GANDHI left us in 1948. Today, 66 years since, many of the institutions that he established and those by his followers after his death, appear in peril. Their core seems to have weakened, reflecting both poverty of thought and rigidity in practice. There is limited availability of committed persons who can manage the institutions with confidence and vigour as resources have dried up. The state, in the rare cases where it extends support, tries either to co-opt or otherwise views the institution in adversarial terms. In general, broad social support for Gandhian ideas and work, with the exception of benign social service, is almost non-existent.
The two generations post Gandhi are more or less ignorant about both his life and times, and his thought and practice. This when, almost paradoxically, in recent times Gandhian thought is experiencing a revival the world over. In the midst of rising direct and structural violence in every society, there is a serious effort to revisit Gandhi’s thought. Not unexpectedly, many look towards the Gandhian institutions in India1 for serious experiments, learning and sharing. However, these institutions themselves disappoint, even though several of them show potential. We thus need to understand why these institutions seem to be in crisis. This brief note is a preliminary attempt to understand what ails the Gandhian institutions in the country today.
To understand the predicament of Gandhian institutions today we need to interrogate the role of the state in giving shape to and reconstructing the country after independence and, in that context, deconstruct its engagement with Gandhian organizations. I start with a review of the first major engagement of the new government with the Gandhian organizations, in a meeting in March 1948, soon after Gandhi’s assassination.2
Gandhi attracted both thinkers and doers. Most followers of Gandhi, during his lifetime, looked up to him for leadership and followed him more or less uncritically, even though a few had different ideas on how our post-independence society was to be reconstructed. However, they did not discuss their views openly with Gandhi and others. The two major exceptions were about how to deal with Partition3 and how to plan for shaping the country’s economy in an independent India.4 Little surprise that Gandhi’s sudden death left most of them feeling orphaned and confused.
Gandhi perhaps had little doubt that post independence, the government would not follow the vision of gram swaraj as outlined in Hind Swaraj.5 He had thus planned a meeting of all constructive workers in Sevagram, Wardha to discuss the future course of action in the first week of February 1948. His assassination, however, created uncertainty. The meeting was eventually held on 11-15 March 1948 with Rajendra Prasad presiding.6
There was wide consensus among the many key and senior Gandhians present about acknowledging the leadership of two towering personalities – Acharya Vinoba Bhave and Jawaharlal Nehru.7 Both enjoyed a significant following, though in different quarters. All those present felt the need for two different types of organized response – one was for individuals who believed in Gandhian principles and were committed to carry forward his work; the second for creating a federation of various formal organizations involved in constructive programmes.8
Vinoba was emphatically in favour of a loose association of like-minded people. The gathering agreed on the need for a ‘fraternity of those who believed in the principles that Gandhi stood for’, which came to be known as ‘Sarvodaya Samaj’. They also agreed to work towards setting up an umbrella institution which came to be known as Sarva Seva Sangh, its mandate to carry forward the vision of Mahatma Gandhi to build a casteless and non-exploitative society based on truth and non-violence. The members of the Sarva Seva Sangh were to be called Lok Sevaks. The Sarvodaya Samaj was to provide a platform to non-members – friends and well-wishers of the Sarvodaya movement – and to function as a source of inspiration to the Sarva Seva Sangh.9
Once Nehru joined the meeting on the morning of 13 March, the discussion shifted to outlining the preferred nature of engagement with the state. First, Rajendra Prasad summarized the proceedings by recounting the ideas of fraternity and the umbrella organization, Vinoba Bhave’s views on the matter and Mashruwala’s suggestion that the final decision be left to Vinoba. Nehru was questioned about his position on issues such as khadi; propagation of Hindustani; status of Nai Talim in the state’s education policy; the problems facing harijans, adivasis, women and children; the future of decentralized village economy; controlling communal disharmony and so on. On all these issues, people alleged state indifference towards Gandhian tenets and programmes.
Nehru responded comprehensively. He pointed out that many of Gandhi’s fundamental propositions faced a challenge from disruptive forces, primarily communal. He argued that while promotion of khadi and Hindustani was important, the priority needed to be defined in context. With respect to khadi and decentralized village economy, he pointed out that not only was the output inadequate, scope for expansion was limited and that most khadi enterprises were unviable. Since the government could hardly afford to leave the population unfed, unclothed and unprotected, it had perforce to plan for industrialization. He thus saw the scope for both centralization and decentralization as long as the enterprises were self-sustaining. In brief, he vigorously defended his economic and political plans and actions, arguing that they represented the best option under the circumstances.
It is important to remember that Vinoba did not see Nehru as just a representative of the state. He stressed that Nehru’s problems were real and that his vision was justified under the circumstances. Consequently, he not only promised to support Nehru and his government but asked him to provide leadership.10 The gathering had expressed immense faith in Vinoba as a leader after Gandhi and Vinoba in turn had reposed full faith in Nehru’s vision and leadership, even though it did not match fully with Gandhi’s vision. To be fair, Nehru had never hidden his differences with Gandhi; he did the same at the Sevagram gathering.
Vinoba’s Bhoodan movement for land redistribution was committed to supporting the state. Both the Sarva Seva Sangh and Sarvodaya Samaj whole-heartedly participated. Could it then be inferred from the above discussions, that the Gandhians and Gandhian institutions had given tacit approval to the vision of India as proposed by Nehru? If the answer is in the affirmative, then the ‘disease’ had already set in, right from the time of the Sevagram meet. In practice, though the Sarva Seva Sangh and the Sarvodaya Samaj promoted the ideas of sarvodaya and gram swaraj and even conducted some experiments, though their efforts remained relatively isolated. Thus even though the government programmes were designed with a different vision, most Gandhians willingly participated in them.
In 1973, Jayaprakash Narayan, confronted the government in a struggle for the restoration of democracy in the country. The Sarvodya Samaj and Sarva Seva Sangh forces rallied around JP in the movement known as sampoorna kranti –Total Revolution. In a rare display of independence, many Gandhians shed their customary docility, holding the state responsible for corruption, nepotism and destruction of democratic institutions. Notably, Vinoba Bhave and a small group disapproved of the movement and supported the government. Vinoba was criticized for this. Today, it appears that even as far back as 1948 Vinoba had declared his faith in Nehru and supported the state.
Unfortunately, the major outcome of the JP movement was limited to seeking a change in political power at the Centre and some Sarvodaya Samaj activists and Lok Sevaks joined active politics. Thus, rather than contribute to a revival of core strength, it appears that this engagement with the state not only created a schism between the Gandhians and the state, but also further eroded the Gandhians’ inner strength. Henceforth, the state became suspicious of the Gandhian and other civil society organizations.
In more recent times the Gandhians and Gandhian institutions have tried to engage with the state on social and environmental issues. The fact, however, is that in most of the meaningful struggles and movements, the leadership has been provided by activists who more often were not from the Sarva Seva Sangh or Sarvodaya Samaj. The Gandhians at best lent support; they were not front runners. Arguably, most movement leaders do not share Gandhi’s vision of a non-violent society.
In this context, the working of Gandhian institutions in the post-independence era assumes greater significance. The Gandhian institutions have been involved in a number of constructive programmes – socioeconomic, educational, health, and welfare.11 Most institutions accept government funding, which is generally conditional. This, in part, compromises their autonomy. For instance, institutions engaged in the khadi and village industries programmes rely heavily on government for financial support. The programmes basically involve handing out individual and groups subsidies. The government’s regulating body is highly bureaucratized and since the Gandhian institutions implementing the programme have to follow the rules, the scope for innovation and flexibility is rather limited.
Institutions engaged in other economic and social welfare activities too have essentially became delivery organizations instead of providing workable alternatives.12 All this has seriously eroded Gandhian values with which they had started. Corrupt practices allegedly mar many production programmes, especially in khadi and village industries. Instead of promoting hand spun and hand woven fabric, mill spun yarn is used for weaving. Though handlooms have been replaced by power looms, the product is sold as khadi. The basic principles of decentralization and local area self-sufficiency have been sacrificed. In other cottage and village industry products too, there is little effort to maintain local material chains. Industrialization has promoted mass production with newer technologies and reduced the cost of production.13 Since private industry does not account for the social and environmental costs and passes them on to the state, society and future generations, clean decentralized production is unable to compete. The problem of adverse selection has resulted in the closure of many such industries and eroded the intrinsic strength of village level industries.
There are, however, a few exceptions. In Gadchiroli district, Maharashtra, the Mendha-Lekha village’s experiment of creating a gramkosh out of the village’s common forest property is an example of strengthening the village economy with people’s participation. This experiment is in the direction of achieving gram swaraj with appropriate use of natural resource for equitable economic development.14 Unfortunately, we have few other such examples.
At an earlier stage many Gandhian institutions experimented with education. After the 1937 education meet at Wardha, Nai Talim was accepted as a model and the Talimi Sangh was formed to coordinate Nai Talim schools all over the country. Incidentally, institutions such as the Gujarat Vidyapith were founded to impart education on Nai Talim principles even before the Talimi Sangh was formed. Gandhi saw a remedy to the problem of educating children in rural areas in vocational or manual training. Yet, while Nai Talim acquired strong roots in Gujarat because of the sustained work of some committed educationists, post-independence, most institutions experienced a serious setback – partly due to new state policies concerning education and partly because of the erosion of core strength among Gandhian educationists.15
The new education policy of the state was consistent with Nehru’s vision that he had outlined in the Sevagram meet in March 1948, which stood in stark contrast to Gandhi’s vision of education. Gandhi had envisioned modern India to be village based, decentralized, democratic and liberal. At its core was a free individual who would live in harmony with nature and with limited means, mostly self-reliant and cooperating with the world for anything that was necessary for building a harmonious humanity. This vision was rejected by Nehru and the Congress government after independence, since they were keen to develop India as an urban and an industrial society.
However, since Nehru had promised to support the decisions taken at the Sevagram meet, his government did extend financial support, especially in Gujarat, to the Nai Talim institutions. Gujarat Vidyapith, for instance, was recognized by the University Grants Commission and started to receive grants. As a result the Nai Talim institutions, instead of influencing the state education policies, were themselves affected and gradually gave up the Nai Talim principles. The current situation in institutions such as Gujarat Vidyapith is that the two conflicting forces are operating simultaneously. The one still desirous of reinvigorating the Nai Talim principles of education at all levels is steadily losing out while the second force in which some rituals of Nai Talim are followed along with mainstream education methods is gaining strength.
Similarly the Gandhian institutions engaged in health activities remain limited to working for leprosy eradication and naturopathy. However, since health service is humanitarian in nature, both societal and government support is forthcoming. Some good work in leprosy continues to be done, for instance at Sevagram or in Baba Amte’s ashram. The leprosy work in Gujarat by Suresh Soni has successfully combined leprosy treatment and removal with economic development.
Gandhian institutions engaged in welfare of the disadvantaged sections of people, such as adivasis, dalits, and women and children, have felt the impact of the Nehruvian vision in a different way. Most have experienced a depletion in their strength. The vision of modern urban and industrial development has raised different types of aspirations among the disadvantaged sections of the population in Indian society. Many civil society organizations/non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who do not necessarily believe in Gandhian principles, favour a rights based approach to development. While there is indeed merit in affirmative action for correcting some historical social and economic wrongs, following a rights perspective without a proper sense and balance of duties associated with it can potentially create disharmony in the long-run.
Since the perceived and stated objective is of gaining rights via control over political power and access to economic resources, the element of sustainability can be seriously compromised. In Gandhi’s vision, the goal was harmony and not power. Unfortunately, the Gandhian institutions working on welfare have failed to promote a sense of duty and, as a result, lost their ability to influence people with whom they work. Many Gandhian institutions in Gujarat working for education and welfare of dalits and adivasis face serious opposition from the people with whom they work. Clearly the Gandhians who work in these institutions have failed to grow over time, as Gandhi would have expected.
The point about the growth of an individual in an organization underscores a crucial aspect of Gandhian principles that deserves greater attention. Gandhi, an ever vigilant practitioner, laid great emphasis on continuous learning and growth of the individual in an institutional set-up. It is, however, no secret that those in leadership positions in many Gandhian institutions have failed to nurture the next generation of leaders. There is also a wide chasm between percept and practice. Even those Gandhian leaders who understand the concept of decentralization and try to put it into practice, do it in a manner that contributes to centralization and concentration of power. The interpretations of norms tend to be rigid, with rituals replacing principles. Far too often the leaders in Gandhian institutions have failed to relate the ritual to the principles and communicate this to the workers and volunteers, in both theory and in practice. The gap between percept and practice is evident, leading to loss of respect, faith and confidence in the principle itself. This aspect has plagued Gandhian institutions significantly.
Gandhi was keenly aware about this problem. He had, on multiple occasions, drawn attention to the necessity of being vigilant about one’s behaviour and towards the norms that should be followed in a healthy institution. One of his close associates, K.G. Mashruwala, has compiled a concise version of basic Gandhian thought, which gives a good account of rights, and duties as well as behavioural guidelines for worker-volunteer and the leaders and managers.16 Gandhi followed them in letter and spirit and expected others, who were on a similar path, to both learn and follow them. It appears, however, that both Gandhians and Gandhian institutions have failed to walk the talk. Although this is true for all civil society organizations in one way or the other, it is particularly relevant for Gandhians and Gandhian institutions because their vision is of reconstructing a non-violent, non-exploitative and harmonious society. Clearly, they have a long way to go.
Footnotes:
1. Gandhian institutions refer to all those institutions in India that were founded during the lifetime of Gandhi to carry out constructive programmes suggested by him for rebuilding rural India. These institutions, and in some cases their networks and federations also became involved in struggles against the state and other adverse forces.
2. Gandhi did not believe in starting any cult or sect named after him. However, the term Gandhian referred to here is a shorthand description of people who claim to follow Gandhi’s path in quest of truth and apply some of his basic principles.
3. A recent publication in Gujarati by Narayan Desai, Jigarna Cheera, argues that for Gandhi the decision about Partition was a fait accompli.
4. Nehru’s vision of modern India seriously differed from that of Gandhi which he had depicted in Hind Swaraj in 1909. See, Sudarshan Iyengar. ‘Inclusive Democracy: A Gandhian Perspective’, Yojana57, August 2013, pp. 53-60.
5. Nehru headed the government and his views were clear as depicted in his letter to Gandhi in 1945 (see fn. 4).
6. Gopalkrishna Gandhi (ed.), Gandhi is Gone. Who Will Guide Us Now? Permanent Black, Ranikhet, 2007.
7. According to the list provided in Gandhi is Gone. Who Will Guide Us Now? 46 persons participated in the March 1948 meeting in Sevagram, Wardha. Among them were, Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajendra Prasad, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Zakir Hussian, Acharya Vinoba Bhave, Kakasaheb Kalelkar, Acharya Kripalani, J.C. Kumarappa, and K.G. Mashruwala. It should be mentioned that Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel could not attend the meet as he was not well, leaving many to wonder whether his presence could have altered the outcome.
8. The main organizations were Charkha Sangh (Spinning Union), Gramodyog Sangh Cottage Industry Union), Talimi Sangh (Educational Trust), Goseva Sangh (Cow Protection Union), Harijan Sevak Sangh (Union for Harijan Welfare), Hindustani Prachar Sabha (Association for propagation of Hindustani), Hindustan Mazdur Sevak Sangh (Indian Labourers’ Union), Adivasi Seva Mandal (Association for the Welfare of Adivasis), and Kasturba Trust.
9. Thakurdas Bang and Atmaram Saraogi, ‘Afterword’, in Gopalkrishna Gandhi (ed.), Gandhi is Gone: Who Will Guide Us Now? Permanent Black, 2007, Ranikhet, p. 102.
10. Ibid., p. 66.
11. For details refer to Mahatma Gandhi ki Smruti Mein: Gandhi Smarak Nidhi ke 27 Varsh (Hindi), published by Gandhi Smarak Nidhi, Rajghat, New Delhi. The Nidhi provided financial support to a large number of Gandhian institutions.
12. For details refer to Sudarshan Iyengar, ‘The Role of Non-Governmental Organisations in the Development of Gujarat: A Review on the Eve of the New Millennium’, in Indira Hirway, S.P. Kashyap and Amita Shah (eds.), Dynamics of Development in Gujarat. Concept Publishing Co., New Delhi, 2002, Chapter 14.
13. The author has abstained from discussing the impact of the 1991 economic reforms in India and its implications for vision conflicts between the state, market and the Gandhian institutions. In sum, the conflict has further worsened with the state withdrawing support and the market vitiating the production and marketing of khadi, and cottage and village industries.
14. Mendha-Lekha village, Gadchiroli. http://kalpavriksh.org/images/CCA/Directory/Maharashtra_CaseStudy_Mendha_Lekha Vge Gadchiroli.pdf. Accssed on 15 April 2014.
15. Notable among them were Gijubhai Badheka and Nanabhai Bhatt, who later also served as Vice Chancellors of Guajrat Vidyapith during 1927-28. For more details on Nai Talim and its problems, refer Sudarshan Iyengar, ‘Mainstreaming Nai Talim, Concept, Scope and Isses’, in S.V. Prabhat (ed.), Perspectives on Nai Talim. Serial Publications, New Delhi, 2010.
16. K.G. Mashruwala (1940), Gandhi-Vichar-Dohan (Gujarati). Navajivan Prakashan Mandir, Ahmedabad, November 2009 reprint, Parts 13 and 14. pp. 182-192. The final six chapters discuss the Lok Sevak – the volunteer, Gram Sevakni Farajo – Duties of a village volunteer, Sansthaani Safalta – Key to successful instituion, Sansthano Sanchalak – Institution head, Sansthana Sabhyo – Institution members, and Sansthano Arthik Vyavahar – Financial dealings of an instituion.
http://www.india-seminar.com/2014/662/662_sudarshan_iyengar.htm