Gandhi and Property

While going through the materials for the article on the right / claim on property or Svatva and Indian law , had the opportunity to go through Mahatma Gandhiji's views on Property and accumulation of wealth . Am putting the same up . Most of the stuff is extracted from other writings , but they do form interesting reading . Hope you enjoy it ! It gives you an insight into the thoughts of the most interesting and original and Indic thinker of the 20th century . A person who came up with a philosophy which mixed faith , politics and protest in an unique manner . The greatest thing about the Mahatma is that he remains for all times a Indian and an Indic personality .....and his entire view of the world springs from the said unique Indian point of view . I would say Dharmic , many would say Indic.... some would say they are interchangeable ... I do not know . It is very important today when most economic models are failing to find out as to what Gandhi would have thought about the matter and how would be construe economics . The following are quotes from Gandhi as to what he considered should be the holistic economic policy of India.

The excerpts are taken from Gandhi Serve a Mahatma Gandhi materials website .

GANDHIAN ECONOMICS ( if it could ever be called that !! )
The Gospel Of Non-Possession
Key to ServiceWHEN I found myself drawn into the political coil, I asked myself what was necessary for me in order to remain absolute untouched by immorality, by untruth, by what is known as political gain... it was a difficult struggle in the beginning and it was wrestle with my wife and-as I can vividly recall-with my children also. But be that as it may, I came definitely to the conclusion that, if I had to serve the people in whose midst my life was cast and of whose difficulties I was a witness from day to day, I must discard all wealth, all possession....
I cannot tell you with truth that, when this belief came to me, I discarded everything immediately. I must confess to you that progress at first was slow. And now, as I recall those days of struggle, I remember that it was also painful in the beginning. But, as days went by, I saw that I had to throw overboard many other things which I used to consider as mine, and a time came when it became a matter of positive joy to give up those things. And one after another, then, by almost geometric progression, the things slipped away from me.
And, as I am describing my experiences, I can say a great burden fell off my shoulders, and I felt that I could now walk with ease and do my work also in the service of my fellow-men with great comfort and still greater joy. The possession of anything then became a troublesome thing and a burden.
Exploring the cause of that joy, I found that, If I kept anything as my own, I had to defend it against the whole world. I found also that there were many people who did not have the thing, although they wanted it; and I would have to seek police assistance also if hungry, famine-stricken people, finding me in a lonely place, wanted not merely to divide the thing with me but to dispossess me. And I said to myself, if they want it and would take it, they do so not from any malicious motive, but they would do it because theirs was a greater need than mine. (SW, pp. 1066-7)
It is open to the world...to laugh at my dispossessing myself of all property. For me the dispossession has been a positive gain. I would like people to complete with me in my contentment. It is the richest treasure I own. Hence it is perhaps right to say that, though I preach poverty, I am a rich man! (YI, 30-4-1925, p. 149)
Voluntary Self-denialOur civilization, our culture, our Swaraj depend not upon multiplying our wants--self-indulgence, but upon restricting our wants--self-denial. (YI, 23-2-1921, p. 59)
Non-possession is allied to non-stealing. A thing not originally stolen must nevertheless be classified as stolen property, if we possess it without needing it. Possession implies provision for the future. A seeker after Truth, a follower of the law of Love, cannot hold anything against tomorrow. God never stores for the morrow. He never creates more than what is strictly needed for the moment. If, therefore, we repose faith in His Providence, we should rest assured that He will give us every day our daily bread, meaning everything that we require....
Our ignorance or negligence of the Divine Law, which gives to man from day to day his daily bread and no more, has given rise to inequalities with all the miseries attendant upon them. The rich have superfluous store of things which they do not need and which are, therefore, neglected and wasted, while millions are starved to death for want of sustenance.
If each retained possession of only what he needed, no one would be in want, and all would live in contentment. As it is, the rich are discontented no less than the poor. The poor man would fain become a millionaire, and the millionaire a multi-millionaire.The rich should take the initiative in dispossession with a view to a universal diffusion of the spirit of contentment. If only they keep their own property within moderate limits, the starving will be easily fed, and will learn the lesson of contentment along with the rich.Perfect fulfillment of the ideal of non-possession requires that man should, like the birds, have no roof over his head, no clothing and no stock of food for the morrow. He will indeed need his daily bread, but it will be God's business, and not his, to provide it. Only the fewest possible, if any at all, can reach this ideal. We ordinary seekers may not be repelled by the seeming impossibility. But we must keep the ideal constantly in view, and in the light thereof, critically examine our possessions and try to reduce them.Civilization, in the real sense of the term, consists not in the multiplication, but in the deliberate and voluntary reduction of wants. This alone promotes real happiness and contentment, and increases the capacity for service.
From the standpoint of pure truth, the body too is a possession. It has been truly said that desire for enjoyment creates bodies for the soul. When this desire vanishes, there remains no further need for the body, and man is free from the vicious cycle of births and deaths. The soul is omnipresent; why should she care to be confined within the cage-like body, or do evil and even kill for the sake of the cage?
Ideal of RenunciationWe thus arrive at the ideal of total renunciation, and learn to use the body for the purpose of service so long as it exists, so much so that service and not bread becomes with us the staff of life. We eat and drink, sleep and wake for service alone. Such an attitude of mind brings us real happiness, and the beatific vision in the fullness of time. Let us all examine ourselves from this standpoint.
Needless to say, this is not a plea for inertia. Every moment of our life should be filled with mental or physical activity, but that activity should be sattvika, tending to truth. One who has consecrated his life to service learn to distinguish between good activity and evil activity. This discernment goes naturally with a single-minded devotion to service. (FYM, pp. 23-6)
Moral PurposeWhy should all of us possess property? Why should not we, after a certain time, dispossess ourselves of all property? Unscrupulous merchants do this for dishonest purpose. Why may we not do it for a moral and a great purpose?
For a Hindu it was the usual thing at a certain stage. Every good Hindu is expected, after having lived the household life for a certain period, to enter upon a life of non-possession of property. Why may we not revive the noble tradition? In effect it merely amounts to this that for maintenance we place ourselves at the mercy of those to whom we transfer our property. To me the idea is attractive. In the innumerable cases of such honourable trust there is hardly one case in a million of abuse of trust.
...How such a practice can be worked without giving handle to dishonest persons can only be determined after long experimenting. No one, however, need be deterred from trying the experiment for fear of the example being abused. The divine author of Gita was not deterred from delivering the message of he 'Song Celestial' although he probably knew that it would be tortured to justify every variety of vice including murder. (YI, 3-7-1924, p. 221)
The highest fulfillment of religion...requires a giving up of all possession. Having ascertained the law of our being, we must set about reducing it to practice to the extent of our capacity and no further. That is the middle way. (YI, 5-2-1925, p. 48)
Golden RuleThe golden rule...is resolutely to refuse to have what the millions cannot. This ability to refuse will not descend upon us all of a sudden. The first thing is to cultivate the mental attitude that will not have possessions or facilities denied to millions, and the next immediate thing is to re-arrange our lives as fast as possible in accordance with that mentality. (YI, 24-6-1926, p. 226)
Love and exclusive possession can never go together. Theoretically, where there is perfect love, there must be perfect non-possession. The body is our last possession. So, a man can only exercise perfect love and be completely dispossessed if he is prepared to embrace death and renounce his body for the sake of human service.
But that is true in theory only. In actual life we can hardly exercise perfect love, for the body as possession will always remain imperfect and it will always be his part to try to be perfect. So that perfection in love or non-possession will remain an unattainable ideal as long as we are alive, but towards which we must ceaselessly strive. (MR, October 1935, p. 412)
Jesus, Mahomed, Buddha, Nanak, Kabir, Chaitanya, Shankara, Dayanand, Ramakrishna were men who exercised an immense influence over and molded the character of thousands of men. The world is the richer for their having lived in it. And they were all men who deliberately embraced poverty as their log....In so far as we have made the modern materialistic craze our goal, so far are we going downhill in the path of progress. (SW, p. 353)
How heavy is the toll of sins and wrongs that wealth, power and prestige exact from man! (A, p. 168)
To take something from another without his permission is theft of course. But it is also theft to use a thing for a purpose different from the one intended by the lender or to use it for a period longer than that which has been fixed with him. The profound truth upon which this observance is based is that God never creates more than what is strictly needed for the moment. Therefore, whoever appropriates more than the minimum that is really necessary for him is guilty of theft. (AOA, p. 58)
Secret of LifeRenounce all and dedicate it to God and then live. The right of living is thus derived from renunciation. It does not say, 'When all do their part of the work, I too will do it.' It says, 'Don't bother about others, do your job first and leave the rest to Him. (H, 6-3-1937, p. 27)
You may have occasion to possess or use material things, but the secret of life lies in never missing them. (H, 10-12-1938, p. 371)
The secret of happy life lies in renunciation. Renunciation is life. Indulgence spells death. Therefore, everyone has a right and should desire to live 125 years while performing service without an eye on result. Such life must be wholly and solely dedicated to service. Renunciation made for the sake of such service is an ineffable joy of which none can deprive one, because that nectar springs from within and sustains life. In this there can be no room for worry or impatience. Without this joy, long life is impossible and would not be worth while even if possible. (H, 24-2-1946, p. 19)
This does not mean that, if one has wealth, it should be thrown away and wife and children should be turned out of doors. It simply means that one must give up attachment of these things and dedicate one's all to God and make use of His gifts to serve Him only. (H, 28-4-1946, p. 111)
Poverty And Riches
Avoidance of StrifeI cannot picture to myself a time when no man shall be richer than another. But I do picture to myself a time when the rich will spurn to enrich themselves at the expense of the poor and the poor will cease to envy the rich. Even in a most perfect world, we shall fail to avoid inequalities, but we can and must avoid strife and bitterness. (YI, 7-10-1926, p. 348)
I have heard many of our countrymen say that we will gain American wealth, but avoid its methods. I venture to suggest that such an attempt, if it were made, is foredoomed to failure. We cannot be 'wise, temperate and furious' in a moment. (SW, pp. 353-4)
Every palace that one sees in India is a demonstration, not of her riches, but of the insolence of power that riches give to the few, who owe them to the miserably requited labours of the millions of the paupers of India. (YI, 28-4-1927, p. 137)
Duty of the richThe rich should ponder well as to what their duty is today. They who employ mercenaries to guard their wealth may find those very guardians turning on them. The moneyed classes have got to learn how to fight either with arms or with the weapon of non-violence.
For those who wish to follow the latter way, the best and most effective mantra is:[******************************************] (Enjoy the wealth by renouncing it). Expanded it means: "Earn your cores by all means. But understand that your wealth is not yours; it belongs to the people. Take what you equire for your legitimate needs, and use the remainder for society."
This truth has hitherto not been acted upon; but, if the moneyed classes do not even 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.
...I see coming the day of the rule of the poor, whether that rule be through force of arms or of non-violence. Let it be remembered that physical force is transitory even as the body is transitory. But the power of the spirit is permanent, even as the spirit is everlasting. (H, 1-2-1942, p. 20)
I have no hesitation in endorsing the opinion that generally rich men and, for that matter, most men are not particular as to the way they make money. In the application of the method of non-violence, one must believe in the possibility of every person, however depraved, being reformed under humane and skilled treatment. We must appeal to the good in human beings and expect response.
Good of AllIt is not conducive to the well-being of society that every member uses all his talents, only not for personal aggrandizement but for the good of all? We do not want to produce a dead equality where every person becomes or is rendered incapable of using his ability to the utmost possible extent. Such a society must ultimately perish.
I therefore suggest that my advice, that moneyed men may earn their cores (honestly only, of course) but so as to dedicate them to the service of all, is perfectly sound. [******************************] is a mantra based on uncommon knowledge. It is the surest method to evolve a new order of life of universal benefit in the place of the present one where each one lives for himself without regard to what happens to his neighbour. (H, 22-2-1942, p. 49)
BeggaryThe grinding poverty and starvation with which our country is afflicted is such that it drives more and more every year into the ranks of the beggars, whose desperate struggle for bread renders them insensible to all feelings of decency and self-respect. And our philanthropists, instead of providing work for them and insisting on their working for bread, give them alms. (A, p. 320)
My ahimsa would not tolerate the idea of giving a free meal to a healthy person who has not worked for it in some honest way, and if I had the power, I would stop every Sadavrat where free meals are given. It has degraded the nation and has encouraged laziness, idleness, hypocrisy and even crime. Such misplaced charity adds nothing to the wealth of the country, whether material or spiritual, and gives a false sense of meritoriousness to the donor.
Work, Not CharityHow nice and wise it would be if the donors were to open institutions where they would give meals under healthy, clean surroundings to men and women who would work for them. I personally think that the spinning wheel or any of the processes that cotton has to go through will be an ideal occupation. But if they will not have that, they may choose any other work; only the rule should be, "No labour, no meal."....
I know that it is easier to fling free meals in the faces of idlers, but much more difficult to organize an institution where honest work has to be done before meals are served. From a pecuniary standpoint, in the initial stages at any rate, the cost of feeding people after taking work from them will be more than the cost of the present free kitchen. But I am convinced that it will be cheaper in the long run, if we do not want to increase in geometrical progression the race of loafers which is fast over-running this land. (YI, 13-8-1925, p. 282)
To people famishing and idle, the only acceptable form in which God can dare appear is work and promise of food as wages. (YI, 13-10-1921, p. 325)
I must refuse to insult the naked by giving them clothes they do not need, instead of giving them work which they sorely need. I will not commit the sin of becoming their patron but, on learning that I had assisted in impoverishing them, I would give them neither crumbs nor cast off clothing, but the best of my food and clothes and associate myself with them in work. (ibid)
I do feel that, whilst it is bad to encourage begging, I will not send away a beggar without offering him work and food. If he will not work, I should let him go without food. Those who are physically disabled like the halt and the maimed have got to be supported by the State.There is, however, a lot of fraud going on under cover of pretended blindness or even genuine blindness. So many blind have become rich because of ill-gotten gains. It would be a good thing if they were taken to an asylum, rather than be exposed to his temptation. (H, 11-5-1935, p. 99)
Dependence on ServantsI hold that a man who desires the co-operation of and wishes of co-operate with others should not be dependent on servants. If anyone has to have one at a time of scarcity of servants, he will have to pay what is demanded and accept all other conditions with the result that he will instead of being master, become the servant of his employee. This is good for neither the master nor the servant.
But if what an individual seeks is not slavery, but the co-operation of a fellow-being, he will not only serve himself but also him whose co-operation he needs. Through the extension of this principle, a man's family will become co-terminus with the world and his attitude towards his fellow-beings will also undergo a corresponding change. There is no other way of reaching the desired consummation. (H, 10-3-1946, p. 40)
God of the PoorDARIDRANARAYAN IS one of the millions of names by which humanity knows God who is unnamable and unfathomable by human understanding, and it means God of the poor, God appearing in the hearts of the poor. (YI, 4-4-1929, p. 110)
For the poor the economic is the spiritual. You cannot make any other appeal to those starving millions. It will fall flat on them. But you take food to them and they will regard you as their God. They are incapable of any other thought. (YI, 5-5-1927, p. 142)
With this very hand I have collected soiled pies from them, and tied tightly in their rags. Talk to them of modern progress. Insult them by taking the name of God before them in vain. They will call you and me friends if we talk about God to them. They know if they know any God at all, a God of terror, vengeance, a pitiless tyrant. (YI, 15-9-1927, p. 313)
I am working for winning Swaraj...for those soiling and unemployed millions who do not get even a square meal a day and have to scratch along with a piece of stale roti and a pinch of salt. (YI, 26-3-1931, p. 53)
Message of GodI dare not take before them the message of God. I may as well place before the dog over there the message of God as before those hungry millions, who have no luster in their eyes and whose only God is their bread. I can take before them a message of God only by taking the message of sacred work before them.
It is good enough to talk of God whilst we are sitting here after a nice breakfast and looking forward to a nicer luncheon. But how am I to talk of God to the millions who have to go without two meals a day? To them God can only appear as bread and butter. Well, the peasants of India were getting their bread from their soil. I offered them the spinning wheel in order that they may get butter and, if I appear today...in my loin-cloth, it is because I come as the sole representative of those half-starved, half-naked dumb millions. (YI, 15-10-1931, p. 310)
I claim to know my millions. All the 24 hours of the day I am with them. They are my first care and last because I recognize no God except that God that is to be found in the hearts of the dumb millions. They do not recognize His presence; I do. And I worship the God that is Truth or Truth which is God through the service of these millions. (H, 11-3-1939, p. 44)

SARVODAYA

Unity of Man I DO not believe...that an individual may gain spiritually and those who surround him suffer. I believe in advaita, I believe in the essential unity of man and, for that matter, of all that life's. Therefore, I believe that if one man gains spiritually, the whole world gains with him and, if one man falls, the whole world falls to that extent. (YI, 4-12-1924, p. 398)
I do not believe that the spiritual law works on a field of its own. On the contrary, it expresses itself only through the ordinary activities of life. It thus affects the economic, the social and the political fields. (YI, 3-9-1925, p. 304)
If we would serve Him or become one with Him, our activity must be as unwearied as His. There may be momentary rest in store for the drop which is separated from the ocean, but not for the drop in the ocean, which knows no rest. The same is the case with ourselves.
As soon as we become one with the ocean in the shape of God, there is no more rest for us, nor indeed do we need rest any longer. Our very sleep is action. For we sleep with the thought of God in our hearts. This restlessness constitutes true rest. This never-ceasing agitation holds the key to peace ineffable. This supreme state of total surrender is difficult to describe, but not beyond the bounds of human experience. It has been attained by many dedicated souls, and may be attained by ourselves as well. (FYM, p. 47)
Identification with PoorI cannot imagine anything nobler or more national than that for, say, one hour in the day, we should all do the labour that the poor must do, and thus identify ourselves with them and through them with all mankind. I cannot imagine better worship of God than that, in His name, I should labour for the poor even as they do. (YI, 20-10-1921, p. 329)
God demands nothing less than self-surrender as the price for the only real freedom that is worth having. And when a man thus loses himself, he immediately finds himself in the service of God's creation. (YI, 20-12-1928, p. 420)
All our activity should be centered in Truth. Truth should be the very breath of our life. When once this stage in the pilgrim's progress is reached, all other rules of correct living will come without effort, and obedience to them will be instinctive. But without Truth it is impossible to observe any principles or rules in life. (FYM, p. 2)
Faith in ProvidenceA seeker after Truth, a follower of the Law of Love, cannot hold anything against tomorrow. God never provides for the morrow; He never creates more than what is strictly needed from day to day. If, therefore, we repose faith in His Providence, we should rest assured that He will give us every day our daily bread, supplying enough that we require. (YI, 4-9-1930, p. 1)
Service of ManMan's ultimate aim is the realization of God, and all his activities, social, political, religious, have to be guided by the ultimate aim of the vision of God. The immediate service of all human beings becomes a necessary part of the endeavour simply because the only way to find God is to see Him in His creation and be one with it. This can only be done by service of all. I am a part and parcel of the whole and I cannot find Him apart from the rest of humanity.
My countrymen are my nearest neighbours. They have become so helpless, so resourceless, so inert that I must concentrate myself on serving them. If I could persuade myself that I could find Him in a Himalayan cave, I would proceed there immediately. But I know that I cannot find Him apart from humanity. (H, 29-8-1936, p. 226)
My God is myriad-formed and, while sometimes I see Him in the spinning-wheel, at other times I see Him in communal unity; then again in the removal of untouchability and that is how I establish communion with Him according as the spirit moves me. (H, 8-5-1937, p. 99)
Charkha a MeansHe who spins before the poor, inviting them to do likewise, serves God as no one else does. 'He who gives me even a trifle as a fruit or a flower or even a leaf in the spirit of bhakti is my servant', says the Lord in the Bhagavadgita.
And He hath His footstool where live the humble, the lowliest and the lost. Spinning, therefore, for such is the greatest prayer, the greatest worship, the greatest sacrifice. (YI, 24-9-1925, pp. 331-2)
The world is weary of the after-effects of the War. Even as the Charkha is India's comforter today, it may be the world's tomorrow, because it stands, not for the greatest good of the greatest number, but for the greatest good of all. (YI, 10-2-1927, pp. 43-44)
I stand by what is implied in the phrase, 'Unto This Last'. That book marked the turning in my life. We must do even unto this last as we would have the world do by us. All must have equal opportunity. Given the opportunity, every human being has the same possibility for spiritual growth. That is what the spinning wheelsymbolizes. (H, 17-11-1946, p. 404)
Self-purificationIdentification with everything that lives is impossible without self-purification; without self-purification the observance of the law of ahimsa must remain an empty dream; God can never be realized by one who is not pure of heart. Self-purification, therefore, must mean purification in all the walks of life. And purification being highly infectious, purification of oneself necessarily leads to the purification of one's surroundings.
But the path of purification is hard and steep. To attain to perfect purity one has to become absolutely passion-free in thought, speech and action; to rise above the opposing currents of love and hatred, attachment and repulsion. I know that I have not in me as yet that triple purity, in spite of constant ceaseless striving for it. That is why the world's praise fails to move me, indeed, it very often stings me.
To conquer the subtle passions seems to me to be harder far than the physical conquest of the world by the force of arms.
...I have had experiences of the dormant passions lying hidden within me. The knowledge of them has made me feel humiliated, though not defeated. The experiences and experiments have sustained me and given me great joy. But I know that I have still before me a difficult path to traverse. I must reduce myself to zero. So long as a man does not of his own free will put himself last among his fellow-creatures, there is no salvation for him. Ahimsa is the farthest limit of humility. (A, p. 371)
Ends and MeansMeans and ends are convertible terms in my philosophy of life. (YI, 26-12-1946, p. 424)
The means may be likened to a seed, the end to a tree; and there is just the same inviolable connection between the means and the end as there is between the seed and the tree. (HS, p. 71)
No SeparationThey say, 'means are after all means'. I would say, 'means are after all everything'. As the means so the end.... There is no wall of separation between the means and the end. Indeed, the Creator has given us control (and that, too, very limited) over means, none over the end. Realization of the goal is in exact proportion to that of the means. This is a proposition that admits of no exception. (YI, 17-7-1924, p. 236-7)
Providence has its appointed hour for everything. We cannot command results; we can only strive. And so far as I am concerned, it is enough satisfaction for me to know that I have striven my utmost to discharge the duty that rested on me. (H, 6-5-1939, p. 112)
Rights and DutiesThe true source of rights is duty. If we all discharge our duties, rights will not be far to seek. If leaving duties unperformed we run after rights, they will escape us like a will-o'-the-wisp. The more we pursue them, the farther will they fly. The same teaching has been embodied by Krishna in the immortal words: 'Action alone is thine. Leave thou the fruit severely alone.' Action is duty; fruit is the right. (YI, 8-1-1925, pp.15-16)
Rights accrue automatically to him who duly performs his duties. In fact, the right to perform one's duties is the only right that is worth living for the dying for. It covers all legitimate rights. All the rest is grab under one guise or another and contains in it seeds of himsa.The capitalist and the zamindar talk of their rights, the labourer on the other hand of his, the prince of his divine right to rule, the ryot of his to resist it. If all simply insist on rights and no duties, there will be utter confusion and chaos. (H, 27-5-1939, p. 143)
If, instead of insisting on rights, everyone does his duty, there will immediately be the rule of order established among mankind....I venture to suggest that rights that do not flow directly from duty well performed are not worth having. They will be usurpations, sooner discarded the better. A wretched parent who claims obedience from his children without first doing his duty by them excites nothing but contempt.
It is distortion of religious precepts for a dissolute husband to expect compliance in every respect from his dutiful wife. But the children who flout their parent who is ever ready to do his duty towards them would be considered ungrateful and would harm themselves more than their parent. The same can be said about husband and wife.
If you apply this simple and universal rule to employers and labourers, landlords and tenants, the princes and their subjects or the Hindus and the Muslims, you will find that the happiest relations can be established in all walks of life without creating disturbances in and dislocation of life and business which you see in India as in other parts of the world. What I call the law of Satyagraha is to be deduced from an appreciation of duties and the rights flowing therefore. (H, 6-7-1947, p. 217)
Meaning of YajnaYAJNA MEANS an act directed to the welfare of others, done without desiring any return for it, whether of a temporal or spiritual nature. 'Act' here must be taken in its widest sense, and includes thought and word, as well as deed. 'Others" embraces not only humanity, but all life....Again, a primary sacrifice must be an act which conduces the most to the welfare of the greatest number in the widest area, and which can be performed by the largest number of men and women with the least trouble. It will not, therefore, be a yajna, much less a mahayajna, to wish or to do ill to anyone else, even in the order to serve a so-called higher interest. And the Gita teaches and experience testifies that all action that cannot come under the category of yajna promotes bondage.The world cannot subsist for a single moment without yajna in this sense, and therefore, the Gita, after having dealt with true wisdom in the second chapter, takes up in the third the means of attaining it, and declares in so many words that yajna came with the Creation itself. This body, therefore, has been given us only in order that we may serve all Creation with it. And therefore, says the Gita, he who eats without offering yajna eats stolen food. Every single act of one who would lead a life of purity should be in the nature of yajna.Yajna having come to us with our birth, we are debtors all our lives, and thus for ever bound to serve the universe. And even as a bond slave receives food, clothing and so on from the master whom he serves, so should we gratefully accept such gifts as may be assigned to us by the Lord of the universe. What we receive must be called a gift; for as debtors we are entitled to no consideration for the discharge of our obligations. Therefore, we may not blame the Master, if we fail to get it. Our body is His to be cherished or cast away according to His will.This is not a matter for complaint or even pity; on the contrary, it is a natural and even a pleasant and desirable state if only we realize our proper place in God's scheme. We do, indeed, need strong faith if we would experience this supreme bliss. "Do not worry in the least about yourself, leave all worry to God,"- this appears to be the commandment in all religions.This need not frighten anyone. He who devotes himself to service with a clear conscience will day by day grasp the necessity for it in greater measure, and will continually grow richer in faith. The path of service can hardly be trodden by one who is not prepared to renounce self-interest, and to recognize the conditions of his birth. Consciously or unconsciously, every one of us does render some service or other. If we cultivate the habit of doing this service deliberately, our desire for service will steadily grow stronger, and will make not only for our own happiness, but that of the world at large. (FYM, pp. 53-56)
Yajna in PracticeYajna is duty to be performed, or service to be rendered, all the twenty-four hours of the day....To serve without desire is to favour not others, but ourselves, even as in discharging a debt we serve only ourselves, lighten our burden and fulfill our duty. Again, not only the good, but all of us are bound to place our resources at the disposal of humanity. And if such is the law, as evidently it is, indulgence cease to hold a place in life and gives way to renunciation. The duty of renunciation differentiates mankind from the beast....But renunciation here does not means abandoning the world and retiring into the forest. The spirit of renunciation should rule all the activities of life. A householder does not cease to be one if he regards life as a dirty rather than as an indulgence. A merchant, who operates in the sacrificial spirit, will have cores passing through his hands, but he will, if he follows the law, use his abilities for service. He will, therefore, not cheat or speculate, will lead a simple life, will not injure a living soul and will lose millions rather than harm anybody.Let no one run away with the idea that this type of merchant exists only in my imagination. Fortunately for the world, it does exist in the West as well as in the East. It is true such merchants may be counted on one's finger's ends, but the type cease to be imaginary as soon as even one living specimen can be found to answer to it....And if we go deeply into the matter, we shall come across men in every walk of life who lead dedicated lives. No doubt these sacrifices obtain their livelihood by their work. But livelihood is not their objective, but only a by-product of their vocation....A life of sacrifice is the pinnacle of art, and is full of true joy. Yajna is not yajna if one feels is to be burdensome or annoying. Self-indulgence leads to destruction, and renunciation to immortality. Joy has no independent existence. It depends upon our attitude of life. One man will enjoy theatrical scenery, another the ever-new scenes which unfold themselves in the sky. Joy, therefore, is a matter of individual and national education. We shall delight in things which we have been taught to delight in as children. And illustrations can be easily cited of different national tastes....
Voluntary ServiceOne who would serve will not waste a thought upon his own comforts, which he leaves to be attended to or neglected by his Master on high. He will not, therefore, encumber himself with everything that comes his way; he will take only what he strictly needs and leave the rest. He will be calm, free from anger and unruffled in mind even if he finds himself inconvenienced. His service, like virtue, is its own reward, and he will rest content with it.Again, one dare not be negligent in service, or be behindhand with it. He who thinks that he must be diligent only in his personal business, and unpaid public business may be done in any way and at any time he chooses, has still to learn the very rudiments of the science of sacrifice. Voluntary service of others demands the best of which one is capable, and must take precedence over service of self. In fact, the pure devotee consecrates himself to the service of humanity without any reservation whatever. (ibid, pp. 57-60)
IT IS my firm belief that Europe today represents not the spirit of God or Christianity but the spirit of Satan. And Satan's successes are the greatest when he appears with the name of God on his lips. Europe is today only nominally Christian. In reality, it is worshipping Mammon. (YI, 8-9-1920, pp. 2-3)
I am not aiming at destroying railways or hospitals, though I would certainly welcome their natural destruction. Neither railways nor hospitals are a test of a high and pure civilization. At best they are a necessary evil. Neither adds one inch to the moral stature of a nation.
Nor am I aiming at a permanent destruction of law courts, much as I regard it as a 'consummation devoutly to be wished'. Still less am I trying to destroy all machinery and mills. It requires a higher simplicity and renunciation than the people are today prepared for. (YI, 26-1-1921, p. 27)
Status of SoulI do want growth, I do want self, determination, I do want freedom, but I want all these for the soul. I doubt if the steel age is an advance upon the flint age. I am indifferent. It is the evolution of the soul to which the intellect and all our faculties have to be devoted. (YI, 13-10-1921, p. 325)
India's WayI would have our leaders teach us to be morally supreme in the world. This land of ours was once, we are told, the abode of the gods. It is not possible to conceive gods inhabiting a land which is made hideous by the smoke and the din of mill chimneys and factories and whose roadways are traversed by rushing engines, dragging numerous cars crowded with men who know not for the most part what they are after, who are often absentminded, and whose tempers do not improve by being uncomfortably packed like sardines in boxes and finding themselves in the midst of utter strangers who would oust them if they could and whom they would, in their turn, oust similarly. I refer to these things because they are held to be symbolical of material progress. But they add not an atom to our happiness. (SW, pp. 354-5)
Modern CivilizationFormerly, when people wanted to fight with one another, they measured between them their bodily strength; now, it is possible to take away thousands of lives by one man working behind a gun from a hill. This is civilization. Formerly, men worked in open air only as much as they liked. Now thousands of workmen meet together and, for the sake of maintenance, work in factories or mines. Their condition is worse than that of beasts. They are obliged to work, at the risk of their lives, at most dangerous occupations, for the sake of millionaires....This civilization is such that one has only to be patient and it will be self-destroyed. (HS, pp. 36-37)
Is the world any the better for quick instruments of locomotion? How do these instruments advance man's spiritual progress? Do they not in the last resort hamper it? And is there any limit to man's ambition? Once we were satisfied with traveling a few miles an hour; today we want to negotiate hundreds of miles an hour; one day we might desire to fly through space. What will be the result? Chaos. (YI, 21-1-1926, p. 31)
I wholeheartedly detest this mad desire to destroy distance and time, to increase animal appetites and go to the ends of the earth in search of their satisfaction. If modern civilization stands for all this, and I have understood it to do so, I call it satanic.... (YI, 17-3-1927, p. 85)
Nemesis of IndustrializationThis industrially civilization is a disease because it is all evil. Let us not be deceived by catchwords and phrases. I have no quarrel with steamships or telegraphs. They may stay, if they can, without the support of industrialism and all that it connotes. They are not an end. We must not suffer exploitation for the sake of steamships and telegraphs. They are in no way indispensable for the permanent welfare of the human race. Now that we know the use of steam and electricity, we should be able to use them on due occasion and after we have learnt to avoid industrialism. Our concern is, therefore, to destroy industrialism at any cost. (YI, 7-10-1926, p. 348)
A time is coming when those, who are in the mad rush today of multiplying their wants, vainly thinking that they add to the real substance, real knowledge of the world, will retrace their steps and say: 'What have we done?'Civilizations have come and gone, and in spite of all our vaunted progress, I am tempted to ask again and again, 'To what purpose?' Wallace, a contemporary of Darwin, has said the same thing. Fifty years of brilliant inventions and discoveries, he has said, have not added one inch to the moral height of mankind. So said a dreamer and visionary if you will--Tolstoy. So said Jesus, and the Buddha, and Mahomed, whose religion is being denied and falsified in my own country today.
God and MammonBy all means drink deep of the fountains that are given to you in the Sermon on the Mount, but then you will have to take sackcloth and ashes. The teaching of the Sermon was meant for each and every one of us. You cannot serve both God and Mammon. God the Compassionate and the Merciful, Tolerance incarnate, allows Mammon to have his nine day's wonder. But I say to you...fly from that self-destroying but destructive show of Mammon. (YI, 8-12-1927, p. 414)
I would destroy the system today, if I had the power. I would use the most deadly weapons, if I believed that they would destroy it. I refrain only because the use of such weapons would only perpetuate the system though it may destroy its present administrators. (YI, 17-3-1927, p. 85)
The WestI am humble enough to admit that there is much that we can profitably assimilate from the West. Wisdom is no monopoly of one continent or one race. My resistance to Western civilization is really a resistance to its indiscriminate and thoughtless imitation based on the assumption that Asiatics are fit only to copy everything that comes from the West.I do believe, that if India has patience enough to go through the fire of suffering and to resist any unlawful encroachment upon her own civilization which, imperfect though it undoubtedly is, has hitherto stood the ravages of time, she can make a lasting contribution to the peace and solid progress of the world. (YI, 11-8-1927, p. 253)
SocialismReal socialism has been handed down to us by our ancestors who taught: ‘All land belongs to Gopal, where then is the boundary line? Man is the maker of that line and he can therefore unmake it.’ Gopal literally means shepherd; it also means God. In modern language it means the State, i.e., the People. That the land today does not belong to the people is too true. But the fault is not in the teaching. It is in us who have not lived up to it. I have no doubt that we can make as good an approach to it as is possible for any nation, not excluding Russia, and that without violence. (H, 2-1-1937, p. 375)
No man should have more land than he needs for dignified sustenance. Who can dispute the fact that the grinding poverty of the masses is due to their having no land that they can call their own? (H, 20-4-1940, p. 97)
Western SocialismI have been a sympathetic student of the Western social order and I have discovered that, underlying the fever that fills the soul of the West, there is a restless search for truth. I value that spirit. Let us study our Eastern institutions in that spirit of scientific inquiry and we shall evolve a truer socialism and a truer communism than the world has yet dreamed of. It is surely wrong to presume that Western socialism or communism is the last word on the question of mass poverty. (ABP, 3-8-1934)
Socialism was not born with the discovery of the misuse of capital by capitalists. As I have contended, socialism, even communism, is explicit in the first verse of Ishopanishad. What is true is that when some reformers lost faith in the method of conversion, the technique of what is known as scientific socialism was born. I am engaged in solving the same problem that faces scientific socialists.
It is true, however, that my approach is always and only through unadulterated non-violence. I may fail. If it does, it will be because of my ignorance of the technique of non-violence. I may be a bad exponent of the doctrine in which my faith is daily increasing. (H, 20-2-1937, p. 12)
My SocialismI have claimed that I was a socialist long before those I know in India had avowed their creed. But my socialism was natural to me and not adopted from any books. It came out of my unshakable belief in non-violence. No man could be actively non-violent and not rise against social injustice, no matter where it occurred. Unfortunately, Western socialists have, so far as I know, believed in the necessity of violence for enforcing socialistic doctrines.
I have always held that social justice, even unto the least and the lowliest, is impossible of attainment by force. I have further believed that it is possible by proper training of the lowliest by non-violent means to secure redress of the wrongs suffered by them. That means non-violent non-co-operation. (H, 20-4-1940, p. 97)
Whilst I have the greatest admiration for the self-denial and spirit of sacrifice of our Socialists friends, I have never concealed the sharp difference between their method and mine. They frankly believe in violence and all that is in its bosom. I believe in non-violence through and through….
My socialism means ‘even unto this last’. I do not want to rise on the ashes of the blind, the deaf and the dumb. In their (i.e., Indian) socialism, probably these have no place. Their one aim is material progress.
For instance, America aims at having a car for every citizen. I do not. I want freedom for full expression of my personality. I must be free to build a staircase to Sirius if I want to. That does not mean that I want to do any such thing. Under the other socialism, there is no individual freedom. You own nothing, not even your body. (H, 4-8-1946, p. 246)
Equality in SocialismSocialism is a beautiful word and, so far as I am aware, in socialism all the members of society are equal—none low, none high. In the individual body, the head is not high because it is the top of the body, nor are the soles of the feet low because they touch the earth. Even as members of the individual body are equal, so are the members of society. This is socialism.
In it the prince and the peasant, the wealthy and the poor, the employer and employee are all on the same level. In terms of religion there is no duality in socialism. It is all unity.Looking at society all the world over, there is nothing but duality or plurality. Unity is conspicuous by its absence. This man is high, that one is low, that is a Hindu, that a Muslim, third a Christian, fourth a Parsi, fifth a Sikh, sixth a Jew. Even among these there are sub-divisions. In the unity of my conception there is perfect unity in the plurality of designs.
In order to reach this state we may not look on things philosophically and say that we need not make a move until all are converted to socialism. Without changing our life, we may go on giving addresses, forming parties and, hawk-like, seize the game when it comes our way. This is no socialism. The more we treat it as game to be seized, the further it must recede from us.
The MeansSocialism begins with the first convert. If there is one such, you can add zeros to the one and the first zero will count for ten and every addition will count for ten times the previous number. If, however, the beginner is zero in other words, no one makes the beginning, multiplicity of zeros will also produce zero value. Time and paper and occupied in writing zeros will be so much waste.
This socialism is as pure as crystal. It, therefore, requires crystal-like means to achieve it. Impure means result in an impure end. Hence the prince and the peasant will not be equalized by cutting off the prince’s head, nor can the process of cutting off equalize the employer and the employed.
One cannot reach truth by untruthfulness. Truthful conduct alone can reach truth. Are not non-violence and truth twins? The answer is an emphatic ‘no’. Non-violence is embedded in truth and vice versa. Hence has it been said that they are faces of the same coin. Either is inseparable from the other. Read the coin either way. The spelling of words will be different. The value is the same.
This blessed state is unattainable without perfect purity. Harbour impurity of mind or body and you have untruth and violence in you.
Therefore, only truthful, non-violent and pure-hearted socialists will be able to establish a socialistic society in India and the world. To my knowledge there is no country in the world, which is purely socialistic. Without the means described above, the existence of such a society is impossible. (H, 13-7-1946, p. 232)
The Socialists and Communists say they can do nothing to bring about economic equality today. They will just carry on propaganda in its favour and to that end they believe in generating and accentuating hatred. They say, ‘When they get control over the State, they will enforce equality. ’
…I claim to be a foremost Communist although I make use of cars and other facilities offered to me by the rich. They have no hold on me and I can shed them at a moment’s notice, if the interests of the masses demand it. (H, 31-3-1946, p. 64)
By EducationBut it must be realized that the reform cannot be rushed. If it is to be brought about by non-violent means, it can only be done by education both of the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’. The former should be assured that there never would be force used against them. The ‘have-nots’ must be educated to know that no one can really compel them to do anything against their will, and that they can secure their freedom by learning the art of non-violence, i.e., self-suffering.
If the end in view is to be achieved, the education I have adumbrated has to be commenced now. An atmosphere of mutual respect and trust has to be established as the preliminary step. There can then be no violent conflict between the classes and the masses. (H, 20-4-1940, p. 97)
Faith in GodTruth and ahimsa must incarnate in socialism. In order that they can, the votary must have a living faith in God. Mere mechanical adherence to truth and ahimsa is likely to break down at the critical moment. Hence I have said that Truth is God.
This God is a living Force. Our life is of that Force. That Force resides in but is not the body. He who denies the existence of that great Force denies to himself the use of that inexhaustible Power and thus remains impotent. He is like a rudderless ship which, tossed about here and there, perishes without making any headway. The socialism of such takes them nowhere, what to say of the society in which they live.If such be the case, does it mean that no socialist believes in God? If there be any, why have they not made any visible progress? Then, again, many godly persons have lived before now; why have they not succeeded in founding a socialistic state?It is difficult completely to silence these two doubts. Nevertheless, it is possible to say that it has perhaps never occurred to a believing socialist that there is any connection between his socialism and belief in God. It is equally safe to say that godly men as a rule never commended socialism to the masses.
Superstitions have flourished in world in spite of godly men and women. In Hinduism itself untouchability has, till of late, held undoubted sway.
The fact is that it has always been a matter of strenuous research to know this great Force and its hidden possibilities.
Satyagraha Sure MethodMy claim is that in the pursuit of that search lies the discovery of Satyagraha. It is not, claimed that all the laws of Satyagraha have been laid down or found. This I do say, fearlessly and firmly, that every worthy object can be achieved by the use of Satyagraha. It is the highest and infallible means, the greatest force. Socialism will not be reached by any other means. Satyagraha can rid society of all evils, political, economic and moral. (H, 20-7-1947, p. 240)
I believe in private enterprise and also in planned production. If you have only State production, men will become moral and intellectual paupers. They will forget their responsibilities. I would therefore allow the capitalist and zamindar to keep their factory and their land, but I would make them consider themselves trustees of their property. (ibid, p. 12)
TRUSTEESHIP
Leveling Up, DownEconomic equality is the master key to nonviolent independence. Working for economic equality means abolishing the eternal conflict between capital and labour. It means the leveling down of the few rich in whose hands is concentrated the bulk of the nation’s wealth on the one hand, and the leveling up of the semi-starved naked millions on the other.
A nonviolent system of government is clearly an impossibility, so long as the wide gulf between the rich and the hungry millions persists. The contrast between the palaces of New Delhi and the miserable hovels of the poor, labouring class nearby cannot last one day in a free India in which the poor will enjoy the same power as the richest in the land.A violent and bloody revolution is a certainty one day unless there is a voluntary abdication of riches and the power that riches give and sharing them for the common good. (CP, pp. 20-21)
I adhere to my doctrine of trusteeship in spite of the ridicule that has been poured upon it. It is true that it is difficult to reach. So is non-violence. But we made up our minds in 1920 to negotiate that steep ascent. We have found it worth the effort. (ibid, p. 21)
Non-violent WayBy the non-violent method, we seek not to destroy the capitalist, we seek to destroy capitalism. We invite the capitalist to regard himself as a trustee for those on whom he depends for the making, the retention and the increase of his capital. Nor need the worker wait for his conversion. If capital is power, so is work. Either is dependent on the other. Immediately the worker realizes his strength, he is din a position to become a co-sharer with the capitalist instead of remaining his slave.
If he aims at becoming the sole owner, he will most likely be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.Not need I be afraid of some one else taking my place when I have non-co-operated. For I expect to influence my co-workers so as not to help the wrong-doing of my employer. This kind of education of the mass of workers is no doubt a slow process, but as it is also the surest, it is necessarily the quickest. It can be easily demonstrated in the end of the worker and as no human being is so bad as to be beyond redemption, no human being is so perfect as to warrant his destroying him whom he wrongly considers to be wholly evil. (YI, 26-3-1931, p. 49)
Community WelfareI am inviting those people who consider themselves as owners today to act as trustees, i.e., owners, not in their own right, but owners in the right of those whom they have exploited. (YI, 26-11-1931, p. 369)
It has become the fashion these days to say that society cannot be organized or run on non-violent lines. I join issue on that point. In a family, when the father slaps his delinquent child, the latter does not think of retaliating. He obeys his father not because of the deterrent effect of the slap but because of the offended love which he senses behind it. That, in my opinion, is an epitome of the way in which society is or should be governed. What is true of the family must be true of society which is but a larger family. (H, 3-12-1938, p. 358)
Supposing I have come by a fair amount of wealth—either by way of legacy, or by means of trade and industry—I must know that all that wealth does not belong to me; what belongs to me is the right to an honourable livelihood, no better than that enjoyed by millions of others. The rest of my wealth belongs to the community and must be used for the welfare of the community.I enunciated this theory when the socialist theory was placed before the country in respect to the possessions held by zamindars and ruling chiefs. They would do away with these privileged classes. I want them to outgrow their greed and sense of possession, and to come down in spite of their wealth to the level of those who earn their bread by labour. The labourer has to realize that the wealthy man is less owner of his wealth than the labourer is owner of his own, viz., the power to work.
In PracticeThe question how many can be real trustees according to this definition is beside the point. If the theory is true, it is immaterial whether many live up to it or only one man lives up to it. The question is of conviction. If you accept the principle of ahimsa, you have to strive to live up to it, no matter whether you succeed or fail. There is nothing in this theory which can be said to be beyond the grasp of intellect, though you may say it is difficult of practice. (H, 3-6-1939, p. 145)
I am not ashamed to own that many capitalists are friendly towards me and do not fear me. They know that I desire to end capitalism, almost, if not quite, as much as the most advanced Socialist or even Communist. But our methods differ, our languages differ.
No Make-shiftMy theory of ‘trusteeship’ is no make-shift, certainly no camouflage. I am confident that it will survive all other theories. It has the sanction of philosophy and religion behind it. That possessors of wealth have not acted up to the theory does not prove its falsity; it proves the weakness of the wealthy. No other theory is compatible with non-violence. In the non-violent method wrong-doer compasses his own end, if he does not undo the wrong. For, either through non-violent non-co-operation he is made to see the error, or he finds himself completely isolated. (H, 16-12-1939, p. 376)
Acquisition of WealthThose who own money now, are asked to behave like trustees holding their riches on behalf of the poor. You may say that trusteeship is a legal fiction. But if people meditate over it constantly and try to act up to it, then life on earth would be governed far more by love than it is at present. Absolute trusteeship is an abstraction like Euclid’s definition of a point, and is equally unattainable. But if we strive for it, we shall be able to go further in realizing state of equality on earth than by any other method. (MR, October 1935, p. 412)
It is my conviction that it is possible to acquire riches without consciously doing wrong. For example I may light on a gold mine in my one acre of land. But I accept the proposition that it is better not to desire wealth than to acquire it, and become its trustee. I gave up my own long ago, which should be proof enough of what I would like others to do. But what am I to advise those who are already wealthy or who would not shed the desire for wealth? I can only say to them that they should use their wealth for service.It is true that generally the rich spend more on themselves than they need. But this can be avoided. Jamnalalji spent far less on himself than men of his own economic status and even than many middle-class men. I have come across innumerable rich persons who are stingy on themselves. For some it is a part of their nature to spend next to nothing on themselves, and they do not think that they acquire merit in so doing.The same applies to the sons of the wealthy. Personally, I do not believe in inherited riches. The well-to-do should educate and bring up their children so that they may learn how to be independent. The tragedy is that they do not do so. Their children do get some education, they even recite verses in praise of poverty, but they have no compunction about helping themselves to parental wealth. That being so, I exercise my common sense and advise what is practicable.Those of us, however, who consider it a duty to adopt poverty and believe in and desire economic equality may not be jealous of the rich, but should exhibit real happiness in our poverty which others may emulate. The sad fact is that those who are thus happy are few and far between. (H, 8-3-1942, p. 67)
A trustee has no heir but the public. In a State built on the basis of non-violence, the commission of trustees will be regulated. Princes and zamindars will be on a par with the other men of wealth. (H, 12-4-1942, p. 116)
The ChoiceAs for the present owners of wealth, they will have to make their choice between class war and voluntarily converting themselves into trustees of their wealth. They will be allowed to retain the stewardship of their possessions and to use their talent, to increase the wealth, not for their own sakes, but for the sake of the nation and, therefore, without exploitation.The State will regulate the rate of commission, which they will get commensurate with the service rendered, and its value to society. Their children will inherit the stewardship only if they prove their fitness for it.Supposing India becomes a free country tomorrow, all the capitalists will have an opportunity of becoming statutory trustees. But such a statute will not be imposed from above. It will have to come from below.When the people understand the implications of trusteeship and the atmosphere is ripe for it, the people themselves, beginning with gram panchayats, will begin to introduce such statutes. Such a thing coming from below is easy to swallow. Coming from above it is liable to prove a dead weight. (H, 31-3-1946, pp. 63-64)
Zamindars, KisansI am quite prepared to say for the sake of argument that the Zamindars are guilty of many crimes and of omissions and commissions. But that is no reason for the peasant and the labourer who are the salt of the earth to copy crime. If salt loses its savour, wherewith can it be salted?…To the landlords I say that, if what is said against you is true, I will warn you that your days are numbered. You can no longer continue as lords and masters. You have a bright future if you become trustees of the poor Kisans. I have in mind not trustees in name but in reality. Such trustees will take nothing for themselves that their labour and care do not entitle them to. They then will find that no law will be able to reach them. The Kisans will be their friends. (H, 4-5-1947, p. 134)
If the Zamindars really become the trustees of their Zamindari for the sake of the ryots, there never could be an unholy league [between the two]. There is the difficult Zamindari question awaiting solution…. What one would love to see is proper, impartial and satisfactory understanding between the Zamindars, big and small, the ryots and the Governments, so that when the law is passed, it may not be a dead letter nor need force be used against the Zamindars or the ryots. Would that all changes, some of which must be radical, take place throughout India without bloodshed and without force! (H, 21-9-1947, p. 332)
Practical Trusteeship Formula Trusteeship provides a means of transforming the present capitalist order of society into an egalitarian one. It gives no quarter to capitalism, but gives the present owning class a chance of reforming itself. It is based on the faith that human nature is never beyond redemption.It does not recognize any right of private ownership of property except so far as it may be permitted by society for its own welfare.It does not exclude legislative regulation of the ownership and use of wealth.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 interests of society.Just as it is proposed to fix a decent minimum living wage, even so a limit should be fixed for the maximum income that would be allowed to any person in society. The difference between such minimum and maximum incomes should be reasonable and equitable and variable from time to time so much so that the tendency would be towards obliteration of the difference.Under the Gandhian economic order the character of production will be determined by social necessity and not by personal whim or greed. (H, 25-10-1952, p. 301; the document, it is believed, was drafted by Prof. M. L. Dantwala)
Economic, EthicsI must confess that I do not draw a sharp or any distinction between economics and ethics. Economics that hurt the moral well-being of an individual or a nation are immoral and, therefore, sinful. Thus the economics that permit one country to prey upon another are immoral. It is sinful to buy and use articles made by sweated labour. (YI, 13-10-1921, p. 325)
The economics that disregard moral and sentimental considerations are like wax works that, being life-like, still lack the life of the living flesh. At every crucial moment thus new-fangled economic laws have broken down in practice. And nations or individuals who accept them as guiding maxims must perish. (YI, 27-10-1921, p. 344)
That economics is untrue which ignores or disregards moral values. The extension of the law of non-violence in the domain of economics means nothing less than the introduction of moral values as a factor to be considered in regulating international commerce. (YI, 26-10-1924, p.421)
Ideal EconomyAccording to me the economic constitution of India and, for the matter of that, the world should be such that no one under should suffer from want of food and clothing. In other words, everybody should be able to get sufficient work to enable him to make the two ends meet.
And this ideal can universally realized only if the means of production of the elementary necessaries of life remain in the control of the masses. These should be freely available to all as God’s air and water are or ought to be; they should not be made vehicle of traffic for the exploitation of others. This monopolization by any country, nation or group of persons would be unjust. The neglect of this simple principle is the cause of destitution that we witness today not only in this unhappy land but other parts of the world too. (YI, 15-11-1928, p. 381)
True economics never militates against the highest ethical standard, just as all true ethics to be worth its name must at the same time be also good economics. An economics that inculcates Mammon worship, and enables the strong to amass wealth at the expense of the weak, is a false and dismal science. It spells death. True economics, on the other hand, stands for social justice, it promotes the good of all equally including the weakest, and is indispensable for decent life. (H, 9-10-1937, p. 292)
If we will but cleanse our houses, our palaces and temples of the attributes of wealth and show in them the attributes of morality, we can offer battle to any combinations of hostile forces without having to carry the burden of a heavy militia. Let us seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and the irrevocable promise is that everything will be added unto us. These are real economics. May you and I treasure them and enforce them in our life! (SW, p. 355)
Minimum ViolenceStrictly speaking, no activity and no industry is possible without a certain amount of violence, no matter how little. Even the very process of living is impossible without a certain amount of violence. What we have to do is to minimize it to the greatest extent possible. Indeed the very word non-violence, a negative word, means that it is an effort to abandon the violence that is inevitable in life. Therefore, whoever believes in ahimsa will engage himself in occupations that involve the least possible violence.
Thus, for instance, one cannot conceive of a man believing in non-violence carrying on the occupation of a butcher. Not that a meat-eater cannot be non-violent… but even a meat-eater believing in non-violence will not go in for shikar, and he will not engage in war or war preparations. Thus there are many activities and occupations which necessarily involve violence and must be eschewed by a non-violent man.
But there is agriculture without which life is impossible, and which does involve a certain amount of violence. The determining factor therefore is—is the occupation founded on violence? But since all activity involves some measure of violence, all we have to do is to minimize the violence involved in it. This is not possible without a heart-belief in non-violence.
Suppose there is a man who does no actual violence, who labours for his bread, but who is always consumed with envy at other people’s wealth or prosperity. He is not non-violent. A non-violent occupation is thus that occupation, which is fundamentally free from violence and which, involves no exploitation or envy of others.
Rural EconomicsNow I have no historical proof, but I believe that there was a time in India when village economics were organized on the basis of such non-violent occupations, not on the basis of rights of man but on the duties of man. Those who engaged themselves in such occupations did earn their living, but their labour contributed to the good of the community….
Body labour was at the core of these occupations and industries, and there was no large-scale machinery. For when a man is content to own only so much land as he can till with his own labour, he cannot exploit others. Handicrafts exclude exploitation and slavery.Large-scale machinery concentrates wealth in the hands of one man who lords it over the rest who slave for him. For he may be trying to create ideal conditions for his workmen, but it is none the less exploitation which is a form of violence.
When I say that there was a time when society was based not on exploitation but on justice, I mean to suggest that truth and ahimsa were not virtues confined to individuals but were practiced by communities. To me virtue cease to have any value if it is cloistered or possible only for individuals. (H, 1-9-1940, pp. 271-2)
Inequalities in intelligence and even opportunity will last till the end of time. A man living on the banks of a river has any day more opportunity of growing crops than one living in an arid desert. But if inequalities stare us in the face, the essential equality too is not to be missed. (YI, 26-3-1931, p. 49)
My Idea of SocietyMy idea of society is that while we are born equal, meaning that we have a right to equal opportunities, 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.People with talents will have more, and they will utilize their talents for this purpose. If they utilize their talents kindly, they will be performing the work of the State. Such people exist as trustees, on no other terms.
I would allow a man of intellect to earn more, I would not cramp his talent. But the bulk of his greater earnings must be used for the good of the State, just as the income of all earning sons of the father go to the common family fund. They would have their earning only as trustees. (YI, 26-11-1931, p.368)
For I want to bring about an equalization of status. The working classes have all these centuries been isolated and relegated to a lower status. They have been shoodras, and the word has been interpreted to mean an inferior status. I want to allow no differentiation between the son of a weaver, of an agriculturist and of a schoolmaster. (H, 15-1-1938, p. 416)
Removal of DisparityEconomic equality of my conception does not mean that everyone will literally have the same amount. It simply means that everybody should have enough for his or her needs. …The real meaning of economic equality is "To each according to his need." That is the definition of Marx. If a single man demands as much as a man with wife and four children, that will be a violation of economic equality.
Let no one try to justify the glaring difference between the classes and the masses, the prince and the pauper, by saying that the former need more. That will be idle sophistry and a travesty of my argument.
The contrast between the rich and the poor today is a painful sight. The poor villagers are exploited by…their own countrymen-the city-dwellers. They produce the food and go hungry. They produce milk and their children have to go without it. It is disgraceful.Everyone must have a balanced diet, a decent house to live in, and facilities for the education of one's children and adequate medical relief….
Under my plan the State will be there to carry out the will of the people, not to dictate them or force them to do its will. I shall bring about economic equality through non-violence, by converting the people to my point of view by harnessing the forces of love as against hatred. I will not wait till I have converted the whole society to my view, but will straightaway make a beginning with myself. It goes without saying that I cannot hope to bring about economic equality of my conception if I am the owner of fifty motor cars or even of ten bighas of land. For that I have to reduce myself to the level of he poorest of the poor. (H, 31-3-1946, p. 63)
All must have equal opportunity. Given the opportunity, every human being has the same possibility for spiritual growth. (H, 17-11-1946, p. 404)
Accumulation [of capital] by private persons is impossible except through violent means, but accumulation by the State in a non-violent society is not only possible, it is desirable and inevitable. [No man has the] moral right ['to use any material or moral wealth accumulated only through the help or co-operation of other members of society mainly for personal advantage. (H, 16-2-1947, p. 25)
Today there is gross economic inequality. The basis of socialism is economic equality. There can be no Ramarajya in the present state of iniquitous inequalities in which a few rolls in riches and the masses do not get even enough to eat. (H, 1-6-1947, p. 172)
Doctrine of Equal DistributionWe want to organize our national power. This can be done not by adopting the best methods of production only but by the best method of both the production and the distribution. (YI, 28-7-1920, p. 5)
What India needs is not the concentration of capital in a few hands, but its distribution so as to be within easy reach of the 7 1/2 lakhs of villages that make this continent 1900 miles long and 1500 miles broad. (YI, 23-3-1921, p. 93)
My ideal is equal distribution, but so far as I can see, it is not to be realized. I therefore work for equitable distribution. (YI, 17-3-1927, p. 86)
The real implication of equal distribution is that each man shall have the wherewithal to supply all his natural needs and no more. For example, if one man has a weak digestion and requires only a quarter of a pound of flour for his bread and another needs a pound, both should be in a position to satisfy their wants.
New Social OrderTo bring this ideal into being the entire social order has got to be reconstructed. A society based on non-violence cannot nurture any other ideal. We may not perhaps be able to realize the goal, but we must bear it in mind and work unceasingly to near it.To the same extent as we progress towards our goal we shall contentment and happiness, and to that extent too shall we have contributed towards the bringing into being of a non-violent society.
It is perfectly possible for an individual to adopt this way of life without having to wait for others to do so. And if an individual can observe a certain rule of conduct, if follows that a group of individuals can do like wise. It is necessary for me to emphasize the fact that no one need wait for anyone else in order to adopt a right course. Men generally hesitate to make a beginning if they feel that the objective cannot be had in its entirety. Such an attitude of mind is in reality a bar to progress.
Through NonviolenceNow let us consider how equal distribution can be brought about through non-violence. The first step towards it for him who has made this ideal part of his being is to bring about the necessary changes in his personal life. He would reduce his wants to a minimum, bearing in mind the poverty of India. His earnings would be free of dishonesty. The desire for speculation would be renounced. His habitation would be in keeping with his new mode of life. There would be self-restraint exercised in every sphere of life. When he has done all that is possible to preach this ideal among his associates and neighbour.
Indeed, at the root of this doctrine of equal distribution must lie that of the trusteeship of the wealthy for superfluous wealth possessed by them. For according to the doctrine they may not possess a rupee more than their neighbours.
How is this to be brought about? Non-violently? Or should the wealthy be dispossessed of their possessions? To do this we would naturally have to resort to violence. This violent action cannot benefit society. Society will be the poorer, for it will lose the gifts of a man who knows how to accumulate wealth. Therefore the non-violent way is evidently superior. The rich man will be left in possession of his wealth, of which he will use what he reasonably requires for his personal needs and will act as a trustee for the remainder to be used for the society. In this argument, honesty on the part of the trustee is assumed.
Change in Human NatureAs soon as a man looks upon himself as a servant of society, earns for its sake, spends for its benefit, then purity enters into his earnings and there is ahimsa in his venture. Moreover, if men's minds turn towards this way of life, there will come about a peaceful revolution in society and that without any bitterness.It may be asked whether history at any time records such a change in human nature. Such changes have certainly taken place in individuals. One may not perhaps be able to point to them in a whole society. But this only means that up till now there has never been an experiment on a large scale on non-violence.
Applicability of AhimsaSomehow or other the wrong belief has taken possession of us that ahimsa is pre-eminently a weapon for individuals and its use should, therefore, be limited to that sphere. In fact this is not the case. Ahimsa is definitely an attribute of society. To convince people of this truth is at once my effort and my experiment.
In this age of wonders no one will say that a thing or idea is worthless because it is new. To say it is impossible because it is difficult is again not in consonance with the spirit of the age. Things undreamed of are daily being seen, the impossible is ever becoming possible. We are constantly being astonished these days at the amazing discoveries in the field of violence. But I maintain that far more undreamed of and seemingly impossible discoveries will be made in the field of non-violence. The history of religion is full of such examples….
If, however, in spite of the utmost effort, the rich do not become guardians of the poor in the true sense of the term and the latter are more and more crushed and die of hunger, what is to be done? In trying to find out the solution of this riddle, I have lighted on non-violent non-co-operation and civil disobedience as the right and infallible means. The rich cannot accumulate wealth without the co-operation of the poor in society.
Man has been conversant with violence from the beginning, for he has inherited this strength from the animal in his nature. It was only when he rose from the state of a quadruped (animal) to that of a biped (man) that the knowledge of the strength of ahimsa entered into his soul. This knowledge has grown within him slowly but surely. If this knowledge were to penetrated to and spread amongst the poor, they would become strong and would learn how to free themselves by means of non-violence from the crushing inequalities which have brought them to the verge of starvation. (H, 25-8-1940, pp. 260-1)

The Right to Property

It is time that someone wrote on the Dharmic ideas of the Right to Property and try to match and see whether the Right to Property as we know it has anything in common with the conception of Svatva , which is the Dharmic equivalent . This study has not been done yet . The study on the ideas of Indic / Bharatiya / Dharmic conceptions of property have been very sketchy . Surprisingly the only scholar to have done some work is the very famous legal Indologist Duncan Derett . I have just finished writing on the same and have sent the same for publication to an Indian Law Journal . I would be waiting for their reply . Till we all wait for the reply of the law journal I am enclosing excerpts of the article in random order . Hope I can entice you to read the entire article when it is published ....if it is published that is ...

Bharatiya Conception of Property and Accumulation and distribution of wealth.
The Bharatiya conception of property and the accumulation and distribution of wealth is by conception and therefore by definition not based on the idea of rights but on the conception of dharma[1] .The basis of the conception of property in Bharatiya society is therefore not a rigid and clear demarcation of claims belonging to an individual but is a sum total of societal and individual claims all of which need not be based on clear individual legal demarcation.[2]
The concept of “Svatva” which approximately translates as “Ownership”[3] is roughly equivalent to the Right to Property , the basis of which is traced back to the Vedas. There are broadly four methods of acquiring property , being (i) by purchase , (ii) by getting , (iii) by buying , and (iv) by exchange .[4] There also remains social norms and injunctions for the accumulation , use and disposition of wealth so gathered since the claim of svatva is not merely an individual claim but is dependent on social recognition , and subject to social control .
Interestingly , the state has very little to do in the area of recognising property . This is probably because the state does not enjoy the concept of being owner of all property in it’s lands or “eminent domain”, since Bharatiya jurisprudence specifically recognises that the king/state is only the owner of the lands which he/it owns privately or those lands which have not been granted to others , in other words , clearly showing that he/it has no claim on private lands. The king cannot even keep for himself what he has recovered from thieves and which does not belong to him [5].
In addition no claim on property is absolute and separate , equal and at times contradictory claims on the same piece of land / property are taken to be equally valid. All claims on property exist within a web of claims , each claim individually and independently valid and transactions can be done on the claims alone.[6]
Wealth is treated as a social and spiritual asset and though the individual can use various means of acquiring his wealth , but dharma puts in social guidelines so that the wealth is put to use both for social and spiritual upliftment of the individual and therefore for the entire society [7] . The disposition of wealth or gifting of wealth is an integral part of the reason of acquiring wealth . Dharma however recognises that not only must a gift be made , it must be made to the deserving i.e. gifting of wealth should serve a definite social and spiritual purpose.[8]
The conception of property and wealth as we know it today has been evolved in western civilisation through a complex process of transforming claims into clear legal entitlements [9].
Needless to say that these entitlement claims of property arose out of the relationships and the complexities of the western civilisation and it’s evolution . In India however , there has been no such process , we have applied western conceptions of law and property on Bharatiya society and have therefore left untouched the greater amount of claims which could be the basis of a true , practicable , equitable and indigenous market system.
Directly as a result of such a lopsided conception of property and the legal recognition of only westernised property , the westernised market system in India has not been able to transform rapid western style growth into genuine development . The system today has therefore resulted in making wealthy those who have the benefit of a western education and therefore capable of understanding western conceptions of property and simultaneously at a single stroke impoverish those who are genuinely wealthy but whose wealth is not recognised by western conceptions of property[10] . The present conception of property does not recognise the vast amount Bharatiya claims which must be recognised if we are to evolve a genuinely Bharatiya market system[11] .
The attempt to recognise Bharatiya conceptions of property has only been tangential and half hearted . The three most important being the recognition of the Hindu Undivided Family as a property holding unit[12] , the conception of “devotturs” [13]and the recognition that the one who tills the land has a claim on the land [14] .
Sadly the present property regime in India still does not recognise other genuine claims like the multifarious claims of villagers on common land , the complex claims of vanavasis on the use of forests and lands held jointly , the claims of the entire village on all properties of every individual in the said village .
[1] This means that acquisition of property is not merely temporal but to be accepted as valid it must conform to spiritual guidelines as well . Bharatiya conceptions recognise quite clearly that though property can be enjoyed which has not been acquired strictly in terms of the law , it cannot be called real property of the person concerned .Property therefore is not merely an individual right but a construction and part of social and spiritual order. Jaimini therefore classifies property in two types , one in accordance (niyama) and one not in accordance . : See : ; Derett ,JMD; Religion Law and State in India ; Oxford University Press , New Delhi ;1999 ; pg 131-132 .
[2] Importantly the conception of property recognises , anadhikarika dhana / asvamika dhana , or which no one has a claim on , which is impossible in western jurisprudence . It also recognises sadharana dhana or public property . Interestingly because of successive imposition of ideas of law which were completely foreign to Bharat , the idea of wealth not individually or properly owned has disappeared from legal theory , though they exist in practise all over India . The only place which recognises this concept of Dharmic ownership if one can call it that , is in Indonesia , where the Shariah law and Dutch law has been made subject to existing Dharmic conceptions of land tenureship and ownership through the process of recognising practise or Adat as a valid source of law both to regulate social practise as well as to regulate land and property ownership . More importantly Svatva is always balanced by the fact of Svatantra ( approximately independence or self governed ) , that is whether the person is individually and absolutely capable of dealing with the property and wealth . Bharatiya jurisprudence recognises that though you may have Svatva over a property or wealth , you may be subject to Paratantra ( subject to others ) , that is may be the king or the spiritual preceptor ( Guru) , may be the jati , or may be the head of the household , who alone are Svatantra ( independent ) that is to say the use to which you put your property has to be subject to social controls .
[3] Needless to reiterate that Svatva is not the same thing as Ownership . Ownership in western jurisprudence is a right of an individual entity or entities ( it may be a group of persons , but the law treats the said group like an individual for the purpose of owning property ) , but in Bharatiya thought Svatva is social , spiritual and exists within a web of interlinked claims which are all uniquely valid and absolute in their specific claim , yet existing with other claims , which are equally valid and absolute , for example , the right of the title holder , the tenure holder and the person who has access through the land , are all equally valid and absolute but they are all separate without being hierarchical In other words the king ( though Bharatiya law says that the king is not the ultimate owner of the property , the mulasvami / bhaumika ( the landholder ) , the mortgagee , the submortgagee , and the cultivator to whom the land is leased to be tilled , all their claims are of the same character , though different , without being hierarchical .Infact in Bharatiya jurisprudence the King was not owner of all the lands in his kingdom , he is taken to be the owner of those lands which he owns privately or those lands which have not been granted to anyone , i.e. those lands which belong to specified owners do not belong to the king . As Duncan Derrett notes in his now seminal article on “ The Development of the Concept of Property in India c. AD 800 to 1800 ” : “ The distinctive feature of Indian concept of property , therefore , is the capacity of svatva to exist in favour of several persons , simultaneously , not only identical adhikaras being shared as in co-owners , but especially where adhikaras are inconsistent or mutually exclusive” ; Derett ,JMD , “ The Development of the Concept of Property in India c. AD 800 -1800” ; Essays in Classical and Modern Hindu Law ; Brill ; Leiden , 1977 ; pg 93 .
[4] This is a distinction drawn by Patanjali commenting on Panini : Derett, JMD ; Religion Law and State in India ; Oxford University Press ; New Delhi ; 1999 ; pg 130 : However , Jaimini defers from the same by holding that acquisition of property and wealth can be because of purusartha ( to subserve individual ) , kratvartha ( to subserve sacrifice ) , and lipsa ( want ) – ibid , page 131-132 . Manu has a slightly different approach to the same : Olivelle , P ; Manu’s Code of Law : A critical Edition and Translation of the Manava Dharmasastra ; Oxford University Press ; New Delhi ; 2005 ; pg. 214.
[5] Olivelle , P ; Manu’s Code of Law : A critical Edition and Translation of the Manava Dharmasastra ; Oxford University Press ; New Delhi ; 2005 ;pg.169.
[6] Derett ,JMD , “ The Development of the Concept of Property in India c. AD 800 -1800” ; Essays in Classical and Modern Hindu Law ; Brill ; Leiden , 1977 ; pg 95.
[7] Therefore the entire spectrum of property and dealing of wealth is governed by Dhanarjana Niyama ( rules of acquisition of wealth ) , Dhana Viniyoga Niyama ( rules of putting wealth to use ) and Dhana Tyaga Niyama ( rules of giving wealth up ) , which are in the nature of injunctions which would result in the benefit of Dharma but are strictly not implimentable by the state : See : ; Derett ,JMD , “ The Development of the Concept of Property in India c. AD 800 -1800” ; Essays in Classical and Modern Hindu Law ; Brill ; Leiden , 1977 ; pg 43-50 .
[8] For an interesting and indicative read as to how and to who are worthy of gifting wealth. See Olivelle , P ; Manu’s Code of Law : A critical Edition and Translation of the Manava Dharmasastra ; Oxford University Press ; New Delhi ; 2005 ; pg. 135.
[9] It will be apparent that the law as we have inherited it from the British does not recognise various types of wealth and property specially properties which are held in common and properties and claims which strictly does not confirm to western conceptions of property , like tribal rights on forests . It must be added also that the struggle to recognise private property against the concept of “eminent domain” does not exist in India , simply because the concept of “eminent domain” is alien to the conceptions of property in Bharatiya thought. This holds true even today inspite of the fact that Bharatiya conceptions of property have not been legally recognised by the state in large parts of India for more than a thousand years. This has led to great conflict during the tenure of the British when land was being acquired for large projects , as well as during the present time when large swathes of land are being acquired by the state . Notably those who entertain claim on the land are not opposed to parting with their claim but are clearly resentful of state interference in that right . There has been attempts however to read in eminent domain specially by British scholars , but they go again the very grain of the jurisprudence : See : Kangle , R.P. ; The Kautilya Arthashastra ; Part III ; Motilal Banarasidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd. ; New Delhi ; 1965 ; pages 169-171.
[10] This was because of largely two factors (i) since large portions of the population were not very close to the British legal system , they were not aware as to what constitutes “property” and “wealth” in law , and therefore were not able to get the same recognised in law , and (ii) the British law did not recognise certain forms of holding of property and wealth which went against the British conception of private property , specially in relation to publicly held lands and entertaining claims recognising the absoluteness of other forms of land tenure amongst others .
[11] The British used their ideas of property and law and grafted them on India disregarding the background of the then existing systems : See : Guha , Ranajit ; Rule of Property for Bengal : An essay on the idea of Permanent Settlement ; Duke University Press ; Durham , North Carolina , USA ; 1996
[12] Bharatiya jurisprudence recognises three entities who are sovereigns ( svatantra ) , (i) the king / spiritual preceptor , (ii) jati ( or what we call caste ) and (iii) householder . Derett ,JMD , “ The Development of the Concept of Property in India c. AD 800 -1800” ; Essays in Classical and Modern Hindu Law ; Brill ; Leiden , 1977 ; pg 96 .The householder is the person who heads the household and for all purposes was the basis of the entire economy . The Indian legal regime post the British regime in it’s rush to make India a developed economy in western terms , focussed on the individual right to property rather than on the older Indic / Bharatiya economy . However the household was such an important constituent that they could not do away with it completely and had to acknowledge it’s existence in the Tax regime of the state .
[13] Devotturs or the land and or property held by deities was always acknowledged as a method of land and property holding . See : Kangle , R.P. ; The Kautilya Arthashastra ; Part III ; Motilal Banarasidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd. ; New Delhi ; 1965 ; pg. 157.
[14] The success of Operation Barga and land reform initiated by the communists were infact a recognition of the old methods of land holding , whereby the claim of the tenure holder was given statutory recognition . This lead to spectacular success of the land reforms initiated by the Communists in West Bengal in the years between 1977 to 1980 . However the logic of the Communists was completely different . The Communists mistook the success of the land reform as success of the logic of land reform adopted by them . They surmised that it was because land should go to the tillers and the state should be the instrument for the same . They were on to a good thing without realising it . The recent problems of the same Communist Party in West Bengal in trying to acquire land from the title holders , without recognising the claims of the tenure holders , has fallen as spectacularly because of not recognising the other basic tenet of Indian land holding , that there is no “eminent domain” , and once the state gives up a certain claim it is not entitled to take it back , unless the land belongs to the state itself.