati Raj, 484-487; 55, 500, 501
political sovereignty in a Spiritual liberation, 225
Sarvodaya society rests only Spiritual-realization, 98, 115,
with the people, 489; 127, 188, 199, 205
Vinoba’s view, 489-492; Spiritual reorientation, 60
sovereignty of the people Spiritual Unity, 53
based on pure moral autho- Spiritual values, 54
rity—Gandhi’s view, 504; Sraddha, 244
on political decentraliza- Sramdan, 264, 522
tion, 507, 512 Sravana, 15
Spirit, 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 17, Sravana-pitrbhakti-nataka, 92
24,29, 33, 36, 40, 41, 43, 45, State, 295, ancient Indian
46, 49,50, 51, 55, 57, 59, 62, theores: Protection as the
73, 104, 120, 124, 189, 188, justification of the state,
147, 153, 162, 179, 181, 186, 306; force theory 309, the
188, 189, 203, 209, 210, 212, divine right theory 312;
214, 234, 244, 249, 250, 253, views of Rangaswamy,
277, 286, 350, 401, 402, 440, Bandyopadhyaya, Mooker-
441, 519 jee, Jayaswal, Ghosal, 311-
Spiritual, 1-18,21 — 35, 40, 41, 814; paternal view of king-
45, 47, 50, 52, 53, 55-62, ship and organismic views,
67, 70, 72, 73, 74, 79, 82, 315, 316; organismic theory,
84, 93, 106, 108, 109, 112, 917: Greek view of the
113, 114, 123, 124, 128, 131— origin of the state, 319;
138, 148, 151, 152, 158, 178, Sophist’s view, 320; Plato’s
179, 181, 183, 186, 188, 190, theory, 321; Aristotle’s
191, 199, 201, 203, 204, 210, theory 821; Epicurean view
214, 215, 219, 226, 228, 234, 322, the Romans, 322;
242, 244, 248, 274, 279, 285, Western theorist’s views:
GENERAL INDEX 649
The Divine Origin theory, Sukhaprapti, 161
323; Social Contract Sukranitisara, 304, 308, 368
theory of Hobbes, Locke, Sutee, 34
Rousseau, 325-327; Von Sttrakrtaniga, 157
Haller’s view, 328, Du- Suvarnaprabhasa siitra, 303
guit, T. H. Green’s view Svabhava, 224
328; the theory of Force, Svadharma, 13, 199, 224, 225
328; Patriarchal theory, Svakalyana-buddhih, 49
329; Matriarchal theory, Svamin, 369
330; Evolutionary theory, Svamitva, 367
331; the end and function Svarajya, 301
of the state-ancient Indian Svayambhi Brahma, 314
theories: functions of the Svayamprakasa, 5
state-paripalana 339, main- Swadesi, 113, 199, 270, 271,
tenance of the common law, 453, 456, 518, 519
339, protection of dharma, Swapika, 244
339-340, levying of taxes, Swaraj, 40, 113, 114, 194, 286,
340-341, promotion of the 448, 458, 454, 462, 469, 488,
welfare of the people, 341; 503, 521
contrast between the anci- Syndicalism, 359
ent Indian state and the System der Sittlichkeit, 402
*modern state; western con-
‘ceptions—Plato and Aris- Taittiriya Brahmana, 371
totie’s, 346, Locke, Adam Taittiriya sarmhita, 301, 371
Smith and Spencer’s 347; Taittiriya Upanisad, 3
Hegel’s view, 347, Anar- Tamas, 197, 225
chistic view, 352; Inter- Tamasik, 48
nationalist’s view, 353; Tapas, 178, 266
Monist’s view, 354; Plura- Tathagata, 81
list’s view: 355; Guild- Tattva-jiana, 48
socialist’s view, 359, Com- Tattvarthadigama-sitra, 181,
munist’s view, 359, 360; 191
Fascist’s view, 360, 361; Tattva-tyagam, 244
Nazist’s view, 361 Telangana, 264
Sthitaprajiia, 79, 190 Teleology, 70
The League of Nations, 354,
Strikes, 251
Suddhi, 38 426 .
The New Testament, 111
Sukha, 156
650 GENERAL INDEX
The Servant of India Society, United States, 281, 282, 429,
42 430, 436, 438
The Story of My Experiments Universal brotherhood, 53,
with Truth, 91, 448 Universal Religion, 34, 203
Theism, 5, 6, 34, 36, 124 Universe, 4, 5, 22, 27, 54, 401
Theology, 299 Unto This Last, 75, 76, 77, 78
Theosophical Society, 43, 44 Untouchability, 39, 199, 200,
Tilaks, 243 ்‌ 201, 222, 228, 229, 280
Tradition, 22, 26, 47, 142, 192, Upanisad, 2, 24, 34, 58, 60,
226, 238, 279, 325 . 108, 128, 140, 152, 156, 168,
Transcendent, 5, 30, 138 949, 374, 382
Trayi, 298, 299 Upaya, 160
Trusteeship, 194, 255, 257, Utilitarianism, 115, 116, 117,
258, 261, 262, 263 118, 119, 120, 121, 449
Truth, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 14, 15, Utopia, 101, 103, 107, 145,
24,26, 27, 28, 32, 33, 35, 38, 218, 491
44, 45,46, 48, 50, 58, 55, 56,
_ 59, 60-68, 65,79, 80, 84, 85, Vaisnava, 85, 228
91, 92, 94, 98, 106, 107, 112, Vaisnavism, 8, 52, 84, 85
113, 114, 120, 121, 138, 188, Values, 1, 10, 11, 13, 18-24,
140, 141, 142, 147, 148-153, 30, 32, 51, 62, 63, 80, 90, 96,
169, 174-179, 182, 186, 188, 98, 106, 127, 128, 180, 131,
190, 193-196, 202, 208, 204, 132, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138,
209, 212-214, 220, 248, 247, 142, 143, 146, 160, 174, 180,
248, 249, 258, 262, 265, 279, 182, 185, 209, 216, 239, 248,
296, 330, 365, 874, 429, 447, 269, 279, 454, 479, 495, 509,
458, 457, 463, 470, 497, 498, 549
500, 515, 525, 597, 538, 547, Value judgement, 20
550 Value Nominalism, 19, 20
Tuhfat-ul-Muwahhidin, 34 Value Realism, 19, 20
Two Treatises of Civil Govern- Vamadeva-Gita, 340
ment, 346 . Vanaprastha, 13, 182
Varagya, 301
U.N. General Assembly, 426 Varnas, 13, 134, 160, 222, 223,
Ulladu Narpadu, 59 227, 340, 348, 380
United Kingdom, 20, 282 “Varnasramadharma, 157, 222,
United Nations, 426, 427 223, 226, 228, 308, 338-
GENERAL INDEX 651
Varta, 298, 809, 385 Vitalism, 25
Vartika, 301 Vittaisana, 156
Vatavyadhi, 300 Vyasa-Bhasya, 165
Vedas-Vedic, 2, 5, 6, 22, 39, Vyavahara, 310
152, 156, 300, 309, 341, 367,
370, 371, 372, 379, 380, 385
Vedanta, 2, 6. 15, 47, 48, 50, War, 354, 530, 531, 536, 542
§9, 93, 123, 162, 208, 493 Welfare State, 478
Vdyami, 165 West-western, 18, 37, 50, 54,
Vijnana, 203 55, 78, 77, 87, 262, 278, 280,
Vijianamaya-kosa, 24 281, 297, 302, 303, 318, 319,
Vidyas, 298, 299 362, 866, 368, 389, 390, 471,
Villagism, 63, 452, 489 472, 478, 501, 509, 508, 508,
Violence, 45, 61, 64, 71, 84, 541
86, 89, 91, 187, 140, 141, Western Civilisation, 70, 280,
145, 154, 155, 158, 159, 166, 291
167, 169, 172, 178, 174, 181, Widow-te-matriage, 37, 39
185, 190, 191, 981,248, 271,
403, 448, 449, 450, 459, 462, Yajiia, 194, 197, 225, 264,
491, 501, 521, 532, 583, 534, 265, 266
536, 588, 542, 544, 548, 549 Yajur-Veda, 106
Viplava, 377 Yama, 165, 204
Virodhi, 165 Yoga, 7, 15, 49, 51, 52, 165,
Viéalaksa, 299
375
Viéesa, dharma, 160 Yoga-sittra, 84, 184
Vishnupurana, 368 Yogi, 84
Visnusahasranama, 110
Visvarapa, 314 Zilla Parishads, 477, 486, 488,
Visvasa, 208 510

TVA BOK 0012154 Sarvodaya

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TVA BOK 0012154 Sarvodaya

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SARVODAYA

AND THE PROBLEM OF POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY

Dr T. S. DEVADOSS, ™.a.. BL., Ph.D. DP. & PA

in the University of MADRAS in 1969

First published, 1974

ewes a heavy debt to the many scholars who have

It is a pleasure to acknowledge my obligations to

Centre for Advanced Study in Philosophy

CHAPTER ONE Introduction

A The Doctrine of Sarvodaya against

CHAPTER THREE PAGES

Social and Economic Orders of

Analytical Exposition of The

The Concept of Sovereignty In

CHAPTER SIX PAGES

‘FHE DOCTRINE OF SARVODAYA AGAINST

India, for ages, has been the sacred land of

2. Swami Vivekdnanda, The Complete Works of Swami

In India, great philosophers, from the age

It is true that all existence and

3. Manditkya Upanisad, 1-7.

5. sarvesam api anna-rasa-vikaratve

The following verse from the Mahabharata also

guhyam brahma tadidam vo bravimi

6. puruse tu eva avistaram atma

According to the Vedas which form the main

8. S. Radhakrishnan and P.T: Raju, The Concept of Man,

world as well as transcendent. In the Ndasadiya

It may be asked, what is the nature of man?

Man’s being has two dimensions, the inward

All activities of man, whether religious or

bent upon the realization of its spiritual essence.

It is true that nothing on earth is utterly per-

In short, the entire world is supported by

It is the emphasis on spiritual freedom as the

12. ekadhaivanudrastavyam etadapramayam dhruvam,

Values are but those spiritual entities which

13. purusan na param kijicit sq kastha sa para gatih, iii,

Etymologically, the word dharma is derived

18. Gita, VII, Il.

Like the four castes (varnas), there are four

20. S. Radhakrishnan, Religion and Society, George

renounced from the stage of brahmacarya. When

It is not enough if the ideal is sketched. What

22, T.M.P. Mahadevan, Outlines of Hinduism, Chetana

should be shown. Of the paths to perfection out-

According to karma-yoga, one ought to do

Can the ideal as envisaged above, be achieved?

achieved.” Sankara also holds that perfection can

23. M. Hiriyanna, Philosophy of Values, The Cultural

To an age which has become overburdened

24. ayan nijah paroveti ganana laghu cestasam

25. V. A. Devasenapathi, Principal Miller Lecture on

progress of all but also with the material well-

Axiology as understood at present is mainly

These two concerns of axiological theory are-

From the general stand point of Indian philo-

26. Katha-Upanisad, 11, ii, 1.

India. Our study confirms the view that the history

sarve bhavantu sukhinah sarve santu niramayah

May all be at ease; may all be sinless; may all

Thus India’s greatest treasure is her ancient

The call of the age is to rise into a higher cons-

29, An ancieat Hindu Prayer.