We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 November 2008
In the 1970s the Gandhian movement split over fundamental philosophical issues and twenty years later it has not yet recovered. While the generally presented reasons for the decline of the Gandhian movement since Gandhi's death show substantial depth of analysis, they nevertheless overlook one essential aspect. They focus on issues such as whether a movement that was effective against a specific enemy, for example the British, can continue when the focus of the movement has been removed, and whether such a movement that stresses selfsacrifice can survive in an emerging consumerist and ‘democratic’ society, whether it is really anachronistic and inapplicable as we move towards the twenty-first century. Or perhaps, it is argued, that the movement was not able to survive the passing of a charismatic leader, especially when that leader's philosophy was adopted by the populace as a policy because of its instrumental value rather than as a creed and, further, that the leader was determined not to set up a sect of the chosen faithful around himself.
Thomas Weber teaches Legal Studies and Peace Studies at La Trobe University in Melbourne. He is the author of Hugging The Trees: The Story of the Chipko Movement (Penguin, N?w Delhi) and Conflict Resolution and Gandhian Ethics (Gandhi Peace Foundation, New Delhi). He edits the journal Interdisciplinary Peace Research.
1 Niebuhr, R., Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics (New York, Scribner's, 1932), p. 243.Google Scholar
2 For a contrary opinion see Devdutt, ‘Vinoba and the Gandhian Tradition’, Gandhi Marg (1983), V(8 and 9): 600–15.Google Scholar
3 I am indebted to Professor C. N. Patel of Ahmedabad for bringing this point to my attention.
4 The day before his death on 30 January 1948, Gandhi wrote, in what was to become known as his ‘last will and testament’, that the Indian National Congress in its present form had outlived its use. The Congress had been set up to achieve political independence; and, that goal accomplished, the emphasis had to shift to the social, moral and economic independence of the rural masses. With this in mind Gandhi proposed that the Congress organization be disbanded to allow Lok Seva Sanghs, organizations for the service of the people, to grow in its place (Harijan, 15 February 1948).Google Scholar
5 Doctor, A. H., Anarchist Thought in India (London, Asia, 1964), pp. 36–54.Google Scholar
6 Devdutt claims that even before Gandhi's death, the socialist JP sided with the Mahatma on fundamental political issues more frequently than Nehru; see Devdutt, , ‘Gandhi's Technique of Social Change and Jayaprakash Narayan’, Gandhi Marg (1980), II(7): 361–73.Google ScholarFurther, JP's secretary Brahmanand claims that while Nehru turned to constitutional and parliamentary methods to fight the British, and remained an adherent of this avenue to bring about change, JP, like the nonconstitutionalist and revolutionary Gandhi, chose the method of people's struggle to achieve a more just social order;Google Scholarsee Brahmanand's introduction to Narayan, J. P., Towards Total Revolution (vol. I, Bombay, Popular, 1978), pp. xxxix, lxix, lxxxv–lxxxvi.Google Scholar
7 Devdutt, , ‘Gandhi's Technique of Social Change’, p. 371;Google Scholar and Devdutt, , ‘Vinoba and the Gandhian Tradition’, p. 610.Google Scholar
8 Verma, S., Metaphysical Foundation of Mahatma Gandhi's Thought (New Delhi, Orient Longman, 1970), p. 10; and see also pp. 20, 134.Google Scholar
9 Perhaps Socialist political colleague of JP, Madhu Limaye, summed up the situation best when he stated that ‘It was [the] “inconsistency” and the mighty “negative” movements that [Gandhi] launched that created a new consciousness among the people, fearlessness and self-reliance, real loka-shakti.’Google ScholarLimaye, M., The Age of Hope: Phases of the Socialist Movement (Delhi, Atma Ram, 1986), p. 204.Google ScholarFor an analysis favouring satyagraha as a system of gradation, rather than one rent by contradiction see the perceptive essay by Sonnleitner, M. W., ‘Gandhian Satyagraha and Swaraj: A Hierarchical Perspective’, Peace and Change (1989), XIV(I): 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Sharp, G., ‘A Study of the Meaning of Nonviolence’ in Ramachandran, G. and Mahadevan, T. K. (eds), Gandhi: His Relevance for our Times (Berkeley, World Without War, 1971), pp. 21–66.Google Scholar
11 See his tables ibid., pp. 64–6.
12 Ibid., p. 29.
13 Idem.
14 Galtung, J., ‘Gandhi and Conflictology’ unpublished paper, Nehru University, Center for International Studies, New Delhi (1971)Google Scholar, in Galtung, J., Papers: A Collection of Works Previously Available Only in Manuscript or Very Limited Circulation Mimeographed or Photocopied Editions, vol. 5, ‘Papers in English 1968–1972’ (International Peace Research Institute, Oslo, 1980), pp. 107–58 at p. 116.Google Scholar
15 In an insightful article, philosopher Smith argues that there is an ambiguity in nonviolence being seen both as an appeal to moral principle and as an effective practical device for achieving a given goal. He adds that ‘Those who practice nonviolence are forced to oscillate between these two poles. On the one hand, nonviolence as a form of response is adopted because it is dictated by a principle, the principle that violence is always to be avoided because in itself is “wrong” and perpetuates the very divisiveness we are trying to overcome. On the other hand, nonviolence is not chosen for this reason alone. It is chosen because, as a matter of actual fact derived from past experience, this method has been shown to be more effective than violence in accomplishing certain objectives.’ Smith, J. E., ‘The Inescapable Ambiguity of Nonviolence’, Philosophy East and West (1969), XIX(2): 155–8 at p. 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Tikekar, I., Integral Revolution [An Analytical Study of Gandhian Thought] (Rajghat, Varanasi, Sarva Seva Sangh, 1970), p. 6.Google ScholarGandhi has made the point that we can know only our present physical lives and so should concern ourselves with our present life rather than with questions concerning the hereafter; see Harijan, 18 July 1948; and Tikekar, p. 142.Google Scholar
17 Galtung, , ‘Gandhi and Conflictology’, p. 116.Google Scholar
18 Ibid., p. 126. And the results of research seem to imply that something like this ideal either occurs in practice or that Gandhians at least believe that it does. When Nakhre asked his sample of satyagrahis ‘Whom do you think satyagraha affects the most?’ 37.5% (and nine out of fourteen satyagrahi leaders) replied that the ‘greatest impact was on the satyagrahis themselves.’ One leader added that whatever the effect on the opponent, ‘more importantly it creates a new man out of the satyagrahi himself.’Google ScholarNakhre, A., ‘Meaning of Nonviolence: A Study of Satyagrahi Attitudes’, Journal of Peace Research (1976), XIII(3): 185–96 at p. 206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Tikekar, , Integral Revolution, p. 7.Google Scholar
20 See M. Buber, I and Thou: A New Translation (W. Kaufman trans.) (Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark, 1970).Google Scholar
21 Murti, V. V. Ramana, ‘Buber's Dialogue and Gandhi's Satyagraha’, The Journal of the History of Ideas (1968), XXIX(4): 605–13 at p. 608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22 Eteki-Mboumoua, W. in Mahadevan, T. K. (ed.), Truth and Nonviolence: A UNESCO Symposium on Gandhi (New Delhi, Gandhi Peace Foundation, 1970), p. 135.Google Scholar
23 Bowker, J., Problems of Suffering in Religions of the World (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1970), p. 211. And it is by this unity, rather than the body, that the self is defined.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 According to Gandhi, ‘Those who die unresistingly are likely to still the fury of violence by their wholly innocent sacrifice. But this truly nonviolent action is not possible unless it springs from a heart belief that he whom you fear and regard as a robber, dacoit or worse, and you are one, and that therefore, it is better that you die at his hands than that he, your ignorant brother, should die at yours’ (Harijan, 29 June 1940).Google Scholar
25 Towards the end of his life, when spelling out his vision of a Shanti Sena (peace brigade), Gandhi noted that the sainik will ‘allow himself, if need be, to be killed and thereby live through his victory over death’ (Harijan, 5 May 1946).Google Scholar
26 Naess, A., Gandhi and the Nuclear Age (Totowa, New Jersey, Bedminster Press, 1965), pp. 28–33.Google ScholarFor a more detailed version of this formula See Naess, A., Gandhi and Group Conflict: An Exploration of Satyagraha (Oslo, Universitetsforlaget, 1974), p. 54.Google Scholar
27 Quoted in Tendulkar, T. G., Mahatma: Life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (Bombay, 1952–1954; new edn, New Delhi: Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt of India, 1962–69), IV: 88.Google Scholar
28 For Vinoba's views on moksha, ‘the complete destruction of the ego, and becoming one with society and God-personified universe’ being the ‘noblest fruit of life’, See Tandon, V., The Social and Political Philosophy of Sarvodaya after Gandhiji (Rajghat, Varanasi, Sarva Seva Sangh, 1965), p. 51.Google ScholarSome sarvodaya thinkers, for example Mushruwala, K. G., have criticized this ideal because it ‘has encouraged escapism and differentiation between worldly and other-worldly’Google Scholar, idem. p. 52.
29 Even JP saw Vinoba as ‘first and last a man of God’ rather than as politician, social reformer or revolutionary. He noted that for Vinoba ‘service of man is … nothing but an effort to unite with God.’ However, he gave no indication that he considered this reason for service as a more important one than social reform or revolution.Google ScholarNarayan, J., ‘Acharya Vinobha Bhave’ in Sri Jayaprakash Narayan Sixtyfirst Birth Day Celebrations: Commemorative Volume (Madras, Sri Jayaprakash Narayan Sixty First Birthday Celebrations Committee, 1963), pp. 90–2 at p. 90.Google Scholar
30 Tikekar, , Integral Revolution, p. 213;Google Scholar and see also Galtung, , ‘Gandhi and Conflictology’, p. 139.Google Scholar
31 Tandon notes that the ‘very conception of Sarvodaya denotes going beyond the seeming conflicts of interests to a spiritual view of life. It strikes a happy mean between old “spiritualism” which derided life and the prevailing materialism which totally rejects the spiritual’ (Tandon, Social and Political Philosophy, p. 202). However, he provides no evidence to demonstrate that this ‘happy mean’ has been, or even can be, achieved.Google Scholar
32 The best example of this occurred following Gandhi's Rajkot fast when he admitted that ’to my discredit I have been guilty of playing what may be called a double game. … This method I admit is wholly inconsistent with ahimsa’ (Harijan, 20 May 1939). Shortly after he was to add: ‘I was weighed in my own scales at Rajkot and found wanting. … For me to rely on the Viceroy instead of God, or in addition to God, to act upon the Thakore Sahib, was an act of pure violence’ (Harijan, 24 June 1939). Gandhi biographer Nanda explains that Gandhi's appeal to the Viceroy to intervene in a dispute that, ostensibly, was aimed at bringing about thelocal ruler's conversion, ‘had vitiated the spiritual value of the fast and was thus a lapse from the high ideal of nonviolence which he set before himself’. This led him to stiffen ‘his demands upon would-be Satyagrahis; they had to be truly nonviolent in action, as well as in thought.’Google ScholarSee Nanda, B. R., Mahatma Gandhi: A Biography (Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1981), pp. 418, 420.Google Scholar
33 Harijan, 2 March 1940.Google Scholar
34 For an uncomplimentary analysis of Gandhi's fasts, See Raman, T. A., What Does Gandhi Want? (London, Oxford University Press, 1943), pp. 107–13.Google Scholar
35 Bondurant, J. V., Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict (Revised edn, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1967), p. 9.Google Scholar
36 Case, C. M., Non-Violent Coercion: A Study in Social Pressure (New York, Century, 1923), p. 379.Google Scholar In this line of argument the test of nonviolence depends less on reality as experienced by the coercee and more on the state of mind of the person attempting to bring about change in the opponent. Where there is a total commitment to conversion and absence of even a subconscious desire to humiliate, the act of coercion can be classified as nonviolent.
37 Shridharani, K., War without Violence (Bombay, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1962), p. 264.Google Scholar
38 Ibid., p. 263.
39 Naess, , Gandhi and Group Conflict, p. 92. Sonnleitner, ‘Gandhian Satyagraha’, p. 7, uses the term ‘compulsion’ rather than ‘coercion’ in this context.Google Scholar
40 Young India, 8 August 1929.Google Scholar
41 In the words of Horsburgh, ‘Violence aims to coerce; nonviolence may coerce, but it hopes to convert rather than to enforce submission.’ Horsburgh, ‘Nonviolence and Impatience’, Gandhi Marg (1968), XII(4): 355–61 at p. 357.Google Scholar
42 Bhoodan Yajna, 7 Feb. 1958Google Scholar, quoted in Tandon, V., ‘Vinoba and Satyagraha’, Gandhi Marg (1980), 11(7): 385–94 at p. 387.Google Scholar
43 Bhave, V., Democratic Values (Rajghat, Varanasi, Sarva Seva Sangh, 1962), pp. 13–14.Google Scholar
44 See Ostergaard, G., ‘Vinoba's “Gradualist” Versus Western “Immediatist” Anarchism’, Gandhi Marg (1983), V(8 and 9): 509–30 at p. 517.Google Scholar
45 Although in the ideal it should make no difference, Vinoba often criticized Gandhi indirectly when he contrasted their differing use of satyagraha: ‘it is … mistaken to imagine that the negative Satyagraha of pre-independence days will find much scope … in a popular democratic set-up’Google Scholar(quoted in Tandon, V. (ed.), Selections from Vinoba (Rajghat, Varanasi, Sarva Seva Sangh, 1981), p. 279);Google Scholar that ‘in a democracy Satyagraha can never take the form of the exercise of pressure’ but must rely on ‘the change of heart’ (ibid., p. 280); and for Vinoba's views on satyagraha in a democracy see generally Bhave, Democratic Values, p. 152–9.
46 Tandon, (ed.), Selections, p. 392.Google Scholar
47 Idem. It should be noted, however, that others, like Nargolkar, claim that the failure to achieve a nonviolent revolution is at least partly the fault of Vinoba who refused to sanction the use of satyagraha. See Nargolkar, V., ‘Vinoba and Satyagraha’, Gandhi Marg (1981), II(12): 661–72.Google Scholar
48 Quoted in Tandon, (ed.), Selections, p. 281.Google Scholar
49 Harijan, 7 July 1951.Google Scholar
50 Shah, K. (ed.), Vinoba on Gandhi (Rajghat, Varanasi, Sarva Seva Sangh, 1985), P. 52.Google Scholar
51 Gandhi knew that political freedom was easier to achieve than economic, social and moral freedom because the work for the latter, being constructive, was ‘less exciting and not spectacular’ (See the appendix to Gandhi, M. K., The Constructive Programme: Its Meaning and Place, in Gandhi, The Selected Works, pp. 333–74 at p. 372).Google ScholarAs Gandhi was setting off for London for talks with the British following the political turmoil of the Salt Satyagraha he stated that ‘… the work of social reform or self-purification … is a hundred times dearer to me than what is called purely political work’ (Young India, 6 August 1931). During the war, a time when many wanted to push ahead with civil disobedience, Gandhi stated that ‘Those … who wish to see India realize her destiny through non-violence should devote every ounce of their energy towards the fulfilment of the constructive programme in right earnest without any hope of civil disobedience’ (Harijan, 1 June 1940), and soon thereafter confessed that ‘In placing civil disobedience before constructive work I was wrong. I feared that I should estrange co-workers and so carried on with imperfect Ahimsa’ (Harijan, 21 July 1940).Google Scholar
52 Musahari is an area in north Bihar where JP settled to devote himself to ‘villagegift’ Gramdan work. He soon realized that many of the Gramdan pledges were bogus and consequently that the results of Gramdan work did not justify the effort. See Narayan, J. P., ‘Face to Face’ in Narayan, Towards Total Revolution, I, pp. 231–53.Google Scholar
53 ‘Sarvodaya Social Order’ in Narayan, J. P., Towards Revolution, (New Delhi, Arnold-Heinemann, n.d.), pp. 74–85 at p. 83.Google Scholar
54 Quoted in Nargolkar, ‘Vinoba and Satyagraha’, p. 669.Google Scholar
55 Narayan, , Towards Total Revolution (vol. I), p. 229.Google Scholar
56 See Narayan, ‘Face to Face’ in ibid., p. 246. One writer has argued that this ‘reformulation’ of JP's concept of sarvodaya was contributed to by his post Musahari world trip to seek aid for war-torn Bangladesh where he came ‘into close contact with the students' movement abroad.’ See Kantowsky, D., Sarvodaya: The Other Development (New Delhi, Vikas, 1980), p. 33.Google Scholar
57 Narayan, J. P., Prison Diary (Bombay, Popular, 1977), pp. 21–2.Google ScholarAt the time Nargolkar had summarized the position dius: ‘So far as Vinobaji's theory on nonviolent revolution is concerned, it may be granted for the sake of argument, that it is impeccable. But in practice, it failed to deliver the goods in terms of revolutionary changes in the present social and economic structure … the gramdan-gram-swarajya programme never rose to the pitch of a mass-movement. Later, it degenerated into a hopelessly local activity sustained with tremendous effort by a few dedicated workers, who were constantly goaded by Vinobaji. There was no enthusiastic participation by the people. There was no involvement of the people in gramdani villages in the difficult task of promoting Sarvodaya ideals in their individual and collective lives.’Google Scholar(Nargolkar, V., JP's Crusade for Revolution (New Delhi, Chand & Co., 1975, pp. 86–7).Google Scholar
58 Ibid., p. 22. At times he was even more blunt when contrasting Vinoba's gentle/gentler approach with peaceful people's struggle for revolutionary changes by claiming that he could not ‘understand Vinobaji on this point’, adding that Vinoba had not demonstrated in practice just how the desired progression could be made;Google Scholarsee Narayan, , Towards Total Revolution (vol. 4), p. 187.Google Scholar
59 Narayan, , Prison Diary, p. 30.Google Scholar
60 See for example Narayan, J. P., Total Revolution (Rajghat, Varanasi, Sarva Seva Sangh, 1975), pp. 92–5.Google Scholar
61 Gandhi is quoted as having said that ‘I know that if I survive the struggle for freedom, I might have to give nonviolent battles to my own country men which may be as stubborn as that in which I am now engaged’ (Young India, 30 January 1930). This quotation from Gandhi is not particularly well known. It is probable that, rather than having read Gandhi's 1930 newspaper articles with great care, JP picked up this legitimizing assertion from Tandon's book on the sarvodaya movement where it is reproduced, and for which he wrote the foreword. See Tandon, Social and Political Philosophy, p. 27.Google Scholar
62 Narayan, , Total Revolution, pp. 60–1.Google Scholar JP repeats a version of this statement in his 1975 introduction to a collection of his writings on total revolution: ‘How prophetic Mahatma Gandhi was when he foresaw as far back as 1930 that if he survived the freedom struggle, he would have to fight many a nonviolent battle as stubbornly as the one in which he was engaged against the British!’ (Narayan, , Towards Revolution, p. 12).Google Scholar
63 Free Press Journal, 5 August 1953, quoted in Narayan, Towards Total Revolution (vol. 1), p. xcvii.Google Scholar
64 JP came to the conclusion that while Vinoba's aim was change through complete nonviolence ‘the observance of complete nonviolence was not possible in a mass movement’, consequently he declared his objective to be a little less ambitious: ‘social change through peaceful people's power’ (Narayan, ‘Why Total Revolution’ in Narayan, Towards Total Revolution (vol. 4), pp. 115–17 at p. 115).Google Scholar
65 Vinoba's disinclination to follow his mentor in the regard of the employment of aggressive satyagraha may have resulted from a stronger will, or perhaps his rejection of its use reflected, as Nargolkar convincingly points out, the differing temperaments of the two: ‘The nonviolent struggle for Indian independence was led by a Mahatma who happened to be a political activist, while the post-Independence movement for the establishment of a more egalitarian social order through Bhoodan, Gramdan, and Gram-swarajya was conceived and guided by a saint, who, apart from being deeply spiritual, was … by temperament a teacher, disinclined to action.’ Nargolkar, V., ‘Vinoba and Satyagraha’, Gandhi Marg (1981), II(12): 661–72 at p. 667;Google Scholarand see also Nargolkar, V., JP's Crusade for Revolution (New Delhi, Chand & Co., 1975). P. 87.Google Scholar
