Y Z y z - Shodhganga

Document technical information

Format pdf
Size 290.1 kB
First found Nov 13, 2015

Document content analysis

Language
English
Type
not defined
Concepts
no text concepts found

Persons

Bipin Chandra Pal
Bipin Chandra Pal

wikipedia, lookup

Sheila Dikshit
Sheila Dikshit

wikipedia, lookup

Raj Nidimoru and Krishna D.K.
Raj Nidimoru and Krishna D.K.

wikipedia, lookup

Mahatma Gandhi
Mahatma Gandhi

wikipedia, lookup

V. R. Krishna Iyer
V. R. Krishna Iyer

wikipedia, lookup

Subhas Chandra Bose
Subhas Chandra Bose

wikipedia, lookup

Jainendra Kumar
Jainendra Kumar

wikipedia, lookup

Subhas Chandra Bose
Subhas Chandra Bose

wikipedia, lookup

Lala Lajpat Rai
Lala Lajpat Rai

wikipedia, lookup

Organizations

Places

Transcript

Y
Z
CHAPTER-III
GANDHIAN THOUGHTS AS PRACTICED
BY THE GREAT GANDHIANS
y
z
45
Chapter-III
GANDHIAN THOUGHT AS PRACTICED BY THE
GREAT GANDHIANS
3.1 VINOBA’S SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY
VINOBA’S SAMYA YOGA
Vinoba was a firm believer in the power of words (shabda- shakti), and he
excelled in using words-weapons (shabda-chastra). He coined many new
words, and, in keeping with the Indian tradition, instead of discarding old
words or concepts, he enriched their meaning by grafting new meaning on
them. He was also a great votary of Samanvaya i.e. connecting, joining,
bringing together, synthesizing different, even opposite, schools or streams ‘of
though. He was a Samanvayacharya par excellence i.e. a master preceptor of
synthesis. Brevity,
conciseness,
precision, exactness
and’
profundity
characterized his oral and written expression or communication. Very subtle,
fine, sophisticated and deep thinking unfolding different nuances of meaning
was his forte He was a master Sutrakar i.e. a formulator or composer of
sutrus i.e. short or concise technical sentences or precepts, or aphorisms
Vinoba was a very well-read man; in his own words, he had read literally
thousands of books; and being a polyglot (who knew as many as 21
languages), he had read books in a wide range of languages. Inspire of his
excellent command over written and spoken English, he has rarely written and
spoken in English; most of his talks and writings have been in Marathi and
Hindi. Nor has he made much use of the Western concepts. His terminology
and idiom have been heavily sanskritised, religious and spiritual. In the true
tradition of the Indian rishis or sages, he has explained his views ideas
46
meaning by making profuse references to Indian mythological figures legends
and parables . He has been deeply immersed in the Indian history, culture
and civilization; and he has talked to and written for primarily those whose
minds and hearts are essentially Indian. All this has naturally determined his
idiom and style.
VINOBA’S SOCIAL IDEAS
The Present Day Society
They observe that though the means of comfort have greatly increased, no
country in the world is happy today. This signifies that there is something
wrong somewhere.The society of today is like a heap of wheat grains. There
are some grains -which move to fill up a depression, but their number is small.
The other ones remain where they are. But the human society we have to
build up would be like water.The tasks of defense and reconstruction of
society have got into the clutches of violence and competition. The goddess of
defense has taken the form of violence and that of reconstruction the form of
competition.
The Distinctive Feature of a Living Society
The distinctive feature of a living society ‘is that the pain experienced at one
place is communicated to the other. When the sensitivity of a physical body
begins to decline, it is presumed that it is moving towards death. The same is
exactly with society.
THE AIM CONCERNING SOCIETY
They have to transform the present society into a Sarvodaya one. We have to
abolish castes, sects, classes etc. existing in the society of today. The society
47
of today is based on competition. We wish to build up the future society on
cooperation. The society stands today on the foundation of ownership.
Tomorrow’ we have to abolish ownership. There are inequalities in the
present society. We have to abolish inequalities. Thus we want to build up
new women ‘We want to do away with the owner-labour distinction. In other
words, we desire to make use of both the intelligence and the capacity for
manual labour of the two. We want to bring about equality without sacrificing
efficiency. The life of society can be built up on competition as well as
compassion, but, ultimately, it is only a compassionate social structure which
is conducive to good.
EQUALITY, THE DEMAND OF THE AGE
The wage demands the establishment of equality. The age is yearning for
equality. When there is such an intense longing,’ it is bound to come. The only
question is of the way to be adopted by it, so that on being established, it may
prove to be stable, beneficial, conducive to well-being and satisfying. This way
would be that of compassion.
THE MEANING OF EQUALITY
He do not want arithmetical equality, but he do want equity, or such equality
as, for instance, the five fingers of the hand have. These five fingers are not
equal in dimensions, but they all work in full cooperation and together perform
innumerable tasks. They want equality tempered with right discrimination. The
attempts made in other countries to bring about equality by force lacked the
insight of proper discrimination. That is why the idea of equality in those
countries is proving abortive. A mother does not distribute food among her
children on the basis of mathematical equality. To the youngest one she gives
48
only milk to the next one some milk and some bread, and to the grown-ups
only bread. In the same way, in society also we will exercise discrimination
and take into account the intensity of hunger and the power of digestion of
each in the distribution of food. Where equality is brought about by force, all
are compelled to conform to the same pattern. We aim at spiritual equality
based on proper discrimination. They thus stand for the abolition of all the
differences which make for inequality between the different member of the
society, such as those between men and women, between the rich and the
poor as also between the masters and the servants. Not that we dislike all
differences. There are natural differences of various kinds between different
individuals. They make for variety, but they do not produce inequality. We
have to do the same in regard to society. All differences which make for
inequality and disharmony have to be abolished.
VARNASHRAM
Amongst them the term varnashrams is in vogue, but it contains two ideas—
varnas and ashram. They are not identical. Varna is concerned with social
order, which may undergo change. The varnas system signifies that
everybody should discharge his duties in accordance with the social other
prevailing at that time.The ashram system is not so much concerned with
society as with individuals. Hence it is applicable to all societies and all times.
There may be some outward changes, but its basic form will remain the same.
Though other religions have not prescribed anything like the ashram system,
of Hinduism, the idea behind it is present in all religions. Individual should
regard it his duty to take up the work for which he has been trained, that no
other should compete with him in his work, that all should receive adequate
equal protection and commensurate wages, that all, who do their allotted work
49
with, devotion and with a sense of responsibility, should be esteemed equally,
and that even/ individual should work and God be pleased with his worship m
the form of doing his own appointed task-such in short is the institution of the
hereditary occupational groups.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ASHRAM SYSTEM
If someone were to ask him, “What is the reason of your being proud of
Hinduism?” he would say that the Ashram system is for me the top pride of
Hinduism. There can be no better scheme for society than this. Life is a
continuous adventure. Like the flowing water of a river we must be ever on the
move. Stagnation is death. Our ancient Rishis understood the secret of life.
They created the fourfold division of life in order to keep man on the move and
save him from becoming a contented pig or a repetitive machine. He has
been fascinated by this idea of four Ashramas. The last one, namely of a
Sannyasi or a homeless wanderer, has always thrilled me.In the modern
society all this has changed. We have lost the sense of thrill and adventure.
The stream of social service has become dry. People continue to be
householders almost to their last breath. We must get out of it and devote
ourselves to some selfless service. That will give us a new vision and
strength.he feel that we need to revive this ancient division of life in the four
well-marked stages.
THE EDUCATION OF MEN AND WOMEN
There are some common and some especial factors in the education of men
and women. The common factors outnumber particular factors. Let us first
look at the common factors.
The spirit of both men and women is equally
pure. In this respect there is no difference between them. This is the first
50
common factor. The second common factor is about ‘desires’. Both have
common desires like those of hunger and greed. They both bear the same
relationship to nature. It is not that nature appears to them differently. This is
the third common factor. Thus it is clear that the education of men and women
greater part is common. The levels of the development of qualities apply to
them equally. Taking these things into consideration. I say that they should
get the same education and both should be educated together.
WOMEN AND VIOLENCE
As long as violence is your weapon, the women will have a second place no
matter how lofty the principles may be. However, much we may try, they
cannot have the first place. If that is to be accorded to them, it is essential that
the means of protection must be non-violent.
WOMEN ARE NOT WEAK
It was later that women were called Abla, powerless in our society. The
original term for them is not Abla but Malula that that is great powerful. It is
only the female idol that has been accepted as a symbol of Shakti power not
the male idol.
VILLAGES, THEN AND NOW
Men in India have always lived in villages and the village has been held in
high esteem. A Vedic for example, says, “May our villages grow and prosper
and be strong.” We thus find the village ideal upheld in India from very old
times. Every village in those days was a state m itself. It was ruled by a P
cinch ay at, that is a village council consisting of five elders representing the
five Varnas. The members of the Panchayat worked with one accord like the
five fingers of a hand. What the five said was for the people, as the proverb
51
has it even today, the word of God.The village provided for all its needs, both
intellectual and material, locally. It was for all practical purposes a selfcontained unit. Every village had its carpenters, cobblers and weavers. They
served the peasants in their various ways and received an adequate share in
the produce, The share increased or decreased according to increase in the
year’s production. The artisans were thus members to the village community
on the same level as the peasants. The land and the produce was owned and
shared by the community as a whole.The things have changed since then and
today we find that though the villages still produce all the raw material, they
depend for most of their wants on cities.
ADVICE TO VILLAGERS
The small and expensive house in the cities in congested localities are no
good. It is much better for you to live in your village huts and enjoy fresh air
under the radiant sun. Of course you should improve your existing houses
and plan for better ventilation and better sanitation. But do not try to rush to
the cities in search for higher standard of living.Which is a higher standard of
living? To live a Norma: Tie to work for one’s own livelihood in open air
conditions. or to live in cities on the labour of others and then to take
physical exercises to improve one’s digestion and appetite? I will any day
prefer the former.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITIES AND VILLAGES
he do not want to destroy the industries that already exist .in the towns and
they certainly should have the right to go on working for the town population
and perhaps for export. But the industrial goods should not be forced on any
one. The villagers should be free to put barriers against the import of industrial
52
textiles and food stuffs into the villages.If we wish that the houses be strong, it
would not do to have a weak ground-floor. All of our articles of food come
from rural areas. The life of the city people is dependent on them. In other
words, the peasants of rural areas serve the whole country and then only the
life of all is maintained. Hence the city people should think about their
benefactors.Just as different organs of the body cooperate with and are
sensitive to each other, similarly there should be cooperation and affection
between the rural and urban peoples.Since the attainment of Swaraj they (the
townsmen) have forgotten the distinction between Swadeshi and foreign
articles. They purchase whatever looks cheap, good and attractive....Such is
the picture of the towns. On the other side, the villages have become
depleted of all their industries, their petty vocations have been snatched away
from them by the cities…..The proper thing for cities to do is to maintain
village industries in the village itself, and to establish only such industries in
the cities as will stop the influx of foreign goods. If they do this the towns and
the villages, can work together in concord and raise the prosperity of the
country. Just as they declare some forest as ‘reserved’, so the need is to
declare some of the industries as ‘reserved for the villages’.
3.2 Radicalisation of Economic Policy under Tilak, Gandhi and
Nehru
As we have seen, the mainstream of the freedom movement was nationalist,
middle class and bourgeois. Its economic programme was mainly oriented to
promoting the interests of these classes. But the Congress movement had
long felt the impact of the rising Social Democratic and Labour movements in
Europe. Tilak, Lajpat Rai and others had forged contacts with them in the first
decade of the new century. In fact Tilak referring to Dadabhai’s presence at
53
the Socialist International had presciently written in Kesari about the swelling
tide of socialism and had predicted that it would emerge triumphant the world
over. Subsequently, there was also the impact of the Russian Revolution.
Many Nationalists and Servants of India had taken to organising labour and
they played not an insignificant part in the formation of the AITUC. Gandhi
had his own concept of the labour movement and his distinctive mode of
organization and agitation was exemplified by Ahmadabad’s Majur Mahajan.
Tilak had travelled a long way. The influence of his renewed Labour Party
contacts was quite discernible. In fact his manifesto spoke specifically of
cooperation with the Labour Party and other British sympathizers. All the other
planks of the Jawaharlal’s future foreign policy are also present in the
preamble to the Programme: World peace, Commonwealth partnership,
League of Nations (now United Nations), national freedom for all nations and
end to all forms of exploitation of one nation by the other.By the end of the
second decade of the twentieth century conditions were ripe for a new thrust
in politics. The First World War had quickened public awareness. Gandhi
came forward to plant new seeds in a fertile soil. Within two short years, that
is, from the passage of the Rowlatt Legislation in early 1919 to the Nagpur
Congress of December 1920 Gandhi established his unchallenged supremacy
within the Congress. This was a veiled criticism of Congress policy as
adumbrated by both Gandhi and his own father. But Jawaharlal could not get
the Congress to agree to any concrete measures at this stage. The
atmosphere at Lahore was one of enthusiasm, reminiscent of the days of
1919-20. The Lahore session neither put its seal of approval on the Bombay
AICC resolution nor did it develop it further. It was only at the Karachi session
in 1931 that concrete shape was given to the ideas which had been
54
simmering in the previous ten years — of which the Congress people had a
preview in Tilak’s election manifesto of 1920. Within the Congress the
transition from Motilal to Jawaharlal signified something more than mere
dynastic succession. Apart from a more uncompromising struggle and greater
sacrifice, it meant translation of the Congress from the upper class outlook
which Motilal typified to a policy closer to social democracy.
The mainstream
Congressmen accepted Gandhi as a leader who could take India to
independence. They had faith neither in Gandhi’s absolute non-violence nor in
the negation of industrialism. They accepted Khadi and would occasionally
also spin. But they had never agreed whole-heartedly with his concept of
Swaraj. Not only Jawaharlal but most Congressmen rejected the Hind Swaraj
Weltanschauung.They neither subscribed to Gandhi’s philosophy on life nor
his concept of the social order. Gandhi was not wholly unaware, of the
ambiguity of the intelligentsia’s attitude to his leadership. In 1945 a serious
debate opened on economic policy between Gandhi and Nehru. But Gandhi
did not push the matters too far. He knew that despite the reverence in which
he was held; his economic philosophy was not acceptable to the mainstream
Congressmen. His lament in 1946-47, that he was now alone, and that Nehru,
Patel and Rajaji, all wanted an industrialised, militarily strong India was futile.
He should have known better. The Sardar had abandoned him in 1940 itself.
And Rajaji much earlier. Nehru never even pretended that he was in
agreement with Gandhi’s economic views. When Congress achieved power it
paid lip-service to khadi and village industries, no doubt, but it was the
Congress resolution and manifestoes which guided its steps as Government
and not Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj. The Congress Socialist Party was formed in
1934. Its emergence was welcomed by Gandhi. The interaction of Gandhi and
55
Socialists was an interesting chapter of the last phase of India’s struggle for
freedom. The Socialists sent their programme to Gandhi for comment and the
latter expressed his views candidly on the major items of the Socialist
platform. The proliferating Indian bureaucracy and Indian politicians were
not bourgeois in the Western sense. Bureaucracy here did not possess any
technical, commercial, financial, industrial or artisan background. It was a
Bhadraloka bureaucracy, completely divorced from labour and production. It
bred corruption on a fantastic scale and slowed down the expansion of
production and productivity. The license-permit-quota raj vitiated the political
process, and the power-hungry politicians combined with the bureaucracy and
business to establish a get-rich-quick syndrome. Criminals and mafia came to
dominate politics. Public.morality was the first victim of this conspiracy.The
situation is undoubtedly grave. Unless the latent forces of renewal and reform
within our society are galvanised and harnessed to the supreme task of
creating an ordered state on the basis social justice, I fear, the country might
dissolve into petty despotisms and anarchy. Let us not forget that throughout
our long story arajaka,anarchy has been our bane, and if we do not wake up
betimes it will overtake us again. In that event our freedom itself might be
endangered. It is the duty of the selfless and public-spirited young men and
women idealist youth to rise to the challenge and salvage the rich heritage left
for us by generations of freedom fighters.
56
3.3 Gandhiji’s Concept of Sarvodaya
Jayaprakash Narayan
THE SARVODAYA SAMAJ
It is not easy to speak about Gandhiji’s concept of Sarvodaya or of his
other concepts. Gandhiji’s ideas were at once simple and deep, direct
and subtle, clear and vague. Moreover, they went on evolving and
developing with his experiments with truths as he called them. It may
be recalled that soon after Gandhiji’s death, in the middle of March
1948, the concerned leaders had gathered from all over the country at
Sevagram to consider the future course of the Gandhian movement,
and, on Vinobaji’s advice, had decided to form a Gandhian brotherhood
to be known as Sarvodaya Samaj. Presenting to the Conference the
consensus arrived at. Rajcndra Babu in a key speech had related how
Gandhiji when requested to put down his thoughts in a systematic
manner in a sort “of comprehensive textbook”, “had oppressed his
inability” saying that he had “only fundamental principles which lie
applied to practical problems as they arose and could not write
anything like a text-book of general maxims.”This explains the difficulty
in distilling Gandhiji’s thought out of his voluminous writings and
sayingsand hisactivities of
more
than
half
a
century
-in
three
continents. Incidentally, it also explains the perennial freshness of
Gandhiji’s mind and the not infrequent surprises that he caused to his
followers, to whom his actions sometimes appeared to be contradictory
and heterodox.
57
NOT A NEW WORD
The word ‘Sarvodaya’ was not coined by Gandhiji; it occurs frequently
in the ancient religious literature of our country. Gandhiji only used the
word to represent his entire body of thought. In his autobiography
Gandhiji describes how his active-life left him “little time for reading”;
and how on that account, he was able to digest what he read. One of
the few books that he was able to read and which, to quote his words,
“brought about an instantaneous and practical transformation in my life
was (Ruskin’s) Unto This Last.”He goes on to add : “I translated it later
into Gujarati, entitling in Sarvodaya” which he himself rendered into
English as the welfare of all.
ANTYODAYA OR UPLIFT OF THE LAST
Vinobaji writing later in the Harijanexpressed the view that ‘the proper
rendering of Unto This Last would be Antyodaya (Uplift of the Last)
rather than Sarvodaya.” But he added that because Gandhiji had
preached that in working towards Sarvodaya it was necessary to begin
with the last and lowliest, the word Sarvodaya should stand. This is one
of .the key ideas of Sarvodaya. though it has to be admitted that much
remains to be done about its socio-economic methodology. It is wellknown how current theories and practices of growth, whether in the
West or the East, bypass this question and assume that the benefits of
development would in due time percolate down, to use Vinobaji’s
expressive term, to the last and lowliest. Here is the heart of the
difference between the direction of present planning in this country and
the one that Sarvodaya would like to be followed. To return to
58
Gandhiji, he summed up in the autobiography the teachings of Unto
This Last, in other words, the teachings of Sarvodaya, in the following
three fundamental principles :
•
“That the good of the individual is contained in the good of
all.
•
“That a lawyer’s work has’ the same value as the barber’s
inasmuch as all have the same right of earning their
livelihood from their work.
•
“That a life of labour, i.e., the life of the tiller of the soil and
the handicraftsman is the life worth living.”
He goes on to write “the first of these I knew. The second I had dimly
realised. 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.” Then he added—and here we have the secret of Gandhiji’s
greatness revealed—”I arose with the dawn, ready to reduce these
principles to practice.
3.4 Vinoba and the Gandhian Tradition
VlNOBA’S father wanted his son to be either a barrister or a chemist. But
Vinoba wished to become a sanyasi—a choice more in line with his mother’s
outlook on life. And Vinoba has established his credentials to be recognised
as a saint. It is believed by perceptive thinkers like Jainendra Kumar, the Hindi
literateur, that the self-image of Vinoba was that of Shankara. Gandhi
described Vinoba as a kritayogf. Others have given him the epithet of a
samyayogi. There is a general agreement that Vinoba represented “the
traditions of India’s great rishis”, or “a saint in line with the traditions of Indian
59
culture”. Vinoba read Jnaneshwari, a Marathi religious classic at the age of
eight years. While in school, he purchased and read Dasboth of Saint
Ramdas and Bhagwat of Saint Eknath. He abandoned his college studies,
burnt the certificates, and went to Varanasi in order to study Hindu philosophy
and Sanskrit. At the age of twelve, he took a vow of life-long celibacy, ate
once a day in a free kitchen and slept anywhere. At the age of eighteen in
1913, he bade good-bye to the family life and its pleasures. In 1916, when
Vinoba joined Gandhi’s Ashram, Gandhi admitted: “Vinoba has reached
spiritual heights which have taken me years of patient labour to attain.
”
Farther, the way Vinoba terminated his life during 8 November to 15
November 1982, was a revival of an ancient tradition in India called ‘prayopravesham’, whereby saints when they considered the time appropriate
voluntarily leave the body. But this itself was the culmination of the spiritual
development of Vinoba over seventy years. Whatever mundane pursuits
Vinoba took up during his long life, the prime motive as well as the prime
objective
was
non-mundane.
For
instance,
even
a
socioeconomic
revolutionary movement like Bhoodan was no exception. Said Vinoba Bhave,
“I am performing it as a religious object.” As al/ matter of fact, Vinoba had no
idea about the Bhoodan movement and had little experience of leading such a
movement when it was launched in 1951. He had nothing to offer except ‘the
message’. And his possessions at that time were just three books, the Gita,
the Bible, and the AesopsFables. He also perceived it as a continuation of
Dharma Chakra Pravartanam. Unlike Vinoba, Gandhi had no dominating
passion or obsessive desire or pet preferences in the early years of his life
when Gandhi succumbed to all the weaknesses of flesh and blood. He went
through a wide-range of experience and fire ordeals. He faced hurricanes of
60
lust, and onslaughts of humiliation, raging anger of the mighty and powerful.
He knew the pain of denial and stings of deprivation. And he learnt the hard
way to use all of them creatively. But Vinoba lived a cloistered, secure,
sponsored, sheltered life but suffered self-imposed austerities. This made all
the difference in shaping the life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi who had
his own innate nature , viz. transparent sincerity, disarming honesty and
ruthless intro- spectiveness on the one hand and an irrepressible urge to
Actively respond to evil—within and without—and to transform it. His heart
was full of angst—not meditation. Gandhi was different, however. He was as
much interested in providing fire and fuel as in the process of cooking the
meals and ensuring that the meals are properly cooked. Gandhi was not only
a seer who could afford to be aloof. Nor was he only a religious-minded
Vaishnavite who could suffer silently and passively. He was also a leader of
millions of ordinary men and women who looked towards him with hope and
for guidance. So he was a man whose heart was not full of meditation (a la
Vinoba) but whose heart was full of angst and therefore he could not say that
he was not interested in ‘what was cooking.’ In other words, Gandhi’s sense
of responsibility was perennial. That is, Gandhi’s ideas have taken a rebirth.
Vinoba is engaged in this process miraculously. This is the beginning of the
fundamental social awakening to which Gandhi, like a prophet, used to refer
in his lifetime.Second, the concept of Satyagraha. He made a fine distinction
between
‘acute’
(SANSKRIT)
satyagraha
and
‘gentle’
(SANSKRIT)
satyagraha. Vinoba thought and believed throughout the course of Bhoodan
movement what he was doing during 1951-56 itself was satyagraha. He said:
People ask me about satyagraha. I have only got to say that if I can do
anything, it is only as a satyagrahi. I believe even today (May 1952), I am
61
offering satyagraha. I insist on truth, to create atmosphere for it, to undertake
maximum suffering to enter another man’s heart— all this is a form of
satyagraha. But if inspite of this, acute Satyagrah would become a necessity,
God will surely make you and me offer the same Vinoba thought Bhoodan
itself is a training process of satyagraha. He said: “Through Bhoodan we are
helping the people to acquire the power of Satyagraha.”He also clarified that
the forms of satyagraha in a democratic set-up are bound to differ from the
forms evolved by Gandhi prior to 1947. Vinoba believed that it would be a
mistake to accept as ideal the satyagraha’s launched during the lifetime of
Gandhi. Vinoba categorized these forms of satyagraha as ‘negative’. In
short, Vinoba was convinced that there is no scope for the old forms of
satyagraha in a democracy. In fact, he ruled the raison of civil disobedience
(which Gandhi thought was a part and parcel of constructive work in a
democratic free India). In a democracy, the means of propagation of ideas
have been opened up, the country is free, and there is freedom of expression
which is a condition which did not exist during Gandhi’s lifetime.In other
words, in the hands of Vinoba even the basic postulates of satyagraha
acquired a highly refined can notation. In the context of democracy, according
to him, a particular process of persuasion and dissemination of ideals as such
is satyagraha. In other words, process of propagation of a ‘message’ in order
to affect change of the heart of the opponents and critics is satyagraha. This
is so different from the ‘rough’ satyagraha of Gandhi. The implications of the
proposition that Vinoba is the successor of Gandhi are inimical to the
evolution of Gandhi’s seminal ideas and to the urgent task of application of
these ideas to the Indian situation. It is said that the nature of a thing is the
final form of its development. At a particular point of time, we are all inclined to
62
accept that that which is the ‘latest’ is the ‘final’. If it is conceded that Vinoba is
the continuum of Gandhi, it means at this point of time that Vinoba is the final
form of development of seminal Gandhi. It follows that (except for those
interested in the history of Gandhian thought) for practical purposes it is
unnecessary to go direct to Gandhi for understanding Gandhism—to study
Vinoba is to study Gandhism as on date. It has been rightly said that nothing
is more original than the origin. Even otherwise also as a point of fact, so far
no other source of Gandhism is more original for a proper understanding of
Gandhism than Gandhi himself. The proposition that Vinoba is a successor of
Gandhi hinders a direct understanding of Gandhi. If it is conceded for the sake
of argument that Vinoba converted the ‘tinsel’ of Gandhism in ‘gold’, his
clarified and refined thought is likely to be relevant only in a really free
democratic India {real, as per our Constitution). And he will be a really brave
man who dare say that India today is really democratic and really free even as
per the stipulations of our Constitution. It would, therefore, be premature to
adopt Vinoba’s prescriptions and formulations to the problems which face
India today. There was another psychological factor which Vinoba seems to
have ignored in 1948-53. Through a series of nonviolent struggles
undertaken, directed, and guided by Gandhi, along with the constructive
programme activities, Gandhi had successfully tried to remove the ‘fear’ of
authority—unjust authority—from the mind of Indian people. But he did not
have the time to provide the corresponding mechanism of social control—for,
fear is a very effective means of social control in a society. Loss of fear,
without corresponding checks and balances, leads to a breakdown of other
inhibitions which is so essential for a normal society. This is what exactly
happened inside of the Indian mind. The evil and unwholesome psychological
63
effects of partition and the psychological effects of Gandhian struggle
reinforced each other and initiated an irreversible process of corruption of
consciousness. In 1947 and after a nations-wide movement for the restoration
of psychological balance of the mind of India was as much a historical
necessity—perhaps even more important—as other programmes.
3.5 Gandhi-Ambedkar Feud
The
approach
of
Gandhi
and
Ambedkar
for
the
removal
of
untouchability was diametrically opposite. Gandhiji firmly believed that
untouchability should be removed by change of heart by Hindus.
Ambedkar emphatically felt that it cannot be removed only by change of
heart. He insisted on safeguards and political rights for his people.The
paths of Gandhiji and Ambedkar, while often diverged, ultimately
converged,
forcing
on
the
Indian
conscience
the
problem
of
untouchability as an issue of national importance.Whatever the position
the untouchables have today in Indian society, .it is the result of the
genuine efforts made by Gandhiji to change the Hindu heart and the
constant attacks made by Ambedkar on Hindus and Hinduism.
However, the impact of Gandhiji was which is evident from the fact that
when the Constituent Assembly of Independent India made a legal
provision on 29 November 1948, nine months after the assassination of
Gandhiji, the house resounded with slogans of “Mahatma Gandhi-ki-jai”
right in the presence of Ambedkar who was present in his capacity as
the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly.
The irony of the moment was lost on those who were present—a
legalistic measure was taken in the name of Gandhiji, who had no use for
legalism. And only three years before, Ambedkar had ended his book, “What
64
Congress and Gandhiji have done for untouchables”, with the bitter comment
that the untouchables have ground to say, “Good God, is this man Gandhiji
our saviour”? . Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer says: “When we consider the
stature and achievements of Ambedkar as an intrepid warrior for socioeconomic liberation of the lowliest, the lost and the last, especially the dalits
and the exploited tribals there is no doubt that without diminishing the
tremendous conscientisation of the Hindu community by Gandhiji vis-a-vis
untouchability and Harijan debasement Bhim Ramji Amhedkar’s ceaseless
war on behalf of the Panchama proletariate, in its widest connotation is
incomparable. And yet, the irony of history is that as the house passed the
provision abolishing untouchability on 29 November 1948, the hallowed walls
resounded with shouts of ‘Mahatma Gandhi-ki-jai’ although present at the
session as Chairman of the Drafting Committee was Ambedkar, an
untouchable himself and Commander-in-Chief of the Untouchable Army which
waged a war against the reactionary system which sustained the Social
Status-Quo Ante’.When the pre-’independence saga of India comes to be
written, only prejudice can assign a higher role in the liberation of the
backward most brackets to anyone above Ambedkar. While both Gandhiji
and Ambedkar were the symbols of the revolt against the caste, conscious
oppressors within the Hindu fold, they chose different paths, strategies, and
different ideologies. If Gandhiji was a deliverer of Indians including the
weakest sector from the British Raj, Ambedkar was the spearhead of black
power against the Varna front. There were many issues on which the two
militant giants would not agree to the obvious reason that Gandhiji wanted
reforms to end injustice. While Ambedkar demanded rebellion for the
annihilation of the caste system Itself, Gandhiji was Vaishya and insisted on
65
eradication of shudrahood and untouchability.
“Ambedkar was mahar and
indignantly insisted on the abolition of the Varna structure, thereby leveling up
all castes into one oceanic unity or human sagar, Ambedkar was
historic necessity, a dialectical demand if social democracy was to be
India’s desideratum. The fire of this mahar was rare in the Indian public
life of his time. In his characteristic forceful manner, Justice Iyer adds
to this appraisal a complementary sentence, “To go against Gandhiji, to
fight the National Congress, to demand equal share of power for the
depressed classes, to draft legislation for womanhood’s equality
needed the courage of an iconoclast, and Ambedkar was just
that”.Gandhiji softened the Hindu heart, Ambedkar awakened selfrespect and interest in politics among the untouchables.During decades
proceeding independence, the policies and programmes have been
profoundly affected by the difference in views of Gandhiji and
Ambedkar on the key questions like what is the ultimate goal—
assimilation of the untouchable minority or the establishment of
separate but equal status in a reformed version of the traditional social
order? If change is in order who should change—the untouchable
minority or Hindu majority? Given a commitment to change, how might
it best be implemented— through voluntary means or government
coercion? Gandhiji’s answers to such questions were rooted in his
belief that the caste Hindus were primarily responsible for writing the
wrongs done to the untouchables. Meaningful change therefore must
arise from a change of heart on the part of the Hindus. Gandhiji
suggested that the real method of abolishing the distinction between
caste Hindus and Harijans is by caste Hindus performing the
66
purification ceremony of ridding themselves of untouchability and
becoming Harijans themselves. He advised caste Hindus to declare
themselves as such and to live also as such. This was according to
him, the substantial and organic method of amalgamating the two into
one body. “My mission is to invite Savannas to wash themselves
clean of the guilt of untouchability. I am essentially a lover of peace. I
do not want to create dissension. I shall not do a single thing which
may be contrary to truth and love” . .“What does the service of the
untouchables or rendering justice to them mean”? Gandhiji asked and
he himself answered: “It means nothing less than redeeming a debt
which is centuries overdue, and to expiate in some measure the sin we
have been guilty of for ages, viz., that of oppressing and insulting our
own kith and kin. We have behaved towards these unfortunate brethren
of ours nothing better than a man turned monster behaves towards his
brother man. And the programme of removal of untouchability that we
have set before us is just some little expiation, self-purification, it
cannot be prompted by any fear “or favour. If we take up this work,
fearing that the so-called untouchables would go over trump card, we
have betrayed our ignorance of Hinduism and our gratefulness to those
who have served us for ages”.Gandhiji warned: “If we came into power,
with the stain of untouchability unaffected, I am positive that the
untouchables would be far worse under than Swaraj that they are now,
for the simple reason that our weakness and our failings would then be
buttressed up by the accession of power. I have always held that selfpurification is an indispensable condition of Swaraj. It is as old when I
began to think of Swaraj. I have always prized opportunities for doing
67
this kind of work, and have often put aside so-called public work for
work of this nature. I know that those to whom only the exciting thing
called, ‘Politics’ has an exclusive appeal will laugh at this kind of thing.
But for me it is nearest and dearest”.Gandhiji further said: “It is
cowardly for anyone to suggest that the Arityajas will be emancipated
when the old generation has passed away. Our worth as men consists
in doing ‘Tapascharya’ and awakening in our elders compassion and
the present sense of Dharma. That and nothing less is our duty. If we
boldly translate our words into action, the task can be accomplished
quite soon. It is a mean desire to wish to kill an enemy so that one may
rule over his kingdom afterwards. Dharma consists in winning him over
to our way of] thinking and converting him into friend” .
3.6 VINOBA’S CONCEPT OF SARVODAYA
THE BASIS OF SARVODAYA
The spiritual basis of Sarvodaya thought is nothing short of Advaita, nonduality, even more. It is not only to be kept in mind but is also to be realized in
this world .
THE PECULIARITIES OF SARVODAYA
The philosophy of Sarvodaya is, on the whole, synthetic, that is it has the
potency of bringing all ideologies closer Sarvodaya is not a reacation to any
‘ism’. It is India’s own thought and her own system but not something that
cannot be applied to any other time or country. Its external form may vary
according to the needs of particular times and places (This non- insistence on
a specific form is a fundamental element of Sarvodaya philosophy). But its
inner core is eternal.He is formally convinced that the various one-sided
68
ideologies groping towards their own fullness will ultimately merge in the
ocean of Sarvodaya. (Introduction to Jay Prakash Narayan: From Socialism
to Sarvodaya)A virtue of Sarvodaya is that the self-interest, the interests of
others and the supreme interest become one in it. No contradictions are left.
All conflicts, internal or external, are resolved.No revolution is possible now
unless it is peaceful, and no peace will be stable without a revolution. Only
those will be able to hold out now who are peaceful revolutionaries. The
thought which assures is a peaceful revolution. “is called Sarvodaya.In
Sarvodaya, the two currents of the heroes and the saints become one. The
distinction between them vanishes. The hero becomes a saint and the saint
becomes a hero. The preserver of society himself plays the role of a social
revolutionary and the enactor of a social revolution preserves it.Sarvodaya is
a philosophy of life. That is why it has enough depth. It has economic,
political, social and ethical aspects. for the rural area vinobaji work in the
past some years with bhoodan,gramdan gramdan gram swarajya in that order
has given me and to hundreds of sarvodaya workers throught the country the
necessary experience and insight to take the initiative and given the
programme aconcrete shape.
THE NEW IDEAL OF SARVODAYA
Just as formerly we had the ideal of Swaraj to work for, we have now the
ideal of Sarvodaya. Without such ideals to inspire his life will not progress. As
a matter of fact, this new ideal of Sarvodaya has developed out of the old
ideal of Swaraj, because the concept of Swaraj contained within itself the
urge for social reform. We have, therefore to take this new mission of
Sarvodaya to every village. This is the new mission we have to work for, live
for and die for.
69
THE AIM OF THESARVODAYA MOVEMENT
We want Kingdom of Kindness. Christ spoke of the Kingdom of God, but the
word ‘ God’ is beyond us. There is some kindness in the present society also,
but what we want is Kingdom of Kindness, we want kindness to be the
dominate force in society. We must remember what we are engaged in is a
movement for the complete regeneration” of society.
SARVODAYAANDSCIENCE
Many are of the view that Sarvodaya is an out-dated ideology with an
aversion for science. But it is totally wrong. I have repeatedly said that it is
Sarvodaya alone, and ho other ideology, which has claim on science. If other
acquires the power of science, it would lead to the annihilation of man. If that
power gets linked with Sarvodaya, it would lead total development of humane
feelings and to the good of mankind.In Sarvodaya planning, science would be
made use of to the greatest extent possible.
SAMYA YOGA, THE BASIS OF SARVODAYA
He propose to speak to you about the basic idea behind the Bhoodan. We
call this idea ‘samyayoga’. It consists in accepting the belief that the Spirit is
equally immanent in all beings. It is on the foundation of this principle that we
want to build up the Sarvodayasociety, that is a Society which provides for
the full and free development of one and all.
FUTURE OF SARVODAYA
He has not the least doubt that the world “will either have to accept
Sarvodaya or annihilation. There is no third alternative, and it is certain that in
70
this age of “science the world will accept Sarvodaya. It may take time, but
that is beside the point. Gandhi made himself by launching a
Campaign to popularize khadi and village industries. vinoba claimed that
sarvodaya was the ideology which thought of all. These ideals led vinoba to
advocate a social structure similar to that of gandhiji and to insist on the
adoption of purest means for its attainment. he suggests decentralisation of
education and provision of higher education facilities in every village.through
his bhoodan,sampatidan and gramdan movement he has broght about
arevolution of great magnitude in the Indian village.
3.7 ISSUES OF AGREEMENT
Themes of Agreement
There was a unanimity of opinion between Gandhi and Nehru on the following
themes:
•
Economic nationalism;
•
Distributive justice;
•
Creation of integrated human being;
•
Commitment to the democratic method; and
•
Stand for mixed economy.
Economic Nationalism
Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru both were staunch economic
nationalists. They wanted to make India economically strong and self-reliant
so that political freedom of India could be meaningful. Gandhi’s philosophy of
Swadeshi bears testimony to this fact. In Gandhi’s view Swadeshi was a
71
precondition of Swaraj for India. He held the view that if Indians learnt to use
goods produced by immediate neighbours, the chances of exploitation would
be minimum and flourishing of cottage, small-scale and indigenous industries
would get momentum. With the result India would be in a position to regain
her past glory. About the excellent results of Swadeshi Gandhi observed, “It is
suggested that such Swadeshi, if reduced to practice will lead to the
millennium……” In his opinion the country slipped into poverty*because it
went off the track of Swadeshi. He wrote, “Much of the deep “ poverty of the
masses is due to the ruinous departure from Swadeshi in the economic and
industrial life. If not an article of commerce had been brought from outside
India, she would be today a land flowing with milk and honey. But that was not
to be. We are greedy and so was England…”Nehru had a passion for
freedom, both political and economic. To him nationalism was not enough. As
a staunch believer in economic nationalism he said: “Freedom for a nation
and a people may be, and is, I believe, always good in the long run, but in the
final analysis freedom itself is a means to an end, that end being the raising of
the people in question to higher levels……” Freedom to Nehru was
meaningless unless freedom from political slavery was accompanied by
freedom from economic dependence. On the night India became free Nehru
declared, “Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time
comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or ir full measure but
very substantia At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps,
India will awake to life and freedom. The future is not one of ease or resting
but of incessant striving so that we may fulfil the pledges we have so o:ten
taken and the one we shall take today. The service of India means the service
of millions who suffer. It means the ending of poverty and ignorance and
72
disease and inequality of opportunity. The ambition of the greatest man of
our generation has been to wipe every tear from every eye. That may be
beyond us, but as long as there are tears and sufferings so long our work will
not be over. To the people of India, whose representatives we are, we made
an appeal, to join us with faith and confidence in this great adventure. We
have built the noble mansion of a free India where all her children may dwell.’”
In order to realize the goal of economic freedom and democracy Nehru laid
stress on the planned economic development of India. Economic planning for
exercising the demons of want, hunger, starvation, disease and dirt was
commenced on I April 1951. During the planning period of Nehru’s Prime
Ministership sincere efforts were made for setting up basis and heavy
industries to reduce India’s dependence on other countries for machines and
tools. Speaking in Parliament on 15 December 1952, for instance, he said: “
......... I have no doubt that we do not raise the people’s level of existence
without the development of major industries in the country. In fact, I will go
further and say that we cannot even remain a free country without them.
Certain things like adequate defense are essential to freedom and these
cannot be had unless we develop industry in a major way
“Nehru
threw
himself to the task of making India politically and economically strong. While
concluding the Discovery of India he wrote, “Man’s dearest possession is life,
and since it is given to him to live but once, he must so live as not to be
seared with the shame of a cowardly and trivial past, so live as not to be
tortured for years without purpose, so live that dying he can say. All my life
and my strength were given to the first cause of the world liberation of
mankind.” Like a true patriot he liberated his countrymen not from the
shackles of slavery but also from the clutches of poverty with all its
73
concomitant evils. Regarding Nehru’s role in strengthening India, Prof R.
Ulyanovsky expresses, “In the economic field, Nehru helped strengthen
national independence, set up an industrial base and a strong public sector,
and introduce planning on a nation-wide scale".
Commitment to the Democratic Method
Gandhiji had a profound passion for democracy which was different
from that of the current conception. Prof Raj Krishna observes, “but it is
important to note that he identified democracy with the ‘Swaraj of the
masses’ established and sustainedby non-violence.” .
In Gandhi’s
concept of Swaraj (Self-rule) more weightage was given to the
performance of duties of individuals than to the exercise of rights.
Poorna Swaraj meant the same to all irrespective of their position,
religion and sect. He said: “Poorna Swaraj……
‘Poorna’
(complete)
because it is as much for the prince as for the peasant, as much for the
rich Sand owner as for the landless tiller of the soil, as much for the
Hindus as for the Musalmans, as much for Parsis and Christians as for
the Jains, Jews and Sikhs……“Gandhi’s Swaraj was based on ahimsa
(non-violence) and under such a type of set-up there was no enemy
and no place for gambling, drinking and immorality or for class hatred.
He opined, “True democracy or Swaraj of the masses can never come
through untruthful and violent means, for the simple reason that the
natural corollary to their use would be to remove all opposition through
the suppression or extermination of the antagonists. That does not
make for individual freedom. Individual freedom can have the fullest
play only under a regime of unadulterated Ahimsa.”Nehru reposed his
belief in democracy and democratic methods from the time he came
74
into contact with Mahatma Gandhi. The following statement of Nehru is
very much pertinent in this respect.He has a convinced socialist and
believer in democracy, and have, at the same time, accepted wholeheartedly the peaceful technique of non-violent action which Mahatma
Gandhi
has
practised
so
sucessfully
during
the
past
twenty
years.Nehru rejected communism on the ground that the system bred
the germs of regimentation and led to an encroachment on individual
freedom. His plea for socialism was within the orbit of democracy and
thus ensured both bread and freedom. As a staunch democrat he
remarked: “We have definitely accepted the democratic process. Why
have we accepted it? Well, for a variety of reasons. Because we think
that in the final analysis it promotes the growth of human beings and of
society, because, as we have said in our constitution, we attach great
value to individual freedom, because we want the creative and
adventurous spirit of man to grow. It is not enough for us merely to
produce the material goods of the world. We do want high standards of
living but not at the cost of man’s creative spirit, his creative energy,
his spirit of adventure, not at the cost of all those fine things of life
which have ennobled man through the ages. Democracy is not merely a
question of elections.” . He is afraid they who think they have received
their light from gandhiji are only satyavadis;they satyagrhis.
Stand for Mixed Economy
Gandhi and Nehru had a firm stand for the mixed economy. The
Gandhian economic system recognizes the following three sectors of
economy
•
The self-employed sector;
75
•
The private sector operating the large-scale industry; and
•
The state sector, operating the large-scale industry.
In his view the self-employed sector was more conducive to human
welfare than the second and the third sector. Under the first sector
many cottage and village industries provided material requisites of
well-being and opportunities for the expression of creative talent. The
sector also encouraged the virtues of truth and non-violence as there
was no exploitation of man by man. The private sector operating the
large-scale industry was under the ownership and control of the rich.
Mahatma Gandhi made an appeal to them to act as a trustee of the
wealth and not as its owner otherwise the poor would be forced to
snatch away their wealth by violent methods. About the utility of his
advice to the rich he said: “This truth has hitherto not been acetic upon,
but, if the moneyed classes do not act on it in these times of stress,
they will remain the slaves of their riches and passions and
consequently of those who overpower them.”S During Gandhi’s life
time certain big and key industries were owned and controlled by the
state. He was very much afraid to see concentration of political and
economic power into the hands of the state. He would even prefer
private ownership to state ownership because the violence of private
ownership
was
less
injurious
than
the
violence
of
the
state.
Nevertheless he supported the minimum of state ownership of those
big, key and large-scale industries which could not be set up and run
by individuals.Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru was a great supporter of the
philosophy of mixed economy. In fact it was he who introduced mixed
economy for India and threw a flood of light on its vital role in getting
76
the cooperation of the private and public sector. The famous Industrial
Policy Resolution of 1948 which Nehru sponsored, was clearly based
on the mixed economy. philosophy of reserving some key sectors for
the state and leaving the rest for the private sector. He said: “we have
in our Industrial Policy Resolution laid down a broad approach of what
is called a mixed economy which combines public enterprises and
private enterprises……” His advocacy of mixed economy for India prior
to the beginning of economic planning was intended to have trade
relations with the capitalistic and the communistic block and to get the
maximum foreign aid from both of them. As India was in tie vicious
circle of poverty the rate of saving, investment and capital formation
was very low. It was well-nigh difficult to accelerate the tempo of
economic development, under such conditions a resort to foreign aid
was essential and for that purpose the policy of mixed economy was
the only alternative. It is obvious from this discussion that there was
much common ground in their thinking. In spite of these points of
agreement and resemblance there were many issues of economic
policy on which they disagreed and differed from each other. They had
expressed their- differences in personal talks or through letters
(Appendix-VI) which have now come to be known as Nehru papers.
Differences between the two could never loosen their bond of respect
and affection. B.R. Nanda rightly remarks, “Despite differences of
thought temperament aid style Gandhi and Nehru stood together for
more than a quarter of a century. It was one of the longest, most
intriguing and fruitful partnerships in the history of nationalism.” Prof S.
Abid Hussain also holds the same opinion, “Different in many ways,
77
they were bound to each other with such silken ties of comradere, love
and reverence that the Mahatma could unequivocally designate the
young comrade as his political successor.” .
3.8 THE COMPLEMENTARITY OF GANDHI AND NEHRU — ITS
RELEVANCE, TODAY AND TOMORROW
It is a great pleasure for him to be with you this morning. he is very happy that
so many distinguished scholars and public-spirited citizens have gathered
here today. Indeed, the occasion is a very special one. As we celebrate the
centenary of the birth of Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, this national seminar, very
appropriately, seeks to examine and increase public awareness about the
complementarity of Gandhi and Nehru and its relevance today and tomorrow.
It is also appropriate that the Gandhigram Rural Institute has arranged such a
discussion and that this effort has received valuable support from the
Government of India. He would like to express his appreciation and gratitude
to the Vice-Chancellor, Gandhigram Rural Institute, Shri Devendra Kumar and
the Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office, Smt. Sheila Dikshit, for
their initiatives in this respect. The subject of this seminar has been
determined with considerable deliberation and exactitude. The scope of this
subject has been clearly defined. The entire focus is on thecomplementarily of
Gandhi and Nehru and its relevance today and tomorrow. So he feel the effort
should be to identify as many aspects as possible of the life and work of
Mahatma Gandhi and Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru which clearly complement each
other and reveal an inner oneness of purpose, and then objectively relate
these aspects to the world around as we see it today and as they visualise it
tomorrow. In doing so, he feel they should try and perceive the underlying
form, as it were, of Gandhi-Nehruvian thought, and reach its core ideas. This
78
would itself be an exciting and rewarding intellectual task. Much time will be
required for it if justice is to be done. Concentration within the precise limits of
the subject of the national seminar, would therefore be very essential and
would require a level of discipline that only highly trained minds can maintain.
he is saying this because every minute of your time is precious and the
subject is so significant, both in intellectual and in emotional terms.In his view,
there is an inherent unity in the larger purpose suffusing the thought of
Mahatma Gandhi - as a saintly revolutionary - and of Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru as a revolutionary architect. This is reflected in the meaningful terms in which
they described each other. “Pure as crystal” Bapu had called Jawaharlal
Nehru, identifying him also as the “chosen instrument” of God. Prophetically,
Mahatma Gandhi had said of Panditji: “After I am gone, he will speak my
language”. “When I am no more, he will know how to carry on the work”.
Nehru referred to Mahatma Gandhi as, “Perhaps the greatest symbol of the
India of the past and may I say so of the India of the future”. The inner light of
Gandhian thought and Nehruvian thought came from exactly the same values,
which were very deeply and intensely held by both and determined all their
individual and combined thought and action. These values not only permeate
Gandhian and Nehruvian thought but, in fact, it is adherence to these values
which made and shaped the personalities of Mahatma Gandhi and Pt.
Jawaharlal Nehru; the two, together, personify the dynamic materialisation of
those values.
Secularism - a basic tenet of India’s ethos - was powerfully promoted by
Bapu and Panditji in almost the same words. Writing in Young India of
December 22, 1927 Mahatma. Gandhi said: I do not expect an Indian of my
dream to develop one religion that is to be fully Hindu, or fully Christian, or
79
fully Mussalrnan; but I want it to be wholly tolerant, with its religions working
side by side with one another”. Panditji in a statement at Allahabad on June 5,
1936 said: “There must be the most perfect freedom of faith and observance”.
And in a speech at Aligarh on June 24, 1948 he said: “India will be a land, as
in the past, of many faiths, equally honoured and respected” . Socialism is
another basic tenet in India’s ethos. they are aware of Panditji’s commitment
to socialistic principles particularly after his personal experience in 1927. In
his Presidential Address to the Indian National Congress in 1936, Panditji said:
“I am convinced that the only key to the solution of the world’s problems and
of India’s problems, lies in socialism”. In a letter to Netaji Subhas Chandra
Bose dated April 3, 1939, Panditji said: “I am temperamentally and by training
an individualist and intellectually a socialist. I hope that socialism does not kill
or suppress individuality, indeed I am attracted to it because it will release
innumerable individuals from economic and cultural bondage”. Mahatma
Gandhi in The Art of Living’ had said: “I feel that the socialistic state is bound
to come into being in India... If socialism means befriending one’s enemies I
should be treated as a true socialist... all the socialists should learn socialism
from me”. “We shall evolve a truer socialism and a truer communism than the
world has yet dreamt of. (Amrit Bazar Patrika, August 3, 1934). Writing in The
Harijan July 13, 1947 Gandhi said: “Socialism is a beautiful word... in socialism
all the members of the society are equal... this socialism is pure as crystal”. It
may be recalled that at the Karachi Session to the Indian National Congress,
in March 1931, with Gandhiji’s blessings, the famous resolution on
Fundamental Rights and Economic Policy was adopted which imparted a
socialist orientation to Congress and converted the freedom Movement into a
people’s struggle with a wide ranging mass
support. Similarly Panditji’s
80
approach towards agricultural and industrial development came to reflect
more and more his resonance with Gandhian philosophy, fin a speech on July
27, 1963 he said: “I am all for industry, I aifi all for steel plants and this and
that, but I do say agriculture is far more important than any industry”. In fact
Gandhiji’s emphasis on development of agriculture was translated into
important promotional programmes by Panditji, using science and technology
for increasing the qualitative and quantitative characteristics fo Indian
agriculture. Profound canges seem to be taking place in the world today. An
age of new thinking and new approaches regarding long standing problems,
seems to be emerging. After decades of nuclear terror, a saner and safer
world seems to be emerging. The voice for Gandhiji and the words of Panditji
come to mind. Bapu had said on December 24, 1938: “Peace will never come
until the great powers courageously decide to disarm themselves. It seems to
me that recent events must force the belief on the Great Powers. I have an
implict faith, a faith that today better than ever, after half a century’s
experience that mankind can only be saved through non-violence,” It was
Panditji who had said that: “Peace has been said to be invisible: so is
freedom, so is prosperity now, and so also is disaster in this one world that
can no longer to be split into isolated fragments”.Thus two legendary figures
gigantic in their moral and ethical stature and commitment to human progress,
have left us a philosophy and outlook on life which is of inestimable value
today and tomorrow.Mahatma Gandhi and Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru set an ideal
as to what any Indian, any politician or world citizen should be. In my view
they are the true precursors and early pioneers of a new world civilization still in the making - based on peace, friendship and cooperation between man
and man and nation and nation for all round human progress.he is sure that
81
public awareness on the complementarily of Gandhi and Nehru and its
relevance today and tomorrow. will be greatly increased by the deliberations
in this seminar. he has only touched upon some aspects in an indicative,
thematic way, to provoke further and fuller discussion.With these words he
has great pleasure in inaugurating the national seminar. He is sure their
discussions will be significant.
His works
Nehru was an author of establish repute.as a writer he was candid pointed
and effective. His `glimpses of world history.’ Autobiography’,and the
`discovery of india are notable contributions in the history of political thought.
3.9VISION OF SUBHAS
Louis Fischer felt much intrigued by the strange pro- Subhas feeling found
prevailing in the Gandhi Ashram. In his effort to fathom the mind of Gandhi,
he made a few provocatively disparaging remarks about ‘Subhas Bose’ for
his seeking aid from the Axis Powers. Promptly scotching the adverse
comments of the American journalist, the Mahatma said that he considered
“Subhas Bose. . .a patriot of patriots.” Replying to a.few more dragging
questions of Fischer, Gandhi said: “He may be misguided. I think he is
misguided. I have often opposed him. Twice I kept him from becoming
the president of the Congress. Finally, he did become the president,
although my views differed from his. But suppose he had gone to
Russia or America to ask for aid to India. Would that have made it
better?”“Yes, of course,” Fischer said, “It does make a difference to
whom you go.”“I do not want help from anybody to make India free,”
Gandhi replied “I want India to save herself.”“Throughout history”,
82
Fischer recalled, “nationalists and individuals have helped foreign
countries. Lafayette went from France to assist America in winning
independence from Britain. Thousands of Americans and other
foreigners died in Spain to save the Spanish Republic.”“Individuals,
yes”, Gandhi said, “But America is the ally of England which enslaved
us. And I am not certain that democracies will make a better world,
when they defeat the fascists. They may become very much like the
fascists themselves.”Fischer got a stunning reply from Gandhi, when
he asked the Mahatma why he was so impatient to start the Quit India
Movement. This he asked after he felt dismayed over the adoption of
the Quit India resolution by the Congress Working Committee.The
Mahatma replied very cryptically but its implication was stunning,
almost explosive, for the American journalist. He parried Fischer,
saying: “Go and ask Subhas !” Gandhi, thus, unmistakably revealed a
mind that was then working in the same wave-length as that of
Subhas.
3.10 Vinoba Carried Forward Gandhiji’s Work
Though adopted, Vinoba did fulfil Gandhiji’s expectations of him as his ‘true
son!’ After Gandhiji’s death in 1948, Vinoba tried to apply the Gandhian
principle of non-violence to social, economic, religious, and political issues
and problems which arose in the post independence period.Vinobaji was not a
disciple of Gandhiji in the traditional sense of the term ‘disciple’. Though very
much influenced by Gandhiji, Vinoba was an independent thinker. He himself
was, conscious of this and expressed his independent attitude in a “humorous
way in a meeting of Gandhiji’s great political associates and ordinary followers
held at Sewagram in March 1948, immediately after Gandhiji’s assassination.
83
I happened to be present at the meeting. When pressed by Jawaharlalji and
others to address the gathering, Vinobaji stood up and spoke. The very first
sentence in his Hindi speech raised a wave of laughter in the audience. His
words were :
“Gandhiji Ka pala hua main ek jangali janwar hun !-- I am a wild animal whom
Gandhiji had tried to domesticate!”
What Vibobaji did thereafter as a ‘disciple or true son’ of Gandhiji showed that
this was not just a harmless joke. There was more to it than that. Vinobaji
mostly agreed with Gandhiji in his views, opinions and formulation of policies
and programmes, so far as the various aspects of the Gandhian ideology
were concerned. But he did differ from Gandhiji in some respects. He many a
time hinted at his differences openly and also acted according to his own
different lights. As even in a welfare state power was concentrated in the
hands of the few, vinoba
considered such a state as an illfare state for
attaining real welfare, political power would have to be distribute to each
village. Regarding the ideal village, vinoba said “First dispute in the village
should be settled locally in the village. Secondly you must arrange for
providing medical help to all those who be out of health.
3.11 Ruskin on Trusteeship
Ruskin believed that commercial transactions should be directed by the
motives of social good and of private profit. His approach to industry was not
only humanitarian but socialistic also. In Unto This List, he advocated a
paternal attitude on the part of merchants and manufacturers towards the men
employed by them. The youngman employed in a commercial establishment
is withdrawn from his home influence. His employer must become his ‘father’
84
as he has no other help at hand. Ruskin denounced the idea of exploitation of
the poor and the helpless by the wise and the rich persons. In The Political
Economy of Art, he asserted that the wise and the rich should not crush and
starve the poor fools. “They were made that wise people might take care of
them. That is the true and plain fact concerning the relations of every strong
and wise man to the world about him. He has his strength given him, not that
he may crush the weak but that he may support and guide them.” Since the
industrialists have acquired wealth and possess organising power, it is their
responsibility to guide labour. Ruskin called them, ‘pilots of the power’, and
‘captains of industry’, and desired that they should use their wealth and power
in putting away the plague that kills many and in carrying food to those who
are hungry. The wealth and wisdom of the rich and the wise should give
honourable and peaceful employment to the people around them. He
exhorted the wealthy people of England that by the strength of their
possessions, they should direct the acts, command the energies, inform the
ignorance, and prolong the existence of the whole human race. They should
use their wealth, wisdom and sagacity as a Trust for the good of mankind.
Ruskin suggested ‘the benevolent mode of spending money’, which is good
for the individual, the nation and the world at large. “A rich man ought to be
continually examining how he may spend his money for the advantage of
others ;A person who is entrusted with the management of large quantity of
capital should administer it for the profit of all and direct each man to the
labour which is most healthy for him and most serviceable to the
community.Ruskin wanted the rich men to use their capital and wisdom as a
Trust for the good of all. They should give proper employment and
opportunities and see that only those things are manufactured which are
85
serviceable for the community. The poor and the unwise ones are not to be
crushed but whatever energies they have, are to be put to tasks, useful for
them as well as for the nation.
3.12 Gandhi on Trusteeship
A theory of trusteeship emerges out of the speeches and writings of Gandhi. It
was necessary for Gandhi to put out such a theory as he believed that
different persons possessed different capabilities. All persons are born equal
and have a right to equal opportunity but ‘all have not the same capacity. It is,
in the nature of things, impossible. For instance, all cannot have the same
height or colour or degree of intelligence, etc,, therefore, in the nature of
things, some will have ability to -earn more and others less’. As a result some
will be rich and others will be poor. Those who do not possess much have a
feeling of jealousy and enemity against the richer ones. There is a clear
possibility of class war. The owners of wealth ‘will have to make their choice
between class war and voluntarily converting themselves into trustees of their
wealth’. The owners of property should become the stewards of their property
and use it for the good of all. People who possess talents, will use their talents
kindly and performing the work of the State.J.B. Kripalani, a close associate of
Gandhi, says that Gandhi’s idea of Trusteeship is a very comprehensive
concept : ““It works in all spheres of life. The parents act as trustees for the
children. The Government acts or should act as a trustee of the people. The
representatives of the people in a democracy are the trustees of those who
have chosen them as members of a legislature”. The word ‘trustee’ suggests
that he is not the owner but looks after the interests of others. At the same
time, he does not want that the person who has intellect and talent should not
earn more. He would not cramp his talents. ‘But the bulk of his greater
86
earnings must be used for the good of the State, just as the income of all
earning sons of the father goes to the common family fund. They would have
their earnings only as trustees’. He wants the owners to become the trustees.
Most of their wealth is a result of exploitation of the poor workers. They should
become trustees in the right of those whom they have exploited.In case the
rich do not act as trustees, and do not behave as guardians of the poor, he
advised the aggrieved to start ‘non-violent, non-co-operation and civil
disobedience as the right and infallible means’. Gandhi expected that the rich
will work as guardians of the poor of their own accord as man is essentially
good and human nature is never beyond redemption. Further, his theory does
not exclude the idea of ‘legislative regulation of the ownership and use of
wealth’. Item 4 in ‘the draft plan’ approved by him mentions: “Thus, under
State-regulated trusteeship, an individual will not be free to hold or use his
wealth for selfish satisfaction or in disregard of the interest of society” .
3.13 Tagore and Gandhi
Rabindranath Tagore was born in 1861, and his birth centenary in May this
year is a fit occasion for a reassessment of his works and his contribution to
the national cause. For over half a century, as poet and man of letters, he
held an honoured place in the world of culture, while the award of the Nobel
Prize in 1913 spotlighted his eminence and made him a world figure of no
mean standing. It was just about this time—or to be more exact, in 1915—
that Gandhi returned to India after a hectic and by no means unsuccessful
public career in far-away South Africa. Gandhi’s name had by then become a
legend, as much by his queer ways of life and views as by his unconventional
methods of political warfare. India, a subject country tied to the apron strings
of England, found herself fighting for the freedom of countries in Europe and
87
Africa. Allied statesmen like Woodrow Wilson and Lloyd George were filling
the air with the thunder of their eloquence, extolling the virtues of democracy
and self-determination. She not free, India was fighting freedom’s battle
abroad. For her, it was a time of awakening and disillusionment. It is on
record that one of the first things that Gandhi did on arrival in India was to
seek Tagore’s guidance and familiarise himself with the Poet’s labours in
Bolpur. Gandhi, it will be remembered, was born eight years later than Tagore
and survived him seven years when his life was suddenly out short by a
fanatic’s bullet. Both remained fast friends to the end, vying with each other in
demonstrations of affection and regard. Gandhi sought his “Gurudev’s” I
blessings at every crisis, while Tagore’s homage to “Gandhi Maharaj” in
prose and verse was unstinted. Yet there were fundamental differences | in
their outlook and methods of approach to problems of personal and I Political
life” Infact’ as Nehru has pointed out, no two persons could I be so different
from one another in their make-up and temperament Tagore, the aristocratic
artist turned democrat, with proletarian i sympathies, represented essentially
the cultural tradition of India the tradition of accepting life in the fullness
thereof and going through it with song and dance. Gandhi, more a man of the
people, almost the embodiment of the Indian peasant, represented the other
ancient tradition of India, that of renunciation and asceticism. And yet Tagore
was primarily the man of thought, Gandhi of concentrated and ceaseless
activity. Both, in their different ways, had a world outlook, and both were at
the same time wholly Indian. They seemed to represent different but
harmonious aspects of India and to complement one another.”Such
differences in temperament and outlook are by no means accidental. They
can be traced back to their heredity and upbringing Tagore came of a family
88
of writers and artists, of reformers and saints One of his brothers was a
celebrated artist who may be said to have founded the Bengal school of
painting. His father was a devout Brahmo who spent most of his time as a
recluse in his rural heritage Losing his mother at an early age he was brought
up by home-teaching in the wisdom of the Upanisads and the lyrical fantasies
and dramatic creations of Kalidasa. Gandhi, on the other hand, the son of a
Dewan of an Indian state, had his regular schooling in Rajkot, like other boys
of his age and finished as an Inner Temple lawyer in England. He studied
Thoreau and Tolstoy and Ruskin and imbedded their teachings. He shared
his mother’s austere ways and strictly followed her injunctions to avoid flesh
and wine, and cultivated a Spartan simplicity of life. I fancy his practical sense
and shrewd understanding of men, he inherited from his father who was, by
all accounts, a Successful administrator. But Tagore was a humanist and
his heart beat in sympathy for oppressed mankind, anywhere and
everywhere. In 1938, Japan overran China with fire and sword in the name of
“liberation” and the advent of a “new order”. Tagore had learnt of the bombing
of Chinese women and children and the desecration of ancient temples and
Universities “as a means of saving China for Asia”. And when his Japanese
friend, Poet Noguchi, coolly asked him to commend this civilizing mission to
the Chinese, he grew indignant and wrote in reply: You are building your
conception of an Asia which would be raised on a tower of skulls. I have, as
you rightly pointed out, believed in the message of Asia. But I never dreamt
that this message could be identified with deeds which brought exultation to
the heart of Tamurlane at his terrific efficiency in manslaughter. Now
Gandhi’s values, like Tagore’s, were essentially spiritual, but he was no poet
or dreamer like him: he was an intensely practical person, not above the strife
89
but profoundly involved in it, not in terms of conflict but of ahimsa. Gandhi
was always in the thick of the fight— his non-violent fight. He was with the
peasants of Champaran, on the spot, in their fight with the planters; he was
with the factory workers in Ahmedabad in their fight with the mill-owners; he
personally led the volunteers in the historic Dandi march; he was with the
people in the heart of the city during the “great Calcutta killing”, sharing their
sufferings and exhorting them to behave; he went on a pilgrimage of mercy to
the afflicted areas of East Bengal in quest of peace and goodwill. Where
people suffered from the effects of cyclone or flood, he was there, with his
healing counsel, day in and day out, in unwearied service. He did not spare
himself. He threw himself into the nation’s struggle for freedom, at every level,
now with the representatives of Government, now with the leaders of the
people, unsparing in his efforts to improve the lot of the masses. And the
people trusted him and followed him, as they trusted and followed the
Bodhisattva of old.
Gandhi’s contention was that to millions of half-starved
people who suffer from want of work and wages for half the year after harvest
time spinning is a useful occupation, it will put some money into their pockets
and save them from idleness and ennui. As the mass of the people take their
cue from the so-called upper and middle classes the latter could set a
wholesome example. Gandhi’s call gave momentum to this home industry.
Indeed, Tagore’s Swadeshi and Gandhi’s boycott of 1921 gave such a fillip to
the weaving industry that Indian mills have displaced Lancashire and saved
many crores for the nation.Swadeshi was only one aspect of a
comprehensive program of national reconstruction which Gandhi had
inaugurated. He aimed at the reform and uplift of Indian life in every sphere.
As we have noticed the use of Swadeshi goods and the revival of village
90
Industries improved the economic condition of the country, and the boycott of
foreign goods aided the growth of industry on modern lines. Men like
Tagore and Gandhi, though their main activities are necessarily confined to
the limits of their own country, really belong to the world at large. Tagore in
particular, by his extensive travels and contacts, was a kind of unofficial
ambassador of India. He had a truly international outlook, serving as a sort of
bridge for the exchange of cultures between the East and West. Gandhi,
more at home in his homeland, laboured for an India of his dreams which
would serve as a model for the rest of the world. His experiments
insatyagraha were for all the world to follow. Even his aggressive nationalism,
broad- based on truth and non-violence, was singularly free from the taint of
narrowness. “I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides, and my
windows to be stuffed”, he wrote to Tagore. “I want the culture of all the lands
to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off
my feet byans.’’ . The postulates swadeshi,khadi,trusteeship,eqaulity were
also rooted in the structure of our society the religious and social faith of
people. In an attempt to explain his proposals in the face of criticism based on
orthodox economic principals,Gandhi said that the basic objective should not
be the greast good for the greatest numbers but the greatest good of all
sarvodaya.gandhi’s advocacy of the removal of untouchability was also
related to the issue of unity of races and fight for swaraj.The three thinkers
differed on the idea of nationalism. Whereas tagore was in favour of
aboilishing the frontiers of the nations outrightly to establish the oneness of
the world Gandhi and Nehru considered the national good also to a great
extent and favoured political freedom and economic selfsufficiency and
91
equality for all national.gandhi had a different perception of human nature and
path of development.
3.14 ONLY SUCCESSFUL CHALLENGER
After the advent of Gandhi as the supreme leader of the Congress in 1920,
no other national personality succeeded in challenging his leadership. The
moderate leaders of the party, grudgingly though, broke away from it and
even the extremist leaders like Tilak and Bipin Chandra Pal could not match
the rising tide of the popular support for Gandhi. Mohammad Ali Jinnah, a
known front-rank leader of the Congress of those days, clashed with Gandhi
in the 1920 Nagpur session of the Congress and had to ultimately stray away
from the party and the main current of the national movement of India, and
tragically this one-time nationalist leader and a stalwart of the Congress
reappeared in Indian- politics later as the founder of the Muslim League.
Whosoever came to confront Gandhi, in the early twenties or later, were
simply found wiped out of the orbit of leadership of the Congress politics, and
the Mahatma gradually attained the position of an absolutely unchallengeable
leader of the organisation. After the failure of the Non-cooperation
Movement in 1921, C.R. Dass and Motilal Nehru defied Gandhi to form
swarajya Party and ultimately succeeded in making Gandhi reconcile with
their demand for the approval of their programme of ‘council entry’. But this
revolt by the Swarajists did not mean any basic defiance of the non-violent
ways and : means of Gandhi. And, as such, Gandhi soon succeeded to win
C.R. and Motilal back into the fold of; his leadership. Later, only one or two
Congress leaders like Sriniyas Ayenger and Nariman had taken somewhat
different steps to disobey Gandhi but only to be blotted out of the Congress
politics within no time. It was seen that the control of the Mahatma over the
92
leadership of the Congress became so paramount that whosoever defied or
challenged it had either to surrender to it ultimately or pass into complete
oblivion sometime later.In this era of unchallengeable leadership of Gandhi,
only one young leader—Subhas Chandra Bose—dared to deviate from the
Gandhian ways and means. Subhas often defied his leadership and had to
face the combined opposition of the Gandhian leaders but he remained
unsubdued and unvanquished. For Gandhi the non-violent way to attain
independence for India was an absolutely immutable concept. Regarding his
ideological conviction he was so unsparing that he could hardly agree to
accommodate any nonconformist in the higher echelons of the party
leadership. For his criticism of the Gandhian constructive programme as not
wholly adequate to mobilise all sections of the Indian people under the
Congress banner, Subhas was dropped out of the Working Committee
formed after the Lahore session of the Congress in 1929. For his defiance of
the Gandhian advice not to contest for the presidentship of the Tripuri
Congress of 1939 later for his public protest against a resolution of the
Congress Working Committee not to criticize Congress ministers of the
various provinces, the twice elected president of the Congress was not only
compelled to resign but he was later very harshly expelled from the
Congress. This resolution to expel Subhas was known to have been drafted
by Gandhi himself. For his refusal to submissively obey Gandhi, Subhas had
to face all-out opposition from the Mahatma during 1939-40 but the rebel in
him, convinced about the justification of his own politics, stood firm on his
own ground. In India, Subhas failed even after launching a vigorous
agitation in 1940 for starting an immediate national struggle to shake the
foundation of the Gandhian hold over the Congress and the Indian people.
93
But as a born rebel, convinced of a faith that he had ‘a mission to fulfil’ for the
liberation of his motherland, he staked everything to plunge himself into the
cauldron of the world war. Ultimately, under the banner of his Azad Hind
Revolution, he succeeded in establishing his own independent leadership to
create a new history of national emancipation.After World War II, the image of
Subhas emerged in India as another maker of the history of Indian freedom
along with Gandhi. The Indian people hailed this rebel as another man of
destiny of India, besides Gandhi. The Mahatma was great because his
greatness was of a different concept of values, and, as it was so, he did not
hesitate to acknowledge the historic role of his challenger and hail him as ‘the
Netaji’ of the Azad Hind Revolution. Gandhi paid highest tributes to the
achievements of this rebel and continued to admire Subhas till the last days
of his life.
94
Chapter – 3 : Reference
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
J.P.Singh, Vinoba’s Utopia of the future Indian Society and
education, P.51.
Ibid, P.52.
Ibid, P.55
Ibid, P.56.
Ibid, P.57.
Ibid, P.58.
Ibid, P.59.
Ibid, P.62.
Ibid, P.63.
Ibid, P.64.
Ibid, P.65.
Ibid, P.67.
Ibid, P.69.
Ibid, P.70.
Ibid, P.71.
V.T. Patel, Gandhi and Nehru and The Quit India Movement, P.
378.
Ibid, P.379.
Ibid, P.384.
Ibid, P.385.
Ibid, P.386.
Ibid, P.392.
Ibid, P.394.
Ibid, P.396.
Ibid, P.397.
Subrta Mukharjee, sushila Ramaswamy, Economic and Social
Principals Mahatma Gandhi, P, 74.
Ibid, P.75.
Ibid, P.76.
R.R. Diwakar, Mahendra Agrawal, Vinobha, The Spirithal
Revolution, P. 166.
Ibid, P.167.
Ibid, P.168.
Ibid, P.169.
Ibid, P.170.
Ibid, P.174.
Ibid, P.175.
Ibid, P.178.
Ibid, P.179.
Sheshrao Chauhan, Gandhi and Ambedkar Saviours of
Untouchables, P. 252.
Ibid, P.253.
Ibid, P.254.
95
40. Ibid, P.255.
41. Ibid, P.256.
42. J.P. Singh, Vinobha’s Utopia of the future Indian Society and
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
education P. 74
Ibid, P. 75 .
Ibid, P. 76.
Ibid, P.77.
O.P. Misra, Economic Thought of Gandhi and Nehru A competitive
Analysis , P.100.
Ibid, P.101.
Ibid, P.105.
Ibid, P.106.
Ibid, P.107.
Ibid, P.108.
N. Radha Krishan R.. Subramanian Complement rarity of Gandhi
and Nehru P. 5.
Ibid, P.6.
Ibid, P.7.
Ibid, P.8.
Ibid, P.10.
Ibid, P.11.
Ibid, P.12.
Samar Guha, The Mahatma and The Netaji, P. 89
Ibid, P.90.
Ramjee Singh, S.Jeypragasum, Kushelya Wali, Gandhi – Kasturba
and Vinoba – A Continuu, P. 102.
Dr. Zaheer Husain , The Relevance of Ruskin and Gandhi, P. 79.
Ibid, P.80.
Ibid, P.98.
Ibid, P.99.
Subrata Mukarjee, Shushila remaswamy
Political Ideas of
Mahatma Gandhi, P. 237.
Ibid, P.240.
Ibid, P.241.
Ibid, P.243.
Ibid, P.244.
Samar Guha, The Mahatma and The Netaji, Two man of Destiny of
India, P. 4.
Ibid, P.5.
Ibid, P.6.

Similar documents

×

Report this document