On the 147th birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi it is an opportune moment for taking a fresh look at some aspects of Gandhian thought. Gandhi was always conscious of the fallible and imperfect nature of human beings. But he did not approve of the selfish nature of the classical man that Adam Smith thought of. Gandhi observes that what Adam Smith had described as pure economic activity based merely on the calculations of profit and loss is a selfish attitude. Gandhi’s concept of man is a man with limited needs, self-discipline, morality and religiosity. He says there are three types of human beings: (i) the coward, (ii) the brave, and (iii) the superior. The coward, in order to save his skin, supinely acquiesces in injustice, and wrong. The brave hero, on the other hand, violently resists injustice and wrong in order to re-establish justice and right. The superior person is he who, in the fullness of his strength, forgives the wrongdoer and tries to convert him to the ways of doing good. It goes without saying that the cowardly type is despicable and is held in low esteem the world over. Our choice today and tomorrow must be between the second and third alternatives.
For academic economists in India, the principal opponent is Gandhi. Although some reject him harshly, it is more usual to dismiss him with a polite show of respect. After independence, the choice seemed to lie between the Nehruvian approach to development and the Gandhian approach. By and large the educated classes were on the side of Nehru.
There are those who believe that industrialization will provide a cure for the problem of unemployment. Gandhi disagreed with them. The Indian experience, in the 70 years since independence, shows that he was near the truth than many of his critics. Over seven decades, growth of unemployment appears beyond what our planners had anticipated every Five Year Plan starts with a promise of reducing unemployment and ends with a larger backlog of unemployed people.
On science and technology, Marx suggested the socialization of the machine; Gandhi in addition, suggests its simplification. Gandhi says that if you retain the giant machines, you will require giant experts and technicians to manage them. Our dependence upon them will be so complete that it will result in our exchanging one ruling class for another, the capitalist of today giving place to the manager of the giant industrial estate of tomorrow. It is no doubt that with the socialization of the instruments of production the de jure ownership will pass into the hands of the workers. On the other hand, the very size of those instruments will, as a matter of fact, will produce the expert manager having complete control of them.
Taking Gandhi seriously does not mean that one starts by rejecting modern technologies and different patterns of development. The common people as well as the educated classes have been impressed by what technology can perform, but they have not imbibed the scientific spirit. While it has weakened some old prejudices, it has helped spread corruption beyond limit. Two of its other results relate to the energy crisis and the impending ecological disaster. Gandhi teaches us to carry the struggle inward, to change ourselves, and to be eternally vigilant.
(The writer is former Professor of Rural Management & JRD Tata Chair Professor of Tata Steel, Currently SRF, ICSSR at XISS, Ranchi)