Longtime readers of my blog know that I am not an admirer of Gandhiji. A while ago, Ramnath sent me a link to an article by Swami Aiyar which purports to show that Gandhiji, unlike Nehru was not a socialist, but committed to a free market.
Sorry, but the article sounds thoroughly convoluted to me. You can prove anything by selectively quoting a person and giving your own interpretation to what he said. This is the same Gandhiji who said “Honesty is incompatible with the amassing of a large fortune.” What does that statement tell us about his attitude towards capitalism?
How does the view of Gandhi-as-a-free marketeer square with his idea of self-sufficient villages? Remember that he wanted each village not only to be self-governing (which is okay), but also self-sufficient. He wanted every village to consume only what it produced within itself. You can spin this and reinterpret self-sufficiency as self-reliance, i.e. evey village should stand on its own without depending on handouts from others, but then what happens to the trusteeship concept? What is the point of a rich man holding his money as a trust for society if it is wrong for him to give it to others?
In any case, Gandhiji never made clear what role the government would have in implementing his ideas. I have this fantasy of some modern-day Gandhiji going to Gujarat and offering satyagraha, only this time instead of making salt, he will brew alcohol. I would love to see the government having to choose between violently ending a satyagraha and violating Gandhiji’s ideals. In the same vein, I wonder what will happen if Pradeep Dalvi, playwright of the banned Mee Nathuram Boltoy went ahead and got the play performed in a public garden. Will anyone notice the irony of using violence to guard the honour of the apostle of non-violence?
It is pointless to try to spin Gandhiji’s words to make it sound as if he was a supporter of free markets and liberal ideas. He was not one.
But why?..Is alchohol not be brewed now in Gujrat??????????….
And there happen to be idiots all over earth who need heros’to live their lives – and M.K. Gandhi was made one by those folks. It also helped that he was quite an intelligent man….
The same applies to most legends – Jesus Christ, Budhha, Shankara…..
Gujarat has prohibition.
wat???, are you serious?..in 2004?
Interestingly enough, Gandhi and Nehru still maintain their top position as fashionable “india-youth-bash” recipients…
If you want to sound cool, just call Gandhi and Nehru (and their admirers) whatever you want and give a few reasons and links… It would suffice… You immediately attain the position of being a cool-intellectual-progressive-youth of 21st Century India..
The fact that Gandhi and Nehru themselves are dead and there are few informed ones who would really take the time to defend what you say about them really helps too…
And apart from all this, it helps kill boredom… Wow.. In tamil, as they say “Orey kallula moonu maanga”!
This comment is really directed at the 1st comment to this post rather than the post itself… Even though it has an indirect context with some of the earlier posts by the same author…
Gujarat has always had prohibition. This has had the indirect result that Daman, where alcohol is brewed, and there are low taxes on alcoholic drinks, is a drunkards’ paradise.
Swami, I do not bash up Gandhiji to be intellectually fashionable. I do so because I think through his ideas, try to work out how they will function when practised and find that they are lacking. That’s the only way I know to evaluate anyone’s ideas. If you think that Gandhiji’s ideas make sense, then perhaps you can answer my question. What should the Gujarat government do if a bunch of drunkards carry out beer satyagraha? Should it use violence to implement his ideas?
The question is not a flippant one. I am seriously asking that question because I am seriously thinking through his ideas. Which is more than many of his “admirers” seem to be capable of.
Ditto with a strip club as well…..
maybe, I will offer to do that ‘Sathyagragha’, carrying a stripper to Dhandi….
Ravikiranji,
Even though my comment was not really directed at your post, I will sure think about your question and see if I can answer it.
But, before that, just a quick comment on another long fought issue between you and me – about Swami Aiyar’s articles!
This article is a typical example of how Swami Aiyar presents his “novel” ideas and viewpoints under sensational titles (which he almost always tries to do)!
I quote –
“Nehru had the typical Brahmin’s disdain for business. But Gandhiji was a bania, and had no caste bias against businessmen.” – QED
If such a statement is made in a general after-tea table talk, we can just have a good laugh and let it go! But Aiyar manages to get these things published – and he has done so even is pre-blog days!
I have to admit, I am amazed!
After deliberating over the choice of writing from what I remember vs. searching the (stupid) web for some quotations vs. going home and re-reading from the printed version, I decided to go with the 2nd option.
http://www.nalanda.nitc.ac.in/resources/english/etext-project/Biography/gandhi/part4.chapter39.html
– is from Project Gutenberg and it has the content that I was searching for from “Experiments…”
Even though, I dont seem to understand it in its entirety now, I think it explains Gandhi’s views on Ahimsa to an extent to atleast answer a part of your practicality question. (only in relation with Ahimsa, nothing else)
And I really see Gandhi’s such principles as a product of his times. And they were effective to achieve a particular goal.
For that matter, any social principle can be brought down to trivialities and contradictions by extending it to some “what ifs” like you have done in your beer satyagraha example. I don’t think that is a fair assessment of those principles. (This is my opinion. And I might be wrong. If you think I am, you should give a counter example.)
As far as the economics part of your post and with regard to Gandhi’s views on government intervention per se, I have nothing to add at this point. I don’t know!
And obviously, all that I have said doesn’t in any way mean I am supporting Aiyar’s article. I have dismissed that already!
How could Gandhi have been a liberalizer if there wasn’t a industry, government or any other institutions to liberalize ? He did try to liberalize what he could – ending British rule in India. Hence, your question does not make any sense. Your (or is it Swami Aiyar ?) question should have been – was he a capitalist ? I don’t think anyone really knows or can prove it one way or another.
Your comments on Gandhi’s statement (about amassig wealth) lacks perspective. Gandhi was probably talking about the situation in his days – that of money-lending at exorbitant interest rates, zamindari system and other unfair socio-economic practices prevalent in those times – all of which, I am sure you would agree, are inconsistent with a free market economy.
Murli, then what happens to the nonsense that Gandhians keep spouting, that Gandhiji’s principles are as relevant now as they were 60 years ago, and that we are in the mess we are in because we have turned our back to those ideas? What are his timeless ideas and how exactly are they timeless?
After all these days of blogging, I don’t know how to use the trackback thing! 🙁
What it tells us is that he believed in the absurd “fixed quantity of wealth” fallacy and thus nothing much he could say about economics is likely to be worth listening to.
Gandhi was an opportunist and “with the times”. While I’m no big fan of “gandhianism” (or any idealogy that gets stuck in times and doesn’t move forward), I do feel if Gandhi were a young man in the 21st century India, I think he’d realize that globalization is inevitable and would have fought against the same old-school thoughts (read, gandhianism) that the 20th century gandhi instilled.
maltmarch.com
For some reason the article you have linked to does not work. So I don’t know what it says.
Gandhi was not a fan of communism or state-led-socialism. I have read his critique of communism in which he said roughly the following – “From what I know of communism, not only does it preclude the use of force, but it also sanctions the use of force for expropriation of private property against the will of the owner, and also for maintaining collective state ownership of the same. If that is so, communism will not last for long.”
The tag which would best fit Gandhi is libertarian socialist. He wanted a world where individuals would freely and voluntarily strive for equality. i.e rich people would voluntarily give up excess wealth and land for helping out the poor folks.
One of the biggest problem that libertarians have with statism is the monopoly of violence. Since he opposed that, I have to say, as a libertarian I find myself liking Gandhi more than Nehru. Gandhi’s ideas were at worst stupid. Nehru’s or Indira’s ideas were downright wrong and immoral.
Prohibition in Gujarat lasts solely because the liquor barons bankroll all elections. Unluckily for Gujarat, the state government has other avenues for official revenue, and does not feel the pinch of losing out on the liquor revenue. So they can keep the prohibition on, inundate their bank accounts with liquor money, and still keep the state exchequer reasonably healthy.