Indian Political Thought By Ram Rattan & Ruchi Tyagi

Annexure 1: Course – Content:

Paper III – Indian Political Thought

This paper is to be taught with reference to the selected treatises of Representative

Thinkers:

1. Kautilya – Arthashastra
2. Ziauddin Barani – Fatwa-e-Jahandari
3. Rammohun Roy – Letter to Lord Amherst, 1823 on introduction of English
Education
4. Vivekananda – Culture, Democracy and Socialism
5. Mahatma Gandhi – Hind Swaraj
6. Ambedker – Annihilation of Caste
7. M.N. Roy – New Humanism
8. Jayaprakash Narayan – Towards A Reconstruction of Indian Polity

Essential Readings:

1. Kangle, R.P., Arthashastra of Kautilya, Delhi: Motilal Banarasidas, 1965.

2. Iqbal Singh, Raja Rammohun Roy: A Biographical Enquiry Into the Making of
Modern India, Bombay: Allied, 1983.
3. Kalidas Nag and Debajyoti Burman (ed.), Rammohun Roy, English Works,
Sadharan Brahmo Samaj, Calcutta, 1945.
4. Sushobhan Sarkar, (ed.), Rammohan Roy on Colonialism, n.d.
5. Bhupendra Nath Dutta, Swami Vivekananda: Patriot-Probhet: A Study, Calcutta:
Nav Bharat Publishers, 1954.
6. Swami Vivekananda, Centenary Volumes, Calcutta: Ramakrishna Mission
Institute of Culture, 1963.
7. Gandhi, M.K., An Autobiography or the Story of My Experiments with Truth,
Translated by Mahadev Desai, Ahmedabad: Navajivan, 1927.
8. Raghavan N. Iyer, Selected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, 3 Vols., 1988.
9. Kanetkar, M.J., Tilak and Gandhi, A Comparative Study, Nagpur: The Author,
1935.
10. Ambedkar, B.R., Annihilation of Caste (1936) in Writings and Speeches,
Bombay, Govt. of Maharashtra, 1982 Vol. I & II.
11. Jayprakash Narayan, From Socialism to Sarvodaya, New Delhi: Akhil Bhartiya
Sarva Seva Prakashan, 1959.
12. Dixit, Chandrodaya, Manavadi Vicharak M.N. Roy, 1984.
13. Verma, V.P., Aadhunik Bhartiya Rajnaitak Chintan, 1982.
14. Mehta, V.R., Foundations of Indian Political Thought, New Delhi: Manohar,
1992.
 15. Pantham Thomas and Kenneth L. Deutsch (ed.), Political Thought in Modern
India, New Delhi: Sage, 1986.
16. Bhikhu Parekh and Thomas Pantham (ed.), Political Discourse: Exploration in
Indian and Western Political Thought, New Delhi: Stage, 1987.

Additional Readings:

1. Sources of Indian Tradition, Penguin Books (India), 1991, Vol. I. From the
Beginning to 1800, edited by Ainslee T. Embree, Vol-II, Modern India and
Pakistan, ed. by Stephen Hay.
2. Kadam, K.N. (ed.), Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Emanichipation of the Oppressed,
Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1993.
3. Gore, M.S., Social Thought of B.R. Ambedkar, New Delhi: Sage, 1992.
4. Majumdar, B.B., History of Indian Social and Political Ideas from Raja
Rammohun Roy to Dayananda, 1967.
5. Omvedt, Gail, Dalit Democratic Revolution, New Delhi: Sage, 1992.
6. Swami Ranganathanda, Swami Vivekananda, His Humanism, Moscow State
University lecture, Advaita Ashram, Calcutta: 1991.
7. Shankar Ghose, Modern Indian Political Thought, Allied, 1984.
8. Dennis Gilmore Dalton, India’s Idea of Freedom: Political Thought of Swami
Vivekananda, Aurobindo Ghose, Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore,
Academic Press, 1982.
9. Collet, S.D., Dilip Kumar Biswas and P.C. Ganguly, Life and Letters of Raja
Rammohan Roy, Calcutta: Sadharan Brahmo Samaj, 1988.
10. Nihar Ranjan Ray (ed.), Raja Rammohan Roy a bi-century Tribute, New Delhi:
National Book Trust, 1974.
11. Tagore, S.N., Rammohun Roy, His Role in Indian Renaissance, Calcutta: Asiatic
Society, 1975.
12. Agarwal, Narayan S., Gandhian Constitution for Free India, 1946.
13. Bandyopadhyaya, J., Social and Political Thought of Gandhi, Bombay: Allied,
1969.
14. Bimal Prasad (ed.), A Revolutionary’s Quest, Selected Writings of J.P., New
Delhi, OUP, 1980.
15. Purhoit, B.R., Beeswin Sadi Ke Rajnaitik Chintan Ki Pramukh Dharayen, 1973.
16. Trevor Ling, Indian Social Philosophy, Bangalore University, n.d.
Annexure II: Department of Political Science B.A. Hons. (Political Science), 1998

Paper 3 – Indian Political Thought

Guidelines: [Note: Each of the thinkers should be taught with reference to his historical
context. His ideas need to be evaluated in a comparative framework, keeping in view his
relevance for his times as well as for today.]

Introduction:

I. Major Themes in Indian Political Thought - A comparison with

Western Political Thought: With reference to State; State and Society;
Authority and Obligation, Issue of Freedom; Ethics and Politics.
II. Approaches to the Study of Indian Political Thought – historical,
philosophical, materialist, trends in historiography.

(i) Kautilya

I. Saptanga Theory and the concept of State: Seven Elements (Prakritis); nature,
inter-relation and assessment.
II. Dharma and Politics: meaning of dharma in broad sense; Rajdharma and
Apaddharma; issue of ends and means.
III. Inter-state Relations: The Theory of Mandala; instruments of foreign policy,
Four Upayas and Six Gunas; System of Spies and espionage; theory of wars –
A comparative assessment with Machiavelli, Contemporary Relevance.

(ii) Zia-Uddin-Barani

I. Barani’s concept of the Ideal Polity.

II. The “Concept of Good Sultan” – Barani’s Prescription for a Monarch.

(iii) Ram Mohan Roy

I. The Colonial Encounter: Response of Ram Mohan Roy to the impact of

British Rule.
II. Theoretical Significances of Ram Mohan Roy’s Campaign with reference to:

a) Religion
b) Social Evils
c) Education
d) Women
e) Freedom of Press

III. Assessment of his Modernism

(iv) Vivekananda
I. Vivekananda’s role, response to British Colonialism and Western values.
II. Contribution to Political Ideas: Freedom, Socialism, Nationalism and
Humanism.

(v) Gandhi

I. Gandhi’s evolution in the West and Critique of Western Civilization.

II. The Gandhian Alternative; Concept of Swaraj: Social, Cultural, Economic and
Political; and the `ideal state`.
III. Gandhi’s approach to social and political transformation: Concept of
Satyagraha, Ends and Means, theory of relative truth, approach to Religion
and Politics.

(vi) B.R. Ambedkar

I. Ambedkar’s critique of the Hindu Social Order and debate with Gandhi, his
approach to Social and Political Change.
II. His contribution to Constitution – making and his concepts of Democracy and
Social Equality.

(vii) M.N. Roy

I. Evolution of M.N. Roy’s Ideas:

a. Nationalist Revolutionary Phase – 1905 to 1915.

b. Marxist Phase: 1915-1950

i) Roy-Lenin Debate
ii) Mission to China
iii) Analysis of Indian Situation

c. The Post-Marxist Evolution:

i) Jail Years
ii) Twentieth Century Jacobism
iii) Critique of Fascism
iv) Analysis of World War II
v) People’s Plan
vi) Constitution of Free India

II. Principle of Radical Humanism.

(viii) Jaya Prakash Narayan

I. Evolution of Jaya Prakash Narayan’s Political Ideas: Marxism to Democratic
Socialism.
II. Concept of Total Revolution.
CHAPTER I
INDIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT: SUBSTANCE, AUTONOMY AND APPROACHES
The West had, somehow, come round to hold the view, and also make others believe, that
India has had no contribution, whatsoever, to make in the area of political thinking’’. Almost
turning a blind eve to the evolution and enrichment of political ideas in India even centuries
before the beginning of the Christian era, the West could conveniently notice only the
religious, sectarian and feudal traditions and ideas which had dominated Indian thinking.
Notwithstanding such a strong Western bias. The real position is that India had not only
established but also enriched the organized life of its people in the initial stages of human
civilization itself.
It was the advent of Islam in the medieval ages that caused some serious setback to the
evolution of Indian political ideas and development of healthy and viable political institutions
based thereon. Even though the Islamic principles and the Islamic way of life, so uniquely
feudal and fundamentalistic, influenced and momentarily shrouded India ii political ideas, the
process of their evolution continued steadily, though slowly, all through the medieval ages.
However, once this transitory phase was over, and the Islamic clouds got scattered, the
process of generating indigenous political ideas got revived to coincide with the requirements
of Indian Renaissance.
The synthesisation of Indian tradition with the Western sense of enquiry got a boost-up with
the advent of time British in the early 18th Century. The 19th and the 20th centuries
witnessed not only the revival of traditional Indian Political ideas and institutions and their
adaptation to the changing times and circumstances, but also their unprecedented fusion with
the modern Western liberal ideas. And, all this resulted in a sort of instant and unique
synthesis of spiritualism with science and of tradition with modernity.
The ancient Indian political ideas were widely scattered between the Vedic and the
Brahmanic literature of the 1500-1000 B.C. and Kaihan’s Rajatarangini of the 12th century
A.D. During this long span of nearly 2,500 years, the ancient Indian literature was, as a
whole, contained in the all-comprehensive literature of the Vedas, the Brahman Granthas, the
( the great epics like the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, the Dharmashastras, the Smriti-
Granthas (those of Manu. Yagyavalyka and Shukra), the Buddhist literature, and the
Arthashastra traditions (mainly in Kautilya’s Arthashastra), did contain or refer to significant
political ideas, concepts, strategies and the norms of political conduct. However, these were
found more comprehensively and systematically dealt with and illustrated in Kautilya’s
Arthashastra authored in 325 B.C. It was this most significant political treatise which
depicted the highly developed political thinking of ancient India, specially in the era which
incidentally coincided with that of the Greek thinkers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. It
dealt with, in considerable details, and with ample illustrations, the origin, nature, features,
purpose and functions of the State, the relationship between the ruler and the ruled,
interdependence between Ethics and Politics, techniques of Statecraft, principles and
practices of international relations, techniques that a king should adopt to help neighbouring
States in distress, to win over the enemy, and to expand his frontiers, together with the
principles of international diplomacy, which were relevant not only during Kautilya’s times,
but also continue to be relevant for our times, and would, perhaps remain relevant for all
times to come.
The nature of State and the form of government during the reign of the Muslims found
eminently reflected in the writings of philosophers and historians like Abul Fazal and
Ziauddin Barani. For instance, in the Tarikh-i-Ferozeshahi and the Fatawa-e-jahaidari of
Ziauddin Barani is reflected not only the nature of the State during the reigns of Alauddin
Khilzi and Mohammad-bin Tughlaq, but also the traditions of the Islamic State. These works
also indicated the Muslim ruler’s practical policy of carrying together the non-Muslim,
specially the non-sunni, sections of the society as a token of their political liberalism and
visible secularism.
The advent of the English, contacts with Europe and familiarity with their liberal thinking
and the resultant series of social and religious reforms during the 19th and the 20th Centuries
led to the rise and development of a process of renewed political thinking in India. The most
notable features of these centuries included: changes in ancient traditions, Indianization of
Western political thought; nationwide struggle for Swaraj; and the futuristic vision of an ideal
political and social system for India. Thinkers and reformers like Ram Mohan Roy, Swami
Vivekananda, Swami Dayananda, Dadabhai Naoroji, Justice Ranade, Gopal Krishna
Gokhale, Lokmanya Tilak, Aurobindo Ghosh, Mahatma Gandhi, M.N. Roy, B.R. Ambedkar,
Jawaharlal Nehru, Acharya Narendra Deva, Mohammad-bin-Tughlaq , Ram Manohar
Lohia, Vinoba Bhave and Jayaprakash Narayan represented a variety of Indian political ideas,
which were not merely similar but also dissimilar.
PROBLEM OF INTERPRETING INDIAN CLASSICS:
The study of Indian classics poses a variety of problems, as different commentators tend to
evaluate and interpret them differently. There is hardly any identity or similarity in their
points of criticism. Sometimes, two diametrically opposite conclusions are drawn from the
same principle. Under such circumstances and situations, it does really become difficult to
say as to what precisely a particular thinker was trying to convey.
In this place, it is important to point out that in the field of political thought, the ideas of
Western political thinkers have been predominant. The general tendency has been to treat the
works and conclusions of the Western thinkers as the sole basis of political thinking as such.
In this background, the practice has been either to negate the very existence of Indian
political ideas or to evaluate them with reference to those of the West. The fact, however, is
that just as Western political thinking corresponds exclusively to the Western context, Indian
political thinking too corresponded to Indian situations and circumstances.
The biggest problem that comes in the way of studying Indian political ideas relates perhaps
to their historicity, authenticity and originality which have not always been above suspicion.
Even the Indian classics that are available do not unmistakably reveal as to when were the
written. On the other hand, there are other Indian classics which are just not available in their
original form, but are found quoted in other classics. In their case the question that arises
relates to their authenticity.
Another serious problem with which we are confronted in the study of Indian classics is the
general reluctance of their authors to pen down their ideas themselves. Indian political
tradition is surcharged with oral statements. That is why most of the scriptures, including the
Vedas, are called Smriti Granthas, i.e. the scriptures based on memory.
Further, the statements contained in these works are also highly exaggerative, with the result
that it becomes difficult to cull out the portion which is substantially true and correct. The
problem is further complicated by additions and alterations introduced in the original classics
by the subsequent writers, translators and adaptators. In this process, the originality of the
statement itself becomes a suspect. It becomes difficult to sift the original idea from the
additions and alterations to which it was later subjected.
There has also been a tendency on the part of every writer to treat his ideas as relevant not
only in the context in which these were penned down, but also for all times to come. He tends
to believe that his ideas are futuristic and would remain relevant for all times to come. He
forgets that ideas do change in their content and character with changes in times and
circumstances. For instance, while some commentators feel that Kautilya’s ideas were, by
and large, relevant to the context only of the Mauryan Empire, others feel that these would
remain relevant for the generations to come. However, the fact remains that once the context
undergoes a change, the content and implications of the ideas also change. For instance, some
commentators feel that Kautilya’s sole objective was to strengthen the Mauryan Empire.
others feel that the norms of international diplomacy laid down by him were relevant not only
during the Mauryan times, but continue to be relevant even for our times and would,
probably, remain so for all times to come. Similarly, the Indian view that ethical norms must
remain the basis of politics is as true today as it was in the times of Chandragupta Maurya.
Another problem that comes in the way of evaluation and interpretation of ideas is that the
interpreter often interjects his own ideas while interpreting the ideas of the author concerned.
This creates a lot of confusion, as the author fails to distinguish the views of the original
thinker from those of the subsequent interpreters and translators. At this point, the interpreters
own element of pre-judgement also plays a critical role and makes the author look differently
to different readers. That is how Gandhi is simultaneously called an idealist and a man of
action, a saint and a shrewd politician, a nationalist and an internationalist, a Vaishnavite
Hindu and an appeaser of the Muslims, a nonviolent satyagrahi and a moral anarchist. The
reader gets swamped in these self-contradictory generalizations and fails to identify the real
nature of one’s own contribution.
Moreover, the vocabulary of politics is largely that of a layman and lacks precision. This
often makes it difficult to explain a particular concept with precision. Generally, a term
acquires a different meaning with the passage of time and circumstances. That is how the
concept of Varnashrama Dharma as originally defined finds reference in the Purush Sukta of
Rigveda. It was also defined by Manu and Kautilya but got degenerated into a hierarchical
caste-system resulting in a ‘closed’ society, which certainly was not the intention of its
author. Similarly, the concept of Swaraj as used by Tilak and Gandhi was different from the
one described in the Vedic literature.
Moreover, every thinker expresses and explains his ideas in his own native language. Once
these ideas are translated in a different language, they acquire an altogether different
meaning, often due to the non-availability of appropriate corresponding terms. For instance,
the term Dharma as explained by Kautilya was derived from the root- word ‘Dhri’ which
implied a code of conduct that sustains the society. Once it got translated into English, it
became religion, implying sectarianism and ritualism.
There is yet another dimension to this problem. Very often, commentators, reviewers and
evaluators make generalizations without first reading the work as a whole. Their conclusions
are based on their select study of these works. Similarly, some commentators pass judgment
on the thinker as a whole on the basis of their study of his leading work, without caring to go
through his other writings. Such piecemeal or select study also results in putting undeserved
labels on the thinkers. The striking examples of such attempts are reflected in dubbing
Kautilya as the ‘Indian Machiavelli” or Gandhi as the “critique of modem Western
civilization’. Such conclusions are biased and hasty and can hardly be substantiated or
documented.
In view of such serious problems in evaluating or interpreting the ideas of a thinker, reformer
or writer, the evaluator should keep in view the following parameters before passing
judgments or arriving at conclusions:
(a) to have faith in the basic honesty and intentions of the thinker;
b) to rely on a statement with reference to the context in which it is made;
(c) to study all the available writings of a thinker and not pass judgements on the basis of the
study of some select work;
(d) to judge one’s ideas with reference to the ideology which had an unmistakable imprint on
him;
(e) to keep in view the social and historical background of the thinker;
(f) to keep in view the basic objective of the thinker;
(g) not to allow the element of pre-judgement come in the process of evaluation;
(h) not to mix up ones own context with that of the thinkers; and
(i) to compare and contrast different interpretations to determine as to which one seems to be
the most appropriate and nearest to the author’s own philosophy, before passing any
judgement or making sweeping generalisations about the thinker and his thought.
We also notice a number of inherent limitations in the study of
Indian Political Thought, the most notable of which may he cited as follows:
(a) Warrant of chronological data;
(b) Divergence of opinion bout the existence of one or more philosophers like Manu;
(c) Identical names of political thinkers, born in different places and at different periods of
time;
(d) Uncertainty about the schools of thought that succeeded one another;
(e) Overlapping and changing connotations of basic concepts like dharma, danda, niti, and
varna;
(f) Uncertainty caused by the plethora of unfamiliar words;
(g) Use of Indian terms in the Western context;
(h) Use of ancient Indian terms in the context of our times;
(i) Traditional lack of distinction between Society and State; State and Government; and
Dharma and politics.
BASIC CONCEPTS OF INDIAN
POLITICAL THOUGHT:
In the field of political philosophy, Indian thinkers, specially the ancient Indian thinkers did
formulate and develop a number of significant political concepts. Here, it is interesting to
note that some of the fundamental concepts and ideas in the realm of Indian political thought
were formulated not by political thinkers, but by metaphysicians and philosophers. Once the
latter had given these concepts a broad and rich content, the former incorporated them in their
own works. Such a process can also be detected in the history of Western political thought
specially with reference to the concepts like virtue, truth, justice, ideal life, rights and
liberties.
THE CONCEPT OF HUMAN NATURE:
A survey of Indian political thought reveals that there is a fundamental spiritual and moral
note in the Hindu thought which highlights the sacred character of the individual human
personality. The fundamental theme of Indian philosophical speculation is the spiritual nature
of men. Man is regarded not only a social and political being. but, above all, essentially
divine, the living being who has the spark of God Almighty (Parmatma) in the form of his
soul (Atma), who is also conscious of this sacred faculty and is, therefore, able to act
accordingly, to improve the quality not only of his own life but also of these who come into
contact with him. And, since man is essentially divine (partaking of the characteristics and
qualities of God Himself), he is also basically good and benevolent. The underlying idea is
that the human spirit is fundamental and for its realisation all social and political allurements
and fears are to be transcended (Atmarthe Prithvin Tyajet) is a basic ingredient of Indian
social psychology. And, this emphasis on spirituality and morality in ancient Indian political
thought is a great contribution to the universal political thought. And, it is this aspect of
ancient Indian thought which has been the focus of attention of thinkers like Dayanand,
Vivekanand, Tilak, Gokhale and Mahatma Gandhi.
THE CONCEPT OF BRAHMA:
The Vedas have provided us with the notion of Brahma. According to Martin Haug, Brahma
signifies prayer. Rudolph Ruth holds that originally Brahma meant the volitional energy
directed towards the Gods and, later on, it acquired a religious meaning. Brahma refers to
what grows. This term originated from the Sanskrit word Brih which means to grow. To
Deussen, the term Brahma denotes human will striving to attain the Absolute.
Since the Vedic times, the Indian thinkers have regarded human nature as a remarkable
combination of the body and the soul. Man’s body signifies his physical powers, while the
spirit or soul stands for his spiritual powers. Ever since the age of the Vedas and the
Brahmanas, preference has been given not to the materialistic and physical aspects of life, but
to the meditative, absorptive and spiritual aspects. Accordingly, it was emphasised that man,
being essentially divine, has the spark or ray of divinity which is shrouded by the blinding
power of ignorance. Once this mask or veil of ignorance is lifted, the spirit in man shines in
all its resplendence. This Vedic concept of human nature as essentially divine and good
exercised enormous political influence on modern Indian thinkers like Vivekanand,
Dayanand, Gokhale, Aurobindo and Mahatma Gandhi.
THE CONCEPT OF DHARMA:
Dharma is also one of the most comprehensive concepts in Hindu Philosophy. No befitting
rendering of it has, so far, been possible in any modern language. Usually, in n times, we find
it loosely translated as religion.
Dharma has always occupied a place of eminence in Indian thought. Moreover, it has been
understood and accepted in its purest positive aspect, and not merely in its sectarian or
ritualistic form.
The term ‘Dharma’ is derived from the Latin term religare, which means “to bind”. The
inference is that religion is the bond which unites not only man with God but also man with
man. This term also stands for ‘a way of life’. It has also been derived from the root Dhri
which means “to sustain”, “to uphold”. Hence, it refers to the principle or the substance
which can sustain an object. The Mahabharata, accordingly, describes it as the principle
which bears or maintains society by establishing a moral or spiritual order. Indian scriptures
describe it as: Dharmadaharmaityuhu “dharmena vidritah prajah, Yahasyad
dharmashmyuktha sa dharmah iti nishchayah”.
In the Vedic age, there was yet another term, Rita which, too, had a moral content. Rita stands
for order, arrangement and regulation it meant the fixed or established course of natural
objects like the sun and the moon. But, besides signifying the physical order of the universe
and the regular order of the ritualistic sacrificialism, the word also received a moral content.
Dharma included, in its compass, morality and virtue. Infact, Niti, Aachaar, Sadaachaar (code
of noble conduct), along with Dharma were deemed to be mutually complimentary and
interdependent. Manu had, accordingly, proclaimed, in unambiguous terms, that ethics is the
real dharma, (Aachaarh Parmo Dharmah). To him, the codes of the Vedas, the Smritis, the
Sadaachaar and the Atman are the four characteristics of Dharma. The verse proclaim as
follows:
Vedah Smiriti Sadaachaarah, Svasya Cha Priyamaatmanah
Etachchaturvidham, Praahuh Saakshaaddharmasya Lakshaanam.
Dharma also generated the following ten ingredients: Dhritih (resolution), Kshamaah
(Patience or forgiveness), Damah (self-restraint), Asteya (honesty), Shaucha (purity),
Indrianigrah (restraint of the organs), Dheeh (devotion), Vidyaa (knowledge of the Vedas),
Satya (truthfulness) and Akrodha (absence of anger).
The ancient Indian thinkers and philosophers, thus hardly distinguished between the spheres
of dharma ethics and laws in the Vedic literature, dharma also denoted law and custom. In the
Upanishads, this concept was given a qualitatively different meaning by identifying it with
the social duties of various castes and orders in terms of Varnaashrama (class structure of the
society and stages of personal life).
Dharma was the basis from which were derived the rules of individual behaviour. These were
described as his duties towards himself his clan, caste, varna, aashrama and country. These
were accordingly described as Desh Dharma, Kul Dharma, Jati Dharma, Varna Dharma and
Aashrama Dharma. In this respect, it was believed that each and every aspect of our life
emerges from the rules based on religion.
In the Mahabharata, Dharma indicated a network of duties, like the Rajadharma (duties of the
ruler), the Prajaadharma (duties of the subjects) and the Mitradharma (duties of the friend). It
involved virtue and righteousness and was, thus an admixture of socio-ethico-religious ideas.
The rise of Buddhism resulted in a refreshing re-interpretation of the notion of dharma. It was
used to denote the three-fold submission to Buddha, i.e. ‘the Buddhist ecclesiastical
fraternity’ and the ‘doctrine’. The appropriate verse reads thus “Buddhim Cha Dharmam Cha
Sangham Cha Sharnam gatah” .In its moral aspect, it stood for Sheet (modesty), Samaadhi
(meditation), and Pragyaa (wisdom), the pursuit of which could ultimately lead one to
Nirvaana (salvation).
In the Arthaashastra of Kautilya, the term dharma has been described variously at various
places. Therein, it signifies the sense of social duty towards oneself (swadharma) and one’s
society (varnadharma). As the civil law and the moral law based on Truth, it was elevated to
the status of the supreme principle of human life, which preserves the one who maintains it
and ruins the one who violates it,
Hence, in ancient India dharma was an admixture of socio ethico-religious ideas and not a
purely religious concept. It was a mode of life, a code of conduct and a principle that holds
together the whole universe. To G.H. Mees it denotes the Vedic rita, the ethical duty virtue,
and justice in accordance with the commands of God. In its Comprehensiveness it also refers
to Absolute Truth a universal law, a code of customs and traditions rule of common law,
inter-tribal or international law, a compromise between the ideal arid the actual conditions.
These interpretations indicate the predominance of dharma as an over-riding code of conduct.
It is thus, a principle of both individual self-development and communal self-development
.As for the individual it is a principle of meritorious development (Abhyudaya and
Nishreyasa), according to one’s qualities, conditioned by one’s nature, temperament and
potential towards higher existence. And, for the community it means attainment of self-rule
(Swaraj) in terms of its own historical identity. Dharma is a principle which creates a balance
among Purushaartha, pursuit of Kama, Artha and Moksha. It ensures that men do not go
astray from the ultimate ideal of self-rule and transcendence in terms of the supremacy of
knowledge. In the hands of the medieval saints, emphasis on knowledge was replaced by
devotion and faith.
The short sketch of dharma, in general, denotes simultaneously a moral category equated
with truth and a generic term for signifying the social duties of the four castes and the four
orders. Buddhism emphasised the moral nature of dharma and its concrete influence can be
seen in the political philosophy of Ashoka. The classic example of the defence of “one’s own
dharma”, meaning one’s social duty is found in the Bhaagwadgita .The word dharma, also
signified law, specially civil law, as in the Dharmasutras, and in Kautilya’s Arthaashastra.
In the customary aspect of Dharma, due emphasis on the performance of rituals, appeasement
of numerous gods and goddesses, offering of deities altogether find detailed illustrations in
Vedic and post-Vedic literature. The term Dharma, according to B.A. Salitore, thus covered
the wide range of subjects, stretching from law to piety, practically all matters of public
behaviour.
The Western notion of freedom of religion has always been respected in India. One could
worship God in any form and adopt any form of prayers. In general, every individual was
expected to be tolerant, respectful and co-operative towards the followers of other
denominations
It was primarily during the medieval period, that dharma was replaced by a bundle of
paradoxes emphasising the Karmakanda or adherence to the rituals and sacrifices: which in
turn, invited strong reactions, reform movements and renaissance during the 1 9th century.
Relationship between dharma and politics was analysed under the perception of
Raajadharma, where dharma symbolized the authority of the State, regulated its domain and
also defined limits of the State power. Ethical code of conduct regulated the personal bond,
inter personal life of the king and the subjects. Virtue, duties, obligations and objectives of
the king were defined by dharma. The king was to wield the sceptre of punishment and if
there was any miscarriage of justice or if the culprit escaped, the king was not only to
compensate for the loss but to perform penance as well. This involves the notion of extra-
political sanctions on the king for the violation of the idea of the protection of the four-fold
social order.
The Mahabharata also speaks of the dharma of the Kshtriya and comprehends under it self-
abnegation, universal compassion insight into the affairs of the world, security and social
betterment by curing the diseased and the affected. It says that the king who practices dharma
approximates to the position of a god, while he who does the reverse goes to hell. The king,
according to Manu, should also take into cognizance dharmas of castes, countries, guilds and
families in placing the dharma peculiar to each section. Manu was a strong advocate of the
moral roots of political power.
The Raajadharma is definitely monarchical in its orientation. The attempt to comprehend all
political things under the dharma of the king shows that dharma is to be equated with the
totality of all social and political as well as individual duties, obligations of functions of the
king.
Dharma and political ethics represent a totally different picture altogether when Kautilya
advises his kshatriya king to protect and expand his territories and conquer the enemies or
when Bhishma in Mahabharata marks the transition to the Aapaddharma, the dharma in
distress, and accepts the transgressing cannons of dharma.
The influence of Dharma, in the political arena, can not be denied. The comprehensiveness of
the notion of Dharma prevented its identification with mere religious or divine law and it also
never meant exactly the positive law in the modern sense. It remained a moral- philosophical
norm for action, but was never conceived as the supreme political power.
The ethical orientation of political philosophy, indeed, emphasised, on the other hand moral
philosophy of kingship and declared Yogakshema (welfare) of the subjects as the ultimate
objective of the king. Admitting the notion declaring that “happiness of the king lies in lie
happiness of the subjects” (Prajah Sukha Sukham Raajah), it altogether allowed deviation
from moral standards when Dharma is in distress (Aapaaddharma). It was this tradition of the
spiritualization of politics which was revived, revitalized and practiced by Gokhale and
Gandhi in the twentieth century.
In the medieval ages, however this system got itself transformed in many places into the one
based on the principles, values and traditions of Islam. The term religion’ lost its
comprehensiveness and got restricted to ‘karmakaand’ or ‘rituals’. The purpose of social life
also got correspondingly delimited to the performance of sectarian obligations. In this
process, the balance between the society and the State was lost which, in turn, resulted in a
social system which became increasingly sect-oriented. It became restrictive, not quite open
to challenge and change.
AUTHORITY AND SUBORDINATION:
In Indian political thought both authority and subordination have found a prominent place.
Although the whole concept of State was restricted to the knowledge furnished by the
religious scriptures, the authority of whose interpretation was confined to the Brahmins, State
still evolved as the centre of political authority. Amongst the various features of the State
outlined in the scriptures, the Swami or the king was the most prominent feature as the source
of authority vis-a-vis the other features which included ‘Amatya’, ‘Janapad’, ‘Kosha’,
‘Durg’, ‘Danda’ and ‘Mitra’, the ally.
In this context, the authority of the State surpassed the inter relationship between the ruler
and the ruled. The king was not merely the ruler but also the saviour of his people. He had to
make use of the revenues of the State as economically as possibly. He was like a pregnant
woman, a prospective mother, whose foremost job was to take care of her child.
The authority of the king was not absolute or unlimited. It was further subject to a number of
internal organisational limitations. He was thus expected not only to become increasingly
prosperous himself but also ensure prosperity of the other elements of the State.
If Trayee, Anvikshaki, Vaarta and Dandaniti emerged as the four pillars of the State authority,
Dharma Samsthaa (evidence), Vyavhara-Charitra (history and institutional practices) and
Raajashaasana (royal edicts) offered the four sources of Kautilyan royal authority.
If the king took good care of his subjects he was considered a good king .Otherwise, he was
looked upon as a usurper against whom people could ,in extreme cases, even rebel, for that
was the only way by which they could overthrow him. That is probably why even in the
absence or laxity of political authority, social organisations could still remain active. On the
other hand, the failure or laxity of the centre of political power attracted foreign aggressors.
The basis of Gandhi’s conviction that centralization of authority was in violation of the self’
of the individual, and autonomy of the State was in consonance with the decentralized polity
and economy are more compatible with the ‘self’ of the individual and the autonomy’ of the
State.
CONCEPT OF ARTHA:
Although the Upanishadic and Buddhist teachings relegate a subordinate place to the desire
for wealth, Kautilya’s made the first systematic and balanced attempt to construct a
philosophy exhalting artha, wealth and territory.
Kautilya starts from the traditional four-fold classification of the basic goals or aspirations of
an individual. First, dharma, for the righteous performance of one’s own duties. Second,
artha, economic activities in pursuance of wealth and power. Third, Kaama, sexual desires or
activities as such. Fourth Moksha or final liberation, sometimes, according to Kathopanished,
we have a two-fold classification: shreya (good) and preya (pleasant). Accordingly, artha and
kama will be preya and dharma and moksha will be shreya. Buddha distinguished between
the two ways of life, one leading to worldly success and the other to final liberation.
As a political realist, Kautilya has preached a philosophy of balance and harmonious
integration. The king may enjoy in equal degree, the three pursuits of life-charity, wealth and
aesthetic desire, which are interdependent on each other. Realising the extreme indulgence in
any of these three as injurious.Kautilya, however considered wealth as a significant means
for the realisation of dharma and the aesthetic- emotional aspect of existence. He visualised
an all Indian monarchical power & since wealth is needed for power, he is interested in
wealth. He explicitly says that all enterprises and actions require economic means for their
realization.
According to Kautilya, the best treasury is one which has virtually been obtained either by
inheritance or through the endeavour of the monarch, without violating righteousness and
economy (varta) and desire (kama). Besides Arthashastra being the name of his treatise,
Kautilyan economic determinism advocates the casual role of the economic factor both in
human motivation and in social and historical eventuation. The concept of artha, however,
distinguishes between its two meanings. In the narrower sense, it is the equivalent of wealth
and in its broader Sense, it is the equivalent of all the means necessary for the acquisition and
preservation of an all-India imperial system, and emphasises harmony between all the four
pursuits of human life, i.e. dharma, artha, kama and moksha and wherein artha and kama are
to be controlled by dharma and moksha.
THE CONCEPT OF DANDA:
The word danda is quite comprehensive. Primarily, it means a staff or a rod. The Brahamchari
and the Sanyasi are expected to have a danda. The king had his danda which symbolises the
authority of the king to punish offenders. In the Satapatha Brahmana, the king is called
Adandya, meaning thereby that he was beyond the reach of a staff. In Manusmriti, danda has
also been referred to as the emblem of kingly power, implying punishment as a guarantee of
the maintenance of peace and order. Kautilya also uses this concept in a broader sense.
According to him, danda is concerned with the totality of means for the acquisition,
preservance, growth and distribution of things. In such a context, he thinks of dandaniti as
concerning not only with the penal sanctions, but with the totality of social and political
interactions and relationships, involving inter alia, the king, his ministers and the army.
The notion of danda, which simultaneously designates a staff, an army, physical punishment
and legal sanction and which is such a vital element for the preservation of peace and order,
shows that according to the Indian thinkers force was a very important element in politics. It
is true that the spiritual goal and mundane peace for which this danda is needed are also
emphasised, but the very fact that a concept which primarily signifies force is raised to such a
pinnacle shows that Indian theoreticians had attached great stress on physical, legal and
military power in their political thinking. But, the enormous stress on force and power or
danda does not mean the valuational appreciation of the concentration of violence. Kingship
is exalted not because it can muster physical and mechanical force but because the physical
force is to be placed in the service of dharma. Thus, danda or force is not the essence of
politics and is never to be intended for the support of interests of the stronger but is a
necessary adjunct in the realisation of co-operative and organic social existence guided by the
monarch.
THE CONCEPT OF VARNA:
The term ‘Varna’ indicates the functional division of society into four major functional
classes. It originated from the Sanskrit root ‘Vri’ which means adoption of duties and
obligations and their performance in accordance with one’s virtues and capabilities.
According to G.H. Mees, social, cultural, professional or occupational symbolic and occult,
these five conceptions have been the basis of Varna system. One finds various references to
the source of origin of this social system.
The Varna system was supposed to represent the principle of one in many. The Brahmans
were concerned with knowledge. The Kshtriyas were concerned with courage and valour in
order to provide protection to the weak. The Vaishyas, in their turn, were the people
concerned with the satisfaction of necessities of life, viz, agriculture, crafts and trade. And,
the Shudras were looked down as the instruments of service to the other classes. This division
was originally meant to be functional, in which each Varna was complimentary to the other
Varnas. All the four varnas were compared in Rig Veda to different parts of the Purusha, in
which there could be no question of inequality. This functional division, based on the
principle of complimentarity, gave place to a division based on ‘birth’ and ‘heredity’ and
destroyed the spontanily of the conceptual scheme. Indian thinkers, however, failed to devise
a mechanism whereby they could identify people in terms of their potential and arrange for
their transmigration from one class to another.
The early Rigveda society represented, more or less, a tribal society. Initial references
indicate the division of society on the basis of functions. The king was the symbol of royal
authority and Kshtriya power. Purohita, Senani and Grarnani were significant administrative
officials. The post-Rig- Veda era denotes clear classification of society signifying the
importance of the four varnas in accordance with their order of Brahmins, Kshtriyas,
Vaishyas and Shudras. The Brahmanic scriptures proclaimed the supremacy of the Brahmans,
while giving importance to the performance of rituals and indicated the declining status of
Vaishyas and the inferior status of the Shudras, which resulted in the predominance of
Brahmans and decline of Rig Veda’s popular institutions of Sabha, Samiti and Vidath, owing
to the alienation of theVaishyas and the Shudras from the political sphere. The declining
status of Vaishyas and Shudras also paved the way for the predominance of Brahmans and the
Kshatriyas. A struggle for the supremacy between these two varnas was reflected in the
Upanishads, Both Ramayana and Mahabharta also accorded the same order of priority. While
Ramayana acknowledged a cordial relationship amongst all the Varnas, the Mahabhartaa,
under apaddharma, acknowledged the tendency of adopting the professions of others than
one’s own. Preservance and maintenance of the Varna system became a ‘royal’ concern in the
Epics. Dharma Sutras indicated a clear, more or less rigid, division of society with
predominance of the Brahmans, and inferior position of the Shudras, suspicion for Varna
Sankara and punishments in accordance with the varna. The Buddhist scriptures voiced
against Brahmanism, and advocated the supremacy of temporal - regal-Kshatriya power.
Kautilya’s Arthashastra, while acknowledging the traditional Varna system and giving
importance to the political interests of the State, asked the king to protect, preserve and
conserve this societal varna system and provided for a system of law, danda and bala (armed
forces) on the basis of Varna. The Manusmriti voiced the predominance of the Brahman as
and issued strictures against the Shudras.
Thus, the Varna system intermingled the social structure and the polity, which resulted in the
tug-of-war between the Brahmans and the Kshatriyas for the order of supremacy. The other
two varnas remained satisfied with reverence and significance, while the kshatriya king held
the royal authority. This system imbibed certain inbuilt systems of checks and balances,
whereas the insignificant position of vaishyas and shudras alienated them from the political
process and contributed towards the decline of the popular institutions. Efforts to curtail inter
varna relationship resulted in rigid-conservative caste system and in varna based on legal-
judicial system. All this paved the way for inferior and degraded position of the shudras. The
Brahmanic social legislation was another consequence of this system, which further provided
for predominance of spiritual and regal authority and also for State interference in
individual’s personal and social life. It, thus, defined the administrature and social obligations
of the State. However, denominational-acciesiastical aspect of Dharma remained under
Brahmanic control and supremacy of royal authority resulted in the separation of
denominational religion from politics.
This system, however, developed certain rigidities and complexities, resulted in disparities
and differentiations, degraded the position of Shudras and the predominance of the first two
varnas. This, however, was attacked b the reformers of the 19th and 20th centuries, specially
by Ram Mohan Roy, Gandhi and Ambedkar, If the first supported functional division of
society the last strongly reacted about the entire system and endeavoured to repatriate the
position of shudras. The ‘vote-bank politics’ can better be analysed in this perspective.
INFLUENCE OF THE SOCIAL SYSTEM:
Political system is essentially a part and parcel of the social system. In India, too, the political
system, and the changes to which it was subjected from time to time, corresponded to the
ever-changing, ever-evolving social system. In India, too, the classification of social system
into four classes or castes led to the belief that it was the duty of the king to protect this
system as a whole as well as to take care of each of the four component classes and castes.
That is how, the political power got concentrated in the Kshatriya class or the warrior class.
However, the advent of the followers of other religions and the foreign aggressors disturbed
the existing inter-balance between the classes and the State had to restore some kind of
balance between them.
Al the same time, the increasing differences between the priests endowed with spiritual
power came to be highlighted in the Brahamanical and the Buddhist literatures which led to
the question of superiority or supremacy between these two warring classes. It was in this
context that Kautilya a not only accepted the traditional varna or caste system, but also
accorded to the shudras (the most backward section of the society) a respectable place which
he thought was their due. He accepted the reciprocal relationship and inter-dependence
between the society and the State, strove to protect and preserve the class system, recognised
the need of its influence on the military organization and also accorded the expected place of
prime to political interests, needs and standards of the state.
By bringing the preservation of the class system within its purview, the State was also
allowed to interact with the individual as well as the organizational structure of the society.
Consequently, supramacy of the royal authority and social legislation of temporal sovereignty
also came within its purview. The ritualistic character of religion was entirely in the hands of
the Brahmins, the priests. This led to the separation of organised religion from politics and
averting the possibility of a return to theocracy. The politics of checks and balances between
the spiritual and the temporal power was tile characteristic feature of this system.
In subsequent times, caste rigities which had resulted in
the deplorable position of the shudras put question marks on the social system based on
‘birth’ rather than ‘function’ or merit’ of an individual. Voices were raised against this
deplorable system. If the 19th century talked about the revival of the functional form of this
system, the 20th century openly opposed the social system based on the traditional caste sub-
system, and the social and political thinkers and reformers took upon themselves the task of
ameliorating the condition of the Shudras, the Harijans, the Dalits, the downtrodden and the
backward sections of the society, in this respect, the efforts made by tile galaxy of reformers
from Ram Mohan Roy to Gandhi and Ambedkar deserve special mention.
THE CONCEPTS OF RIGHTS AND DUTIES:
The Indian concepts of rights and duties are different from its counterpart in the liberal
tradition of the West. In the Western tradition, the classic case was started by John Locke,
who thought that there are certain natural rights which are innate and therefore no one can
deprive us of those rights. Duties, according to him, are not part of nature, except in so far as
they flow from the principle of mutuality. Indian tradition, too, recognised the tension
between time claims of the individual and the society, as a whole. It. however, tried to resolve
it in a complex manner, viz, firstly by connecting the individual to the concrete functions he
performs in society, and secondly, by relating him to the cosmic process of which he is an
integral part.
All individuals occupy a definite position in terms of their functions, from which flow their
rights as well as duties. Indian thought, unlike its Western counterpart, accords the place of
primacy to duties vis-a-vis the rights. In the Western liberal tradition, rights are ‘claims’ of an
individual against others, including the society as well as the State. In the Indian political
thought, on the other hand, an individual is not only a member of the society and the State,
but also of a number of voluntary associations. He has, therefore, to perform a variety of
functions in relation to these associations of which he has chosen to be a member. He is
concerned with and devoted to the welfare (Upkar) of others, infact to the welfare of each
and every one in each and every walk of life. That is what Gandhi precisely meant by
Sarvodaya. Moreover, in Gandhi’s philosophy, duties and obligations take precedence over
rights because only by performing his duties willingly and voluntarily one can earn his
corresponding rights. In addition, rights are never given in charity or for the asking. One has
actually to shout, strive and struggle for them.
THE INDIVIDUAL, THE STATE AND THE POLITICAL SYSTEM:
Indian tradition looks at the individual as a living being who is an intrinsic part of the society
and who, as such, is constantly striving to attain ‘Moksha’ salvation or liberation b following
the path of ‘Dharma’, Artha’ and ‘Kama’, i.e. by involving himself in the day- to-day social
and economic activities. He is striving to attain perfection for himself, to the extent it is
attainable, in common with others. And, in this respect he is looked upon as a person who is
more conscious of his duties than the one who is simply clamouring for his rights. Behind
this conception was the conviction that man is the maker of his ‘destiny’ and that, therefore, it
is natural for him to dedicate himself wholly to the attainment of this objective.
The individual, thus, becomes a part and parcel of such a social fabric. And. it was in this
overall context that the State was conceived as an agency based on force in order to provide
protection to all living beings and the functions of the State were confined to strike a
synthesis between dharma, kama, artha and moksha. The two basic functions of this order,
individual’s faculty, or potential of ‘self rule’ and the supremacy of knowledge, was
substituted by Bhakti or devotion to God and his vice-regent the king. Monarchy had become
the order of the day and the relationship between the king and his subjects was based, by and
large, on the assumed reciprocity between the duties and the rights.
THE CONCEPT OF POLITICS (RAJNITI):
Contrary to the modem notion of politics as a struggle for power, in ancient India the politics
or Rajniti was known differently as Dandaniti, Nitishastra, Arthashastra, Raajdharma (duties
of the king) and Rajyashastra (code of the rulers).
To a certain extent, the term Dandaniti was used in the context of the science of polity. Like
many thinkers of the modern times, some ancient Indian writers like Mann held that the
ultimate sanction behind the State is force. If it is not used, tile alternative is tile law of the
jungle (Matsyanyaya). It is the Danda (physical force or punishment) which rules over all the
subjects. Danda is, however, to be wielded with discretion. Authors like Kautilya were of the
view that Dandaniti establishes law and order in society and indirectly brings about a natural
tendency in the average individual to obey the laws of the land. It promotes social stability
and enables the individual and the State to have new achievements to their credit; to protect,
increase and distribute the gains properly between the State and the individuals as also among
the individuals themselves. Dandaniti, thus, deals with the totality of social, political and
economic relationships.
The other term used for the doctrine of politics was Niti. It is derived from the root nee which
means to lead. Neeti, therefore, means proper guidance or direction. Greatest propriety,
wisdom and circumspection have, however, to be used in shaping and guiding the internal
and external policy of the State. So, the term Nitishastra became very popular to designate
the science of government. According to Shukra, Neetishastra is a sine qua non for the
stability and progress of society in all directions and enables the realisation of the four
pursuits of Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha.
The other term used for the science of politics was Arthashastra. The usual meaning of the
term Artha is money or wealth, so the term .Arthashastra should connote the science of
wealth or economics, and not the science of politics or government. But, Kautilya explains:
“The substance of mankind is termed Artha, wealth; the earth which contains mankind is
termed Artha, wealth; that science which treats the means of acquiring and maintaining earth
is the Artha, shastra, the science of polity”.Kautilya, altogether, refers to the four foundations
of a polity as Trayee (the three Vedas); Anvikshaki (knowledge of Saankhya Yoga and
Lokayata), Vaarta (the economy) and the Dandaniti.
SPIRITUALIZATION OF POLITICS:
India is known as the spiritual ‘Guru’ (teacher) of the world. The fundamental concern of
Indian thinkers was the gradual evolution of one’s spiritual soul’ or atman which they
considered as the voice, the ray, the spark of God or Parmatma, the ultimate reality, the all-
pervading spiritual force. Anything and everything which is essential for good life, infact the
life itself, was regarded only as a means to this end. In this context, it was presupposed that
the job of the king was not only to create conditions in which it may be possible for everyone
to rejuvinate his soul and this the ruler could do by “hindering the hindrances”, to use Greens
classic phrase. It was the spiritual outlook on which were based the basic conceptions of the
nature, purpose, functions and organisation of the State and the relationship between the ruler
and the ruled.
Spiritualization of politics has been a characteristic of Indian politics. That is why politics
based on Trayee (the three Vedas) and, Anvikshiki (scriptural knowledge) was considered far
superior to the pursuit of a particular faith, sect or community. The protection and prosperity
of the people were declared as the very purpose of the State. Only in periods of emergencies,
or extraordinary situations, and circumstances could the king have recourse to Apad Dharma
(action to meet extreme distress) and adopt whatever means he considered necessary to
protect and promote the interests of the State. Otherwise, in normal times, he was supposed to
have recourse to ‘Dharma Vijaya’ (victory of virtue over vice). Indian thinkers expected the
king to pursue a foreign policy based on the principles of righteousness, openness, and
transparency.
In our times, the process of the spiritualization of politics was handed down to Gandhi by his
acknowledged political Guru, Gopal Krishna Gokhale. Subscribing to this legacy, Gandhi
expressed his considered view that politics separated from religion (rules of morality and
ethics) is fatal, as it kills one’s soul, the spiritual self.
TOTALITY AND INDIVISIBILITY OF KNOWLEDGE:
For the ancient Indian thinkers, knowledge was an indivisible whole. Politics and economics
or for that matter religion and philosophy were not separated from one another. Political life
was a part of social life. Consequently, according to the ancient Indian thinkers, the purpose
of politics was to control a specific stream of life. Although Kautilya was a thinker who
separated the science of government from that of administration and inspired the gigantic
Empire of Chandragupta Maurya, he too accepted the basic principles of social life and
entrusted the State with the responsibility of its preservation and protection.
THE TRADITION OF SYNTHESIS, BALANCE AND
TOLERATION:
Indian political thought accepts the principle of ‘Unity in Diversity’ in its most positive form.
The vision of the Vedas, the philosophy of the Upanishads, Buddhism, .Jainism, Sikhism,
Islam and Christianity is an illustration of such a synthesis. Despite a variety of diversities
between the ancient, the medieval and the modern India, we find an unprecedented unity and
continuity in public conduct, obligation, caste, worldly procedures, justice and the principles
on which the State itself is based.
Though the advent of Islam and Christianity led to diversities and antagonisms, efforts
continued to be made to synthesise them with the original view and to strike a judicious
balance between the two. From the point of view of the State and the principles on which it is
based, the establishment of Islamic, specially the Sultenat and the Mughal systems of
governance provided a new format to the system of governance. For instance, in the times of
Ziauddin Barani, though there was a great divide between the Muslims and the non-Muslims,
internally even between the Sunnis and the non-Sunni Muslims, it did not materially affect
the basic commitment to hold and carry together the followers of various religions and sects.
Barani’s conception of a well-governed State, the distinction between virtue and vice, just
and unjust, right and wrong and the administration of justice remained, by and large, in
accordance with the ancient Indian traditions.
In the era of modem Indian renaissance, efforts continued to be made in the direction of
reawakening the ancient soul, and to link it up with the medieval period and to tune this
tradition with modernity. The efforts made by Tilak, Aurobindo and Gandhi in this direction
are noteworthy. It is a different thing altogether that at a later stage, M.N. Roy deviated from
this tradition and made efforts to divert people’s attention towards the materialistic tradition
which was so different and antagonistic to the ancient and medieval spiritualistic traditions.
COMPARISION BETWEEN THE ANCIENT INDIAN AND WESTERN POLITICAL
THOUGHT
In general, the Western political thought has been regarded as organised and refined, while
questions have been raised about the very existence of Indian political thought. Infact, the
material difference between the two systems was that the Indian political thought was not
sufficiently reduced to writing, research and analysis like its Western counterpart. Otherwise,
Indian political thought emerged and evolved from one stage to another in accordance with
the prevalent times and circumstances, just as the Western political thought had emerged and
evolved in keeping with its own historical context.
The Greek political thinkers had expressed their views on the basis of their multifaceted
political experiences with the scantly populated city-states of their times. Their views were,
therefore, confined mostly to the conceptions of the nature of State and the prevalent system
of slaver, therein in India, the rules of society and its regulation were laid down in the very
beginning of civilization. Even in the later classics these rules were accepted as the basic
rules of life. Only the Buddhist literature gave birth to a set of different beliefs, faiths and
rules of conduct.
In India, though monarchy remained entrenched on the basis of heredity, we also find
examples of oligarchic republics like the Kshudrak, the Malay and Yaudhdhrya in the North-
West and Vijji and the Shakya in the North-East. We find some such references even in the
kingdoms of Magadh, but we find no mention of them in the literature which came into
existence after eighth century’ B.C. However, we do find some reference to it in the
Arthashastras and the Buddhist scriptures. In the Pali and Jatak literatures, the system of
governance was, by and large, monarchical. On the other hand, the Greek City-states had a
large variety of political systems. Aristotle himself had undertaken a comprehensive study of
as many as 159 constitutions. And, it was only on the basis of such a diverse political
experience, that the Greek political thinkers were able to refer to a far more elaborate and
diverse set of principles of political governance.
The ideal of Greek political thought was the system of fairly autonomous and self-sufficient
city-states. Smaller political units, rather than countrywide political entities were the order of
the day. On the other hand, Indian outlook was far more collosal and wide-ranging due to its
own geographical conditions and the pre political views, too, had become conducive to
political expansion. The basis of Indian political thought was not merely a ‘king’, but a
‘Chakravarti Raja’ (a universal king). It was in this larger context that the empires of
Magadh, Bimbsar and Ashoka were established.
The Western political thought accepted four features as the essential elements of the State.
These included the people, the territory, the government and the sovereignty. In the Indian,
specially the Arthashastrian, tradition we find mentioned not four, but seven, elements of the
State, These were the sovereign king, the Ministers, the rural people (Janapad), the urban
people (people living in the Durg), the treasury, the armed forces, and the trustworthy ally.
Though there is no contradiction between the Indian and the Western perceptions, yet the
Indian version seems to be much more detailed and extensive than the Western one.
In so far as the theory of the origin of the State is concerned, the entire ancient Indian
Brahmanic literature testifies to the divine origin of both the society and the State. It depicts
that the four social classes of people (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras) had
emerged out of the four distinct limbs of God himself. The Shanti Parva of the Mahabharta
gives illustrations of a kind of social contract, whereunder, peoples’ request to save them
from Matsya Nyaya, Brahma himself sent Manu to govern the State and Mann took charge of
the State only after people agreed to undertake the obligation to pay taxes levied on them. In
ancient India, although Dharma —Samstha Vyavhara and Raajshasana were also accepted as
the source of State laws. In both theories, we find the divine element present in one form or
the other. Even in the Buddhist literature, we find the origin of State on the basis of a
reciprocal contract, though in this literature there is no mention of the divine element being
responsible for its origin. Even in the Western world, the divine origin theory had been quite
popular and was the basis of authority of a number of kings who claimed unlimited powers
for themselves, because in this system people had no right to rebel against, the king, who had
some kind of divine origin. It was only during the 17th and 18th centuries that the social
contract theory of the origin of the State became popular in the Western thought, while, we
find references to this system in Indian scriptures like the Mahabharata and the Buddhist
literature.
In another instance, under the Prithu tradition, Vishnu created his son Viraajas. The latter did
not desire lordship over the people. Later on, Prithu, a lineage of Viraajas, took over the
lordship alter making a commitment to protect the people.
In the ancient Indian thinking, the king-made law was regarded as the God-made law and it
was so described in the scriptures. These laws and bye-laws were most sacred, significant and
unchangeable and inflexible. Their maintenance or preservance was the primary duty of the
State. Infact, the sovereignty of the State itself rested on these laws. Barring the Buddhist
literature, all these scriptures uniformally accepted them as the laws guiding the entire social
and political system.
The purpose of the Indian State was the happiness or welfare of its people and that of the
latter the attainment of Dharma, Kama, Artha and Moksha. Thus, the State was there not
merely to perform its traditional functions of maintaining law and order and ensuring the rule
of law, but also for protecting and promoting their interests. The king was supposed to ad as
the trustee and the servant of his people. State as an agency predominantly of force is not
reflected in the. Indian political thought, as the canvass of its purpose and functions was
much wider and multi—faceted.
In so far as the question of relationship between the individual and the State is concerned, all
the activities of the latter, excepting the religion, came within its purview. The obligations of
the individual towards the State, of the State towards the people and of the people inter se
were well-settled. The whole emphasis was on the performance of one’s duties and
obligations and that is why their corresponding struggle for rights was almost non-existent.
With some minor modifications, this is the system that continued to prevail until the advent
of Gandhi on India’s political scene.
Both the Indian and the Western streams of thought accepted intellectual as well as physical
capabilities and differences prevalent among the people. That is why both the Indian and the
Greek traditions depict society as distinctly divided into a number of well-defined classes,
like the philosopher-king, the soldiers, the producers and the slaves in the Greek thought and
the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas, the Vaishyas and the Shudras in the Indian thought.
MUSLIM POLITICAL THOUGHT:
The political contact of India with Islam began sometimes in the 8th century A.D., when the
Arabs established their control over the province of Sindh. Thereafter, for a few centuries,
this contact remained, by and large, dormant and had no significant expansion. In the 11th
century, the Sultan of Ghazni committed a number of aggressions in the North-Western
Frontier area. It was in the 12th century that the king of Gauri committed two aggressions
and laid the foundations of Muslim rule in India. Thereafter, in 1206 an independent Sultanat
was established in Delhi. The Islamic State continued to flourish from the 18th century until
the advent of the British in India.
Under the reign of the Muslim rulers, Islam was accorded the status of State religion. That is
why under the Delhi Sultenat, Islam enjoyed the status of State religion. And, it was
considered to be the duty O the Sultan and his Government to protect and propagate the
principles of Islam. Under this system, Islamic law was the supreme law of the land and the
conduct of the rulers was supposed to be in accordance therewith.
According to the Quranic laws, the foremost duty of the Muslim king was to ban idol-
worship, engage in religious wars and to change the Darul Herb into the Darul Islam. It was
also his duty to seek conversion of Hindus into Muslims and for this purpose he could use the
machinery and money of the State as well, Alauddin Khilzi was perhaps an exception and
was regarded by Ziauddin Barani as the ideal king. Mohammad-bin-Tughlaq and his rule
remained intrinsically linked up with the standards laid down by Alauddin Khilzi. They were
the two Muslim rulers who neither used the machinery nor the money of the State either for
the propagation of Islam or for the conversion of Hindus into Muslims.
As per the prevailing tradition, the real ruler of the Delhi Sultenat was the Sultan who was
duly elected by the Sunnis and the Millat, that is why the Sultan could nominate his successor
before his death. Though, in principle, any Sunni Muslim could contest for and hold the
office of the king, in practice it remained confined to the royal family.
The outlook of the Sultans of Delhi was quite myopic as they considered themselves bound
to protect not all Muslims but only the Sunni Muslims. They were regarded as leaders and
rulers of the Sunnis. At the same time, they were to put an end to other Muslim sects like, the
Karmathis, the Shias, and the Mahadavis. Their policy towards these sects was that of total
suppression and oppression. Some of the Sultans went to the extent of having the religious
scriptures of non Sunni Muslims even publicly burnt. They were even denied government
jobs. That is why, like the non-Muslims, the non-sunni Muslims too were totally dissatisfied
with these rulers. In this way, the Sultenat era was the era of extreme religious fanaticism and
parochialism.
In so far as the political system of the Sultenat was concerned, it was the unitary form of
State in which the Sultan was regarded the real sovereign ruler, the head of the executive, the
interpreter of laws, the supreme judge and the supreme commander of the armed forces of the
State. In this way, the entire executive, legislative, judicial and millitary powers were
concentrated in him and were exercised by him. There was, however, an advisory council to
advise the king in day-to day matters. It consisted of 4-7 members who were known as the
Diwans or the Wazirs. The Prime Minister was called the Wazir-e-Ala and was the only link
between the king and his Council. He was appointed by the king and exercised a number of
important functions like listening the peoples’ grievances, and to act as the Sultan in the
latter’s absence. Besides the chief administrative head, he was also entrusted with the
department of finance and also used to control the arms. His office was known as Diwan-e-
Tizarat, There also used to be a Nayab Wazir or a deputy Prime Minister to advise the Prime
Minister in his day-to-day functions .Other ministers usually included the ministers incharge
of Defence, Finance, Law, Foreign Affairs and Justice. Others were called ministers only by
courtesy as they were almost like ministers without portfolios. They were infact entrusted
with secretarial functions and were attached as such to the appropriate ministers.
Under the Mughals, there was no institution like the council of Minister or advisors and,
therefore, the King could not have the benefit of their collective advice. The king could
appoint and remove ministers at will. They could give him advice but the king was not bound
to accept or even consider it. He used to rely more on the advice of his personal friends, trust-
worthy officials and the prominent Ulemas. All the trusted advisors of the king constituted an
informal group which was called Mazlis-e-Khalwat.
The most neglected and the weakest department of the Mughal administration was the
Department of Justice. The king was considered the fountain of Justice and, as such, his
obligation was to have the rules of the Holy Quran faithfully implemented. He was, as such,
the de facto head of this Department, while under him the nominal head was called the Chief
Kazi. In the absence of the king, the kazi was used to act as the Chief Justice.
Ziauddin Barani has, in his works, discussed the system of government mainly under the
Khilzi (1260-1320) and the Tughlaq (1320-1359) dynasties, together with their merits and
demerits and has given his own eleborate commentories thereon. The first Sultan of the
Khilzi dynasty was Alauddin Khilzi whom Barani regarded as the ideal king. He regarded his
system of governance too as the ideal system.
It was in 1320 that political power passed on to the Tughlaq dynasty. The first king of this
dynasty was Gayasuddin Tughlaq Shah. The primary function of this ruler of the Turkish
origin was to keep the rich and the laymen happy. Despite being a fundamentalist Sunni
Muslim himself, he had recourse to liberal politics. That is probably why he did not commit
excesses on the followers of other sects or religions. He was a great imperialist and, as such,
made several efforts to conquer other States and expand his empire. His son, Shahzada
Mohammad-bin-Tughlaq was so impatient to succeed his father as the king that he actually
conspired to have his father assassinated and succeeded him as the ruler in 1325.
Mohammad-bin-Tughlaq was an extremely ambitious person. He was the first king of his
dynasty who chose Devgiri/Daultabad as the capital, instead of Delhi and ordered all his
officers and people to leave Delhi and shift to Daultabad and settle there .However, both his
officers and people were to face insurmountable difficulties and became so unhappy with him
that he had to reverse his decision and order them to return to Delhi .He was also the first
king who laid down the system of minting coin to be used as official currency. He got the
coins of brass and copper minted and in value these were treated of gold and silver
respectively. He, however did not establish State monopoly over the minis with the result a
number of people started minting fake coin, in this connection, Barani as a fundamentalist
Muslim puts the entire blame of minting fake coin on the Hindus.
In the footsteps of Alauddin Khilzi, Mohammad-bin-Tughlaq ignored Shara and instead made
his own intel1igefl as the basis of his Political activities .No doubt he would often consult the
Ulema but would accept their advice only if and in so far as it appealed to his own reason and
conscience. On the other hand, whenever he thought that the advice of the Kazis was wrong,
he used to return it to them for reconsideration rather than accept it as it is. Despite his
fundamentalism he was a man of liberal nature and outlook. Even the level of his personal
life was sufficiently high and he was free from all those vices to which the other rulers used
to fall ready victims .Despite being very soft-spoken he was immensely attracted towards the
millitary way of life which has been described in great details by the chroniclers and
historians of the order of Barani. On the other hand, whenever he depicted militancy in his
outlook, behaviour or actions, it did not help him. Whenever he acted in haste, he would
usually loose the balance of his mind.
Barani is Oil record to have criticized Mohammad-bin-Tughlaq for the lack of his
commitment to Islam and he thought that in certain respects his actions were even anti-
Muslim. The primary basis of the works of Barani were the Political and social systems of
Alauddin Khilzi and Mohammad-bin-Tughlaq. He, however, could not go along with
Mohammad-bin-Tughlaq’s son. Firoze who became the next Sultan of Delhi. As soon as
Firoze assumed the reigns of his Empire one of the first things he did was to put Barani
behind the bars, despite the fact that had justified Firoze’s succession as legal and legitimate
After his release from jail, the old and tired Barani started authoring his works which were
based largely on his own experiences and memory as well as those of his father, grand father,
maternal grand father and the other ancestors who had served these dynasties in their own
times rather actively.
MODERN INDIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT:
After studying the political and social systems of the 13th and the 14th centuries, our course
of study crosses over four countries to study the political and social thoughts and actions of
the 19th and 20th century political and social thinkers and reformers.
We find that, like the system of the 13th and the 14th centuries, the system of the 19th
century-India was also equally conservative, feudal and microscopic. Infact, the conditions
prevailing in the 19th Century were such that it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to
bring about any change whatsoever. It was also marked by innumerable social
misconceptions and evils and it was almost difficult to get rid of them.
The traditional Hindu society was marked by casteism. Brahmanism, and male-domination.
Casteism, as the debased version of Manu’s Varna (class) system reigned supreme. The
Hindu society, instead of being based on the norms of equality, was vertically divided
between the so-called higher and lower castes. Under this system, the Brahmins were
considered as the highest, the supermost, and the shudras as the lowest vis-a-vis the Kshtriyas
and the Vaishyas. They were segregated from the other castes and were subjected to all kinds
of inhuman treatment. The entire Hindu society smacked of their optimum suppression and
oppression. Each of the four castes acted as an independent unit and there was total absence
of any interaction or communication between them. They were socially, economically and
politically treated as the outcastes. The activities of each caste were strictly defined, delimited
or confined to their own members. They were neither inter-dependent nor was there any
possibility of interaction or inter-relation amongst them.
Casteism had adversely affected not only the social but the economic system as well, for a
person could perform only those jobs which were assigned to his caste, that is to the caste of
his birth. They could not earn their livelihood by undertaking any job or occupation outside
their caste. In so far as the governance and administration was concerned, it was entirely in
the hands of the Brahmins, with the Kshtriyas acting as their appendage.
In that society, the place and status of women was also not one of equality with their men-
folk. Women occupied only a lower, subordinate place. Although they were glorified as (lie
Grihaswamini and Grihalakshmi in name in reality they had no independent status or position
of their own. Like the Shudras, vis-a-vis the other castes, women too were simply an
appendage to men and were known as someone’s mother, sister, wife or daughter, depending
on their age and family position.
In the Brahmin and the male dominated society, the shudras and the women were helpless
victims. The latter were virtually treated as honorary or unpaid domestic servants or bonded
labour who worked in their respective families without any economic return or reward for
their work. In order to keep them away from the society, various practices were resorted to
and they were made to submit to them, rather rigidly. An illustration of such a practice was
the system of ‘Purdah’ or ‘veil’ which had put a big question mark on the character of women
as such. It was believed that women must live under the constant vigil of men, if they were to
maintain their character or chastity. Otherwise, they were likely to become characterless
someday.
Yet another part of this conspiracy was to deny education to them and keep them deliberately
illiterate. It was not even considered necessary to give them any kind of education
whatsoever as they were supposed to do the manual (unskilled) domestic jobs, irrespective of
the fact whether they lived as daughters in their parent’s house or daughters-in-law in their
parents-in-law’s house.
The other practices in which the male-folk indulged were the institutions of ‘child marriage’
and Sati, both of which had its social and economic causes. If, for instance, somebody’s
husband died, for whatever reason, the wife was supposed to be responsible for his death
directly or indirectly. It was assumed that the death of the husband was the result of some
‘paapa’ or sinful deed which she must have committed in this or in some previous life. On the
other hand, the husband was never considered responsible for his wife’s death. He was
regarded as the image of God who was perfect and could possiblly do no wrong. Similar was
the custom of banning ‘widow-remarriage’. The girls were invariably taught from their
childhood that they were to live and die with their husbands and that in case the husband
died, it was her duty to perform ‘Sati’ (burning the widow alive on the funeral pyre of her
deceased husband). In principle, Sati was regarded as a ‘voluntary’ act and a pious practice,
but, the way the Sati was committed was nothing short of ‘suicide’ or ‘murder’. It was a blot
on the face of the Hindu society whose roots were essentially economic. The fact of the
matter was that no family member was prepared to undertake the economic burden of the
deceased’s family. And, once the widow was burnt, the family had no economic
responsibility towards the other members of his family. So, it was more economical rather
than social or religious to get rid of her by forcing her to commit suicide or by subjecting her
to murder.
The 19th century Indian society was the male-dominated society in which polygamy was
widely prevalent. On the other hand, polyandry was absolutely prohibited .In such a Brahmin
and male dominated social order that Brahmin was considered as the superior-most who had
hundred wives and perhaps hundred children.
In this society ‘idol worship’ was also the order of the day. Perhaps the total number of Gods
and Goddesses, both animate and inanimate, was larger than the entire human population.
India of the 19th century was probably known as the land of 56 crore gods and goddesses.
This system, by itself, led to a number of heinous evils and that too in the name of religion. A
prominent form of this evil was the practice of ‘Devadasi’. The young girls who were
dedicated to the temples were ultimately to act as dancers to please the deity, the priests and
the patrons. They were ultimately turned into prostitutes and that, too, in the name of religion,
in the name of the presiding deity.
This society was also dominated by the so-called saints, priests and magicians. In this society,
the God who was worshipped was literally not the God, the Creator, but the image of gods
and goddesses who were created by human beings and who, accordingly possessed the same
virtues and vices which their creators, the human beings, had. That is probably why if one
was to seek blessings or favours of a particular deity, he was to keep him happy and offer him
the things of his choice and taste, which included not only offerings in cash or kind, but also
the Devadasis (the young female dancers), and the heads not only of infants but also of
animals.
In the tradition-bound society, even foreign travel was considered a ‘sin’. The general
conviction was that if a person went out of sight, vigil or control of his family, clan or village
of which he was a member, he would invariably become the victim of vices like drinking,
eating meat and becoming a womaniser. Such possibilities or occasions of falling victim to
such vices were greater in the Western world than elsewhere. Therefore, travel to the Western
countries was considered a still greater ‘sin’. ‘Moniya’, Puttlibai’s Mohandas Gandhi, himself
had to undertake the vow to keep away from these vices before he was actually allowed to
proceed to London for his higher studies.
In a society corrupted by such social, eligious and economic malpractices, it was almost
difficult, if not total impossible, to bring about any kind of change. The only thing seemed
possible was the total overhaul, a revolution, and not the casual, minor or piecemeal change
here and there.
In so far as the Indian political system of the 19th century was concerned, it was of two
different types. Politically, India was divided into two unequal and scattered halves, if one
was under the feudal rule of the indigenous kings and queens, the other half was under the
alien British rule. The feudal system of this century had its close resemblance with that of tile
feudal system of the 13th and 14th centuries. This system was a sort of one-way traffic in
which people had all the obligations and no rights in return, and the government had all the
powers with no obligations towards the people. People were bound to fulfill atleast three of
their basic obligations towards the State, i.e. to obey its laws, to co-operate with it and to pay
the taxes levied by it, whereas the State failed to make its laws uniform, codified or conform
to constitutional provisions.
On the other hand, we had the alien British rule in India which was based on the assumption
that since the people of India were not capable of governing themselves, God Almighty had
sent the British rulers to teach them as how to govern themselves. While believing this to be
their mission, the British conveniently ignores the fact that people of India were as much
capable of governing themselves as the British in Britain. The only difference between the
two was that while the latter had a constant opportunity to rule themselves, the former were
denied this opportunity by their feudal as well as foreign rulers. Thus, the Indian political
system of the 19th and the 20th centuries was under the active influence of both the feudal
and the foreign rule.
The British system of government not only cripped peoples’ capacity to rule themselves, it
was also oppressive. The freedom movement of the people, which was essentially peaceful
and nonviolent, was also systematically crushed by them. The Jalianwala Bagh massacre had
infact become the symbol of the oppressive rule of the British. They pursued their traditional
policy of “divide and rule” and they left no stone unturned to bring to the fore the existing
dominant divisions and use them to serve their political ends. They also created sub divisions
and fresh divisions created communal electorates and reserved seats for them in the
legislatures on the basis of religion. Their policy of divide and rule which had started with tile
division of Bengal in 1905 culminated in the division of India into Hindustan and Pakistan in
1947. They tried to suppress Indian civilization and culture, education, attire, traditions and
custom, and the public conduct itself. They plundered India for over 350 years and used the
wealth so plundered not to the economic advantage of Indians but to that of their own
countrymen in Britain.
However, the role of tile alien British rulers of India was not merely negative, in some
respects it was positive as well. They replaced the autocratic feudal rule by the system of the
rule of law. They encouraged the formation of political parties. It was due to their initiative
that the Indian National Congress was established in 1885 and the Muslim League, as its
counterpart, in 1906. They gradually made the people of India conscious of their political
rights and laid the foundation of parliamentary democracy, federalism and provincial
autonomy. They also secularized the Indian system of education and introduced into it the
elements of science and modernity. They separated judiciary from both the executive and the
legislature. They also introduced the system of independent and impartial civil services which
were to discharge their functions by keeping themselves away and above from tile pirty
politics. They also underlined the fact that the purpose of the State is not merely the ruler’s
welfare, but the welfare of the people as well. They were liberal enough to tolerate India’s
Struggle for Freedom to the extent it did not affect their and economic interests seriously.
That is how, while in the latter half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century,
moderate, liberal, gradual and peaceful movements continued to dominate the Indian political
scene. The latter half of this century witnessed the rise of the extremists, the revolutionaries,
the terrorists, the Home Rule Leaguers, the non-violent anarchists, the swarajists, the
socialists, the communists, the humanists and a number of other movements.
It was in this overall context that the Social Reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Swami
Vivekananda, Swami Dayananth and political reformers like Gokhale, Tilak. Autobindo,
Gandhi and J.P. led theirs movements and organized themselves in smaller groups to rid the
Indian society of its social, religious and political maladies. The Social Reform Movements
initiated by Raja Ram Mohan Roy has continued to make its efforts to rid the Indian society
of its social and religious maladies in tile last 200 years and has succeeded not only in having
the henious system like Sati abolished, but also tonned down the militancy of other evil
practices too. It is due to the efforts of these social and political reformers that the Indian
society of today is not as closed as it used to be and is increasingly becoming amenable to
change.
SYNTHESIS OF TRADITION AND MODERNITY:
Raja Ram Mohan Roy is rightly regarded as the Father of modern India because he initiated
the process of synthesising tradition with modernity and that is why he is compared with a
bridge over which India has travelled from tradition to modernity.
It was due to the efforts of our modern Indian social reformers that the movement for social
and political reform found its encouragement. They not only laid the foundation of the revival
of the Vedic tradition, worship of the nilrakar (formless), Omnipotent Omnipresent and
benevolent God, but also depicted an attitude of respect, tolerance and accommodation
towards other religions and religionists. They were given the option of voluntary conversion
and were also encouraged to adopt the modern congregational form of worship so as to save
themselves from a number of malpractices which had become an intrinsic part of the
preceding systems.
Efforts were made to distinguish Manu’s Varna system from the prevalent caste-system
which was eating into the vitals of Hindu society. All castes and classes were regarded as
equal, no superior, no inferior, and the process of interaction between them was initiated
rather modestly, in the form of inter-caste marriages and inter-caste dinners.
In this integrated society efforts were made to restore all those traditions customs, values and
practices which were found to be useful and beneficial. The spirit of unity and fraternity was
sought to be restored. On the other hand, harmful practices like Sati, Devadasi, polygamy and
child-marriages were sought to be abolished, atleast seriously ended.
In so far as the question of the position of women in society was concerned, efforts were
made to restore to them the status of Grihaswamini and Grihalakshmi and the need of their
proper education was also sought to be underlined. Efforts were also made to help women
attain the status of equality and economic independence. They were to be given equal rights
in the property of their parents and husbands and they were made free of a number of social
evils which had become almost a part of their life. In so far as the judicial system is
concerned, it has come to be based not only on the scriptures but also the statutes.
Under, the feudal s people were bound to render their political obligations without expecting
their corresponding rights. In the new set-up, the need for fulfilling their obligations was
sought to be re-enforced, but they were also encouraged to struggle for their rights, including
the right to challenge and change the government.
It is the duty of every citizen to fight for his freedom. This view was propagated by thinkers
of both the 19th and the 20th centuries. And, to this end, while the Moderate-Liberals like
Naoroji. Ranade, and Gokhale pursued the politics of “prayer and petition”, the extremists
followed the politics of “pressure”. Subsequently, Gandhi led India’s Struggle for Freedom
by synthesising the methods of both the Moderates and the Extremists. Barring Aurobindo
Ghosh and a few others, the political agitators of this century believed in the movement of
peaceful struggle and the politics of pressure, rather than the politics of the bomb.
Another distinguishing feature of the politics of Modern India has been the pursuit of the
politics of spiritualization and secularization of politics, which was vigorously pursued by
thinkers like Vivekananda and Gandhi. Another distinguishing feature of this age has been
that of economic socialization which in their own ways was propogated and pursued by
people like Nehru, Narendra Deva, Lohia, Vinoba Bhave and J.P.
India’s Struggle for Freedom was not only marked by the politics of violence vs. non-
violence, but also that of integration vs. separation. While Gandhi wanted that the institutions
of communalism and casteism should become the things of the past and give way to the spirit
of genuine national integration in which everyone would be known by his nationality and not
by the derogatory and inhuman prefixes of religion & caste. He would also have an equal
opportunity to be at his best self .On the other hand, Ambedkar not only wanted the status of
equality for them all, but also pursued the politics of separatism, believing that they should be
kept as “equal but separate” identities so that special provisions, specially the system of
reservations, could be made to protect their special interests and to ensure their speedy
progress and development in every walk of life. However, once he realized that this may not
become a reality, he quit Hinduism and, along with his followers, adopted Buddhism.
In this background, efforts have been made to study and examine the views of eight select
Indian political thinkers and reformers and assess their relevance for our times within the
format of this volume which seeks to highlight their respective outlooks, traditions, values
and ends and means, together with comments on their relevance for our times.
APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF INDIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT:’
There are as many as seven different approaches for studying the works of Indian political
thinkers and evaluating their ideas. These are Contextual Approach; Historical Approach;
Philosophical or Normative Approach; Analytical Approach; Comparative Approach;
Conceptual Approach; and Socio-Scientific Approach.
THE CONTEXTUAL APPROACH:
This approach makes an attempt to look at the philosophers in the context of special
situations and specific audiances, to which these writers were addressing themselves. The
context is important because it helps us in two ways: first, it throws a new light on the hidden
meanings which would not otherwise remain unrevealed. Secondly, it is to emphasize the
totality of social process in which the world is integrally related to consciousness as a part of
this process. Political thought can not be divorced from political experiences. Hence, it is
incumbent upon us to understand the context of ideas and issues. The context does help us
find out as to why a particular philosopher said what he said. For instance, Maharana Pratap
and Shivaji may appear as reactionaries from the present point of view, but in the context in
which they were placed, their struggle had a definitive patriotic and nationalistic significance.
THE HISTORICAL APPROACH:
The historical approach can be useful in analysing the epochal characteristics of a particular
age. Some of these characteristics are rejected or become irrelevant with the passage of time.
Others are retained because they are found to be either useful or conforming to deeper human
experiences. The study of the history of political thought does two things: (a) It gives us the
knowledge of the past, its ideas and their relationship to concrete political activity in terms of
their continuity and (b) It help us understand ourselves and our predicament better by having
an assessment of the similarities and dissimilarities between the past and the present epochs,
highlighting human possibilities for the future.
It is essential that one should be able to highlight the historical context in which a particular
classical work was written. The critic must also be familiar with the principal events of that
period. This exercise assumes greater significance iii the context of thinkers like Kautilya and
Barani. The questions with reference to Kautilya which have been the subject of prolonged
debates have been: When was the Arthashastra originally written by Kautilya? Which of its
portions he wrote himself and which were subsequently inserted into it later on? How correct
is Kautilya’s description of Chandragupta Maurya’s heroism? How much significance did the
foreign traveller, Magasthenis, attach to it in his description? To what extent do the sculptures
of Ashoka’s time tally with the actual details of the Mauryan Empire of Kautilya’s
description? These are the kind of questions which can hi confirmed only by reference to
historical facts.
Similarly, the historical context of Barani’s works and his personal experiences with the
Sultenat of Mohammed-bin-Tughlaq can better be understood with reference to his own
interactions with him and the contacts of his own family members, specially his father and
paternal and maternal grandfathers.
If a reviewer ventures to evaluate the political ideas of thinker and writers like Kautilya or
Barani in the present-day context, without being first familiar with their respective historical
contexts, he would simply be unfair to them. Moreover, these thinkers were eminently aware
of the ideas not only of their political contemporaries but also of their illustrious predecessors
and that was the base, the foundation from which they derived and developed their own
ideas. Hence, while evaluating the ideas of these thinkers, we would have to keep in mind not
only their own historical context but also of their predecessors.
It is the historical approach which enables us to understand the real meaning and implications
of the ideas contained in any classics work. If Kautilya made the establishment and
preservation of Varnashrama Dharma an obligation of the State, it was because hi own social
structure stood clearly divided into these four varnas (classes). In that social milieu, everyone
had to fulfill his obligations as laid down for the class to which he belonged. That is why in
Kautilya thinking we find description only of the individual’s obligations toward another
individual, family, tribe, varna and the State, while the discussion of his corresponding rights
is almost completely missing.
THE PHILOSOPHICAL OR NORMATIVE APPROACH:
While studying the classics, we would have to begin with the premise that ideas originate
from man’s mind and that each classic is the brainchild of a particular person, and is not
necessarily the product of a particular era. For instance:
(a) Man alone is conscious of the fact that he has within him the spark of God in the form of
his soul and that is why he is considered superior to all other beings;
(b) Since man alone has the capacity to ‘think’ and ‘differentiate’ between or among the
variety of alternatives available to him, he alone has the capacity to govern himself;
(c) Man is not only fallible, but also corrigible and, thus, has the potential to make up his
shortcomings; and
(d) The purpose of the State should be the good of all in all walks of life, and not merely of
‘majority’ or a specific ‘minority’. Thus, the principal ideas of Gandhi were not merely the
product of his social or political context but primarily of his own philosophical thinking.
In this context, it is also essential to keep in mind the following questions
(a) What was the process of reasoning of the thinker himself?
(b) To what extent were his ideas in consonance with the existing facts and to what extent
they were futuristic; and
(C) To what extent did his views conform to the ethical values and ideals of his
contemporaries?
In this approach, the basis of evaluation is the personal values and ideals of the author
himself. This approach also presupposes that the origin and evolution of ideas is essentially
the product of thinkers’ thoughts & ideas and is not merely the by-product of history or
historical process. The supremacy of dharma as the supreme principle of human life, the
specific implications of dharma for political philosophy— the theories of royal exertion,
paternalism, tradition and welfarism (yogakshema) — all can be better analysed through their
philosophical- normative understanding. Similarly, Gandhi’s insistence for consciously divine
and corrigible nature of man, essence of Jivdaya (compassion for all living beings),
synthesization of majoritarianism and minoritarianism into Sarvodaya (welfare of all in all
walks of life) all this needs essentially a normative fervour. The philosophical- normative
approach is different from that of the historical approach. While the latter is descriptive,
narrative, analytical and concentrates primarily on historical evolution, the former revolves
around assessment, reasoned argument and emphasizes moral values, values based on Indian
ethoes and political philosophy, indeed requires ethical orientation along with empirical and
historical analysis.
There are certain fundamental differences between the historical and the philosophical
approaches. For instances, while the historical approach is descriptive and interpretative, the
philosophical approach is based Oil evaluation and reason. The historical approach
underlines the historical analysis, while the philosophical approach underlines the analysis of
moral values. In other words, values are judged by some moral standard.
Instead of trying to be acquainted with a significant work with reference only to its
contemporary historical context, one should try to assess it with reference to its relationship
to various ages. India as a geographical entity is a complete unit in itself and it should
therefore not be delimited to the confines of a particular age.
There can be a difference in the historical precincts of democracy, but there is also an identity
in the basic facts of aristocracy and democracy. While aristocracy is dominated by an elitist
minority, democracy is dominated b the non-elitist majority. Whereas they differ with
reference to their historical context, they do not reflect a unique philosophical identity.
THE SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC APPROACH:
A number of definitions and standards have been accepted in the field of science. If we wish
to know as to when did the State originate, or which of the weaknesses of its organs can be
dangerous for the State or what would be the nature of the State after a revolution, then we
can, for sure, employ the socio-scientific approach and derive conclusions therefrom. For
instance, in the study of a classic we would find two ideas by applying the scientific
approach: the Absolute Truth and the relative truth.
For instance, Gandhi believed that both men and women possess the faculty of reason in
equal measure. That is probably one reason for his selecting Gulnar, Maulana Mohammad
Ali’s daughter, as his successor. The validity of Gandhi’s outlook can be tested only after we
are able to provide both men and women an equality of opportunity. The same procedure is
followed in the medical profession as well. If we adopt the historical approach we would
reach the conclusion that, except with reference to the 20th century, they have not been found
equally suitable. The result of adopting the socio-scientific approach would indeed be
different. According to this approach, we can not prove or disprove any statement without
first putting it in practice.
In terms of this approach, our own perception may be doubtful in as much as its validity or
otherwise remains in question. Secondly, we can not arrive at a peripheral or hasty
conclusion. But, this approach too has a serious limitation. In the context of large
geographical units we can examine the ideals only of individuals and not of the countries as
such.
THE EMPIRICAL APPROACH:
The emperical approach is also closely connected with the socio-scientific approach.
According to the emperical approach, we can not declare any idea as true or false unless we
have experimented it directly, face-to-face. For instance, if we want to know precisely as to
whether the basis of Kautilya’s State is religion, power or force, we can do so only if and
when we are able to determine as to whether the ruler actually exercised the powers vested in
him. Whether the ruler considered use of power or attainment of economic welfare as the
source of his basic premise? And, in the absence of experiment, it would be impossible to say
as to which one is correct. Experience is the basis of ideas in as much as inspiration and sub-
conscience are. However, in Political Science the use of the same approach may or may nor
lead to identical results or conclusions as may be relevant to a particular context and not so
relevant to another.
THE ANALYTICAL AND COMPARATIVE
APPROACH:
This approach efforts yet another option to study Indian political thought. To analyse,
compare and contrast ancient, medieval and modern manifestations of Indian political
thought and their compatibility with the Western counterparts presupposes an analytical and
comparative panitration. This aptitude can answer the inter-mingling of notions and phrases
from Sanskrit, ideas about justice and fairplay from Urdu and Persian, and legal and political
words from English. Assimilation of the Vedic world view, the Upanishadic philosophy, the
Buddhist, Jam, Sikh and Islamic religious traditions and Western culture — everything can’t
just be restricted to contextual historical or normative implications.
THE CONCEPTUAL APPROACH:
Political principles are often related to a variety of values, ideas, and perceptions. And, one
should be fairly acquainted with them. For instance, before analysing the concepts and ideas
contained in the works of Kautilya Mhahbharta’s Shanti Parva. Plato. Aristotle, Baratu.
Machiavelli, Bentham. Ruskin. Marx or Gandhi, one should be fairly conversant with their
respective philosophical, moral, political and social commitments, assumptions and
perceptions. For, a person expresses his ideas and evolves his system with reference to a
particular context and if the analysist is not sufficiently familiar with the philosophical,
moral, political or social context of the thinker concerned, he would not be able to have a fair
evaluation. For instance, for analysing the tradition of the ‘spiritualization of politics’ which
Gokhale handed down to Gandhi, it would be essential to be familiar with the indian
conceptions of ‘Dharma’ and the politics based on the fundamental principles of morality and
ethics, which are more or less common to all religions.
In short, it ma here be observed that no particular approach is comprehensive enough to study
any stream of political thought. Infact, a number of approaches have to be applied and there
has to be some sort of synthesis between these approaches and their application, as basically
all these approaches are complimentary to one another.
CHAPTER II
KAUTILYA (CIRCA 375 - 300 B.C.)
Kautilya, the great diplomat, politician, upholder of political unity and the maker of the
destiny of Magadh, was born in 375 B.C in the historic city of Aryavrata in the Magadh
Empire. He was born to a learned, though poor. Brahmin named Chanak, after whom lie
came to be known as Chanakya, the son of Chanak. Since he was well-versed in the art and
science of statecraft and diplomacy, lie also came to be known as Kautilya. He received his
education in the Takshashila University, where he had occasion to meet Chandragupta
Maurya. After finishing his studies, he taught at Takshashila for a while. Later, keeping in
view his special knowledge of politics and diplomacy, he was appointed by Chandragupta as
his Prime Minister. At that time, India stood divided into tiny fragmented states. Chanakya
played the historic role of bringing these smaller states together and uniting them, for the first
time, into a great Indian Empire.
The principal objective of Kautilya’s life was the attainment of Dharma (ethical values),
Artha (Economic welfare), kama (material pleasures) and Moksha (Salvation). Despite the
fact that Kautilya was the all in all of the Mauryan Empire, he lived the simple life of an
ascetic and found time to author his world-renowned classic, the Arthashastra. Though
Arthashastra was authored by Kautilya atleast 325 B.C., it was after more than 2200 years
that a Brahmin of Tanjore found the handwritten manuscript of this book in 1905 in the
Mysore Library. Sham Shastri, the great historian published Arthashastra for the first time in
1909. The scope of this great classic is confined mainly to politics. It contains 15 parts, 180
divisions, 150 chapters and 6.000 shlokas. Besides politics, the other subjects touched upon
include Economics, Ethics, and Sociology, Criminology, Intelligence & Espionage, Science
of Education, Warfare, Engineering and others. In the Ancient Indian Political Thought,
Kautilya, Arthashastra is a landmark, without parallel anywhere else in the world. It negates
the Western contention that India was not attuned to political thinking.
We have generally been accustomed to begin our study of political theory and thought with
the concepts of ideal state of Plato and Aristotle and then jump suddenly to the study of
diplomacy of Machiavelli. Very few people have cared to take into account that it was
Kautilya of ancient India who, too, had described the organisation of a well- organised state,
and the qualities of an ideal ruler, besides laying down the principles of practical politics and
ethical and moral order of the society. Infact, Kautilya’s Arthashashtra is a classic on the
nature of the State and the art of governance. Kautilya accepted Monarchy as the most ideal
form of State and, on that assumption, he described in Arthashastra the domestic and inter-
state policies which an ideal state should adopt. Kautilya’s description of these principles was
relevant not only to his times, but continues to be relevant today and would hopefully remain
so for the generation to come.
A brief sketch of the topics discussed in the Arthashastra will facilitate the visualisation of the
comprehensiveness of the Indian Political Thought.
The contents of the Arthashastra may be systematised under three broad topics
i) the theory of the kingship or the “activities and functions of the sage—king’’ —
rajarshivrittam;
ii) the theory of administration and law; and
iii) the problems of war and diplomacy.
In the first place, the theory of kingship or the activities and functions of the sage-king —
rajarshivrittam has been given a detailed description. The first, sixth and eighth books are
devoted to the elucidation of this subject. Kautilya discusses in the first book the concepts of
discipline and punishment; the goal of knowledge, appointment of ministers, councillors,
priests and spies and envoys; protection and education of the princes; conduct of a prince
kept under confinement; treatment of a prince kept under restraint; duties of a king
(Rajapranidhi); duties of the king towards the female quarters and lastly the personal safety
of the king. The sixth book elucidates “the source of the circle of kingdom”. It deals with the
seven constituent factors of a commonwealth which are the king, the minister, the country,
the fort, the treasury, the army, and the friend. It constructs the categories which make the
ideal, in each of the factors listed. The eighth book examines the vices and calamities of each
of the sevenfold factor. It analyses the troubles of the king and his kingdom, the aggregate of
the troubles of men and the group of troubles of a friend. It makes an analysis of the relative
gravity of the troubles of the sevenfold factors and the monarchical orientation of the book is
revealed in its view of the king troubles being the most serious.
Second, the Arthashastra deals with the theory of administration and law. Books two to five
are devoted to this topic. In the second book we find an analysis of the activities of
government superintendents. Traditionally, these are known as Ratnins in the Vedic literature
and Tirthas in the later works. Kautilya calls them Adhyakshas. In this book we find
discussed the problems of formation of villages and country settlements; division of land,
forts, revenue, treasury, mining and manufacture; gold, commerce, forest, communication,
weights and measures, tolls, agriculture, division of the army, viz, cavalry, infantry, chariots
and elephants; espionage and urban administration. The fifth book also deals with the
problems of administration. Replenishment of the treasury, subsistence to government
servants and consolidation of the kingdom are analyzed. Books three and four deal with law.
In the third book, we find a discussion of civil law, agreements, marriage, inheritance, debts,
deposits, slaves and labourers, ownership, defamation, assault, etc. The fourth book discusses
criminal law, which is called in Sanskrit “rectification of thorns”. It analyzes the problems of
protection of artisans and merchants, remedies against calamities in the kingdom, seizure of
criminals, trial and torture to elicit confession, protection of all kinds of government
departments, fines in lieu of mutilation of limbs, death with or without torture and atonement
for violating canons of law and custom.
Third, we find discussed in the Arthashastra the problems of war and diplomacy. Against the
views of Vatavyadhi who held that there are only two forms of policy — war and peace,
Kautilya, in the seventh book, held that there are six forms of policy — peace, war,
indifference or neutrality, making preparations for marching, alliance or seeking the
protection of another, making peace with one and waging war with another. The ninth book is
devoted to an analysis of the work of an invader. It deals with such topics as knowledge of
the power, place, time, strength and weakness of the enemy; the time of the invasion,
recruitment, remedies against internal and external troubles, persons associated with warfare
and enemies and success to be obtained by the employment of alternative strategic means.
The tenth book relates to war and analyzes subjects like encampment, protection of the army
in time of sickness and attack, forms of the treacherous fights and the work of infantry,
cavalry, chariots and elephants, etc. The eleventh book is devoted to the republican states and
analyzes the ways and means of fomenting dissensions among them. Kautilya policy with
regard to the republican states is stated thus:
The acquisition of help of republics is better than the acquisition of an army, or friend, or
profits. By means of conciliation and gifts, the conqueror should secure and enjoy the
services of such republics as are invincible to the enemy and are favourably disposed towards
himself. But those who are opposed to him, he should put down by sowing the seeds of
dissension among them and by secretly punishing them.
He refers to two types of republics, some of them specialising in commerce and arms and the
other designated by the title of a Raja (king or counsul). The twelfth book analyzes the
problems arising out of dealings with a powerful enemy. It examines such topics as the duties
of a messenger, battle of intrigues, spies with weapons, fire and poison, capture of the enemy
by means of secret contrivances or by means of superior millitary strength, and total
conquest. In the thirteenth book, we got a discussion of the means to capture a fort, It
discusses such subjects as sowing seeds of dissension, enticement of kings by secret
contrivances, the work of spies in a siege, the operation of a seize, and restoration of peace in
a conquered country. The fourteenth book lists the secret and esoteric means to handle an
enemy, wonderful and delusive contrivances, remedies against the injuries of one’s own
army.
The comprehensiveness and richness of content of the concept of, Artha is demonstrated by
this brief sketch of the topics and subjects discussed by Kautilya. In a way, Artha is
equivalent to both domestic and international politics. It also comprehends criminal and civil
law and discussion of warfare. Thus, it is clear that the term Arthashastra basically and
fundamentally treats of political problems. Economic problems occupy a very subordinate
place in the scheme of the investigations and discussions of the Arthashastra.
The use of the term Arthashastra for the science of politics has been a subject of debate
among scholars. The usual meaning of the term Arthashastra is money or wealth and so the
term Arthashastra should ordinarily connote the Science of Wealth or Economics, and not the
Science of Governance. But, according to Kautilya, “the substance of mankind is termed
Artha (wealth), the earth which contains mankind is termed Artha (wealth); the science which
deals with the means of acquiring and maintaining earth is Arthashastra, Science of Political-
Economy. While conceding that Artha denotes the avocations of men, Kautilya contends that
the term can also denote the territory where the people live together. Arthashastra, thus, is the
science which deals with the protection and promotion of wealth and the acquisition,
protection and governance of territory. Kautilya definitely raised this classic to the level of a
systematic, comprehensive and rational-analytical branch of knowledge, owing to his
intensive treatment of all the related and kindered topics of kingship, economics, social
relations, law and diplomacy.
Kautilya accepts that there are four branches of knowledge: Anvikshaki, Trayi. Vaarta and
Dandaniti. Under Anvikshaki, Kautilya includes the philosophical system of the dualistic
Samkhya, the Yoga and the materialistic philosophy of the Lokayata. The second branch of
knowledge is composed of the three Vedas: Rig, Yaju and Sama. This literature helps in
ordering the social structure composed of the four castes, the four Varna — Ashramas and
Dharma (the ethico-moral code of conduct). The third system of knowledge, Vaarta,
comprehends agriculture, cattle-breeding and trade. The fourth branch of Dandaniti deals
with the means of acquisition and preservation of dialectics (Anvikshaki), Vedas and Vaarta.
Kautilya starts from the traditional four-fold classification of the basic goals or aspirations of
an individual : First, Dharma (righteous performance of one’s own duties) second, Artha
(economic activities in pursuance of wealth and power: in narrower sense, it is the equivalent
of wealth and in its broader sense it is an equivalent of all the means necessary for the
acquisition and preservation of an all-India imperial system); third, Kama (fulfillment of
sexual or worldly desires) and ; fourth, Moksha (final liberation or freedom from the cycle of
rebirth). Kautilya insists not on the fulfillment of one United and partial aim, but on success
in all the fields. He asserts : “As Dharma is the basis of wealth, and as Kama is the fruit of
wealth, success in obtaining that kind of wealth which is conducive to the promotion of
Dharma, Artha and Kama is comprehensive success”, which, in turn, leads towards the
realization of Moksha.
Kautilya, however, followed the Smriti pattern in formulating his ideas of the policy and the
state. In the words of U.N. Ghoshal, Kautilya contributed not only to the remarkable concept
of Raajadharma in the Mahabharta, but also to the incorporation of the Arthashastra material
into the old Smriti tradition. He, thus, constituted one of the most distinctive characteristics
of the political thought of Manu and Yajnavalyak as well as of Bhishma in the great Epic
Mahabharata.

KAUTILYA’S THEORY OF STATE:

(A) The Origin of Kingship:
Kautilya regarded state as an essentially human, not a divine, institution. This was in keeping
with the early vedic view which looked at monarch essentially as a human being, rather than
a divine person.
The theoretical aspect of the State did not fall within the philosophical domain of Kautilya, as
he was not a political theorist. Yet, his stray reflections on the origin of State to help us have a
better understanding of his concept of State in its totality. And, the almost casual mention of
these ideas in his .Arthashastra is hardly surprising, as these ideas had already gained
currency during the Mauriyan period.
Kautilya was disturbed to find that people had to suffer the anarchy of Matsyanyaya, the
proverbial ‘judicial’ tendency of the large fish to swallow the smaller ones. He thought that it
was primarily to get rid of this hobbesian kind of a situation which led people select Manu,
the Vaivasvata, as their first king.
While selecting their king, the subjects expected him not only to ensure their ‘safety and
security” and ‘punish” people with anarchic tendencies, but also to ‘maintain individual and
social order’’. For this purpose, they empowered him to collect property taxes or royal dues
equivalent to one-sixty of the grain grown and one-tenth of merchandise”. The king was also
authorized to act at once, as Indra and Yama acted, while dispensing rewards and punishment.
And, acting as such, he could ‘never be despised”. The prevailing view was that if a subject
disregarded the king, he would have to undergo not only political but also divine punishment.
Thus, to Kautilya, the king derived his authority to rule from those who selected him for this
office and paid him property tax or royal dues to enable him to fulfill the duties and functions
assigned to him. As such, Kautilya’s king commanded instant devotion and loyalty of his
subjects.
(B) The Organic State: The Saptanga Theory:
Kautilya builds tip his theory of the State as an organic entity on the basis of seven elements,
which he describes in his Arthashastra as Saptanga. The seven elements, despite being
enumerated separately, stand in the closest possible relation to one another and are in
themselves ‘mutually serviceable”. Together, they constitute the State as an organism, like a
chariot composed of seven parts fitted and subservient to one another”. Though Kautilya
likens the State to a Chariot, lie conceives it essentially as a living, not a dead, organism in
which the Swami (the king) is the spirit that regulates and guides the remaining constituents
of the both-politic. This harmony is essential not only to their own existence, but also to that
of the whole which they constitute together. Further, according to Kautilya, of these seven
elements, each subsequent element is inferior to the preceding ones. Thus, the Swami or the
King (first prakriti or element) becomes superior to the remaining six elements. His
righteousness and other qualities would result in the righteousness and prosperity of other
elements, whereas his vices would multiply the troubles and calamities of the other elements.
In this connection, it is to be noted that while Manu argues that various elements could gain
importance on different occasions, the Mahabharta considers all the elements as
supplementary to one another.
To an extent, the organic theory of State finds elaboration in the Ancient Greek Political
Philosophy. For instance, while compairing the State with the human body. Plato had argued
that just as a cut in the finger causes pain in the body, similarly injury of one organ creates
problems for the other organs of the body-politic. Aristotle was of the view that no organ and
no individual has any value, if not considered in totality. For instance, an arm is meaningless
without the body. The Greek philosophers wanted to avert the causes which endangered the
unity and solidarity of the city-states, whereas Kautilya aimed at comprehensiveness of
Anvikshaki, Trayi, Vaarta and Dandaniti.
Seven Angas, Prakritis, or elements were enumerated and elucidated by Kautilya for
describing “the nature of the State” in its totality. As laid down in the first chapter of
Arthashastra’s Sixth Book, entitled. Mandala Yonih, these are
1. The Swami, the sovereign King;
2. The Mantrin, the ministers;
3. The Janapada, the people and the territory;
4. The Durga, the fortification;
5. The Kosha, the treasury;
6. The Sena or the Danda, the army; and
7 The Mitra, the allies.
All these elements establish the nature of State. The Seven characteristics that emerge from
these seven elements are:
1. Unity, uniformity and solidarity of the state;
2. Stable and systematic administration;
3. Definite territory, able to protect and support both the king and the subjects;
4. Planned system of security and defence;
5. System of just and proportionate taxation;
6. Strong and powerful state; and
7. Freedom from alien rule.
Through these elements, Kautilya is able to depict the various facets of the state of his
conception. Inclusion of Mitra (ally), Kosha (treasury), and Sena (army) as separate elements
in the formation of State may not be acceptable today, but it had a marked relevance in an age
when the theory of Separation of Powers was not predominant and when the State meant
nothing but the sole embodiment of the highest executive authority, subject only to the
supremacy of laws. As a matter of fact, in incorporating all these elements as constituents of
his body-politic, Kautilya is only according recognition to all the agencies which contribute
to the “moral and political existence of a community”.
Moreover, by including Mitra (ally) as a constituent element of the State, Kautilya has
succeeded in presenting the State “not as a thing in itself, but as one entity among and in
relation to many” in the international sphere. He recognises not only its sovereign character
but also its interdependence. His polity has, therefore, been rightly described by M.V.
Krishna Rao as “pluralistically dominated monism”.
The seven elements of the State outlined by Kautilya may be discussed as follows
(1) SWAMI (THE SOVEREIGN KING):
Subscribing to monarchy as the ideal form of State, Kautilya has accorded to the king “the
highest place in the body-politic”. The Swami the chief executive head of the State and, is,
thus “the consumption of all other elements”. He is not merely a feudatory chieftain, but a
variable sovereign, owing allegiance to none. The Word Swami is derived from the word
swayam which refers to self- determining. The Swami, therefore, becomes a living and
animate embodiment, which is subjected to be ruled by none, does not follow any external
rulings and is liable only to self-imposed restrictions. He is, thus, the symbol of legal and
political authority and power. Distinguished from Raja or Rajan, Swami has the reflection of
political Superior or sovereign.
Kautilya gives a comprehensive list of four broad categories of qualities which constitute the
ideals of a Swami:
(a) Qualities of an inviting nature (.Abhigamika Guna): this induces the people to approach
him, i.e. the qualities of high birth, pious, consulting the aged persons, truthful, not of divided
nature, grateful, having lofty ideals, powerful to control the neighbouring kings, of firm
mind, having a large assembly and having a propensity for discipline and restraint.
(b) Qualities of intellect and intuition (Prajyna Guna): devotedness, hearing, reception,
retention, discriminate vision, critical analysis, penetration into the regions of metaphysics.
(c) Qualities of enthusiasm (Utsaha Guna): Prowess, non-endurance, Quickness and
dexterity.
(d) Qualities of self-restraint and spirit (Atma Sampad): eloquence, self-pride, keenness of
mind, energetic, powerful, trained in the arts, free from vice, capable of giving rewards and
penal sanctions, having foresight, ready to avail opportunities, capable of taking advantage of
the enemy’s weak-points, free from lust, anger, covetousness, obstinacy, fickleness and back-
biting habits and adhering to the customs as interpreted by the aged persons.
This categorisation of qualities supplements the usual notion of kingship being characterized
by coercion and subordination of people. The king was, thus, not to be a despot, exercising
power through sheer military force, but was to rule his subjects through affection.
Accordingly, the duties and functions that he is called upon to perform are of two types: (1)
Protective; and (2) Promotive.
THE PROTECTIVE FUNCTIONS:
In so far as the protective functions that Kautilya expects the Swami to perform, the
following are of vital nature:
(1) Being the natural guardian and saviour (the parens patriae) of his people, his highest duty
is to protect:
(i) the life of his people, specially the ones in distress, the widows, the women without
children, the women with infants, the orphans, the sick and the indigent;
(ii) hermits, srotriyas and students, and
(iii) property of the people;
(2)To put down violence and maintain law and order;
(3)To avert dangers and command the army;
(4)To redress peoples’ grievances;
(5) To punish the wrong-doers; and
(6) To administer justice impartially and in accordance with the sacred law (Dharma),
evidence (Vyavhara), history (Samstha) and enacted law (Raajasthasana).
THE PROMOTIVE FUNCTIONS:
On the other hand, his promotive functions include the following:
(1) To promote the moral and material happiness and welfare of his people, as in their
happiness lies his happiness and in their welfare his welfare;
(2) To enable them to pursue freely their independent efforts in lift;
(3) To maintain unity and solidarity;
(4) To reward virtue;
(5) To promote agriculture, industry and arts;
(6) To regulate the means of livelihood, especially of the lat and artisans; and
(7) To encourage education and help students.
In the exercise of these functions, Kautilya’s King was all-powerful. The limits of his
authority were imposed by the social and religious customs of his State which have existed
from times immemorial and with which he was required not to interfere. Further, the king
was not to be despot excercising power through sheer military force. Instead, he was to rule
his subjects through affection. Kautilya puts great emphasis on the devotion and loyalty of
the subjects. Accordingly, he suggests that no king should ever generate poverty, acquisitive
greediness and disaffection among the people. The qualities, requisite training and
obligations of the King, as described by Kautilya, have definite similarities with Plato’s
Philosopher-King, and are equally relevant today as these were during Kautilya’s time.
(2) AMATYA (THE MINISTER):
The second elements of Saptanga, in its broad sense, incorporates modern government; its
organs like executive and legislature; and administrative structure of minister, secretaries,
administrators, heads of departments, councilors, bureaucrats, advisers etc. In its narrow
sense, the term Amatya or Mantrin is used for the minister of the highest grade. N.C.
Bandyopadhyaya points out that it is not clear whether there was one mantrin or more,
though some passages of Arthashastra do contemplate the existence of more than one such
minister.
Kautilya describes an elaborate system of recruitment of the Amatyas and other officials who
were to be Dharmopadashuddha (morally and ethically pure), Arthopashuddha (honest in
financial matters), and Charitropashudda (of good or pure character). The Amatyas were
expected to be natural born citizens, persons of noble origin, free from all vices, men of
infallible memory, friendly nature, wisdom, patience and endurance. Kautilya was of the
view that these ministers who have three-fourth of these qualities be considered medium
level ministers, but those who are in possession only of half of these are, in general inferior.
The King was expected to appoint only wise men to these offices as they were to be his most
trusted advisers. These ministers were not only to advise the king whenever their advice was
sought, they were also to maintain the secrecy of their deliberations. In fact, administrative
ability, knowledge of scriptures and higher character are the qualities essential for the
ministers every where and in every age.
(3) JANAPADA (THE PEOPLE AND THE TERRITORY):
This unique element of Saptanga is the symbol of State, which stands for a “territorial
society”. Here, ‘Jana’ denotes people and ‘Pada’ is the symbol of territory where these
inhabitants permanently reside. D.R. Bhandarkar and R.S. Sharma are of the view that
Kautilya’s Janapada includes not only territory but also population. N.C. Bandyopadhyaya is
also of the view that when Kautilya spoke of the Janapada, he spoke of his subjects settled in
the kingdom. Modern Western definition includes these two elements as separate and
exclusive elements, whereas Ancient Indian scholars considered these two as supplementary
or complimentary to each other.
Unlike Plato and Aristotle, Kautilya did not suggest any specific size of territory or
population. His emphasis was more on quality than quantity. In his order of things, the State
occupied a definite territory, which was the chief physical basis of existence. Kautilya
prescribed the following requisites of a prosperous .Janapada in terms of its territory:
1) Accommodate and support the people;
2) Defend the State against enemies;
3) Find occupation for the people;
4) Have manageable neighbours;
5) Be free from depredation of wild animals;
6) Provide pastures;
7) Have arable land, mines, forest;
8) Provide good internal communication, i.e. rivers, roads, and outlet to sea;
9) Produce varieties of merchandise, and
10) Be a repository of resources for the common good.
Bhandarkar selects only three of these characteristics as major features of the ideal territory.
He says that the “Janapada should be Shatru-Dveshi (hostile to the foe), Shakya, Samanta
(powerful enough to control the neighbouring kings), and Karmashila Karshah (inhabited by
agriculturists capable of toiling and moiling.
In so far as the population is concerned, Kautilya stressed the qualities or the character of the
people. He wanted the people to be energetic and industrious. They should also be Bhakta
Shuchi Manushya (people who are pure and devoted). They should not only have a patriotic
spirit, but also have hatred for the enemies. Repeatedly, Kautilya emphasized that loyalty of
the subjects is the greatest of all assets that a king could possess. Kautilya further suggested
that the subjects should not only have the tendency to pay their taxes, but also to undertake
punishment for violating laws and orders. They should have respect for the rule of law and
the government commanding popular support. The people should present a sort of unity in
diversity in as much as the State should have people of all castes, including men of the higher
orders. It was only the people with such qualities who would be able to make the Kautilyan
State not merely social and political, but also paternal.
(4) DURGA (FORTIFICATION):
Kautilya regarded fortification as essential for the defence and protection of the State. He
wanted the state to fortify the territories from all sides. He has described four types of
fortification which include: Audak (surrounded by water), Paarvat (built on the top of the
hill), Dhaanvana (built on barren or waste land), and Vana (surrounded by forests). In the first
category are included those forts which are, built on islands surrounded by streams of tanks
and pools. In the second category are included the forts which are surrounded and overlaiden
by mountain rocks. In the third category come the forts built on barren or waste lands. Under
the fourth category come the forts which are surrounded by forests, swamps and shrubs. Of
these categories, the first two are used for the protection of the territory and the remaining
two are used for the protection of the farmers (vana pala). These fortifications, thus, would
not only protect the people and the capital, but would also be suitable for fighting purposes,
i.e. for both defensive and offensive purposes.
Kautilya suggested that the fort should be constructed by the king at a place where it can be
constructed with minimum labour, economically and easily. He should establish his capital at
a central place, which should become a centre of protection of wealth.
Although the forts and castles of the time of Kautilya today appear to be more of
archeological importance, they are as significant today in the context of territorial
aggressions and international conflicts, atomic bombs and missiles, as they were in the times
of Kautilya. Thus, Kautilya’s advice and scheme of watching a nation’s territory and
protecting it from aggression is as relevant today as it was in his times.
(5) KOSHA (THE TREASURY):
The flourishing economy is essential for the existence of the State in all, times and
circumstances. That is probably why the Philosophers of Ancient India looked at treasury as
an essential element of the State. They wanted the treasury to be always full with stocks of
gold, silver, diamonds and jewels, so that not only the routine affairs of the State are
conducted properly, but the king is also able to protect the people from natural calamities like
floods and famines. Though Kautilya wanted a prosperous treasury, he specifically directed
the king to earn the wealth of nation only by legitimate and righteous means, and in no way
by unfair and immoral means. Proper management of agriculture, trade and commerce also
makes the treasury prosperous. It helps the king not only to make the people prosperous, but
also to control and contain its enemies.
For the collection of revenues, Kautilya suggested, the following legitimate sources
1) Various forms of land tax;
2) Duty levied on the sale of commodities in the market;
3) Tax on imports and exports;
4) Road cess, canal cess, ferry dues, conveyance cess, tax on loads, tax on markets and fee
from passport;
5) Taxes received from artisans fishermen etc;
6) Taxes levied on prostitutes gambling houses, pubs, and slaughter houses;
7) Income from prosperities and monopolies belonging to the King;
g) Forced labour;
9) Fines through law courts;
10) Accidental income;
11) Interest on loan advances to the people; and
12) Miscellaneous taxes.
Kautilya emphasised that taxes must never be imposed suddenly and in extreme excess over
previous payments. Watchful of disturbances, Kautilya resorts to the analogy of fruits. He
says, “Just as fruits are gathered from a garden as often as they becomes ripe, so revenue
shall be collected as often as it becomes ripe. Collection of revenue or of fruits, when unripe,
shall never be carried on lest their sources may be injured, causing immense trouble”.
Kautilya points out that the people might migrate to a more favourable country, if troubled by
unjust extortion.
Recommending deviation from legitimate means in emergencies, Kautilya acknowledged that
the people could be expected to pay extra and higher taxes. Kautilya lists a number of
methods by which the king can obtain extra funds. The king could have recourse to trickery
and assassination. He recommended that the king should explain the necessity to the people,
but if this does not bring in the required revenue, he may sell honours or positions, or if the
danger is very great, take away the wealth of corporations or heretics and temples. He may
extort funds from all sinful people as the sinful rich are the most rewarding.
Thus, collection of additional revenue in the wake of acute crisis, but in normal times, their
proper and legitimate collection, in proportion to tax-paying capacity of citizens, is also the
criterion of taxation of modern welfare governments, as was prescribed by Kautilya.
(6) DANDA (THE ARMY OR THE FORCE):
Like other philosophers of Ancient India, Kautilya also accepted a strong and hereditary
Kshatriya army, as the most important requisite of the State. He insisted on the hereditary
army, as it would not only be skilled, well-contended and obedient to the king’s will, but also
be free from duplicity. Such an army would serve both the defensive and offensive purposes
of the king. It would not only protect the people, but also keep the enemy away.
As far as possible, soldiers should be drawn from the traditionally noble kshatriya families,
so that they remain loyal and are satisfied with the grants given to them by the State and are
habitual of bearing losses in property and person. Hence it was obvious for Kautilya to pay
great attention to the maintenance and organisation of the army. For instance, in Arthashastra,
we find him mentioning as many as half a dozen heads of departments, namely:
a) the aayudhaagaaraadhyaksha (incharge of the armoury);
b) the naavadhyaksha (incharge of the naval forces);
c) the ashvaadhyaksha (incharge of cavalry);
d) the hastvaadhyaksha (incharge of the elephants);
e) the rathaadhyaksha (incharge of the chariots); and
f) the pattyadhyaksha (incharge of the infantry).
R.S. Sharma has added to these six divisions of Kautilya, the other two additional categories
of forced labour and hired soldiers and picturised the army as ashtaanga Bala.
Kautilya has also categorised the nature of the army as follows Maul Bala (hereditory army),
Bhrit Bala (paid army), Shreni Bala (territorial army), Mitra Bala (army of allies), Amitra
Bala (army of enemies), and Atavi Bala (tribal army). Kautilya was of the view that the chief
of the army should be amply familiar with the abilities and inabilities of all these forces. He
should be familiar with all types of warfare, i.e. Prakash Yudha (regular declared warfare),
Kuta Yudha (warfare of treachery and intrigue), and Tushnim Yudha (chemical warfare).
Furthermore, loyalty, knowledge of kshatra vidyaa (science of weaponary), experience,
devotion, preparedness for sacrifice, etc. were some of the qualities expected in the soldiers.
Such awareness of the qualities and qualifications on the part of the army chief and other
soldiers are relevant even today.
(7) MITRA (THE ALLIES):
Having realised that ‘political isolation means death”. Kautilya proceeded to consider the
Mitra or the ally as a vital factor. Infact, it is the quality and quantity of the State’s allies that
determines its position in the political world.
Kautilya recognises two kinds of allies, namely Sahaja (or natural) and Kritrima (or
acquired). The Sahaja or natural ally is the one whose friendship is derived from the times of
King’s father and grandfather and who is situated close to the territory of the immediately
neighbouring enemy. On the other hand, the Kritrima or the acquired ally is the one whose
friendship is specially resorted to for the protection of wealth and life. For instance, Hitler
acquired the friendship of USSR at the outbreak of Second World War through a non-
aggression pact and terminated it in 1941 according to his own choice.
Kautilya, however, preferred an ally who is traditional, permanent, disciplined, and
enthusiastic and from whom the possibility of opposition or rebellion is minimum. He should
help in times of need and whenever the State is in danger. Instead of observing neutrality, he
should exemplify himself as his defender and protector. Ally, thus, should be in possession of
six requisite qualities: such as hereditary, permanent, manageable, supporter, eager to co-
operate and strong enough with Prabhu Shakti (intutional), Mantra Shakti (intellectual) and
Utsaaha Shakti (enthusiastical) strength. Kautilya was of the view that the prudent king must
strengthen himself by the force of powerful allies, with whose active co-operation, he would
be able to put down foreign enemies, save and enrich his kingdom, and preserve the political
equilibrium.
Kautilya, thus, furnishes us with full and complete definition of the State. The modern
constituents of the State, such as sovereignty, government, territory and population are
covered respectively by the elements of Swami, Amatya and Janapada in the Saptang theory
of the State. In modern times, unless a State receives recognition of other States, its de jure
status is not established. This element in the modern States may be compared to mitra (ally).
Though in the modern definition of the State, there is no place for army and taxation, these
are covered by the concept of sovereign power, which exercises the function of coercion and
tax-collection.
A remarkable similarity between the Kautilyan and the Marxist conceptions of the State has
also been traced with reference to their view of the class-character and the need of Danda and
Kosha. R.S. Sharma concludes his analysis with his observation that “Kautilya’s Saptang
theory not only bears resemblance to the modern definition of the State, but contains certain
elements typical of the State expounded by Angels.”
However, a reference to the problem of the concept of sovereignty is immensely important. In
Ancient India, there were sovereign States in the sense that the holders of the political office
of kingship could generally make their ‘will’ prevail by resort to ‘force’. Various scholars
have only been denying the conceptual equivalent in Sanskrit of the notion of State
sovereignty, and not the historical existence of actual Powerful sovereign kingdoms.
Kautilya’s concept of ‘State’ is, however, vividly reflected in his description of angas or
elements of the State. He did not specifically define the term ‘State’, as he was essentially a
man of action (a councillor), and not a theorist. His concern for and emphasis on the internal
and external security of State was to save humanity from a sort of Hobbesian state of nature,
a state of war, marked by Matsyanyaya (the strong, like the big fish, tyrannising and
devouring the weaker and smaller ones).
Furthermore, it has to be pointed out that, on the one hand, Kautilya constructs the categories
which make the ideal, in each of the seven constituents; on the other hand, the eighth book of
Arthashastra examines the vices and calamities of each of the sevenfold factors. It analysis
the troubles of the king and his kingdom (like gambling, drunkenness, greed, anger etc.), the
aggregate of the troubles of men (being untrained, greedy, over-ambitious), the groups of
molestators (if most inhabitants indulge in armed conflicts), the group of obstructionists (the
majority of inhabitants being agricultural labourers), the group of the troubles of the treasury
(arising out of man-made and natural calamities), the group of troubles of the army (because
of loyal soldiers’ resentment on account of non-payment of salaries and wives’ influence on
solders) and, lastly, the group of troubles of a friend (who could be influenced or bribed and
could turn neutral at times of crisis). Kautilya was of the view that if a fault in one element
effects other elements, then it should be considered disastrous and has to be rectified.
Here, it is important to note that Kautilya provided for a mechanism to prevent the King from
becoming self-centered and autocratic dictator, by keeping him under the control of sacred
and social traditions, ethical norms aimed at peace and prosperity of his people. The
sovereign of Kautilya is bound by the ethical norms of Anvikshaki, Trayi Vaarta and
Dandaniti, which he can not change or alter arbitrarily. (The happiness and prosperity of the
kin consists in subject. By accepting Praja Dharma as Raaja Dharma, the King of Kautilya is
accepted and adored as parens patriar.
In short, Kautilya, thus, represents the legacy of Ancient Indian Political Tradition in the
enumeration of the seven elements of the State. And, in its present-day interpretation, he
presents himself as a theorist who combined the unique and basic features of both the
Western Liberal as well as the Marxist theories of the nature of state. The Saptang theory is a
vivid manifestation of Kautilya’s deeper under standing of not only the political nature of
man, but also the functioning of his political institutions, especially the state. It would not be
an exaggeration to call this theory the indigenous (Indian) version of the nature of state.
KAUTILYA’S PHILOSOPHY OF DHARMA:
In the Arthashastra of Kautilya, the word Dharma is used in various senses and it is essential
to comprehend them to understand his political thought. In accordance with its indigenous
version, Kautilya considered Dharma in its broadest sense as a network of duties and a code
of conduct which sustains both the society and the state. Atleast four meanings of Dharma in
Kautilya can be distinguished
1. Dharma as Social duty;
2. Dharma as moral law based on Truth;
3. Dharma as Civil Law; and
4. Dharma as Performance of rituals.
In Kautilya’s system, each individual has his standing in the social order and has accordingly
to perform his duties (Varna-Dharma). The Brahmana was to devote himself to the pursuit of
intellectual, religious and philosophical activities. Consequently, Satya (Truth), Ahimsa
(Non-Violence), Brahmacharya (Celibacy), and Aparigraha (non-stealing) were prescribed
for him as aids in his line of evolution. The development of power through Kshtra and
protection of subjects were the main pursuits of Raajanya or Kshatriya. Specialisation in
trade and commerce was the preordained duty of the Vaishyas. To serve these three Dvija-
Varnas and also to pursue Vaarta were the duties of the Shudras. Therefore, performance of
one’s duties (Swadharma) was an essential feature of Dharma.
Some further ideas about Dharma are found in the chapter where Kautilya deals with law.
These ideas could be grouped under Dharma as moral law. According to Kautilya, there are
five sources for settling a legal controversy (1) Dharma (Sacred Law), (2) Vyavhaara
(evidence), (3) Samstha (History), (4) Charitra (conduct of reputed Persons), and (5)
Raajshasaana (royal edicts). He says that if there be disagreement between institutional law
and practice and the authoritative texts of Dharma, or if there be conflict between the texts
and evidence, then the matter has to be settled in accordance with Dharma. To Kautilya,
Dharma is rooted in Truth. He definitely stands for Truth and Justice Over evidence the texts
of the Dharmashastras and institutional history and practice.
Kautilya also uses the term Dharma in the sense of Civil Law. The third book of the
Arthashastra is called “Concerning Dharma” (Dharmasthiyam). It deals with the
determination of forms of agreements, the determination of legal disputes, marriage, recovery
of debts, deposits, rules regarding slaves and labourers, co-operative undertakings, rescission
of purchases and sales, resumption of gifts and sale without ownership, ownership, robbery,
defamation, assault, gambling etc. In fact, the meaning of Dharma as Civil Law is borrowed
by Kautilya from the earlier writers of Dharmasutras.
Customary aspects of Dharma also finds illustration in Kautilya’s Arthashastra. Adhering to’
Vedic and Brahmanic religion, he acknowledges rituals. He, thus, revers Agni, Varuna, Yajna,
Ashwini, Vaishravan, Jayant etc. as gods and recommends offerings to Indra (the God),
Ganga (the river), Parvat (the mountain), Samudra (the Sea), Mushak (the mouse), Naga (the
snake) etc. Calamities like floods, epidemics, famine, rats, tigers, serpants and demons were
considered as an indication of the displeasure of God at man’s immoral conduct. Kautilya,
therefore, requires religious ceremonies and prayers to avert such dangers.
Kautilya, was, however, a firm believer in the moral order of the universe. According to him,
there is a close relation between kingship and Dharma. The King (Swami) is the fountain of
justice (Dharmapravartaka). It is the King’s ordained responsibility to maintain Dharma and
to protect his subjects with justice. The observance of Dharma will lead the king to heaven.
Since the State has been created by divine ordination to preserve Dharma, it has a moral
purpose to fulfill. Politics may appear to be divorced from ethics in part of the Arthashastra,
but such deviations are incidental, rather than belonging to Kautilya’s system of polity.
KAUTILYA’S DOCTRINE OF POLITICS:
Kautilya’s notion of politics and Dandaniti is rooted in the scheme of knowledge. He accepts
that there are four branches of knowledge (Vidya): Trayee, Anvikshaki, Vaarta and Dandaniti.
Trayee is constituted by the three Vedas: Rig, Yajur and Saama. This literature helps in
ordering the social structure composed of the four Varnas and the four Ashramas and Dharma
(the network of duties and code of conduct). Under Anvikshki, Kautilya includes the
philosophical systems of the dualistic Samkhya, the Yoga, and materialistic philosophy of
Lokaayata. The third system of knowledge is Vaarta which comprehends agriculture, cattle-
breeding and trade. Dandaniti deals with the means of acquiring (Alabdha Laabhaartha),
preservation (Labdha Parirakshani), accentuation (Rakshit vivardhani) and Righteous and due
apportionment (Vriddhasya Tirtheshu Pratipaadini) of dialectics, Vedas and Vaarta.
Kautilya does not analyze how Dandaniti aids in the acquisition arid preservation of
dialectics. Dandaniti aids the Vedas in so far as it prescribes ways and means to regulate the
four varnas and the four orders which are integral part of the Vedic view of life and culture. It
aids Vaarta because both treasury (related to Vaarta) and punishment are necessary for the
control of one’s own kingdom and those of the enemies. Since Dandaniti is so vitally
essential for the other branches of knowledge. Kautilya goes on to say that it is on this art of
government that the course of the progress of the world depends”. He further asserts that,
therefore, “the (first) three branches of knowledge are dependent for their well being (or
rooted in) on the art of punishment”.
In an attempt to construct a systematic and balanced philosophy exalting Artha or wealth and
territory, Kautilya acknowledges the traditional fourfold classification of basic goals or
aspirations of an individual. First, Dharma, righteous performance of one’s own duties.
Second, Artha, economic activities in pursuance of wealth and power. Third, Kama, sexual
desires, worldly desires and ambitions. Fourth, Moksha, final liberation or salvation. The
main task of Kautilya was to analyse the ways and means for the realization of the proximate
goals of social existence.
Though an opponent of unrighteousness and uneconomical transactions, Kautilya preached a
philosophy of balance and harmonious Integration, He proclaims that “The king may enjoy in
an equal degree the three pursuits of life: charity, wealth and aesthetic desire, which are
interdependent upon each other”. However, any one of these three, in an extreme degree,
becomes an injurious factor. Nonetheless, he admits that wealth is a very significant
emotional aspect of existence, Hence he accepts the notion of the maximisation of wealth and
territory, a full treasury and power of punishment to control one’s own people (in the latter’s
pursuit towards Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha) and also to suppress the enemy.
DHARMA AND POLITICAL ETHICS:
To understand Kautilya’s notion of Dharma and political Ethics, One has to consider his
emphasis on social dharma and his moral and ethical considerations.
The sociology of Varnashrama was oriented not to any political and Constitutional
differences, but to the notion of Swadharma. While the distinction between the virtues of the
good man and the good citizen was an important point in Aristotle’s Politics, the performance
of one’s own duties was the uppermost consideration of Kautilya’s Arthashastra For instance,
a good Kshtriya is one who faithfully adheres to the duties of the kshatriya. Similarly, a good
Shudra is the one who is faithful in the performance of his own specific swadharma. To him,
adherence to the Swadharma is a social task, it serves the good of the kingdom, it is an ethical
imperative and, it performed in the spirit of disinterestedness, it leads to divine realization. A
man has to perform his own Dharma as it would result in the attainment of both mundane
prosperity and spiritual good.
According to the Varnasharama theory, a king has his own duties. He has to carry on the
duties of the Kshatriya house-holder. So long as lie is true to his duties which have been
prescribed by the Vedas and elaborated by the Shruties, he is a good man and a good citizen.
So long as he is a house-holder, he is to care for his mundane prosperity. When the time
comes for retirement, lie can give up political duties and concentrate on austerities,
meditation and God-realisatjon. From this type of synthetic world-view, Kautilya discusses
the duties or Dharmas of the King and says: ‘The King who administers (the kingdom)
according to Dharma, evidence, history and institutional practices and royal edicts, will be
able to conquer the whole world bound by four quarters”.
Kautilya prescribes four ways of conquering the earth and, after having given the details of
each, he says that having conquered the earth, the king should enjoy it according to his own
Dharma, According to the traditional Hindu view, which is fully subscribed to by Kautilya, it
is the duty of a Kshatriya King to expand his territories and conquer the enemies.
To understand Kautilya’s ethical and moral considerations, Ethics can be divided into
personal ethics and socio-political ethics.
PERSONAL ETHICS:
So far as personal ethics is concerned, Kautilya is an emphatic and determined exponent of
the moral philosophy of kingship. According to him, an accomplished king must be devoted
to Dharma. He is called upon to act as the Promulgator of Dharma” (Dharma-Pravartak).
Even if mendicants and ascetics engage in improper proceedings, the king was to restrain
them under threat of punishment because if Dharma was transgressed, it would result in the
evil of rulers.
The king and his ministers, as upholders of the highest virtues, were to act as to present
themselves as a model for the masses. He was to be a follower of Truth and Dharma,
possessor of Travyee, and the protector of his Praja (people). That is how Kautilya subscribed
to the dictum “As the king so the people” (Yatha Raaja Tathia Praja).
Creating the moral philosophy of kingship, Kautilya propounds the doctrine of enlightened
royal idealism and gives a comprehensive list of qualities which the king must possess:
I) Qualities of an inviting nature (Aabhigaamik Guna);
2) Qualities of intellect and intution (Pragyaa Guna);
3) Qualities of enthusiasm (Utsaaha Guna); and
4) Qualities of self-restraint and spirit (Aatmasampat),
According to Kautilya, the king must realise the paramount necessity of controlling his
passions like lust (Kaama), Anger (Krodha), Greed (Lobha) and Attachment t He must fight
ceaselessly Shatru-Shadvarga, the six enemies of the king: sex, anger, greed, vanity,
haughtiness and overjoy. Kautilya enjoins him to conquer the four special temptations:
hunting, gambling, drinking, and women. If the king of unrighteous character and vicious
habits’ fails, through these weaknesses or otherwise, to protect people’s welfare, he would
“fall a prey either to the fury of his own subjects or that of his enemies”.
In his remarkable insistence on the conquest of the senses, Kautilya says that intensity of lust
and other appetites provokes one’s own people, while lack of policy creates enemies. Hence,
according to him, sensuality and impoliteness are species of demonic actions. In his
remarkable stress on the conquest of passion, Kautilya appears to V.P. Varma, ‘to be a sage
and a seer and not a mere political thinker”.
This moral philosophy of kingship constitutes a great contribution to political thought. In the
Western political thought, we find that Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and Kant stress the
significance of moral factors in politics. For instance, Plato has stated that the highest
guardians or the philosopher kings should be wise, courageous and temperate. But, if we
make a comparative estimate of Indian and Western political thought, we find that the stress
on moral factors is far more pronounced in Indian culture.
However, Kautilya, who is regarded as a theorist of political power and conquest, was
primarily concerned with the control of unregenerate passions. This dominant concern with
moral values was an effect of the heightened and exalted character of spiritual truths in Indian
thought.
SOCIO-POLITICAL ETHICS:
Under the concept of Raajadharma, the functions and duties of the kings were analysed. The
duties he was expected to perform were of two types Protective and Promotive. Under the
first category, he was to protect the life and property of people, maintain law and order, avert
dangers, punish wrong-doers, administer justice impartially, etc. On the other hand, his
promotive functions included promotion of moral and material happiness and welfare of the
people, development of agriculture, industry, trade, arts and education and regulation of the
means of livelihood, etc.
The limits to the authority of the king were imposed by the social and religious customs of
his State which have existed from times immemorial and with which he was required not to
interfere.
PROVISION FOR APAD-DHARMA:
The socio-political ethics (Raajadharma) of the king included preservation, accentuation and
acquisition of territory. Kautilya outlines techniques of conquest, even relentless and ruthless
conquest. He refers even to a variety of means by which it may be possible for a king,
aspiring to expand his kingdom, not only to administer his own kingdom in accordance with
Dharma, Vyavahara, Samstha and edicts, but also to pursue his expansionist designs.
Kautilya, in fact, allows the king to deviate from the established path of Dharma and
transgress its injunctions in times of accute crisis (Aapatti).
Kautilya refers to various means by which the enemy should be assassinated. He advocates
espionage and battle of intrigues, furnishes a long list of drugs and black magic to ensure the
destruction of the enemy and even goes to the length of asserting that money should be paid
by royal agents by playing upon the religious credibility of the people. He suggests a variety
of methods that are useful to a monarch in gaining and maintaining power. Here, politics
seems to have been reduced to the act of seizure and maintenance of power by means fair or
unfair. This connotes the deliberate suppression of the autonomy of ethical means for the sake
of enshrinement of the political objectives of a monarch.
Kautilya has described various occasions when these immoral means could be adopted. For
example, corrupt officials could be killed, agitating rebellious villages, tribes or cities could
be destroyed; king could indulge in deception; while levelling charges against his enemies, he
could encourage warfare against them. The king was further allowed to adopt various ways
and means to find out the enemies and the criminals and to deal with them. He also describes
the various means, both moral and immoral, which a king could use to enrich his treasury.
In the conduct of international affairs, Kautilya recommends the use of deception and
immoral means to cause despair in the enemy camps which could be smashed by spreading
the belief that their defeat and the victory of the king is inevitable. Similarly, some people
from the enemy camp can also be won over by various means. He also describes several
immoral means for deceiving and killing the enemy. Though these means are immoral, their
use in emergencies is considered essential by an able politician. Kautilya also suggest several
moral and immoral ways and means of killing the defenders of forts, collection of taxes and
creating dissensions among the people. The king is also allowed to first disturb peace and
encourage treason, to burn treasury, fields, and even the harems of women. After having
indulged in all such immoral activities, he should project himself as an innocent person. He
should express sorrow for much events for which he may hold others responsible.
Kautilya deals with atleast five circumstances, when deviation from ethical means is
acknowledged:
1) To collect revenue for royal treasury at the time of crisis;
2) To identify and arrest corrupt and disloyal officials of the state;
3) To identify and arrest offenders and criminals;
4) To vanish any probable conspiracy or rebellion either by princes, nobles, officials or by
ordinary subjects; and
5) To pursue expansionist politics in the enemy state or to punish a king who is against
Dharma,
But, an advocacy of cruel political diplomacy does not imply that Kautilya seperates politics
from ethics. He, in fact, teaches the virtues of self-restraint. He is a staunch believer in the
dominant moral concepts of the Indian tradition. The fifth, sixth and seventh chapters of the
first Book of Arthashastra depict Kautilya as a fundamental believer in the ultimate triumph
of the virtues of moral restraint, Advocacy of ruthless and relentless policy and techniques
only temporary, realistic, calculated and craft means of politics and diplomacy, where the
territorial conquest was to be essentialh followed by Dharma Vijava (victory of the religion).
In fact, politics was broadly conceived as Raajaniti’ or the Ethics of Politics or Political
Ethics. Due to varying circumstances, some deviations and departures occured from the
fundamental norms of politics. Consequently, politics became, at times, a matter of
convenience and expedience. Most of the earthly misdeeds were because of the deplorable
fall of politics from its original pedestal. Kautilya’s Arthashastra is deeply concerned with the
complexed situations of political life and offers solutions to the various problems of politics.
CONCEPT OF DHARMA VIJAY (RELIGIOUS VICTORY):
Prescribing various sacrifices, Kautilya, however, could not disprove of an expedition of
conquest. He only strives to humanise it as much as possible. The king, who was out for a
Dharmavijaya, was to remain content with the formal recognition of his suzeranity and the
payment of a tribute by the conquered king; he was not to annex his kingdom or disturb its
administration (at one instance Kautilya disapproves even the extortion of tribute in
Dharmavijaya). If the defeated king died in war, of it he was occupying the throne
unwillingly, a suitable successor was to be installed in his place. If annexation became
inevitable, the established laws and customs were to be respected and the new subjects were
to be treated as kindly as the old ones. We have very little authentic information about the
internal condition of the Mauryan Empire, but it is not unlikely that it left untouched the
autonomy of the powerful republic of Punjab and Rajputana. The advice to refrain from
annexation after conquest was followed to an extent due partly to the uniformity of culture
and religion that prevailed in the states. Normally, in peace times, their relations were not
embittered by religious or cultural divergences or animosities, and so the war did not spur the
combatants to bring about the utter destruction of each other. Internal autonomy was easily
conceded.
RELIGIOUS SACRIFICES AND THE PUROHITAS:
The king’s Dharma was believed to radiate into all sphere of activities. To Kautilya, the king
is ever a public person who by virtue of his high office is dedicated to the service of his State.
The conduct of monarch definitely influences the lives of the subjects.
Ii was believed that if divine manifestations showed the God pleasure, they could also
indicate their displeasure of the king. The visitations of providence were of eight kinds: fire,
floods, epidemics famine, rats, tigers, serpents, and demons. Although Kautilya prescribes
some practical safeguards such as fire-prevention methods, provision of boats, distribution of
food, and poisoning of harmful animals, he also requires religious ceremonies and prayers to
be offered to avert dangers for such disasters were understood to imply a failure on the part of
the king to protect his subjects and these consequences were interpreted as the result of his
unrighteous conduct.
The king, furthermore, was held answerable for his administration of justice to god Varuna.
Kautilya argues, “when the king punishes an innocent man, he shall throw into water,
dedicating it to the Varuna, a fine equal to thirty times the unjust impositions; and this amount
shall afterwards be distributed among the Brahmans. By this act, the King Varuna will be free
from the sin of unjust imposition, for King Varuna is the ruler of sinners among men.”
Therefore, to sacrifice in an attempt to rid the kingdom of evil and natural disasters was an
explicit duty of the King.
Tile King was, thus, required to perform sacrifice for the sake of his kingdom. He is said to
be able to protect the kingdom in the same way as the gods war off death, by study of the
Vedas, righteous living and gaining tapas or spiritual energy. For ‘acquisition’, ‘preservation’,
and ‘accentuation’ of territory, Kautilya advocates various political sacrifices like Raajasuya.
Agnihstobha. Somavikraya. Madhaamopasadah, pravamyovaasana, Maaya, etc.
Acknowledgement of various sacrifices established the predominance of Purohits or
Brahmanas. The influence of the Brahamanas was most potently exercised through the
purohitas — the priestly class — who saw to the final success of the sacredotal order. The
institution of Purohitas exercised a powerful limitation on the powers of the king. Acting as
advisers in religious matters, the Purohitas were able to secure for themselves an ascendancy
in the palace hierarchy.
While describing the qualities and creation of the councillors and priests, Kautilya holds ‘that
Kshatriya breed which is brought up by Brahrnanas ... and faithfully knows the precepts of
the Shaastras became invincible....” The implication about the King’s dependence on tile
Brahmanas and Purohitas (for the performance of rituals, in accordance with the Shastras) is
obvious. Kautilya asks the king to appoint a domestic Purohita and to obey his injunctions.
The Purohita‘s good offices are to be used by the king for recruitment of officials and for
bolstering the morale of the army in the battlefield. In Kautilya’s protocol, the royal Purohita
occupies the first rank along with the Crown Prince, the Queen Mother, the Chief Queen and
the Chief Minister.
DHARMA AND DANDA:
Dharma is synonymous with the statehood and with the Dan dadhara the king is, accordingly,
considered the protector of Dharma, laws, justice. Varna Ashram Dharma, order, Swadharma
and duty. By dint of a judicious administration of Danda (coercive authority), he can induce
the subjects to be followers of Dharma, for Dharma is the foundation of all civil life, veritable
prop of virtue and the motivating force for men towards the fulfillment of righteousness.
Danda is simi larlv instrumental in bringing about a well-regulated society, through
constraining an individual to mind his own duty. Dharma is not conceivable in the Araajaka
State or anarchy and in the predominant form of Danda, it can be established what is good
and righteous for all times and for all members of the society, in simple terms. Dharma is
Daiic/a as law. According 10 Kautilya, each and every member of Praja is kept within his
proper sphere of activities through an exemplary, even terrible, exercise of this weapon of
sovereignty.
The Swami (the king), however, has to rely on Danda to maintain the State as a going
concern, Once Danda is removed from the scene, the State loses its raison d’etre arid
practically vanishes. The king (Dandadharabhave) keeps all beings in Swadharina straight
jacket and ensures that they cooperate with each other to realise happiness for all.
Categorically asserting the transedental character of A (edicts of kings) and the enacted law,
Kautilya calls the king as the fountain of justice. As he puts it explicitly, Sacred Law
Dharma), evidence (Vyavahara), history (Samastha) and edicts of kings (Raajashasana) are
four legs of law. Of these four, the latter is superior to the one previously named. By
superseding the Shastras, the king could promulgate new laws, but their basic principles were
to be rooted in the Shastras, U.N. Ghoshal observes, the history of our justice and political
ideas, reference to the overriding authority of the king’s decree over all other judicial
processes is of high significance, for it clearl and unequivocalh enumerates, for the first time,
‘the principle of Ihe king’s judicial sovcrelgnty Kautilya adds that the king who administers
justice in accordance with the sacred law (Dharma), evidences
(Vyavhaara),history(Samastha),and edicts of kings (Raajashaasana) vihl be able to conquer
the whole world bounded by the four quarters (Chaturantam Mahim).
Kautilya, however, holds reason to be superior, when the king’s law is in conflict with the
sacred law. ‘‘But, whenever Sacred Law (Shastra) is in conflict with the rational law (Dharma
Nyaya in king’s law), then reason shall be held authoritative ...”Having dealt with the
ordained and the other prerogatives of the Swam, and the traditions and usages in regard to
his Dharma, one would tend to agree with Kautilya in so far as the supremacy of reason is
concerned.
INTER-STATE RELATIONS AND DIPLOMACY:
The art of diplomacy — the system of developing and preserving contacts between States —
was fairly advanced in ancient India. Some of the principles of inter-state relations, as then
practiced, were excellent even by modem standards. Though we do not have much
information about inter-state relations during the Vedic period, the later development in this
sphere (in the sense of the management of international relations by negotiations) was
remarkable and, evolved theories and principles that hold the field even today.
The States existing during the times of Kautilya could, however, be classified into Samraajya
(State of equal status), Heenraajya (States of inferior status), and Balwaan Rajya (States of
superior status). The status and prestige of the different States differed according to their
resources and the leadership of their rulers. Titles like Svaraat, Ekraat, Samraat, Adhiraat, that
were taken by the different rulers, indicate clearly a difference in status. Furthermore, the
powerful States could be considered as sovereign super-powers. The semi-sovereign States
constituted the category of inferior States, governed by feudal lords, used to offer valuable
tributes and submission. The States of equal status constituted the majority possessing a
compatible level of sovereignty and authority.
Ancient Indian thinkers were not indifferent towards the reahisation of harmony among the
community of nations. Almost all of them pointed out to the ambitious kings that appeal to
the arms should be avoided as far as possible, as unrighteous war brings disgrace in this life
and procures hell thereafter. At the same time, they were also aware of the fact that war could
not minimise its chances by advocating a judicious balance of power among the different
States with which the country was studded. The ambitious king was, thus, advised to have an
alliance with superior and equal raajya and to conquer the weaker or inferior states. The well-
known Mandala theory is based upon this principle of the balance of power.
THE THEORY OF MANDALA:
One of the most remarkable ideas of ancient Indian statecraft is the doctrine of mandala. This
is a theory of inter-state relations which holds that a kingdom is an ally or enemy accoiding to
its geographical position with respect to the intending conqueror. There is no accurate
information as to the origin of this theory. It does not appear in the Vedic and Braahmana
literature, but it is mentioned in considerable details in Manusmriti and Mahaabhaarata. A
much more comprehensive picture of the Maiidala theory and its relative importance for the
security and survival of the State was presented by Kautilya in the Arthashastra. Candidly
and realistically stated according to the needs of his day, Kautilya’s theory of inter-state
relationship was perfected to such an extent that it can be applicable in all ages.
While describing and analysing the international relations of the States, Kautilya propounds
the theory of Mandala. He is of the view that the King, who desires to expand his State by
defeating and winning over other States, should increase the number of his allies in
proportion to the number of his enemy-states so that he may be able to keep them under his
effective area of influence. On the other hand, the weaker States should remain cautious of
their powerful neighbours. They should maintain friendly relations with the States having an
equal status and to form a Mandal or circle (group) of such States in order to save themselves
against the super powers, pursuing the policy of expansionism.
Elucidating the basic premise, Kautilya observes: “The Vijigishu (conqueror or ambitious
king) his friend and his friend’s friend are the three primary kings constituting a circle of
States. As each of these three kings possess the five elements of sovereignty such as the
minister (Amatya), the country (people and territory of Janapada), the fort (Durg), the
treasury (Kosha) and the army (Danda), a circle of States consists of 18 elements.
The three circles of States having the enemy (of the conqueror), the Madhyama king and the
Udasina at the centre of each of the three circles are separate from that of the conqueror.
Thus, there are four primary circles of States, 12 kings, 60 elements of sovereignty and 72
elements of States.
The statement may thus be analysed:
Circle I: comprising of the Vijigishu (the conqueror), his friend and his friend friend (three
rulers);
Circle II: Comprising of the Ari (the enemy), his friend and his friend s friend (three rulers);
Circle III: Comprising of the Madhyama King (the indifferent king), his friend and his
friend’s friend (three rulers); and
Circle IV: Comprising of the Udaasina King (the neutral king. his friend and his friend’s
friend (three rulers).
Since each of the 12 primary kings has five elements of sovereignty, the total number of
elements is 60. Again, these 60 elements along with the 12 kings come to 72 elements of the
State.
The Vjigishu king, an aspirant to absolute sovereignty, is enjoined by Kautilya to embark on
a career of conquest, seduce the surrounding States, and shine forth as the supreme,
undisputed monarch. Striking at the right moment, the conqueror attains his objectives and, at
the same time, sees to it that the balance of power is maintained amongst the kings of a circle.
He has to take note of the fact that he is himself encircled, as it were, by a variety of
relationships, ranging from absolute indifference to friendly alliances or set hostility.
Using the Kautilyan terminology, the conqueror’s complex relationships may be spelled out:
Ari (the enemy of the Mitra (the friend of the Vijigishu), Arimitra (the friend of the enemy),
Mitramitra (the friend of the friend), and Arimitromitra (the friend of the enemys friend) are
the five kings in front of the conqueror.
The kings in the rear of the conqueror are given different names by Kautilya, but thcir
presumed relationship is similar. The immediate neighbour in the rear is called
Paarshnigraaha (one who attacks in the rear). The next one is called Aakranda (ally of the
rear). Behind him is Paashnigraaha (an ally of the rearward enemy and Akrandasara (an ally
of the rearward ally). The kings in the rear are, thus, four in number.
There were, however, some kings who were not interested in these rivalries going around
them. A king who was contiguous to both the conqueror and his enemy and was capable of
helping both the kings, whether united or disunited, or of resisting either of them
individually, was called AIadh.vama or indifferent. A king with similar potentialities, but not
contiguous to the conqueror, his enemy or Madhyama, was called Udaasinaa.
The twelve kings mentioned above were regarded as constituting the mandala of kings. A
monarch was advised to be watchful about their activities and movements in order to secure
peace and safety for his dominion and, if possible, its expansion by a system of judicious
alliances. The emphasis laid upon proper alliance brings to our mind the developments in the
contemporary world-politics since the second World War, when each of the two blocs was
seeking to strengthen its position by roping in as many States as possible within its own
sphere of influence.
The Mandala theory, however, presupposes the division of the country in a number of small
States and the presence of an ambitious conqueror, anxious to establish his hegemony over
them. Both these assumptions were true of ancient Indian polity and they have not become
antiquated even in the modern world inspite of the presence of the United Nations. The
theory lays down that the immediate neighbouring State in front should be assumed to be
enemical. The enmity between France and Germany, between Poland and Russia, and
between China and Japan was largely due to their contiguity, which often caused conflict of
interests. History further testifies the fact that the temporary agreement between England and
Poland in 1937 and between Germany and Russia in 1939 are further illustrations of
Kautilya’s foreign policy of inter-state equation or equilibrium.
Regarding the interdependence of the States, Kautilya stated that “each of the 12 primary
kings shall have their elements of sovereignty, power and end”. Describing the objectives of
all State policy, Kautilya observed : Strength is power and happiness is the end’ ‘ The main
thrust of the it/Iandaia theory was to acquire power and wealth for the conqueror, Kautilya,
however, analysed the concept of strength and categorized it into three kinds. The first is
Mantra Bal (intellectural strength), the power of deliberation. The second kind of strength
consists of the possession of prosperous treasury of Prabhu Bal (sovereign power). The third
strength is Utsaaha Bal (powerful army), denoting the basic strength of sovereignty, including
the material power in terms of physical strength. To Kautilya, the military genius that he was,
it is axiomatic that the possession of power and happiness in a greater measure makes a king
Balwaan (superior) to another and, in a lesser degree, inferior (Heen) and. in equal degree,
equal or Sam. Hence, the king is enjoyed to endeavour to increase his power and elevate his
happiness, in terms of Mantra-Siddhi (achievement of intellectual strength). Prahhu Siddhi,
(achievement of prosperous treasury) and

Utsaaha Siddhi (achievement of military and material strength).

Thus, the Mandala theory of inter-state politics, as expounded by Kautilya, is an exercise in
practical politics and is relevant for all times. Kautilya inspired the king to determine his
foreign policy only after a careful assessment of the strength and achievements of his allied
and hostile States. It was, further, realised that war could not be tabooed altogether.
Therefore, they tried to minimise the chances by advocating a judicious balance of power
among the different States. The ambitious king was further cautioned not to wage war
simultaneously on two fronts, as was the blunder committed by Hitler during the second
World War.
However, the complex political relations, aiming at inter-state equilibrium, under this
Mandala theory, according to John Speilman, can also be compared with “a gigantic chess
game in which certain moves were considered the most effective methods of attaining a
particular end”. Ancient Indian authors like Kautilya knew that the theory of Mandala was
only and artificial system through which they might deduce certain probabilities about their
neighbouring States. Nevertheless, it can not be denied that geographical position is a very
important consideration when dealing with alliances and the theory contains some sound
diplomatic practices.
Conquest being its essential component, the theory depicts that a wise king, trained in
politics, though in possession of only a small territory, can conquer the whole earth with the
help of the best elements of his sovereignty. By his wisdom of diplomacy and maintenance of
favourable peaceful relations within the circle of States, Vijnigishu can ascent to the throne of
Chatturanta Mahim.
PEACE POLITICS OR UPAAYAS:
Means for the regulation of inter-state politics, as suggested by Kautilya, were
comprehensive enough to include all the four traditional means agreed upon, more or less, by
ancient Indian authors. The four principal methods by which a king was to extend his
dominions and govern his own kingdom were called Upaayas. Some texts consider that the
Upayaas are seven in nuniber, but there is disagreement on which constitute the additional
three (i.e. Maaya, or trechery, Upeksha or ignoring or remaining passive, and Indrojala or
supernatural illusions). Conciliation (Saama), giving presents (Dana), causing dissensions
(Bheda), and war of punishment (Danda), were the foremost of the Policies to be adopted, to
which Kautilya also agreed upon.
There were said to be the five methods of Saama. One may conciliate by praising the
qualities of the enemy, recalling the pleasant relationship and good actions of the past,
pointing out the mutual benefits of the relationship showing the likelihood of further
advantages and the harmony of interests that both sides have in their objectives. Along these
lines, one discusses common friends and relatives, and praiseworthy conduct, learned family,
and other qualities of the adversary.
Dana consists of giving gifts of land, precious and rare articles, money, girls and various
other desirable presents. Bheda indicated many tactics of sowing fear, suspicion and
dissension among alarmed, ambitious, haughty, disaffected and provoked persons and also
amongst the friends of foreigners. Danda included various techniques of war.
Implementation and execution of these Upaayas depended upon the circumstances and the
nature of enemy. As superior (Balwaan) king was to be confronted with the means of Saama
or conciliation of Dana or monitary gratification, enemy of equal status could be dealt with
tactics of Bheda or sowing dissension. An inferior or weaker king could be met with
techniques of Danda or punishment.
Kautilya, thus, prescribes four ways of conquering the earth by a king. The first is to try to
win the country of his enemy, and if he succeeds therein, he should win the indifferent one
(Saama). The second is that in case there is no middle or indifferent State he has to try to win
over the elements of sovereignty of the enemy with the help of his own virtues (Dana). The
third consists in playing off the enemy against the friend and vice versa (Bheda). The fourth
is first defeating the enemy and, then increasing one’s strength (Danda).
WAR TACTICS OR SIX GUNAS (SHADGUNYAS):
It appears that the six-fold policy of Shadgunya or six gunas actually grows out of the
Mandala concept. Infact, the circle of States is the source of the six gunas, forms, of policy of
Sandhi (alliance), Vigraha (War), Yaan (Military expedition), Aaana (halting), Samashrya
(seeking protection) and Dvedhibhaava (duplicity).
Sandhi signifies an agreement with pledges. Kautilya has described, in detail, the situations in
which a king should enter into treaties, agreements or alliances. In all circumstances, treaties
should aini at the enemy, promoting self-defence, and self-development. Kautilya has advised
the defeated kings to have recourse to alliances, initially to become an ally of the superior
king and ultimately to deceive
and weaken his own enemies. Kautilya has also mentioned various categories or treaties like
the ones aiming at enrichment of one’s armies and armaments, enrichment of the treasury and
gold reserves, gaining additional lands, improving one’s areas of action, and increasing the
number of his friends.
Vigraha or war is open hostility. It can be used both for defence and aggression. When, the
king is sure of successfully repelling an attack from the enemy, he must take to war, instead
of pursuing the policy of peace. Similarly, when the enemy is in trouble or is engaged in war
on another front, Vigraha is recommended. It is, however, very significant that when both war
and peace are expected to lead to the same result, Kautilya advises the king to prefer peace to
war, for disadvantages such as loss of power and wealth and the burden of sin are always
associated with war.
Millitaly expedition or making preparation for war is Yaana or marching. If a king thinks that
by marching his troops, it is possible to destroy the works of his enemy, he may increase his
resources by marching. Kautilya proceeds to show the diplomatic utility of Yaana by
specifying marching after proclaiming war (Vigrahayaanam), marching after making peace
(Sandhyayaanam) and preparedness for marching by a confederation of States
(Sambhuyaprayaanam). He also gives some suggestions for the king against whom march
should be undertaken.
Kautilya makes a great contribution to political thought by giving his concept of Aasana or
halting or waiting for favourable conditions or neutrality and his interpretions of the terms
Madhyama and Udaasina kings who remain neutral in the Man dala without loosing their
dynamic character. He defines Aasana as indifference or inactivity, which is guided by self-
interest. When either in peace or in war, a king finds neither loss to his enemy nor gain to
himself, he should, though superior, observe neutrality or Aasana. Neutrality takes various
forms according to circumstances. It can be adopted out of indecision, pressure of external
forces, or consideration of one’s weakness. There are three aspects of neutrality, viz. Sthaana,
i.e. keeping quiet; Aasana or Withdrawal from hostility, and Upekshana or negligence by
taking no Steps of strategic means. Neutrality can be adopted by a strong power as a matter
of policy as well as by a weak power as a policy of Protection. Kautilya, furthermore, shows
insight in the diplomatic cobweb, when he maintains that neutrality can be observed even
after declaring war or concluding peace. Talking about armed neutrality, Kautilya
observes,”neither can the enemy do me any harm, nor can I destroy nw enemy”. This
indicates that when a king is unable to attack his enemy, but is strong enough to defend
himself, he should follow the policy of neutrality. Such a king should be fully prepared. Then
alone his policy of neutralit’ can be effective. If there is aggression, he has to offer armed
resistance. Thus, this neutrality is armed-neutrality which is indeed an illuminating
innovation in the field of politics.
Samashraya is infact a subordinate alliance, seeking the protection of a superior power
against possible aggression or for attacking a powerful enemy. To surrender in front of
superior enemy and to create suspicion in the heart of the enemy king, according to Kautilya,
is a form of Samashraya. When a king can neither harm his enemy, nor can he depend upon
himself, then he should opt for protection and patronage of a superior king. However, if he is
unable to find such a powerful king, he should then surrender before his powerful enemy. At
the same time, Kautilya warns that very often acceptance of patronage of a highly powerful
king can be suicidal and harmful.
When a king enters into a treaty with one king and promotes dissention in the State of
another, the situation thus created is named by Kautilya as that of Dvedhibhaava or duplicity.
This policy of double standards also aims, at the same time, in dividing enemy’s army and
attacking smaller units of army in isolation and, thus, unfolding enemy’s policy of adversery.
Kautilya has also made a comparative study of the relevance and significance of these means.
In his view, a prudent king should have recourse of Sand/il (agreement) in preference to
Vigraha (hostility), to Aasana (halting) in preference to Yaan (military expedition) or war, and
to Dvedhibhaava (duplicity) in preference to Sarnshraya (seeking protection, keeping in mind
the probable results and expected cost of damage involved. The king, infact, was expected by
Ancient Indian scholars to use all other expedients before adopting the policy of war
(Vigraha). The king was to plan his course of action patiently like a crane, display his
strength like a lion, snatch his prey like a wolf and, then, run like a rabbit. The king was
advised not to attack many foes at the same time, but to grind them one by one. Further, to
specify, there are no separate species or creatures, according to ancient Indian scholars, called
friends or foes. Persons become allies or enemies depending on the force of circustances.
Debts, defeated enemies and neglected diseases always grow until they do harm. They
should, therefore, be exterminated.
The diplomacy, thus, advocated by our ancient Indian authors is a curious combination of
supremely high ethical pnnciples with trechery, deceit and calculated ruthlessness. War has
never been a particularly noble ethical practice and ancient India looked at it purely as a
struggle for power — an aspect of the reality of diplomacy. There were certainly just or
unjust standards of conduct during warfare, but how niuch they affected historical combat is a
very difficult question.
The objectives of the conqueror — absolute attainment of power and success, or atleas the
denial of the same to his enemy, is developed as an important principle. The Vijigishu should
conclude peace when he finds himself to be stronger, to neutrality when there is stalemate,
attack when he is very strong, take refuge when he is weak and adopt the dual policy in a
situation when he finds that he is in need of extreme help. The basic principle involved is that
while progress should be the fundamental objective of all types of foreign policy, the
particular pe should be selected so as to ensure the maximum advantage for the king.
The selection of the policies of peace and war is treated by Kautilya as involving a military as
well as a political problem. His views regarding the aggressor marching his troops against the
enemy differ from those of early Arthashastra writers and consider the policy of attack as a
military problem in the widest sense of the team. Again, differing from the older masters,
Kautilya assigns equal importance to the three principal factors of power, peace and time.
From the view-point of inter-state relations vis-a-vis the attitude of subjects towards the king,
Kautilya has recommended that the king whose subjects are oppressed should be attacked
rather than the one whose people are loyal to their king. He, thus, indirectly warned the king
not to ill-treat his people, lest they become impoverished, greedy or disaffected, and for him
progressively dangerous.
Kautilya also has a reassuring word for the weak king, whose age-old problem of standing up
to the powerful aggressor is treated from a refreshing angle. Kautilya enjoins the weak ruler
to seek refuge with a more powerful ruler, than his aggressor. Alternatively, he should
combine with various such kings who are equal in power and resources to his enemy king.
Otherwise, he should continue with a number of inferior but enthusiastic kings. At the worse,
he should take shelter in a fort. He should face the danger either by treaty or by a battle of
intrigues or by an unrighteous light.

DIPLOMATIC SYSTEM:
In order to give practical shape to tile means, methods and qualities, suggested by Kautilya
the role of diplomats representatives and agents of the State has Never been questioned, A
diplomat or Doota is one who is accredited in the States both of friends and foes, for serving
the interests of his own king and his kingdom and, therefore is named by Kautilya as the
mouthpiece, of his king. The Sanskrit word for ambassador or diplomat is Doota which
literally means a messenger and suggests that he visits the foreign court for a particular
purpose or mission. The instructions given to tile Doota in the Arthashastra (1:16) indicate
that he was to reside in the foreign court only till he fell that there was still a possibility of his
mission to succeed, otherwise he was to return.
Kautilya describes the qualities of a doota as of high born, of good family, eloquent,
intelligent Sweet-speeche faithful in delivering his message and endowed with good memory,
I- should also be familiar with diplomatic policy, accustomed to espionage, fearless, loyal and
capable of understanding hints and inendoes which suggest intended policy and also to
comprehend tile meaning, facial features and expressions. Considering the doota as the eyes,
ears, voice and brain of his government at his station, Kautilya expects him to be in
possession of qualities like political sensibility, quick grasping power, eloquence, sweetness
of speech, accuracy, endurance, loyalty and honesty.
Kautilya’s description of the duties of an ambassador may be summerised as: transmission of
the views of his State; maintenance of treaties; issues of ultimatums gaining of friends;
creating intrigues; sowing dissensions among friends; fetching secret force; carrying away
the force, relatives and games; gathering information about the movement of spies; breaking
of the treaties of peace, and Winning over the favour of the envoy and government officers of
the enemy. After reaching his destination, the doota should state the object of his visit to the
enemy. He should also cultivate friendship with the enemy’s officers such as those incharge
of wild tracts, border areas of cities and countlyside He should also contrast the military
stations, economic strength and strongholds of the enemy country with those of his master.
He should ascertain the size and area of forts as well as the location of special treasures .A
doota is advised not to be puffed up with respects shown to him, and to avoid wine and
women strictly. He should try to gather information by conversation with the people; by
listening to the talk of the beggars,intoxicated and insane persons and persons babbling in
sleep: by observing signs in places of pilgrimage: and by deciphering paintings and secret
writings. ‘‘These instructions are as valid today as when they were written in the fourth
century B.C.”, says KM. Panikkar.
Doota had to report all secret information to the king in cipher code, Gudhalekha.
The Doots sent to foreign countries were classified into three categories. Nisrishtartha or
plenipotentiary resembled, in his powers, to the modern Ambassador. His qualifications were
the same as those necessary for a minister and he had full powers of negotiation. The next
grade of doota, known as Parimitaartha, was supplied with derinite instructions for a
particular mission and could not deviate from them. He possessed three-fourths of the
qualifications required for the first category. The shaasanaharaa was really a courier or royal
messenger and his duty was to carry messages between tile kings. He had no powers of
negotiation. He was expected to possess atleast half of the qualifications required for the first
category. Kautilya seems to have followed Ramayaná in so far as tile classification of
ambassadors is concerned. It is to be noted that tile classification of diplomats in modern
times (according to the Congress of Vienna in 1815) resembles remarkably with the one
given by Kautilya.
The envoys had certain immunities as well. In ancient India, as in modern times, the person
of the ambassador was regarded as inviolable. Like Ramayana and Mahabharta, Arthashastra
also illustrates that the dootas cannot be killed though they were liable to be punished. As a
rule, the Doota could ask for permission to return home after his mission was over. If,
however, he was convinced that further stay would pose a danger to his life, or to the interests
of his kingdom, he could even return without permission. Furthermore, Dootas enjoyed full
freedom of movement within the country. They wee to be allowed passage and were exempt
from payment of all ferry and custom duties. Kautilya makes specific provisions for the
subsistance of the envoys.
One can trace a few similarities between tile functions of Doota in the Kautilyan State and
those of an ambassador in the modern State. Safeguarding the territorial, political and
economic integrity of the State was the prime function of doota, as it is today. By the use of
means, peaceful or otherwise, the doota was to ensure the safety and security of the State.
The purpose of diplomacy then, as now, was to be ever on alert and render information about
tile policies of other countries which mitigate against tile interests of his own country. Even
today they have to play the complex role of Playboy, gentleman historian, commercial and
trade expert and columnist-publicist.
There are, however, some differences between the ancient and modern diplomacy. Ancient
diplomacy, like modern diplomacy, is on the high road to become open or popular diplomacy,
whose worst features (like comparative lack of decorum, use of the language of abuse, appeal
over heads of governments, direction to the people in the adversary camps of governments)
sometimes errupt at public forums like the United Nations. With the New Diplomacy (also
called as ‘democratic diplomacy’ or ‘diplomacy by conference’) as practised at the United
Nations and its affiliated organisations, the horizon of diplomacy has been broadened, but the
diplomatic methods of the past going right back to the days of Kautilya, have their value and
relevance even today.
ESPIONAGE SYSTEM:
If the envoys were the mouthpiece of the king, spies were considered to be his eyes. The role
of the spy was as important as that of an ambassador, Ancient Indian authors were well aware
of the institution and the role of spies. One finds eleborate reference to spies in Rig Veda,
Atharva Veda, Ramayana and Mahabharta, but it is only in the Arthashastra that the
institution of secret service is made a permanent feature of government. Kautilya describes a
complex, well- knit and well-organised system of espionage, systematically used for the
maintenance of internal security and for foreign relations.
While choosing a spy, no distinction of caste, creed or sex was observed. The king-in-council
was to appoint these officers after satisf himself completely as to their character and ability.
The spy was expected to be very smart, swift, intelligent and efficient. Dishonest and
misbehaving spies were to be punished and the honest ones rewarded and protected. Spies
sending wrong infonnation repeatedly were also to be punished.
Kautilya classifies spies into five categories: (i) Kaapatika-chhaatra (working under the guise
of a fraudulent disciple); (ii) Udaasthjta (a sham ascetic who has fallen from the real duties of
asceticism); (iii) Grihapatika (a householder spy); (iv) Vaidehaka (a merchant spy); and (v)
Taapasa (a spy under the guise of an ascetic practising austerities). These are the five
institutions (Sansthas) of espionage. They would be honoured by the king with awards of
money and titles and their main task would be to ascertain the purity of character of the
king’s servants. Apart from these, there are four types of wandering spies (Sanchaarah), viz.
(i) Satri (classmate spies or spies learning by social intercourse): (ii) Tukshna (firebrands of
fiery spies). According to R. Sharnasastri and in the views of P.V. Kane, it is the desperado,
the one who, regardless of his life, may fight el ephants for money. (iii) Rasad (poisoners
who are very cruel); and (iv) Bhikshuki (a woman ascetic, who has access to king’s harem
and the Prime Minister’s residence).
Each of these categories was further sub-divided into two parts of Baahya (external) and
Aabhyanta (internal) spies. So far as the organisation of the espionage system is concerned, it
used to be a regular department, with a separate head for each category. Secrecy among all
categories was given foremost preference. Some of the spies were appointed to spy oil the
spies. Kautilya further specified that the secret information furnished by one agency should
nor be communicated to another agency. To avoid aiw conspiracy, all the spies were to be
strangers to each other. All the information was to be sent in writing, but in a secret code;
Kautilya further advises the kings not to act on the report of one spy alone. If the information
from three sources is found to tally, then alone is the king advised to take action.
In so far as the internal role of spies is concerned they were expected to find out the
movements and behaviour of the King’s ministers, heir-apparent, priests, commander of the
army, the door keeper, officers incharge of the harem, the magistrates,the collector general,
city constables, officers incharge of forts, boundaries and wild tracts, the heads of
departments and the assembly of councillors. They were to collect prevalent rumours in the
country and help build the iniage of the king. They were to find out whether the people are
contended or not and inform the king about it. Kautilya also mentions the spies employed by
the collector-general to suppress the thorns’ or persons who disturb peace in the society.
Through the spies, the king can inflict punishment on those who are dangerous to the safety
of the kingdom and can not be put down in open day light. In the administration of justice,
spies are used when the statement of either of the parties is found self-contradictory.
Moreover, local spies detect the spies set up b foreign kings. Therefore, internal aspionage
system can guard the kingdom against factions among his people and the intrigues of foreign
kings.
Kautilya provides an intricate net—work of the spies in the field of ifltcrstate relations. The
object of sending spies into another country were to sow dissensions and seek information.
Extra credit was given for killing the enemy-king. As merchants, the spies could sell
poisoned food or kill whilst their client was examining merchandise. It was considered rather
excellent to impersonate a god and then kill the royal worshipper as he came to offer prayer.
All kinds of magical tricks were devised to lead the enemy, king and people into believing
that some miracle had been performed. Once the ability to perform miracles was
acknowledged, a fair amount of dissension and unrest could be created without too much
trouble. Seduction of the enemy’s army by lies, bribes, false promises, poisonous liquor, or
any other method was looked upon with approval by Kautilya. Women, including prostitutes,
were to be used as spies. The spies were to strike down the enemy king whereever he was
known to go unguarded. They could also lure the army chief in love-affair and later could
either poison him or cause animosity among the officers. They could also disguise
themselves as palmists and arouse ambition of becoming the king in chief and other officers
to make them disloyal. While pursuing the method of fortune— telling, king’s minister was
expected to carry out the forecast of the spy. Thus, in external spying, or for that matter, in
diplomacy, there was no morality. Little surprise was occasioned by unprovoked aggression
or violation of neutrality of other States. Trechely and falsehoods compounded by State
immorality comprised the Modus operandi of spies. Diplomacy, too, was often equated with
deceit and fraudulent activities. The enemy witted by spies into a false sense of security, was
attacked, taken by surprise and vanquished.
Thus, the picture of the spy-systeni as given by Kautilya,makes us aware of the highly
developed diplomatic intrigue of his times and proves that the art of espionage reached its
zenith in the Arthashastra.
WAR AS THE LAST RESORT OF DIPLOMACY:
Being a practical and realistic statesman, Kautilya admitted the possibility of warfare. The
usual causes for which States went to war with each other, according to A.S. Altekar, were :
(i) the desire to attain the imperial status; (ii) the necessity of self-preservation; (iii) the
acquisition of additional territories or tributes; (iv) the restoration of balance of power; (v) the
retaliation for raids; and (vi) the rescues of oppressed populations. One can make out that
these are the normal causes of war in all times and climes.
Kautilya divides war into three types, viz. Prakaash-Yuddha (Open war), Kuta-Yuddha
(treachrous war) and Tushnim-Yuddha (silent war).
When a battle is fought in daylight and in some definite locality, it is termed as an open fight.
It recommends a high code of honour on the battlefield. It requires that the enemy should not
be struck unawares or when not properly armed. Kautilya preferred that if Vijigishu has
immense superiority over his enemy, then Prakaash-Yuddha or ‘ethics’ of battlefield has to be
maintained.
However, threatening in one direction and assault in another; destruction of enemy when he
is careless or is in trouble: bribing a portion of the army and destroying another are forms of
treacherous fight. The beginning of an attack is the time for a Irecherous fight in which the
enemy king can be invited on any occasion and then can be captured; efforts can be made to
separate the enemy from his allies, the stores and the water supply of the enemy can be
poisoned, country can be devasted, crops and stores can be burnt, and civilians can be taken
into captivity. During this warfare, the king should harass the enemy by display of the army,
secret contrivances, fiery spies, witchcraft, proclaiming the conqueror’s association with
gods, inciting traitors, setting fire to the camp, sowing the seeds of dissension, and by telling
the enenw that his fort was burnt or someone rose in rebellion. This type of war may be
resorted to upon when the Vijigishu is not superior to the enemy and the circumstances are
unfavourable to him.
Tushnim Yuddha or silent battle concerns itself with the secret practices and instigation
through secret agents. An attempt to win over the chief officers of the enemy by intrigue is
the differentiating feature of a silent battle. It is fought by spies and, to a certain extent, by
doots. It is not a var in the modern sense, but a device to sow the seeds of dissensions in the
enemy, a method which is vastly and effectively used even today. A weak king should wage
trecherous and silent battle against a powerftml enemy.
War being found inevitable under certain circumstances, Kautilya tried to mitigate its evils by
recommending a high code of honour in the battlefield. Though he advised the king to follow
all methods of warfare, both fair and foul, except when his State is immensely superior to that
of his enemy. It is wrong to say that Arthashastra knows nothing about fair play in a battle as
maintained by some scholars. Following the noble traditions laid down by earlier thinkers,
Kautilya also lays down that some categories of persons, like those who have fallen down or
have surrendered or laid down their arms or those not participating in the war, should not be
attacked.
The conqueror is advised to cover the enenw s vices with his own virtues, observe his duties
strictly, bestow rewards, gifts and honours and remit taxes. He is, further, advised to accept
the mode of life, dress, language and customs of the conquered people, and not to covet the
land, belongings, Sons and wives of the king slain by him. Kautilya took a humane and
realistic view, asking the Vijigishu to install the fallen dynasty on the throne and treat the
defeated princes with honour and kindness.
Again, it is true that when the fight ends in victory, the subsequent conduct of the Vijigishu is
to be determined by the relative strength of the defeated enemy, but in case of annexation of
territory, the Vijigishu is advised to win over the people and not to terrorise or exploit them.
Similarly, prisoners of war were also to be given generous treatment. Apart from the moral
aspect, this advice has practical implications. If the conqueror behaves in an arbitrary and
irresponsible way, other kings of the circle of Slates will be provoked against him, and even
his ministers may go against him.
Kautilya mentions three types of conquests and three types of conquerors. i.e.Dharmavijaya,
Lobhavijaya, and Asuravijaya and Dharmmvijayi, Lobhavijayi and Asuravijayi.
Dharmmvijayi (just conqueror) is satisfied with mere obeisance. Hence, a weak king should
seek his protection. Lobhavijayi (a greedy conqueror) is satisfied with his gains in land and
money. Hence, a weak king should pacify him by giving him wealth. Asurvijayi (a demon-
like conqueror) is the worst. He is not satisfied by merely seizing the land, treasure. Sons and
wives of the conquered, but is also desirous of taking the life of the later. So a weak king
should keep him at a distance by giving him land and
money.
CONCEPT OF DHARMA VIJAYA (RELIGIOUS VICTORY):
Kautilya observes that Dharmavijaya is the best and advises the Vijigishu to aim at being a
Dharmmvijayi. We may well assume that accordingly the rules were actually followed in
practice as long as the opposing States were evenly matched and annexation did not follow
the defeat. Megasthenes was surprised to notice that warfare in India did not usually interfere
with the agricultural operations. Combatants on either side waging the conflict made carnage
of each other but allowed those engaged in agriculture to remain quite unmolested. Yuan
Chwang was also struck b the fact that wars, though not infrequent produced little harm to
the counrtry. It seems that so long as annexations were rare, the rules of Kautilya appear as
humane, when compared to the attrocities that disfigured the warfare in the ancient Middle
East.
Thus, Kautilya’s theory of Mandala, his discussion of peace time Upaayas war tactics of
Shadyaguna, classification of envoys, system of espionage and of the means to be used by
them for strengthening their State not only bear witness to his genius for anticipating and
providing for all possible situations a State may have to face in its relations with
neighbouring States, but also serve as a commentary on the high level of diplomacy
prevailing in his times. Kautilya has, however, been severely criticised for’advocating means
and methods, some of which are regarded as unethical or immoral and for which Kautilya has
been ‘misinterpreted’ as “Indian Machiavelli”
KAUTILYA AND ARISTOTLE:
Kautilya (375-300 B.C.) comes closer to his contemporary Greek philosopher, Aristotle (388-
320 B.C.) in several ways. Just as Kautilya was the first Greek political thinker to elevate
politics to the level of a science by separating it from Ethical and Moral laws, Kautilya too
was the first Indian thinker who transformed statecraft into an autonomous, systematic and
scientific study by seperating it from both Ethics and Religion.
The methods of both Kautilya and Aristotle were analytic and genetic. Tbey first divided a
whole into parts, studied each part thoroughly and synthesized the results of their analysis
back into the whole. They considered the views of their predecessor thinkers and
philosophers, pointed out their respective shortcomings and gave their own suggestions to
overcome them, so as to improve the overall quality of the prevailing social, economic and
political system. Even in this exercise, they were inclined more to preserve the older values
and ways of thinking, rather than build castles in the air.
Aristotle, by presupposing the ruler’s ability to govern the minorities, entrusted him with the
task of regulating the organised society. Kautilya, too, entrusted his ruler with the
responsibility of preserving and protecting the social set-up which was becoming
increasingly corrupt.
Like Aristotle, Kautilya maintained that it is absolutely unjust for anyone to give up his social
and political responsibilities in order to become a philosopher or take up the responsibilities
of wandering ascetic, a sanyasi.
Just as Aristotle had undertaken an indepth study of the constitutions and political
organisatioji of the Greek City States of his times, as well as the ones which existed before
him, Kautjlya too, had analysed at length a number of polities known as Dvairajyas,
Vairajyas, and Arajyas. His description of tile procedures of choosing a king and
oforganisingjudicja and administration in India were, by and large similar to those of
Aristotle’s Greek City-States.
Just as Aristotle had accepted the superiority of meritorious and able philosophers over both
the individual and the society, Kautilya too had acknowledged the relative significance and
superiority of religious Brahmans versed in Vedas and Anavikshiki over the rest.
Like Aristotle, Kautilya had also realised the significance of rule by the noble elite. To both
of them, the people co-exist not by dint of fear or compulsion, but by the motivation to lead
the noblest lives and attain the maximum possible mental and spiritual results. They, thus, in
their own ways, prescribe a code of conduct for the monarchs or the oligarchs and look at the
State as a union or brotherhood of men who are agreed to rule and to be ruled. They, thus,
acknowledge the underlying harmony between the subjects and the sovereign, the people and
the government. They also recommended a number of methods by which the king could get
rid of traitors, rebels, assassins and bad characters.
The objective of both Aristotle and Kautilya was the establishment of a society which is not
only based on the principles of human dignity, moral responsibility and enlightened
patriotism, but also accords the individual his due place in the overall social and political set-
up.
Despite these striking similarities there are some fundamental differences in the philosophies
and strategies of Aristotle and Kautilya. For instance, while Aristotle was eager to establish
an ideal State Kautilya’s primary concern was the proper administration of a well- ordered
State.
While Aristotle devoted himself to the comparative and critical analysis of the political
organisation of a variety of Greek City-states, and the changes to which they were often
subjected. Kautilya’s basic concern was the political stability of the monarch and the
monarchy, the king and the kingdom.
While Kautilya was primarily interested in the monarchic system and wanted to make it
strong and enduring: Aristotle dialated upon monarchy aristocracy oligarchy, democracy and
tyranny His sociological network distinguished several types of oligarchies and democracies
based on the character of the dominant class in each.
Kautilya takes little note of the transformations States constantly undergo On the contrary.
Aristotle witnessed monarchy being changed into oligarchy, oligarchy into democracy, and
democracy into tyranny. Kautilya refers to Sanghas (republics) ways of popular control over
the king, who, in turn, was cautioned against political instability. But, sociological details of
the Politics are practically missing in the Arthashastra. Though Kautilya refers to Dharma,
Samastha, Vyavhaara and Raajashaasana as the sources of temporal authority, no practical,
effective or constitutional limitations on kingly authority finds reflected in the irthashastra.
While Aristotle underlines the significance of constitutionalism and constitutions. Kautilya
upheld the sovereignty of the king and kept him within the traditional maryaada (discipline)
of Anvikshki, Trayee, Vaarta and Dandaniti.
In the times both of Aristotle and Kautilya, the institution of slavery was widely prevalent.
While Aristotle justified their exclusion on the basis of qualitative differences between the
master and the slave, Kautilya confined himself to ensure the slaves’ basic rights and
facilities and provided for their emancipation, without going into the question of
righteousness or otherwise of the social system itself.
Both Aristotle and Kautilya excluded from citizenship certain classes of people and made no
attempt whatsoever to hide their contempt for the so-called lower classes, the ones who were
engaged in manual and industrial labour. Just as Aristotle would deprive the ‘slaves’ from the
rights of citizenship, Kautilya would exclude the ‘shudras’ from the political process, so as to
preserve the assumed superiority of the higher classes of royal families, the Brahmans, the
royal fighters and the businessmen.
Aristotle’s Ideal State was the Greek City-State and its social and political life, Kautilya’s
ideal was the Vijigishu King, aiming at conquering the whole of the country from the
Himalayas to the sea (Kanyakumari).
In short, if Kautilya was philosophically closer to Aristotle, he was poles apart from
Machiavelli. Nonetheless, Aristotle, Kautilya and Machiavelli, all of them continue to be
relevant in their own distinct ways. It is, however, difficult to say as to who would be
relatively more relevant when and where? Their respective relevance would ultiniatel depend
on the social and political situations and circumstances which keep on changing.
KAUTILYA AND MACHIAVELLI:
Kautilya (375-300 B.C.) has often been compared with Nicolo Machiavelli (1496-1527
A.D.), the modern Italian political thinker whose famous reflections are set forth in his three
complimentary works: The Art of War, The Discourses on King and The Prince. Machiavelli
occupies the enviable position of being the first modern political thinker or philosopher in
European history, one who synibolised a revolution in political theory that reflected the
Renaissance spirit. Kautilya,on the other hand, inherited a long tradition of pre-existing
Arthashastra school of thought, to which he had given a modernistic outlook and content.
SIMILARITIES:
With the vast difference in the Italian and Indian historical, geographical and cultural
situations, some subjects and themes of the Prince and the Arthashastra are, nevertheless,
common, For instance, the acquisition, preservation, and expansion of the State. Both
realistically analyse the methods by which a king may rise to supreme power and maintain it
against all odds. In both, we find the duality of treatment of the feelings and susceptibilities
of men and the tendency to legitimise force and fraud in the interest of the State. For, both the
authors, the interest of the State, vis-a-vis the interest of a person is paramount.
Both of them held the belief that, through a proper and critical study of history, one could
deduce not only the causes of maladies of society, but also the cures thereof. Imbued with an
enduring value, these precepts have validity, not only for the writer’s contemporary time, but
for the future too. One of the signal lessons of history is that in any particular situation,
alternative courses of action are open to the statesmen or the monarch, though the choice
offered may be limited. Accordingly, both these thinkers introduced the formulae of elasticity
in political action.
For political preservation, while Machiavelli singles out a class of aristocrats for ruthless
action. Kautilya considers anti-social elements and conspirators as enemies of the state and,
therefore, objects of extermination.
There is another close affinity between the ancient Indian thinker and the modern Italian
thinker. Both of them approach the common political problems in the same spirit and temper.
Kautilya belonged to the Arthashastra school which looked at the political phenomenon
without linking them inany way with divine agency or revelation. The approach was thus
religious and rational. The Modern Italian thinker affected a break with the medieval way of
thinking and reasoning and adopted the empirical or historical method of investigation and
emancipated the State from t1 bondage to ecclesiastical authorities. He, thus, presented the
art of kingship by delinking politics from medieval influences of Christianity. Similarly,
Kautilya reconstructed the science of politics, distinct from the Dharmashaastra and
Nitishaastra.
Machiavelli wrote his Prince with the professed object of indicating the methods by which
Lorenzo de Medici could make himself the master of Italy, just as Kautilya had in mind the
expansion of the Mauryan Empire under the aegis of Chandragupta Maurva,
As far as the maxims set out by Machiavelli, these are often addressed to princes as well as to
the high functionaries who carry on the affairs of the government and even the usurper or the
new monarch. In a similar vain, Kautilya’s stratagems for warriors and statesmen, as given in
the Arthashastra, rest on his deep learning, knowledge of human nature and a sound
discernment of the mosaic of motivation that inspire people,both high and low. These
trickeries have undoubted utility for tyrants and usurpers but can equally be useful to the
good kings too.
In the field of realpolitics, there is much that is common between Kautilya and Machiavelli.
Kautilya is aware that the Swami (king) can hardly feel secure in a State where persons shorn
of power by him are still alive and well. Similar insistence was that of Machiavelli while
cautioning the Prince against any possible conspiracy and scandle.
What brings the Florentine closest to ancient India is his doctrine that whenever the interests
of the State are involved, the prince can adopt any means for the achievement of this purpose.
Machiavelli maintains that the sole end of the prince is to make the kingdom strong and
united, establish peace and expel the foreign invaders. For this noble end, any means would
be satisfactory. To him, the question of the morality of means is irrelevant so long as the end
is noble. The name of Machiavelli is, thus, intimately connected with the doctrine that the
end justified the means”. He held that, like the art of navigation, the art of government is also
part of morals. However, Kautilya zealously upheld the claim of morality to regulate personal
and public life, lie was prepared to advise the Prince to ignore their maxims and resorts to
unfair and even immoral means to protect the safety and security of the State.
Dealing with the king’s security against his sons, he asks unscrupulously to banish or
imprison a prince who has no love for his father. He should be kept under duress. He should
be prompted to thieving, robbery, poisoning or may be allowed to conspire and strike the
king and then be put to death. Kautilya suggests a number of measures for the suppression of
persons of doubtful loyalties and criminal character. The king’s spies should act as agent-
provocateurs so that such persons may be punished by fine or banishment. Thieves and
adulterators should be tempted to commit crimes and then punished. They may be instigated
to attack caravans and villages and then killed by troops specially posted for the purpose or
arrested or poisoned secretly in sleep or intoxication.
For the suppression of the foes of the State, Kautilya advocates the methods of treachery and
secret diplomacy. Such officers, who injure State interest, should be prosecuted on trumped
up charges of murdering the king or adultery with the Queen. In this way alone can all
dangers arising from civilians be ruled out. The most important task for the king was to
ensure sovereignty and for that he could use any means, however mean and petty. For
financial emergency, Kautilya recommends the use of force to extract money, confiscation of
property, unscrupulous use of poison and dagger. He demands of a king an attitude of naked
self-interest displayed in inter-state relations where the State should legitimately use intrigue,
opportunism, treachery and violences. For the conquest of a world-kingdom, everything is
justifiable, including secret arms, fire, sword, medicinal preparations and poison, espionage,
charms and temptations. Similarly, when the Varnashramadharma, the four fold order, is in
crisis and when the survival of a way of life is at stake, Kautilya thinks no means of
protection as immoral. He advises his king to wield an actopus like iron grip on society and
to destroy disloyalty by a heavy and ruthless hand.
VARIANCES:
Between the range of subjects covered by Machiavelli’s Prince and Kautilya’s Arthashastra
one can, no doubt, trace general resemblances, but the two flows from radically different
sources and imbibe opposite spirit and ideology. The prevalent conception about Kautilyan
and Machiavellian traits is founded on the monumental error of viewing their thinking
independently of their basic premise and postulates.
The typically Indian conception of a synthetic philosophy, comprising all knowledge on
diverse human affairs, stands in contrast with the Italian analytical and materialistic approach
to social and political problems.
Machiavelli’s empirical method, founded on historical data, has no equivalent in Kautilya’s
casual references to classical antiquity. Machiavelli’s application of history to point a moral is
different from Kautilya’s dependence on scriptures and conventional wisdom for reinforcing
the traditional moral order.
The more fundamental difference lies in the objectives of the two sets of policies formulated
by them. Machiavelli was motivated by a burning patriotism to see Italy rise again from the
ashes into a modern nation for the deliverance of the unhappy land from decay. Kautilya, on
the contrary, was aspired to ensure the security and stability of the kingdom so as to achieve
Dharma on the globe. Kautilya‘s major preoccupation, unlike that of Machiavelli, was to
foster and restore the ethical values of Indian system both in method and in principle.
Kautilya’s essentially spiritual disposition and Machiavelli’s essentially secular-material
makeup stand out against each other. Though both believed and prescribed to the rulers the
rules of the game of politics, the use of religion for political ends, their grounds for doing so,
as also their concepts of power and goals, were mutually exclusive.
Like Mahaabhaarta, Kautilya allows the king, for financial extortions from subjects, use of
techniques of extortion when the treasury is empty, the army is small, and the king has no
allies and friends abroad and is invaded. This a Apaad-dharma or ”Dharma of distress” in a
critical situation. Disapproval of these methods in normal conditions is a settled Kautilyan
prescription. The ultimate political ideology in times of peace is of inapplication to these
Apaad-dharma situations that transgress the cannons of Dharma.
Kautilya also does not wholly subscribe to the view of Machiavelli that man is born bad and
has no inherent virtue in him. That he is a “compound of weakness, folly and knavery,
intended by nature to be tile dupe of the cunning and the prey of the despotic”. On the
contrary, he admits that man has altruistic and good qualities alongside some selfish and bad
traits. He, thus, does not endorse the view of Machiavelli that man is thoroughly bad and
wholly selfish. To him, a man, apart from being selfish and leaning, is altogether rational and
is, therefore, advised to follow a code of conduct on Dharma and to adopt immoral means to
deal with cunning.
Again and again, Kautilya stressed that the State was an organism on which depended the
happiness of the society and its individual members. This moral base of the State was
repeatedly denied by Machiavelli, for his mission was to free politics from its slavery to
theology and isolating the phenomenon of politics, so as to study them wholly without
reference to the facts of moral existence.
The doctrine of political dharma, Raajadharma, incorporates the functions and duties of the
king, outlines the principles of social conduct and deals with royal duties and civil and
criminal law. In accordance with Manu’s proclamation of Dharma as the supreme principle in
human life, Danda or the royal power of punishment, in the double aspects of coercion and
protection, is equated with Dharma. The King is considered as the wielder of the rod of
punishment and, if he is not just, he has to compensate for the loss and to perform penance.
This involves extra-political sanction for the king against violation of his duties of protecting
the fourfold social order. Dharma does not necessarily imply the contractual concept of
authority versus responsibility. Raajadharma is monarchical in its orientation and reflects the
personification of Dharma in the king and identifies the king with Dharma. It further
advocates the supremacy of Dharma over the king. It would, thus, be wrong to infer that
Kautilya, like Machiavelli, tends to give a carte-blanche to the king. In contrast, it can be
argued that the Kautilyan king was to allow public meetings in temples and markets. And,
when he talks of humiliating the public, he means that ill-treatment is to be awarded to the
foreigners and not to the natives. Kautilya pleads for judicious taxation, a check on profits
and measures to remove poverty. Even in crisis, he suggests taxes to be levied on certain
classes of people and exemption for others. He also asks that the profits of the fraudulent
traders by usurped. Thus, in Arthashastra, there remains an ultimate accountability to the rule
of Dharma.
It is interesting to note Kautilya’s perception of a two-fold standard of the end of existence.
One, the role of virtue and wealth in principles and policies of government, such as, the
behaviour of a saintly king, the noble training of a prince, and restraints on the king. Kautilya
rejects Bhardwaja’s advice to a king to involve his sons in sexual indulgence for the sake of
his own security. He condemns the advice to a minister to usurp the throne by treachery and
violence after king’s death. He suggests judicial pronouncements against torture. In inter state
relations, he advocates Shapath (oath) as the basis of Pratigya (treaties). Truthful kings
should solemnly pledge and carry out duties with a sense of dedication, he pleads. The
second aspect is that of expediency. Those officials who are found by spies to be disaffected
for some just reasons are to be conciliated by riches and honours. But, those disaffected for
no reasons and harming the king’s interest may be secretly put to death. While the loyal
subjects should be honoured, the disloyal ones should first be treated with conciliation, but if
they remain disaffected even thereafter, they should be entrusted with the work of revenue
collection and of inflicting punishment so that they incur people’s wrath and then they may
secretly be put to death.
There is fundamental difference between the kingship of Kautilya and Machiavelli. As for
Machiavelli, he left the personal and private character of the Prince of his upbringing out of
sight, and treated him as the personification of the State, wherein the private individual is
inevitably merged in the politician. On the other hand, Kautilya’s characterisation of the king
was by self-control, wisdom, discipline and noble conduct. lt further emphasises
acquaintance of the King with Trayee (the three Vedas) Aanvikshaki (dualistic Sankhya),
Vaarta (trade, commerce and agriculture) and Dandaniti (punishment) and also restrains him
from Kama (lust), Krodha (anger), Lobha (greed), Mana (Vanity), Mada (haughtiness), and
Harsha (too much joy). The ruler should daily reflect on his adherence to regular public
appearance and punctual perforniance of his routine duties and sacffices. What is most
significant is Kautilya’s priority to Dharma over Danda. While Machiavelli argues, ‘it is not
necessary for a prince really to have virtues, but it is very necessary to seem to have them”, to
Kautilya, King’s departure from moral norms was a temporary expedient for the restoration
of those moral norms. The king was expected to be a virtuous person in thought, word and
deed. If he had to be cruel by necessity, it was to make virtuous life possible for all.
So far as the ultimate objective of the State is concerned, Machiavelli did not think much of
the populace, the welfare of the less privileged did not bother him, as these concerned
Kautilya. The majority of citizens, to Machiavelli, were content with the security of person
and property that the State provided them. He glorified the State and stressed the over-riding
claim of the State to the loyalty of the individual. He would not concede that man had any
right over and against the State. Man attained his optimum development through
subordinating himself to the society, held Machiavelli, and that the State provided political
framework essential to the development of mankind. On the other hand, to Kautilya, the State
was subordinated to the soietyc which it did not create, but which it existed to secure. The
highest office of the State is, thus, an aggregate of the people whose welfare is an end in
itself. Political power is the means to attain such an end.
The Kautilyan maxim: Prajaa Sukhe Sukhram Rajyah, Prajanam cha Hiteh Hitam (in the
welfare and happiness of the people lies king’s welfare and happiness), is indicative of his
emphasis on the equation of welfare Vs. power, Machiavelli insists that a good ruler is one
who achieves the good of the people by fair or foul means, Kautilya demands that a good
ruler should be a good man, besides being a ruler. Kautilya, therefore, was the spokesman of
Udyaana, establishment of righteousness on earth, and aspired for Vaarta, enhancement to
trade and commerce.
To conclude, Kautilya, in contrast to Machiavelli, is not prepared to subordinate ethics to
politics. His schematic diversion into Machiavellian mode is a minor feature of his total
conceptual make up. Thus, the tenor of his though is both markedly different and
fundamentally opposite to that of Machiavelli.
CONTRIBUTION OF KAUTILYA:
The contribution of Kautilya to the subject is immense. He virtually reconstructed the science
of politics out of the tangled mass of Arthashastra literature left behind by his predecessors
and left his impression on all subsequent thinkers. His Arthashastra proved to be a vast
storehouse of information and contained all the available data on almost all the branches of
politics. Dr. Radhakrishan Choudhary in his book Kautilya‘s Political Ideas and Institutions
shows that writers like Dandin, Bana, Samadeva Suri, Manu, Yajnavalkya and Katyayana
were greatly indebted to this great ancient Indian thinker. Dr. Ghoshal opines that no only the
admission of the great merit of Raajadharma in the Mahaabhaarta but also the “wholesale
incorporation of the Arthashastra material into the Smriti tradition” can be traced to Kautilya.
It was largely due to Kautilya that the estimate of the 1 traditional services, i.e. Trayee,
Aanvikshaki, Vaarta, and Dandaniti became a common place in the political thought of India.
The six traditional types of foreign policy, the techniques of applying the King’s coercive
authority, the relative importance of the seven constituents the State, also gained currency in
the ancient Indian political thought.
His Arthashastra proved to be a truly great treasure house of knowledge about statecraft and
diplomacy. It would not be wrong to hold that if he had been guided and inspired solely by
the ancient values of life embodied in traditional Varnashramadharma, his Arthashastra could
never have come to exercise the wide influence it actually did High ideals inspire men only
when they are adjusted and adapt to the actual needs of social life. Dharma is indeed the
highest value of life, but it should take due note of the material basis of life of Artha and
Kamaa, divorced from the actualities of life, it would be like a great and beautiful mansion
without any one to live in and enjoy it. Varna-Vyavasthaa was a sound ideal, but the realism
of Kautilya, however, leads him to realise that departure from the healthy rule arc bound to
take place, and accordingly he found place for the offspring of mixed marriages in the new
castes which he recognized.”
A king should observe all the dictates of Dharma and morality in his dealing with his subjects
and also with States under ordinary circumstances, but Kautilya permits him to violate them
in crisis or if the interest of the States so require. Kautilya knew that the pursuit of politics
requires compromise with the principles of justice and morality. He realised the necessity of
wielding the rod of chastisement and, at the same time, cautioned the king against the
undesirable consequences of unduly severe punishment. He upheld the ideal of Chakravartin
but impresses it on the mind the Vijigishu that he should be content with the recognition of
his suzerainty by the less powerful chiefs and should not think of annexing their territories, in
all spheres of state-activity one finds that Kautilya avoids the extreme and adopts the middle-
of- the-road policy. Masking Arthashastra a manual for the king and his
ministers/administrators. Kautilya perceived their problems with such clarity of vision that
his solutions became a veritable storehouse of learning.
In the words of M.V. Krishna Rao, “Kautilya was a State socialist in the sense that he stood
for the maintenance of the authority of the State, for the extension of its functions and
thereby establish a socialist State’. Good government ensued from the social welfare
measures that the State took, pursuing them diligently and consistently. It was towards this
end that Kautilya spelled out the measures for the regulation of commerce and mines and
other manufacturers. Guilds and artisans \‘ere protected by the State. Kautilya’s ideas, thus,
added up to more than ‘:a body of positive knowledge which has been applied to industrial
technique”, and comprised a comprehensive social plan which aimed at realising Dharma
through Artha.
Using the name Chanakya for Kautilya. K.M. Panikkar observed:” The system that Chanakya
perfected or inherited or, in any case, described, endured without much change through the
ages. The Hindu kings to last followed the organization of the Mauryan Empire in its three
essential aspects, the revenue system, the bureaucracy and the police. The organization as it
existed was taken over by the Muslim rulers and from them by the British, if Indian
administration is analyzed to its bases, the doctrine and policies of Chanakya will be found to
be still in force.’’
The essence of Kautilya’s teaching was the promotion of a more scientific statecraft, best
illustrated in his pronouncements on diplomacy and inter-state relations which have enduring
value still. His contribution lay not only in expounding the ramifications of the in Mandala
theory with its pronounced postulates of peace through power, but also the value lie attached
to Dharma Vijaya. Assigning equal importance to the three principal factors of power. peace
and time was a significant contribution of Kautilya.
In his own days. the sage-diplomat witnessed and inspired the irresistible expansion of the
Mauryan Empire tinder Chandragupta and Bindusara. Later, Chandragupta grandson,
Ashoka, built his great Empire on the basis of Arthashastra and the scheme of administrative
machinery detailed in its pages. Ashoka bequeathed to history the ideals of Dharrna or
Dhamma, a moral or ethical order which is the very basis of every civilized society. Thus.
Kautilya was the prophet of Ashoka’s kingdom of righteousness, for despite whatever
Kautilya wrote on statecraft and diplomacy, there is the persistent case of a serene
atmosphere in the Arthashastra where intellectual liberty and spiritual freedom are guaranteed
for the people through the Dharmic, the ethical, and not the theological, State.
In formulating the details of his political ideals, principles, plans and ethico-political
strategies, Kautilya had taken cognizance not only of the events of his days, but also the ones
that were likely to change the entire course of thought and action. That is why he and his .
4rthashastra have their marked relevance not only for our times, but also for the generations
to come.
CHAPTER III

ZIAUDDIN BARANI (1286 - 1359)

Zia-ud-din Barani, a historian and a Chronicler of the Sultanate of Delhi (1206-1526 A.D.)
marked the foundation of a new political system in India, which derived its inspiration from
the Islamic precepts which were an ad-mixture of the Persio (Iranian) — Arabic traditions.
The ancient Indian State was a secular State, while the medieval State, at least in theory, was
a theocratic State. Barani’s political concepts have to be studied in the background of the then
existing political system, whose rulers were the non-Hindu Turks, who had usurped power by
overthrowing the Rajputs, had little or no knowledge of or respect for Indian Political
thoughts and traditions and who tried to establish their own administrative institutions in
India, on the pattern that was prevalent in the Arab and the Persian worlds. For India, such
institutions were to some extent, alien in nature.
The emergence of Islam in India was a notable feature of the medieval age. Islamic political
thinking, based on the principles of Islamic fraternity, had accepted the sovereignty of the
Holy Quran, based on divine Shari at, historical traditions of early Islam, equality and
harmony of the ideal Islamic community and the acceptance of all human beings as creatures
of Khuda, the one universal God. However, from the purely political point of view, it also
subscribed to the Greek belief that some are born superior and are, therefore, fit to rule, while
the rest, being inferior, are fit only to be ruled.
The age in which Barani was expressing his considered views was the age in which Islam
was steadfastly striving to find its feet in India, in the face of the staunch opposition of the
local religious leaders, who had been overthrown by the turks. In this context, it was
necessary to have recourse to administrative power, religious mania and Philosophical
background. To this end, Barani relied on the support of the Delhi Sultanat, vigour of the
Holy Quran and the Shariat. as well as the views of the Greek thinkers like Aristotle, and a
number of Arabic and Persian writers, so as to legitimise in India a Stale based on Islam.
Maulana Ziauddin Barani was one of the principal historians of the Delhi Sultanate. (1206-
1526 AD.). His paternal and maternal grandfathers had adorned political offices of various
Sultans during the Sultanate of Delhi. His father, Moidul-ul-Mulk, too, had held a number of
high political offices ever since the reign of Alauddin Khilzi. Barani, thus, belonged to the
family of noble origin and was brought up to believe that aristocratic birth was the primary
fact for the social order. He, too, had held a number of high political offices during the reign
of Muhammad-bin-Tughlaq (1325-5 1). Tughlaq held Barani in high esteem, owing to the
firsthand knowledge he had acquired from his grandfathers and father and the basic
understanding he had gained by his own personal experience. Tughlaq often consulted him
about the working and impact of his own rule. Infact, during the reign of Muhammad-bin-
Tughlaq, Barani had become so famous that a number of counsellors and advisers of Tughlaq
had also started seeking his advice on important sensitive matters of the State. They even
used to convey their requests and petitions to the Sultan through Barani’s good offices.
However, Barani lost his royal position after the demise of Muhammad-bin-Tughlaq. The
latter’s successor. Feroze Tughlaq (1351-88), did not give any importance to Barani. He even
put him in jail. Having lost his royal patronage and property, Barani died in 1359 in a state of
appalling poverty and helplessness.
Though he was released from jail, his property seems to have been confiscated for he passed
the rest of his life, in harrowing poverty. Barani at this point, has described himself as a
person who was “old bent, white-haired, half-blind, friendless and unable to borrow any
money.” But, this man in distress brought the dead to life by a tremendous effort of his audio-
visual memory, in the words of Professor Mohammed Habib, ‘No historian under conditions
so distressing and at an age so advanced has produced a work so great” as Fatawa-i- Jahan
dari.
One wonders as to what would have been the state of mind of a scholarly and experienced
philosopher like Barani, who had spent most of his life in royal splendour and comfort of
“drinking, dining and physical entertainment” and the man who even in those happy days did
not loose sight of God and lived iii his constant fear, had to spend the evening of his life in
such harrowing conditions and circumstances created for him deliberately by the new king
who hated him’? The fact that even in such negative and frightening conditions.
Barani could pen down two of his most noted works, the Fatawa-i-Jahandari and Talikh-i-
Ferozeshahi in a dialogue form on the basis of his fading memory is a proof of his
philosophical excellence and strong will power.
Ziauddin Barani was born in Delhi in 1286 and had received his education at the hands of a
number of eminent scholars, poets, writers, and Sufi saints of his time. Amongst them, he was
closely associated with luminaries like Amir Khusro, Amir Hasan and Nizamuddin Aulia.
Contacts with such people had great impact on his own thinking and had inculcated in him
the basic tenets of liberalism rather than the spiritual elements of Islamic life, Islamic religion
and Islamic culture. However, if we take his writings as a whole, we find that his views
presented a kind of combination of political liberalism on the one hand and religious
fundamentalism on the other. At places, he presents himself as an ardent religious
fundamentalist, proclaiming, “In a civilised society, Sunni Muslims alone should have the
right to live with respect”. He hated all non-Muslims and particularly the Hindus, in order to
justify his “all-out war against Hinduism. Nonetheless, Barani was essentially a great
intellectual, having enough knowledge of philosophy, religion, law, and statecraft. The
following books authored by Barani in the last few years of his life do give us ample
information about the social and political life of the Sultanate period
i) Sana-i-Mohammadi
ii) Salat-i-Kabir
iii) Inayatnmana-i-Elahi;
iv) Ma-asir-i-Sadaat;
v) Tarikh-i -Barmkiyan:
vi) Hasrat Nama;
vii) Tarikh-i-Ferozeshahi; and
viii) Fatawa-i-.Jahandari.
Though some of these writings are still untraceable, his two most significant works, viz.
Tarikh-i-Ferozeshahi and Fatawa-i Jahandari, throw sufficient light on the social and political
life during the Sultanate era.
Barani wrote the history of the 95 years— long reign of Balkan, Khilzi and Tughlaq
dynasties. The basis of his writings was the firsthand experience that he had acquired
personally and the one that his father and grandfathers had, in their own turn, acquired in the
course of their Close contacts with the Sultans of these dynasties and passed it on to him.
However, according to Professor Habib. ‘the conditions under which Barani wrote his books
were not quite favourable. He had no library and resources. It was not within his power to
undertake any investigation or research. He had, therefore, to rely largely on his failing visual
memory which resulted in the admixture of facts and fiction.
Nonetheless, Barani was able to describe the course of political development that took place
during this period and commented on the personal and public conduct of these rulers. He
,also gave his expert instructions, suggestions or advices (hidayats or nasihats) for the overall
improvement of the political system.
As a historian, having firsthand as well as acquired knowledge of the royal affairs of his
times and that of his illustrious predecessors, Barani has presented a critical appraisal of the
personal and public activities of Sultan Alauddin Khilzi and Sultan Muhammad-bin-Tughlaq.
Barani was one of the closest and most trustworthy counsellor, of Sultan Muhammad-bin-
Tughlaq for two decades of the fourteenth century. i.e. from 1335 to 1354. However, after the
demise of Mohammad-bin-Tughlaq. Barani had to undergo a lot of humiliation at the hands
of his successor, Feroze Tughlaq. He not only divested Barani of his position as a royal
counsellor, but also put him behind the bars for nearly six months. 11 was only after his
release from the prison that Barani started writing his books at the ripe age of 69 years and, in
a short span of five years, he penned down as many as 10 books. His works depict him as a
traditional religious fundamentalist who had extraordinary knowledge of Muslim thinking
and was devorted more to the fundamentalist traditions and vocabulory than to Islamic
traditions and vocabulory.
FATAWA-I-JAHANDARI:
Tarikh-i-Ferozeshahi and Fatawa-i are the two most outstanding books authored by Barani. In
these books, Barani begins with flattering Feroze Tughlaq and ends up as his most severe
critic. In authoring these two books, Barani had a three-fold object: (i) approval of Sultan
Feroze Tughlaq and his officers; (ii) attainment of Paradise, and (iii) the instruction of noble
born readers in generations to come. According to Prof. Habib. Barani failed in his first
object, but lie may have succeeded in the second and the translation of his book Fatawa-
i-.Jahandari, exactly six hundred years after his death, proves that he atleast succeeded in his
last object:
In so far as Barani style of writing is concerned, he has resorted to the formal of question-
answer, which was so unique to the Greek political philosophers like Plato. The advantage of
this style of writing is that the writer expresses his view s not directly but through the mouth
of different characters or commentators so that not only his views become known, but
anonymity, too, is maintained. In this way, ie does not have to face the consequences of
expressing his views which may not be of the liking of the establishment. In the reign of
Sultan Feroze Tughlak, he adopted the dialoguic style of writing which was not only
convenient and expedient, but also safe.
BARANI’S CONCEPT OF THE STATE:
Barani believed that the real source of power is the God Almighty. God transferred his
supreme power to Hazrat Mohammad and upon the latter’s demise, it was passed on to the
Sultan. That is why the Sultan is considered as the deputy of God himself. He is the shadow
of God and all his actions are determined by God himself. That is why Sultan exercises his
power not in his own right, but as the representative of Hazrat Muhammad. On the basis of
his study of the working of political systems of the 13th and 14th Centuries, Barani had
found that only Sultan Alauddin Khilzi and Sultan Muharnmad-bin-Tughlaq exercised their
sovereign power in this manner.
Barani was a good Arabic Scholar and knew the main events of the period of the Prophet and
the pious Caliphate. In so far as the conduct of the political affairs by the first four Khalifas is
concerned, Barani has given a critical appraisal of the events that took place during their
respective regimes. According to Barani, Government of the first four Khalifas was based on
the norms laid down by the Shari at. The second Khalifa ruled by force, the third by
encouraging nepotism, and the fourth by launching aggressions and wars. Thereafter, the rule
of Khalifas came to an end and the political power passed on to Maliks and Shahs.
Consequent upon the defeat of Baghdad, the Islamic emperors passed man-made laws and the
Islamic law got relegated to history. The musalmans had retained the reigns of government by
taking shelter behind the Islamic law, even though they constituted a minority vis a-vis the
other sections of society. Barani himself was in favour of such a system of government. He
wanted that religion alone ought to be the basis of government.
Barani has described the political system of the Delhi Sultanate of the 13th and 14 centuries
as the dictatorial system of government.
Barani was not merely a historian he was also a thinker .In his Fatawa-Jahandari (1358-1
359), he has presented an outline of the political system which was uniquely similar to his
own concept of a successful system Of all (lie Sultan of Delhi, upon whose rule Barani has
commented he found Sultan Alauddin Khilzi(1290-1316) as the most ideal Sultan, it was by
keeping the model of Sultan Alauddin Khilzi before him that Barani devoted his Fatawa-i-
Jahandari to give twenty- four sets of instructions advices, Hidayats orNasihat for the benefit
of the generations of rulers to come. In the sets of instructions or advices we find Barani's
views similar not only to those of his predecessors like Plato, Aristotle and Kautilya, but also
the ones which, more than two hundred years after him, the first modern Italian thinker,
Nicola Machiavelli, had to express. However, we find his views much closer to those of
Plato, Aristotle and Kautilya than to Machiavelli in as much as lie would generally conform
to the sacred dictates of the Shariat .This tilt projects him as a Muslim fundamentalist
BARANI’S CODES OF CONDUCT (HIDAYATS OR NASIHAT) FOR AN IDEAL KING
(SULTAN)
After paying his gratitude to the Creator of this world, the Khwaja of this world, the Prophet
Muhammad Mustafa, his companion Khalifas (Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman, Au Bin and Hasan
and Husain Barani in his most celebrated book entitled Fatawa-i-jahandari (the Principles of
Government), explains in detail the 24 sets of conduct instructions or advices (Hidayats or
Nasihat) to ensure not only the welfare of the king himself, but also the peace, prosperity and
expansion of his kingdom. As Barani explains in the preface to this book, these codes,
instructions or advices were borne largely out of the personal contacts he. his father and
grandfathers had with the muslim rulers of the Ilbari, Khilzi and Tughlaq dynasties of the
Sultanate period. He claims to be giving these instruction or advices as a well-wisher of both
the Sultan and the Sultanate
Fatawa-i-jahandari is, in this sense, Barani’s most celebrated commentary on the codes of
conduct to be followed by an ideal ruler (the King or the Sultan) and, in that respect, comes
closest to Nicollo Machiavelli’s equally celebrated work entitled The Prince, which was to
appear more than two hundred years later. Though the codes of conduct prescribed by these
two historian-philosophers are poles apart in terms of their substance the remarkable
similarly between Fatawa-Jahandari and The Prince is that both these works are devoted
exclusively to the detailed and well-illustrated codes of conduct laid down by them on the
basis not only of their respective knowledge, experiences and perceptions. but also in keeping
with their own times, circumstances and contexts.
I ADVICE (Ensure his Personal Safety):
The Sultan, before embarking on his political enterprises, must, in the first place, after
praying to God, take the political steps necessary for his personal protection. This was
essential for the Sultan to save himself against the evil designs of rebels and assassins and the
ones who may have a personal grudge against him. For this reason, he must always be
surrounded by guards and watchmen.
II ADVICE (Ensure Personal and Public Conduct in Accordance with the Shariat)
Barani was also of the view that the king must not on/v himself act in strict accordance with
the Shariat, but should also encourage his people to do so. If the king remains true to his
faith, not only would his political objectives be achieved, but the wishes of the people would
also be granted by God. If lie protects and promotes the Muslim religion, he would be
forgiven for the sins he may commit as a fallible human being. Barani also asks the king to
personally visit the Muslims, house by house, and Street by street, and ask them to observe
the five basic duties of Islam. viz., (i) the recitation of the oath of affirmation; (ii) saying the
five obligatory prayers; (iii) fasting during the month of Ramjan; (iv) giving the obligatory
charity; and (v) the pilgrimage to Mecca if they can afford it. In this way, he would be able to
ensure that every Muslim sincerely affirm that “There is ‘no God but Allah and Muhammad
is His Prophet”.
On the other hand, he must ensure that no one open/v professes or indulges in acts prohibited
by the Shari at, like gambling, prostitution, and indecent postures of the eunuches. He must
also prohibit the construction and use of public places like music halls.
III ADVICE: (Rely on the learned, experienced and well-wishing Wazirs, and Counsellors)
Barani advised that the king should perform all his functions and duties on the advice of the
learned, the experienced and the well wishing advisers and not according to his own whims
and fancies. He believed that a “good Counsellor is a great blessing from God on his
creation”.
He suggests eleven tests to determine the Soundness and feasibility of the advice rendered to
the king by his counsellors:
(i) It serves the interest of both the king and his people:
(ii) The possibility of Success or failure have been duly examined;
(iii) It does not injure the religion of the king and his people:
(iv) The success likely to be achieved would be stable and not momentary or temporary;
(v) It would bring the king good, not bad, reputation;
(vi) It would turn enemies into friends, not friends into enemies.
(vii) It should reflect the consent of the people, so that they may work for its success Without
ma1ice
(viii) It would appear to be wrong to the foolish and the idiots;
(ix) It would lead to ease and Comfort
(x) It would have approval of men of perfect wisdom and
(xi) Its contemplation and execution would negate man’s passions
Barani advises the king to have wise Wazirs, and Minister because ‘without a wise wazir,
kingship is in vain”. To him, a king without a wise Wazir is like a palace without a foundation
or a loaf of bread without salt.”
In the past, the Wazir had laid down the following tests to judge a good counselor:
(i) Fear of God;
(ii) Knowledge of ancient kings and their policies;
(iii) Practical knowledge of the state affairs;
(iv) Perfection of intelligence;
(v) Lack of greed;
(vi) Perfect judgment in discerning character;
(vii) Self-respect;
(viii) Correct Judgment;
(ix) Forgiveness; and
(x) Doubtless loyalty to the king.
Barani also laid down seven conditions to ensure that the advice tendered to the king by his
ministers and Counsellors is sound and viable
(a) Frank expression of opinion by the counsellors in the Royal Consultative Council;
(b) Permanent Counsellors be equal in their experienced loyalty and status before the king:
(c) They are acquainted with the secrets of the State in order to be able to arrive at a correct
decision:
(d) Their lives and post be secure enough so that they ma not indulge in flattery in the Royal
Consultative Council;
(e) The king must keep his opinion secret from his Counsellors and ascertain their views first;
and
(g) Even if there is unanimity of opinion in the advice thus tendered. lie should consider it
afresh.
IV ADVICE: (Remain Firm in His Determination)
According to Barani, “Correct determination is the rock of kingship and the garb of royalty”.
If the people believe that the king remains firm in his determination, they would do all that
they can to retain the fair name of their State. After all, faith in the correctness and firmness
of the king’s determination is the pillar of state affairs.
The people, would accept the correct and firm determination of the king to the extent it is for
their welfare as well as for the enhancement of King’s own prestige, which is not only good
but also possible. However, before making a particular determination, the king should first
take into account the effects it is likely to have on himself, his religion, his State, his army,
and his people and the extent to which it is likely to enable him to achieve the aims and
objectives he has set before himself But, once he has made up his mind to achieve a
particular objective, he must take all steps necessary to achieve it. In support of this
argument, Barani gives the example of Muhammad’s persistence in marching on Somnath,
despite a large fall of hailstorms.
V ADVICE: (Pursue and Encourage the Path of Justice)
Barani puts a premium on peoples’ traditional belief that, “Justice is a necessary condition of
religion and that religion is a necessary condition of justice”. To him, justice was also a pre-
condition of both kingship and sovereignty, as in their ultimate analysis “Religion and Justice
is Twins”. Since justice exposes cruelty, oppression, forceful misappropriation and plunder,
there can be no stability in the affairs of men in its absence. It also prevents tyranny and
oppression and protects the money, property, women, children, the obedient, the helpless, the
young, the submissive and the friendless. That is what made Barani express his considered
view that in the absence of justice, there would be no political stability, no peace. no law and
order, and no prosperity. Barani directs the prudent kings not only to pursue the path of
justice themselves, hut also encourage their people to follow it, so that Islam becomes widely
accepted, king’s own authority increases and lie may be better known, respected and obeyed.
Barani subscribed to the Holy Prophet’s view that “the justice of one moment is better than
the devotion of 70 years”. This probably was the reflection of Barani’s own bitter experience
at the hands of Feroze Tughlaq.
Barani was also of the view that if everyone follows the path of justice, all the seventy-two
religious communities of the world would be at their Zenith, people would rightfully earn
their livelihood and attain a high level of economic prosperity.
He also believed that if the king himself does not pursue the path of justice, it would be
impossible to find its expression in the behaviour of his sons, relations, companions, slaves,
supporters and followers, who are his partners and co-sharers in the work of the state, and if
the officers of the king are not just and equitable, the ordinary people, too, would be tempted
to disregard justice in their dealings with one another.
VI ADVICE: (Give His Officers and No their Due)
According to Barani, Sultan Muhammad-bin Tughlaq had divided the duties of the king into
two broad categories
(i) Duties towards the people; and
(ii) Duties towards the notables and officers of the kingdom.
Barani instructs the king that he should put his officers and notables into various categories,
depending upon their qualifications, merits, services and devotion to him. They should also
be rewarded, from time to time, in proportion to their services and achievements, and be
given designations and posts accordingly, so that they continue to be happy, satisfied and
devote themselves to the welfare of both the king and the kingdom.
Barani was in agreement with the dictum of the Holy prophet:
Give to every true claimant his due”. There should, accordingly be two categories of officers
and notables, namely
i) Officer’s of the State who should be allotted positions in keeping with their ability,
experience, devotion and good conduct; and
ii) Officers who are related to the king, like his sons, brothers, relatives, well-wishers,
partisans, courtiers and slaves. In this case, their relationship to the king is the sole basis of
their rights and privileges.
VII ADVICE: (Maintain A Large, Powerful, Magnificent And Loyal Army And Keep it
Satisfied)
Barani was in agreement with Sultan Muhammad Tughlaq that a large, powerful and
magnificent army and its proper management are essential for any king to conduct the affairs
of his kingdom properly. He also refers to the question which the historians of Persia (Iran)
had asked Jamshed. i.e. what is the basis of Kingship? Jamshed had replied plenty of soldiers
and excess of justice and kindness”. Similarly, when Alexander asked Aristotle: ‘On what
things does the large size and the proper organisation of the army, which is the basis of
kingship,depend? Aristotle’s reply was: ‘An army becomes large and stable through four
things
(i) The exclusive and whole-hearted attention of the King;
(ii) the bold expenditure of enormous treasures;
(iii) officers who are virtuous and affectionate towards their soldiers; and
(iv) officers work under the supervision of the War Minister who is not only king’s confident
but is also trustworthy, efficient, honest, affectionate, truthful, of noble birth, dignity, and
correctness of faith.
Barani agreed with Aristotle that greater the loyalty and virtue of the War Minister, the
greater would be the size and strength of the army under his control.
Barani was of the view that if the army and its officers are satisfied, the Government would
remain strong, all the seventy-two religious communities would remain protected, equality,
law and order, external protection of the State and Islam would remain pious and the violators
of the Shariat would be duly punished in due course.
Barani was also of the view that there are two pillars of kingship:
i) Self-government, aspiring the victory; and
ii) Strong, frilly-armed and loyal army, which would also help the king in the collection of
revenues, taxes, etc.
Barani was also in agreement with Aristotle’s description of the ten qualities that an army
officer must possess
i) Fear of God:
ii) Loyalty to the King;
iii) Balance of mind;
iv) Faithfulness;
v) Nobility of Birth;
vi) Experience of War;
vii) Belonging to a good tribe, which has a large following ;
viii) Courageous and clever;
ix) Generous; and
x) Truthful of speech and pure mind.
An officer should, moreover, interact parents deal with their children. Barani has also laid
down five basic regulation of the army;
i) The king should keep himself annually informed of the recruitment of soldiers, their merits
and their social status;
ii) He should keep himself informed of the adequacy or otherwise of the expenditure on the
salaries and armaments of the soldiers;
iii) He should atleast biannually be informed of the quantum of arms, ammunitions and
horses;
iv) The warriors who have sufficient expertise and experience of horsemanship; and
v) Distinguished, virtuous and brave army officers.
Barani has also explained three basic principles for the proper management of the army:
i) An army officer should be given charge and responsibility only of as many soldiers as he
can properly handle;
ii) the number of the horsemen should be fifty per-cent more than what is normally required,
so that emergent and unexpected events can be strongly dealt with; and
iii) When not engaged in their traditional functions, the army men should be employed in
useful tasks like collecting revenue gardening, cutting forests and hunting, so that they do not
become idle. Here it may parenthetically be noted that is this respect, the views of Barani are
similar to those of Gandhi who also would like the services of the army to be utilised in
useful tasks during peacetime, for afterall they are constantly paid out of the public
exchequer
Barani‘s detailed description of the necessity of a large powerful and magnificent army was
the outcome of his emphasis on enabling the king to continue to provide stable and
prosperous system of government.
ADVICE VIII :( Appoint Just, Honest, Truthful, Reliable and Intelligent Officers and Keep
Himself Informed of All their Activities)
Barani was of the view that the king should also appoint honest and intelligent officers,
truthful spies and reliable auditors so that he is able to conduct the affairs of the State
property. Moreover, once the members of the royal family and their supporters know that the
king keeps himself constantly informed of all their activities, whether good or bad, they
would remain alert, honest and loyal and the king would not have to punish his own men in
the event of their going astray.
Barani has also explained that while appointing these officers, the king must assure that
i) They would not oppress and tyrannise the people, demand bribes, accept presents or accede
to recommendations. They would not depart from the path of righteousness; remain fearful
and trembling about their own fate;
ii) they would behave properly and would neither rebel nor seek to overpower each other, nor
oppress the weak;
iii) The revenue collectors would not steal or misappropriate the revenue, and
iv) The king’s sons, brothers, relations and high officers will not step beyond the bounds of
justice in dealing with their own people, strangers, slaves and servants.
Barani laid emphasis on these points because he knew that the State would be full of people
who have the beastial qualities of wolves and their misdeeds would not be overcome without
the force of State terrorism.
ADVICE IX: (Keep Prices Under Control And Levy Taxes According to People’s Capacity to
Pay)
Barani felt that the king would have to follow the policy of selective price control in order to
achieve the welfare of the people, control the army and ensure stability of the State. He
should, in Consultation with his royal court, take any step he considers necessary View of the
cost of production of various commodities, especially the essential ones.
In Barani’s views, the possibility of Price-control, especially the essential commodities,
would lead to a number of benefits like the following:
i) Necessary arms and ammunition for the army to let it remain stable;
ii) Increasing traders and artisans from other countries establish trade- relations with the king;
iii) Keeping the King enemies refrain from harbouring any design overpowering his country;
iv) Increase the King’s reputation sufficient enough to let him live in the memories of the
people, for years, decades and generations;
v) By keeping the prices low, the king would be able to increase financial resources by
levying taxes according to peoples’ capacity to pay. This again is one of the essential
economic functions of the Government even according to Gandhi, for he believed that if the
taxes are levied according to peoples’ capacity to pay, the State would not only be able to
raise greater revenue but its cost of realising the revenue would also come down
substantially. The State would, therefore, be doubly benefitted.
vi) Enforcement of justice and equality;
vii) Performance by the king of his divine obligations of taking from the rich and giving it to
the poor.
viii) Suppress grief;
ix) Bring honour to the king not only by his subjects, but also by God; and
x) Enable people to perform their duties and functions easily and satisfactorily;
ADVICE X: (Devote Adequate Time to Religious Duties and Affairs of the State)
The King should realise the value of time and should not waste it .After fulfilling his
religious duties he should spend most of his time to the affairs of the government so that it
brings him nearer God.
ADVICE XI: (Make Truth the basis of his Government)
Barani also asked the king to have a government based on Shariat, Truth and Justice. He
should, on the other hand, keep himself away from infidelity disorder sin and wickedness. In
this way he would be able to achieve the following eight specific objectives
i) Elevate traditions of Islam;
ii) Encourage virtue and righteousness;
iii) Promote justice, charity and kindness;
iv) Strengthen peoples’ loyalty towards the government;
v) Elevate religious people and protectors of religion;
vi) Enthuse Muslims with greater love of God and Prophet:
vii) Make Truth graceful and honour truthful:
viii) Encourage people to have greater respect for sayyad, sheikhs, religious scholars, pious
people, ascetics, devotees, recluse and virtuous men;
ix) Illuminate the hearts of holy warriors with the desire for martyrdom;
x) Base buying and selling on justice to let the rich help the poor;
xi) Promote universal peace and security; and
xii) Inspire people become God-fearing and honest and pursue God’s path of justice.
ADVICE XII: (Administer Justice, Irrespective of Public Reaction)
i) Enforce Justice, without bothering about public reaction;
ii) Distinguish between justice and injustice;
iii) Decide personally all cases concerning his subjects;
iv) Devise ways and means of enforcing justice;
v) Protect the oppressed and the weak and hate injustice and enmity:
vi) Abjure the feeling of retaliation, hostility or revenue, while giving judgments against his
enemies;
vii) Neither tolerate wrongs nor exceed limits of justice;
viii) Not to punish innocents;
ix) Stick to his principles and enforce them;
x) Enforce the just claims of others and resort to forgiving where he is personally involved:
xi) Protect claims of the weak against the strong;
xii) Consider administration of justice his topmost priority:
xiii) Remain kind and affectionate while administering justice:
xiv) Not to issue any order against the honour and blood of the Muslims:
xv) Not to attract peoples’ hatred; and
xvi) While dealing with peaceful men. b guided by the precept that ‘punishment must be
based on evidence’
ADVICE XIII: (Know Appropriate Occasions for Both Mercy and Punishment)
Barani accepts Sultan Mohammad’s advice that the king should forgive overlook, disregard
and veil off the minor faults of his people and should forgive the wrong-doers. He should also
overlook and forgive the officers of his State for their insignificant acts of negligence and
faults. For, if he does not adopt this policy, his own people and officers may turn against him
and start hating him, On the other hand, he should award strict punishment to the rebel, the
cruel, the mischievous, the thieves, the insolent, the misappropriators, the usurpers, the
reckless, the shameless, the heedless and the wicked, if he does not follow this policy, he
would not be able to protect and preserve his people’s wealth, property, women and children.
The king is, therefore, advised to know the appropriate occasions for both forgiveness and
punishment.
The king should also understand that the correct meaning of the term siyasat is putting right
the affairs of the world’’. For doing this, he would have to follow different policies on
different occasions so that both he and his people are able to pursue the path of Truth and
Justice. He should, therefore, be benevolent and affectionate and follow the policy of favours,
gifts and rewards.
He should also issue warnings to those who may be in the initial stage of committing crimes
or doing wrongs. He may even award minor punishments to them to bring them back on the
path of justice and righteousness. Thereafter, he should inflict kicks, blows with sticks, when
it becomes necessary to set people right and to frighten others. so that they also learn the
necessary lessons and refrain from indulging in sins and crimes. He should expose those
people who act against the security, peace, welfare and prosperity of the king or the kingdom.
He should deprive them of their property, dismiss them from the offices they may be holding
and, in extreme cases, imprison and even sentence them to death. He should also exile the
people found guilty of conspiring against the State. They may be removed from their
positions near the throne and send them to other places, far or near. They may be exiled for a
fixed period or even for life.
In this place, Barani presents himself as a Muslim fundamentalist, for he observes that if the
king has to imprison, exile or award punishment to death to a Muslim he should do it only in
accordance with the dictates of the Shari at and these, too, only in the rarest of the rare
circumstances.
According to Barani, all the kings we had fear of God in their hearts had very well realised
that “Kingship can not be property established without forgiveness and punishment’’. Hence,
to him, he alone can be called ‘a farsighted king, who knows well the correct occasions for
forgiveness and punishment and who at the time of issuing his orders and enforcing his
commands, had a proper regard for the stability of State affairs.’
ADVICE XIV (Ensure Observance of laws and norms of Shariat Political conduct by
Himself and His People)
Barani regarded State Law as the means of governance which binds both the subjects and the
king. If the king does not obey his own laws or is unable to have them obeyed by his people,
it would lead to total lawlessness. The king should, therefore, enact only such laws which
have the support of the men of religion and the experienced advisers, counsellors and
ministers. In case, however, he has to introduce changes in the existing laws, he should do so
not only in accordance with time and circumstances but also only on the advice of the well-
wishers of the kingdom. He should also take into consideration all the pros and cons of his
decisions.
Ordinarily, while enacting new laws, Barani charges the king to keep in view the following
four essential conditions
i) the provisions of State laws should neither negate the orders of the Shariat, nor lead to
degradation of religious affairs;
ii) The enforcement of State laws should lead to infusion of the sense of loyalty among both
the select and the commons and it should, in no case, be a source of hatred, burden or trouble;
iii) the precedents for these State laws should be discoverable in the laws of religious kings,
and their enforcement should not revive the customs and precedents of the irreligious rulers
or the traditions and ways of the tyrants; and
iv) If there is anything in these laws against the sunnah and yet he finds their enforcement to
be necessary, he should give plenty of charities in compensation, be afraid of the evil he is
doing, as the enforcement of such laws comes under the category of the precept of the Shariat
“Necessities make lawful things forbidden”.
Barani knew that the framing of laws is a very difficult task. He, therefore, warned that unless
framers of new laws are adorned with perfect wisdom, discernment, knowledge and
variegated experience and are acquainted with the laws of the past, the people would neither
accept the laws made by them in their hearts nor conform to them outwardly.
Moreover, he thought that the laws which have to be promulgated among the Muslims should
be framed by the rarest of time wise men, SO that while secular affairs are properly managed
and the people are kept in obedience, the Muslim religion is not injured and the rewards of
the next world are not lost.
Barani also had a number of pious expectations from a noble king, the most important of
which may be cited as follows
i) The king should not tell lies;
ii) If any of his officers has been found guilty of embezzlement, then, he should not only
confiscate the misappropriated money, but also debar him and his offsprings from holding
any State
iii) He should use his sword against stranger rebels, and his followers;
iv) He should not give to any low-born or common man a status, post or office near him;
v) He should transfer the home and property of the oppressors;
vi) If a person in his court has greater loyalty than his peers, he should promote him, grade by
grade, in proportion to his loyalty;
vii) He should ensure that the merchants and shopkeepers in his kingdom do not resort to
adulteration of goods or indulge in cheating or profiteering in the purchase and sale of
commodities or indulge in regrating (adulteration);
viii) He should be well-informed about his high officers, courtiers, tribesmen and followers,
as well as officers of the army, governors of the territories and revenue officers;
ix) He should give army-commands to persons of virtue and goodwill to seekers of welfare,
lion-hearted, well-matured in experience, loyal, afraid of God and modest;
x) He should honour and respect those who are devoted to God and reward, with gold and
horses, men of learning and merit;
xi) He should not neglect or fail in protecting the dignity of the commanders, old and
experienced men, and persons of noble birth in the bestowal of robes, gifts and positions of
honour and dignity;
xii) He should promote his wise and experienced advisers and should not deviate from this
advice in any way;
xiii) He should enquire into the affairs of the army twice a year, and show favours to every
army commander and raise him to the highest post, if he finds him to be a promoter of the
welfare of his troops one of the, latter have been ready and well-equipped;
xiv) He should not impose on his people extraordinary levies or taxes, compulsory labour, or
night work;
xv) He should, on the one hand, observe moderation in realising the tribute and the poll-tax
from the people and, on the other hand, remit the taxes of those who have been loyal to him,
xvi) If he promises favour or promotion to anyone, he should at the time of rewarding give
more than what he had promised;
xvii) He should not be severe towards the accuser, so that the door of information may not be
altogether closed;
xviii) He should not act perfidiously towards any one. But, if anyone rebels against him, he
should not leave any trace of him on the face of the earth;
xix) He should live with his wives, children, relations, near ones and loyal officers with
dignity;
xx) He should not delegate the dignity of kingship by any word or deed which could lead to
indifference or lack of regards towards him; and
xxi) As far as possible, he should not reveal the secrets of the kingdom to anyone, and if a
person reveals his secrets, he should never give him a post of a status near him.
To Barani, a prudent king must not waiver or deviate from any one of these regulations,
guidelines, instructions, or rules of political conduct, of course within the parameters of
Shariat.
In addition, the king should also not deviate from the following directions
i) Always be afraid of God, the Prophet, the Day of Judgment, and the claims of the opponent
on that day;
ii) Assign the duty of enforcing the orders of the Shari at to pious, religious and God-fearing
men;
iii) Kill the opponents of Prophet’s religion;
iv) Hold learning, wisdom, justice, piety, skill, virtuous behaviour, truthfulness, and good
conduct in great honour;
v) Distribute Gold and silver among his soldiers every year;
vi) Apportion his time properly in attending to the affairs of his State so that his life may not
be wasted in useless things, while real work remains undone or unattended;
vii) Consult his advisers and assess consequences, before determining
upon any enterprise and undertaking its execution;
viii) Always treat submissive and obedient people with affection;
ix) Be very-well informed, about the condition of everyone in his kingdom;
x) Not keep any office in his kingdom unfilled;
xi) Never forsake the side of righteousness, or take to arrogate ways at anytime, whatever be
the reason;
xii) Not overthrow persons promoted by him or by his father for every little crime:
xiii) Keep himself away from cruelty, oppression and inequality; and
xiv) Not allow him to be deceived by flattering speeches of hers and cheats.
To Barani, the king must carefully observe these directions or instructions and must, in no
case, deviate from them.
ADVICE XV (Act, in All his Dealings, with High Resolve)
In Barani’s view, high resolve is necessary for the king who wants to be distinguished and
pre-eminent among the rulers of the earth. A king of high resolve is essentially generous, and
is full of praises for Sultan Muhammad Tughlaq, who depicted the qualities essential to rule
the kingdom on the basis of Truth and Justice And in order to conquer foreign lands, he
should keep in mind the following conditions that are essential therefore:
i) A King who is not a person of high resolve is neither qualified to be called the shadow of
God, capable of using his powers properly and judiciously;
ii) If a king is not a man of high resolve, he would not be able to fulfill his political
obligations to his people and the benefit of his deeds would not reach the latter;
iii) If the king is not superior to his fellowmen in dignity power and status he would be weak-
willed short-sighted miserly and niggardly. Such a king would not be able to resort to mercy
and terror when the occasion arises.
According to Barani, the wise men have attributed the following eleven characteristics to the
king with high resolve:
i) His efforts are directed entirely to the next world and not merely to this world;
ii) He wishes to put the whole world under his obligation, but is unable to bear the obligation
of anyone except God;
iii) He desires that the good and charitable deeds of the whole world should be the work of
his own hands, without expectation of any reward in return;
iv) His constant desire is to take nothing from anybody and to be constantly giving to others;
v) He is always desirous of distinction in administrative affairs and also of the highest
spiritual merit;
He wishes that all men and jins should dine at his dinner—cloth (the dastarkhan), all beasts
and birds should be served from his kitchen and the naked of the earth should wear clothes
from his clothes-store
He desires that orders for the seven climes should issue from his lips;
viii) He should never be content with what his kingdom has, but should aspire for more and
more;
xi) He should fulfill the basic needs of his people;
x) He should work for the liberation of slaves, providing relief to the debtors and rescue the
unfortunate; and
xi) Even when he has reached the stage of near-perfection, he should continue to strive for
the impossible, rather than remain content with his achievements.
ADVICE XVI: (Recall the Traditional and Devise the New Ways and Means of Handling
unforeseen and extra-ordinary situations)
According to Barani, the known historians and the great kings are on record to have advised
the prospective kings to take the following steps to deal with unforeseen and extraordinary
situations like epidemics and famines
i) Help the people by reducing the tribute and the poll-tax and by advancing them loans, and
giving gifts or aids from the treasury to the poor and the needy;
ii) When, owing to his bad temper and harsh measures, excessive censures and punishment,
and lack of mercy, the faith of the people and the army is shaken, he should assign his
kingdom to his son or brother and seek seclusion in a monastry;
iii) When his kingdom is attacked by a strong and superior army, he should send gifts and
presents to the invader and his high officers, courtiers and army-commanders and take to
appropriate diplomatic measures. He should also utilise his breathing time to collect a large
number of soldiers and organise his defence. He may also indulge in a marriage alliance with
the aggressor king’s family member. In this case, we find that Barani’s advice is at par with
that of Kautilya to Chandragupta Maurya, the emperor of Magadh. Keeping in view
Chandragupt’s physical attraction towards Cornellia Helen, the Nikator daughter of the
defeated Greek King Seleucus, he advised the former to propose and marry the daughter of
the latter which lie did. To Kautilya, the king should also try to win over the invader’s highest
officers and army—commanders, even confidentially, and secretly by payment of large sums
of money.
iv) When the kingdom is attacked by two opponents, who are equal to him in strength,
simultaneously from two opposite directions, he should try his best to protect his capital and
the great forts, with all available resources.
v) When the equipment of the king has been wasted over an enterprise lie had earlier
undertaken and before he can provide the entirely new equipment his army needs, an army of
equal strength marches against him well-equipped, he should protect in that case his capital
and seek refuse in forts.
vi) If the king has established his power over a newly conquered dominion but has not yet
succeeded in winning over the officers of the enemy, and in that situation an army attacks his
kingdom, then too he should seek refuge in his forts, protect his capital and play for the time.
vii) If any enemy of equal power, but ready and well-equipped, attacks the king’s dominion,
and he does not have enough treasures to provide a well-equipped force to match the
invader’s army, he should take the property of his subjects as a loan, procure the war-
equipment he needs and march to face the enemy. He may, in that event, even organise the
whole rayyat (people) into any army.
ADVICE XVII: (Understand Human Nature and the Moral Basis of Government and Treat
His Subjects, with Friendliness, Affection, Kindness and Mildness):
Barani was in agreement with Sultan Muhammad Tughlaq that “the foundation of public
administration are friendliness, affection kindness and mildness”. He was of the considered
view that if a king understands well the moral basis of government and treats his subjects
with kindness, his kingdom will soon result in the restoration of order and reputation will last
for a long time. He should, therefore, always have a correct understanding of human nature.
Barani is also in full agreement with the direction of the Holy Quran: ‘‘do not resort to excess
in your religion’’ and also that ‘god does not impose upon a person a duty beyond his power’
(capacity). He also advised the king not to award punishment in case of serious doubts. He
should also not subject the guilt to a punishment which is harsher than the one prescribed by
the Shariat. He should not issue of try to enforce an order which causes plenty of hardships
on the people. He warned that if a king is not mild in punishing the people for their offences.
if he is harsh in exacting obedience to the orders of God or those of his own, and completely
forsakes the virtues of gentlemanliness, compassion, affection, humility and forgiveness and
does not condense to apologies excuses, and behaves with harshness and ill-temper, there will
inevitably be disorder in the administration, the people will be heart-broken, their hopes will
change into despair and their loyality to the king will ultimately vanish. Barani reminds the
king that extreme demands and severe extractions have been considered wrong in all
religions and they have been declared to be injurious to the stability of the State. Hence, a
wise king should treat his subjects with leniency and gentleness. They should also conduct
the affairs of the State in such a way that people’s loyalty towards him would increase, which
would indeed add to his glory and honour and the affairs of the administration would be
stabilised in a proper way.
Barani also advises the king that he should “neither be like sugar... nor like poison’. He
should rather adopt moderate ways and not resort to extremes. He should apply ointment
where ointment is necessary and cauterise where cauterisation is necessary. Once the State is
put into order and organized, the submissive would become well- rebels obedient, enemies
friends, deserters return, the abhorers of the king become inclined towards him, the hearts of
the people are at rest and their minds at peace, while his power and terror cause them to be
afraid. Hence, whenever, owing to fear and hope, which are otherwise contrary to each other,
the minds of men are properly balanced, the affairs of the administration are settled in the
best ways, and the rulers and the ruled obtain the great advantage from their work.
ADVICE XVIII: (Appoint officers in whom predominate contradictory qualities)
Barani finds himself in full agreement with Sultan Muhammad Tughlaq that “God has
formed man of contradictory qualities, like Contraction and expansion, terrorism and mercy,
generosity and niggardliness, pride and humility.” He thinks that a king should develop these
self-contradictory virtues so that he is able to act as the ‘deputy’ or ‘Vice-Regent’ of God.
The mental and moral qualities of men, like their external forms and features, are never like
those of others. Yet, there is, at the same time, a different mixture of vice and virtue in every
man, so that the vices and virtues of one man never totally or entirely resemble those of
another. In sonic, virtue has so overpowered the vice that vice is as good as non-existent,
while in most men vice has overpowered virtue that either no excellence is seen, or if any
kind of excellence appears, it will be found on critical examination, to be meanness. In the
sphere of public administration, the king’s court has to deal with all the subjects of his
territories and the king is the commander and ruler of them all. He should, therefore, develop
his character, to a perfect degree, and should also find its expression on appropriate
occasions. With such a perfection ‘of his character, it would be possible for the king to deal
with thousands and thousands of men, who are quite different from each other in moral
qualities, characters, temperaments and natures. Hence, Barani feels that “there should be no
seventies at the occasion of mercy, nor mercy at the occasions of seventies”.
Barani was of the considered view that all kings in whom virtue predominates over vice, and
in whom excellences of character are innate, display justice and kindness in their
administrative dealings with the people.
He also believed that the kings of Islam manifest their kindness and terror, wrath and
gentleness, strength and compassion, severity and mildness in their dealings with the people
on/v for the sake of God and Prophet‘s creed, and the permanence of their power is of value
to them only for this purpose. If they are merciful, it is for God and the Prophet’s creed only;
if they resort to terror, their object is to serve the Faith. Their royal power, which is based on
their contradictory qualities, is exercised “for the protection of Islam, and their lives are
dedicated to glorify the True World, to elevate the traditions of the Faith, to exercise the
commandments of the Shariat, to enforce the order for the good and the prohibition of the
evil, to honour the Islam and the Musalmans and to degrade infidelity and idolatory”.
Barani advices the king that the he has no alternative but to appoint officers who are known
for the following contradictory qualities:
i) Officers who are remarkable for their good manners, sweet tempers, generosity, modesty
and tolerance, so that the good and obedient virtues of the king himself and that his
administration will be inspired by them owing to the officers in charge; and
ii) Officers who are harsh and merciless in order to control his wicked and rebel lions
subjects.
ADVICE XIX :( Have Officers and Supporters who are of noble-birth, religious, meritorious
and loyal)
Barani was also in full agreement with the Quaranic verse: “Obey Allah, obey the Prophet
and obey the rulers that be amongst you” and the tradition in which the Prophet has said; “All
of you will he called and all of you will be questioned about your rayyat”
Barani was of the view that the king cannot discharge the duties of his high office, i.e. of
conducting the government in accordance with the Shariat. “without loyal supporters and
officers adorned with noble lineage and merits and character”. Only with their support would
he be able to take responsibility for all his people belonging to seventy- two religious
communities, and be among those who attain salvation. Barani was of the view that if the
king directs a stranger to look after the affairs of his government; he cannot be certain of his
loyalty. In addition, the stranger, too, will have no anxiety about the king’s business.
On the basis of the experience of the hakims (learned or physicians), scholars and wisemen of
ancient as well as modern communities. Barani expressed his view that “the base, the low-
born and the Godless can not accomplish any work, religious or secular, which is approved
by knowledge or reason”.
On the other hand, if the king confines himself to appoint only the free-born, the noble and
the possessors of merit as his officers and supporters, he will not on the day of Judgment be
distressed and bewildered of having no answer for so many thousands and thousands of his
subjects.
Barani finds that the religious kings have observed and kept in view certain principles in
testing and selecting their helpers and supporters. These may be cited as follows
i) the person selected should be one in whom the quest for religion predominates over the
quest for the goods of the world;
ii) the person selected, should, for certain, have advantage of free, gentle and noble birth,
even if this advantage happens to be very meagre;
iii) when a man has been selected as an officer and supporter of the government and admitted
to the secrets of the State, he should not be punished, except for political crimes and
rebellion; and
iv) the king should observe moderation in matters of promotions, favours, kindness and
benevolence to his helpers and supporters, He should always keep them in the hope of an
increase in the grades of their dignity and not raise one of them suddenly to an office above
which there is no higher office than that of the king.
ADVICE XX :( Maintain his ascendancy cover others)
Barani was of the view that if someone from among the sons, high officers, wives, and slaves
of the king obtains such influence over him that the king is unable to reject his advice or go
against his wishes, then the situation gets reversed. The ruler becomes the ruled, the superior
becomes the subordinate and the attributes of the ruler change into the qualities of the
subject. Further, whenever a man succeeds in obtaining such an ascendency over the king,
kingship really vanishes.
ADVICE XXI (Appoint officers who are High-born, Just, Truthful, Religious, Virtuous,
Prudent and Loyal):
Barani did not believe in the saying: “all men have been created equal.” Instead, he held that
the ‘‘merits and demerits of men have been apportioned out since the beginnings of time and
allotted to their souls”. To him, God, the Eternal Designer, inspired man’s minds with the arts
they needed. So, all the arts, fine and coarse, were communicated to the minds of all men, in
accordance with their merits and demerits which, by their basic nature, had been alloted to
their souls. Barani believed that this aptitude for arts, fine and coarse, is hereditory. He
believed that just as excellences have been put into those who have adopted the noble
professions, “they alone are capable of the virtues of kindness, generosity, valour, good
deeds, good works, truthfulness, keeping of promises, protection of other classes, loyalty,
clarity of vision, justice, equity, recognition of rights, gratitude for favours received and fear
of God”. That is why such persons alone have been called ‘noble, free-born, virtuous,
religious of high geneology and pure birth”. Hence, to him, such people alone are worthy of
offices and posts in the government of the king.
On the other hand, the low-born, who have been enrolled for practising the baser arts and the
meaner professions, are capable only of vices like “immodesty, falsehood, miserliness,
misappropriation, wrongfulness, lies, evil-speaking, ingratitude, dirtiness, injustice, cruelty,
non-recognition of rights, shamelessness, imprudence blood-shedding mean, worthless,
shameless and of dirty birth” .That is why Barani calls them “low-born, bazzar-people, base,
mean, worthless, plebian, shameless, and of dirty-birth”. Hence, to him, “every act which is
contaminated with meanness and based on ignonimity comes elegantly from them”.
Hence, Barani warns the ruler: “Do not, owing to the words and actions of the base and the
low-born, obtain a bad reputation in the world or put yourself into trouble in the world to
conic.” He cautions successors of Sultan Muhammad Tughlaq that “the great duties of the
administration have not been well discharged by the low born and the base” and they,
therefore, should rely on the high-born and rely entirely on them.
Advice XXII: (Protect the erstwhile Royal Families, .their Friends and Supporters)
Barani was disturbed to find that from the time of the Yazidis and the Marwanids there
developed a henious practice or custom of the usurption of power to overthrow the helpers,
supporters, tribesmen and families of the erstwhile king and substitute in their place his own
partisans, helpers, well-wishers and near-ones.
Barani was pained to find that the love and desire for kingship had so blinded a number of
kings that they never once paused to consider that if they overthrow the wives, children,
tribes, followers, friends and well-wishers of another for no political or Shariat crime and
adhere to such a wicked custom, the person who takes their place after them will, in his turn,
do to him what he had done to others, These kings were positively guilty of the crime of
overthrowing the innocent, on ground of political expediency,
Barani, therefore, advices the king not to overthrow so many families on mere suspicion. He
must never forget that “others will, in their turn, treat his sons, women, helpers and
supporters in the same ways as he has treated the family and followers of another, that they
will play the same game as he has played”.
ADVICE XXIII :( Keep himself and his people away from mean qualities)
Barani has also pointed out the five mean qualities, which he thought, were incompatible
with the nobility of the king’s character. These are
i) Falsehood;
ii) Changeability (Infirmness);
iii) Perfidy or Deception:
iv) Wrathfulness; and
v) Promotion of the unjust.
Barani was in agreement with the hakims of the past and their successors that “Every merit
and demerit of the king will be adopted by the subjects”. Therefore, ‘the good acts of the
rulers warn the government from things unlawful more than their words”. For example, if the
ruler drinks wine, speaks lies, breaks promises and commits injustice, but forbids drinking,
lying, promise-breaking and injustice to the people, no one will lend ears to his advice or be
warned. On the other hand, if the king himself does not indulge in these vices, he would be
able to keep his people, too, away from them. Hence, a king must keep himself and, on the
basis of his exemplary conduct, keep his people away from the five meannesses of falsehood,
infirmness, deception, wrathfulness and the promotion of the unjust and the nurture of the
cruel.
ADVICE XXIV: (Have Preponderance of Supplication and Humility)
Barani believed that supplication and humility were the greatest attributes the king derives
from God. It is only by virtue of his conduct, based on these qualities, that the king can hope
to attain salvation and get high grades in the next world. Barani in this place cites the advice
the two Yamani monks had given to Alexander the Great: “Be happy, Alexander, that inspite
of your royal dignity, you find yourself in such a spiritual condition that supplication fills the
whole of your breast”.
Barani concludes his Fatawa-i-Jahandari with the prayer to “the Lord of the eighteen
thousand worlds” that He may catch hold of his helpless hands, pull him out of the whirlpool
of his sins, and make him reach the shore of salvation through His universal mercy”, for he
believed that “there is no God but Allah, and Mohammad is the Prophet of Allah”. Barani has
not only appealed to all his leaders for “sincere prayers to God for the forgiveness of his
sins”, but has also prayed for them. He concludes his treatise by saying: “Help me people of
God, and may God help you also”.
In the words of K.A. Nizami, Fatawa-i-Jahandari “gives us an idea of the political climate of
the middle ages - the ideals and aspirations of the governing class and the activities of the
pressure groups”. In this treatise, Barani concentrated all his attention on three most
important
political problems:
i) The State Laws (Zawabit);
ii) The Governing Class; and
iii) The Monarchy.
Fatawa-i-.Jahandari enables us to understand “the real character of the empire of Delhi”. It
was not a theocratic State in any sense of the term. Its basis was not the Shariat or Islam, but
Zawabit or State laws made by the king. To Barani, A Zawabit or State law is the technique
of administration and a rule of action which a king imposes as an obligatory duty upon
himself for realising the welfare of the State and from which he absolutely never deviates”.
Such legislation tends to favour the ruling dynasty and the upper class Muslim (or rather
Turkish) cliques, who had a monopoly of the highest military and administrative posts. Its
foundation was non-religious and secular. In case of conflict, the State laws overrode the
Shariat. Barani is certainly correct in thinking that neither the Shariat nor the known
traditions of the pious Caliphate give the Muslim society the laws on which the
administrative structure of the extensive monarchical empires of the middle ages could be
based. Thus, a State resting on State Laws so made is a Royal State, a governing-class State,
but, in no sense, a theocratic State.
According to Professor Habib, the basic feature of Fatawa-i-Jahandari is its class character.
Barani interprests both religion and politics in terms of aristocratic privileges. He was not at
all disturbed by the political reality of the Sultana/c period in which Muslim Upper classes
had a predominant influence over the administrative machine, despite the fact that Muslims
as such were in a minority in India. At the same time, he was unhappy to discover that the
economic system of India was entirely in the hands of the upper class Hindus who constituted
the majority. And, that is what had made Afsal Begum remark that “on the matter of the
Hindus, Barani was mentally unsound”. Hence, in Barani’s context, when we talk of the class
character of the Sultanate dynasty, we actually talk of the Muslim upper class, to which he
himself belonged.
Nonetheless, Barani’s greatest contribution to political theory is “his analysis of the
institution of monarchy, with reference to Islamic religion and social needs”. He was not too
happy to find that the principles and traditions of monarchy violated the injunctions of the
Holy Quran, the precepts of the Prophet and the tradition of the pious Caliphate. Yet, it was
justified by the needs of the age, for without it the social order would have perished.
KAYTILYA VS. BARANI:
Barani was eminently familiar with Aristotle’s Politics which he frequently refers to in his
Fatawa-i-Jahandari. Barani shares with Aristotle the notion of natural inequality”. Like
Aristotle, Barani also believed that “some are born to rule and others to obey”.
From the point of view of the genesis of the statecraft one finds Barani closer to Aristotle
than to Indian Kautilya.
Both Kautilya and Barani significantly recommend appointment of the persons of noble
origin, prosperous, meritorious, faithful and competent to high administrative offices of the
State.
Both the thinkers seem to be committed to the safety, stability and expansion of the State.
Both of them were looking for a well- organized, honest, faithful and reliable administration,
well-organised, disciplined, patriotic and adequately armed military, government based on
justice and rule of law, taxation based on one’s capacity to pay, secret services and
intelligence agencies for the prevention of possible conspiracies, and commitment to moral
and political codes of conduct for both the rulers and the ruled. Both stood for the safety,
stability and expansion of the State.
While Kautilya’s thinking attaches significant importance to religious rituals and the special
status of the Brahmans, in Barani’s thinking there is preponderance of Islamic norms and
rituals, Kautilya’s political system prescribes different sets of punishment for different classes
of people even where the offence committed by them is the same, Barani frees the followers
of Islam from punishment and its seventies to a large extent.
Despite these similarities, there are some notable differences in their views. Whereas
Kautilya’s definite ideal was the establishment of a large well-organised, disciplined and
strong State in the Indian sub continent. Barani was keen simply to stabilise the Delhi
Sultanat as an Islamic State
Whereas Kautilya’s king was bound by Trayee, Anavikshaki, Vaarta and Dandaniti, the basis
of Barani’s State was Islam and Shariat. The ideal of Kautilyan State was Lokshreya, welfare
of the people, while that of Barani was the welfare primarily of the Sunni Muslims.
While Kautilya’s Arthashastra was based on a large number of earlier sacred and
philosophical works, including the preceeding Arthashastras. Barani’s works were based on
personal knowledge, experience and failing memory.
Kautilya presents a careful analysis of the traditions established by the earlier scriptures and
works as well as the political system and conditions of his times. Barani’s political
philosophy seems largely confined to the twenty-four sets of hidayats or instructions for the
benefit of a prudent king.
The practical analysis of administrative machinery, military organisation, transportation,
communication, and tele-communication, inter-state relations, principles of diplomatic
manoeuvers, art of warfare are the distinct features of Kautilya’ s Arthashastra. He, infact,
struck a unique synthesis between the moral code of conduct and the diplomacy based on
timely plotting. On the other hand, Shari at is the source and support of Barani’s statecraft
amid its dictates are the guidelines only for the sultans.
While Barani’s objective was the establishment and strengthening of the Islamic State by
whatever means necessary and to lay down the ideal code of conduct for the Sultans, the
ideal of modern Indian political thinkers has been the Vedic code of conduct, moral behaviour
of both the rulers and the ruled and re-dedication to duty as laid down by Kautilya. In this
tradition, eminent reformers like Ram Mohan Roy, Dayanand Saraswati and Vivekananda not
only fought against the centuries-old social and religious maladies, but also laid the
foundations for the performance of duties, equality, tolerance and franternitv, others like
Gokhale, Ranade and Gandhi, inspired by the Vedantic and neo-vedantic thoughts spread the
message of the spiritualization and secularization of politics.
From this point of view, although Barani’s commitment to Islamic State seems different from
the Indian political traditions, yet the moral, patriotic, tolerable and simplified code of
conduct alike for the rulers, the administrative officers and the laymen is in full accordance
with the Indian traditions and constitutes Barani’s unique contribution to the ancient and
modern Indian political thought.
Barani was a medieval link between the ancient and the modern Indian political thinking, in
the conditions prevailing in his times, commitment to Islamic State and the rules of Shariat
was his compulsion. In other words, Barani seems to be clearly committed to traditions of
Islam. At the same time, lie was also deeply committed to the notions of State’s creation,
stability, security, development and expansion. Like Kautilya, Barani too has highlighted the
personal qualities of the king and the code of conduct based on such qualities is reflected as a
‘model’ in tile entire Indian Political Tradition.
In conclusion, it ma be observed that two things singularly go to the credit of Barani. First, he
was singularly humane, as he protested vehemently against torture”. And, second, he was one
of the very few Muslim thinkers, writers and historians, the principal objective of whose
political thinking was the Sultan and not the Islam.
CHAPTER IV
RAM MOHUN ROY (1772-1833)
Raja Ram Mohun Roy, widely acknowledged as ‘the Father’ of Modern India, Modern Indian
Liberal Tradition, Hindu Reformation and Renaissance, the Champion of Women’s Rights,
‘the Pioneer’ of Social and Political Reforms, ‘the Prophet’ of International Co-existence, and
the ‘Forerunner’ of the Indian Liberal Moderates, was born on May 22, 1772 in a wealthy
Brahmin family of Rama Kant Roy and Tarini Devi, in the Radha Nagar village of Burdwan
District (at present, within the district of Hooghly in West Bengal), His father was a
Vaishnava Brahmin and mother a Sakta Brahmin, He had his education at Patna and Benaras
and was, perhaps, the most eminent linguist of his times, He was a scholar not only of
Bengali, Sanskrit and English, but also of Arabic, Persian, Greek, Latin, Hebrew and
seventeen other languages and literatures, In a span of less than two decades (18 16- 1833),
he authored eighty one scholarly treatises on issues which he, his society and State had to
grapple with,
As the father of Modem India, he ceaselessly strove to link tradition with modernity, He
worked out the concept of universal religion b putting together the best features of all the
leading religions of the world, He preached the gospel of the spiritual equality and
brotherhood of human beings and also realized the inevitability of the interdependence not
only of individuals but also of nations, He not only reminded his fellow-countrymen of the
richness of their ancient civilization, but also asked them to approach other civilizations in
the spirit of Cooperation, He worked against superstitious beliefs and diabolic Practices like
the Sati, the Devadasi and the Caste System, in his zeal, to ‘re-create’ a society which would
be ‘open’ enough to treat everyone as ‘free’ and ‘equal’,
Modern Indian Liberal Tradition represents a whole gamut of moral and political values and
beliefs, specially the followings;
(1) Faith in man as a rational being, with immense potentialities;
(2) Faith in individual liberty;
(3) Faith in representative political institutions;
(4) Faith in the Reign of Law;
(5) Urgency of the struggle not only for nationalist liberation but also for social and economic
reforms,
(6) Fusion of ancient Indian tradition with Western modernism; and
(7) Pursuit of stated ends through peace, collective effort and gradualism,
Ram Mohun was deeply committed to these values and strategies while upholding the cause
of modern liberalism
Ram Mohun championed the cause of liberalism in all walks of life, In the political field, he
accepted the sovereignty of man’s rational faculty, the impersonal authority of the rule of law,
individual’s right to life, liberty and property, and the constitutional government as guarantee
of human freedom, On the other hand, he was opposed to all kinds of arbitrary and despotic
power, In the religious field, he rejected polytheism, idolatory and superstitious beliefs,
Instead, he believed in Monotheism, Tauhid (unity of God) and the congregational form of
worship, He stood for ‘tolerance’, a non-communal approach to all problems and a creative
combination of science and spirituality, He valued freedom of the individual to follow his
‘conscience’ and built upon it his concept of Universal Religion by combining the noblest
features of all the leading religions of the world, In the social field, he was against
superstitious beliefs and diabolic practices like Sati, Devdasi, polygamy and highly
obnoxious caste system in the economic field, he believed in the sanctity of the Right to
Property and stood for the emancipation of poor peasants, and the establishment of modern
scientific industry, And, in the field of education, he not only encouraged and cultivated the
native languages and literature (especially Bengali, Sanskrit and Hindi), but was also a
staunch advocate of English education, and modern scientific knowledge, In sum, he
harmonized, caste with modern humanity, ancient superstition with modern science,
despotism with democracy, stagnant custom with conservative progress and polytheism with
monotheism
As the unrivalled champion of Indian Renaissance, Ram Mohun underlined the universalism
of the Upanishads, the orientation of education along Western lines, the demand for civil
liberty, the cry for nationalism and humanism and the consequent struggle for self
government and secularism, the zeal for the minimization of violence and the overall
enthusiasm for social and religious reforms, Since Calcutta was the centre of British Rule in
India, Bengal played the leading role in Indian Renaissance and the people of Bengal, under
Ram Mohun’s enthusiastic leadership, led the movement for the revival of reformed— but
militant, Hinduism of the Upanishads,
As the topmost leader of Indian Renaissance, Ram Mohun uniquely synthesized the Hindu
tradition with the Western sense of enquiry. His notable contribution in this area is
highlighted by the following facts;
(a) While he revived Vedic, culture, reintroduced monotheism, and subscribed to the divine
equality of all religions, religious toleration, Christian form of congregational prayers and
voluntary conversions, he rejected narrow sectarianism, idolatory and superstitions
altogether;
(b) While he encouraged Vedic studies, he also realized that it needed to be supplemented by
English education and modern sciences;
(c) While he accepted the traditional Varna and caste system as a broad classification of
various jobs and professions, he was against the hierarchical order based on ‘birth’ in a
particularly caste, resulting in a ‘closed’ society with no inter-communication, no interdining
and no inter-caste marriages;
(d) While he placed his faith in the socially useful and relevant Indian traditions and customs,
he also opposed harmful social practices like female infanticide, child marriage, Devadasi,
Sati, polygamy and Purdah;
(e) While he believed that the woman’s basic function was the upkeep of the household and
taking care of the children, he was also in favour of social, economic and political equality
and her right to education, property and political participation;
(f) While he preferred ‘good government’ to ‘self government’ and regarded Lokshreya a
(welfare of the people) as the purpose of State, and the preservation of the traditional
Panchayat system, he showed his marked preference for Western representative democracy
which is essentially responsible and responsive and allows people largest participation in
their governance;
(g) While he wanted the courts to administer law in accordance with the Dharmashastras, he
stood for the independence of judiciary, rule of law, codification of laws, trial by jury and
judicial enforcement of rights;
(h) While he insisted that people must perform their political obligations voluntarily,
willingly, and cheerfully, he also asked them to clamour for the rights and freedoms without
which they would not be able to act as human beings; and
(1) While he had recourse to the moderate politics of ‘petition and prayer’ and strategy of
‘gradualism’, he would want the people to jealously guard their right to warn, disobey, and
resist both the society and the State in order to carry out social and political reforms,
And, it was the uniformally synthesising effort of Ram Mohun that impelled his noted
biographer, Ms, Sophia Collet; describe him as “a bridge over which India marches from her
unmeasured past to her incalculable feature”,
As the most acclaimed journalist of his times, Ram Mohun founded and edited Sambad
Kaumudi (a Bengali viewspaper), Miratual Akhbar (a Persian viewspaper) and the Brahmanic
Magazine (an English viewspaper), From 1821 onwards through the vehicle of these three
prestigious views-papers, Ram Mohun strove not only “to foster better understanding
between the rulers and the ruled”, but also to create an atmosphere congenial enough for
seeking withdrawal of unwarranted restrictions on the rights and freedoms of his fellow-
countrymen, specially their right to the freedom of Press, Here, it may parenthetically be
observed that it was mainly due to Ram Mohun’s untiring efforts in this direction that Lord
William Bentinck was impelled to remove restrictions on the freedom of Press, in 1835, two
years alter Ram Mohun’s demise, The reforms came belatedly, but the very fact that they
came and the form and the spirit in which they came was definitely a tribute to the untiring
efforts of this great reformer,
Ram Mohun is also hailed as the founder of great religious institutions, the most notable of
which were the following
(a) The Atmiya Sabha (the Society of Inmates) in 1816;
(b) The Vedanta College in 1825; -
(c) The British Indian Unitarian Association, 1827; and
(d) The Brahmo Samaj (Society of God) in 1828,
He used these platforms not only to struggle vehemently against the observance of
polytheism and idolatory and to motivate the people to accept Brahma as the One True God
and to popularise the method of congregational prayers
He became increasingly convinced that unless India’s educational system is completely
overhauled, it would not be possible for the people to come out of the slumber of so many
centuries, Having realized the importance and urgency of popularising education in India, he
started the First English School in 1816 and maintained it for quite some time, with his own
meager funds, And, within less than a decade thereafter, he founded the Mahapathshala, the
Hindu College and the Vedanta College, not only to popularise English Education amongst
fellow-Indians, but also help them study and analyse their own sacred scriptures, He, thus,
was eager to make Indian Education a synthesis of tradition and modernity,
One of the superstitions of Ram Mohun’s times regarded ‘foreign travel’ a ‘sin’, as it was
likely to have a corrupting influence on the person leaving his community and going abroad,
Notwithstanding the prevalent superstition in this regard, Ram Mohun went to Europe and
became the most widely travelled Indians of his times, who knew not only every part of
India, but also of Europe, His visits to London enabled him to acquire first-hand knowledge
of the working of Parliamentary Democracy, He tried to acquaint himself with the process of
political developments and ideas like nationalism and internationalism, He became convinced
that it was better to seek help from these enlightened rulers in ameliorating the condition of
the ignorant and superstitious masses, With this objective in view, he led delegations to the
British rulers, submitted memorandums and urged them to treat Indians in India as they were
treating Englishmen in England, In the process, he also became a strong supporter not only of
English education but also of British rule in India, He took the liberal moderate position that
‘good government was better than self-government’, With this broad conviction, Ram Mohun
initiated the process of appealing to the British Indian rulers to help him and his fellow
countrymen not only in the redressal of their felt grievances but also in the removal of
diabolic practices like Sati and unwarranted restrictions like the ones on the freedom of Press,
He, thus, believed that the British Rule in India, though a foreign yoke, would lead surely to
the amelioration of his fellow-countrymen,
Ram Mohun was an illustrious contemporary of Bentham and Hegel, There was a remarkable
interaction amongst them, Ram Mohun admired Bentham’s utilitarianism and Hegal’s
idealism, In their turn, both Bentham and Hegel admired Ram Mohun’s universalism and
humanitarianism,
The man, who dominated 19th century India’s political and social front-stage for over three
decades, died on September 27, 1833 at the age of 61, in Stapleton Grove near Bristol, Ten
years later, his earthly remains were transferred to the cemetary of Arno’s Vale near Bristol,
He left behind an enormously rich liberal moderate legacy that the Indian liberal moderate
triumvirate (Naoroji, Ranade and Gokhale) were to inherit and enrich in the formative
decades of India political struggle for Swaraj beginning with the establishment of Indian
National Congress in 1885,
NINETEENTH CENTURY INDIA;
The traditional Hindu society was a caste-ridden society, divided into four major castes; the
Brahmins, the Kshatriyas, the Vaishyas and the Shudras, This caste system was hierarchical,
with the Brahmins enjoying supremacy over the rest of the castes, It was a ‘closed’ society
allowing for ‘no-change”, no inter-caste communication, no inter-caste marriages (no Roti-
Beti Relationship), not even inter-caste dining (no Hukka-Pani Relationship), Shudras were
the worst victims of this system,
It was essentially a “male-dominated society,” The status of women was generally inferior to
that of men, In fact, she had no independent status of her own, She was somebody’s daughter
or sister, wife, daughter-in-law or mother, She was just an appendage to some man, She was
called the Grihalakshmi (goddess of the household), but in reality, she was treated as a
commodity of the household, She was kept aloof and away from the society by the nefarious
institution of Purdah (veil),
Female infanticide was widely prevalent, as woman was considered a superfluous creation of
God, If for some reason, the girl-child could not be killed at the time of her birth, she was
offered to temples to work as a devadasi (a temple dancer turn prostitute), Alternately, she
was married much before attaining the age of maturity which led to her widowhood often
times even before being able to consummate her marriage with her supposed husband, And,
once her husband died, for whatever reason, for no fault of her, she was made to perform Sati
in the form either of con-cremation or post-cremation, Their saga often began with girl-
infanticide and, it they survived, it ended in their murder or suicide in the form of Sati, And,
above all, the widows were hardly allowed to lead a life of an ascetic or to re-marry,
There was also a system of dowry to be given by the girl’s parents or guardians in marriage,
Larger the value or amount of dowry, better were the chances of her leading a reasonable
standard of life, Those who could not afford to pay the demanded dowry ended up finding
unmatched husbands, Moreover, the giving and receiving of dowry was not a one-time affair,
it was often unending, The husbands and the in-laws left on increasing their demands for
dowry in cash or kind all through her life, And, the non-compliance with their demand
resulted in the humiliation of and attrocities inflicted on the daughter-in- law leading, not
unoften, to her murder, Bride-burning is one institution which has assumed alarming
proportions today and the efforts of voluntary organizations and the government to prevent it
are often inadequate, Every other day, we have the news of some bride-burning, but the very
fact that it now makes the news gives the impression that its occurrence is more of an
exception rather than the rule, But, when exceptions become far too many, it becomes a sort
of borderline case tilting between the rule and its exceptions,
There was also a bar on their education which was generally meant only for the boys, not for
the girls, It was assumed that the girl has to do the household menial work not only in the
home of her parents but also in that of her parents-in-law and, therefore, imparting education
to her was a sheer waste of efforts, This was the argument adopted to deprive women their
place, share and status in the male- dominated society,
Polygamy was widely prevalent, not the polyandry, It was said that a Kuleen Brahmin could
marry as many girls and women he wanted to marry, Even otherwise, the right to re-marry,
with or without any reason, was confined to man, Women were debarred from re marriage,
even child-widows and other women were, as a rule, not allowed to re-marry under any
circumstances whatsoever,
Another distinctive mark of this society was polytheism and the accompanying system of
gross idolatory; Practically, every caste and community and every sub-section thereof, had a
distinct deity to worship, This resulted in the large-scale fragmentation of society, Like caste,
religion was also abused as a divisive force, And, then, there was an unholy institution of the
priesthood, as intermediaries between human-beings and Gods, They prescribed various
modes of prayers and offerings in cash and kind to appease the concerned God or Goddess,
This led to blind faith, superstitious practices and even crimes and sins committed in the
name of countless gods and goddesses in order to appease them, Consequently, there were as
many gods and goddess as sects and sub-sects,
Even overseas travel was considered an evil, a sin, as a person upon crossing the seven seas
would no longer be under the direct supervision and control of his caste or community elders,
And, that would invariably make him modern (corrupt), He would be likely to indulge in
smoking, drinking, and non-vegetarianism, He would attempt to adopt the Western attire and
manners and may indulge in crimes and sins like gambling and prostitution,
To eradicate the evils of this conservative, superstitious, caste ridden, Brahmin-dominated,
Priest-dominated, Male-dominated, sectarian, idol-worshipping and highly discriminative
society, the Modern Indian Movement of all-comprehensive social reforms was initiated by
Raja Ram Mohun Roy and a host of others first on an individual basis, Unlike the wandering
ascetics and sanyasis who had, for the purpose, followed the path of non-involvement,
rejection and fleeing-away, Ram Mohun initiated the process of social involvement and
reformation, In course of time, when the individual efforts were found to be inadequate and
ineffective, the help of voluntarily organized, gole-oriented associations and the government
itself was sought and eventually obtained, As a result of the work of the movement for reform
and change, some evils could be eradicated, while others have been controlled or curbed, A
lot has, no doubt, been done, but a lot more remains to be done; The process of change has
been slow and the change that has come gradually has been in small quantities, But, it is
precisely for this reason that the changes that have been brought about have got assimilated
in the fabric of society without tearing it apart, As justice Ranade had observed in this
context; “The injustice of centuries can be mitigated only in centuries, not in decades years”,
His statement has in our present-day context proved to be prophetic,
FATHER OF 19TH CENTURY HINDU REFORMATION;
Ram Mohun is widely acknowledged as “the Father of Hindu Reformation of the 19th
Century”, He was of the considered view that “rationality and modernity needed to be
introduced in the field of religion and that ‘irrational religion’ was at the root of many social
evils,”
With this broad objective in view, Ram Mohun, as a Vedic scholar and a philosophic
modernist, re-interpreted the Hindu scriptures, including the Vedas, the Vedantas, the Shastras
and the Puranas, the Smriti and the Bhagwad Gita, His commentories on Isopanishad,
Kathopnishad, Kenopnishad, and Mundukyopanishad are extremely rich and refreshing, He
also undertook and accomplished the difficult task of translating the Upanishads into English
as well as in Bengali, While translating these scriptures, he also added his own views and
comments, And, to make the study of these scriptures popular amongst the English-knowing
and Bengali-knowing people of Calcutta, he even undertook the stupendous task of
distributing copies of these scriptures free of cost,
On the basis of his careful analysis of these scriptures, he found that the ‘fatal’, ‘pagon’,
‘purile’ and ‘superstitious’ system of ‘idolatory’ had no sanction in the ancient Indian
religious texts,’ It was also opposed to reason and common sense”, Besides being an evil in
itself, idolatory was also the root-cause of many other social evils, It led to the multiplication
of deities and also a multitude of modes of worship which, in turn, resulted in dividing the
society into innumerable, unending series of castes and sub-castes, groups and sub-groups,
divisions and sub-divisions, each worshipping an idol different from the others, In this way,
“idolatory destroys, to the utmost degree the natural texture of society and prescribes crimes
of the most heinous nature”, It had even defiled Hinduism of any kid of “common political
feeling”, He, thus, called upon the people to ‘reorient’ themselves with their ancient
scriptures which specifically prohibit idolatory and enjoin the worship of One True God,
They should embrace the rational worship of God, “as enjoined by the Vedas and confirmed
by the dictates of common sense”, i.e., ‘Unitarian worship’ or the worship of One True God,
Here, it is indeed astonishing to find that Ram Mohun had authored a book questioning the
validity of the practice of idol- worship at a relatively early age of sixteen,
With the authority of Kathopanished of the Yajurveda, Ram Mohun also rejected ‘polytheism’
and asked the people to treat this practice “with utter contempt and disdain”, He asked the
person to subscribe to Monotheism i.e., the worship of One True Omnipotent, Omniscient
and Omnipresent God who was devoid of any form whatsoever,
Ram Mohun was not only against the medieval tendency of sectarianism, but also irrational
superstitions, which were absolutely intolerable, To him, these superstitions had resulted in
evolving many inhuman and evil customs and traditions in the Hindu society, e,g, travelling
across the oceans was considered to be a sin by the orthodox Hindus, They somehow
believed that once a person was away from the reach of his community, he was liable to
become immoral, Once abroad, he would not only tend to adopt their ways and means, but
also indulge in drinking, smoking, non-vegetarianism, and prostitution,
Upon careful examination of Hindu religious texts and practices, Ram Mohun, thus, found
polytheism, idolatory and irrational superstitions absolutely intolerable, And, he decided to
fight against these age-old socio-religious evils,
Ram Mohun was interested not only in reforming the Hindu Religion; he also tried to remove
discrepancies among the various important religions of the world, On the basis of his
comparative study of the important religions of the world, he had come to realise that “true
Hinduism, true Islam, and true Christianity” are not fundamentally different from each
other”,
He admired the Holy Bible as much as he did the Vedanta and the Quran, Though, he rejected
the doctrine of Christ’s divinity and the doctrine of Trinity (the doctrine of the three-fold
divinity of the Father (God), the son (Christ) and the Holy Ghost), he fruitfully borrowed
from this religion the practice of congregational prayers (collective or Unitarian worship) to
replace the evils of idolatory, In fact, in face of the strong national prejudice against
Christianity, he published a book entitled The Precepts of Jesus which was basically a
collection of the moral and spiritual precepts of Jesus as recorded in the four Gospels, He
even allowed voluntary conversions to Christianity,
He also undertook a thorough study of Islam, The Sufy poets like Saadi and Hafeez made a
deep impact upon him, From this Holy Scripture, he borrowed the comprehensive concept of
‘Tauhid’, the Unity of God,
And, to free the Orthodox Hinduism of its obscurantist elements, he also studied Buddhist
scriptures, ‘Kalpasutras’ of Jainism, as well as the Tantrik literature, He was, in this way,
making a genuine effort to find alternatives to Hindu religious malpractices in order not only
to enrich the religion itself, but also to improve the quality of life of its staunch, though
liberal, followers, In undertaking a comparative study of these major religious scriptures, his
sole purpose was to restore Hinduism to its pristine, pure and universal form,
Ram Mohan embraced all that was “the most valuable and the most inspiring” in Hinduism,
He believed that the combination of the best elements of all religions would result in the
“universal religion for manind” which implied ; (a) religious toleration; (b) sympathy; (c)
reason; (d) liberty; (e) divine equality; (f) fraternity; (g) freedom to act in accordance with
one’s conscience; (h) unity of all religions; and (i) worship of One True God through
congregational worship,
The spiritual synthesis that Ram Mohun was able to strike resulted in the adoption of the
Advaita philosophy which not only rejects caste, polytheism, idolatory, superstitious rites and
rituals, but also adheres to the above-cited fundamental principles of a universal religion, To
him, the real spirit of the Hindu scriptures lies in the declaration of the Unity of God,
He found that the Vedanta which signifies resolution or quintessence of all the Vedas, the
Puranas and the Tantra, inculcate invariably, the Unity of God who is the Supreme Existence”
In this sense, God is considered formless, incomprehensible, indefinable, Indescribable,
uncreated and unknown, Yet, He is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent, He is the sole
author, supporter and ruler of “the boundless universe”, His designs are indiscriminately
beneficial to all, He accords mercy and salvation, “Without waiting for the offer of an
innocent blood”,
To Ram Mohun, “the Vedas begin and end with the three peculiar and mysterious epithets of
God, viz, first ‘Om,’ second ‘Tat’ and third ‘Sat’, The first of these signifies that being which
preserves, destroys and creates, The second implies that only Being which is neither male nor
female; and the third announces, ‘the True Being’, These collective terms simply affirm that
‘One Unknown True Being is the Creator, Preserver and Destroyer of the Universe”, The
worship of this One True God is “the chief duty of the mankind and the sole cause of Eternal
beatitude”, The people should contemplate the attributes of this Supreme Being, the
Paramatma, and his little spark, the Atma (soul) which resided in all living creatures in this
Universe, To be true to their Creator, they should strive to act in strict accordance with the
dictates of their own Atma, soul or inner-voice in all walks of life, so that they may be able to
improve the quality not only of their own life but also of those who come into contact with
them, Through our souls we share the divinity of God and it is our attribute of divine equality
which should make us “friendly and compassionate towards our-fellow creatures’’,
In order to acquaint the people with the basic tenets of Hinduism, incorporating the
fundamental values of Universal Religion, he not only authored a number of books, but also
created a variety of platforms, The most notable books authored by him for this purpose
included
(a) The Defence of Hindu Theism (1817);
(b) The Divine Worship (1827); and
(c) The Universal Religion (1928),
And, the platforms that he created for the free and frank analysis of the plus and minus points
of Hinduism, even in relation to other religions, were;
(a) The Atmiya Sabha (The Society of Inmates), 1816;
(b) The Vedanta College, 1825;
(c) The British India Unitarian Association, 1827; and
(d) The Brahmo Samaj (The Society of God), 1828,
THE ATMIYA SABHA;
The Society of Inmates was founded by Ram Mohun in 1816 to revive people’s interest in the
Vedas and The Shastras,
THE VEDANTA COLLEGE;
The Vedanta College was established for preaching religious truth and to encourage free and
fearless discussion of theosophical subjects, Its principal objective was to teach the
monotheism doctrine of the Vedanta”,
THE BRAHMO SAMAJ;
Ram Mohun founded the Brahmo Samaj on August 20, 1828, In the words of Charles
Heimsath, it was a monotheistic religious body ‘to teach and to practice the worship of the
One, Supreme, Undivided, External, Immutable, and Formless God”, The Samaj at once
rejected the Brahmin priesthood’s intermediation between man and God, Instead, it
advocated the most direct and personal relationship between the Atma and the Parmatma, It
repudiated idolatory and sacrifices, It ignored caste-distinctions,
From the platform of the Brahmo Samaj, Ram Mohun preached monotheism and adopted the
congregational form of worship, which was similar to that of the Unitarians, He believed that
all fundamental truths could be found in Hindu scriptures, especially in the Upanishads, He
was committed to restore the Hindu faith to its original purity,
The stated objectives of the Brahmo Samaj included
(a) The worship and adoration of the Eternal, Unreachable and immutable Being who is the
Author and Preserver of the Universe;
(b) No image, statue, sculpture, carving, painting, picture, portrait or the likeness of anything
shall be admitted;
(c) No sacrifice, offering or oblation of anything shall be permitted;
(d) No animal or living creature shall be deprived of life, either for religious purpose or for
food;
(e) No object, animate or inanimate, would be recognized as an object of worship; and
(1) No sermon-preaching, discourse, prayer or hymn be delivered in worship,
Ram Mohun was keen to restore the Hindu faith to its original purity; Its re-interpretation
was the starting point for executing the programme of socio-political reforms,
After Ram Mohun’s death in 1833, the leadership of the Brahmo Samaj fell in the hands of
Pundit Ram Chandra Vidya Vagish, Under him, the Samaj barely managed to survive, In
about a decade’s time, the fortunes of the Brahmo Samaj began to rise, because of the new
spiritual leadership given to it by Dwarkanath Tagore and later on by his son Debendranath
Tagore,
Debendranath Tagore had established in 1839 a society of the young intellectuals in search of
spiritual faith, the Tattvabodhini Sabha, whose informal association with the Brahmo Samaj
gave the latter a new strength in membership and purpose,
In the later half of the nineteenth century, Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar became the leader of the
Brahmo Samaj, He concentrated his attention on polygamy as being irreligious and unnatural,
just as during Ram Mohun’s times the social emphasis was on the abolition of Sati, He also
condemned the specific privileges of the Kulin Brahmins who were allowed to marry an
infinite numbers of wives, The much-married groom met his wives hardly a few times after
the ceremony,
Vidyasagar also used the platform of the Brahmo Samaj for carrying on agitation in favour of
widow-remarriage, He asked the government to pass legislation which would legalise
marriages of the so-called widows, the girls whose so-called husbands had died even before
the girls left their parental home and had their marriage consummated, Brahmo Samaj, infact,
made a kind of profession of arranging widow-remarriage,
It was due to Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar’s efforts that the Hindu widow Remarriage Act was
passed in July 1856, Thus, twenty-seven years after the abolition of Sati, Brahmo Samaj
succeeded in having these two institutions come under the purview of law,
The Brahmo Samaj also inspired establishment of similar associations in other parts of the
country, For instance, the Paramhansa Mandali (the Divine Society) was established in the
Bombay Presidency in 1840 with the object of working for the abolition of caste,
renunciation of idolatory and the introduction of widow-remarriage, On the same Pattern,
was established the Manav Dharma Sabha (Universal Religious Society) in Gujarat in 1844,
Pundit Vishnu Shastri, in collaboration with Justice Ranade, K,T, Telang and G,H,
Deshmukh, established in Bombay, The Bombay Widow-Remarriage Association in 1866,
The same year, the Brahmo Samaj of Calcutta split into two separate bodies (a) the
Conservative Original 4di Brahmo Samaj and (b) The Brahmo Samaj of India, The Adi
Brahmo Samaj rapidly lost most of its adherents and became almost the sole responsibility of
the Tagore family
The Brahmo Samaj of India, under the leadership of Keshab Chandra Sen, was identified in
the popular mind with the true Brahmoism and rapidly moved ahead along two lines; (a)
development of public devotionalism; and (b) an active leadership of social service and social
reform causes, It was Sen’s Brahmo Samaj which got enacted the Brahmo Marriage Act of
1872,
The other organizations which were established on the pattern in the later part of the
nineteenth century included
(a) The Ved Samaj in Calcutta in 1864 renamed in 1871as the Brahmo Samaj of South India;
(b)The Bombay Widow—Remarriage Association in 1866;
(c)The Prarthna Samaj (Bombay) in 1867; and
The Satya Shodhak Samaj (society for the search of Truth) in Poona in 1873
In doctrine, the Prarthna Samaj, Keshab Chandra Sen closely resembled his branch of the
Brahmo Samaj, Both subscribed to;
(a) Belief in a single, all-powerful, all-loving God;
(b)Salvation through the worship of God;
(c) Denial of the ideas of Karma and transmigration; Opposition to the authority of the
priests; and
(e) Rejection of idolatory,
To the Prarthna Samaj belonged illustrious men like K,T, Telang and Justice Ranade, Theism
was for many social reformers the only acceptable conception of God, It consistently
preached that there was an inseparable connection between reverence for God and reverence
for man,
In 1875, Dayanand Saraswati established his Arva Samaj in Punjab, It soon became the most
popularly acceptable single movement for social and religious reforms in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries,
In 1878, there was further defection in Sen Brahmo Samaj of India, This splinter group called
itself Sadharan (general) Brahmo Samaj it incorporated into its Constitution checks against
further personality cults,
RESPONSE TO THE IMPACT OF BRITISH RULE;
Inspired by the Western political philosophers like Montesquieu, Blackstone and Bentham
and aware of the limitations of his countrymen; Ram Mohun lauded the benefits of the
British rule in India as follows;
i) The British Indian Government delivered Indians from the tyranny of their erstwhile feudal
rulers;
ii) The British Government was not only blessed with civil and political liberty, but it also
took steps for promoting liberty, social happiness, a sense of scientific enquiry into literary
and religious subjects amongst those nations to which their influence extended, To ensure
civil rights to the people of India effectively, Ram Mohun suggested certain major reforms
like the codification of laws, separation of powers, integrity, efficiency and independence of
the judges, introduction of the jury system, the Habeas Corpus Act and the legal
responsibility of the government officials,
iii) They had subscribed to the policy of religious toleration and were not eager to impose
their religion on the subject people,
iv) He believed that permanent settlement with the cultivators would make them so much
attached to the British Government that it would be unnecessary for it to maintain a standing
army,
v) He welcomed European skill and capital and hoped that Europeans would introduce better
methods of agriculture and bring about improvements in the mechanical arts,
(vi) He was inclined to invoke the help of the government for improving the moral, social,
cultural and political condition of Indians; to protect cultivators; to promote a more liberal
and enlightened system of instruction in Mathematics, Natural Philosophy and Anatomy,
alongwith other useful science; and to abolish any custom (like Sati) which denies to the
female population the right to live,
FATHER OF THE MOVEMENT FOR RELIGIOSOCIAL REFORMS;
Ram Mohun, the father of the movement for religious and social reforms fought relentlessly
against superstitious beliefs and diabolic practices widely prevalent in the 1 8th- 19th century
Hindu society, As a pioneer of social reforms, he believed that social reform was “an
essential pre-condition of political liberation “, While countering the objections of the
advocates of the status quo, he aimed “at the creation of a new society based on the principles
of tolerance, sympathy and reason, where the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity
would be accepted by all and where man would be free from the traditional shackles which
have enslaved him for ages”, This society would not only be modern, but also cosmopolitan,
In order to implement his multi-faceted agenda for social reforms, Ram Mohun urged the
social reformers to initiate the process of social reforms and create public opinion in their
favour, The methods of social reforms he devised were ‘multifaceted’, He appealed to the
rational faculty of his compatriots, and often quoted from the scriptures, lines and verses, in
support of the proposed reforms, He also wrote scholarly essays on topics of social reform
and also translated and re-interpreted the important religious texts, He sent memorandums
and appeals to the rulers, inviting their attention to the prevalent social evils, He supported
each and every movement aimed at human liberation anywhere in the world,
He had however, realized that the efforts of individual social reformers would just not be
enough, He, therefore, adopted “the path of social and political involvement” and established
or helped in several ways, the social organizations catering to the needs of destitute widows
and penniless students, and from the platforms of the organized forums, he presented before
the people “the models of exemplary behaviour in religious and social matters”,
Realizing that the role of individual social reformers, together with voluntarily organised
social reforms groups may not be sufficient to bring about social change on a durable basis,
he underlined the need of State-legislation to supplement their own individual and collective
efforts,
Ram Mohun vehemently opposed the practice of polygamy as unnatural and preferred
monogamy as it was in consonance with monoandry, While condemning polygamy, he cited
Yagnavalyka who had allowed the husband to have a second wife on eight specific grounds
like; had the habit of drinking, suffering from incurable disease like barrenness, He was in
favour of allowing a Hindu male to marry a second time only after getting clearance from the
magistrate, Likewise, he was also in favour of marriage of women under certain
circumstances, Likewise, he encouraged widow-remarriage to save them from inhuman
murder or suicide in the form of Sati, On the other hand, he was against the institution of
child-marriage as it was unnatural, The fact that he himself was, in quick succession, married
at the relatively adolescent age of 8, 9 and 17 years was explained away as an act without his
reasoned consent, an act before attaining the age of maturity and a kind of his habitual regard
for his parents,
Female infanticide was another social evil which he regarded not only a crime but also a sin,
In his days, the Rajputs were accustomed to destroy their infant daughters at the feet of the
Goddess Kali to invoke her blessings, which was only a shrouded excuse of getting rid of the
economic liability which it was bound to cause in course of time, Ram Mohun was of the
view that the persons indulging in this evil practice must be considered guilty of child-murder
and punished according to law,
Birth of the girl-child in many Hindu families was looked down upon as a ‘surplus
production’ of God, to be eventually returned to Him, If the girl-child somehow escaped from
being subjected to female infanticide, she was handed over to the temple to serve as
Devadasi, The girl was, then, brought up by the temple priests and was trained in the art of
singing and dancing, And, when she came of age she was subjected to gradual prostitution,
She was made to dance in blues to please the presiding deity, the priests and patrons of the
temples,
Ram Mohun was also against the system of dowry which virtually resulted in the sale and
purchase of girls in marriage in the name of the so-called Kuleen tradition, Those who could
afford to part with substantial portions of their movable and immovable property got suitable
husbands for their daughters who would treat them with some dignity and descency, And,
those who could not afford to give dowry, their daughters had to marry the aged, the infirm,
the diseased, the widowers, the poor and the lower-class persons, Even if the demanded
dowry was given in marriage, the demand for dowry was not a ‘one-time’ demand but an
ongoing series of demands, the non-fulfillment of which brought humiliation, harassment,
physical and mental cruelties and even death, This is one social evil which, instead of being
curbed, is assuming alarming proportions and resulting in ever-increasing dowry deaths,
Prostitution is the most heinous of all our social evils, It is the oldest surviving institution,
though its forms and manners of operation have become multifarious, They often operate
under the guise or cover of dancing girl, cabare artists, massageurs, call girls, party girls,
street walkers and mistresses, He raised his voice against this social menace and wanted the
state to abolish or at least curb and regulate it by law, so as to minimise its evil impact, Today,
its regulation becomes much more important as these so-called sex workers are considered
potential carriers of sexually transmitted diseases (STDS) and AIDS,
With the zeal of a missionary, Ram Mohun worked for the removal of caste restrictions, He
believed that the Hindu Caste system was illogical, as it had led to the assessment of the
worth of an individual on the basis of birth’ and not on ‘merit’, It had also resulted in a
‘closed-society, Ram Mohun would not allow any caste to close its ranks to others rigidly and
once for all, He also opposed the caste system on the ground that it fragmented society into
many divisions and sub-divisions, It, thus, destroyed ‘social homogeneity’ and ‘the integrated
texture of society’ and weakened it politically, He was highly critical of the ‘divisive’ and
‘discriminatory’ role the cast-system had played from times immemorial, It had, in fact,
resulted in “inequalities, inherent in the traditional caste hierarchy”, He not only played the
negative role of opposing the prevalent caste-system and its implications, but also
championed the cause of ‘inter-caste marriages’ and inter caste dining’ so as to effectively
break the barriers of caste-divisions and encourage “the process of social and cultural
integration and assimilation”,
The greatest social reform with which the name of Ram Mohun will be permanently
associated is the abolition of the cruel and inhuman practice of Sati, Sati was widely
prevalent in some parts of India, especially in Bengal, It was performed in the form either of
concremation or post-cremation, In con-cremation, the practice was to bind down the widow
alongwith the corpse of her husband and then heap over her such a quantity of wood that she
could not raise, On the other hand, post-cremation was performed in case the widow was
away from her husband at the time of his death, In that, case, she used to be burnt alive along
with some relic of her deceased husband, In either case, she was pressed down with large
bamboos to avoid the possibility of her rushing away from the flames, There was also a loud
drum beating as a part of the ‘ceremony’ so that her pleas and cries are not heard, In either
case, Ram Mohun, found Sati resulting inevitably in murder or suicide of the widows, as “no
widow ever voluntarily descended on and entered the flames”
Their submission was forced and involuntary, despite the fact that the women were prepared
from their early life for performing Sati on the demise of their husband, holding out to them
heavenly enjoyments in company with their husbands, as well as the beatitude of their
relations and their own reputations in the world, Thus tructed, many women on the death of
their husbands became desirous of accompanying their husbands to heaven, And, to obviate
even chance of their trying to escape from the blazing fire, their developed the usage of
sedating and disfiguring them, shaving off their heads, sometimes even disfiguring them
physically, and after dragging them to the cremation ground, tying them down to the pyre of
their deceased husbands or their relics,
There also developed a custom of building a sort of place of worship, a temple, to
commemorate the performance of Sati, where prayers were offered and funds wee collected,
As a matter of fact, the principal factor behind the performance of Sati seems to have been an
economic one, By forcing the widow to perform Sati, her parents-in- law and even parents
and other family members not only saved themselves of their economic liability of
maintaining her after the death of her husband, but were also able to turn their economic
liability into an asset, a profit which they received in the form of offerings from the people
who came to offer their prayers so as to seek her blessings, This is one of the most glaring
illustrations of an economic crime perpetrated by the Brahmin, Priest and Male-dominated
society in the garb of religion,
The advocates of Sati had given the following arguments to support this most heinous
practice;
(a) Woman is by nature of inferior understanding, without resolution, unworthy of trust,
subject to passions, and void of virtuous knowledge;
(b) The Hindu scriptures, thus, ‘require’ the widow to live the life of an ascetic, denying her
all worldly pleasure and prohibiting her from marrying again after the demise of her husband;
(c) The widow would found it difficult to live as an ascetic and would, in that case, be guilty
of such acts as may bring disgrace upon relations of her parents and diseased husband; and
(d) The widow should, therefore, commit Sati upon the demise of her husband and
accompany him to heaven to partake with him heavenly enjoyment,
Ram Mohun strenuously and vociferously fought against this most heinous social evil mainly
on the following grounds;
(a) Nature had endowed women with the same faculties which their men-folk had claimed for
themselves;
(b) Women were rather denied by men themselves, not by nature, of their excellent merits,
deliberately kept them void of education, looked down upon them as contemptible and
mischievous creatures and dubbed as persons of inferior understanding, without resolution,
unworthy of trust, subject to passions and void of virtuous knowledge”;
(c) A widow was as much capable of virtuous life as a widower. It is, thus, mischievous and
unfair to doubt the integral character of women for it implies as if a woman could remain
pure only so long as she is under the care of her, parents before marriage and under the
control of her husband after marriage. Such women, Ram Mohun believed, deserve
compassion and not concremation or post-cremation, He told his adversaries: “What I pity is
that, seeking the woman thus dependent and exposed to every misery, you feel for them no
compassion that might exempt them from being tied down and burnt to death”.
(d) As Right to life is equally important for both men and women, life should not be
destroyed as the society had no right over her life;
(e) The practice of Sati brings a stigma upon the character of the living widows, as if they
were just incapable of living an ascetic or virtuous life;
(f) The Hindu religion does not command or make it obligatory for the widows to burn
themselves alive on the funeral pyre of their deceased husbands. He rather found that Sati
was expressly forbidden by the Hindu scriptures like Isopanishad, kathopanishad,
Kenopanishad, Mundukyopanishad, the other Upanishads of the Vedas, the Vedanta, the
Puranas, the Smriti and the Bhagvad Gita. Instead, the Shastras enjoin that a wife should live
under the control of her husband during his life, rather direct that, on his death, she should
live like an ascetic under the authority of her husband’s relations or else under that of parental
relations. Even Manu, the law-giver, has directed that after the death of her husband, the
widow shall pass her life as an ascetic, which is ordained as the most pious conduct for the
widow to follow; and
(g) Sati has invariably amounted to both suicide and female murder, for no woman ever
voluntary entered into the flames,
Ram Mohun fought ceaselessly against the prevailing institution of Sati on three fronts:
(a) Through his writings, speeches, agitation and discussions, he prepared the minds of the
people in favour of the abolition of Sati and explained, in considerable details, how the
practice had no support in any of the religious texts, For instance, as early as in 1818 itself,
he wrote his first essay on Sati, in which he argued that woman had an existence independent
of her husband and hence, she had no reason to end her life on his demise, It was his and his
followers’ constant endeavor to dissuade widows from performing Sati, but to either re-marry
or live the life of an ascetic, Ram Mohun had also organised a number of vigilance
committees to ensure that no Sati ceremony was performed. Through these methods, he
strove to build up public opinion for the abolition of the practice of Sati.
(b) He tried to seek Government’s help in bringing about social reforms and it was their
responsibility as civilised rulers to eradicate by law the inhuman practices of Sati.
(c) He conducted an enquiry into the causes that led a Hindu widow to commit Sati and to
make arrangements to eliminate those causes. He found that the ignorance of women about
their legitimate rights, their illiteracy, customary denial of the property rights to the widows,
and the consequent helplessness, dependence, misery, and humiliation were some of the
causes behind this practice.
Ram Mohun, thus, employed all the means at his disposal to stop this inhuman practice
which forced the helpless widow to burn herself on the funeral pyre of her deceased husband.
He also, simultaneously, encouraged the practice of widow-remarriage. He remarkably
succeeded in persuading scores of his followers and friends to marry widows. Further, he
pleaded rather strongly, for the restoration of the property rights of the widows, as well as the
facilities for their multi-faceted education., And, it was mainly due to his efforts that on
December 4, 1829 Lord William Bentinch promulgated a decree to abolish the heinous
institution of Sati by law and made its practice an offence punishable under law. This is what
Ram Mohun had clamoured for and that is what he ultimately got after his one-and-a-half
decade long fight for the abolition of Sati,
Here, it is to be noted that if the sect of selfish, superstitious, traditional, illiberal, ignorant,
hypocrat, and ritualistic male Brahmans was responsible for the exploitation, humiliation,
backwardness, degradation, poverty, illiteracy and slavery of the 18th and 19th century
Indian women, it was the liberal, reformist, revisionist, modernist, educated and
conscientious sect of the male Brahmins who ceaselessly clamoured to free Indian women
from their inhuman conditions. If the role of one sect of male-Brahmin was to exploit
women, the role of its counterpart was to rescue them and to work for their all-round
development and progress. In so far as the role of women in this area is concerned, they were
simply at the receiving hand, be it attrocities or freedom. Their role was not that of an actor
or participant in either case.
ON EDUCATION:
Ram Mohun was of the considered view that unless the educational system of India was
totally overhauled, “there was no possibility of the people coming out of the slumber of so
many centuries”. He asked the British rulers of India “to help equip the new generation of
Indians with useful modern scientific knowledge”. He believed that instruction in useful
modern sciences like Chemistry, Mathematics, Anatomy and Natural Philosophy would instill
new awareness and new capabilities in the Indian people.
He was the staunch advocate of English education for Indians. He even started in 1816 and
maintained, with his own meager funds, the first English School in Calcutta, in addition, he
was also responsible for establishing the following educational institutions as well:
(I ) Hindu College, (1822);
(ii) Vedanta College ((1822); and
(iii) Maha Pathshala, (1825).
He was the first eminent advocate of women’s education. It is another thing that he preferred
for them “education of the household”. Yet, he was modern enough to plead with Indian
women to shed off (the Purdah) their traditional veil, which had kept them aloof from both
the society and the State. Instead, he called upon them to adopt “English manners and
English behaviour”.
Ram Mohun also attempted to encourage cultivation of the native languages and literature,
especially Bengali, Sanskrit and Hindi. He even wrote a Grammar and Geography in the
Bengali language for the education of common people. Though he himself was a great
scholar of Sanskrit, he felt that the Sanskrit learning was irrelevant to modern India and, thus,
he strongly opposed it. He also did not want to load the young minds with grammatical
complexities and speculative or imaginary knowledge. He, thus, wanted to discard whatever
he considered ‘dead-wood’,
FATHER OF MODERN INDIAN POLITICAL LIBERALISM:
Ram Mohun is acknowledged as the Father of Modern Indian Political Liberalism. He was,
perhaps, the earliest advocate of the Liberalism and the percusor of the Liberal Movement of
19th Century India. As a liberal, Ram Mohun stood for the ‘‘value and dignity of the
individual personality, the central position of man in the historical development and the faith
that the people are the ultimate source of all power”. He believed not only in the freedom of
body and mind, but also the freedom of thought and action. The process that he initiated
towards the end of the 18th century left its indelible imprint on India’s struggle for freedom.
He stood for the restoration of all that had once made India the Guru of Nations.
In his three-and-a-half decade long public life, he struggled for “the inviolability’’ of certain
rights without which no human development can be thought of”. He would not like the
individual to be sacrificed for the sake of the society. He, thus, did not see any scope for
arbitrary and dispostic use of authority in any field of human activity, whether political,
religious, social or economic. He rejected imperialism, colonialism, feudalism and
dictatorship as the symbols of authoritarianism. He was against the abuse of power by
authority, and not against the existence of authority itself, Ram Mohun, thus, specifically
recognised “the impersonal” authority of law. Diecy’s The law of the Constitution had made
him a champion of the Rule of Law. As such, he was quick to proclaim that:
(a) All men are subject to laws, not to executive arbitrariness;
(b) All men are equal before law, irrespective of their status and are subject to and protected
by the same laws; and
(c) The Constitution and laws should be interpreted by duly qualified and authorized judges
alone.
Ram Mohun was probably the first modern Indian thinker to create awareness for civil rights
amongst Indians. Though he did not specially enlist in detail, the civil rights for his fellow
countrymen, he seems to have pleaded for each and every individual right which the Western
and the Eastern liberals could possibly think of.
In line with John Locke, Ram Mohun first asked for individuals “Right of Life, Liberty and
Property for both men and women equally. He would ask both the Society and the State not
to deprive any person of his right to life, without the authority of law.
Regarding Liberty as “a priceless possession of mankind”, he fought not only for the Liberty
of the individual person, but also for the Liberty of each and every individual nation.
Although he recognized the positive gains India would get from British Rule, he was “never
in favour of an unending foreign rule in India” .Even if British connection was then thought
to be necessary for India’s social, emancipation, he was certain that political freedom was
bound to come sooner or later, sooner than Later. As the first Indian Liberal Moderate, he
wanted “good government” first and - ‘self-government” later on. In other words, he was
more impatient for good government, though not no much for self government. As he himself
put it, he “could wait till 1873 for the British Rulers to leave India”, but he wanted them ‘to
ensure good government at once,” .Ram Mohun’s love for liberty was not confined to India,
it was, in fact, universal. He supported all struggles which aimed at human freedom which,
he rightly thought, was ‘indivisible’. For instance, he celebrated the establishment of
constitutional governments in Spain and Portugal and was pained to find such a government
collapse in Naples in 1821.
As a true liberal, Ram Mohun also believed in the sanctity of the right to property” for both
men and women. To him, every individual should have the right to own the property he
inherits or earns. Ram Mohun was of the considered view that the root cause of the
subjugation of Indian women was “the complete denial of their property rights”.
In his Brief Remarks Regarding Modern Encroachments on the Ancient Rights of Females
(1822), he pointed out that the ancient Hindu law-givers gave the mother the right to have an
equal share, with her sons, in the 1/4 part of the portion which a son could inherit in the
property left by the father. To him, women had become “the slaves of the male members of
the family”, just because they were robbed of their right to property. In other words,
“Woman’s total economic dependence on man was the main cause of her uncomfortable and
uncertain life.”
Ram Mohun was also the unrivalled champion of the individual’s Right to the Freedom of
Thought, Speech and Expression, which included Freedom of the Press. To him it included
the freedom of creativity of mind and intellect, as well as the freedom of expressing one’s
opinion and thoughts through any and every medium of communication. He felt that the
freedom of expression was useful equally to the rulers and the ruled, as ignorant people were
more likely to revolt against all that the rulers did. They could attack not only the misuse or
abuse of authority; they could turn against the authority itself. An enlightened public, On the
other hand, would be opposed only to the abuse of power by authority, and not to the
existence of authority itself.
History of the world is witness to the fact that the Free Press never caused a revolution or
anarchy in any part of the world. On the contrary, there are several examples where, in the
absence of the free press, grievances of the people remained “unrepresented and
unredressed”. Consequently, the situation did become ripe, sooner or later, for a violent
revolutionary change.
It may be said to Ram Mohun’s credit that he was the first Indian in Modern times to have
started his viewspapers in Bengali, Persian and English “to foster mutual understanding
between the rulers and the ruled” and “to create an effective public opinion against the
misdeeds of both the society and the State.” His Bengali viewspaper was called Sambad
Kaumudi, Persian Viewspaper as Miratual Akhbar and the English Viewspaper as the
Brahmanical Magazine.
Here, it may be observed that in his plea for the Freedom of Press, he was not against
“reasonable restrictions” thereon. It could, for example, be restricted to curb seditious
attempts of creating hostilities with neighboring friendly States. As Ram Mohun relentlessly
pointed out the faults of the government and publicised them in his three viewspapers, he
became “an eyesore” to the Government. His views were not quite pleasing to the
Government and it, therefore, enacted a law restricting the Freedom of Press. He reacted
sharply, and thought the imposed restrictions would result in:
(a) a complete stop on the diffusion of knowledge and the consequent mental improvement;
(b) preventing the natives, who are well-versed in the laws and customs of the British nation,
from communicating to their fellow-subjects a knowledge of the admirable system of
government established by the British and the peculiar excellences of the means they have
adopted for the strict and impartial administration of justice;
(c) preclusion of the nation from making the government readily acquainted with the errors
and injustices that may be committed by executive officers;
(d) preclusion of the natives from communicating frankly and honestly to their Gracious
Sovereign in England and his Council, of real condition of his Majesty’s faithful subjects in
this distant part of the dominion the treatment they experience from the local government;
and
(e) denial to the natives of the opportunity to represent their felt grievances to the government
and to seek their due redressal so that there may never be an occasion for revolution or
insurrection against the government,
He vehemently opposed the restrictions imposed on the Freedom of Press, petitioned to the
Supreme Court against the curbs imposed by the Government, made a brilliant defense of the
Freedom of Press in India, but did not remain alive to see the establishment of a Free Press in
India, for the restrictions were formally withdrawn by Lord William Bentinck in 1835, two
years after Ram Mohun’s demise.
The other important rights for which Ram Mohun fought for included the following:
(a) Right to the equality of sexes;
(b) Right to political participation;
(c) Right to the freedom to form associations including political parties. Ram Mohun was the
first politician of Modern India to form a political party to foster better understanding
between the people of India and their British masters. It was to promote a sort of a two-way
traffic or communication system to enable the people to voice their felt grievances and seek
their redressal and, on the other hand, to let the government respond and convey their views
and reactions. It was only in November 1837, four years after his death that his disciples gave
this party the name of Zamindari Association; This was the first organization in Bengal with a
“distinct political objective.” This Association is widely recognised as an illustrious
predecessor to the Indian National Congress which was founded, some five decades later, in
1885, initially for the fulfillment of the objectives which Ram Mohun had laid down;
(d) Right to warn, disobey, and resist the government in a peaceful and constitutional manner;
(e) Right to trial by Jury;
(f) Right to freely profess, propagate and practice the religion of one’s choice, including the
freedom to defy the commands of the priestly class;
(g) Freedom of the poor peasants from the exploitation of the Zamindars;
(h) Freedom of the tenants against the landlords;
(i) Women’s Right to Property;
(j) Women’s Right to education; and
(b) Widow’s Right to re-marry.
Most of these rights are now an integral part of the Constitution of India.
As the champion of Modern Indian Liberalism, Ram Mohun regarded constitutional
government as “the best guarantor of Indian freedom’’. He was thorough with the politics and
political institutions of India as well as the West. In preference to the feudal rule of the rulers
of Indian Princely States, he was, generally, in favour of the Western type of Parliamentary
Democracy which ensures peoples’ largest participation in their governance. He was also in
favour of the doctrines of the “separation of powers” and the “codification of laws”. He was
also in favour of the revival of the age-old Panchayat system of administration at the
grassroots level.
As an illustrious predecessor of the Indian Liberal Moderates, Ram Mohun not only preferred
the ideal of good government to that of self-government, but also adopted the moderate
politics of “prayer and petition”. He was the first to adopt the constitutional methods of
holding protest meetings, submitting public petitions, and leading delegations to authorities,
writing editorials and articles and thereby mobilising public opinion against the misdeeds of
the ruling class. He also preferred the politics of “gradual improvement” of the condition of
his countrymen because, to him, such improvement alone was lasting and profound.
To Ram Mohun, the purpose of State was Lokshreya, i.e., good of the people in all spheres of
human activity. Consequently, he was not in favour of restricting the sphere of State activity
only to the political field. He rather urged the State to also undertake social, moral and
cultural responsibilities which, otherwise, did not come strictly under the category of political
activity. The State should enact laws to bring about social, religious, educational and
economic reforms not only by prohibiting a variety of maladies which confront the society
but also by creating positive conditions for making life increasingly congenial and
comfortable for the people. It should seek widest Participation of the people in the political
process and maintain closest relationship with them. It should eradicate the ugly practices
like Sati, Devadasi, polygamy, idolatry, dowry and prostitution. It should accord equal
protection to both males and females. It should make arrangements for useful liberal
education. It should protect the tenants against the landlords. Above all, it should make
genuine efforts ‘‘to create a new Social order, based on the principles of Iiberty equality,
fraternity and social justice”. Only by acting in this manner, it would be able to realize the
good of the people, fulfill their cherished aspirations, guarantee their political regeneration,
and ensure free exercise of their rights and duties. To Ram Mohun, the existence of any
government becomes meaningful only if and to the extent it performs all such functions, in
addition to the ones for which it had originated.
LAW AND JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION:
Like Bentham, Ram Mohun regarded law as “the command of the sovereign”. It was
essentially “the creation of passionate reason.”He thus urged the British Parliament to take
into account the views of the economic and intellectual elites of India before finalising each
and every piece of legislation relating to Indians.
Moreover, from his study of Plato, he might have drawn the idea that ‘Law is the expression
of reason without passion”. That is why he opposed assumption of legislative authority by
any servant of the East India Company.
He suggested three specific methods of far-reaching consequence for ensuring, good laws for
India:
i) Freedom of the Press;
ii) Appointment of the Commissions of Enquiry from time to time; and
iii) To ascertain the opinion of the Indian elite, whether intellectuals or the wealthy with
regard to any proposed legislation.
Ram Mohun also had a clear perception of the distinction between law, custom and morality.
He though that the principles of morality were relative to the social realities and any law to
be effective must take into accounts these ethical principles prevalent in a given society.
Ram Mohun also stood for the codification of Law, which he thought, would be in the
interest of both the rulers and the ruled. It should be done on the basis of the principles
common and agreeable to all groups and factions in the society. It should, moreover, be
simple, clear and exact. Such a codification would make “the interpretation of laws more
impersonal and its implication more uniform”.
In his book entitled, An Exposition of the Revenue and Judicial System, he presented
discussion on urgent reforms in administration and judicial matters. He was of the view that
administration could not be efficient and effective, unless there were officials speaking in the
language of the masses. Infact, there should be several channels of communication between
the administration and the people.
To Ram Mohun, “an efficient, impartial and independent judiciary as the supreme guarantee
of liberty’’. He, thus, asked for:
(a) Complete separation of the judiciary from the executive;
(b) Association of the natives in the judicial process as accessors in civil suits;
(c)Trial by jury;
(d)Substitution of English for Persian as the official language to be used in the courts of law;
(e) Judicial interpretation of the Vedas, Shastras and the laws in accordance with the voice of
reason; and
(f) Constant supervision of the judicial proceedings by a vigilant public opinion.
(g) Native Judicial Assessors;
(h) Joint judges;
(i) Regular Public Registers; and
(j) Codes of Civil and Criminal law,
He, thus, suggested several reforms and corrections in the Indian Judicial system, in keeping
with the lofty ideals of political liberation.
ON INTERNATIONAL CO-EXISTENCE;
Ram Mohun had portrayed “a beautiful picture of international- co-existence”. He was
probably the first modern Indian thinker who had “a clear vision of internationalism”, That is
why he has widely been hailed as “the Prophet of Universalism”.
As a prophet of Universalism, Ram Mohun argued that all nations of the world must be
placed “on equal footing in order to achieve global unity and a sense of broad fraternity”. In
his view, various nations, geographical formations, or tribes were nothing but “the branches
of the same family”. As such, he underlined the need of “frequent give and take in all matters
among the enlightened nations of the world”.
He envisaged a universal forum composed of equal number of delegates from each
constituent country, for airing mutual ‘differences’ and for “the settlement of all international
issues”. If issues in which various nations have common interest could be settled on a
universal forum, it would go a long way in enabling mankind “to live in peace for
generations together”.
He was also in favour of the policy of ‘Free Trade’ for he thought it would enlarge India’s
export market. He also wanted the government to encourage the foreigners who used to come
to India to earn trade benefits to settle down in India itself, so that the wealth earned by them
may be re-invested to boost-up Indian economy. Later on, Dadabhai Naroroji had also
subscribed to this view.
Ram Mohun’s ideas on international co-existence proved prophetic. It took first such an
international forum to emerge some eight and-a-half decades after, when the world witnessed
the formation of the League of Nations and another two-and-a-half—decades when its
successor in the form of the United Nations was established in 1945 and which has
contributed its lot to promote the lofty ideal of international co-existence’’ and has survived,
despite serious challenges, during the past fifty-five years and stands, at present, at the
threshold of reformation and reorganization to emerge as a stronger and moral effective
forum to cater to the needs of the 2 1st century.
IN CONCLUSION:
Ram Mohun is widely hailed as the father of Modern India and Modern Indian Liberalism.
He was able to strike a judicious balance between tradition and modernity, between the
ancient Indian and modern Western political principles and practices.
He wanted to create a new Indian social system which is essentially transparent and in which
the principles of tolerance, sympathy, reason, liberty, equality, fraternity and social justice
would be honored. In his heroic attempt, the efforts of individual social reformers and their
collective organizations were supplemented by the official support that the British
Government was urged to provide by enacting appropriate laws.
He subscribed to the liberty of the individual, the rule of law, independence of judiciary,
parliamentary government, and judicial enforcement of rights, as the basic framework for the
polity of his vision.
As an ardent humanist and universalist, he was probably the first Indian to accept and
popularise the idea of international co-existence, as a forum for the expression of views,
discussion of issues and settlement of disputes.
A multi-faceted personality, Roy carried on a relentless crusade against all kinds of injustices
exploitations evil practices and superstitions, including the Sati and the Caste System. He
strove to prove that blind faith and superstitious beliefs and practices had no basis in the
original Hindu religion.
His Brhmno Samaj provided a forum for religious and philosophical contemplation and
discussion. It is through this forum and that of the Amitya Sabha and Vedanta College that he
and his followers and friends undertook a serious review and revaluation of Hinduism vis-a-
vis the other major religions of the world.
Ram Mohun not only clamoured to free Indian women from a series of heinous crimes
perpetrated against them by their men-folk, but also fought for their legitimate rights and
freedoms so that they too may live with dignity and freedom at par with men.
Ram Mohun was not merely the Father of Modern India, Modern Indian Liberal Tradition
and Indian Renaissance, he was also a Vedic Hindu, a Social Reformer, following the path of
social and political involvement, a founder of great religious movements, a true patriot and
forerunner of the Indian Liberal Moderates, as he not only pursued the politics of ‘prayer and
petition’, but also the strategy of ‘gradualism’. in sum, Ram Mohun was a many-sided genius
of modern India.
CHAPTER V
VIVEKANANDA (1863-1902)
Though the saga of Indian Renaissance, with its principal tenets, continues even today, its
underlying notes have been changing from time to time. The underlying note with Raja
Rammohun Roy and Brahmo Samaj was that of reformed but millitant Hinduism. He
attempted to fuse the merits of Christianity and Islam with those of Hinduism. With
Dayananda and Arva Samaj it came to be that of Vedism, which believed in the supreme
infallibility of the Vedas alone. With Vivekananda and Rama Krishna Mission it became
Vedic traditionalism, as he had realised that Vedanta was as much infallible as the Vedas and
asked people to have faith in themselves.
Vivekananda (1863-1902), the Hindu Napoleon, was one of the most influential religious
thinkers of the 19th century India. He was a titantic intellect, who possessed a mystic
consciousness like Plotinus and Spinoza, the messanger of Advita-Vedanta, endowed with a
prophet’s vision, the spiritual guru (teacher) of the world, forerunner of the Bengali militant
nationalism and unparallel social reformer. He was the first Indian who, in the late 19th
century, preached and propagated, throughout the world, the basic philosophy of Hindu
religion. During the World Parliament of Religions at Chicago in September 1893, he gave
his motherland a new self-confidence and restored her lost glory and position of the spiritual
guru of the world. He was neither a political philosopher nor did he propound any new
political principle or concept. Yet, he has carved out for himself a place in the galaxy of
Modern Indian Political Philosophers mainly for two reasons: First, his personality and
teachings exercised great influence on the nationalist movement of Bengal, as his socio-
economic and political views as a whole played a constructive role in the growth of national
consciousness in India, in rallying the Indian people to fight against colonialism. Secondly.
he was one of the first to pay attention to the misfortunes and sufferings of the masses and the
pressing problems of the country. For the purpose. he inspired Indians to fight for their rights
and instilled. in their hearts, confidence in their own spiritual and physical strength.
Vivekananda. whose birth-name was Narendra Nath Dutta, was born in Calcutta on February
12, 1863. He adopted the name of Vivekananda only when he proceeded to America to
participate in the World Parliament of Religions in 1893. His father, Vishwa Nath Dutta. was
a man of deep compassion and sympathy. His mother. Bhuwaneshwari Dcvi, was
exceptionally intelligent and was noted for her calm resignation to the will of God in all
circumstances. He himself was a renowned graduate of Calcutta University. His studies were,
however, not limited to the College curriculum. He studied thoroughly English Literature.
European History, Western Philosophy, Science, Art. Music and Medicine. He read Spencer,
Mill, Kant, Schopenhauer and Comte. Thus, his familiarity with the positive and negative
aspects of the Western civilization encouraged him to adopt and adapt the positive aspects
thereof. Still he was not prepared to abdicate Indian wisdom before the inadequately
assimilated knowledge of the West. He also imposed upon himself the life of an ascetic,
reading Indian philosophy and Indian scriptures and meditating day and night. He was lured
by Vedanta and at this juncture he went to meet his Master, Ramakrishna Paramhansa, who
was to govern the rest of his life. Ultimately, the philosophy of Vedanta, teachings of
Ramakrishna and his own experiences of life, these three sources. combined to influence his
philosophy and mission.
INFLUENCE OF VEDANTA:
The Upanishads which devote completion of the Vedic era and are, therefore, known as I
Vedanta influenced Vivekananda to such an extent that the Vedanta philosophy became the
centre of his principal ideas.
The fundamental proposition of the Vedanta Philosophy is in agreement with the doctrine of
the ancient Upanishads, viz; the atman i.e. our self or our soul is identical with the Brahman,
the All soul. The self, moreover, cannot be anything distinct from Brahma since Brahma
alone exists. Everything that is ascribed to the Brahma, pure, spiritual, natural, omnipresence,
eternity, holds good, for our soul. However, we must look for knowledge in our inner self.
Vivekananda was an apostle of the Advaita Vedanta school of philosophy and belonged to the
tradition of the great commentators on the, Advaita System. He was an advaitist and a
mayawadi, but his reconciling mind added peculiarities to his interpretations.
TEACHINGS OF RAMAKRISHNA:
Ramakrishna Paramhansa (1836-86), one of the greatest saints and mystics of Modern India.
was the acknowledged teacher (Guru) of Vivekananda. Teachings of Ramakrishna exercised
most profound influence on his mind. In fact, the mission of Vivekananda’s life was to put
the teachings of Ramakrishna into practice. The chief object of Ramakrishna’s discourses was
the realisation of God, attainable only by the development of high spiritual life. This was
possible only when people discard the desire for material prosperity (Vishaya-Vaasanaa) and
lure for women and gold (Kamini-Kanchan) and turn all their actions and thoughts towards
God.
Ramakrishna also believed that all religions of the world were true and, if pursued properly,
would lead to salvation. This unique synthesis of different religions of the world was
expressed by him in four simple words “Yata mat tala path”. To him every religion was a path
of salvation. He further said, “as water is called by different names in different languages. so
different religions call God by different names like Hari, Shiva. Allah, Christ, but all denote
the same God.” This spirit to tolerance and harmony of different religions, which
Ramakrishna had established by personal test, was the main subject of Vivekananda’s
discourse in the Parliament of Religions.
PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS:
The third source of Vivekananda’s philosophy was his own experience of life. He had lived
an eventful life. His was the many- sided role of Sanyasin, a social reformer, a nationalist and
a revolutionary. He had travelled “throughout the length and breadth of India, from the
Himalayas to the Cape Comorin, mixing with saints and scholars and simple souls alike,
learning from all, teaching to all, and living with all, seeing India as she was and is, on
grasping in its comprehensiveness that vast whole, of which his master’s life and personality
had been a brief and intense epitome”.
His extensive journey gave him the singular advantage of understanding the life and culture
of many important countries of the world and to strip off the illusion about them, He saw
from his own eyes the wretched condition of Indian Masses, compared it with their glorious
past. and set before himself the task of resurrecting them. His philosophy has its roots in life.
It is not merely essentialistic and conceptualistic, but has an existential character.
From the Point of view of his political thinking. his most important books are as follows
i) Lectures from Colombo to Almora:
ii) India and her Problems;
iii) Modern India;
iv) Our duties to the Masses,
v) The evils of. Authoritarianism: and
vi) The East and the West;
The Ramakrishna Mission has published all his writings in eight volumes of the Complete
works of Swami Vivekananda.
CENTRAL CONCEPT OF HIS PHILOSOPHY:
Like Vedanta. the central concept of Vivekananda’s philosophy is ‘Brahma” who alone is
real. In his own words. the whole universe is one in the self which is called ‘Brahma’. That
self when it appears behind the universe is called ‘God’. The same self when it appears
behind this little universe, the body, is the soul.... Universal self which is beyond the
universal modifications of ‘Prakriti’ is what is called Isvara, the Supreme Ruler, God. Isvara
alone is the creator, sustainer and destroyer of the world and its destiny. But, the Vedantic
Brahman accepted by Vivekananda is neither the concrete absolute of Hegel nor the
‘Shoonya’ of the Madhyamikas nor the ‘Alyavijnana’ of the Yogacaras. It resembles, to some
extent, the ‘Tathata’ of Asva-ghosa but the difference is that the latter (Asvaghosa) is not very
emphatic on the mystical perception of the ‘Tathata.’
The creative genius of Vivekananda lies in modifying the classical doctrine of Vedanta. He
refused to believe that Vedanta is merely theoretical but held that ‘the Vedanta as religion
must be intensely practical”. He did not agree with the view that Vedanta teaches quietism
and renunciation. He did not also reconcile himself to the view of individual salvation when
the rest of humanity groaned and sighed in the misery and held that “Vedanta could be
practised in this very world.”
Two points deserve mention here. One is that though spirituality is dominent in the
philosophy of Vivekananda, yet it is mingled with humanitarianism. So much so that
spirituality is believed to be incomplete and futile without humanitarian activity. The second
point is that Vedanta is an instrument for regenerating and revitalising India by making the
masses strong and self-reliant.
Thus, in the philosophy of Vivekanda, contemplation and action, ‘Nirvikalpa Samadhi‘and
humanitarian — activity, God and the World, are synthesized. Individual salvation and social
service run parallel to each other. That is why. Vivekananda recognised Brahman as the only
Truth and called him Sachchidananda Brahman i.e. truth. knowledge and bliss.
He became a messenger of this ultimate Truth and strove to translate it into reality. His
Advait-Vadanta or none-dualistic Vedanta had three principal foundations:
1. Man’s real nature is divine. Man is not merely body, mind and intelligence. He also has the
spiritual force called the soul or Atma within him. His Soul is. infact. the unexpressed form
of Brahman. The Brahman, the Parmatma residing in the form of Atma or soul is outside the
parameters of body and mind. It is the essence of God and that is why it is immortal and has
all those qualities which are attributed to Brahman.
2. The purpose of man’s life is the realization of this divine power. He, however, tried to
provide this divine force a real social framework, when he said: “if von cannot worship your
fellowmen who are the expressed form of God, how can you worship God who remains and
would remain unexpressed. The fellowmen you see, you hear. you can touch and feel, his
presence should be the first object of your worship, not the God, who is formless and
unknown.
3. The purpose of all the religions is the same. They all teach us One True God who resides
within us in the form of our soul, which is as benevolent as God himself and which leads and
encourages everyone to live the life of love and service. Religion, therefore, is the cementing
force and, if so, how can it be used as a divisive force to divide followers of one religion
from another and generate animosity amongst them. In this way, Vedanta gives mankind the
message of love for and service of the world.
For the realization of this Brahman, Vivekananda considers the synthesis of knowledge,
devotion and action as essential. He declared that the message of India for the world is the
message of Vedanta. It demands us to have faith not only in ourselves but also in everyone
else. By following this path, man becomes brave as well as pious.
Vivekananda believed that man’s intelligence begins with Duaita-vaada or dualism, evolves
into special non-dualism (Vishishtha-Advaitism) and culminates into Advait Vaada (perfect
non-dualism). He thus, asks the people who subscribe to polytheism (worship of man gods)
to reject polytheism and to worship one specific God of there choice .He expected them to
believe in One True God who is formless and omnipresent. This is the spiritual message
which India has for the world and on the basis of which India can once again attain the
position and status for the spiritual guru of the world.
CONCEPT OF RELIGION:
By the term religion. Vivekananda did not mean the creeds or rituals, but the fundamentals of
Hindu religion. To him, religion was neither word nor doctrine: it was realisation. He gave a
popular exposition of this in his talk on Hinduism in the World Parliament of Religions. He
applied his philosophic religious principles to the affairs of every day life. He regarded
Vedanta as a source and guiding principle of personal and collective life as well as a factor of
civilization and laid emphasis on the fact that we shall seek salvation, not so much in the
traditional way, by renouncing the world and taking to the life of a recluse, as by serving the
God in man. He pointed out certain historical facts to prove that Vedanta was a practical
philosophy in the past. The best parts of Vedanta were not the outcome of meditation in the
forest, but were thoughtout and expressed by brains which were busiest in the day-to-day
affairs of life.
The central ideal of Vivekananda’s, Vedanta Philosophy is Oneness. There are no two in
anything, no two lives. There is but one life, one world, one existence, everything is that one,
the difference is in degree and not in kind, it teaches us to have faith in ourselves. And to talk
of having faith in oneself is not an impossible and impractical demand but rather a feasible
and practical proposition. Faith in self means faith in all, because all are one. It inspires the
individual by saying that “your are that” satchit-ananda, not the small, miserable being that
you ingnorantly think yourself to be. Yourself is the universal self that is one with all things
and beings. Think of yourself as the birthless, the deathless, the blissful, the omniscient, the
omnipotent, ever glorious soul. Think on it day and night till the thought enters into your
flesh and blood, and you have a vision of the Atma as Brahrna. Here, you realise your real
self as none other than Brahma itself. With this realisation there comes a total transformation
of your life and your activities.
Vivekananda’s vedanta teaches us to find God in our selves and worship him accordingly It
asks us to see God in everything and as every thing. Another practical aspect of
Vivekananda’s Neo-Vedantism is not mere tolerance but the acceptance of other forms of
worship. We should see others with eves of love and sympathy knowing that they are going
along the same path that we ourselves have trodden So his .4dvaita not only tolerates but
accepts and respects other religions of the world as but different paths that lead to the same
goal. God.
To Vivekananda, Vedanta was a universal religion. He believed that the waxing and waning
of India was based on the growth and expansion of her religion. He pointed out that India’s
religious disunity. rather than diversity, constituted a grave menace to national unity. He was
of the view that the process of reforming religious sects in India suffered from schismatic
outlook and prevented the growth of national unity. Therefore, he felt that religious conflicts
must give place to diversity in unit. “The one common ground that we have is our sacred
tradition, our religion. This is the only common ground, and upon that we shall have to
build.” In Europe, political ideas form national unity. In Asia, religious ideals form national
unity. The unity in religion. therefore, is absolutely necessary as the first condition of the
future of India. To achieve national unity, he devised the concept of common religion.
According to Vivekananda. recognition of common religion was absolutely essential for
India’s unity. He visualized a common religion which incorporates the common principles of
diverse religious sects. Religious unity could be achieved by accepting Truth from all sects.
He conceded that the religious sects may retain their identity but they should not threaten
national unity. He denounced sectarianism but not sects. His concept of common religion is
based on equality of sects and co-ordination of faiths. Thus. Vivekananda wanted to
strengthen the nation by infusing unity between the “brain of a Brahmin” and the “heart of a
Buddhist”, the Islamic body and the Vedanta brain, and an European society with India’s
religion. Thus, his concept of common religion provides for religious synthesis which is
inclusive and lasting.
THE UNIVERSAL FORM OF HINDUISM:
To Vivekananda, Hinduism did not mean the cluster of obscure cults and ritualistic
superstitions, orthodox dogmas and primitive ceremonialism. II signified. to him, a body of
moral and spiritual injunctions and primordial super-termporal laws for the uplift of
humanity. He analysed Hinduism as an universal gospel of ethical humanism and spiritual
idealism, which in turn, according to V.P.Varma. represent philosophic intellect of Nyaya,
Sankhya and Vedanta; psychic wisdom of the Rajayoga devotional songs of Tulsidas or of the
Alvaras and Nayanars; and also the doctrine of selfless action as enunciated in the Holy Gita.
Reiterating Vivekananda’s argument. V.P. Varma depicts Hinduism as the mother of religions.
The ancient vedic religion influenced Buddhism and the latter was possibly a potent factor in
the rise of Christianity. The older Vedic religion also influenced the religion of Persia and
Media. The reformist ethical movement which began in Judea in the 6th century B.C. was
inspired by some aspects of the Western. Asiatic religions of Persia and India, which the Jews
came to learn during the Babylonish captivity. The researchers of the history of Egypt of
Western Asia are demonstrating the cultural penetration of ancient Indian religion in far-off
lands.
THE CONCEPT OF HISTORY:
History has been interpreted by a plethora of social scientists, philosophers spiritualists and
others For instance it was interpreted in terms of philosophy. spiritualism, cycle, caste, class
etc. Among the modern philosophers, the Vedantists interpreted history by means of H the
theory of cycles. As far as Vivekananda is concerned, he interpreted history in terms of the
cyclical caste rule.
Vivekananda’s concept of history is spiritual, as is his concept of the universe. His concept of
history, marked with philosophic process, helped him in visualising the evolution of the
cyclical rule of the caste system throughout the universe. His generalisation of the rise and
fall of society and replacement of the denigrated caste rule is not only teleological but also
rational and prophetic. An attempt has been made here to interpret Vivekananda’s concept of
history by means of; (1) the theory of evolution of the universe; and (2) social evolution
through the cyclical rule of the caste system.
THEORY OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE:
Vivekananda, in his interpretation of history, was influenced by the Sankhya evolution of the
universe and Patanjali’s “in-filling of nature.” He interpreted the Sankhya evolution of the
rise and fall of the universe in terms of rise and fall of society or caste rule and Patanjali’s
principle in terms of gradual growth of man and society.
Vivekananda’s concept of history is inseparable from the theory of evolution of universe. As
an evolutionist, he believed ‘in cycles”.
Projection and destruction of the universe is an indication of the end 0 one cycle and the
beginning of another Thus, the manifestation or evolution of the universe is a play of
interaction of cause and effect, evolution and involution. Therefore, a study of history
becomes meaningless and purposeless, if it fails to perceive the process of j involvement of
the spirit behind the evolution of the universe. The evolution of the universe is not an end in
itself, it is not final. complete and absolute Its rise is rooted in its fall and the fall in its rise.
As an Advaitin, Vivekananda asserted that the manifestation of the Universe is apparent, but
as a Neo-Vedantin he also believed in the reality of the world, for it is not different from the
absolute. Therefore, Vivekananda did not distinguish the material from the spiritual universe.
According to him, ‘The microcosm must bear testimony to the macrocosm, and the
macrocosm, to the microcosm; physical truth must have its counterpart in the internal world
and the internal world must have its verification outside’’. As the evolution of the universe is
spiritual, human and social evolution is also spiritual. The impact of the absolute is evident
on man and society.
Vivekananda added an important corrective to the theory of evolution largely borrowing from
Patanjali’s filling-in of nature. A mere appearance of life and the struggle for existence would
not exhaust the scope of human or social evolution. His concept of evolution stands for
continuous growth and manifestation of differences either in human or social life. It is a
means for the fulfillment of higher life and freedom. Thus ‘History is essentially the
chronicle of Nara becoming Narottama and finally merging into Narayana.”
Vivekananda’s belief in the spiritual evolution of man made him deny the concept of
biological evolution in social life. Vivekananda accepted the biological principle of struggle
for existence only in the animal world but denied it in society. He pointed out that the
biological struggle is unnatural and unnecessary in the social evolution. He subordinated the
biological theory of evolution to the spiritual evolution of human life and society.
SOCIAL EVOLUTION THROUGH CASTE SYSTEM:
According to Vivekananda, social evolution ensures individual progress, maintains social
unity through caste co-ordination, achieves liberation of the masses form ignorance and
entrusts them with the Opportunity of self-government.
According to Vivekananda, “Caste is a natural order”. He pointed out that society is a
combination of the four groups or castes viz... Brahmins, the Kshatriyas, the Vaishays and the
Shudras. According i him, the four castes “are everywhere present at all times, in all civilised
societies’’ .He was of the view that nature classifies human beings groups or castes on the
basis of predominance of ‘gunas’ in the individual. Human functions are related to the
constitution of human nature, which consists of three gunas - Sattva, Raias and Tamas.The
castes carry on their functions in accordance with their gunas (qualities) or psychological
nature.
Vivekananda was of the view that the caste system is also social in nature. He believed that it
stands for mutual growth and promotes harmonious relations among various castes. He did
not think that, interests of castes are sectional and inimical to each other. Power in society is
not a privilege of any section of society. Therefore, social consent and not coercion is the
moral basis of the authority of caste rule. The social nature of authority acts as a check or
restraint on rule and prevents abuse of power. As long as the ruling caste is conscious of
community interest, it is allowed to rule but when it becomes degenerated, it will be
overthrown by the other castes. The caste rule is identical with the form of government.
According to Vivekananda, “... from a careful study of the history of the world, it appears
that, in conformity with the law of nature, the four castes the Brahmin, the Kshatriya, the
Vaishya; and the Shudra do govern the world in succession.
V.V. Rathna Reddy illustrates Vivekananda’s belief that initially Brahmans predominated as
spiritual mentors and learned leaders society. They were replaced by the Kshatriyas royal
power, promoted urban civilization with paternal love and imperial thrust. Later on the
industrial revolution in England heralded the Vaishya supremacy. Thereafter, democracy
could be identified with the size Shudras which was to bring mass-awakening and progress.
V.P. Varma also emphasizes Vivekananda’s viewpoint by analysing a dialectical tussle
between the Brahmans and the Kshatriyas. As the custodians of a classical, traditional and
customary culture, Brahmans claimed themselves to be the spokesmen of customs, traditions,
conventions and institutionalized patterns of behaviour. The Kshatriyas, on the other hand,
stood for radical liberalism. They represented “the rising, fetter-destroying impulses of the
nation and were defiant and impulsive in their outlook.” Rama and Krishna had also
belonged to the Kshatriya aristocracy. Buddha, too, was the champion of a Kshatriya
reaction. Kumania, Sankara and Ramanuja, oil the other hand, tried to re-establish priestly
power. but failed. These dialectical historical changes and transformations were the result of
social antagonism and struggles between the Kshatriyas and the Brahmins us.
But the advant of the Muslim power and establishment of the foreign British Rule shattered
all the hopes and designs of their ascendancy. This sociological characterization of Indian
history is partly Marxist and partly comparable to the theory of Vilfredo Pareto. It is Marxist
in the sense that it accepts that the Brahmins and the kshatriyas engaged in the never-ending
process of exploitation of masses. Vivekananda’s thesis is comparable to that of Pareto
because he also simultaneously sponsors the notion of conflict among rival ruling classes or
“circulation of the elite’’ as Pareto would say. Thus, it may be stated that according to
Vivekananda there are two social trends in Indian society. One is the struggle for supremacy
among the Brahmans and the Kshatriyas, with occasional interludes when these sections
collaborated, and second, the unremitting exploitation of the masses through the ritualism of
the priests and the sword of the Kshatriyas.
THE SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY OF VIVEKANANDA:
THE CONCEPT OF SPIRITUAL EQUALITY:
The Vedantic concept of equality or oneness helped Vivekananda in developing his concept
of socialism and humanism. His concept of socialism postulated class-co-operation kind
unity and his humanism sought identify of man with God and attempts to serve humanity
with the spirit of love and worship. The concept of unity runs through his socialism and
humanism. Socialism is only a means and the end is growth of humanism. Equality is only
the beginning of individual life and the end is the realisation of universal oneness. He
denounced privileges and discrimination in any form, either in individual thinking or social
existence. He regarded inequality to be the bane of human life and source of all bondage,
physical, mental and spiritual. As a matter of fact, his concept of equality bears the impress of
his spiritual thinking, which lays emphasis on the gradual growth of individual and implies
the existence of human inequalities or differences.
By equality Vivekananda did not mean any particular formal aspect like the social, the
economic or the political. He was concerned only with the process and not with the form of
equality. Vivekananda’s belief in the gradual growth of individual saved him from insisting
on either absolute human equality or inequality. He perceived that inequality is natural,
beneficial and creative. He also affirmed that inequality i not eternal and absolute. He
justified the individual aspiration for and also the necessity of struggle to limit inequality.
His belief in human inequality is based on Sankhya, Patanjali’s “ in-filling of nature” and the
doctrine of Karma, while his belief in Vedanta led him in proclaim equality of human beings.
SANKHYA AND INEQUALITY:
Sankhya points out the struggle between homogeneity and differentiation and believes in the
disturbance of equilibrium. Belief ii the disturbance of equilibrium convinced Vivekananda
not to affirm either absolute human equality or inequality. He believed in the, rationality and
inevitability of both inequality and equality. The Sankhya psychological analysis of human
nature also points to human inequalities. Differences exist among individuals, because they
are differentiated by gunas or qualities. Sattva, Raias and Tamas. Accordingly V P Varma
finds him rationalising the four Varna divisions .As in accordance with the inherent qualities
a Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra are present in e man mud at times one or the other
quality predominates in him. The fourfold differentiation of social order also represents these
gunas or qualities. The Brahmin priest stands for the rule of knowledge and the advancement
of the senses .The Kshatriya stands for order. The Vaishya represents commerce and helps in
the dissemination of knowledge through trade. The Shudra represents the triumph of equality.
This harmony of knowledge, protection, economic activities and equality was revered by
Vivekananda. But, finding this consummation difficult of realization, every order seeks to
concentrate power in its own hands. And, that leads to degeneration. Vivekananda rebelled
against oppressions and repressions practiced by the so-called upper castes.
PATANJALI AND SPIRITUAL EVOLUTION:
Vivekananda’s equivocal views on human inequality may also be traced to his faith in the
spiritual evolution of man. He also believed in Patanjali’s ‘in-filling of nature” which points
out one species being changed into another by the infilling of nature. Accepting Patanjali’s
views. Vivekananda maintained that differences between man and man are due to the
manifestation of spiritual growth. However, the difference is in the degree only. The impact
of Patanjali’s “in-filling of nature” made Vivekananda’s concept of equality creative and
positive. Vivekananda’s laid emphasis on individual initiative, liberty and equal opportunity.
KARMA AND INEQUALITY:
Vivekananda’s belief in the ‘‘in-filling of nature” led him to the doctrine of Karma, the law of
cause and effect, in individual as well as social life. The law of Karma points out the
individual differentiation. Karma stands for individual growth and freedom. The fall of
individual and society depends on their acts of omission and commission. Vivekananda
pointed out that slavery of India was due to the neglect of masses and that we should blame
ourselves for our misery. degradation. slavery and inequality. Social and religious orthodoxy
created inequalities among time people and, in turn, India became a slave. Therefore. both the
individual and the society must look from within to find out inequalities in society and try to
eliminate them. Inequality disappears when man and society think that all are one and of time
same nature as Vedanta proclaims.
THE VEDANTIC EQUALITY:
Vedanta stands for spiritual equality of man. According to Vivekananda. equality is a spiritual
necessity of life to realise universal oneness. As a Vedantin, he firmly believed that all life is
one. The life and existence of an individual is not separate, distinct and independent form that
of others. As all individuals are sparks of the same Divine Force of Entity. all are free, equal
and one. The Vedantic spirit of oneness makes the individual identify himself with the
community and serve it with a service motive without any personal gain. “the individual’s
life is in time life of the whole, the individual’s happiness is in the happiness of the whole”.
It may be said that Vivekananda laid emphasis on social unity for socio-economic uplift of
the people. He was of the view that mere unity in society is fictitious unless it is accompanied
by the desire to uplift the down-trodden. The desire to uplift others becomes well- established
only when the lower self of the individual is erased and community consciousness gets
promoted. The individual must think that the collective self is inclusive of the individuals
self.
Vivekananda held that social unity was to be maintained by Iden1j and love. Social unity
becomes real only when privileges are rooted out and equality and freedom get promoted.
Hence. Vivekananda visualises socialism for the establishment of a just society, based on
equality, unity and love.
VIVEKANANDA’S SOCIALISM:
Vivekananda wanted to materialise the Advaitic concept of unity in the social and political
life. He believed that by the process of unity, a just and harmonious society could be
established. He was convinced that socialism could establish a just society by eliminating
inequalities through the spirit of love and social oneness. His concept of socialism postulated
the social theory of class co-operation and unity. Vivekananda found in socialism the key to
social unity and economic justice. It is only the principle of justice, social, economic and
political that inspired him to proclaim himself a socialist. “I am a socialist not because I think
it is a perfect system, but half a loaf is better than no bread”. He made the prophetic remark
that “Everything goes to show that socialism or some form of rule by the people, call it what
you will, is coming on the boards, which pleads for the restoration of the original caste
system for performing socialistic functions of society. It also visualizes a just economy based
on individual self-restraint which leads to equitable distribution of wealth”.
SPIRITUAL BASIS OF SOCIALISM:
Vivekananda was of the view that social and political ideals and. institutions were not eternal
and they would face decay and death, if they failed to adapt to changing conditions and
circumstances. As far as India was concerned, he made it clear that religion took precedence
over politics. He proclaimed that his “mission is to show that religion is everything and in
everything”. He declared that religion was not in books and observance of social rituals but in
the realisation of spiritual oneness in social life. Accordingly, he postulated his socialism on
the spiritual basis of social unity with its concomitants of freedom and equality.
The Vedantic concept of unity, which postulates freedom and. equality, encouraged
Vivekananda to espouse socialism. He thought that Vedanta is conducive to the efflorescence
of socialism. Both Socialism and Vedanta aim at human equality, freedom and unity and both
advocate the upliftment and liberation of the masses from social. political and economic
bondage and exploitation. Vedanta made Vivekananda a liberal at heart and a socialist in
content. He reconciled the liberal idea of freedom with the socialist fascination for equality
hrougl1 the spirit of oneness and love of Vedanta. Vivekananda improved socialism by
emphasising the modesty and necessity of the liberals, concept of individual freedom and
improved liberalism by infusing into it the concept of just economy based on equitable
distribution of wealth. As a liberal, he realised the existence of human inequalities and classes
and as a socialist he advocated class unity.
SOCIAL THEORY OF CLASSES:
All socialists affirm the existence of classes in society but they differ on the issue of class
contradictions, as did Vivekananda, On the basis of the Sankhya analysis of human nature, he
believed in class differences and also advocated class-unity, with the authority of Vedanta.
His concept of society is based on unity in variety.
Class differences in society are inseparable from human nature. Vivekananda, on the basis of
the Sankhya analysis of human nature, conceived of the existence of human inequalities.
Human inequalities imply the existence of classes and class differences in society.
Vivekananda regarded the difference to be essential for the creativity of the universe. Class
differences exist as long as creation lasts.
However, human inequality is not eternal, absolute and immutable, for human nature is based
on change, of rising from one guna to another. Man by improving his nature overcomes in
qualities. Therefore, fluctuations in human nature from the predominance of one guna over
another defy classification of man into classes on a rigid and perpetual basis. As such, the
position of class is not eternal and class relations are not antagonistic to one another.
Vivekananda visualized only the existence of class differences, but not the contradictions. His
concept of society is based on unity and contradictions from within. He pointed out that
progress comes through Struggle as a result of interaction between the internal world.
Vivekananda could not conceive of class contradictions in society. A class required the help
of the other classes for the maintenance and productivity of society. When there are no class
contradictions, there is no need to insist on class antagonism and class-annihilation. Class is
not an end in itself in society. He believed in the unity of cause and effect, ends and means,
and emphasised that ends and means are interchangeable and inseparable and that the ends
never justify the means
VEDANTA AND CLASS UNITY:
Class unity depends on the concept of society and society, to Vivekananda, is organic. He
believed that unit in society is natural because classes by nature are social and not
antagonistic. As he a votary of social unity. it was natural for him to visualise class Therefore,
to Vivekananda, society is neither a class institution nor “ committee for managing the
common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie,”. as pointed out in the Communist Manifesto.
Unity in society is not a social or political divide to keep class differences under control, but
a spontaneous social and spiritual necessity. Vivekananda visualised social unity on the basis
of Vedanta which teaches the oneness of life and oneness of everything. The Vedantic ethics
of love and identity made Vivekananda believe class-co-operation and unity. The Vedantic
ethics postulates social unity and abolishes the motive of exploitation of individual by
individual and of class by another class. It points out that the individual, by injuring his
neighbour, injures himself and so also the class by exploiting the other class exploits itself
and stuns its own growth, for all life is one. Therefore, class exploitation is self-destructive.
Even on rational grounds the individual has to sacrifice his lower interests for the higher
interests of the community. Similarly, the interests of a class are not higher than that of the
society and the existence of a class is not an end in itself. Class exists not only for itself but
also, for others. Thus, Vivekananda, instead of preaching class morality and class
consciousness, preached social morality and unity and identity of class interest.
VARNA AND SOCIALISM:
Vivekananda’s concept of class co-operation is consistent with his defence of Varna system as
a socialistic institution. He looked upon Varna system as a glorious social institution and as
the basis of Indian society. The Varna system as a socialistic institution promotes individual
liberty and equality of opportunity. It is “the expression of urge towards justice”. It reconciles
individual good with social good and individual liberty with social equality and harmony. It
may be said that caste system is individualistic in nature and socialistic in functions. It is
individualistic in the sense that it encourages freedom of the group to maintain its affairs and
socialistic in the sense that each group thinks that it is a part of the community and co-
operates with other groups for economic prosperity and social harmony of the community.
The individual is responsible to his Varna and the Varna offers individual welfare and growth.
Therefore, for material prosperity, social equality and spiritual unity, Varna system is
indispensable to society. Vivekananda visualised an ideal state on the basis of Varna system.
if it is possible to form a State in which the knowledge of the priest- period, the culture of the
military, the distributive spirit of the commercial, and the ideal of equality of the last can all
be kept intact, minus their evils. It would then be an ideal State.”
Despite Vivekananda’s fascination for the system, he was critical of its functioning. He
noticed that it had degenerated into a hereditary caste which bred social narrowness and
exclusiveness. To rectify injustice done to the lower classes, he advocated the levelling up of
castes by education. He pointed out that “the only way to bring about the levelling of caste is
to appropriate the culture, and the education which are the strength of higher castes”. The
process of levelling up of castes guarantees equality of opportunity to all castes and fosters
the spirit of equality and unity among the castes.
He warned not to “set up class-strife between the poor peasants, the labouring people and the
wealthy classes.” He was of the view that “none can hate others without degenerating
himself” He expected the rich to help the peasants and labouring classes to regain their
vitality. Vivekananda noticed that the establishment of a socialist society was not the
individual effort of the proletarian only but the joint effort of all classes.
V.P. Varma finds two trends in Vivekananda in his furious and inspired moments. He talks of
a radical doing away of the caste. But at other times, specially in his addresses to
conservative audiences, he wanted to inculcate only the philosophy of social organic growth.
Actually, these are not contradicting trends, but indicate that although Vivekananda was
tremendously hostile to the social oppressiveness of the caste and the honours perpetrated in
its name, as a concrete measure of immediate social programme he was content with teaching
evolutionary growth towards perfection.
MASS EDUCATION:
Vivekananda believed that the establishment of socialism was to be preceded by mass
awakening through education. He pinned his faith in mass education, sacred and secular, and
pleaded for the restoration of their lost individuality. He was of the view that once the masses
are educated. they would become conscious of their rights, improve their abilities, establish
their government and solve the problems of society. He pointed out that if the masses arc
educated by the middle class, they would remain grateful to them.
Vivekananda‘s approach towards the masses was creative and democratic. As mass
awakening was to be gradual and peaceful, the ushering of a socialist society was to be
achieved by peaceful means. His socialism thus stands for self-reliance and self-rule of the
masses.
SYNTHESIS OF SPIRITUALISM & MATERIALISM:
Vivekananda’s concern for the poor made him assert the importance of materialism “Material
civilization nay even luxury is necessary to create work for the poor. Bread! Bread! I do not
believe in a God, who cannot give me bread here, giving maternal bliss in heaven!” .He
supported the enjoyment of material life because he hated poverty and also placed
spiritualism above materialism for he knew the limitations of a materialistic society.
He used the Marxian language that the “gold standard has been making the poor poorer and
rich richer”. Thus, he noted the shortcomings of Western material life and industrialised
society and he wanted to correct the craze for materialism by putting emphasis on
spiritualism.
According to Vivekananda, the success of just economy depends on individual contentment
which results from restraint from within. Economic self-restraint is in the interest of
individual and also community. The individual has to transcend his mundane desires for a
higher pursuit of life, namely, search for reality. Individual must seek not attachment to
economy but freedom from it. Individual self- restraint leads to equitable distribution of
wealth in society.
Self-restraint inculcates the spirit of renunciation and service. Vivekanand’s emphasis on
renunciation and service “may be equated with mutual social aid.” His concept of
renunciation and service replaces unrestrained competitive economy be co-operative
economy. As economy is based on self-restraint, it is self-sufficient, ethical and altruistic. It
abolishes competition and promotes co-operation. Thus, Vivekananda’s concept of economy
is not exploitative. It is not based on profit motive but on service. Equitable distribution of
wealth is to be achieved not by force but by consent and voluntary limitation of wants by
individual. This type of socialism exalts the virtue of self abnegation. It appeals to the rich to
share their wealth with the poor voluntarily on spiritual considerations. It does not seek to
establish socialism through the machinery of the government. It rather aims it creating human
brotherhood based on the ideals of socialism through spiritual awakening.’’
Vivekananda’s economic views, to some extent, are similar to those of Gandhi and Nehru.
Gandhi pointed out, “Civilisation, 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”. Vivekananda, like
Gandhi, asked the individual to be content with minimum wants. But, unlike Gandhi he did
not glorify or worship poverty. In this respect, his views are nearer to Nehru who hated
poverty and pleaded for multiplication of wants. Like Nehru, Vivekananda wanted enjoyment
of life for the common man and like Gandhi he stood for minimum wants for the man of self-
restraint
Vivekananda was in favour of both rural economy like Gandhi and urban economy like
Nehru. Like Gandhi, he longed for the emergence of New India out of the peasant’s cottage,
grasping the plough; out of the huts of the fishermen, the cobbler and the sweeper”. Like
Nehru, he visualised an industrial India. That was why Vivekananda requested the Americans
to extend scientific and industrial knowledge to India for eradicating poverty. Nevertheless he
held the view that the highly industrialised society was defective and was oblivious of human
values and aspirations. Vivekananda was not content with mere economic progress and social
unity. He made it his mission to unravel the glory of human nature and to manifest divinity in
humanity, Which forms the bedrock of his concept of humanism:
BELIEVER IN MODERATION:
Like Aristotle, Vivekananda was a believer in moderation with regard to social change. He
believed that social customs are the results of the arrangements of society for self-
preservation. But, if these regulations are perpetuated, society may suffer decadence.
Therefore, the way to do away with social regulations is not to destroy them Violently but to
gradually remove the forces which had necessitated the incorporation of custom. In this way,
the social custom will die itself .Mere denunciation and condemnation create unnecessary
social tension and antagonism and are not of much avail. Hence, in place of catalystic radical
changes, Vivekananda stood for organic and slow reform.
OPPOSED TO SOCIAL WESTERNIZATION:
Vivekananda was opposed to social Westernization of India. His argument was 1 do not
condemn the institutions of other r they are good for them, but not for us. With oilier
sciences, other institutions, and other traditions are behind them. They have got their present
system. We, with our traditions, with thousands of years of Karma” behind us, naturally can
only follow our own bent, run in our own grooves, and that we shall have to do.” That is why,
inspite of the sparkle and glitter of Western civilization, in spite of all its polish and its
marvellous manifestation of power, he found it by and large useless.
SYNTHESIS BETWEEN THE EAST AND THE WEST:
Vivekananda did not, however, discard the West altogether, “The West”, he said, “is groaning
under the tyranny of the Shylocks, and the East is groaning under the tyranny of the priests;
each must keep the other in check. Do not think that one alone is to help the world”. He
declared that the East required the knowledge of science and technology as much or as badly
as the West needed the spiritual culture of the East. “Europe. the centre of the manifestation
of material energy, will crumble into dust within fifty years, if she is not mindful to change
her position, to shift her ground and make spirituality the basis of her life. And what will save
Europe is the religion of the Upanishads”. Thus, he worked for a synthesis between the Old
and the New - the East and the West.
VIVEKANANDA AS A HUMANIST:
Vivekananda considered socialism only as a means. His end was to seek and promote human
unity and divinity. As he preached class unity and love, it was natural for him to avow human
unity and uplift. All socialists and humanists believe in human equality and unity. But the
point of difference between a socialist, particularly a Marxist, and a humanist is that a
socialist regards man only as a means to society, while a humanist asserts the resplendent
glory of human nature. Vivekananda, as a humanist regarded man not only as an end in
himself but also held that man is divine by nature. He made it clear “That each man should be
treated not as what he manifests, but as what lie stands for”.
Humanism has been given various interpretations. Nehru advocated “Scientific humanism”.
He pointed out that “There is a growing synthesis between humanism and the scientific spirit,
resulting in a kind of scientific humanism M.N. Roy advocated New Humanism or Integral
Humanism. It maintains that man and the universe are integrated in a law-governed and self-
sufficient consmic system. M.N. Roy in his foreword to Indian‘s own Image wrote that New
Humanism “deduces a humanist social philosophy and positive (non-relative) ethics from a
mechanistic cosmology and a materialist metaphysics (Physical Realism).” Vivekananda’s
humanism may be called Spiritualistic Humanism, or Humanistic Advaita.” The humanistic
Advaita of Vivekananda advocates identify of humanity with divinity. Vivekananda ‘s
humanism defends the purity of human nature, regards man as God, attacks social, economic
and religious evils of society and inculcates faith and strength in the individual. His
spiritualistic assumption of human nature forms the basis of his Advaita.
PURITY OF HUMAN NATURE
Vivekananda, who was inspired and illuminated by the Upanishads, held that human nature is
pure, free and divine. He believed’ every thing that is strong, good and powerful in human
nature, is the outcome of that divinity. As human nature is pure, man is ethical. social and
altruistic. All are free and equal in a humanistic society. A free and equal society stands for
rationalism. By means of rationalism, man corrects his errors and seeks liberation from all
kinds of bondage and ignorance. Rationalism constrains the individual to identify himself
with the community. Thus, Vivekananda’s concept of purity of human nature stands for the
purity of reason also. When rationalism is not properly developed in the individual, equality
and freedom become meaningless. For example, one cannot be content with that kind of
equality where all are equal in bondage, social or political. Therefore, individual rationalism
asserts freedom and equality. Thus, Vivekananda’s concept of the purity of human nature
stands for a free, equal and rational society.
HUMANISTIC ADVAITA
Vivekananda’s assumption of human purity elevates the place of man in society and universe.
He maintained that there was nothing above and beyond man. Vivekananda’s humanism
advocates that man who is an end in himself must also become a means to serve humanity.
Humanity is Vivekananda’s God and social service his religion. Vivekananda was not content
with mere defence of the divinity of human beings. He was also earthly and wanted to
remove the weaknesses of society which impede the growth of humanism.
Vivekananda revolted against the social economic and religious evils which hindered
individual growth and social perfection. He further realised that economic poverty stands in
the way of humanism. As a humanist he declared war on poverty. He regarded poverty as
immoral and un-social. He was for freedom from want. His motto was bread first, religion
afterwards.
Vivekananda. voiced his protest against existing social customs and evils. Verily, ‘True
devotion to the humanistic values demands an uncompromising struggle to transform
conditions which degrade the human personality Vivekananda condemned the hierarchical
caste system and un-touchability which stood as social barriers between man and man. They
prevented the growth of social equality and communion. He also condemned child-marriages.
He believed that the social evils stood in the way of his man-making process.
Vivekananda believed in reason. He subjected even the Vedas to individual reason and
judgment. He felt that book worship leads to dogma fanaticism and elimination of man‘s
rationality .He condemned religious authority and superstitions.
Vivekananda was also critical of the dualistic religion which regards man as an eternal
dependent on God. He felt that it lowers human dignity by inculcating a sense of sin in the
individual .As a Vedantin he condemned the concept of sin Vivekananda pointed out that the
difference between a saint and a sinner is in the degree manifestation of spirituality
Belief in Vedanta made Vivekananda proclaim human equality I and unity He laid emphasis
on unity for social and economic uplift of the people But, mere unity m society is fictitious
unless it is accompanied by the desire to uplift the down-trodden. Therefore, he advocated
Socialism for the establishment of a just society. His concept of Socialism, postulated the
theory of class co-operation and unity. As he preached class unity it was natural for him to
advocate human unity and uplift .Therefore his humanism defends the purity of human nature
regards man as God, attacks social, economic and religious evils and inculcates faith and
strength in the individual. The concept of unity, which runs through his Socialism and
Humanism, also occupies a pivotal place in the technique of social and political activity.
STATE AND INDIVIDUAL:
Like Hegel, Green or Bosanquet, Vivekananda did not propound a systematic theory of the
Slate. He identified state with nation. I wanted to unite the people of India and restore pristine
glory of the nation. His view of the Stale is a logical corollary of Vedanta. The goal of human
life, according to Vedanta, is the attainment of a blissful state of mental and spiritual
realization of the sacred spiritual reality which the society can not undertake to provide.
Every individual will have to tread the path of spiritual discipline by himself. Man is a
member of society and he must, therefore, create conditions conducive to spiritual
development by minimising occasions for conflict and frustration, exploitation and injustice
and maximising opportunities for the exercise of moral virtues. Among the many instruments
which society uses to serve its purpose, the State is perhaps the most important. it promotes
the common economic, intellectual and spiritual interests of the people. It is a means to an
end. It can bring justice, leisure, fairplay, honesty and peace in society. Being only one of the
society’s agents. the State cannot have interest other than the interests of the individuals who
form the society.
THE INDIVIDUAL:
A state is composed of individuals. Vivekananda stressed that noble virtues should be
cultivated by individuals to make the State virtuous. Without virtuous individuals, it is futile
to expect the State being great or prosperous. He thought that this nation depends upon the
qualities and character of its individual members. In the strength of the individuals lies the
strength of the whole nation. So, each individual, he urged, if he desired the good of the State
as a whole, should try, whatever might be his walk of life, to build character and acquire such
virtues as courage, strength and self-respect and hold fast to the national ideals of
renunciation and service.
To the people of India he taught the lessons of self-reliance and self-confidence. These two
important lessons he had learnt from his own experiences in Western countries and from the
Eastern spirit.
I. SELF RELIANCE:
Vivekananda believed that if Indians wanted to solve their problems and to take strides
towards progress they would have to rely on themselves. To him, weakness was the chief
cause of the miseries of Indian people. To preach the gospel of strength in the Nineteenth
Century. to politically prostrate India was of great political significance.
II. SELF-CONFIDENCE:
But, self-reliance could only arise when individuals develop confidence in themselves.
Vivekananda wanted the young men of] to drop their feeling of inferiority and to believe in
themselves. He had correctly diagnosed that the degradation of India was due to the foreign.
rule which had given rise to loss of love for one’s own country and culture. He knew that it
was impossible to create among Indians the spirit of self-reliance and self-confidence,
without making them proud of their nation. He himself was proud of being an Indian. He
wanted. that his fellow countrymen should also acquire that sense of dignity.
THE CONCEPT OF FREEDOM:
Vivekananda’s concept of freedom is spiritualistic. His idea of J freedom is not a mere
concept but a deeper realisation of the eternal Truth According to him freedom is eternal and
infinite inalieneable and immutable. The impact of Upanishads is evident on Vivekananda’s
concept of freedom .He was passionately attached to the Upanishadic ideal of freedom. The
seers of the Upanishads made a deep study of the nature of freedom. They realised that the
universe rises in freedom, rests in freedom and melts away in freedom. Sister Nivedita rightly
pointed out that following the Upanishadic traditions, “He (Vivekananda) preached Mukti
instead of heaven, enlightenment instead of salvation…”
Vivekananda’s concept of freedom can be divided into; (a) spiritual freedom; (b) individual
freedom; (c) social freedom; and (d) economic, freedom. As his concept of freedom is all
inclusive, he pleaded for a synthesis of individual and social freedom as well as material and
spiritual freedom.
SPIRITUAL FREEDOM:
Vivekananda held freedom to be an inherent spiritual necessity for all forms of life, sentient
or insentient. He maintained that freedom is a product of struggle between the internal life
and extent nature. Vivekananda’s assertion of spiritual freedom reveals that freedom is not a
contrivance of society but an inherent possession of the individual. The spiritual nature of
freedom constrained Vivekananda to deny determinism of any kind on the individual
freedom. Therefore, regarding freedom as absolute, Vivekananda condemned the containment
of freedom on any basis.
Vivekananda viewed freedom both in its absolute and relative term. According to him,
absolute freedom is the nature of the soul. He was of the view that absolute freedom is
inseparable from man, either in the absolute or relative sense of the word. Therefore, absolute
freedom should not be regarded as abstract from the viewpoint of Individual and society. The
individual and society must move up to it. political philosophy becomes meaningful only
when it contemplates on and pursues the quest for absolute freedom and applies it to expand
the relative freedom of the individual. Political thinking hitherto is interested only in the
relative freedom, which has been circumstantial, and overlooks the absolute nature of
individual freedom. Political philosophy simply regards man as a social unit and an adjunct
of society and contends that individual growth and freedom is to be decided by society. But,
man is something more than what the political or social thinkers imagined him to be. The
individual is essentially spiritual. Social life is only a part of the individual’s total view of
life. The individual aspires for higher things of life, which society itself cannot provide. The
individual’s fulfillment of life will be made possible only by following the absolute ideal of
freedom. As a matter of fact, society becomes civilised only when it encourages the growth
of the divine from within the individual and enlarges the sphere of individual freedom.
The spiritualistic concept of freedom rules out the competitive freedom among individuals
and stands for altruism. This concept of freedom inculcates individual’s identity with society
and encourages the growth and freedom of all individuals. Freedom is not a product of the
struggle for existence but a spiritual quest for finding the oneness of life. Belief in spiritual
freedom made Vivekananda assert that individual freedom is no threat to social freedom.
INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM:
Vivekananda considered that the relative freedom of individual Was as sacrosanct as absolute
freedom. He wanted to make freedom as natural possession of all individuals. He aspired that
every individual must cultivate a free body, mind and spirit. He defined his concept of
individual freedom as follows: “Liberty does not certainly mean the absence of obstacles in
the path of misappropriation of wealth etc, by you and me, but it is our natural right to be
allowed to use our own body, intelligence or wealth according to our will, without doing any
harm to others...
Vivekananda believed that the individual perfects himself by acting freely and the prefect
individual, in turn, perfects society. The strength and vitality of society depends on individual
initiative freedom. It is for that reason that Vivekananda wanted to encourage individual’s
growth and freedom. Therefore, he disapproved any kind of intervention in individual
freedom. He came to believe that individual growth can never be achieved by the external
pressure of intervention.
“The idea that you can make others grow and help their growth, you can direct and guide
them, always retaining for yourself the freedom of the teacher, is nonsense, a dangerous life
which has retarded growth of millions and millions of human beings in this world. men have
the light of liberty. That is the only condition of growth”.
The individual is to be assisted, and not lorded over, in his for freedom. In other words,
society is to help and not restrain individual freedom. According to Vivekananda, society was
only a social and it should not encroach upon individual freedom. He believed it existed for
individuals not the individuals for it.
RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUALS:
Vivekananda’s belief in freedom led him to advocate the right of individuals in society.
Liberty becomes meaningless without of rights. His faith in the inherent individual freedom
is the basis of his defence of equal rights and opportunities for all individuals manifest their
growth.
He, therefore, did not deny freedom to anyone on any pre He held that freedom should not be
monopolished by any section of society. “Those who say that if the ignorant and the poor be
g liberty, i.e. full right to their body, wealth etc., and if their children have the same
opportunity to better their condition and acquire knowledge as those of the rich and highly
situated, they would become perverse. Do they say this for the good of society or blinded by
their selfishness?” According to Vivekananda, the rights of individuals are natural and
inalienable as freedom is. Among the natural rights of individual, he conceded the right to
liberty, equality, family, freed of thought and property.
Vivekananda’s recognition of natural rights of an individual an end to all kind of privileges in
society and establishes the right individual equality. He condemned the privileges as beneful
tyrannical. He was intolerant of human indignities based on privileges. He felt that the
privileges emaciate individual’s growth i de-humanise people and perpetuate social inequality
and injustice. That is why he lashed at the privileges of the priests and the opulent sections of
society. In the words of S.L.Mukheiee, “...privilege breaking and elimination of all
propitiations constitute the mission of his (Vivekananda) Vedantic freedom in its social
character”. Therefore, lie advocated social equality and in this aspect he was impressed b the
Western society. As Mukherjee remarks: “The ideal of social equality was perhaps the most
important in the list of other merchandise that he (Vivekananda) wanted to import from
America and plant on the Indian soil.”
His concept of the freedom of an individual has a bearing on the problems of the individual’s
relationship with the society. According to Vivekananda, society was only a social agency
and it should not ancroach upon individual freedom. He believed that it existed for the
individual and not the individual for it.
Vivekananda’s concept of individual freedom and society is influenced by the Indian
philosophic thinking. As the seer of Upanishads, Vivekananda attributed divinity to the
individual and not to society and held freedom divine, Vivekananda viewed society as a
social and not a political institution. He held the view that society is nothing but the numbers
of these individuals grouped together...” He considered it as a “Comparative evil”. He also
expressed the view that an individual could live in society, if he wanted, or even without it, if
necessary. His faith in the inherent divinity of the individual made him keep society at an
arm’s length from him. Thus, Vivekananda subordinated society to individual’s growth and
freedom and circumscribed its scope of activity.
However, despite his unbudging regard for individual freedom, Vivekananda did not place
individual’s interests above society. He maintained an organic view of life. He regarded the
individual as social and spiritual and wanted union of individual with the society, and no
separation from it. The individual would serve the society and become one with it not
because of social compulsion but because of his innate promoting of social good as an ethical
obligation. According to Vivekananda, “The individual’s life is in the life of the whole, the
individual’s happiness is in the happiness of the whole...” Exclusiveness is again the nature of
the individual. As the individual believes in Social union, he strives for promotion of the
freedom and welfare of all.
Thus, to Vivekananda, the interests of the individual and the Society are not incompatible. As
a Vedantin, he identified individual’s interests with those of the society. To a believer in
Advita Vedanta, “there does not arise any need for bringing about a synthesis between the
individual and the society, because if the individual knows his real nature, the conflict
between the two is automatically resolves.” Vivekananda wanted to weaken neither the
sphere of the activity of society nor the freedom of the individual. He believed that the life of
the individual is inseparable from society. He pointed out Man is individual at the same time
universal. It is while realising our individual nature that we realise even our national and
universal nature.”
SOCIAL FREEDOM:
The implication of social freedom is that individual freedom is closely related to social
freedom. Vivekananda pointed out that None deserves liberty who is not ready to give liberty
Vivekananda was critical of the invidious social restrictions and excrescencies that hinder the
individual initiative and also the social growth and wanted to weed them out. He suggested
that for proper growth, society must cultivate as assimilative outlook and receive new ideal
from other communities. In other words, he meant by social liberty growth-oriented social
life based on individual freedom and equality.
Vivekananda believed that social uplift could be achieved by coordinating social liberty with
social equality. He regarded liberty and equality not as exclusive terms but as complementary
to each other. Social liberty encourages and ought to encourage social equality and unity. He
pointed out that “Being of one mind is the secret of society”. He admonished society to raise
the chandala to the level of a Brahman He was emphatic that even “if there is inequality in
nature, still there must be equal chance for all - if greater for some and for some less- the
weaker should be given more chance than the strong”. He demanded that the society should
spend more on the education oft poor than on the rich and the intelligent. As a matter of f
Vivekananda’s insistence on social liberty and equality proved to be a severe jolt to the
authoritarian outlook of the Indian society.
ATTACK ON SOCIAL DETERMINISM:
Vivekananda’s defence of individual rights, attack on social religious privileges and his
concept of social liberty and equality appear inconsistent with social determination. It may be
said at the outset that Vivekananda’s criticism of society was a reaction against the Indian
society in general and its totalitarian attitude in particular. He noticed that “Our motherland is
a glowing example of the results and consequences of the eternal subjection of the individual
to society and forced self-sacrifice by dint of discipline and institution”.
The Indian society dabbled in all matters of individual’s social life. Religious orthodoxy and
social hegemony regimented the individual life and freedom. As a result, the society became
dictatorial and static. Therefore, Vivekananda pointed Out that ours was a cramped society
and attacked its social rigidity. The society maintained Kitchen room religion’s practised
“touch me notism” and enforced caste hierarchy. He was of the view that the Modern caste
distinction is a barrier to India’s progress, it narrows, restricts, and separates. It will crumble
before the advance of ideals. The society also prescribed social communion from within and
from without. Thus, social determinism checkmated the individual and social growth. It was
against this social rigidity that Vivekananda reacted with vehemence. He scoffed at the
bounds of society, held high individual freedom and endeavoured to free individual from
social tyranny.
SOCIAL SYNTHESIS:
Vivekananda was not satisfied with mere denunciation of the authoritarian outlook of the
society, he also encouraged it to cultivate a liberal and assimilative outlook and learn things
from others. He believed that social synthesis would ensure the proper growth of society. The
process of social synthesis is the offshoot of the struggle between the forces of internal
reaction and external pressure of progressive forces. It may be said in the Hegelean
terminology that social reaction is the thesis, social liberty the antithesis and social
assimilation and exchange of knowledge the synthesis.
As far as India was concerned, Vivekananda wanted to make it dynamic by evolving the
process of social synthesis. For example, he Wanted “A new India with Vedantic brain and
Moslem body”, Vedantic freedom and Islamic equality. He pointed out that the social liberty
of the West and the spiritual liberty of the East stood one-sided and Strongly advocated the
fusion of ‘a European society with India’s Spiritual religion”. Further, with glowing
optimism, he visualised an Ideal society for India based on the synthesis of ideas and
institutions. I Would say, the combination of the Greek mind represented by the external
European energy added to the Hindu spirituality would be an ideal society for India.”
Vivekananda, however, stood for social accommodation, co-operation and mutuality, while
Marx preached the gospel of social antagonism, tension. Struggle, contradiction and even
war, According to V.P. Varma, “in modern India today what is needed is not the call to a
violent social revolution, nor can the country be satisfied with the concept of slow evolution
as propounded by Vivekananda. Necessary social changes effectuated by democratic means is
the need of hour.”
ECONOMIC FREEDOM:
By economic freedom, Vivekananda meant freedom from want. He rightly realised that
poverty has been a hindrance to individual freedom. He noticed that the material freedom and
the individual happiness are inter-related. He was aware “that there are child-like men in
every society who require a certain amount of experience, of enjoyment ….”He frankly
admitted that “All the members of a society ought to have the same opportunity for obtaining
wealth, education or knowledge.” Material possessions imply the right to property and
Vivekananda recognised it as the natural right of the individual. But, his concept of economic
freedom is not based on exploitative and acquisitive instinct of the individual, It is altruistic
and ethical.
It is a truism that economic freedom results in economic inequalities. As individual abilities
differ, economic inequalities do come into existence. The glaring economic inequalities exist
only when equal opportunities are denied to the individual. Vivekananda’s economic
freedom, which stands for equal economic opportunities, reduces economic disparities. As
Vivekananda‘s individual is ethical, it is not exploitative and acquisitive. The individual
uplifts himself by sacrificing his thirst for the pleasures of life, accumulation of wealth, and
service’ of the society.
As the quest of the individual is for higher spiritual freedom, the individual would not utilise
his economic advantage or gradation to stoop low to exploit the other individuals. Instead, he
would restrain his economic wants to hasten his quest for spiritual freedom. It is. noteworthy
that Vivekananda did not advise the individual to give up his material wants. He enjoined the
individual to enjoy wealth in the name of the Lord.
That is to say, the individual can enjoy his wealth but at the same time he must use it for
social welfare with the spirit of religious service. Thus to Vivekananda,”Wealth is for
distribution” .Wealth is, therefore, not only personal but also social in purpose. This strand of
thought of Vivekananda is identical with the Gandhian theory of trusteeship, which
emphasises that property is personal as well as social. for it is to be used for social good.
Vivekananda conceded the satisfaction of materialistic needs not only from the view point of
the individual but also from that of society. He looked at the necessity of economic life from
the view point of spiritualism. He pointed out that for the maintenance of society, Dharma,
social and economic, is to be performed and the individual and society must perform worldly
activity.
He did not recommend the abandonment of society for Moksha, freedom, by one and all. He
was clear that renunciation is for the few. it must be remembered that to Vivekananda
performance of selfless activity, either social or economic, is also a path to Moksha. In other
words, selfless activity is consistent with the spiritual pursuit of life.
Vivekananda’s views on the fulfillment of basic economic needs of life and performance of
social-economic dharma are consistent with the Hindu scheme of social organisation, namely,
Purushartha (the four-fold objects of life), Ashram Dharma (four-fold successive stages of
life), and Varnashrama Dharma (fourfold order of society).
While expounding Karma Yoga, Vivekananda lauded the life of an ideal house-holder.
According to Vivekananda. the house-holder is the proprietor, the basis of the whole society.
He pointed out that it is a very difficult task to be a house holder and perform all his social,
economic and spiritual obligations properly. The maintenance of family, social and spiritual
life depends on his material pursuits. According to him, “A house holder who does not
struggle to get wealth is immoral. If he is lazy and content to lead an idle life, he is immoral,
because upon him depend hundreds. If he gets riches, hundreds of others will be thereby
supported.” Thus, the pursuit of material life by the individual is not a deviation from his
spiritual path. It brings him nearer to the spiritual freedom.
The Vedantic outlook of Vivekananda makes it clear that he does not prescribe poverty for
one and all and does not deify poverty. He recommended the pursuit of material life in the
interest of common man and consolidation of the socio-economic organisation of society. He
believed that proper performance of socio-economic duties hasten the spiritual growth of
both the individual and the society.
SYNTHESIS OF SPIRITUAL FREEDOM AND MATERIALISM:
Vivekananda considered matter and spirit to be one and the same As such, pursuit of material
life fulfills spiritual freedom. In case of conflict between the material and spiritual life, he
preferred the former. He pointed out; “I do not believe in a God, who cannot give me bread
here, giving me eternal bliss in heaven”. Vivekananda echoed his master when he said that “it
is an insult to the starving people to offer them religion; it is an insult to a starving man to
teach him metaphysics.”
Therefore, Vivekananda laid emphasis on the enjoyment of material life by child-like
individuals which ultimately would lead to the growth of spiritual freedom. He also noticed
that the spread of religion among people depends on economic prospects and promises that it
holds. Thus, Vivekananda wanted to base the organisation of society on a synthesis of
material and spiritual life. This synthesis has been called “dignified materialism”. It can also
be described as “Sublimated Spiritualism.”
Vivekananda’s concept of freedom is spiritual. He considered freedom indispensable for the
spiritual growth of the individual. He denied determinism of any kind on individual freedom
His concept of freedom has a bearing on individual s relations with society He subordinated
society to the individual’s growth and circumscribed its scope of activity. But, this does not
mean that he was for an individualistic way of life. Instead, he held life as organic and
identified the individual growth and circumscribed its scope of activity. The individual
expands his freedom by promoting the freedom of others. Thus, individual freedom ‘is
closely related to social freedom. Vivekananda wanted not merely social synthesis but also
stood for economic freedom to improve the living conditions of the masses. He was of the
view that pursuit of material life fulfils spiritualism. Thus, Vivekananda’s concept of freedom
is all-inclusive. It stands for a synthesis of individual freedom with social freedom, as well as
material freedom with spiritual freedom.
SELF GOVERNMENT:
There are many forms of Government: Monarchy, Aristocracy, Oligarchy and Democracy
Vivekananda favoured democracy and condemned monarchy. He found monarchy
incompatible with individual liberty .He also detested aristocracy denouncing it as the
tyranny of minority.
Vivekananda stood for the democratic form of government. He believed that self-government
would be a good government for any country. But his good government is that government
which gives ample opportunities for the moral, mental and material development to its
individuals. Neither he favoured the parliamentary government of the Westminster model nor
did he like the monopolistic Presidential American pattern. He, in fact, stood for spiritual
democracy, i.e. a government based on the teachings of the Upanishads. He concluded that
“when the government of a country is guided by the codes of laws enjoined by the Shastras
which are the outcome of knowledge inspired by the divine genius of great sages, such a
government must lead to the unbroken welfare of the rich and the poor, the wise a the
ignorant, the king and the subjects alike.”
Besides, he found democracy in complete conformity with Indian traditions. He said that ‘the
voice of the ruled in the government of their land - which is the watchword of the modern
Western world and of which the last expression has been echoed with a thundering voice in
the Declaration of American Government, in the words: “That the government of the people
of this country must be by the people and for the good of the people” - cannot however be
said to have been totally unrecognised in Ancient India.
Vivekananda regarded self-government as a training school for individuals. Popular
intelligence and virtue were its most valuable results. Since it is based on the general
principle of equality, it is likely to promote justice and love for the nation.
FULFILLMENT OF DUTIES:
Vivekananda’ accorded priority to the fulfillment of one’s duties Vis-a-vis the struggle for
rights. He wanted every individual and every group of individuals to honestly and willingly
fulfill its duties and obligations, without an eye on its results, in the spirit of Gita’s Nishkama
Karma or selfless action. To him, the dignity of man consists not in the struggle for his rights
as in the performance of his duties willingly and voluntarily without any fear or favour. If one
continues to perform Ins duties in the spirit of selflessness, he would for sure get his
Corresponding rights sooner or later. If every Indian inculcates in himself the Spirit of
patriotism and respect and love for everything Swadeshi or indigeneous, alien rule would
come to an end some day.
NATIONALISM:
Vivekananda’s writings and lectures have contributed a great deal to the strengthening of the
moral foundations of Indian nationalism in theory and practice. He is acclaimed as the
spiritual father of Bengal nationalism, Both Lala Lajpat Rai and Subhas Chandra Bose have
testified to the role of as the hero-prophet of Bengal nationalism. As a nationalist,
Vivekananda stood for the spiritual renaissance of India; supported India’s spiritual
nationalism; and established his place as a patriot of the patriots, by identifying himself with
the masses of India with the religious spirit of oneness.
THE SPIRITUAL RENAISSANCE OF INDIA:
Vivekananda revived India’s spiritual legacy and made it pervade all activities of national
life. As the leading exponent of the spiritual renaissance of India. Vivekananda pioneered the
past and present, traditionalism and modernism to mould modern India’s future. The eternity
of the Vedas, the strength of the Upanishads, the compassion of the Buddha and the spirit of
equality of Islam found a sonorous echo in him in representing India’ renaissance. He
proclaimed that an Aryan, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a dualist and a non-dualist Hindu were all
Indians who inherited and enriched India’s spiritual legacy.
Vivekananda ejaculated India’s self-respect and rejuvenated faith in her spiritual glory and
unity. He urged his compatriots to disseminate her spiritual truths to the high and the low and
expand her national institutions. By invoking the national ethos and touching the chords of
her spirituality, he vindicated India’s spiritual unity and freedom more spontaneously and
effectively than his social and religious contemporaries. None of the earlier Indian reformers
had conceived the idea of common nation on grounds of spirituality.
SPIRITUAL NATIONALISM:
Vivekananda was of the view that enslaved India could be liberated neither by social reform
nor by political means but only by religious revival. He also reminded the social reformers
that her religious teachers maintained social dynamism by weeding out social evils, without
attacking her national institutions and beliefs. Therefore, he believed that the remedy for
India’s degradation was not social reform but religion which encouraged individual and
national growth.
Vivekananda accepted religion not only as the backbone of society but also as the central
theme of national life. He observed that in India political power, economic superiority or
prudential cunning had never been the basis of society. He believed that though different
countries have their different aims in national life, India’s national life is half heated without
adopting religion as the pivotal thread in nation’s life. This he expressed most beautifully in
the following words: Indent leave in India. religious life forms the centre, the keynote of the
whole music of national life; and if any nation attempts to throw off its national vitality, the
direction which has become its own through the transmission of centuries - that nation dies, if
its succeeds in the attempt. And. therefore, if on succeed in the attempt to throw off your
religion and take up either politics or society or any other thing as your centre, as the vitality
of your national life, the result will be that you will become extinct. To prevent this you must
make all and everything work through that vitality of your religion.
Obviously Vivekananda did not rule out the possibility of religious aspirations of the people
in India’s national life. He did not talk of imposition, but of supposition that people will fail
to go ahead without adopting the best religious values. It was his mission to revise the eternal
teachings of the Vedas and the Upanishads to strengthen the nation’s growth and faith in its
individuality.
He pointed out that the Upanishads blazoned out freedom and fearlessness. He viewed the
prevalent mood of national weakness was not only anti-national but also anti-religious.
Therefore, he flooded India with the Vedantic message of strength, fearlessness and freedom.
He held that India would become dynamic and strong by cultivating faith in her Vedanta. the
impersonal religion.
PROPOUNDER THE PATRIOTISM:
Vivekananda preached patriotism. The more he knew of India, the more he loved India.
Patriotism was not a vision or faith for him but a fervid feeling of identity with India’s
oneness and its masses. It was the fruit of an inward feeling, urge and growth. He heard the
voice of India, discussed it, mediated on it and knelt before it with repute and became one
with it. Again, it was his innate love for India that restrained him from condemning its age-
old institutions, for they served India well and their utility was not to be judged from the
present standards. In other words, he wanted a receptive and retentive India. The traditional
past of India illummated him, the present reflected her degradation backoned him to remould
the future of India and even the world, which was afflicted with materialism, on a firm basis
of spiritual unity of mankind. Vivekananda held the view that pursuit of spirituality was not
only in India’s interest but it was also the impending necessity for the Western world. As
such, he wanted India to deluge the world with the message of her spirituality.
INTERNATIONALISM:
Vivekananda’s nationalism paved the way for his international outlook. He considered
nationalism and internationalism as interdependent. According to Vivekananda, national
growth and expansion depends on cultivating international outlook. He expressed the view
that nations become dynamic and harmonious by assimilating knowledge, scientific and
spiritual. Therefore, he postulated his internationalism on mutual exchange of knowledge
among nations and advocated union of nations on a spiritual basis. In other words, he
regarded internationalism as a cultural and spiritual necessity for nations to find fulfillment of
national ideals and realisation of universal oneness.
He postulated his internationalism on the basis of: (1) existence of national diversities; (2)
fostering mutual contacts and exchange of knowledge; and (3) asserting India’s spiritual
leadership of the world.
Vivekanand’s international outlook was moulded partly by his reaction against India’s
degradation, partly by his experience of life in the West, but mainly by Vedanta. Vivekananda
traced India’s back wardness degradation and slavery to the narrow and exclusive outlook of
the Indians. The Indians falsely believed in the superiority of their culture and civilisation and
refused to come into contact with other countries on the basis of equality.
The caste taboos prevented the intellectuals from going abroad. Thus, India’s growth was
retarded due to the caste system. However the advent of British rule marked a change in the
outlook of the nation and the course of its history. Vivekananda thanked Britain for expelling
India’s inactivity and narrow-mindedness.
Vivekananda’s own experience of life in the East and the West showed him the imperative of
internationalism. He advocated assimilation of knowledge for national growth and
international understanding. He wanted to bring the East and the West together by the
exchange of scientific and spiritual knowledge. He pointed out that the West which had
developed conquest of external nature was in need of spirituality. On the other hand, India,
which adhered to spirituality, must learn scientific knowledge from the West.
The concept of the unity of the world even on material and spiritual grounds was a reality to
Vivekananda As he proclaimed:
“To my mind, if modern science is proving anything again and again, it is this that we are one
mentally, spiritually, and physically. Science is bringing the world together and accelerating
universal unity. He pointed out that “The old lines of demarcation and differentiation are
vanishing rapidly. Electricity and steam power are placing the different parts of the world in
inter-communion with each other...”
Besides science, Vivekanand’s faith in international unity was also strengthened by Vedanta.
The Vedantic concept of love and universal oneness captivated his heart. He believed that
Vedanta postulates good neighbourliness and common brotherhood.
He wanted to strengthen international understanding among the people by encouraging
mutual cultural contacts. He himself undertook the task of bringing the peoples of the world
together by establishing. mutual contacts and exchange of knowledge. He approached
America and Britain with the spirit of brotherhood and with an open mind. He appreciated
the social organisation of the West which was based on liberty and awakening of the masses
and taught spirituality to it. He also wanted India to become West’s equal by imparting her
spiritual knowledge to the West.
Vivekananda’s spiritual campaign in the West restrengthened his faith in India’s mission of
spreading spirituality abroad. The West was active and receptive to India’s spirituality.
According to Vivekananda, “This must be our foreign policy, preaching the truths of our
Shastras to the nations of the world.” He believed that it was the historic mission of India to
lead the countries of the world to spiritual unity.
It should be noted that Vivekananda put faith only in India’s spiritual leadership to unite
mankind. In matters of scientific knowledge, he advised his countrymen to learn from the
West. He wanted every nation to act as a teacher where it can and a pupil where it must, to
widen the spheres of knowledge. He was for all-round progress and perfection of the human
race. Following the thought of Vivekananda, Romain Rolland advised Europe to meet Asia:
“She is working for us. We are working for her. Europe and Asia are two halves of the soul.”
Thus, Vivekananda’s internationalism grew out of his nationalism. He maintained neither the
supremacy of nationalism at the cost of internationalism nor of internationalism at the cost of
national individuality. What he wanted was not the subordination of the one to the other, but
only coordination and even identity of nations on the basis of spiritual unity. The unity of the
world was crystal clear to him on scientific and spiritual basis. He hoped that, in due course,
inter nationalism would become a way of religious life on the part of individuals and nations.
Growth of internationalism depends on the extent of awakening of humanity to the spiritual
concept of universal oneness.
TECHNIQUE OF ACTIVITY:
Vivekananda’s concept of equality, which stands for class-unity and identity of humanity with
divinity, led him to devise the technique of social and political activity. He envisaged it to
hasten the individual and social growth. His technique of activity postulates (a) The unity of
ends and means; (b) The imperative of individual’s initiative in social reform; (c) The
necessity of mass-awakening, and (d) The right to resistance as moral and spiritual necessity.
UNITY OF ENDS AND MEANS:
Vivekananda’s views on ends and means are thoroughly influenced by Indian metaphysical
thinking. The Sankhya theory of cause and effect helped him visualise the inevitable
following of the end by the means.
The ultimate end for Vivekananda was the good of all. He advocated that man must strive for
this end even to the point of sacrificing himself. The means adopted to realise this ultimate
end must also be worthy of that end. He did not believe in Machiavellian dictum that the end
justifies the means”. For him, means and ends are inseparable. Vivekananda realised that the
means project and perfect the end and the end is manifested in the means. Thus ends and
means are inseparable.
He regarded individual as an end in himself and wanted him to become a means to serve
society. It is only when the individual and social interests are identical, social growth and
unity would be possib1e That is the individual thinks of the interests of the community and
the latter too aims at the individual growth No individual and community can make progress
and perfect social unity without knowing the inalienability of ends and means. As a matter of
fact, social growth and unity depend on the unity of ends and means, as ends and means were
identical and harmonious.
SOCIAL REFORM AND INDIVIDUAL INITIATIVE:
His perspective of the unity of ends and means made it easier for him to correct social evils in
a unique way. He regarded reforms not as an end in itself but only as means for the removal
of hindrances to
individual growth and social freedom. Mere removal of evil makes no change in the
individual and social life. This is to be substituted by encouraging the individual and the
community to think and act independently. Vivekananda pointed out the necessity of
removing the cause first, which would automatically be followed by the removal of the
effect.
Vivekananda was against forcible reforms by legislation. He stood for the policy of non-
intervention in matters of social reform. He made it clear that reforms must be based on
individual and social initiative. He believed that social change should be acceptable to the
community. He was of the view that people must realise the necessity of reform, and the
demand for reform must also come from them; individual enlightenment is the starting point
of reform.
Marx had stressed the need of an organized proletarian party for bringing about socialist
revolution. Vivekananda, on the other hand, wanted to train individual workers for the social
amelioration of India. His humanistic ethics and positivisitc interests of the Comtean type
were revealed in the fact that he energized the solitary individualistic and meditative
members of the Sanyasa Ashrama into an active philanthropic society. The fundamental
difference between the Vedantic Socialism of Vivekananda and Marxism is that although the
former stressed the reformation of society, the latter had put greater stress on the elevation of
human consciousness to the level of divinity. Marx was a great realist and a dialectical
materialist and would even go for violent social revolution. The basic premise of Marxism is
that it is not essentially a ‘morally-transforming set of doctrines in the sense in which
Platonism, Vedantism, Buddhism or Hegelianism are. It had come as a reaction. He wanted to
eliminate, by violent techniques, the contradictions of bourgeois capitalism but made no
attempt to solve the deeper psychological, psychopathological, inner tension-generating,
alienation problems of man. The spiritually rooted sociological doctrines of Vivekananda,
with their stress on the cultivation of purity and fraternity, have been the restatement of the
perennial philosophy of justice, love and universal compassion.
MASS AWAKENING THROUGH POSITIVE EUUCATION
Vivekanand believed that social evil is due to ignorance. Ignorance hinders individual and
social growth. He pointed out that ignorance is to be dispelled by education. Here, abolition
of social evil by legislation is only negative. Vivekananda’s insistence on education not only
remove social evils but also individual creativity to correct evils in Vivekananda, though
outwardly a reformer, was in his own essentially a social revolutionary. He wanted to usher a
veritable revolution in individual and social thinking by rne2ns of education,
To Vivekananda, education is not the amount of information that is put into our brain and
runs right there, undigested, all our life. I. held that we must have life-building, man-making,
character-building assimilation of ideas. Vivekananda stressed the comprehensive nature of
education According to him it should aim at character-building physical culture, cultivation
of arts, study of humanities, with special reference to Indian culture, and scientific and
technological training. He advocated “Gurukula system of Education”. Purity, thirst for
knowledge, perseverance, faith, humility, submission and veneration are some of the
conditions which he thought were necessary for the student. Regarding the education of
women, he laid special emphasis upon chastity and fearlessness. For women, he conceived an
ideal institution known as “Matha”, with a. school attached to it, in which religious
scriptures, literature, Sanskrit, grammar and English would be taught. To uplift the masses, he
considered, spiritual and secular education as necessary. The whole idea of education was
summed up by Vivekananda as “the manifestation of divinity in man.”
Vivekananda’s insistence on mass education made him an awakener of the masses. He
believed that the masses should be uplifted and awakened by selfless activity. His concept of
mass-awakening is of considerable political significance. He was aware of the political
impact of mass liberation. The result of mass awakening was clear to him both from
experience and insight. Mass awakening has the repercussion of establishing a democratic
society and government ensuing liberty equality and opportunity and rights for all to grow
into their manhood. As a defender of mass liberation, he pleaded for the restoration of their
lost individuality. He was quite sure of the rise of democracy and socialism, which was to be
piloted by the masses. He realised that India’s freedom was linked up with the awakening of
the masses.
CONCEPTS OF RESISTANCE AND NON-RESISTANCE:
Vivekananda devised the concept of resistance from the point of individual growth, strength
and freedom. He also assumed that non-resistance was the highest virtue or ideal. To right the
wrongs of society, social and political thinkers pleaded either for individual resistance or non-
resistance. But, Vivekananda justified both resistance and non-resistance as moral on the part
of the individual. He recommended resistance from the social and political point of view and
non-resistance from that of the spiritual. He considered non resistance to be the end and
resistance the means - a view which seems preposterous but. infact, is not so when
considered dispassionately from the graded moral growth of the individual life. Individual
resistance, whether social or political, is only a means to cultivate the highest ideal of non-
resistance.
Vivekananda’s theory of non-resistance is based on the teachings of the Upanishads. It stands
for fearlessness and strength and is identical with the Upanishaedic doctrine of strength. His
concept of strength includes the physical, intellectual and spiritual aspects of life. He hated
weakness in any form, for weakness leads to individual misery and slavery. Strength is the
creed and policy of Vivekananda for surrounding weakness. But his concept of strength is the
very opposite of the theory of the survival of the fittest. According to him, might is irrational
and valid only in the animal world. In the higher world of reason and spirit, strength is
identical with non-resistance. Vivekananda believed that the concept of strength is more
expressive and positive than the concept of non-resistance. Similarly, Vivekananda, who held
high the ideal of non-resistance, did not prescribe it for one and all. He was aware of human
weaknesses and gradations and encouraged the weak to resist injustice. He believed that by
means of resistance, an individual improves his morality, cultivates the spirit of strength and
reaches the ideal of non-resistance. The weak becomes brave and moral only by offering
resistance. Therefore, resistance and non-resistance are not contradictory, one leads to
another.
The impact of liberalism is also evident in Vivekananda’s defence of individual resistance. As
a liberal, he championed individual faith and reason and resisted dogmas, either religious or
social. He freed the individual from the tyranny of credulity and religious superstition,
condemned obedience to social evils and social conformism. He placed the rights of man
above society and glorified individual freedom against Social obsequiousness.
On the basis of Vivekananda’s philosophic speculation and experience and impression of
India, it may be said that he had contemplated a revolution. To him, India was weak and
inactive. It could be awakened only by activity and activity meant resistance or strength. His
repetitive and emphatic utterances on strength became the gospel for the nation to seek its
own light and find freedom. In the words of Dr. V.P. Varma, “His concept of strength and
fearlessness”, imply the theory of resistance. He was merciless in his attack on weakness and
wanted India to become strong or lose their freedom for ever. As India was weak, she was
justified in offering resistance to the alien rule.
As a theorist and teacher. Vivekananda has given to the country the ideal of fearlessness and
strength. The outstanding legacy of Vivekananda was that the reconciled life and religion. He
sometimes gave a rational, almost pragmatic, definition of religion: ‘Strength is religion’.
He, thus. advocated that the strength of a nation was in its masses and they became strong by
education. Vivekananda’s concept of strength and fearlessness became the spiritual armoury
of Gandhi to fight against alien tyranny by means of non-violent resistance.
RESISTANCE: VIVEKANANDA & GANDHI:
To Vivekananda, resistance of the weak and non-resistance of the brave is only a degree of
moral graduation. He believed that resistance is only a means to cultivate the highest ideal of
non-resistance. Spiritual growth is incomplete in the individual who conceives resistance and
is at its apex in the man of non-resistance. Vivekananda commanded the weak to resist only
in order to improve his moral and spiritual growth. The strong individual, who is above good
and bad, pleasure and pain, must practice non-resistance. Vivekananda pointed out that the
brave must practice non-resistance as he would commit sin by yielding to resistance.
Like Vivekananda, Gandhi distinguished resistance of the weak from that of the brave. He
permitted violence in case of the weak who cannot practice non-violent resistance. The
Gandhian theory of non violent resistance makes the distinction between the good and the
bad and believes in converting the wrong-doer by voluntary suffering or sacrifice. He
believed that non-violence is not only the weapon of the saint but also of the common man.
He wanted the brave to resist non violently as he alone can defy death with goodwill for the
sake of truth. The man of non-violent resistance follows the command of inner conscience,
commands righteous indignation and refuses to submit to evil, tyranny and injustice.
Gandhi’s Satyagrahi is conscious of social interests, religious values and offers non-violent
resistance to maintain a just society. There is only a degree of difference of growth between
non-violent resistance of Gandhi and lion-resistance of Vivekananda. Non violence and non-
resistance are of evolutionary growth in individual and social life. Violence is the early phase
of life, non-violent resistance is the higher phase and the highest is non-resistance. Violence
is for the animal life, non-violent resistance for the common man’s social and political life
and non-resistance for the spiritually developed individual.
Gandhi’s Satyagrahi wants to right the wrongs of society by soul-force. He is egoistic and
wants society to follow his view-point and his knowledge of the things of the society he lives
in, is not absolute. He himself is conditioned by the environment of the society, attached to it
and his spiritual growth is incomplete. Gandhi wanted the individual to perfect society by
non-violent resistance, while the man of non-resistance wants the individual and society to
perfect their growth without outside intervention or dictation.
As non-violent resistance pins faith in the change of heart of the evil-doer, non-resistance
also believes that the man of non-violent resistance will be veered to the reality of the
inevitable non-resistance. The social individual, who practices non-violent resistance,
becomes spiritual by cultivating non-violent resistance. Thus, Satyagraha or non-violent
resistance is a via media between violent resistance and spiritual non-resistance. It is above
the weak who offers violent resistance and below the ideal of non-resistance.
Non-violent resistance is creative from the aspect of society and non-resistance stands for the
man-making process. Gandhi’s Satyagrahi is in the phase of ‘Becoming’ and Vivekananda’s
non-resistant individual is himself the ‘Being’, who is already free from the social nexus.
Thus, Vivekananda’s technique of social and political activity maintains that selfless activity
is social and spiritual. It is indispensable to the growth of the individual and society. He
considered activity as an end and also a means in the individual and social life. His right
perspective of the unity of ends and means lead him to correct social evils in a constructive
way. As a prophet of the masses, he asserted that their liberation is based on education. He
also eulogised resistance to make the individual moral and spiritual. In other words, his faith
in the individual as an end and advocacy of mass liberation made him become an avowed
democrat. His technique of social and political activity is intended to make the masses self-
reliant.
IN CONCLUSION:
Vivekananda appeared on the scene when India was at the cross roads of these two
diametrically opposite ideals. His triumph at the Parliament of Religions in 1893 awakened a
new sense of dignity and confidence among the people of India. Indians, for the first time,
began to feel that they were superior to the Westerners at least in the sphere of philosophy
and spiritual attainments. His philosophy can be summed up more distinctly in the following
manner:
A) All religions are good. The same truths are found in every religion, and the good and
virtuous men have been produced by every creed. Therefore, it is needless to leave one’s own
religion to embrace another. People belonging to different religions of the world must
assimilate the spirit of others and yet preserve their own individuality and grow according to
the law of growth of their own religion. He pleaded for one universal religion, without any
sect, creed, dogma, name or stamp, and made it the basis of Universal love and brotherhood.
B) God is manifested in the whole world, in all living beings, in all incarnations. He is
impersonal, unknowable and non-moral.
C) Western civilisation is materialistic, selfish and sensual. It is like a peal of laughter, but
underneath it is a veil. It ends in a sob. The fun and frivolity are all on the surface but in
reality it is full of tragic intensity and its influence is most seriously degrading to the Hindu
society. Hindu civilization, since it springs from the oldest and the noblest of religions, is
virtuous and spiritual in every part. The criticism of foreign scholars was erroneous and
everything that the missionaries had to say on the subject was wickedly slanderous. Every
particle of Hinduism is valuable and must be retained.
D) India is a spiritual nation. Therefore, social reform has to be preached in India by showing
how much more spiritual a life, the new system of will-being, and politics has to be preached
to establish that the nation wants its spirituality back. So, every improvement in India
requires, first of all, an upheaval in religion. Before flooding India with socialistic or political
ideas, the first work that demands our attention is that the most wonderful truths confined in
our Upanishads, in our scriptures and Puranas, must be brought out and disseminated.
E) Caste-distinctions, trampling on women, and poverty of the masses are the chief causes of
social and national degradation of India and any programme of reformation must aim at
eradicating poverty, giving higher status to women and ennobling the caste system.
F) Socialism of education, equal distribution and the teaching of Advaita (monism) can
remove all the evils which are eating into the vitals of Indian society. Because the poor, the
ignorant and the sinners all need the strength and nothing gives as much of strength as the
idea of Advaita (monism). Education will ultimately create a strong public opinion resulting
in suitable legislation; and equal distribution will lift the yoke from shoulder to shoulder.
Vivekananda’s contribution to Indian Renaissance is immensely rich. He laid the foundation
of New India to be born in the twentieth century. His Neo-Vedantism spread like burning
alcohol in the veins of intoxicated India. The new nationalist school which developed under
the leadership of Tilak; Bikini Chandra Pal and Aurobindo Ghosh had a common basis of
thought in Vivekananda’s Neo-Vedantisrn.
Vivekananda’s message was adopted by Tilak, Pal and Aurobindo who paved the way for the
rise of new nationalism in which religion, in its highest and purest form, played an important
part. All of them were against Utilitarianism. They. instead stressed spiritual freedom,
nationalism synthesized with international orientations and incorporation of moral-spiritual
values in the social and political structure. Tilak, Pal, Aurobindo, Ramatirtha and almost all
the great men of India in the twentieth century were inspired by him.
Gandhi was also deeply influenced by Vivekananda. He based his political activities on Truth
and non-violence, which are nothing but the essence of true religion. It was his appeal to the
religious sentiments of the people which made the Indian National Congress a mass
movement.
If the generation that followed saw, three years after the death of Vivekananda, the revolt of
Bengal as the prelude to the great movement of Tilak and Gandhi; if India took part in the
collective action of organised masses, it was due to the initial shock given by the mighty
message of Vivekananda.
Nevertheless, there are certain charges levelled against Vivekananda, which may be
enumerated as follows:
a. There is a lack of adequate empirical substantiation in the philosophy of Vivekananda. The
empirical political scientist of the West will not find in Vivekananda Aristotle’s systematic
treatment of the various forms of government and the causes of revolutions. He would miss
the quest for methodological foundations of politics as in Hobbes. He would not discover an
original theory of jurisprudence comparable to the system Austin. He would fail to gel a close
analytical reasoning like t” of Green into the bases of political obligation.
b. Vivekananda’s writings are not marked by logical precision. There is an endless play with
the words like “Hindu Unity”, “Indian Nationalism”, “Poverty”, “Ignorance” and
“degradation”.
c. Vivekananda’s approach is somewhat negative. He criticises the West for materialism and
the East for orthodoxy and advocate the synthesis of the two for the betterment of humanity.
But he does not give us any clear cut programme of social and political regeneration.
d. Vivekananda presents a monistic view of the Universe but I believe in the pluralistic view
of social life, based on the four varnas. To monism, there is only one basis, reality or truth in
Universe; to pluralism, on the other and, there are many which constitute the world.
Vivekananda is, therefore, said t, base failed to reconcile social pluralism with metaphysical
rnonism, i.e. social inequality based on caste system ‘with ultimate reality.
It may, however, be remembered that Vivekananda was not social scientist or a lawyer. He
was a saint and, like Mazzini, a prophet of inspired nationalism. His greatness lay in a
different direction. He was an intellectual prodigy and a great orator. He had a penetration
both into the Vedantic scriptures and European philosophy. He did not merely repeat the
sayings of ancient religious scriptures nor did he reiterate the formulas of Spencer, Mill,
Hegel and Green, but made an earnest endeavour to strike a synthesis between Hindu
spirituality and Western technology, and between the ideas of Vedanta and social realizations
of the West. His chief merit lay in building a philosophy on the basis of Eastern and Western
political idealisms. He wanted to preserve the past of India by reconstructing it and it was in
him that the Hindu renaissance reached a fuller more self-conscious and adolescent stage For
years to come he would be revered as a great patriot, prophet and philosopher.
CHAPTER VI
MAHATMA GANDHI (1869-1948)
The universally acknowledged “Apostle of Truth and Nonviolence” and the Father of Indian
Nation. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born on October 2, 1869, in Porbandar
(Sudamapuri), Kathiawad, Gujarat, to Karamchand Gandhi (alias Kaba Gandhi) and Putlibai.
Kaba Gandhi was the Diwan (Prime Minister) successively of Porbandar, Rajkot and
Vankaner and Putlibai was a deeply religious lady. Born in a relatively poor family,
Mohandas Gandhi had his early school education first at Porbandar and then at Rajkot. For
his law education, he went to the Temple Inn of England. He was married at a fairly early age
of thirteen to Kasturba who, though illiterate, was a very simple, independent, reticent and
devoted person.
In terms of his multifarious contribution both at home and abroad, Gandhi has variously been
hailed as a Liberal Political Philosopher, Philosopher of the Politics of Peaceful Protest,
Philosopher of the Politics of Nonviolent Social Integration, Political Agitator par excellence,
Dramatist of the art of Life, Politician among Saints and Saint among Politicians, Bania in
Politics, Great Social Reformer, Symbol of Hindu-Muslim and Brahmin-Shudra Unity,
Emancipator of Women, an Idealist and yet a Man of Action (a Karmayogin), the greatest
Journalist of his Age, and a synthesiser of the East and the West and of Tradition and
Modernity of the order of his illustrious predecessor, Ram Mohun Roy.
In the political field, Gandhi’s pre-occupation included the liberation of the coloured people
of South Africa from the yoke of apartheid, freedom of India from the alien British Rule and
the native feudal rule, and, of cource, the spiritualization and secularization of politics. He
also upheld the lofty ideals of Democracy Spiritualism and Secularism. Rule of Law, and
Independence and Impartiality of Judiciary, and the sacred principles of Justice, Liberty,
Equality and Fraternity. As a political thinker, Gandhi, had his own distinguished place in
Modern Indian Liberal Political Thought. On the basis of his informal as well as formal study
of the political ideas of his Eastern and Western contemporaries and their illustrious
predecessors, he was able not only to analyse and evaluate their doctrines, principles and
practices, but also ventured to adapt them to changing times and circumstances. At times, by
synthesising their apparently divergent view-points, he came up with his own alternatives
which were so autonomous.
Though in the traditional sense of the term, Gandhi was not a political thinker, whether by
nature, education, training or experience, he did write a large number of articles, and even
long series of articles, pamphlets and booklets, expressing his considered views on a variety
of questions of local, national and international significance. Most of them he had himself
published in his four successive views-papers called Indian opinion, Young India, Sarvodaya
and Harijan. He had also authored some independent works like The Green Pamphet, Hind
Swaraj, Satyagraha In South Africa and his partial autobiography called The Story of My
Experiments with Truth. All the available writings of Gandhi have been chronologically
arranged and published by the Government of India into 100 Volumes called The collected
Works of Mahatma Gandhi. Of these works, Hind Swaraj, though written in 1909, contained
his critique of Western civilization, culture, society and state and his evaluation of the Eastern
and Western ideas, institutions, traditions and practices.
Here, it is significant to point out that Gandhi had thoroughly studied the Dialogues of Plato
and translated them into Gujrati, as Satyavir ki Katha for the benefit of his fellow-Gujjus. He
was deeply influenced by Plato’s dialoguic way of expressing his ideas which he, too,
thought was the best understood and safest way of expressing his own views, without having
to reveal his identity and, thus, conveniently escape the possibility of identification and
possible consequences. By the way, this is the only work of Gandhi written in the dialoguic
form, as some characters ask questions and Gandhi, as editor, answers them. Again, it is the
only book which is highly dialoguic and synthesised. The questions highlighted in this book
reflect the merits and demerits of the modern Western Civilization and the form, content and
working of the Western society and State, the appalling condition of India, the motives and
consequences of the partition of Bengal, the congress and its workers, violence versus non-
violence, significance of the strategy of Nonviolent Direct Action (Satyagraha) and what
ought to be the kind of Swaraj which India should aspire for and how to get it, without
bloodshed or large scale destruction of property. The ideas Gandhi expressed in Hind Swaraj
kept on evolving and changing according to the changing times and circumstances.
In this chapter, the topics which have been dealt with include the impact of the West on
Gandhi, his critique of the West, his concepts of Human Nature, Swaraj, Sarvodaya,
Satyagraha, Swadeshi, Political Obligation, Trusteeship, Bread labour, Ends and Means and
Religion and Politics, besides his humanism and internationalism which project him
essentially a political thinker of his own kind.
IMPACT OF THE WEST
Gandhi’s thinking was deeply influenced by thy West. The most prominent sources of
western influence on Gandhi included the following:
1. Jesus Christ, Christianity and the essentially non-conformist Christian priests;
2. British Idealists. Majoritarians, Minoritarians, Contractualists and Vegetarian thinkers;
3. Eminent Greek Classical philosophers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle;
4. American Civil Resistors and Liberal Democrats:
5. The Russian Pacifist, Leo Tolstoy;
6. The French contractualist, Rousseau; and
7. Gandhi’s own encounters with the Western political ideals, traditions, systems, procedures
and practices.
INFLUENCE OF CHRIST, CHRISTIANITY AND NON CONFORMIST CHRISTIAN
PRIESTS:
Jesus Christ and the ethical ideals of Christianity were the major sources of Gandhi’s
inspiration. Gandhi regarded Jesus as an apostle of ahimsa and love for mankind. He was
deeply influenced by the Protestants, Methodists. Baptists, Congregationalists, Presbetarians,
Unitarians and Quackers.
Unlike the Catholic and Orthodox priests, these priests never once attempted to convert
Gandhi to Christianity. They only made him familiar with the norms of Christian Justice,
Ethics and Morality and left him alone to adopt, adapt and even reject them.
Gandhi’s concepts of Human Nature and Satyagraha were greatly influenced by the non-
Conformists’ interpretations of Christianity. He Came to realise that, like the Hindu Religion,
Christianity, too, holds out the message of love, not hate. The teachings of Christianity which
attracted Gandhi the most, and the ones he made an integral part of his own thinking included
the following.
1. The relation between God and man, between the man and his Maker, between atma and
parmatma is direct and does not necessarily involve intermediation by priests;
2. Man ought to regulate all his activities in strict accordance with
the voice of his soul or atma;
3. Salvation is attainable with the ultimate merger of soul with God;
4. Man has the innate capacity of making his choice from amongst the various alternatives
available to him at a particular point of time;
5. Both the believers and the non-believers should have an equal faith in the universally
applicable rules of morality:
6. Violence should not be countered by violence and the adversary or the opponent should not
be looked at as an ‘enemy’ to be destroyed; he should rather be treated as a person who has, a
co-equal right to live, so that ultimately it may be possible to make him a friend by changing
his whole course of thinking, by converting his heart;
7. Like Jesus Christ, a satyagrahi should always be ready to suffer for his Truth, and should in
no case make his opponent suffer for it;
8. Everyone should have the right to follow his own conscience and religion;
9. Prayer to God should either be offered silently or in the congregational form; and
10. Not only the individual, but also the religious denominations, should continue to work for
bringing about socio-religious reforms collectively and in an organised manner, for the
relevance or usefulness of a religion can be judged in terms only of its efforts towards the
realization of this objective through love, knowledge and Truth.
Gandhi also followed all through his life the Christian belief that the character and conduct of
the social reformers themselves must be high and imitable. During his five and a half decade
long public life, Gandhi tried his best to live up to this ideal. Christianity also taught him that
man can be won over by religious embellishment and symbols. In the course of his
Satyagraha movements, Gandhi not only influenced the people by resorting to religious
symbols, vocabulary attire and congregational method of prayer, he also remained ever-ready
for total sacrifice. He continued to encourage people to pursue the path of Truth. Morality
and Justice, and shed untruth, immorality and injustice. Behind Gandhi’s success were these
basic ethical ideals and norms which are so uniquely common between Hinduism and
Christianity.
INFLUENCE OF BRITISH IDEALIST THINKERS:
In the first place, Gandhi’s concept of Political Obligation was akin to that of T.H. Green. As
a matter of fact, in the whole galaxy of political thinkers, Green and Gandhi concentrated
their total attention to the problems of political obedience and disobedience.
In substance, Gandhi was in agreement with T.H. Green that the problem of political
obligation is the problem of its reciprocity between the citizens and the State, but he did not
accept Green’s additional notion of obligations between the subjects and the rulers and the
ones between the master and the slaves as political obligation. However, he was in complete
agreement with Green that political obligations do mean obligations of the citizens towards
the State, obligations of the State towards the citizens and obligations of citizens inter se.
Gandhi’s notion of political obligation was not merely akin to that of Green, it was also much
wider than that of Green .On the basis of his own experiences as a political prisoner, Gandhi
also included within the scope of political obligation, the additional obligation of the
prisoners towards the jail-authorities, obligations of jail-authorities towards the prisoners, and
the obligations of the prisoners inter se.
Like Green, Gandhi also subscribed to the view that political obligation is, by nature, willing
and voluntary and that, therefore one ought to discharge his obligations in accordance with
the voice of one’s conscience and reason and only to the extent this activity aims at the
around welfare of all. He also agreed with Green that in return of his voluntary and willing
obedience, he should also be able to secure and enjoy the corresponding rights, at least the
ones in the absence of which he would not be able to live up to his cultural inheritance of
divinity, rationality, sociability and dynamism.
Gandhi’s concept of Sarvodaya (welfare of all in all fields of human activity) also resembles
closely with Green’s concept of ‘Common Good’. He endorsed Green’s view that in its
endeavour to attain this ideal, the role of the State should be the bare minimum. It should
restrict itself to the role of “hindering the hindrances” in the way of the people and let them
achieve this ideal by their voluntary action without outside dictation. The State should only
create an atmosphere which would be congenial for the people to move ahead to the extent it
is possible for them and in the direction in which they wish to. Like Green, Gandhi also
subscribed to the view that liberty does not mean licence’, it only means freedom to do all
those things which are “worth-doing”.
IMPACT OF THE BRITISH MAJORITARIANS:
Gandhi had studied the leading works of the British majoritarians, like Jeremy Bentham and
John Stuart Mill. Like Bentham, Gandhi subscribed to the view that, in common with other
creatures, man is not simply a ‘feeling’ being, i.e. a person who can feel pain and pleasure, he
has also the capacity to distinguish between various alternatives available to him at a
particular point of time and select the one which he considers to be the best not only for
himself but also for his society and State. And, it is this faculty which makes him rational or
political. He was also in agreement with Green that man, as a social being has an innate
capacity to restrain himself in the larger interest of the society for, after all, his own selfish
interest is also inevitably contained in the interest of all.
Gandhi had undertaken a detailed study of the views of both Bentham and Mill concerning
the purpose and functions of the State. He considered Bentham’s ideal of “the greatest
Happiness of the greatest Number as unethical because if the State accepts this principle as
its ideal, it would be serving the interest of the majority at the cost of the minority. To
Gandhi, this would also be a selfish exercise as, in it, the State would be taking upon itself
the task of serving the interest of the majority by whose support it has come into power and
whose support it needs constantly and continuously in order to remain in power. It would ,
moreover, be an imbalanced ideal as the interests even of the majority would be served only
in the economic or material field at the cost of all other fields of human activity. To that
extent, it would be highly limited and restrictive. Further, this is an ideal which, at least
theoretically, could be realised in its totality and once it has been fully realised, the State
would be left with no further ideal to work towards. And, if there is no progression, the law
of nature would lead to “inevitable retrogression”. In comparison to Bentham’s ideal, Gandhi
found Mill’s ideal slightly better as it talks of the ‘The greatest good of the greatest number”
and not merely the ‘happiness’ of the majority. i.e. welfare not only in the economic field, but
in all fields of human activity. Gandhi found the views of the British majoritarians on the
purpose of the State as incomplete and unethical and could not accept them in their original
form.
IMPACT OF THE BRITISH MINORITARIAN THINKER JOHN RUSKIN:
Gandhi was immensely influenced by John Ruskin’ s Unto this Last. Like Ruskin, Gandhi
also considered man basically ‘Good’ and underlined the need of ethical conduct on the part
both of the rulers and the ruled. The three basic ideas which Gandhi learnt from Ruskin were
1. Welfare of one is contained in the welfare of all;
2. Both the lawyer and the barber have the common right of earning their livelihood and the
value of their work should also be the same; and
3. The life of the labourer and peasant alone is true life.
In so far as the ideal of the State is concerned, Ruskin wanted the State to work for the
welfare of the neglected minority whose support is not needed either for coming into power
or for remaining into power. If the state works for the welfare of the neglected minority, it
would be an act of benevolence, not selfishness.
Gandhi liked the spirit behind Ruskin’s view that the neglected sections of the society
deserve to be served first, but he would not confine himself exclusively to that ideal. This
should, no doubt, be the point of beginning. However, having served the minority first, the
State must move on to serve the rest. Infact, in comparison to the ideal of majoritarians, the
ideal of Ruskin would be fulfilled much more quickly, whereafter the State would once again
become idle and that would derail it from the path of progression to that of retrogression.
Moreover, in actual practice, while the State would any day be able to serve the majority, it
would never be allowed by the majority to work for the welfare of the minority at its own
corresponding cost, for the hard reality is that, in a democratic context, the government
comes and remains in power only with the support of the majority which would never once
allow it to ignore their own interest, and instead work for the welfare exclusively of the
minority. Even before the State ventures to take the first step in that direction, the majority
would throw it out of power.
Upon careful analysis of the both the majoritarian and the minoritarian view-points, Gandhi
came to the conclusion that both these ideals were not only incomplete in themselves but
were also, at the same time, complimentary to each other. And, that is what led Gandhi blend
the two ideals together, majority with minority, synthesise the two ideals together and coin
his own ideal of Sarvodaya i e good of all in all spheres of human activity. This ideal of
Gandhi was not unethical, as it did not expect the State to work for the good of one section of
society at the corresponding cost of another, of the majority at the cost of minority or vice
versa. It strove to work for the welfare of one and all in all fields of human activity.
Moreover, this ideal would ever remain unattainable in its entirety, as no government would
ever be able to realise the good of all in all walks of life. It would, therefore, always remain
an ideal to be constantly pursued. The State, in turn, would never be derailed from the path of
progression to that of retrogression. In this way, we find in Gandhi’s ideal of Sarvodaya, a
judicious blending of the majoritarian ideal of the ‘welfare’ or ‘good’ of the majority with the
minoritarian ideal of the ‘Good’ of the neglected minority.
IMPACT OF OTHER BRITISH THINKERS:
The other British thinkers who influenced Gandhi’s thinking included the social
contractarians like Hobbes and Locke and his own contemporary liberal thinker Harold
Laski.
In Gandhi’s concept of Political obligation, we have a unique synthesis of the views of the
British idealist thinker T.H. Green as well as the British social contractarian thinkers, Thomas
Hobbes and John Locke. For instance, Gandhi asked the people to obey only those laws and
orders which have been made by themselves or by their duly authorised representatives, for it
is psychologically easier for a person to obey his own laws than the ones in the making of
which he has had no hand or which have been made for him by others. Hobbes’ pre
condition, too, was that a law must be “an authorised act of an authorised person”. The laws
made by the British rulers of India did not fall in that category as in their making the Indians
had no decisive voice. Thus it was convenient for Gandhi to ask people to disobey them.
Gandhi also added the teleological argument of Green to the Hobbesian view. He said that
even amongst the ‘self-made’ laws, people ought to obey only such laws which are for their
good i. e. which contribute to their good in all walks of life, which would help the State attain
the ultimate ideal of Sarvodaya.
Similarly, like the British social contractarian, John Locke, he subscribed to the notion of
‘constitutional government’. i.e. the government which is of peoples’ owns making and
which is also responsible and responsive to them. Moreover, by its very nature, such a
government is elected for a fixed term of office and not for an indefinite period of time or for
life.
Like his own contemporary liberal thinker, Harold laski, he too believed that while
performing its multifarious functions, the State should play a positive and constructive role. It
should not merely delimit itself to the role of ‘hindering the hindrances’ but also ‘create
conditions to allow people to select their own path and follow it the way they think it best for
themselves. It should never adopt a sort of paternal attitude towards the people, treating them
as minors to be told what to do and how to do it.
Gandhi was also deeply influenced by the objective of the London Vegetarian Society as well
as by the personal conduct of its illustrious members like Henry Salt and W.B. Richardson
who had provided a rational explanation in favour of vegetarianism. Their views made
Gandhi, who was a vegetarian ‘by birth’, a vegetarian or fruitarian ‘by choice’.
Gandhi was also deeply influenced by the critics of Modern Western civilization and culture.
More specifically, he was influenced by Edward Carpenter’s Civilization :Its Cause and Cure
and Max Nardo’s Paradoxes of Civilization. They confirmed Gandhi’s belief that while the
Western civilization had enabled people become educated, awakened and self-reliant, it has
also, at the same time, made them selfish. Hypocrats, greedy, non-vegetarian, drunkurds.
womanisers, vulgar and exhibitionists, and the ones who rely more readily on untruth than
Truth. Gandhi could never accept these negative and destructive features of Western culture
and civilization.
IMPACT OF GREEK CLASSICAL THINKERS:
Gandhi was also deeply influenced by the Classical Greek Thinkers like Socrates, Plato and
Aristotle. In so far as man’s cultural inheritance is concerned, like Socrates, Gandhi too had
faith in the sovereignty of God who, as an external power, regulates the entire Universe and,
as an internal force, regulates the life of each and everyone of us. Hence, like Socrates,
Gandhi also came to the conclusion that man is by nature divine. Similarly, Like both Plato
and Aristotle, he also regarded man as political, i.e. the one possessing the rational capacity
of distinguishing amongst various available alternatives and selecting the one which he
considers the best for himself, his society and State. Like them he also regarded man as social
but he gave this term a meaning different from theirs. To him, man is social not merely
because he can not live without society, but also because he has the capacity to ‘restrain’
himself in the larger interest of his society and State Like these thinkers he believed that
while man’s soul is immortal, his body is perishable and is the result of his sinful deeds in the
previous life. Hence Gandhi came to the conclusion that so long as man’s soul remains a
prisoner of his body he can neither be wholly non-violent, in thought ,word and deed nor
attain salvation, moksha or nirvana, which is the ultimate aim of his life.
In common both with Plato and Aristotle, Gandhi also looked at the State as the individual
writ large. Accordingly, just as every individual has the innate capacity of governing himself,
every State too has the capacity to govern itself. Swaraj (self-government) is, therefore,
natural and every nation, every individual, should have the maximum opportunity to govern
himself.
Like Plato, Gandhi also subscribed to the notion of the decentralization of both political
power and economic resources and that, therefore, the largest quantum of both political
power and economic resources should be with that unit of governance which is nearest to the
individual and which he can directly and constantly watch, regulate and control. This would
go a long way in saving the State as well as the rulers from becoming corrupt That is
probably why Gandhi was in favour of keeping nearly ninety percent of political power and
economic resources with the Gram panchayats or the Gram Sabhas which, in his order of
things, would be the primary units of rural local self-government at the grassroots level
IMPACT OF AMERICAN THINKERS LIKE THOREAU AND LINCOLN
Gandhi was deeply influenced by the radical views of the American Civil Rights Resister,
Henry David Thoreau and the American Liberal Thinker Abraham Lincoln. Like Thoreau,
Gandhi also regarded the State as “a necessary evil”, based on violence. Like him, he also
considered that government as the best which governs the least”, i.e. which interferes with
peoples rights’ and liberties the least and makes them increasingly less and less dependent on
itself, so that they may live, according to their own reason and conscience, without any
outward interference. Like Thoreau, Gandhi also believed that an awakened citizen must not
obey any law or order which is not acceptable to his reason and conscience. That is why he
often said : I Shall not obey orders as such, but shall disobey them whenever they are in
conflict with my conscience”. The idea of refusing to pay tax to an unjust government was
also borrowed by Gandhi from Thoreau. Under such a dispensation, it is better for a citizen to
live within the four walls of a jail as a conscientious objector, rather live in the so-called
open’ but unfair and unjust society. Like him, Gandhi, too, believed that by putting a
conscientious objector in jail, the State can at best imprison his ‘body’ never his ‘mind’ or
‘soul’. That is why, like Thoreau, Gandhi also regarded jail as a ‘temple’, as a place of
‘meditation’ and ‘re-thinking’, as a place which promotes the prisoner’s mental and moral
development. He agreed with Thoreau’s saying : “Stonewalls do not a Prison make”.
Gandhi also literally accepted Abraham Lincoln’s concept of Democracy as a “Government
of the people, by the people for the people”. Gandhi made this definition the soul of his own
concept of swaraj. He wanted such a system of government at all levels of human
governance, from the local to the national and even the international, so that an individual
gets the widest opportunity of participating in the process of his governance, in accordance
with his reason and conscience. It was this definition of Lincoln which was used by Gandhi
as an argument to tell the rulers of the apartheid-ridden South Africa that by democracy
Lincoln never meant “Government of the white, by the white, for the white”. He had never
conceived it as a Whiteman’s democracy.
IMPACT OF RUSSIAN PACIFIST THINKER LEO TOLSTOY:
Gandhi had extensively studied Tolstoy’s three most significant works, namely The Kingdom
of God Is Within You, The Gospel In Brief, and Letter To A Hindoo. Gandhi was in
correspondence with Tolstoy and was highly appreciative of his thought and action. He even
established his first Ashram in South Africa on the pattern of Yasnaya Polyana, and called it
The Tolstoy Ashram.
Like Tolstoy, Gandhi also believed that God is a formless, spiritual Power and that his spark
or ray resides within each one of us in the form of our soul or atma. And, if we act in
accordance with the voice of our soul, we can, for sure, improve the quality only of our own
life, but also of those who come into contact with us. Like him, Gandhi also believed that our
powers being severely limited, we can work for the attainment of truth and justice only to all
extent.
Like Tolstoy, Gandhi was also a philosophical anachist. He visualised a Stateless society in
which an institution like State would not be needed. Such a society would be able to let
everyone act in full accordance with his conscience and reason.
Further, in full agreement with Tolstoy, Gandhi also differentiated between the doer and the
deed and made the target of his attack “ the deed” and not “the doer” whose heart can always
be converted from that of an ‘enemy’ into a ‘friend’, once the issue in dispute is resolved
amicably. Hence, like Tolstoy, Gandhi too subscribed to the view “Hate the sin, not the
sinner”.
Moreover, like Tolstoy, Gandhi also recognised the need of proper indoctrination and training
for those participating in a non-violent struggle, just as it is needed in a regular traditional
violent warfare. I was primarily for this reason that Gandhi had established the Tolstoy Farm
in South Africa and the Sabarmati Ashram and the Satyatgraha Ashram in India.
IMPACT OF OTHER WESTERN THINKERS:
Amongst the other noted Western thinkers who influenced ( the name of French contractarian
thinker Rousseau comes first. Gandhi was quite familiar with Rousseau’s notion of “Back To
The Nature” .He, too, believed that once we take a wrong step, there is no alternative but to
return or come back to the starting point and then start in the right direction, Gandhi’s
description of an ideal society is akin to that of Rousseau’s “golden age”, i.e. a society which
is much self as humanly possible and which allows of its members choose his own path and
follow it in his own way without let or hindrance by any outside agency. It has to have a
transitory political system on which people would tend to depend less and 1ess paving the
way of its gradual disappearance or withering away as a instrument of violence.
Gandhi had derived his notion of ‘Passive Resistance” from the Sinn Finn Movement of the
Irish women. He had learnt from them that a movement has to rise above the efforts of
individual reformers and, in order to be successful, must be an organised and institutionalised
collective effort, with unity and organization as its pre-conditions.
On the other hand, Gandhi found the views of the modern Italian thinker, Nicollo Machiavelli
as contrary to his own way of and working. According to Machiavelli. – “End Justifies the
means”, i.. e. so long as the stated end can be achieved, the means or methods employed for
its attainment are irrelevant. Machiavelli would advise attainment of stated objectives by
whatever means necessary. Gandhi, on the other hand, refused to delink the means from the
end. To him, end is nothing but the last process of the processes of means. If our means are
good and to the extent these are good, our end would also be good in exact proportion to the
goodness of the means themselves. In so far as human effort is concerned only noble means
lead to noble ends. In other words, “noble ends demand noble means”. Moreover, Gandhi
also did not agree with Machiavelli that people obey the law for ‘fear’ of punishment. In
other words, once the element of fear is removed, everyone would violate the law at will,
turning the State into a total anarchy. Gandhi’s own experience was at variance with that of
Machiavelli. He argued That if ‘fear’ was the basis of obedience, the masses of India would
never have disobeyed the laws and orders of their oppressive alien rulers so openly and
defiantly and, in turn, suffered heaviest penalties, even death, willingly and cheerfully. India’s
experience disproves Machiavelli’s contention.
Gandhi also did not find himself in agreement with the British Jurist, John Austin, and the
theorists like Garner that it was people’ ‘habit’ to obey the law. They obey the law
‘habitually’, believed these thinkers and writers. To Gandhi, this is even historically untrue,
as the history of the world is essentially the history of disobedience, resistance, rebellions and
wars.
Gandhi was also not in agreement with the idealist thinkers like Hegel and dictators like
Hitler and Mussolini, who regarded the State as an end In itself. Gandhi, Infact, looked at the
State only as a means towards the achievement of the lofty ideals of individual’s initiative,
freedom and morality.
IMPACT OF WESTERN IDEALS, TRADITIONS, INSTITUTIONS & PRACTICES:
It was quite obvious for Gandhi to be intimately familiar with the Western ideals, traditions,
institutions and practices, as he had studied at Temple Inn for his law examination, had first-
hand taste of British liberal traditions during his long stay in London and who, for decades,
had led India’s non-violent resistance against British imperialism and colonialism in order
finally to make them ‘‘Quit India’’, in which he succeeded remarkably and that, too without
having recourse to Violence.
It was Gandhi’s constant endeavour to distinguish between the traditions, institutions and
practices which would be suitable and relevant to the Indian context and the ones which
would defy this end. On the basis of his own experience and contacts, Gandhi found the
following traditions and practices as contrary to India’s culture, civilization, and social and
political context:
1. Political systems based on imperialism, colonialism, feudalism, dictatorship and apartheid;
2. Theocratic, anti-religious and unitary systems;
3. Tendency to have recourse to violence and war for the solution of human problems;
4 Tendency to force people to obey laws and orders under fear of punishment;
5. Tendency to hate the sinner, rather than the sin;
6. The system which forces the citizens to have recourse to the politics of protest and
agitation for obtaining their legitimate rights; and
7. The system which prejudges the opponent as an enemy’ to be destroyed without giving
him a fair opportunity to put forward and explain his case.
On the other hand the ideals, traditions and practices which he found to be in accordance
with the spirit of India s the following:
1 Rule of law political representation and accountability and the french maxims of Justice,
Liberty, Equality and Fraternity;
2. Maximum opportunity of every individual to act in accordance with his conscience and
reason;
3. Peoples’ right to challenge and even change the government through the principles of
Truth, Justice and Non-violence;
4. Protection of citizens’ legitimate rights;
5. Election of representatives on the basis of their character, qualities, knowledge, experience
and achievements, and not merely on the basis of their popularity;
6. Legislatures based on Universal Adult Franchise;
7. Ministry directly and collectively responsible to the legislature;
8. Decentralised, federal and secular political system;
9. Political system ensuring reciprocal obligations between the citizens and the State; and
10. Political system dedicated to the ideal of sarvodaya, i.e. the good or welfare of all in all
walks of life.
Thus. it would be quite appropriate to regard Gandhi as a bridge between tradition and
modernity, between the East and the West, and the one on which not only the blacks of South
Africa could, for a while, travel from apartheid to freedom, and the Indians from their
imperial, colonial and feudal system based on untruth, injustice and violence to freedom, by
pursuing the path of justice and non-violent direct action, Satyagraha, In fact, Gandhi stands
out as a philosophical ocean which could conveniently accommodate a whole variety of
civilizations, cultures, religions and traditions. The overall impact of the West on Gandhi was
not only positive and constructive but also synthesising.
Another distinguishing feature of Gandhi’s thinking was that it was not only overwhelmingly
influenced by the West, but it also encouraged non-violent agitations against injustice, untruth
and hypocricy of apartheid specially the American Civil Rights Movement of Dr. Martin
Luther King Jr. who proved Gandhi’s prophecy that the West would ultimately be able to
shed its policy and practice of apartheid through the efforts of a Negro.
GANDHI’S CRITIQUE OF MODERN WESTERN CIVILIZATION:
Gandhi’s initial contact with the Western civilization was, by and large, negative, while he
was planning to go to London for studying 1aw, he found himself the victim of the age-old
superstition that anyone going to the West was likely to become immoral, as he was likely to
acquire the habits of meat-eating, drinking wines and indulging in prostitution. Gandhi’s
mother had allowed him to go to London only after he pledged, with God as his witness, that
he would not indulge in these immoral practices, while in London. The company of a so-
called friend led him astray for a while, but he took no time to retrace his faultering steps.
Gandhi was immensely influenced by the Western values of democracy, rule of law, and the
lofty ideals of Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. His commitment to these ideals was
of the same order as that of Naoroji, Ranade and Gokhale. He also appreciated the British
parliamentary system which not only provided the people the largest possible participation in
their governance, but which was also responsible and responsive towards them. It also
allowed the people the right to ‘challenge’ and even ‘change’ the government once it goes
wrong or becomes unfair and unjust. Though Gandhi accepted parliamentary democracy in
principle, he could never accept its deformed practice.
The British Parliament which is, by and large accepted as the mother of parliaments and
which calls itself sovereign, surrenders its haplessly as a ‘prostitute’ before every Tom, Dick
and Harry who happens to be the Prime Minister. Instead of guiding the executive, prefers to
be guided and coerced by the executive. Moreover, its mode of working has been like that of
a sterile woman, who works under duress, who has never once granted legitimate rights even
to , own people, without their clamouring for them for long periods time.
Gandhi was also appreciative of the free and transparent liberal social system which was not
hypocritical In that system, an individual was free to say and do whatever he wanted to. His
complaint, however, was that the Western society often deviates from its natural ways and
adopts the unnatural modes of life and living. In the new degenerated dispensation, Gandhi
found that the people had started preferring non- vegetarianism to vegetarianism, drinking
wines, indulging in free sex;. their women were found inviting peoples’ lust by vulgar
exhibition of their nakedness which had resulted in the fall of the desired level of morality.
Gandhi appreciated the industrial development of the West in a much as it not only provided
employment to lots of people, but also made them self-reliant. His objection to the course of
industrial development was only to the extent it created imbalance between cities and
villages, industry and agriculture, and large-scale and small- industries. It also resulted in the
daily transmigration of villagers to cities in search other livelihood which was not only an
unnecessary burden on the meagre resources of the cities, but which had also created
environmental imbalance by adding to their increasing pollution
In so far as the Western system of education was concerned Gandhi found it to be expensive
and inadequate. In the first place does not enable the students to get suitable jobs alter
completion of their education. Moreover, it is so expensive that most of the students are not
able to complete their studies and become high-school outs. And, in the absence of moral
education, the level of values is also diminished which, in turn, leads to corruption. Further,
in the absence of fine arts like music, peoples’ attitude becomes rigid, less pleasant and
snobbish.
In totality, the Western social, economic, educational and politic system encourages the
forces of imperialism, colonialism and expansionism. It results in violence and wars. It leads
to the exploitation of developing and under-developed nations by the developed nations. It
also enables them to resort to the policy of ‘divide and rule ‘so that the imperial and colonial
powers may continue their policy of expansionism with greater vigour.
Gandhi, from the very beginning, had dreamt of an ideal system which would not only have
the positive and constructive elements of, Western civilization and culture, but could also be
free from all its negative and destructive features, This is the premise on which Gandhi’s
evaluation or critique of modern Western civilization is based.
Gandhi’s assessment of the Western and Eastern civilizations can be analysed through a
quadrangular process of Adoption, Adaptation, Rejection and Enrichment. In the first place,
Gandhi’s ideas depicted the adoption of Christian belief in direct relationship between God
and man; role of conscience, love and compassion; Tolstoy’s assertion of God as formless
and spiritual power, which resides within each one of us in the form of our soul. Secondly,
Gandhi followed the process of adaptation of Green’s concept of Political Obligation;
Locke’s notion of Constitutional Government; Laski’s insistance on positive and constructive
role of the State; Plato and Aristotle’s concept of State as the individual writ large, and the
decentralisation of both political power and economic resources; Thoreau’s concept of State
as a necessary evil; Lincoln’s concept of Democracy, Rule of Law, Representative,
Decentralised Federal, Secular and Responsible Political System: and the French maxims of
Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. In the third place, Gandhi followed the process of
Rejection by criticising non-vegetarianism, drinking, free-sex, exhibitionism, imperialism,
colonialism, dictatorship, apartheid; theocratic/atheistic systems; recourse to violence; fear of
punishment; race for materialism, urbanisation; unemployment caused by large-scale
industrialisation; Machiavelli’s phrase ‘End justifies the Means’; Austin and Garner’s
insistance for habitual obedience of law; and Hegel’s projection of State as an End in itself;.
And, lastly, Gandhi’s recourse for enrichment of the Passive Resistance of Sinn Finn
Movement of the Irish women; People’s Right to challenge the government through Truth,
Justice, and Non-violence; synthesis of Bentham and Mill’s majoritarianism (bahuodaya)
with Ruskin’s minoritarianism (antyodaya) as Sarvodaya (welfare of all); election of
representatives on the basis of their qualities, qua1ifications knowledge, experience and
achievements.
Similarly, Gandhi enriched traditional Indian spiritual ethos again by a quadrangular process
of Adoption, Adaptation Rejection and Synthesis. He adopted the lofty spiritual ideals of
Parmatma (God),Atma (soul) ,Moksha (salvation), Sahishnuta (tolerance), Ahimsa (Non
violence),Jivdaya (compassion), Kshama (forgiveness), Dharma (ethical way of life and
Sarva Dharma Sambhava (equal respect for all religions).In pursuing the path of adaptation,
he adopted the values from other religions (e.g. the vows of Satya, Ahimsa, Asteya (non
stealing), Brahmacharya (celebacy) and Aparigraha (non from Jainism and Buddhism;
Congregational form of prayer and significance of confession from Christianity; and Tauhid
(the spirit of the divine brotherhood) from Islam the other hand, he rejected the evil
institutions of ritualism, casteism, touch-me-notisim, Sati, Devadasi, Purdah, Dowry. Child-
marriages, oppression and suppression of widows and other forms of ill-treatment towards
them.
Finally, the path of enrichment that he followed is reflected in his notions of Communal
harmony; protection of the religious rights and interests of minorities, Sarvodaya as the
purpose of State, transformation of the ancient Indian system of Gram-Panchayats into Gram
Swaraj , the system of Basic, Compulsory, Primary, Vocational Education; and Trusteeship.
CONCEPT OF HUMAN NATURE
To Gandhi, man’s inheritance is distinctly twofold:
i) SOMATIC (BIOLOGICAL) - MAN AS AN ANIMAL; &
ii) EXTRA -SOMATIC (CULTURAL) - MAN AS A BEARER OF CULTURE.
Gandhi’s primary concern is the Extra-somatic or cultural nature of man, though he
parenthetically expresses his views on man’s somatic or biological nature as well.
SOMATIC NATURE OF MAN
It must be stated at the very outset that Gandhi’s understanding of human anatomy was never
more than that of a lay man, despite the fact that he made efforts to philosophically and
rationally justify his views.
In the first place, subscribing to the Hindu doctrine of REBIRHT, Gandhi belived that
1) Man continues to be born again and again until he attains salvation or Moksha, until he is
able to so cultivate his SOUL as to completely identify himself with God;
ii) Human body depicts man distance with God:
iii) Human body is a filthy mass of flesh, bones and blood;
iv) It is the result of our un-godly or sinful deeds in the past and, as such, a perishable, a
devilish force;
v) Yet, by keeping it clean and pure, inside and outside, i.e., by thinking good of others and
doing good to others, one may meet and recognize God in this very body. All that he has to
do is to make his body the abode of God.
Man is by nature a vegetarian, in fact, a fruitarian, and not a non-vegetarian, a meat-eating
animal, as
i) Nature did not give man big and sharp jaws and claws, like those of lions, and did not
intend him to kill the lower animals and eat them up;
ii) Nature, instead, made man qualitatively and culturally superior to other animals. Man’s
supremacy over the lower animals requires him to protect the lower animals and to have
compassion for all living beings. And, that is the essence of Gandhi’s concept of Jivadaya
(Compassion for all living beings);
iii) On medical grounds, Gandhi asked for the rejection of non- vegetarian diet, assuming it
to be highly spicey. Non-veg food is relatively more hot than the vegetarian food. Excessive
use of spices generates a variety of health problems. As such, all condiments and spices ought
to be rejected as far as possible.
iv) Vegetarianism, in contradistinction to non-vegetarianism, is a cure for drunkenness;
v) In comparison to vegetarian animals, our body structure resembles not that of a buffalo, a
cow, a horse, a camel or an elephant, it essentially resembles an ape whose staple diet is fruit;
vi) Vegetarian, especially fruitarian, diet is more nutritive and richer than the non-vegetarian
diet.
On these grounds, Gandhi, the vegetarian by birth, became a ‘fruitarian’ (vegetarian) ‘by
choice’ and recommended fruits, dry fruits, milk and milk-products as a diet which people
could profitably adopt.
Gandhi was also of the view that nature by not giving wings to us has restricted our
locomotive ambition as far as our hands and feet would take us. Hence, we can, at best serve
only those who are near us, with whose needs and aspirations we are familiar and who would
like us to help them. i.e. -we can serve only the ones who are “nearest and dearest” to us. If
everyone serves his neighbour, there would emerge an unending chain of neighbours, serving
one another. That, he thought, would be the only practical way to have the dream of ‘ of
humanity” realized someday.
EXTRA-SOMATIC (CULTURAL) INHERITANCE
Extra-somatic or cultural inheritance of man is Gandhi’s primary concern. In this respect,
Gandhi regarded man as a consciously-divine, rational and social being.
MAN IS CONSCIOUSLY-DIVINE
Gandhi regarded man as “a creature of God striving to realize his divinity”.
Metaphysically, man possesses the spark of God or PARMATAMA (eternal consciousness) in
the form of his soul or Atman which he variously described as the voice of God, the voice of
Truth, the voice of conscience, the voice of justice, the voice of benevolence, the voice of
mercy, the voice of harmony, the voice of love, the voice of morality or the inner voice.
He was fond of quoting the Mohammedan saying:
“Adam Khuda nahin, Lekin Khuda Ke Nur se Adam Juda Nahin”, Man is not God, but
neither is he different from the light of God.
Gandhi was of the view that man was born brute strength, but he was born to realize God
who dwells in us in the form of our soul.
GANDHI’S CONCEPT OF GOD
Gandhi derived his concepts of God and soul from his study of:
i) the Vaishnava-Hindu religion of his family;
ii) the Hindu religious scriptures like the Vedas, the Upanishads. the Vedanta-sutras and the
Gita;
iii) Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Jainism; and
iv) The writings of Leo Tolstoy, especially his celebrated essay ‘The Kingdom of God is
within you.”
From These exceedingly rich sources, Gandhi was able to arrive at a comprehensive
conception of God. To him, God possessed all the auspicious qualities and was an indefinable
mysterious, power, an ultimate reality that pervades everything.
He variously described God as : Truth, Conscience and Bliss (Sachchidananda); Love.
Beauty. and Harmony; Ethics, Morality, Law and Law Giver: Justice. Goodness,
Benevolence and Mercy; the Greatest
Democrat who enables people to choose good, not evil; the Omnipresent, The Omnipotent,
the eternal Creator of the world and yet unknown.
Gandhi evolved his concept of God from “God as an historical person”, from Rama-an
incarnation of God, to God as an “all-pervading moral force.” Yet, he did not give up the
earlier description as it enabled him to sway the fears of millions of his compatriots of all
faiths.
To him, God was ‘internal’ as well as ‘external’. Living within us in the form of our ‘soul’,
God is internal. And, as a force responsible for creating & regulating this universe, He is
external.
Subscribing to Monistic Theism, Gandhi belived in the oneness of God. He proclaimed :
“God is one, without a second.” And, as such, God is the possessor not only of all the good
and benign qualities, but is also described to represent ‘ tyranny and atheism.” And, in that
comprehensive description of God, Gandhi comes closer to Alfred North Whitehead who,
too, had likewise described God in his celebrated treatise Process and Reality. Since God is
One & only One, it is inevitable that He would represent not only what is good but also all
that is considered bad. In Him, not only good but also bad lives, moves and has its home.
However. Gandhi would say that evil consists in deviation from the path of goodness and is
thus an exception thereto.
Gandhi also moved from ‘God is Truth” To “Truth is god”, for:
i) Pursuit of Truth is common to both the rational theist and the rational atheist;
ii) Existence of God may be and has, at times, been questioned, but never that of Truth;
iii) Hence, it is more appropriate to say “Truth is God,” rather than saying “God is Truth,”
Gandhi equated God with absolute Truth and declared the God of Truth to be the ultimate
reality.
Man possesses the spark of this God of Truth or parmatma in the form of his Atman or soul.
However, this God of Truth is formless. As such, soul too is formless. Soul is not the name of
any human organ. It is the moral, the spiritual force, the divine spirit which regulates our
body. It is the voice of God, the voice of Truth within us.
To Gandhi, the basic difference between man and other animals is not that the former has a
soul and the latter do not. If it were so, there would be one creator of man and another of the
lower animals. To him every living being has a soul. the same divine soul. The difference
between man and other animals is that while man not only possesses this moral force, he is
also conscious of having this force or energy, while in the lower animals this force lies ever
dormant. They are not conscious of possessing this supreme power. Hence, the difference
between man and lower animals is with respect to the consciousness of possessing this force,
i.e. conscious-divinity and not divinity as such. And, this is Gandhi’s unique contribution to
moral philosophy.
Man is conscious of his divinity, of possessing the divine soul. He is expected to govern all
his actions in accordance therewith. That is why, Gandhi says : Man was born a brute
strength, but was born to realize God who dwells in him.”
Gandhi’s belief in the divine unity between God and man, between Parmatma and Atma, led
him to describe the relationship between man and man as also divine. He subscribed to the
brotherhood” and
sisterhood” of God. He said : we are all children of the same God and that, therefore,
potentially human nature is the same everywhere.”
Using the metaphor of a tree, He said: We are all leaves of a majestic tree whose trunk can
never be shaken off its roots which are deep down in the bowels of the earth” and using the
metaphor of an ocean. he said : ‘ are drops in that limitless ocean of mercy.”
His belief in the Divine Equality of Man led him to proclaim “Vox Popili Vox Dei” - voice of
the people is the voice of God. God dwells in people and speaks through them. And, that
makes Gandhi’s God of Truth a social phenomenon.
In the offshoots of man s divinity Gandhi included the virtues of moral-progression, non-
violence and benevolence.
He believed that Human Nature is ‘dynamic’ and not ‘static’. God is already perfect. On the
other hand, in the beast the soul lies ever dormant. Hence, there is no question for
progression for either. Progress is, therefore, man’s distinction alone. Man alone can cultivate
his extra-somatic or cultural nature and it is his duty to do so.
Secondly, man as an animal is violent, but as spirit he is r It is the consciousness of his nature
that motivates him to compassion for all living beings and to refrain from the use of violence
in thought, word and deed.
Man is also a benevolent creature. Man is essentially good. There is something good, some
element of divinity, in every man, cultivating the habit of listening and acting according to his
conscience, man can avoid evil and be good to one and all.
MAN IS RATIONAL OR POLITICAL
While other beings are simply feeling’ beings, able to feel pain and pleasure man alone is a
‘thinking’ being. The Hindu religious scriptures have described a human being thus: “Manan
Karoti Iti Manushyah” i.e. he who thinks is a thinking or human being. Man has reason
which enables him to ‘think’, i.e. to differentiate between or among the available alternatives
and distinguish good from evil, right from wrong, righteousness and justice and govern or
regulate his actions and those of his society and State in accordance therewith.
MAN IS SOCIAL OR SOCIABLE
To Gandhi, man, unlike most other animals, is also a social being. He alone is capable of
willing submission to social restraints in so far as these are for the good and well being of the
society as a whole. And, that is what enriches both the individual and the society of which he
is a member.
To Gandhi, conscious-divinity, rationality and sociability, thus, culturally distinguish man
from all other animals.
MANIFESTATIONS OF HUMAN NATURE
In the course of his five decade long public life, Gandhi had innumerable opportunities to
study and discover as to how human nature expresses itself in day-to- day life.
He was disturbed to discover that there is an apparent gulf between God and man, between
Parmatma and Atma, between theory and practice of man’s distinct cultural nature, owing to
man’s failure to cultivate his cultural nature and act accordingly.
He found that notwithstanding his consciously-divine, rational and social nature, in actual
day-to-day life, man takes in vice far more easily than virtue. He is often selfish,
untrustworthy, and capable of self- deception, listless, lustful and power-hungry. Gandhi had
seen enough of the darker side of man’s nature.
However, the difference between one man and another is only of a degree, and not of kind,
Some are more good, and some more bad. There is no one who is wholly good or wholly bad.
And, this made him believe that man is fallible. It is possible for him to make mistakes and
deviate from the path of goodness, and justice.
However, man is not only fallible, but also corrigible. Man can not only make mistakes, but
has also the capacity to discover his mistakes and to correct them.
Gandhi also came across the purely moral expressions of human nature. He found that
however bitter a man might be, he is sure to come around, if we bestow upon him pure love
in thought, word and deed. In course of time, people do forgive one another.
CULTIVATION OF HUMAN NATURE
Man is not only fallible but also corrigible. There are chords in every human heart. If we only
know how to strike the right cord, we bring out the music. Thus, a wrong-doer is not an evil
man, is not the one who can not be changed or reformed.
In this direction, Gandhi ceaselessly tried to determine the extent of the role that God’s will,
man’s efforts and force of circumstances play in moulding man’s nature or destiny. He,
however, kept on shifting or oscillating places within a sort of philosophical triangle of God’s
will, man’s efforts and force of circumstances, and only towards the end of his life came to a
remote conclusion that God’s will overrides the other two factors.
PURPOSE OF CULTIVATING HUMAN NATURE:
SALVATION OR MOKSHA
To Gandhi, Man must strive to cultivate his primary virtues of conscious-Divinity, rationality
and sociability, for then alone would he be able to act in accordance therewith and realize his
cultural self. The natural course of man’s evolution is from beast, through man, to God.
The state of self-realization, of acting according to one’s soul, is described as the state of
Brahma Nirvana, of being one with God. And, only when one is able to cultivate his divine
self completely that he is able to attain the stage of liberation from all that is evil. Only when
one is able to awaken his soul fully and in all respects that he is able to identify himself
wholly with his Creator, the God of Truth, And, that is the stage which is described in
religious scriptures as the stage of Nirvana, Moksha, Mukti or salvation.
Even Gandhi’s contemporary, poet Iqbal, had asked people to awaken their soul or khudi to
such an extent that a stage may come when the God of Truth or Khuda may himself start
consulting man before issuing his writs. Gandhi not only preached self-realization to be the
aim of man’s life, he himself strove to realize it.
However, unlike the sages of India’s great past who had suggested the path of withdrawal
from the struggles of social life. Gandhi suggested that the only way man could realize
himself or his atman is by involving himself in the struggles of social life. Man can realize
the God of Truth who dwells in the souls of his creation, only through the service of His
creation, which is the nearest and the dearest. Man would, then, become a co-worker with
God to serve the poor and the needy.
Gandhi’s argument was that we may not know God, but we most certainly know his creation.
Service of his creation is, thus, the service of God. Our locomotive ambition being limited,
we can only serve that part of God’s creation which is nearest and best known to us.
Cultivation of the inherent virtues of mankind being possible, Gandhi would urge everyone to
strive to cultivate them, as their proper cultivation alone would enable the one who strives
(the sadhak) to attain the ultimate state of self-realization, nirvana, moksha or salvation.
GANDHI’S CONCEPT OF SWARAJ
THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The last three decades of India’s struggle for freedom were dominated by the non-violent
satyagraha movements led by Gandhi. It was due to his efforts and those of his associates that
our freedom struggle culminated in the declaration of India’s freedom on August 15, 1947. It
would, however, not be proper to give Gandhi the entire credit for the success of India’s
freedom struggle. It was a long drawn struggle, starting almost with the birth of the Indian
National Congress in 1885. The first two decades of the struggle were dominated by the
Liberal Moderates under the leadership of Dadabhai Naoroji, Justice Ranade and Professor
Gokhale who preferred ‘Good Government’ to Self-Government, though they did have a
distant dream of India attaining Swaraj through the moderate politics of ‘prayer and petition’.
The next decade was dominated by the Extremist trio of ‘Bal, Pal, Lal’ under the leadership
of Lokmanya Tilak who proclaimed: “Swaraj is my birth right and I’ll have it.” This is the
mantra which he wanted every Indian to learn and act upon before one could dream of
Swaraj. The Extremists supplemented the Moderate methods by their aggressive direct action
like civil disobedience, non-cooperation, non-payment of taxes, boycott, picketing and
strikes. Tilak was perhaps, the first leader of our freedom movement to be imprisoned for
sedition against British Raj.
Upon partition of Bengal in 1905, there also emerged a violent movement led by Sri
Aurobindo who demanded Swaraj at once to be achieved ‘by any means necessary’ including
the methods of violence and terrorism He preached the cult of the bomb The phase that he
initiated was short-lived, as just after 5 years, in 1910 he, retired from active politics and took
to spiritualism.
Gandhi synthesized the Moderate, the Extremist and the Militant Nationalist traditions in the
philosophy and technique of Satyagraha through which he sought to achieve India’s
independence.
Gandhi’s concept of Swaraj is born out of his struggle for India’s Swaraj. He was not a
political thinker in the traditional sense of the term in which Plato, Aristotle or Marx were
political thinkers. In other words, he was not a theoretician or an academician. He was
essentially a man of action and his ideas were spontaneous reactions to a variety of situations
that he faced during his Satyagraha for Swaraj. However, when we piece together these ideas
we find that though Gandhi was not a system-builder in politics he did have at the back of his
mind, a fairly clear view of what Swaraj means and what a Swarajist State should look like.
THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS
Gandhi’s concept of Swaraj is based on certain basic assumptions that he had about the
nature of man. Gandhi distinguishes man from all other animals by calling him a
consciously-divine animal. He was of the view that everything that happens in this world
happens in accordance with the will of God. He once said: ‘ a blade of grass moves without
the will of God.” God has created all beings and his best creation is human being. Since
every creature in this world is the creation of God, all of us possess the spark of God in the
form of our soul or Atma which is a part of Parmatma or God. As Gandhi said: “God dwells
within us.” The difference between man and other animals is that the former is conscious of
possessing divine soul, the latter are not. In the latter, the soul lies ever dormant. Since man is
aware of his soul—force or divine consciousness within him, he is able to act according to
the dictates of his soul force. Swaraj, therefore, means acting according to one’s divine
consciousness. The divine consciousness impels man to act for the good of all and restrains
him from being selfish. Hence, a Swarajist Government would be a Government working for
the welfare of all the people. and not merely for a particular section thereof.
The second distinguishing feature of human nature is that man is by nature Social and
Political. That is what Plato and Aristotle had also said. Gandhi, however, gives a new
meaning to these phrases. In the first place. when Gandhi says that man is by nature social, he
means that man cannot live without society and that his actions are to be judged as the ones
influencing the course of society. As a social animal. man should not do anything which will
harm the society as such. He should ‘restrain’ himself in the larger interest of the society and
the State of which he is a member. On the other hand, as a political animal. man has a unique
capability to govern himself. Since man has the capacity to govern himself, he must have the
right and the opportunity to govern himself Nations are aggregates of the people, each one of
whom has the capacity to govern himself. Therefore, just as every human being has the
capacity to govern himself, every nation should also have the opportunity to govern itself
Self-Government or Swaraj, therefore. is natural to man. That is why, Gandhi condemned
foreign rule by stating that ‘ rule is alien to the nature of man. Since alien rule is alien to the
nature of man, having the capacity to govern himself, it is not only his right (as Tilak had
said) to fight for having an opportunity to govern himself, he has an obligation, a duty to
himself, to govern himself as he thinks it to be for the good of himself and of the society of
which he is a member. Gandhi’s view of the nature of man, therefore, gives us a theoretical
background to the question as to why man should struggle for his freedom from alien rule
and fight for attaining self-rule or Swaraj.
NEGATIVE ASPECT OF SWARAJ
Gandhi’s concept of Swaraj, therefore, simply means self- Government) It has its negative as
well as positive aspects. In so far as its negative aspect is concerned, Swaraj implies absence
of Para raj or alien rule, as such, whether British or any other. That is what Gandhi’s struggle
for Swaraj stood for. One difference between Gandhi and others, in so far as the negative
aspect of swaraj is concerned, is that Gandhi fought for freedom from alien British rule for
undivided India’, for India as a whole. Left to himself, he was against the partition of the
country. He called Pakistan a ‘sin’. He asked his people not to fall in the trap of the
imperialistic colonial alien British rulers who wanted to divide India into two. so that even
after granting the charter of freedom. they may continue to make its two halves fight against
each other and themselves act as an arbiter. The essential of Gandhi’s demand for freedom for
undivided India is that Britain should withdraw its alien rule from India and leave Indians
free to decide as to how would ‘they like to govern themselves. He wanted freedom first and
would, in no case, be a party to India’s partition.
He also wanted India to be free from the feudal rule of the Kings and Queens of the erstwhile
Indian princely States as, in common with alien rule, it is also not peoples’ rule.
POSITIVE ASPECT OF SWARAJ
The positive aspect of Gandhi’s Swaraj meant freedom of self- Government. Once the British
withdraw their alien rule from India, the people should frame their own constitution and
determine the type of Government they would like to have. They ideal State of Gandhi’s
conception would be the one in which each individual would have maximum freedom to
govern himself and to challenge and change the government when it goes wrong, so that he is
not simply a periodic voter but a regular and active participant in the process of his
governance. Gandhi, like Thoreau, considered State a necessary evil, an embodiment of
violence. He, therefore, accepted Thoreau’s dictum that ‘that Government is the best which
governs the least”, i.e. that Government is the best whose interference with people’s liberties
and rights is minimum. The Government should allow maximum opportunity to the people to
do all those things which are worth doing and should deter them from doing those things
which are not worth doing. i.e. the ones which are injurious or harmful to the interest of the
society as a whole, and that is what T.H. Green had stipulated earlier.
FORM OF GANDHI’S SWARAJIST STATE
In his Hind Swaraj as well as in scores of other places, Gandhi has given a glimpse of what
kind of Swarajist State he actually desired for India, the State which would attain the high
ideals which he had aspired.
SOVEREIGN STATE
In the first place, Gandhi would like the State to be absolutely free from foreign rule,
domination, control or interference. He would also like the State to be (tee from the rule’ of
feudal lords and the military dictators. He wanted its Government to be a democratic
Government, i.e. “Government of the people, by the people, for the people” to use Lincoln’s
off-quoted phrase. i.e. a Government which can translate into action the ideals and aspirations
of its people.

FEDERAL STATE
Gandhi regarded State as a power structure, an embodiment of political power. Political
power r in the State and that is what distinguishes the State from all other associations.
Gandhi was against the concentration and centralisation of political power, because be
regarded power as a corrupting force. He was of the view that power corrupts its possessor
and absolute power corrupts absolutely. He, therefore, was against any one person or organ of
the Government possessing the entire political power. He wanted that, in order to minimise
its corrupting influence, power should be decentralised to the maximum possible extent. In
his order of things, the State would be essentially federal, in which the central Government
would have power only on those matters which are of national and international importance.
The provinces will have power only on matters of provincial importance. District Councils
will have power on matters of district importance and the residuary (remaining) powers
would remain vested in the Panchayats. Panchayats would wield maximum power as every
adult citizen would be a real participating member in the Panchayat and not in the Parliament.
Gandhi was of the view that the maximum power should be at the place or level where
maximum people are involved and since the maximum people are able to participate in their
Government at the village Panchayat level, the maximum powers should remain vested with
the panchayats. Gandhi’s swaraj is, thus, essentially a Grain Raj, as bulk of political power
and economic resources would vest with the Panchayats or rather the Gram Sabhas at the
village level, which would be the primary level of rural administration, the level which is
nearest to the people.

SECULAR STATE
Gandhi considered religion to be a purely personal matter, i.e. a matter entirely between the
man and his Maker, the God. The State should not interfere with religious matters, for no
State can either force people to be good or to become bad. People would be good or bad
according to their own choice and circumstances, and not according to the dictates of the
Government, The State should, therefore, refrain from interfering with religious matters, just
as religious groups or denominations should keep away from political matters. The State
should treat all religious at par. It should not recognise any religion as State religion. It should
not be a theocratic State. When Gandhi was charged that India having a majority of Hindus
would eventually become a theocratic State, A Hindu Raj, Gandhi reacted very sharply. He
said that if in his life time, India ever became a Hindu State, the only option open to him
would be to commit suicide. He would not like to live as a citizen of a theocratic State.
The secular State should grant freedom of conscience and the right to freely practice, preach,
profess and prorogate the religion of one’s choice. State ought to be a garden allowing the
flowers of all religions to blossom, without let or hindrance.
Gandhi, infact, imbibed the positive features of Indian Secularism and negative features of
Western Secular State.
The positive features of Indian secularism were reflected in his notions of: (a) the divinity
and essential goodness and ethical orientation of man; (b) Divine brotherhood (c) Ethically
enlightened religion; (d) Oneness of all religions (e) Ethical code of conduct; (f) Dharma as a
way of life embracing ethics, morality and virtue (g) Spirit of assimilation, accommodation
and harmony amongst all individuals, and (h) a coordinated system of rights and duties.
Gandhi, however, tried to maintain a clear distinction between the personal and social aspects
of religion in his own life. Personally, he subscribed to the Vaishnavite Hinduism and gave
the look of a Hindu ascetic. He regarded Hinduism as the liberal-most universal religion. At
the same time, his in depth study of the religions of the East and the West made him realise
and appreciate the fact that the different religions are, in fact, only the different roads for the
realisation of God, for each one of them, in its own characteristic way, highlights the
fundamental norms of morality. The social aspect of religion, therefore, encouraged Gandhi p
advocate mutual respect towards and tolerance of all religions, spiritual fraternity, and unity
in diversity. That is how, he included within the ambit of such a universal religion the
elements of God as Truth, Ahimsa (non-violence), Congregational prayer, Moksha
(salvation), Jivdaya (Compassion), Brahmacharya (celebacy), Asvad (Control of the palate),
Asteya (non-stealing), Aparigraha (non-possession), fearlessness, Swadeshi and Bread
Labour, the themic linkage whereof is provided by his subscription to the inherent unity of
the Ends and the Means.
Gandhi also subscribed to the negative features of Western Secular State. which were
reflected in : (a) mutual exclusiveness of State and religious denominations: (b) absence of
State religion, (c) relegation of religion to the private sphere of activity; (d) non-
differentiation and non-discrimination with religion; (e) State not to interfere iii the personal
laws or internal affairs of religions denominations; (f) freedom of voluntary conversion; (g)
freedom of conscience, belief, faith and worship; (h) freedom to preach, profess and
propogate religion, and (i) freedom to read and interpret scriptures. While clearly advocating
mutual exclusiveness of State and religious denominations, Gandhi recommended
jurisdiction of State in social religion, to the extent it ensures : (a) protection of the places of
worship from riots and desecration; (b) provision of secular, ethical and moral education; and
(c) the removal of legal hindrances in the way of socio-religious reforms.
Gandhi, thus, perceived India as a multi-religious society aiming at the promotion of
communal harmony hand and protection of the religions beliefs and interest of minorities n
the other.
Gandhi’s secularism essentially depicted the triple objective of enlightened Religiosity,
Spiritual Pluralism, and Communal Harmony as pre-conditions for the attainment of Swaraj.
DEMOCRATIC STATE
Gandhi’s Swaraj means Government by the consent and participation of the people. He
agreed with Abraham Lincoln that a truly democratic government is a ‘government of the
people, by the people, for the people.’
Gandhi regarded direct democracy to be impossible in a large country like India with
enormous population. If everyone was given the right to govern, millions of people will
govern in millions of ways and that would actually lead to an anarchy He, therefore,
preferred a representative or parliamentary form of Government. He followed the
Westminster Model but adapted it to suit India’s needs and circumstances. did not want
political power to be arranged in the form of a pyramid with centre at its apex. He wanted
power to be arranged in ever-widening concentric oceanic circles, beginning with the
individual as a focal point, with the Village Panchayats as the first circ the Taluka or Block as
the second circle, the District as the third circle. Province as the fourth circle, the Central
Government as the fifth circle and the World Government as the sixth circle. When power is
arranged in a circular form, then every circle works for the welfare of its focal point. i.e. the
individual, keeping the welfare of the people uppermost for government at even level.
He compared the Government with an ‘umbrella’ which is selected and bought by an
individual according to his choice, though used by him sparingly in hot sun or in a rainy
season, and which is rejected and discarded once it becomes torn and useless. Similarly, the
people should have the opportunity to choose the type of Government they want, as they
would pay for its working in the form of taxes. They should tolerate it so long and only so
long as it is, useful to them and should reject and overthrow it the moment it becomes useless
or oppressive, just as easily as they would throw away or discard a useless umbrella.
The democratic government will have its three regular branches, the legislature which will
make the law, the executive which will execute the laws duly made, and the judiciary which
will interpret the laws and decide cases and disputes In so far as the legislature is concerned.
Gandhi preferred a unicameral legislature. because he thought that a poor country like India
would not be able to bear the cost and burden of a bicameral legislature, which would be far
too expensive. So far as the Executive is concerned, he wanted that both at the centre and in
tile provinces there should be a clear cut separation between the formal and the actual heads
of the executive. The formal head of the State at the Centre should be known as the President
and in the Provinces as the Governor. The Governor should be elected by the people of the
province and the President by the people of the whole of India These formal heads would,
generally be nominal. They would not interfere with the normal day-to-day functioning of the
Council of Ministers which will be headed by the Prime Minister in case of the Centre and
the Chief Ministers in case of the Provinces and which in turn, would be a part of the
legislature and directly and collectively accountable to it. The Council of Ministers would be
guided by the Parliament and would be subordinate to it, executing it faithfully. In his order
of things, the Executive would not dominate the Legislature. The Legislature would, instead,
dominate the Executive. The Legislature should not surrender before the whims and fancies
of a Prime Minister, as he thought it does in case of Britain. where the Parliament surrenders
as a hapless “prostitute’• before any and every Prime Minister and is dictated by him. Tile
Legislature should be supreme and its members should endeavour to fulfill the assurances
given voluntarily to the people at the time of election. The Judiciary should be impartial. It
should be independent of both the legislature and the executive and the salary and term of
office of the judges should be fixed and unalterable to their disadvantage. so that they may
act impartially. without favour or fear.
HOLDERS OF POLITICAL AUTHORITY
Gandhi’s emphasis was not so much on the political structure, as on the people who would be
chosen to man it. He. therefore, laid stress on tile quality of men who would be elected or
selected on the legislature and the executive merely on merit. This would also be true with
regard to the personnel of the judiciary, administrative services, tile police and the military.
All the branches of Government would be manned by the fittest. i.e. the most qua1if the most
suited for the job. He regarded the wielder of power as a ‘trustee’ of the people. and wanted
each one of them to exercise his authority by the ultimate standards of right and wrong. of
what is in the interest of the people and what is contrary to their interest. Therefore, they
should act as genuine servants of the people, watchful of their interest and ever eager to
fulfill their obligations to the best of their ability. The entire structure of Government should
run in a manner that it results in the achievement of good of all the people in all the fields of
human activity. Only when such a system is established, that Gandhi’s Swaraj would have
been realised.
Such a Swarajist State would provide maximum initiative and opportunity to the people to
govern themselves the way they want. The more frequent and active the people’s
participation in their governance, the less would be the need of a government to impose its
will on the people Such a devolution of political power from the Government to the people
themselves would minimize the occasions of the State to compel obedience and extract co-
operation. Once the people get used to render willing obedience and voluntary cooperation,
the State, as an embodiment of physical force or organized violence, would no longer be
needed, it would disappear, whither away, leaving the people free to approximate to the
ultimate state of Shashan Mukta Samaj, a stateless society, a state of nature, the Kingdom for
God on Earth, in which, like Rousseau. Gandhi thought people might have originally lived.
Gandhi’s Swaraj is, thus not an end in itself, but only an effective means to the realization of
a stateless society.
GANDHI’S PHILOSOPHY OF SARVODAYA
The purpose of Gandhi’s Swarajist State was to establish Ramrajya, the rule of dharma. or the
Kingdom of God on Earth. While addressing the predominantly Muslim audiances, Gandhi
also described it as Khudai Raj and defined it as a State which would be free of all
inequalities, in which justice would be prompt, perfect and inexpensive and the freedom of
worship, speech and the press would be sustained by the power of healthy and well-informed
public opinion and would be able to promote the moral, social and economic development of
all classes of the people. It would depict true democracy; free from inequalities, injustices
and exploitation and would aim at the welfare of the people of India as well of the world as a
whole. People would realise and obey all the rules willingly, voluntarily and cheerfully. In
such a self-regulated society, there would be no distinction between the ruler and the ruled.
Refuting the criticism of Ramrajya as the Hindu Raj or the rule of Lord Rama, Gandhi
asserted that it would be a dharmarajya, based on Truth and Morality, a State of Enlightened
anarchy. a state of spiritual perfection, based on the modern ideals of Justice Liberty, Equality
and Fraternity.
Realising the limitation of such a perfect, stateless utopian society, Gandhi himself specified
the second-best ideal, in which the State would not only “hinder the hindrances”, but would
also actively work for the welfare of all, Sarvodaya.
Sarvodaya is Gandhi’s theory of the purpose of State: The term sarvodaya is a combination of
two words Sarva plus Uday - meaning welfare, good or upliftn1ent of all.
Gandhi was well-versed with the Western political theories of the purpose of State, especially
with the views of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. To Bentham, The real purpose of
State was the “greatest happiness of the greatest number”, i.e. economic welfare of the
majority of the people. Bentham thought it to be essential for the very survival of the
Government in power. A democratic government is based on the consent and participation of
the majority. If the Government looses confidence of the majority, it would no longer be in
power. John Stuart Mill improved upon Bentham’s Theory by declaring that the purpose of
the State should actually be “the greatest good of the greatest number”, i.e. the allround
welfare of the majority of the people. The Government should strive to achieve not merely
the economic welfare of the majority, it should work for the welfare of the majority in all the
fields of human activity, whether political, social. economic, educational or any other. Both
Bentham and Mill, thus, represent the majoritarian theory of the purpose of State. Gandhi
was aware of the concepts of both Bentham and Mill and found himself unable to accept
these theories on two grounds first, the welfare or upliftment of the majority would inevitably
be at the cost of the corresponding minority and, therefore, ethically unsound. The good of
one should never be at cost of the good of another. His second objection to Bentham’s theory
was that if the welfare of the majority is sought only in the economic field then, it wound not
only neglect the minority, but also neglect all other fields of human activity. Gandhi was also
of the view that in pursuing the Majoritarian ideal. the Government would not be performing
any benevolent function. as the welfare or upliftment of the majority is inevitable for the
Government to keep itself in power and, as such, a self-sufficing objective, which would
hardly do any good to anyone whatsoever.
On his way back from South Africa to India, Gandhi came across a copy of John Ruskin’s
Unto This Last - meaning the upliftment of the last man or the neglected minority. Gandhi
was deeply impressed by this work and translated it into Gujarati as Antyodaya, the welfare
of the last man or the neglected minority. Gandhi appreciated the argument that if the
Government adopts Antyodaya as its philosophy, then the tradition neglected sections of the
people would be taken care of by the Government, which would be working for the
upliftment of those who are left out by every Government. However, if the Government only
serves the minority, howsoever neglected it might have been, it would be serving them at the
cost of the majority which it. in any case, needs to retain itself in power. Gandhi’s objection
was again on ethical grounds. If the welfare of majority should not be sought at the cost of
minority, the upliftment of the minority too, should not be sought at the cost of the huge
majority which too needs the attention of the Government and which, in turn, the
Government itself needs for keeping itself in power.
Gandhi did not reject either the majoritarian or the minoritarian points of view, nor could he
accept either of them in their totality. He, rather, synthesized the majoritarianism of Bentham
and Mill with the minoritatianism of Ruskin and evolved a new theory of the purpose of State
and named it sarvodaya. i.e. the welfare, good or upliftment of all in all, walks of life. This
ideal would be ethically sound as in its Pursuit, the Government would not be seeking the
welfare of one at the cost of another, neither of the majority at the cost of minority nor of
minority at the cost of majority . It would be working for the all— round welfare of all. This
ideal would remain an ideal for no Government, howsoever perfect or conscientious it might
be, would be able to achieve it cent percent. It is only such an ideal which the State should
keep before itself, so that it always remains an ideal to work towards. It should never be left
in a vacuum where the ideal it sets before itself is cent percent achieved and there is nothing
more to achieve. In that case, if there is no scope for progression towards some ideal. then it
would inevitably lead to retrogression, for human nature is never static. It keeps on changing.
If it cannot go upward it would start degenerating (going down). Therefore, this ideal is the
one which cannot be attained fully but towards the attainment of it, the State can
continuously strive to work. It is never left without an ideal. to achieve. Sarvodaya is,
therefore, Gandhi’s unique contribution to political philosophy as the theory of the purpose of
State, which is not only politically acceptable in any democratic society but is also ethically
sound.
FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE
The State would be able to achieve the ideal of Sarvodaya only if, and to the extent, it
performs the functions which conform to this ideal and refrains from performing those
functions which would come in the way or obstruct the achievement of this ideal. Keeping
this overall view before him, Gandhi, from time to time, expressed his views as to what the
State ought to do and what it must not do. Many of the ideas he expressed on this subject
were the result of the extraordinary situations created by the contexts of apartheid in South
Africa and the alien British Rule in India. Gandhi desired Swaraj but he did not have the
opportunity to live in a Swarajist State. He was assassinated within six months of India’s
Independence and during that period he was pre-occupied with the uphill task of restoring
communal harmony and the problems created by the transmigration of population between
India and Pakistan. Some of the functions he considered essential for the State in that context
may not be relevant in a democratic set up free from apartheid alien and feudal rule. That is
why his views are to be considered in the transformed context the Swarajist State which he
sought to achieve, but which he could not realize during his life time. The variety of
functions Gandhi suggested from time to time can be systematically put into a number of
categories.
However, in assigning these functions to the State, Gandhi did not want the Sate to impose
itself on the people. He wanted it only “to create conditions” in which people would be free
to act according to their conscience and to serve those who are nearest and best known to
them. Service of all is possible only if the Government joins hands with the people and seeks
their collaboration to serve all those who need to be served.
Protective functions The first obligation of the Government to protect the poor. the needy and
the oppressed against not only the wrong — doers (the criminals), but also from epidemics
and natural calamities. To perform these functions, the State is allowed the use of armed
forces. The State will have to maintain the police and armed forces not on an ad hoc basis,
but on a permanent basis and train hem for all eventualities and keep them satisfied and
happy so that they remain loyal to it. Armed forces would be needed only during wars,
aggressions, revolts and rebellions and police would be needed when the criminals strike
against the peace-loving majority. When these occasions are not in sight, then the police and
the armed forces are not to sit idle. After all, they are constantly paid out of the taxes levied
on the common man. Their services must therefore, be utilized for some constructive work
when these abnormal situations are not there. Their services should be utilised as a body of
reformers rendering social service. People should not be afraid of them. They should be able
to accept them as their benefactors. In normal circumstances, the police and the military
would be the messengers of peace and non violence. They would make the people disciplined
and restore peoples’ self-confidence. They would work in fields. In the cities, they would
sweep the streets and clean the latrines and would be ever-ready to live up to the message of
which they would be embodiment. i.e. “May I Help you”, so that people can seek their help,
assistance, co-operation and guidance whenever they are in need of it. It would be a body of
reformers and social workers ever-ready to serve the people even at the cost of their own life.
Prohibitive functions : Gandhi, like T.H. Green, believed that the primary duty of the State is
to ‘hinder the hindrances”, i.e. to remove obstacles in the way of each individual seeking to
achieve his welfare in common with everyone else. Gandhi would like the State to perform a
number of prohibitive functions, keeping the people away from the things which are not good
for them. The State would indirectly help the people by removing obstacles in the way of
seeking good life. In this area, Gandhi would like the State to perform a variety of functions,
such as the following:
1. To convert liquor-dens and bars into restaurants, supplying nutritive refreshment, allow
instructive literature and recreation facilities to wean the addicts away from the lure of
intoxicants.
2. To prohibit, by law, the manufacture and sale of cigarettes, cigars and beedies.
3. To prohibit the use of intoxicants, especially by women and children. The use of
intoxicants would, however, be permitted only for medicinal purposes.
4. To ban all literature which is obscure or which is intended to promote fanaticism, ill-will or
hatred between individuals, classes or races.
5. To ban, by law, all evil customs and practices like the evils of untouchability, race
prejudice, colour distinctions and the institution of Devadasis.
Economic Functions : In this field, the State will have to effectively deal with the problem of
starvation, nakedness, disease, illiteracy and lack of communication. In the context of the
abnormal conditions created by famine, mass unemployment and communal riots, following
the Partition of India, Gandhi suggested the following economic functions which, he thought,
the Government should perform.
1. To ensure employment to all unemployed persons so as to enable them to secure the basic
necessities of life through the swet of one’s brow. He termed it bread-labour.
2. In order to enable the State to provide employment to one and all, he would permit it to
own and manage the industries, and public utility services like transport and communication.
3. He would allow it to own and cooperatively cultivate land so that the articles of universal
consumption are made available to all. Gandhi was a socialist, for he would not only allow
the State to nationalise the key industries and public utility services but also allow it to have
the ownership of land. Gandhi had a unique ability to give old phrases new meaning. Gandhi
had cc across in Hindu Literature a phrase “Sabhi Bhoomi Gopal Ki”, which literally means
that all land belongs to God. Gandhi substituted the word State for God. Since the State was
to provide employment to all, it must have the ownership of all land and major economic
resources, without which no State would be able to create employment opportunities for all.
4. It would allow the State to regulate customs and international trade as this must not be left
to private hands.
5. It is said that Gandhi was against machinery. Gandhi was not against machinery as such.
He was against only such power driven machinery which results in unemployment. In a
country where majority of the people are unemployed, Gandhi could not allow the use of
machinery to create further unemployment. For instance. he was not against textile factories
or factories grinding wheat or preserving oil seeds, as these industries would generate
employment and not unemployment.
6. Gandhi would concede to the State the right to impose taxes. It is only with the support of
the taxes of the people. that the machinery of the Government can function. Government
should. however, follow a policy of graded taxation: i.e. it should tax each category of people
according to its capacity to pay the tax. There should be only two criterions for the
Government to levy and collect taxes: first, the people who are being taxed are able to pay
the tax; and secondly the money collected by way of taxation is utilised for the general
benefit of the society He would, however, impose two specific restrictions on Government’s
power to impose taxes: (i) articles of universal consumption, i.e. the articles which the poor
use in common with the rich. like salt and khadi should not be taxed; and (ii) the State. being
secular, should not impose any religious tax.
Educational Functions : Compelled by the context of mass illiteracy in India, Gandhi, asked
the State to provide seven year free and compulsory primary vocational education to all the
children between the age group of 7-14 years. At this stage. the education would not only be
free, but also compulsory. That was the only way to remove the scar of illiteracy from the
face of India.
In so far as higher education is concerned, Gandhi followed the principle that out of the taxes
paid by the people, in common with one another, the government should pay only for that
education which is necessary to make the people literate and train them for some vocation, so
that they can either take up a job or are able to become self employed. Beyond this,
responsibility of the State for high education is only for such people whom the State would
need to run the administration. The State has no responsibility for training the people for
private sector. In this respect. Gandhi evolved a formula : “he who needs the expertise pays
for its training too”. If. for example. the Birla and Tata need experts they should also pay for
the higher education and training of the experts needed by them.
Political Functions: In the political field, Gandhi wanted the Government to perform the
following functions:
1. To take care of its citizens. befriend them and be kind to them;
2. To work for the upliftment of the down-trodden;
3 To redress the legitimate grievances of the people;
4. To ascertain public opinion before passing any law, order, policy or programme;
5. To promote units amongst various castes classes and religious groups;
6. The Legislature should make the law for peoples’ welfare on its own, without waiting for
the people to struggle for it;
7. The executive should so execute the law as to maximize peoples’ welfare; and that
8. Judiciary should ensure inexpensive, expeditious, incorruptible and impartial justice to all.
International functions : Realising the significance of, the notion of ‘Vasudhaiv
Kutuinbakam’ (the whole earth is the family writ-large), Gandhi believed in the possibility of
world Government. He thought the U.N. would one day lead to the establishment of world
Government in which the States would give up their false notion of sovereignty and would
work not for their own selfish interest but in the interest of the whole world. For this purpose,
he wanted the State to perform the following functions :
1. To cooperate with and strengthen the international associations and organizations like the
U.N;
2. To promote international co-operation, peace and security;
3. To protect the rights and interests of citizens of all the States;
4. To work for physical disarmament and moral rearmament;
5. Not to wage war or commit an aggression on any country, and in case it is committed by
another, then, to defend preferably by offering non-violent resistance;
6. To help the neighboring States in need of help;
7. To support the people of all nations clamoring for peace, freedom and democracy;
8. To eliminate the evils of narrowness, selfishness and exc1usiveness and
9. To promote transformation and reconstruction of the political social and economic
structures of the nations. along non-violent lines.
Things that are not Caesor’s: Gandhi was of the view that the State should not interfere with
the peoples freedom, their thoughts and their conscience. He was in agreement with Henry
David Thoreau who wrote his famous essay “Stone walls do not a prison make”. It means
that if you disobey the State, it can deprive von of your wealth and imprison your body. but
no State can imprison your soul. Like Thoreau, Gandhi was also of the view that men cannot
be made good or virtuous by acts of Parliament. If they are compelled to do any act which the
Government considers good, then they are no more credited with virtue than a donkey who is
compelled to carry a load. The State cannot impose morality. It can neither compel the people
to be good or to become bad. People would be good or bad of their own choice and according
to their own circumstances. Secondly. the State cannot and should not interfere with peoples’
religion for religion is a personal matter exclusively between God and man.
The State should imprison only those criminals who violate the laws of the State. It must
never imprison or punish its best and wisest citizens or the freedom fighters. in order simply
to harass them unnecessarily. Freedom fighters have no personal stake, no self-interest, the
work for the freedom of their country and they win ultimately. They are not and should not be
considered the enemies of the State. They seem to violate the law. In fact they only focus on
the deficiencies of laws. They are not criminals or enemies of the State. They are the friends,
well wishers and beneficiaries of the State. The State should be proud of them, rather than
punish or imprison them. Thus, Gandhi was against tile punishment or imprisonment of
freedom fighters, like himself.
Justification of the State : The actions of the State are to be judged in terms of the functions it
performs. So long as and to the extent it performs the functions which lead to the good,
welfare or upliftment of all in all fields of human activity, the existence of the State and the
acts of its government are justified. On the other hand, if it indulges in acts which takes it
away from the ideal of Sarvodaya, to that extent its actions and its very survival cannot be
justified or defended. In short, the functions of the Government must always be in full
accordance with its ideal of Sarvodaya.
GANDHI’S CONCEPT OF POLITICAL
OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS
The problem of political obligation in Gandhi s political thought is essentially a problem of
ruler-ruled relationship. i.e. relationship between the citizens and the State, or to use the
modern phraseology. a problem of relationship between political obligors and political
‘obligees’ whose positions are interchangeable. In short. it is a problem of reciprocal
relationship between the political obligors and the political obligees.
Political obligors are essentially the people. the human beings who are distinguished by
Gandhi by the attributes of conscious — divinity, rationality and sociability and who are-
striving for self- realization through the service of the nearest and the dearest. On the other
hand, political obligee is essentially the State which to Gandhi must be a Swarajist,
democratic, federal, secular socialistic republic aiming at Sarvodaya, i.e. the welfare of all in
all fields of human activity, by removing the obstacles or hindrances from the way of
individual’s attainment of good life and by simultaneously creating maximum opportunities
or conditions favourable to self-realization.
The non-fulfillment or breach of political obligation is followed by punishment, that is, if an
individual citizen, or a group thereof, is guilty of violating a law, he is legally punished either
by fine or imprisonment or both. On the other hand, if the State does not fulfill its obligations
towards the citizens, the citizens may disobey it. non- cooperate with it or even overthrow it.
MEANING OF POLITICAL OBLIGATION
In defining the term political obligation, Gandhi not only adheres generally to the scope
defined by T.H. Green, but also improves upon it. To Gandhi, the term political obligation
includes the following types of obligations
1. Obligations of the citizens towards the State;
2. Supplementary or additional obligations of criminals and civil resisters towards the jail
authorities who are obliged, in Gandhi’s scheme of things, to reform the criminals so that
when they come out of the jail, they are better suited for the society:
3. Obligations of the State towards the citizens;
4. Obligations of the jail authorities towards the prisoners;
5. Obligations of the citizens inter se (amongst themselves): and
6. Obligations of the prisoners inter Se.
Gandhi improved upon Green’s definition by incorporating them supplementary obligations
of the criminals or law breakers towards the Slate. At the same time. lie did not accept,
Green’s inclusion of slave’s 1oyalty to the State as a political obligation. He was of the view
that a slave loyalty is not willing or voluntary and therefore no by ally. Slave is loyal because
he has no choice or alternative. He serves not willingly or voluntarily but only under duress.
Therefore. his loyalty cannot be treated as political obligation.
NATURE OF POLITICAL OBLIGATION
Gandhi rejection of slave’s loyalty as political obligation was based on his submission that
political obligation is essentially reasoned or willed, i.e. voluntary. The law-abiding instinct
of man does not involve acceptance of any law as such, specially a law which is distasteful.
Like Thoreau, Gandhi too said : “True loyalty does not consist in saving yes’ to everything. It
means acting according to “one’s conscience and reason”. A citizen obeys laws voluntarily
and never under compulsion or for fear of punishment prescribed for their breach. Obedience
under compulsion or for fear of punishment is no obedience. He was of the view that a law,
order or decision should be accepted willingly. A Citizen must be free to obey or disobey a
law on merit, If the law’ serves his interest and that of the society of which he is a member.
he can reasonably justify his obedience. On the other hand, if a law violates his basic, rights
or freedoms or comes in the way of his progress then he has a right to disobey it. Obedience
is, thus, optional, voluntary, willing and is to be exercised in one’s own discretion.
At the same time, willingness to obey is related to the obligor’s capacity to perform the
obligation, if, for instance, a person is asked to pay a tax which is beyond his capacity to pa
then even if he wants to obey such a law, he would not be able to obey it because he just can
not. Similarly, if a citizen is asked to work for 12 hours a day in order to earn his livelihood,
it may be beyond his capacity to work for such a long duration and therefore, even if he
wants to earn his livelihood by working honestly, he would not be able to do so, because the
prescription of the inordinately long working hours would be beyond his capacity.
Another point which Gandhi made in defining the nature of Political obligation was that the
citizen’s loyalty to ‘the State’ is Subordinate to his loyalty to God, who is his creator. The law
of God or the divine law is communicated to us through our soul. A person can be expected
to obey the law” ,of State only in so far as it is in accordance with his conscience. If the law
requires a citizen to perform certain acts which are contrary to his conscience, then he is duty
bound to obey his conscience rather than the law. In that case, he would obey the law or voice
of his conscience and refuse to obey the law of the State and would, as a consequence, invite
the penalty prescribed for its violation. For example, whenever Gandhi thought he should go
to a particular place to help the people to overcome their difficulties and the State imposed a
ban on his entry in that area. Gandhi obeyed his conscience and visited that area instead of
obeying the instructions of the Government not to visit that area, and in the process asked for
the highest punishment prescribed for its violation. For instance, when Gandhi was
conducting, on behalf of the Congress, an enquiry into the causes, circumstances and
consequences of the Jalianwalan Bagh Massacre, he visited Punjab to perform his duty and
when the government banned his entry, he preferred to accept the penalty of disobedience
rather than obey an instruction which was contrary to his conscience.
Citizen’s loyalty to the State comes first, vis-à-vis his loyalty to any other association. As a
social being, man is a member of number of associations like family, school, church or club,
just as he is a member of the State. In case all these associations desire him to perform certain
acts and if these directions are contrary to one another, then the citizen is in a dilemma as to
whose orders he should obey. For instance, if a person is asked by his church to participate in
a procession and if the State stops or prohibits the procession, then he is to obey the State
rather than the church. This is because his membership of the State is primary and
compulsory and that of all other associations secondary and voluntary. Moreover, State is not
only the human association, but the first among various associations of man. Since State is
first among all his associations, State’s claim to citizens obedience is also first to that of all
other associations.

GROUNDS OF POLITICAL OBEDIENCE

Thomas Hobbes and John Plamenatz have given their own reasons as to why a citizen hou1d
obey the State. T.H. Green has also given his version as to why a citizen should obey the
State. In Gandhi, we find safe syntheses of the view-points of Hobbes and Plamenatz on the
one hand and that of Green on the other, in laying down the following grounds on the basis of
which a citizen can justify his obedience to the laws of the State
I. Citizens ought to obey the law if in come sense the have consented to laws or can consider
themselves as their author, A citizen obeys the law because in is “an authorised act of an
authorised agent.’’ In this sense, he is obeying the law of his own making. Obedience to the
law of one’s own making is always spontaneous and needs no coercion. It is willing,
voluntary and reasoned.
2. Citizens also ought to obey the laws to the extent they help them realize their ethical—
self: i.e. they help them in the realization of the ideal of sarvodaya. the welfare of all. In other
words, if a law is “in the interest of the society.’’ then the citizen is justified in obeying the
law, in that case also his obedience would be willing, voluntary and reasoned.
Gandhi would rather put the two arguments together and say that a citizen should obey those
laws which are not only of his own making but are also essentially in the interest of and for
the benefit of the society. In the absence of either of these two conditions, a citizen would
likewise be justified in disobeying the law
Acceptance of such ground. had led Green to say : “will, not force is the basis of State”.
Gandhi would elaborate it further and say “active, non-violent, free, intelligent will of the
people is the basis of the State. and that physical force is not”. One should never obey the law
because he is forced to obey. He should obey it only if he thinks that a law deserves to be
obeyed. He would say “Right is Might, not Might is Right.”
Commentators like Austin and Garner would like us to believe that the basis of man’s
obedience is his ‘habit’. Gandhi would reject such a pre-supposition. If it were man’s habit to
obey the Jaw, then all laws must always have been obeyed by everyone and there would
never have been any revolt, revolution, or war. Rebellion or war takes place due to someone’s
decision not to obey the law, The history of mankind, as Marx put it, is a history of war, a
history of conflicts, and these have been there because people have defied the laws either
because they were not of their own making or because they were not in their interest. Hence,
the argument that man obeys the law because it is his habit to do so is even historically
untrue,
Another argument is that man obeys the law for ‘fear of punishment’, if this was so, then
again nobody would have ever defied a law. The freedom-fighters suffered humiliation,
suppression and oppression but they preferred to undergo sufferings, than to give up their
fight for the liberation of their motherland or for the protection of their basic rights. That was
precisely the case both in South Africa and India. In South Africa, under Gandhi’s leadership,
the coloured people suffered indignities rather than accept the black laws which were
oppressive and discriminative. In India, too, people suffered imprisonments, fines and other
hardships but refused to obey the inhuman laws of alien imperialistic rule. Hence, fear of
punishment for disobedience is not the ground for an intelligent citizen to obey a law
Similarly, if a law is bad, no ‘incentive’, however great, can ever force a conscientious citizen
to obey it. The British Government offered incentives in the form of high social decorations,
titles and offices to prominent freedom fighters in the hope that they would support actions of
the British Government and keep away from the freedom struggle. They, however, preferred
to fight for freedom rather than accept medals, awards, decorations or high political offices
from their alien British rulers.
POLITICAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITIZENS TOWARD THE STATE
In his list of political obligations of
the citizens towards the
State, Gandhi would include the following
1. To willingly obey the laws, in so far as they are of their own making and are for the benefit
of the society as such;
2. To maintain law and order;
3. To pay taxes according to their capacity to pay;
4. To help the State in times of war, aggression, revolt, famine or other natural calamities, i.e.
in all those situations in which the State needs their active cooperation;
5. To assure the Government of their loyal cooperation and to fully support all those acts
which are in the interest of the society; and
6. To demand and fight for freedom, i.e. to get well—deserved rights, the basic freedoms
without which they would not be able to act as active members of the society;
POLITICAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITIZENS INTER SE
Gandhi would like the citizen not only to perform certain obligations towards the State, but
also a number of obligations towards one another, a variety of social, economic, educational,
moral and religious obligations. A few of the obligations that Gandhi mentioned in this
category may be highlighted as follows
i. Social obligations: In this category, citizens’ obligations would include the obligation to do
away with provincialism, casteism and communalism on the one hand, and to cultivate
enlightened public opinion and to keep a watch on the newspapers.
2. Economic Obligation: This would include the obligation to work and earn one’s livelihood
by the sweat of one’s brow and to contribute one’s share towards the economic progress of
the society.
3. Educational Obligation : These include the obligation to undergo a 7-year, primary, free
and compulsory vocational education. The special obligation of women, Harijans and
illiterate adults to have some minimum education.
4. Moral and Religious Obligation: These would include obligations to act according to one’s
conscience, to insist on Truth, and to observe the vows of non-violence, non-stealing, non-
possession, Brahmacharya, body-labour, fearlessness, equal respect for all religions,
swadeshi and universal brotherhood.
OBLIGATIONS OF THE STATE TOWARDS THE CITIZENS
In Gandhi’s order of things, it is not only the citizens who are expected to obey the State, the
State is also duty bound to work for the welfare of the people. Sarvodaya, being the purpose
of the State, it is charged to perform a number of social, economic, educational and political
functions and obligations towards the citizens. The special obligations of the State are to
remove illiteracy, poverty, unemployment, communalism, casteism, and regionalism, if
should, on the other hand, create maximum opportunities for the benefit of all and should
remove obstacles and hinderances from the way of the people so that each one may attain the
height of which he is capable.
OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS
Gandhi was of the view that obligations and rights are inter connected or rather inter-
dependent. It is impossible to separate the two. One cannot think of rights without obligations
and vice-versa. Gandhi’s basic argument was that the true source of right is duty discharged
willingly, voluntarily, cheerfully and in advance. To Gandhi, one cannot think of a right
without first performing the corresponding duty. Every right has a corresponding duty and if
one has performed his duty, lie would get his corresponding right sooner or later, but one
cannot expect to have a right without first performing the corresponding obligation. Gandhi’s
emphasis on the performance of duty was so great that when H.G. Wells asked Gandhi to
suggest the rights which he would like him to include in the Charter of Human Rights,
Gandhi replied: “begin with a charter of duties of man, and I Promise the rights will follow,
as spring follows winter”. H. G. Wells had expected Gandhi, who was basically a freedom
fighter, to suggest a long list of rights to be included in the Charter of Human Rights.
Gandhi’s reply disappointed him and it was beyond his expectation from a born-rebel.
Gandhi, thus, always put a premium on the duties of man and this was in the spirit of Gita’s
dictum of Nishkam Karma, i.e. duty without an eye on its result. Gandhi said: “action alone is
duty, fruit is its right”. True rights are only those rights which flow from the due performance
of one’s duty. He equated duties with the roots of a tree and the rights with the fruits thereof.
Gandhi, thus, worked out his novel theory of Earned Rights, i.e. the rights which one is to
earn by first performing the corresponding duties. This was Gandhi’s contribution to political
theory. Instead of defining the rights as birth rights, inherent rights, basic rights, or
fundamental rights, Gandhi preferred to define rights as earned rights. Man is not born with
any rights. He has to earn every right which he wants, by first performing his obligation.
Though Gandhi believed that rights accrue automatically to him who duly performs his duty,
he had also to admit the hard reality that to expect this outcome is not an easy course. One
has not only to perform his duties first, but has also to shout, strive and be ready to sacrifice
his all for getting his rights. He believed in the Indian proverb that even a mother does not
feed her children unless they cry for it. How could Indians expect an alien and oppressive
British Government to grant them their rights, without their active and ceaseless fight for
them. Every right is to be earned and obtained. Rights are not given. These are taken.
CHARTER OF EARNED RIGHTS
In Gandhi’s Charter of earned rights, we have a variety of political, civil, economic,
educational and religious rights. The most notable of them are the following:
1. Right of every citizen to vote and to get himself elected to any political office on attaining
the age of 18 years and to hold the political office until he attains the age of 50 years;
2. Right to criticise, challenge and even change the government through constitutional
methods, supplemented by the extra- constitutional satyagrahic methods:
3 Right to the freedom of expression, movement, residence;
4. Right to form political parties and/or trade unions;
5. Right to equality before law and the equal protection of laws;
6. Right to work and earn one’s livelihood by having a job which commensurates with one’s
educational and professional qualifications and experience;
7. Equal right of both men and women to work and to earn wages sufficient enough not only
to meet their basic needs but also to live with dignity;
8. Right of all citizens to get a 7-year long free and compulsory primary vocational education
which would enable them to either get self-employment or employment under the State or
private sector;
9. Right to the freedom of conscience and to freely profess, preach and propagate the religion
of one’s choice; and
10. Right of voluntary conversion;
This list of rights is only illustrative. In fact, Gandhi’s charter of earned rights is the most
comprehensive charter, as it includes practically all those political, civil, religious, social,
economic and educational rights that are normally guaranteed to citizens in modern
democracies.
CONCLUSION
We, thus, find that the problem of political obligation in Gandhi’s political thought is
essentially a problem of reciprocal obligations between the State and the citizens. It also
explains the basic relationship between obligations and rights. In this way, Gandhi provides a
most synthesised and comprehensive account of both obligations and rights which, if
performed and clamoured for, in the right spirit, would make any citizen a dignified and
enlightened citizen of whom any State would be proud. That, in itself, would contribute
towards making the State a model for others to aspire for.
GANDHI’S PHILOSOPHY AND TECHNIQUE OF SATYAGRAHA
Gandhi was essentially a philosopher of the ‘politics of peaceful protest. His basic motive or
objective was to find as to how should a law-abiding citizen, or a group thereof, resist
constituted authority, once he finds himself impelled to do so. Gandhi provides a definite
guide to the means whereby all conflicts, especially political, can be resolved effectively and
peacefully and it was in his pre-occupation with the means of peaceful conflict- resolution
that Gandhi found himself in conflict with Machiavelli. Machiavelli was of the view that
“end justifies the means.” Gandhi reverses Machiavelli’s proposition and declares that
“means justify the end.” Noble ends demand noble means.
Gandhi was conversant with the history of nations. He found from history that fighting evil
with evil multiplies evil. Fighting violence with violence multiplies violence. If our purpose
is to put an end to violence, then it can never be done through the use of violent methods.
Violence is to be fought with its opposite, non-violence. Evil is to be fought with its opposite,
good. A true fight is a fight between opposite forces and not identical forces. Hence, violence
is to be fought with non-violence, evil with good. Joan Bondurant is rightly of the view that
Gandhi says ‘yes’ to fighting but an emphatic ‘no’ to violence. In the words of K.L.
Shridharani “Gandhi’s war is a war without violence.”
MEANING OF SATYAGRAHA
The term Satyagraha is a combination of two Sanskrit words Satya and Agraha. Satya means
truth and Agraha means insistence or clinging to it. Satyagraha. therefore, means acting
according to Truth. It means fighting untruth. Satyagraha is a war and in a war nobody can be
passive. Both the parties are to be active and vigilant. The only difference between traditional
warfare and Gandhi’s mode of fighting is that the former is based on violence while the latter
is devoid of violence.
Gandhi found himself and his countrymen in South Africa in a situation where they were
discriminated against on grounds only of the colour of their skin. He thought that the State or
the society should not discriminate against any section of it merely on this ground.
Discrimination on this ground results in treating the coloured people as less than fellow
human beings, as animals. He started his fight against discrimination and segregation of the
coloured people not only by the White racist government but also by their White
counterparts. Gandhi launched his protest without having recourse to violence. For quite
some time, he did not find a suitable term to name his light. For want of a proper term, he
initially called it Passive Resistance’, but soon he found that passive resistance was a
contradiction in terms. One cannot resist or fight passively. He, therefore, invited the readers
of his viewspaper. Indian Opinion, to suggest a proper name. Various suggestions were
received. The best suggestion came from one Magan Lal Gandhi. He suggested the word
Sadagraha, i.e. Sad+Agraha, meaning firmness in a good cause. Gandhi appreciated the term,
but as it conveyed only part of what he had in his mind, he corrected it to Satyagraha.
Gandhi has explained the term Satyagraha in different contexts from different points of view.
First, he distinguishes Satyagraha with passive resistance. In distinction to passive resistance,
Satyagraha does not involve passivity. Satyagraha is not a weapon of the weak, the coward,
the unarmed, the helpless and the impotent. It is a weapon of the morally vigilant and active
person. Satyagraha stands for the greatest courage (moral courage) that man is capable of.
Satyagraha is also distinguished with violence which in its organised form is called war and
in its unorganised form rebellion. Satyagraha is a weapon to fight violence not with violence,
but its opposite, non-violence. Gandhi was influenced by Gita, Tolstoy, Thoreau and New
Testament in rejecting the use of violence in warfare. Gandhi was greatly influenced by the
New Testament which says : Resist not evil by evil”. Evil is to be fought by good, not by evil.
Satyagraha is a new name for the law of self-suffering or self- sacrifice, as described in the
Hindu scriptures. Gandhi thought that self-sacrifice is superior to the sacrifice of others. A
Satyagrahi does not make others suffer for what he considers to be right. He suffers only
himself. He does not inflict suffering on the opponent. He inflicts it on himself. In this
process, if he is in the right, he would have suffered for a cause. On the other hand, if he is
found to be in the wrong, then he undertakes the punishment for adhering to something which
was not right. He alone suffers for his mistakes. He does not make his opponent suffer for
them.
When we put together the various aspects or meanings of Satyagraha, we come to a
comprehensive meaning of Satyagraha. In its totality, Satyagraha may be defined as an
attitude of mind and a way of life based on the firm (agrah) desire of vindicating just causes
(truth), correcting wrongs and converting wrong-doers (Criminals), by voluntary self-
suffering and by patient and active use of the means which are not only non—violent, but
also intrinsically just.
Joan Bonduränt distinguishes Gandhi’s Satyagraha from its opposite, Duragraha. Duragraha
means stubborn resistance of the opponent’s policy or action pre-judged to be ipso-facto
wrong. The duragrahi regards Truth, Justice, Righteousness his monopoly and does not allow
the possibility of the opponent being in the right. In Duragraha, the opponent is regarded as
an embodiment of evil. Hence, he is blackmailed and humiliated. He is not even allowed to
explain his viewpoint. Even the distinction between the wrong and the wrong doer is not
maintained. The doer is mixed with the deed. The duragrahi first destroys his opponent
physically in order to destroy his misdeed. Consequently, the opponent is subjected to
maximum suffering and violence. He is forced to accept defeat and to grant the desired
concessions under duress. On the other hand, the Satyagrahi enables the so-called evil-doer to
put forward his point of view and allow a fair chance of its acceptance. In Satyagraha, the
Satyagrahi concedes that his opponent has as much a right to live in this world as he himself
has, and that his opponent has the right to stick to what he considers to be right. It is a fight
between equals who are eager not only to put forth their respective view-points, but also to
understand each other’s viewpoint in order to find out as to what extent he is right and to
what extent his opponent is right. Once this course of action in undertaken, it leads to a
dialogue between the opponents who, instead of trying to destroy each other, may become
eager to understand and accomodate each other’s point of view to the extent it is just and
possible. Such a dialogue leads to an agreement and once an agreement is reached, the so-
called enemy ceases to be an enemy. He becomes a friend, a co-worker in the pursuit of
Truth. Satyagrahi lives and allows his opponent to live. He gets his viewpoint accepted to the
extent it is right and also accepts the other’s view-point to the extent that is right. In
satyagraha, one starts with the assumption that no one is wholly right or wrong. Satyagraha,
thus, leads to the conversion of enemies into friends and resolution of the conflict into points
of agreement, acceptable to both.
PURPOSE OF SATYAGRAHA
The social and political evils for the removal of which Gandhi employed and evolved the
method and technique of Satyagraha during his five decade-long public career, is an
illustration of the wide range of objectives which can be attained without necessarily having
recourse to violence. Satyagraha, in its negative aspect, enjoins on the Satyagrahi the duty to
eradicate evil; and in its positive sense it reminds him of his obligation to serve the
community and to work for its welfare in all walks of life.
In fact, Satyagraha amounts to the assertion of a moral right, which the State law should
recognise but it denies. It is to make up the deficiencies of law and not for the defiance of the
law itself that a law- abiding citizen may resort to satyagraha. It is a way through which
people can seek to redress their grievances and to solve conflicts and deadlocks on a durable
basis.
Satyagraha is a para-legel method of registering peaceful protest against the laws, the
customs and the practices which one finds contrary to one’s conscience. For instance. Gandhi
used Satyagraha against the apartheid policy of the South African Government. On the other
hand, in India, he offered it for seeking redressal of a variety of specific grievances and for
the wider objective of attaining Puma Swaraj for undivided India.
Satyagraha distinguishes between the action and its author, the deed and the doer. It shifts the
emphasis from the doer to the deed, so that both the Satyagrahi and his opponent may address
themselves to the solution of the problem, rather than seek to destroy each other. Gandhi aims
at the evil-doer, the criminal, by changing his mentality so that he can appreciate justice,
righteousness and fair play. Like Tolstoy, Gandhi hates the sin, not the sinner. In Satyagraha,
the opponent is not an enemy to be destroyed or defeated. He is a person who has the right to
co-exist with the Satyagrahi. He is, therefore, to be helped to become a better man for himself
and his society. A Satyagrahi, is, therefore, required to enter into reason and discussion with
his opponent in order to awaken the sense of justice in him. In case the Satyagrahi fails to
persuade him through reason and discussion, he is to undertake self-suffering instead of
inflicting suffering on his opponent. The Satyagrahi should be ready to give up his life rather
than take the opponent’s life.
Gandhi insisted on voluntary self-suffering as it evokes the sense of justice in the wrong-doer
by enabling him to recognise his position vis-a-vis that of the Satyagrahi. Therefore, the
efforts of Satyagrahi are aimed ultimately at discovering an alternative which is acceptable to
him as well as to his opponent. That is what Gandhi means by the conversion of the wrong-
doer or changing the heart of the opponent. Once a mutually acceptable alternative is found,
it helps the so-called enemy to become a person other then an enemy, a friend. The so- called
opponent had become an enemy because of the diametrically opposite stand he had taken to
solve an issue. Once the Satyagrahi and his opponent are able to talk and enter into an
argument in order to solve the problem, they give up their rigid attitudes of sell-
righteousness. Both recognise that Truth is not a monopoly of either. Satyagrahi is not wholly
right and the opponent, too, is not wholly wrong. A via media is, therefore, found, which is
acceptable to both and once that is reached the enemy ceases to be the enemy, as he as well as
the Satyagrahi take a mutually acceptable position that can convert the enemy into a friend.
Thomas Merton is right in his observation that Gandhi’s Satyagraha seeks to change
“relationships that are evil into others that are good, or at least less bad.”
A Satyagrahi also exert influence on those in whose behalf it is undertaken. It transforms the
civil resisters, the fighters for freedom, it ennobles them, makes them better men. Ever the
dumb and the illiterate participants become politically conscious and acquire a better sense of
distinction between justice and injustice, right and wrong. The Satyagrahi and his followers
find opportunity for participation in the social and political life of the nation. That why, R.R.
Diwakar is right in his conclusion that at the end of the South African Satyagraha, Gandhi
was a transformed man. It was satyagraha that had made Gandhi the Mahatma, the
enlightened soul.
Satyagraha also evokes the conscience of the on-lookers, as it enables them also to
understand the respective positions of the conflicting parties and they judge for themselves as
to who is right and to what extent, on the basis of merits and demerits of the claims of the
conflicting parties.
Satyagraha is, thus, a process of conflict-resolution by mutual understanding and by
cultivating public opinion through reason, discussion and self-suffering. To Richard Gregg, it
provides to all the parties to a conflict (The Satyagrahi, the opponent and the on-lookers) a
mirror in which everyone sees himself as other see him. This is possible because Satyagraha
provides an equal opportunity to everyone to understand each other’s view-point and to
appreciate and accept it to the extent it is right.
In the political field, the purpose of Satyagraha is to substitute willing-obedience for forced
obedience and voluntary co-operation for involuntary cooperation. This is made possible by a
free opportunity to understand each other’s view-point and to accept or reject it willingly and
voluntarily. Satyagraha is, thus, a supplement to constitutionalism arid parliamentary
democracy and not its ant-thesis or substitute. It helps the law, the Government, the State, the
people by supplementing constitutionalism and democracy, by making up the deficiencies of
law.
Gandhi conceived Satyagraha in an abnormal situation of extreme racialism in South Africa
and nurtured it in India in the context of alien British rule. He employed it as an anti-thesis to
racialism, imperialism and tyranny. Racialism and imperialism do not stand for Truth and
justice. Satyagraha stands for Truth and justice. Hence, Satyagraha is their anti-thesis or
opposite. On the other hand, democracy, too, stands for Truth and justice. It implies not only
self- government, but also good government and allows people the right to challenge and
change the government. Dialogue between the people and the Government is a pre-condition
of democracy. Satyagraha also stands for all this. The aims of democracy and Satyagraha are,
therefore, the same. Hence, Satyagraha is not, and should not be used as an anti-thesis of
democracy. It is not against democratic norms. However, parliamentary democracy has its
own weaknesses and drawbacks. Like any other system, democracy also is not a perfect
system. That is why, even in a parliamentary democracy, Satyagraha has a place to make up
its deficiencies and drawbacks, so that institutions of parliamentary democracy become more
perfect. The deficiencies and drawbacks of democracy are few in comparison to any other
system. Hence, the occasions for the use of Satyagraha in a democracy should also be few. It
is only on rare occasions, when constitutionalism finally fails the aspirations of the people
that they may resort to Satyagraha. It is therefore, to be used sparingly and with utmost
caution, so that it does not result in violence or loss of people’s respect for the duly
constituted authority or its laws. The purpose of Satyagraha is not to defy law but to make up
the deficiencies of law. That is why, it substitutes willing obedience for forced obedience and
voluntary cooperation for involuntary cooperation. It is, thus, a supplement to
constitutionalism and parliamentary democracy. As a para-legal method, it has a definite,
though strictly limited, place in democracy.
PRELIMINARIES OF SATYAGRAHA
Since satyagraha is an alternative only to violence and cowardice and not of constitutionalism
or parliamentary democracy, a satyagrahi must exhaust all the constitutional means available
to him before launching on direct satyagraha. Accordingly, Gandhi suggested adoption of a
number of preliminaries before recourse to Satyagraha can be had. These included the
following
1Wait, watch and pray Satyagraha is not a shortcut method. It requires a lot of patience,
thinking and re-thinking not only about one’s own point of view, but also that of the
opponent, so that one may be able to comprehend not only the merits but also short-comings
of his stand. At the same time. he must pray to God to give him moral strength to stand by the
position he considers to be right.
2. Assessment of Facts: A Satyagrahi must know full facts not only of his own case, but also
of his opponent. For this purpose, he must conduct an open public enquiry so that he is in
possession of full facts of both sides of the case. This would help him to be sure of his stand
and to defend it althrough the course of Satyagraha.
3 Tours including walking tours or padyatra: Gandhi was of the view that a Satyagrahi should
not only himself be sure of both sides of the case but should also establish a mass contact and
cultivate public opinion in his favour, so that whenever there is need he can bank upon the
support of the public who, like him, would have already been educated about the full facts of
the case and would be able to take a stand which will be reasoned and well-thought of. The
walking tours can also be undertaken for this purpose and also for the additional purpose of
checking violence and communal animosity or riots, so that in an atmosphere of calm and
peace, the whole course of Satyagraha can be steered forward.
4. Negotiations : Gandhi adopted the essentially moderate method of negotiation, for he
thought that it is necessary for the Satyagrahi to first appeal to the good sense of the
opponent. Unless this is done, the opponent would not be prepared either to explain his point
of view or to understand the Satyagrahi point of view. Negotiations are also necessary to
create public opinion in favour of justice and peace. It would enable all parties to the case,
the Satyagrahi his opponent and the on-looking public to give serious thought to the problem.
Negotiations can be conducted through filing petition, or leading deputations to the
concerned authorities, Gandhi adopted this method in all his Satyagraha movements before
formally launching Satyagraha.
5. Arbitration: If necessary and feasible, the Satyagrahi must adopt this method, for
arbitration is nothing but an alternative worked out by an impartial authority to which both
the Satyagrahi and his opponent are agreeable. Once this alternative is adopted and the award
is accepted by both the parties. the problem is solved and the so-called opponent or enemy
ceases to be the opponent or enemy and becomes a friend, being a co-equal party with the
Satyagrahi himself. Gandhi adopted this method only once, in the course of the Ahmedabad
Satyagraha of 1918.
6. Promotion of Communal Unity: Our alien British rulers were systematically pursuing the
imperialistic policy of “divide and rule. Gandhi wanted that Hindus and Muslims must stop
playing the game of the alien rulers to fight with one another. They must unite if the foreign
ruler is to be thrown out and Swaraj achieved. Unless Hindus and Muslims unite and present
a united front, the alien rulers would not leave India. He, thus, considered communal
harmony or communal unity as a pre-condition for the attainment of Swaraj. This was one
method which he adopted althrough his Satyagraha movements in India.
7. Formation of political Associations: Gandhi was of the view that peoples’ united front and
united effort is needed for seeking redressal of their grievances, especially the political
grievances. A political association would not only provide a common platform to the people
to fight for a common cause, but would also make the people fully aware of the need thereof.
Besides, the Indian National Congress through which he led India’s struggle for freedom, he
was also responsible for establishing a number of political associations like the Natal Indian
Congress in 1894, the South African British Committee in 1906, the Gujrat Sabha in 1918
and the Satyagraha Sabha in 1919.
8. Protest Meetings and processions: public opinion can be created and educated most
effectively through the media of mass meetings and street processions. These methods enable
the opponent to understand your case and conduct. The better your opponent knows your case
and conduct, the less likely is he to use violence. In case he does resort to violence, he knows
he would be condemned by the public who, like him, would have also been educated and be
with the side of the Satyagrahi.
9. Satyagraha Preparedness: Satyagraha is a war and in a war one has to be fully prepared
before launching aggression. In a war without violence which Satyagraha essentially is, the
Satyagrahi is not to be trained in the use of armaments. He is to be given a different kind of
training In the first place he should be full educated about the purpose and implications of
Satyagraha in which he is supposed to participate He should be made aware of the merits and
demerits not only of satyagrahi’s case, but also that of his opponent so that he is in a position
to standby the satyagrahi and as and when required argue the Satyagrahi’s case with the
opponent and exert his own influence on him. He should also be told as to what kind of
attitude of gentleness, politeness and self-suffering he should adopt. He should be convinced
that the use of violence, even in self-defence, is morally wrong. He should be ready to give
up his own life, rather than take the life of the opponent. In case, sonic miscreants create
lawlessness or violence, than he should be fully trained as how to control and pacify the
violent or lawless crowds, so that law and order is restored and a congenial atmosphere is re-
established to enable both the Satyagrahi and his opponents to address themselves to the
dispute, rather than thinking of attacking and destroying each other. In this way, the emphasis
would shift from the doer to the deed.
The second step which in this direction must be taken is to administer the Satyagraha pledge
to all the Satyagraha participants so that they are morally strong enough to peacefully fight
out their case. They must pledge, with God as their witness, that they will not submit to
injustice and at the same time they will not resort to violence against the opponent. They
would cheerfully, willingly and voluntarily suffer the consequences of their action. They will
stand as soldiers of non-violence till the last.
The third thing which the Satyagrahi could do is pray to God for purification. They should
pray that they be given moral strength which is sufficient enough for stirring the conscience
of the opponent so that they can make him feel the rightness of the claim of those who invite
suffering for conscience’s sake.
The last step in the direction of Satyagraha - preparedness is the declaration and dispatch of
ultimatum. Ultimatum is the dividing line between constitutional and the Satyagraha
methods. The ultimatum must include the statement of minimum demands of the Satyagrahi
which the adversary is required to fulfill. It must also give a specific time-limit within which
these demands are to be fulfilled. It must also state that if the minimum demands are not
fulfilled b the stipulated date, then the satyagrahi would resort to direct peaceful action, the
Satyagraha. This is necessary to enable the opponent either to come to the negotiating table
and find a solution acceptable to both or be ready to face the consequences of ignoring or
rejecting the ultimatum. In Satyagraha, the opponent is not to be taken unawares. He should
be given maximum time to get ready and fight with Satyagrahi on an equal footing.
Satyagraha is a fight between the equals. It gives maximum opportunity to the opponent to
either reconsider his case or to get ready to fight it out. Gandhi had recourse to Satyagraha
only on the expiry or rejection of his ultimatum by his adversaries. He never took them
unawares. Satyagraha. therefore, does not involve passiveness or cowardice on either side. It
is the fight between the braves. It calls for the highest bravery of which the Satyagrahi and
his adversary are capable of, and that distinguishes Satyagraha from the conventional
warfare.
SATYAGRAHA METHODS:
Satyagraha is not a shortcut to or a substitute of democracy or constitutionalism. It comes
into play only if and when democracy and constitutionalism finally fails the Satyagrahi. It is
used only as a last resort. However, once its use becomes inevitable, three things must be
ensured
1. The methods which are to be used must be fully non-violent. In Satyagraha, the Satyagrahi
must be non-violent not only in his action, but also in thought and speech;
2. The methods which are to be used must be in tune with time and circumstances, i.e. only
those methods should be used which are most essential and effective and in the use of which
the people have already been prepared and trained; and
3. Finally, the methods which are to be adopted must be in full consonance with the ends to
be achieved. Gandhi underlined the unity of the means and the end. Good ends can be
achieved only by good means. Noble ends demand noble means.
In the course of his numerous Satyagraha struggles in South Africa and in India, Gandhi
adopted a number of Satyagraha methods and these included the following:
1. Holding banned meetings, demonstrations and processions. The purpose of resorting to this
method was to register protest against the misdeeds of the opponent as well as to educate
public opinion against injustice. This method as used by him in all his Satyagraha
movements.
2. Ceremonial March: Gandhi is called the greatest dramatist of the life in action Gandhi had
a unique capacity to dramatise the issue so as to attract more and more people to fight
injustice and tyranny. The first Dandee March was launched by him in the course of his South
African Satyagraha on 6th March, 1913, when lakhs of South African Satyagrahis crossed the
provincial borders without obtaining the necessary permit for which they were required to
pay an unjust tax. He dramatised the Satyagraha struggle of the coloured people in South
Africa so much so that it spread throughout the country and there was a nation-wide
movement for the withdrawal of the Black Acts and the racist regime of South Africa had to
withdraw them finally. The second major march was in the course of his second Civil
Disobedience Movement or Salt Sat in 1930 when Gandhi, along with his 78 other Sabarmati
Ashram inmates, marched to the sea coast at Dandi to formally break the salt laws which
imposed taxation on this basic necessity of the people. This march not only dramatised the
civil disobedience movement but also led the people to defy salt laws almost with impunity.
The Government had to withdraw the Salt Act, giving relief to the poor who had joined the
Satyagraha struggle for Swaraj and had become Gandhi’s trusted lieutenants.
3. Observing National Days and Weeks: In order to renew public enthusiasm for Satyagraha
and to renew the Satyagraha pledge, Gandhi looked for appropriate occasions, days and
Weeks, which could be celebrated for achieving these ends. The most important of these were
the Satyagraha Day, the Khilafat Day and the Independence Day.
4. Publication and Circulation of Pamphlets and Views-papers:
In the course of our freedom struggle, Gandhi had an unparallel record as a journalist, but he
was not a journalist in the ordinary sense of the term. His purpose was not only to publish
news, that is relevant facts and figures concerning various issues, but essentially to express
his views on the issues and problems facing his countrymen in South Africa and India. He
used them to not only educate his adversary but also the on-looking public about the
grievances and suggested the ways and means for seeking their peaceful and respectable
solution. Among the pamphlets he issued from time to time, the most important were the
Green Pamphlet, the Hind Swaraj and various issues of the Satyagrahi. Among his
viewspapers which were issued weekly and which were published not only in English but
also in vernaculars, were the Indian Opinion (1903 to 1914), Young India (1919-1931) and
Harijan (1933-48). In the course of his four and a half decade long journalistic career, Gandhi
educated and won public opinion in his favour or in support of his movements through the
columns of these viewspapers.
5. Hartals: Hartal means voluntary closure of shops and suspension of business normally for
a symbolic period of 24 hours. Gandhi used this method to involve the business community
in the Satyagraha movements, for he had found that this community is usually irresponsive
and indifferent to public agitations, especially when they are directed against the
Government. The Hartals not only secured involvement of businessmen in the Satyagraha
struggles but also gave to the public an opportunity to lodge their disapproval of arbitrary
laws and orders and to protest against the arrest of freedom fighters. It was also used to
boycott the visits of Government officials, to observe a state of mourning and also to offer
public prayers.
6. Strikes: Strike is the labour’s instrument for seeking a better standard of living for the
employers. This method was used in the course of the Ahmedabad Mill workers’ strike.
Gandhi defended the employees’ right to strike for securing better service conditions and
higher wages. Nevertheless, he was against strikes in public utility services like Railways,
Post Offices and Banks.
METHODS OF AGGRESSIVE SATYAGRAHA
These methods are the methods of moderate Satyagraha or mild or soft methods of lodging
protest which should be employed before launching aggressive Satyagraha, which involves
direct head on confrontation with the opponent, though again without having recourse to
violence. As a matter of fact, these methods are methods of Satyagraha proper. In the course
of his Satyagraha struggles, Gandhi used the following methods of aggressive Satyagraha,
which brought the desired result more quickly than the moderate methods. These included the
following
I. Civil Disobedience : This method involves deliberate breaking of laws which are
calculatedly unjust and unfair. These laws are broken after ultimatum to the Government to
withdraw them by the expiry of a certain date. Gandhi offered Civil Disobedience in South
Africa by refusing to submit to the laws requiring compulsory re-registration of coloured
people, for obtaining permits on payment of huge sums of money for crossing provincial
borders or the humiliating laws requiring even the educated people to give finger prints. In
India, he offered civil disobedience against Rawlatt Acts in 1919, and the Salt Laws in 1930.
The purpose of offering civil disobedience was to highlight the deficiencies of law in order to
seek their removal so that people may obey the laws willingly and not under duress.
Civil Disobedience can also be symbolic. The purpose of such disobedience is to remind the
Government that the people would obey only those laws which are just and fair and not the
laws which are unjust or which take away or violate their basic freedoms to whom they are
entitled as human beings. For instance, Gandhi found that one law which could easily be
disobeyed by everyone was Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.p.c.). It was for
the people to collect in groups of more than four to violate the requirements of section 144
and court arrest. The purpose was to involve the whole nation and to train all the people in
the art of disobeying laws.
2. Nonviolent Non-Cooperation: Gandhi preached total non cooperation with the alien British
Government not only because it was a foreign government, which is against man’s nature of
governing himself, but which was also unjust and oppressive in nature. For this purpose,
Gandhi gave a call to the people to withdraw or resign from the membership of legislatures,
ministries, courts, civil services, police and military and ask them to join the freedom
struggle and to peacefully overthrow the British Government which they otherwise were
bound to serve as government servants.
3. No Tax campaign: Taxation is the life-line of any Government. Having realised this,
Gandhi asked the people to cut the very life line of the Government by refusing to pay taxes.
If people refused to pay taxes in substantial numbers, the entire administration would come to
a standstill. This method Gandhi adopted during the Kheda Satyagraha of 1918, the Bardoli
Satyagraha of 1928, the Salt Satyagraha of 1930, the Second Non-violent Non-cooperation
Movement of 1932 and the Individual Satyagraha of 1940. In the Individual Satyagraha,
which was launched as a protest against the British Government’s Second World War effort,
Gandhi gave the slogan “Na Ek Pai Na Ek Bhai”, i.e. in Britain’s participation in the Second
World War, Indians will neither support it with money nor with soldiers, because Britain’s
participation in war was immoral and not in the interest of India.
4 Courting Imprisonment: This is a corollary of no-tax campaign. On the one hand, people
are asked not to pay taxes. On the other hand, they are asked to add to the expenditure of the
Government by courting imprisonment. When people break laws in thousands and lakhs, they
are put behind bars. When in jail, the Government’s burden to provide them food, shelter,
clothing and medical facilities increases enormously, imposing on it immense financial
burden. The Financial position of the Government becomes very weak. At the same time,
besides economic pressure, it exerts moral pressure on the Government as public opinion gets
mobilised against the government. A government which keeps lakhs of freedom fighters in
jail gets a bad name both at home and abroad. It strikes at the will of the government to
govern. Moreover, it increases the morale of the public as by courting imprisonment they
become martyrs and are respected by the public. They become their leaders. Gandhi was the
only leader of our Freedom Struggle who created leaders. That is why, when Gandhi was
assassinated in 1948. he left innumerable leaders to guide the destiny of the nation and
nobody asked the question : “After Gandhi who?” Gandhi was in jail for 10 times, spending
therein a total period of 6 years, 4 months and 24 days.
5. Boycott: Boycott is used to lodge protest against unjust laws, policies and practices and
also to put economic and moral pressure on the opponent so that he is persuaded to grant
justice expeditiously. Boycott involves violence, but it is a violence not to the person of the
opponent, but only to his goods. For instance, in 1920s, Gandhi asked people to boycott
foreign cloth and liquor-shops. Subsequently. he asked them to boycott British goods, British
institutions and visits of government officials.
6. Peaceful Picketing: The purpose of picketing is to put social and economic pressure on the
government and to create political consciousness and the spirit of Swadeshi amongst the
masses. It was also to involve and seek active participation of women in India’s struggle for
freedom. Gandhi organised women pickets to picket the shops selling foreign cloth and
liquor. The picket is only to dissuade the intending buyers not to buy, as it would be against
the interest of the country. He is to argue, request and pray, but not to coerce or use violence.
7. Peaceful Raids : Raid is an advanced stage of boycott and picketing. It is to bring
enormous economic pressure and pressure of public opinion on the opponent. It does
maximum harm to the opponents’ goods but certainly not to his person. It amounts to looting
his goods. For instance, in Salt Satyagraha, Gandhi asked the people to raid the Salt depots of
the Government and loot the salt. In the course of Champaran Satyagraha, when the
Government forced the people to pay the land tax even after their crops had failed, he asked
them to loot the crops of onions before the Government could seize and sell them.
8. Protest Resignations: As a mark of protest against official policies and laws which were
considered oppressive and unjust, people were asked to resign from Assemblies, Councils,
Courts and administrative services. As a response to his call, hundreds of Indians resigned
their jobs in protest and people like Subhash Chandra Bose too resigned from ICS and joined
the freedom struggle.
9. Fasting: The greatest and the most effective method of Satyagraha is fasting. It is
undertaken for self-purification, for self- restraint and for appealing to the conscience of the
adversary, to make him reconsider his stand and realise his mistake. When a Satyagrahi fasts,
it dramatises the whole issue and involves the entire nation. Everybody is thinking about the
fasting Satyagrahi and the cause for which he is fasting. This gives an opportunity to the
opponent as well as the general public to try to understand as to why is he fasting. On the
other hand, it gives the fasting Satyagrahi an opportunity to direct his total attention to the
merits and demerits of his own case vis-a-vis that of his opponent so that he can either
withdraw his Satyagraha, if he finds his opponent to be right, or die for his cause, He
becomes a martyr. Fasting is also undertaken to check acts of violence, communal riots and
for seeking release from jail. Gandhi was of the view that fasting should be employed only as
a species of Tyaga or renunciation, in the spirit of being ready even to give up one’s life for
one’s cause. It should, however, be used only on rare occasions, only as a last resort and only
according to one’s capacity to fast. Gandhi had recourse to fasting 17 times, fasting for a total
period of 138 days.
10. Non-possession: It is to impress upon the Government that it cannot force the people to
cooperate with it or obey its laws against their will. In case a person finally decides to
disobey the law, all that the Government can do is to put him in jail and thereby to increase
its own economic burden or to seize or confiscate his property. If the Government imprisons
him, he should be happy because in that case the Government is paying the penalty of his
violation and not he In case it intends to confiscate the property he should transfer it to some
charitable trust so that he has disowned it before the Government could confiscate it. This
method is used to avoid confiscation of property by the Government and instead force it to
imprison him.
11. Constructive Programme: There was a constructive and positive aspect of Satyagraha
which ran side by side with the aggressive methods. It was aimed at achieving economic self
sufficiency. The primary purpose was to inculcate the Swadeshi spirit, to promote cottage and
small scale industries and provide people opportunities of self employment. It was also to
create in them the spirit of patriotism and love for things produced by them or their fellow
men in the country itself It also included a programme to promote communal harmony and to
work for the removal of untouchability, unemployment and illiteracy.
The main thrust of Gandhi’s aggressive Satyagraha was to completely paralyse the
administration. If the people refuse to obey the laws and orders, withdraw their cooperation
from the Government. resign from the Government jobs and refuse to pay the taxes, no
Government on earth can continue for long to rule. Obedience, cooperation and taxation are
the three pillars on which a Government stands, and if you break these three basic pillars,
sooner or later the Government would collapse and that precisely was the purpose of Gandhi
with respect to the alien and oppressive British rule in India.
CONCLUSION
R.R. Diwakar is of the view that it was through the adoption and advocacy of these methods
that Gandhi delivered his message of substituting willing-obedience for forced-obedience and
voluntary cooperation for involuntary cooperation. He is of the view that it is not Gandhi who
made Satyagraha but it is Satyagraha which made Gandhi the Mahatma. Gandhi had
employed Satyagraha in the contexts of apartheid, alien rule and feudal rule, all of which
were highly abnormal situations.
In the context of parliamentary democracy, his techniques need re-interpretation and
readaptation. In this direction, a positive effort was made by Dr. Martin Luther king. Jr., who
in his movement against racial discrimination in America, led a predominantly non-violent
campaign through Gandhi’s techniques and also evolved new techniques of non-violent
Satyagraha, which suited the American context of representative democracy. These included
a variety of sit-ins, stand- ins, wade-ins, kneel-ins, marches, boycotts, picketings and no-tax
campaigns. Dr. King had shown the living influence and the extent of practicability of
Gandhi’s ideal and technique of Satyagraha in the context of democracy. He had the unique
opportunity to test Gandhi’s Satyagraha in the context of a representative, federal and secular
democratic set up, which Gandhi never had. Gandhi’s contexts were only the abnormal ones
of acute apartheid in South Africa and of feudal and alien British Rule in India.
ETHICAL, SOCIAL & ECONOMIC IDEAS
Gandhi was not only a philosopher of the politics of peaceful protest, he was also a great
social reformer. In the course of his six- decade long public career, he studied the social and
economic system of India, identified its maladies and suggested the reforms which, he
thought, would improve the quality of life.
ETHICAL & SOCIAL IDEAS
In order to rid the society of the narrow, sectarian and demeaning interpretations of
scriptures. Gandhi sought to reinterpret the following notions and concepts and present them
to the people as viable ideals:
DHARMA: In its restrictive sense, Dharma means religion. Gandhi asked the people to study
and interpret religious scriptures, to practice and preach the religion of their choice and to
pursue those religious practices which are conducive to good life and relevant to changing
times and circumstances.
In its liberal sense, Dharma means duty. All through his life, Gandhi asked the people to act
according to their conscience, to do those things which appeal to their reason and conscience
and contribute to the welfare of all.
VARNA : Varna refers to an economic class. Gandhi accepts Manu’s classification of people
in terms of their economic functions
(i) Brahmans: the ruling elite, the priests and the teachers; (ii) Kshatriyas: the soldiers; (iii)
Vaishyas: the businessmen; and (iv) Shudras: the manual workers and domestic servants. He
does not, however, accept this classification as a ‘closed system’ restricting one’s choice of
occupation to that of one’s parents, family or class. One may find his family-occupation more
suitable and convenient, as it would provide to him some sort of an infra-structure. However,
should one feel tempted to take an occupation different from that of his family or class, he
should be free to do so. In fact, Gandhi feels that Manu’s classification itself provided for the
freedom to change ones profession, occupation, trade or business.
It was a subsequent distortion of Hindu religion, when vested- interests closed their ranks to
others, assumed the status of supremacy and reduced the other classes to a level of inferiority
and indignity. In course of time, the economic classes got degenerated into a caste system
which was so closed as to deny not only the freedom of occupation, but also the freedom of
interaction. The Shudras, i.e. the manual workers, the sanitation workers and the domestic
servants were reduced to the level of untouchables “birth.”
Gandhi considered the caste system as immoral, inhuman and unjust and devoted the last two
decades of his public life for the liberation and welfare of the so-called ‘untouchables’ who
had suffered indignity, discrimination and deprivation for centuries. He called them the
Harijans, the sons of God, and asked the State and the society to discharge their duty to
restore them their status of equality and to work for their welfare. The Constitution of India
has given a sort of practical shape to make special efforts to raise their standard. It has,
however, implemented Ambedkar’s scheme of ‘equal but separate’ by making reservations
and thereby keeping them as a separate entity, rather hasten the process of their social and
emotional integration with and assimilation in the rest of the society. It has specifically
reserved for these classes a proportionate number of seats in legislatures, schools and jobs,
and declared the practice of ‘untouchability’ in any form unconstitutional and punishable as a
cognizable offence in accordance with law.
ASHRAMA: Ashrama refers to the stages of man’s life. The Hindu scriptures divide man’s
full life of l00 years into 4 stages or ashramas of 25 years each : (i) Brahmacharya-Ashram,
stage of celibacy and student life : 0-25 years; (ii) Grihastha-Ashram, stage of family life -
the most productive and active period of man’s life: 26-50 years; (iii) Vanaprastha-Ashram,
stage of retirement : 51-75 years; and (iv) Sanyas-Ashram, stage of renunciation: 76-100
years. Gandhi accepts this division as rational and scientific. He would like the active
participants in political life, the voters as well as the candidates, to be from within the second
stage of man’s life, i.e., from 26-50 years, so that the political system remains dynamic and
does not lose its sense of direction. However, in order to put a premium on the capacity of the
youth, he would be ready to lower the age of voters and candidates from 26 years to 18 years,
but would in no case go beyond 50 years, as he believed that a government run by old people,
like him, is old, it lacks dynamism.
In this place, it may be mentioned that in the galaxy of political philosophers and thinkers,
Gandhi was, perhaps, the only thinker who fixed the maximum age-limit for the voters as
well as the candidates.
NISHKAMA-KARMA: Karma is Gita‘s gospel of selfless action. Gandhi would like the
people to discharge their duties and perform their obligations willingly, voluntarily had
cheerfully. They should do so for the sake of doing it. Only by performing their obligations
first, they can expect to earn the corresponding rights. He would expect the people to perform
their obligations without an eye on the rights. One should perform his obligations in a
missionary spirit, as his duty to fellowmen.
PUNARJANMA: Punarjanma means the cycle of rebirth. Gandhi subscribed to the Hindu
theory of rebirth. He thought that man is born again and again, until he attains the stage of
atonement, salvation, moksha or nirvana, i.e. until the soul gets merged with God. And, in
order to attain atonement, one has to continue to act in strict accordance with the voice of his
soul, which is the spark of the ultimate reality of God.
J1VADAYA: Jivadaya means compassion for everything living. And, it is compassion not
only for fellow human beings, but, for the lower animals, the plants and the like as well.
Gandhi considered it a duty of man as a human being to protect, to love and to benefit those
who come in his contact. Special care should be taken to benefit those who need or seek our
protection. The ‘have-nots’ should be benefitted by their association with the ‘haves’, weak
by the strong, poor by the rich and illiterate by the educated.
ENDS & MEANS: Gandhi reverses Machiavelli’s dictum “End Justifies the Means.” To
Gandhi, means alone justify the end. In fact, the end can not be separated from the means.
The end is nothing but the last process of the processes of means. Our end would be good
only if and to the extent our means are good. As the means, so the end. Noble ends demand
noble means.
ETHICS/RELIGION AND POLITICS: Gandhi observes in his partial Autobiography that:
“those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion
means.” Here, by religion Gandhi means the universally acceptable rules of morality or ethics
which are common to all religions. He believes that politics can remain pure and free of
corruption only if and in so far as it is based on ethical principles. He, thus, stands for the
spiritualization of politics.
In terms of religion. however. Gandhi’s preference is for a ‘secular’ State and not for
theocracy. He would not like the State to recognize any particular religion as State religion.
He wanted the State to treat all religions at par. The State should ensure to all its people
freedom of conscience, liberty of belief, faith and worship and the right to practice, preach
and propagate the religion of one’s choice. He would neither like the State to interfere in
religious matters, nor allow religion to meddle with politics: The domains of both the religion
and politics are mutually exclusive.
Gandhi, thus, stands at once for the spiritualization and secularization of politics.
LIBERATION & UPLIFTMENT OF WOMEN: Gandhi was pained to find that women had
traditionally been the victims of man‘s conservatism, lust and anger, The birth of a daughter
was considered a curse of God, a symbol of God’s displeasure. She was, consequently
humiliated and harassed. She was caged in home, covered by vail, denied education and
deprived of her status of equality with man.
He believed that woman, like man, was a creature of God, gifted with conscience and reason.
In all respects, she was co-equal of man. In her civility, gentleness, kindness, love, affection,
toleration and sacrifice, she was even superior to man. Man had no divine, social or legal
sanction to arrogate to himself a status of superiority and domination and degrade women to
a level lower than himself.
Gandhi urged man to liberate woman from her bondage to man, and stop her use as a symbol
of sex, a source of pleasure and a servant of the household. At the same time, he asked the
woman to go to school and also to earn her livelihood. Education and economic
independence would liberate her of her bondage to man and enable her to live with dignity
and respect as a human being.
Woman has also a unique function to perform as a wife and a mother. She is to bear and rear
children. She should continue to give in abundance, her love and affection to her children and
educate them into the alphabets of religion, music, painting, arts, languages, mathematics and
games befitting their tender age. It is for the performance of this unique role that the Hindu
scriptures have called her Grihalakshami and Griha swamini, the goddess of the house-hold
and she should continue to live up to that image. This she would better be able to do, if she
herself is educated, economically independent of her husband and is treated by her husband
as a friend and equal partner in life.
Gandhi would urge the society and the State to prohibit discrimination on ground of sex,
accord women their status of equality and make special provision for their upliftment and
welfare. In order to bring them at par with men, the State should give them priority in
education, jobs and legislatures.
LIBERATION AND REHABILITION OF DEVADASIS:
Gandhi also worked for the abolition of a number of immoral and inhuman customs and
practices. One such custom was known as Devadasi. Unable or unwilling to bear the cost of
bearing and rearing their unwanted daughters, the parents used to take them to the temples at
a very young age and offer them to God as His permanent slaves. They were brought up by
the priests who trained them as singers and dancers for the recreation of God. In fact, they
were used as prostitutes by the priests and their patrons and then left to live a life of shame
and degradation. And, all this was done to please God Almighty. Gandhi asked the State to
prohibit by law this immoral and inhuman custom, urging it, at the same time, to educate, to
employ and to rehabilitate the women who suffered humiliation and harassment for no fault
of theirs.
WARDHA SCHEME OF EDUCATION
The wardha Scheme of Education provides for a seven-year free and compulsory vocational
education for all. Under this scheme, every child, boy or girl, within the age-group of 7-14
years would receive free school education. This education would be imparted through some
vocation in which a child would be properly trained so that once he comes out of the school,
he is able to earn his livelihood and is not economically dependent on anyone whatsoever.
Gandhi was against all compulsion, coercion or violence. However, in view of the highly
abnormal situation created by stark illiteracy in India, he allowed the State to make education
compulsory until the scar of illiteracy is removed from the face of India. Once that is
achieved, there would be no need to make education compulsory as people would have
developed the tradition of education.
So far as higher education is concerned, the students would still get the education free.
However, at this stage, education would be provided only to those who deserve it, by making
sufficient grades at the qualifying examinations. So far as the cost of education is concerned,
Gandhi would like the private sector to share it with the government almost in proportion to
its requirement. The government would pay for the higher education and training only for as
many men as it would need.
In order to bring women, untouchables and the other socially backward and economically
deprived sections of the society, at par with the rest. Gandhi would require the State to make
special arrangements on a priority basis.
ECONOMIC IDEAS
The economic reforms suggested b Gandhi were in the context of India’s poverty and
unemployment caused by the continual drain of India’s economic resources by the alien
British rulers for a period of over three and a half centuries. Some of his suggestions were,
however, relevant, only to the situations he faced, though others continue to be relevant even
today.
SWADESHI: Swadeshi means self-reliance. It denotes love for everything indigenous. It
means preference for Indian institutions, Indian goods, Indian clothes, Indian customs and
practices. During India’s struggle for freedom, it meant boycott of alien British cloth and
adoption of hand-spun and hand-woven cloth. It meant Indian political institutions like
Panchayats or Indian village councils. It meant Indian judicial system in place of the British.
It meant rejection of everything alien (more specifically the British) and adoption of
everything Indian instead. That is what he thought was most essential for the economic
development of the nation and for generating sources enough to wipe out poverty and
unemployment.
ECONOMIC TRUSTEESHIP: Gandhi was not only the greatest democrat of his times, but
also a gentle socialist. He believed in the possibility of bridging the gulf between the rich few
and the poor many. He would, however, not use violence or force to deprive the rich of their
riches. He would rather appeal to the conscience of the rich to keep so much of their wealth
as is necessary for their own decent living and divert the rest for the welfare of the poor and
the needy. The rich would become the trustees of their surplus wealth and use that surplus
wealth for welfare activities like schools and colleges, hospitals and dispensaries, orphanages
and rehabilitation homes or for whatever purpose. This way, Gandhi would not only have an
equitable distribution of wealth, but would also be able to ensure everyone an equitable share
therein. And such a massive socio-economic change would be brought about without having
recourse to the way of violence, bloodshed or destruction. And, this is possible if on makes a
sincere and an honest effort in this direction.
BREAD-LABOUR: Gandhi desired that everyone should earn the basic necessities of one’s
life (food. clothing and shelter) by the sweat of one’s brow, i.e., his physical labour. He
wanted that every able-bodied person must work according to his capacity and do the work of
his choice. No one should claim the right of eating without performing the physical work he
can. He insisted on the law of “bread labour”, for he believed that it is “a law of God that the
body must be fully worked and utilized”. In other words, “the needs of the body must be
supplied by the body”. However, he had no hesitation in asserting that the lazy ones, i.e., the
do-nothing fellows ‘need and must starve”.
CONCLUSION
It was essentially through the socio-economic reforms of these types that Gandhi wanted to
bring about social and economic transformation without having recourse to violence. These
were the items which were right on top of Gandhi’s constructive programme through which
lie was eager to eliminate the scars of social evils, like illiteracy, unemployment and poverty
from the face of India. The society reformed on these lines, through the way of non-violence,
by the voluntary effort of the people themselves, would be a society which would not only
strike a balance between tradition and modernity, but would also emerge as a self-reliant
entity of which every citizen would be proud. And, this was the positive or the constructive
aspect of Gandhi’s struggle for India’s Swaraj or independence.
GANDHI’S IMPACT ON DR. MARTIN
LUTHER KING JR.
Martin Luther King Jr. was attracted towards the political philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi
first as a student at the Crozer Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pensylvania, where he
attended a series of lectures on Gandhi’s life and works delivered by Dr. Mordecai W.
Johnson and Dr. A.J. Muste in September, 1948. King found Gandhi’s message “so profound
and electrifying” that he rushed for the literature on Gandhi. He came across some half-a-
dozen books whose study gave him a deeper understanding of Gandhi’s thought and action.
Dr. King came to accept Gandhi’s gospel of Nonviolent Direct Action as an acceptable and
effective mode of fighting discrimination and segregation. And, he got his first opportunity to
experiment Gandhi’s philosophy and strategy on December, 1, 1955 in Montgomery,
Alabama, where and when Mrs. Rosa Parks had refused to relinquish her bus seat to a white
man and was arrested. Dr. King immediately mobilized the congregation of his Dexter
Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery. Alabama, and the local clergy to fight out racial
segregation and discrimination by adopting, adapting and even inventing the manifold
techniques of Nonviolent Direct Action.
Like Gandhi, his political mentor, Dr. King was also influenced b non-conformist
Christianity. Dr. King was not only a true Christian but also a baptist minister, presiding over
the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama, and the Ebenezer Baptist
Church at Auburn Avenue, Atlanta, Geogia, almost in quick succession. Acknowledging the
inspiration of Christianity and Gandhi, Dr. King once wrote ‘‘Gandhi was the first person in
history to lift the love ethics of Jesus above mere interaction between individuals.”
Abraham Lincoln’s conception of Democracy, Henry David Thoreau’s gospel of Civil
Disobedience and Leo Tolstoy’s Kingdom of God Is Within You, were the other sources
which left their indelible imprint on the political and social philosophies of both Mahatma
Gandhi and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
CONCEPT OF HUMAN NATURE:
Dr. King found himself in agreement with Gandhi’s conception of Human Nature as Divine,
Rational and Social. He believed that man as a creature of God possesses the spark of God in
the form of his soul. As a rational being, he is capable of selecting from amongst the
available alternatives the one he consider best for himself and his society. And, as a social
being, man has the innate capacity of submitting to social restraints. Dr. King believed that all
human beings, irrespective of the colour of their skin and the texture of their hair, are created
equal, possess the faculties of soul and reason in common and have an equal right to co-exist.
As such, he thought it to be possible for both the White man and the Black man to sit together
on the table of brother-hood to iron out their differences.
Tolstoy had inspired both Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. King to have faith in the ability of the
Black man to appeal to the conscience and reason of the While man and that of the latter to
respond thereto sooner or latter. Gandhi and King did not, therefore. hate their opponents.
they returned their hatred with love. They distinguished the doer form the deed and made the
questionable deeds of their opponents as targets of their attack. In this way, they were able to
win over their opponents and transform and convert them from their enemies into friends.
CONCEPT OF STATE
Like Mahatma Gandhi, Dr, King, too, subscribed to the decentralization of political power
and equitable distribution of economic resources. They, thus came to uphold that the State
should be federal, and should, in its turn, lead to a federal society which respects distinctions
based on caste, colour, creed, religion, sex or place of birth.
As men of religion, both Mahatma Gandhi and Rev. King, believed in the spiritualization and
secularization of politics. While the State should refrain from interfering with citizens’
freedom of conscience and their liberty of belief, faith and worship, the politicians must
themselves observe the universally acceptable norms of morality and ethics, must neither
discriminate against any section of their people nor deny them their cherished goals of
Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.
Abraham Lincoln had inspired both Gandhi and king to subscribe to his conception of
Democracy as the “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.” as a political
system which not only allows everyone an equal opportunity of participation in the political
process, but also makes him its equal beneficiary thereof. That is why, all through their
political careers, both Gandhi and king kept explaining the significance of Lincoln’s
proclamation: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.”
CONCEPT OF NON-VIOLENCE
Dr. King accepted Gandhi’s thesis that war and violence have failed through history to solve
human problems. Violence only multiplies violence. It is, therefore, to be matched by its
opposite force, non violence. If violence is not matched by violence, it would die for want of
nutrition. In Gandhi’s Nonviolent Direct Action, Dr. King found the realization of the
Christian concept of returning love for hatred and the need of self-sacrifice instead of
inflicting suffering on the opponent. He became firmly convinced that “The black leadership
must prepare to suffer as Gandhi did.” And, to emulate Gandhian techniques consciously, he
suffered, without retaliation, all through his Civil Rights Movements. He faced criticism,
defamation, dogs, police, jail, Ku Klux Klan, bomb attacks and finally an assassination as
cruel as Gandhi had suffered. Yet, he did not hate his opponents. He believed in the efficacy
of non-violence to transform enemies into friends.
METHODS OF SATYAGRAHA
As effective supplements to the available devices of democracy, Dr. King accepted man of
Gandhi’s para-legal methods of peaceful protest and adopted and adapted them liberally in
the course of his fight against racial discrimination. These included, inter alia, the following:
i) Religious Congregations-cum-Protest Meetings;
ii) Ceremonial March, like the Montgomery March, the Selma March, and especially the
March on Washington which was marked by his “I Have A Dream” sermon from the foot
steps of Lincoln Memorial:
iii) Boycott and Picketing of segregated buses, schools, hospitals, lunch counters, pubs, bars,
hotels, washrooms, swimming pools, gas stations, stores and churches;
iv) Publication of posters, leaflets, pamphlets and views and news bulletins:
v) Prayer to God Almighty to enable the White men to see their injustice and to enable the
Black men to have courage to fight injustice, discrimination and segregation, without having
recourse to violence;
vi) CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE: Dr. King disobeyed and asked his people to disobey the
discriminatory laws, orders and practices, for he believed that submission to injustice is
cowardice. He taught his people to rise to their full stature as human beings and fight out
discrimination and segregation once for all and in all fields of social and political activity,
appealing at the same time not to resort to violence.
vii) COURTING IMPRISONMENT: Dr. King led his people, including the fellow clergy and
the congregation, to disobey the discriminatory laws, orders and practices and in that process
they were often put in jails, where they suffered additional humiliation, harassment and
indignities. Like Gandhi, Dr. King too found the jail a congenial place to “rethink his
philosophy and his goals and assess his personal qualifications, his attitudes and beliefs.”
At the same time, Dr. King did not find the following methods adopted and advocated by
Gandhi to be suitable, i.e. in accordance with time and circumstances prevailing in America
of 1950’s and 60’s:
i) Non-payment of Taxes, advocated both by Thoreau and Gandhi; and
ii) Fasting, advocated and adopted by Gandhi. Nevertheless, Dr. King worked out some
unique methods of Non violent Direct Action which were essential to fight the varied
manifestations of segregation and discrimination. The methods invented by Dr. King were the
following:
i) SIT INS: inside and outside schools, hospitals, hotels, offices, and gas stations;
ii) STAND INS: at lunch counters, restaurants, pubs, and bars;
iii) WADE INS : in swimming pools;
iv) KNEEL INS: in churches; and
v) FREEDOM RIDES: to provide alternate modes of transportation to the people boycotting
segregated buses.
CONCLUSION
Through the active and frequent use of these para-legal methods of peaceful protest and
pressure, Dr. King, like his mentor Mahatma Gandhi, was able to:
i) prepare and lead the Blacks to fight out segregation and discrimination;
ii) appeal to the conscience and reason of the Whites to see the, enormity of their injustice;
iii) make the Congress of the United States enact the civil Rights Act in 1964 and the Voting
Rights Act in 1965;
iv) soften the attitudes of Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson;
v) make the U.S. District Courts and the Supreme Court of the United States declare the
segregating and discriminatory laws unconstitutional and void; and
vi) have the process of desegregation and social and emotional integration started.
Mahatma Gandhi s philosophy and strategy enabled Dr King to reach “the mountain top”, to
see and show “the promised land” and initiate the slow but sure process of non-violent social
change. Like Mahatma Gandhi, he was the apostle of Truth and Non-violence and “a Drum
Major” for Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. He had a dream that his children would
‘‘no longer be judged by the color of their skin hut by the content of their character.’’ He
lived up to Gandhi’s prophecy that the relevance of Non-violent Direct Action to the context
of democracy would one day be proved by an American Negro. And, it was established by
Dr. King. the day he was able to make the Black man realize that he was ‘somebody’ and that
‘some day’ it would be possible for him, too, to live together with the White man and meet
him on “the table of brotherhood.”
GANDHI : A POLITICAL THINKER
Gandhi was not a political thinker in the traditional sense in which Plato, Aristotle,
Machiavelli, Hegel, Hobbes or Marx were thinkers. He was not a system-builder or model-
builder in Philosophy. By aptitude, training and experience he was not given to systematic
academic writing. His views were largely situational and scattered through some 60 years of
public life and covered by 100 volumes of The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi,
Published by the Government of India. And, this is his notable contribution.
He was essentially a Political Agitator and a Social Reformer, fighting a variety of social,
economic and political evils, e.g., apartheid, alien rule, feudalism, casteism, communalism,
religious fanaticism, illiteracy, poverty and unemployment.
He made statements in response to the situations he faced in South Africa and in India.
However, when we piece together his statements and writings systematically on various
aspects of our social and political life, we do find that he preached and practiced a definite
and coherent system of life, And, that most certainly makes him a political thinker.
Gandhi did undertake some systematic writing on specified subjects and issues like Hind
Swaraj (Indian Home Rule); Sarvodaya (Good of All); Satyagraha (Non-violent Direct
Action) in South Africa; Constructive Programme; Non-violence; Communal Unity; besides
his Partial Autobiography entitled The Story of My Experiments with Truth. And, all of these
writings indicate that he had a coherent view of man’s life which, if followed consistently,
would make him better for himself and his society.
He combined the qualities of a Liberal, an Idealist, a Man of Action and a Revolutionary.
Like the Western Liberals, Gandhi believed in : (i) Individual Liberty: & (ii) Representative
democracy. However, he was only for that liberty which enables the individual to be at his
bestself. Self Realization was, thus. the goal of individual liberty. And in his defence of
representative Democracy, his emphasis was more on the moral character of those who would
man it.
As an idealist, he synthesized the majoritarianism of Bentham and Mill with the
Minoritarianism of John Ruskin, the ‘Greatest Happiness/Good of the Greatest Number’ with
the Good of the last man/the neglected minority; the Antyodaya (welfare of the last man)
with Sarvodaya (all around welfare of all). And. if and when the goal of world Government is
realized, Sarvodaya would be an international, in fact, a worldwide ideal.
Gandhi was a Man of Action, a practical man. His ideals could not be realized cent per cent,
but towards their attainment one could always work, one could approximate them
increasingly.
He was not an abstract thinker. He first practiced what he preached. All his ideals were
possible. He talked of what was possible.
He was a Revolutionary, though Not a man of violence. He said No to violence, but ‘Yes’ to
fighting. His war was A war without violence to use K L Shridharani’s off-quoted phrase.
He was a believer in the possibility of change, though essentially a peaceful change. Yet, he
could be ruthless in thought, word and deed, e.g., in South Africa, he asked the people to burn
their Registration Certificates and in India he asked them to burn the Foreign Cloth, loot the
onion crops fell or cut down palm trees which were then a major source of revenue to the
alien British Government. He wanted to cut their life line. He also gave revolutionary slogans
like Swaraj in One Year (in 1921); Now or Never (in 1931); and Do or Die (in 1942).
Yet, he had a democratic bent of mind. Like a Bania (Grocer) in politics, he could sit down
with his opponent and negotiate with him. He had the remarkable ability to change/convert
the heart of time wrong doer/his opponent, i.e. appeal to his reason and conscience and to
make him act in accordance therewith.
He undertook suffering, rather than inflict it on his opponent. Suffering or violence was there
in Gandhi, but the parties were changed. Violence shifted from the person of the opponent to
the goods of the opponent, and from the person of the opponent to the person of the
satyagrahi himself.
Essentially he was the Philosopher of the Politics of Peaceful Protest, for he focussed
attention on the narrower aspect of individual resistance to constituted authority as such and
related it to the wider context, not only of his Political life, but also to his nature as a moral
being, striving to realize his divine self through the service of those who are nearest and
dearest (best known) to us.
He provided a guide to the means whereby Political conflicts rather any conflict, can be
resolved effectively and peacefully. His pre-occupation with the question of means for the
resolution of conflicts led him to reverse Machiavelli‘s dictum: End Justifies the Means.
Gandhi would rather say: Means Justify the end, Noble ends demand noble means. In fact, to
him, the end is nothing but the last process of the processes of means.
His concepts of Sworn (self government): Sarvodaya (All round Good of All) and Satyagrah
(Non-violent Direct Action) are his unique contributions to political Philosophy. Swaraj is the
best definition of the nature of State; Sarvodaya the best exposition of the purpose of State
and Satyagraha the best and the most effective mode of peaceful active resistance and
conflict-resolution.
Thus, Gandhi was a Political thinker, though not given to systematic or consistent writing,
system-building or model-building.
However, at places, he is a bundle of contradictions and contradictions but there too he
appears to be more ‘uncertain’ than ‘inconsistent’.
Some call Gandhi a Politician and some call him a saint. There are also those who call him a
saint among Politicians and a Politician among saints. A.H. West, Gandhi’s colleague and
coworker in South Africa told me that Gandhi was, in fact, the most shrewd Politician of Our
times.
Gandhi is also Considered a Dramatist of the Art of Life. The drama of Satyagraha Gandhi
enacted for over a decade and a half in South Africa and for nearly three decades in India
made him emerge as a Political agitator par excellence. Tagore and Radhakrishnan called him
a Mahatma. And, that was due to his deep religious and moral conviction believing that man
is essentially Good & Divine.
CONCLUDING REMARKS:
A man like Gandhi who kept himself pre-occupied with the task of bringing about radical
Political and social changes both at home and abroad was bound to be controversial. At
home, he was attacked by a coterie of Hindu fundamentalists for allegedly pursuing the
policy of appeasement towards the Muslims which, in their opinion, ultimately led to the
Partition of India into India and Pakistan. In their view, he worked against the interests of the
Hindus even to the extent of polluting their places of worship by reciting versus from the
Holy Quran. They, therefore, proclaimed him a Kafir, a traitor to the faith and decided to get
rid of him. They conveniently forgot the fact that it was Gandhi alone who had fought for the
independence of ‘undivided India’ and had even gone on record to call Pakistan a ‘Sin’. They
conspired against him and, after a couple of unsuccessful attempts on his life, finally
succeeded in assassinating him on the evening of January 30, 1948, at the prayer-grounds of
Birla Bhavan in New Delhi. Gandhi’s assassin. Nathuram Vinayak Godse pretended to touch
his feet as soon as he arrived at the prayer ground and just as Gandhi raised his hands to bless
him, he pumped three bullets into his chest and Gandhi fell down dead instantaneously
littering the words ‘He Ram’. Later, in the course of his trial, Godse confessed that he had
killed Gandhi as he considered him to be the ‘real’ father of Pakistan. Upon conclusion of the
trial Nathuram Vinayak Godse was found guilty and hanged to death, alongwith his
accomplises, Apte and Karkare. It is a sheer coincidence of history that two decades later,
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who led Black Americans’ Civil Rights Movement was
similarly gunned down on April 4, 1968 by James Earl Ray in Memphis, Tenesse.
Jawahar Lal Nehru. Gandhi’s political heir and the then Prime Minister of India, was rudely
shaken by the most violent assassination of this Apostle of Truth and Non-violence.
Lamenting the void created by his assassination, he observed: “The light has gone out of our
life and there is darkness everywhere”. As a matter of fact, the whole world was shocked by
such a cruel assassination and that included even Gandhi’s acknowledged adversaries like
General Smuts, Sir Winston Churchill and Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The arch opponent of
Gandhi’s struggle against apartheid in South Africa, General Smuts said: “prince among men
has passed away”. Sir Winston Churchill who had gone on record to call Gandhi ‘A Naked
Fakir’, too, had a sense of remorse when he observed: “I am shocked at the wicked crime”.
And, Gandhi’s arch rival in India’s Struggle for Freedom, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali
Jinnah who was the then Governor General of Pakistan expressed his heartfelt condolences in
the following words: ‘‘I was shocked to learn of’ the most dastardly attack on the life of Mr.
Gandhi, resulting in his death. Whatever our political differences, he was one of the greatest
men produced by the Hindu community I and a leader who commanded their universal
confidence and support.” These heartfelt observations are some proof of the fact that Gandhi
did succeed in converting the hearts of his sworn enemies to an extent and helped them
become, “someone other than an enemy”.
The world’s greatest scientist, Albert Einsten, too, went on record to lament: “Generations to
come... will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this
earth.” And, the New York Times added an appropriate footnote to Jawahar Lal Nehru’s
comment by observing: “The light has gone out. The rest remained for history’s inexorable
hand to write down.” Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. King now belong to the galaxy of immortals,
whose life and thoughts would continue to be a model to emulate for the generations to come.
CHAPTER VII
B.R. AMBEDKAR (1891-1956)
Bharat Ratna Dr. B.R. Amedkar has being hailed Mook-Nayak (leader of the down-trodden).
Jawaharlal regarded him as “a prominent champion of the oppressed classes in India”, the
man who gave the untouchables their own identity. Rajendra Prasad regarded him “one of the
architects of our Constitution”, While C. Rajagopalachari called him as a thoroughly upright
person, a man with keen justice sense”. NV. Gadgil hailed him as “a rebel against the
injustice in the status quo”, while M.V. Pylee considered him as “a modern Mann”. To Frank
Anthony, he was “an indomitable fighter” and in the words of Y.B. Chauhan, he was “a
doughty champion of Scheduled castes and other backward classes”. He has also been hailed
as “Nav Buddha’’ and the pioneer of Buddhist revival in India. In view of his over three
decade long public career he has also been called a great statesman, an able administrator, a
great educationist, a giant intellectual, and a man of religion. As an anti-status quo leader, he
was anti-caste, anti- priest, anti-Brahamin, anti-injustice and anti-exploitation.
BRIEF LIFE-SKETCH:
Bhim Rao Ramji Ambedkar was born on April 14, 1891 (Vaisakha Purnima) at a place called
Mhow near Indore in Madhya Pradesh, where his father was serving as the headmaster in the
Army School. He was the 14th child of his parents (of whom only five, three sons and two
daughter had survived), Ramji Sakpal and Bhima Bai. His mother died early when he was
only five and he was brought up by his father’s sister Mira Bai. As the youngest child, he was
pampered by his parents, specially by his mother Bhima Bai who even named him after her
own name. He thus came to be known as Bhim Rao. The middle name was his father’s name
and his surname had reference to his ancestral village Ambeade which is situated in the Ratna
Gin District of the Konkan region of Maharashtra.
Bhim Rao came from the Mahar Group of untouchables which was the largest group of
untouchables in Maharashtra. In the View of some scholars, Mahars, who were the original
settlers in Maharashtra, were pushed aside by the invading Aryans. It is also claimed that the
very name of the State Maharashtra (literally, great nation) was originally ‘Mahar-Rashtra,
the land of the mahars.
Bhim Rao’s family had a military background. His father Ramji Sakpal and Grand father
Maloji Sakpal had rendered military service to the British His mother had also come from
military background whose father was also a Subedar Major from the village of Murad in the
Thane District of Maharashtra Mhow, which is on the border-line of Maharashtra and
Madhya Pradesh, had itself been a military centre, a cantonment area.
Suffering from all the possible disabilities, segregation and discrimination. Bhimrao’s family
was kept out of the mainstream of the Maharashtra social and political setup. It thus came to
belong to the humanistic Bhakti tradition of the Kabir panth.
As a young boy, Bhim Rao was sent to the local Marathi School, where his official name was
registered as Bhima Ramji Ambavadekar. The family preferred the ancestral village rather
than the caste as his surname. Later on, Bhima started his high school education in the
Government High School of Satara. At school, he became a victim of segregation, like every
other untouchable boy. He was asked to sit away from them and was forbidden to mix and
play with them. His Sanskrit teacher refused to teach him Sanskrit, as Sanskrit was regarded
as the divine language and the untouchables were not considered eligible for learning it.
Hence, though Bhima wanted to study Sanskrit, he was forced to study Persian instead.
Ramji Sakpal shifted to Bombay upon termination of his services in 1904. Initially, the
family had to live in a chawl in Parel. At this stage, Bhima was transferred to High school in
Parel and subsequently to the famous Elphinstone High School, from where he passed his
Matriculation in 1907. Bhima was the first Mahar boy who had passed his Matriculation with
distinction.
Here, it may be noted that as per the tradition of his time, Bhima was married when he was
just in the fifth standard at the age of fourteen. His bride Rama Bai, daughter of Bhiku
Valangkear, was just 9 year old at the time of her marriage.
Bhim Rao continued his college education at Elphinstone College with the help of a monthly
scholarship of Rs. 25 p.m. offered by the ruler of Baroda, Maharaja Sayaji Rao Gaikwad who
was well-known as a reform-minded king. The great Professor Max Muller supplemented
Bhim Rao’s education with the gift of books and clothes. He was still in College when he
became a father. His first son was Yashwant. He passed his B.A. in 1913, with English and
Persian as his main subjects.
After his graduation, lie took up service in the princely State of Baroda. Here, he suffered
humiliation even at the hands of his lowest subordinates. He had no option but to resign his
job, as he could not suffer injustice and indignity.
In 1913, he had an opportunity to go abroad for his advance studies. He joined Columbia
University in New York, U.S.A, as a Gayakwad scholar and was the very first Mahar to
undertake foreign studies. In 1915, he received his M.A. from Columbia for his dissertation,
“Ancinet Indian Commerce” .In June 1916, lie registered for his Ph. D. based on the thesis
“National Dividend for India : A Historical and Analytical study”, which was finally accepted
by Columbia University for the award of Ph. D. in June 1917.
From Columbia, lie moved to the London School of Economics and Political Science in
October 1916 which he joined for his M.Sc. (Economics) and D.Sc. (Economics). He also
joined the Gray’s Inn for Law for the degree of Bar-at-Law. His admission into these
prestigious institutions in London was greatly facilitated by the introductory letters written by
his Columbian Professor R.A. Selegman.
However, lie was called back by the Maharaja of Baroda and was appointed his Military
Secretary. He had to leave his job in utter disgust in view of the continued harassment and ill-
treatment at the hands of the caste-ridden society. On his return to Bombay, he was appointed
Professor of Political Economy in the Sydenham College of Commerce and Economics at an
attractive salary of Rs. 450/- P.m. Even here, lie was treated as a pariah by his caste-Hindu
colleagues, which led to his resignation in March 1920 where after he returned to London to
resume his higher studies. However, before he left for London he had started a weekly paper
called “Mooknayak” (Leader of the Dumb) to champion the cause of the depressed classes in
India.
He was awarded the degree of M.Sc. (Economics) by the University of London in 1921 for
his thesis “Provincial Decentralization of Imperial Finance in British India”. Next year, he
was called to the Bar. At the same time, he also submitted his thesis entitled “The Problem of
the Rupee” for his D.Sc in 1923. Upon completion of studies in London, Bhim Rao moved to
Germany to study Economics for three months at the University of Bonn.
In June 1923, he finally returned to India to start his career as a lawyer in Bombay High
court. However, as an untouchable Barrister, he did not have a good practice and had to
supplement his income by working as a part-time Professor of law at the Batliboi’s Institute
of Accountancy.
It was in July 1924 that Ambedkar started his political career by establishing the Bahishkrit
Hitkarini Sabha (The Depressed Classes Welfare Association) to raise the educational level
and the economic status of the depressed classes as well as to ventilate the hardships of these
classes. He had established this institution in collaboration with Sir Chimanlal Setalvad in
1927. He started his paper Bahiskrit Bharat to articulate grievances and voices the interests of
the depressed classes.
In 1927, he was nominated a member of the Bombay Legislative Council. Next year, lie was
appointed Professor of Law in the Government Law College, Bombay. He represented the
untouchables in the II Round Table Conference held in London. In 1932, the Ramsay
Macdonald Award conceded the demand for Separate Electorates for Untouchables.
Ambedkar was also to represent on the IIIrd Round Table Conference held in London in
1932-33.
Upon his return to India, he founded the Independent Labour Party which contested elections
held under the Government of India Act of 1935. His party had fielded seventeen candidates
of whom 15 were returned to the House. In June 1935, he became the Principal and Perry
Professor of Jurisprudence in Bombay’s Government Law College. In 1942, the British
Indian Government picked him up as a Member of the Executive Council of the Governor
General of India and was given the Charge of Labour. He held this post until July 1946.
In 1946, he published his scholarly work “Who were the Shudras? “ He dedicated this work
quite appropriately to Jyotiba Phule whom he described as “The Greatest Shudra of Modern
India” who made the lower classes of the Hindus conscious of their slavery and to the highest
classes who had preached the gospel that “for India, social democracy was more vital than
Independence from foreign rule.”
In November 1946, he was elected to the Constituent Assembly of India from Bengal (rather
than from his home state of Maharashtra). Thereafter, he was nominated in the Constituent
Assembly as the Chairman of its prestigious Drafting Committee. The Chairmanship of the
Drafting Committee involved the very onerous task of finalizing and presenting to the
Constituent Assembly the final Draft of the Constitution of India and to clarify and defend its
controversial provisions. On account of the role lie played in this capacity, he was universally
acclaimed as the Architect of the Indian Constitution.
Upon India attaining her freedom from the alien British Rule on the midnight of August 15,
1947, he was appointed by Nehru as the Minister for Law in his cabinet. After over year, he
had to resign his job owing to his serious differences with Nehru on the question of
Government’s policy towards the Hindu code Bill. However, in 1952, he was elected to the
Rajya Sabha, a status which he enjoyed until his death in December 1956.
It was in 1948 that, after the death of his first wife. Dr. Ambedkar married Dr. Sharda Kabir, a
Maharashtrian Brahman, out of a sense of sheer revenge. She lived with him until the last
moment of his life.
In June 1952, his old alma mater, the Columbia University honoured him with the Degree of
L.L.D. (Honoris Causa) in recognition of the work done by him in connection with the
drafting of India Constitution. The University lauded him as ‘one of India’s leading citizens,
a great social reformer and a valiant upholder of human rights”.
From 1949, he had started participating actively in the World Buddhist Conferences held in
Kathmandu and Rangoon. In July 1959 he established the Bharatiya Buddhajan Sangh. In
September of the same year, he published the Buddhist prayer book called the Buddha
Upasna Pantha. In 1955, he formed the Bharatiya Buddha Mahasabha. It was on October 14,
1956 that he acrimoniously left Hinduism to become a Buddhist in Nagpur. Next month, he
participated in the annual session of the World Buddhist Conference held in Kathmandu
where he was praised as ‘Nav Buddha’.
The Great life came to an end on the early morning of December 6, 1956, when his second
wife. Dr. Sharda Kabir went to his bedroom to wake him but found him dead. He died after
prolonged illness.
To sum up, as a great scholar of his times Dr. Ambedkar authored the following most notable
books and brochures;
(1) The Problem of the Rupee; Its origin and its Solution, 1923;
(2) The Evolution of Provincial Finance in British India, 1 925;
(3) Annihilation of Caste, 1936;
(4) Thoughts on Pakistan, 1946;
(5) Ranade. Gandhi and Jinnah, 1943;
(6) What congress and Gandhi Have done to the Untouchables, 1945;
(7) Who were the Shudras, 1946;
(8) State and Minorities, 1947;
(9) The Untouchables, 1 948;
(10) Maharashtra as a Linguistic State, 1948;
(11) Thoughts on Linguistic States. 1945: and
(12) The Buddha and his Dhamma, 1957.
Besides these monumental works, the following works were published after his demise in
1956;
1. The Rise and Fall of Indian Women, 1965;
2. Dr Ambedkar on Buddhism, 1982; and
3. The Unpublished works of Babasaheb Ambedkar appearing in 8 volumes, under the Title
“Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches”, 1979.
He also published two News Papers, or rather views-papers, one after another. The first
Views-Paper launched by him was a Marathi fortnightly called Mook Nayak which was re-
named as Bahishkrit Bharat in 1927.
He was also responsible for establishing a number of educational institutions for the equal
benefit of ill including the Scheduled Castes, the depressed and the oppressed people of
India, for instance:
1. Siddhartha Collage of Arts and Science, 1946;
2. Milind Maha Vidayala., 1951;
3. Siddhartha Collage of Commerce and Economics, 1953; and
4. Siddhartha College of Law, 1956.
Finally, he was instrumental in establishing the following associations, institutions and
political parties:
1. Bahishkrit Hitkarini Sabha, 1924;
2. Samta Sainik Dal, 1928;
3. Independent Labour Party, 1936;
4. Peoples’ Education Society, 1945;
5. Mumbai Rajya Kanistha Gaokamagal Association, 1955;
6. Bhartiya Baudh Mahasabha, 1955; and
7. Republican Party 1956.
The Most sacred spots relating to Dr. Ambedkar’s life work are
(i) Janma Bhoomi — Mhow Cantonment, M.P.;

(ii) Kranti Bhoomi— Mahad;

(iii) Deeksha Bhoomi— Nagpur;
(iv) Chaitya Bhoomi— Chupali, near Shivaji Park in Dadar, Bombay.

PHASES OF HIS PUBLIC LIFE

The three-and-a-half decade long public career of Dr. Ambedkar can be studied under the
following live Major phases
(1) 19 18—1928 : Period during which he established himself as a lawyer and launched
a series of Satyagrahas to safeguard the interests of the depressed classes;
(2) 1929-1936 : Period during which he clamoured for separate Electorate for the
Dalits;
(3) 1937-1946 : Period in which he held a number of public offices and used them
for the benefit of the depressed classes;
(4) 1946-1950 : Period in which he prepared the draft of the Constitution of India
which earned him the title of Modern Manu; and
(5) 1950-1956 : Period in which he relinquished Hinduism and adopted Buddhism.
Thus, Dr. Ambedkar was the most renowned Professor, Barrister, Legislator, Constitution-
framer, Cabinet Minister, Social Reformer and the uncrowned leader of the Dalits,the
depressed and oppressed classes of India for whose emancipation, welfare and upliftment he
lived and died. The multi-faceted work of Dr. Ambedkar made him the most eminent Mahar
architect of Indian Constitution, and Posthumously earned him the highest State decoration of
Bharat Ratna.
SOCIAL IDEAS:
As a Mahar, Dr. Ambedkar had himself suffered a lot of indignities and discrimination at the
hands of the so-called upper castes, and was, thus, always eager to bring revolutionary
changes in the traditional social system of India. He wanted to rescue the oppressed and the
suppressed classes from the yoke of Brahmanism and casteism. This, he thought, could be
possible only through the efforts of the oppressed and the suppressed people themselves, for
he knew that the rights are never given in charity or donation. Like Tilak, he maintained that
one has to fight for them, clamour for them and, for this, one has to struggle against the
prevalent social structure, traditions, practices and beliefs.
(1) Problems of Hindu Social Order
To Ambedkar, the very first problem of the Hindu social system was the one relating to the
origin to the shudras. In his famous book entitled Who were the Shudras? Ambedkar
mentions that the principle of ‘graded inequality’ was the basis for determining the term
‘associated life’ as amongst the four Varnas. In his opinion, the Arya Samajists had believed
that the four \/arnas of the Indo-Aryan society have been in existence from the very
beginning. The believed that the Vedas, were ‘eternal and sacrosanct’. Ambedkar thought that
certain portions of the Vedas, specially the Purusha Sukata, were fabricated b the Bra/mans to
serve their own purpose. In his view, the Aryasmajists had done a great mischief by
preaching that the Vedas were “eternal, without beginning, without end and infallible”. Such
observations resulted in making the Hindu society a static society.
The Purushasukata made the Chatur-varna as a sacred and divine institution. It described
organically the Brahmins as the mouth, the Kshyatriyas as the arms, the Vaishyas as the
thighs and the shudras as the feet of the punish. The great Hindu law-maker, Manu, also
enunciated afresh the ideal of purushasukta. He also emphasized that the Veda is the only and
the ultimate sanction for Dharma. He invested the social ideal of chaturvarna contained in
Purushasukta with the degree of divinity and infallibility which. Ambedkar thought, it did not
have there before,
(ii) The Original Three-Varna System and the Origin of the Shudras:
Ambedkar also put forth his prepositions about the shudras.
According to him:
(A) The Shudras were one of the Aryan communities of the solar race;
(B) There was a time when Indo-Aryan Society recognised only three Varnas; The Shudras
were not a separate Varna, but a part of the Kshyatriya Varna;
(D) Then, at some point of time, there started an unending struggle between the shudra kings
and the Brahmins in which the shudras were subjected to various tyrannies and indignities
and were excluded from the Kshatriya classes;
(E) Brahmins hated the shudras, inflicted tyrannies and indignities on them and refused to
invest the shudras with the sacred thread; and
(F) Due to loss of sacred threads, the shudras became socially degraded, fell below the rank
even of the Vaishayas and came to form the forth Varna. They were, thus, downgraded from
the second to the fourth Varna which was created specially for them.
(iii) Status of the Shudras:
In fact, Ambedkar has summarized the status of a shudra as follows:
(a) He was to take the last place in the social order:
(b) He was considered impure and therefore no sacred act could be done within his sight and
within his hearing:
(c) He was not to be respected like the other classes:
(d) His life had no value and anybody could kill him, without having to pay any
compensation and even if some compensation had to be paid, it had to be of a smaller value
as compared with that of the Brahmin, the Kshyatriya and the Vaishya;
(e) He could not acquire knowledge and it was a sin and a crime to give him education;
(0 He could not acquire proper and the Brahmin could take his Property at his pleasure;
(g) He could not hold any office under the State:
(h) His duty and salvation lay in his serving the so-called higher classes:
(i) The higher classes were not to inter-marry with a shudra, they could, however, keep a
shudra woman as a concubine; but if a shudra touched the women of a higher class, he was to
be severely punished; and
(j) He was born in servility and was to be kept in servility forever.

(iv) The Untouchables:

Untouchability meant “pollution by the touch of certain persons by reason of their birth in a
particular caste or family. This practice of Untouchability is peculiar to the Hindu social
system. Ambedkar devoted his book “The Untouchables: Who Are They” to discuss the
origin of untouchability. He did not regard Hindu Civilization as a civilization because it had
continued to suppress and censor a large section of humanity. They were not only suppressed
and enslaved; they were also not allowed to live inside the village along with the other castes,
the so-called higher-castes. As a matter of fact, from the vet’s’ beginning they lived outside
the village.
Unlike the shudras, the untouchables were outside the four-fold Varna system. The shudra
was a Sarvarana, i.e. the one possessing a Varna. As against him, the untouchable was the
avarna, i.e. outside the Varna system. Since the avarnas were outside the varna system, they
were also made to live on the outskirts of the village and not inside the village. The system of
separate and distinct quarters became a perpetual and permanent feature of Indian village
system. As far as the mahars of the Maharshtra were concerned, they always lived outside the
village, because they belonged to a tribe different from the one to which the settled tribes
belonged. They were known as the ‘Broken Men’ who belonged to a different tribe, different
blood and who were, as such, given quarters outside the village.
EVILS OF CASTE SYSTEM:
Ambedkar has provided a fairly long list of the evils which have polluted the Hindu caste
system:
(a) The membership of caste was confined to those who were born in it and it was therefore
an exclusive membership:
(b) Its members were forbidden to marry outside the caste;
(C) They were prevented from possessing arms, so that they may not revolt against their
oppressors and exploiters:
(d) They were denied the right of education;
(e) They were denied the right to properly;
(f) They were assigned the jobs, not on the basis of their capacities, but on that of social
status of their parents. There was no readjustment of occupations and therefore the caste
became a direct cause of much of unemployment;
(g) The caste system embodied the arrogance and selfishness of a perverse section of Hindus
who considered themselves superior enough in social status to set a fashion and who had
authority to force it on their so-called inferiors;
(h) The self styled high caste people also claimed the right of excommunication which often
meant death.
At the hands of these people, virtue had become cast-ridden and morality had become cast-
bound.
Ambedkar has ventured to explain as to why there was no social revolution in India, despite
the highly discriminatory and oppressive social system. He finds the answer in the conspiracy
of the people of the higher castes to reduce the lower classes to a system of total disability.
They were deliberately denied the means to escape and were made to become reconciled to
their eternal servitude. They were denied military service, their sufferage, their political
weapon, and education. The system of Chaturvarna denied these weapons to the masses of
these people and paralysed and crippled them completely. They, thus, were left with no
option but to accept their servitude.
Ambedkar also thought of certain ways to help these classes to overcome their servitude. The
most important of these were:
(a) The dignity behind the caste, and the shastras which sanctioned it, should be destroyed;
(b) The system of scaling the caste in a graded order should be abolished;
(c) Inter-caste marriages should be encouraged as it would disturb the caste spirit;
(d) The monopoly of the Brahmins over education should be abolished and education be
made universal;
(e) The monopoly of the Kshatriyas over armaments and their exclusive right to constitute the
nation’s army should be abolished and recruitment to Army should be by open, fair and equal
competition;
(f) They should be given the right to vote and to contest elections at par with all other classes
so that they too have equal opportunity to participate in their governance, According to
Ambedkar, the Brahmins enslaved the mind and Baniyas enslaved the Body and having done
it, they divided the spoils which belong to the governing classes. He also thought that
Brahaminism was opposed to democracy and the values for which it stood. specially the
values of Justice, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and the Rule of Law.
In order to purge the Hindu religion of inhumanities, Dr. Ambedkar made the following
suggestions:
(a) Their should be one and only one standard book of Hindu religion acceptable to all
Hindus. On the other hand, preaching of any doctrine, religious or social, contained in the
Vedas, the Shastras, or the Purnans, should be penalised;
(b) The priesthood should be abolished. It must at least cease to be hereditary. There must be
a State examination for priesthood:
(c) It should be made penal for a person who has no Sanad (certificate or degree) to officiate
as a priest;
(d) A Priest should be the servant of the State and like any other civil servant should be paid b
the State and should be subject to the disciplinary action by the Slate in the matter of his
morals beliefs and forms of worship, in addition to his being subject along with other citizens
to the ordinary law of the land;
(e) The number of the Priests should be limited b la according to the requirements of tile
State, like other civil services. This would be the only the effective was to kill tile spread of
Brahaminism, He was of the view that “Brahaminism is the poison which has spoiled
Hinduism. If Hinduism is to be saved it can be saved only by killing Brahaminism.
THE QUESTION OF RESERVATION:
Dr. Ambedkar was of the considered view that their is no link between the Hindus and the
depressed classes just as there was practically nothing in common between the Hindus and
the Muslims, And, if the then British Government had agreed, in principal, to create a
separate electorate for the Muslims, there should also be a separate electorate for the
depressed classes. Just as the Muslims and the Sikhs had emerged as distinct communities,
the depressed classes should likewise be treated as a separate community. Hence, separate
electorates and the separate constituencies should be created under the Government of India
Act to give adequate representation to the depressed and the backward classes. The matter
was considered at length at the Round Table Conferences and given shape under the Poona
Pact.
Ambedkar had asked for the reservation of twenty-two seats out of one hundred and forty in
elections to the then Bombay Legislative Council.
Since the separatist demands of both Jinnah and Ambedkar were in line with the traditional
imperial policy of ‘divide and rule’, the British accepted their demand for equal but separate
identities. It was later on sanctified by the Government of India Act of 1935. When in 1946,
the Constituent Assembly started functioning and Dr. Ambedkar was elected as the Chairman
of its Drafting committee, he insisted not only on continuing the system of reservation but
also extending it further. He was able to have his demand accepted and incorporated in the
Constitution of India which gives the so-called Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes
reservations to the extent of 15 and 7.5 per cent respectively. And, for this purpose a separate
State-wise schedule was annexed to the Constitution. This reservation was provided in
respect of the Parliament, the State Legislatures, Public Services and Educational institutions.
Here, it may be noted that Ambedkar was probably the only non-Muslim who had supported
Jinnah’s demand for Pakistan as it was in consonance with his own demand for separate
electorates. And. at this point, his major argument was that the so—called higher classes of
Hindus had separated them from the Kshatriya class (The second class) and down-graded
them lower than even the Vaisya class by creating a fourth category for them. Their social
ranking was, thus, lowered from the second to the fourth. Moreover, the people who came
from various migrating Tribes were deliberately kept out of the Varna system and were
treated even lower than this fourth class and b keeping them outside the four-fold I ‘arnas
system they were called the Avarnas, the outsiders and therefore the untouchables and
unseeables.
Ambedkar’s argument was that since these classes have been suppressed, oppressed and
exploited and have been treated as the neglected classes and since Hinduism has never
accepted them as one of its part, they should politically, electorally and administratively be
kept separate. No section of high class Hindus had accepted them as their own integral part.
Therefore, to think of integrating they socially and emotionally in future would also remain a
dream. This was the main premise on which he had totally disagreed with Gandhi. Gandhi
thought it would be possible for the Hindu society to amalgamate and integrate socially and
emotionally not only the religious minorities but also the variety of socially, educationally
and economically weaker castes in the mainstream of the Indian society and State. However,
by maintaining this, Gandhi was simply giving vent to his idealism. forgetting that his own
recurrent measures in the direction of restoration of communal unity, including his Hindu
Muslim Unity fasts had, at best, received only a temporary success, and despite devoting a
major part of his life to the amelioration of this Castes, he had miserably failed to bring about
Communal unity on a durable basis, the most horrible aftermath of whose failure had resulted
into the partition of India on communal lines and the bloody events that followed thereafter.
One of Gandhi’s closest Sabarmati Ashramite, G. Rama Chandra Rao (Gora), went on to
observe, in his book entitled An Atheist with Gandhi that if Gandhi was not assassinated in
1948 and was allowed to live for a few months or years more, he himself might have become
an Atheist.
Ambedkar was probably more realistic than Gandhi in thinking that those who have been
kept separated for centuries would ever remain separated. They would never be able to get
assimilated either Ill tile mainstream of Hinduism or in the main stream of Indian society. in
view of the inflexible attitude of the so-called high class Hindus, especially its militant
section.
Hence, the only way to bring up the so- called Scheduled Caste Equitable and the Scheduled
tribes on a footing of equality was to keep them as a distinct and separate class or entity.
Hence, as a champion of the depressed classes, Ambedkar stood for the philosophy of “Equal
but Separate”. This he thought was the only way to ensure to them the benefits of the high
ideals of justice, liberty, equality, fraternity and the rule of law which are the basic values on
which the very edifice of our Constitution is created.
Unfortunately, once these classes emerged as separate entities, the political parties competed
with one another to treat them as their vote-banks, rather than working for their all round
welfare and solving their problems.
Subsequently, this question got not only politicized, but was also taken to the courts. The
Supreme Court, in its historical verdict, declared that it is the prerogative of the State to make
reservations for any class or classes of citizens, but justice demands that the total number of
reservations should not exceed 50%. When Mr. V.P. Singh became the Prime Minister, he
sought to extend the reservation to an extent which was far in excess of the Supreme Court’s
upper limit of 50%. Not only the politicians and political parties vied with each other to
increase the quota of the reservation, some states wanted to increase the actual population
proportion of this class and consequently asked for raising it to the extent of even 70% or
more. Yet, these steps temporarily resulted in an unprecedented and unnecessary social and
political upheaval, leading to unprecedented acts of violence, including acts of self-
immolation by the students who rightly believed that ‘merit’ was being down-graded and
subordinated to the ‘Caste’ factor. This instance was an unforceable consequence of V.P.
Singh’s attempt to extend the benefits of reservation to the other backward classes as well,
i.e. the socially and economically backward classes, other Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes.
HINUD CODE:

Ambedkar was of the view that in India there is a Uniform Civil Code of laws covering
almost every aspect of human relationship, except marriage and succession. The Hindu Code
Bill drafted by him revolution introduced only four new factors in the existing law. These
were
(a). Abolition of the doctrine of rights by birth;
(b). Absolute right over property to women;
(c).Equitable share to daughter;
(d).Provision for divorce not only to men, but equally to women as well.

If the Hindu Code Bill, with these provisions, could be adopted. It would be consistent with
the provisions of article 15 of our Constitution which directs the state not to “discriminate
against any citizen on ground of ‘birth’. It would also be in accordance Article 13 of the UN
charter which lays down:
“encouraging and progressing development of international Law and its codification.”

Dr. Ambedkar, along with sixteen other members of the Select committee of the Constituent
Assembly which was entrusted with the job of amending and codifying certain branches of
the Hindu law, presented to the Constituent Assembly its Report on August 12. 1948. Report
contained nine points: Preliminary; Marriage and Divorce; Minority and Guardianship; Joint
family. Property: Women Property; Succession, Maintenance and Miscellaneous.
Later on, he drafted the Hindu code Bill along with these subjects. It was aimed at removing
the legal obstacles in the social advancement of women. However, it was opposed by the
orthodox section of the increase of the Parliament, including a number of Congressmen. The
Congress Party did not support the Hindu Code Bill. Prime Minister Nehru permitted the
Congress members to vote on the bill according to their conscience. This resulted in the
dropping of the Hindu Code Bill and that marked the occasion for Ambedkar’s resignation
from the Nehru Cabinet
CONVERSION TO BUDDHISM:
To Ambedkar, Buddhism was important not only because he agreed with its tenets and
institutions, but also because it enabled him to reconstruct more scientifically and
satisfactorily the history of ancient India, says K. Raghvaendra Rao, the illustrated author of
Makers of Indian Literature: Babasaheb Ambedkar. According to Ambedkar, “Ancient Indian
History must be exhumed... Fortunately with the help of the Buddhist literature. Ancient
Indian History can be dug out of the debris which Brahamin writers have heeped upon it in a
fit of madness.” He characterized Buddhism as a ‘revolution’ a revolution almost as great as
“The French Revolution’’. Starting off as a religious revolution, Buddhism grew into a multi-
pronged revolution: social, cultural and political. He suggests that the distinctiveness and
profundity of the Buddhist revolution could be seen from an examination of the pre-
revolutionary system, the ancient regime of India.
Ambedkar paints a sketch of the degraded condition to which the Aryan civilization had sunk
prior to the advent of the Revolution It was, in short, a society riddled with social evils such
as gambling, drinking and sexual immorality of all varieties. Buddha was the first and
perhaps the greatest of the social reformers. India had produced, His religion spread
everywhere, spilling beyond the borders of India It succeeded not only because of the content
of its teachings but also because of the charismatic personality of its founder, who himself
lived by his teachings. Through his own example, he showed what a pure life was, what was
right conduct, and by implication exposed the impurity and the immorality of the Aryan
Brahmanical life of his time.
To enable the ordinary people to follow his high moral ideals, Buddha innovated the
institution of baptism into a moral way of life. This consisted in convertion to Buddhism,
taking a vow to observe certain moral precepts. These were five in number and hence known
as panch shila. These are
a) Not to kill;
b) Not to steal, lie, be unchaste:
c) Neither to drink intoxicant liquor nor to eat at forbidden times;
d) Not to dance, sing or attend theatrical or other spectacles, use garlands, scents and
ornaments; and
e) Neither to receive money, nor to use high or broad beds.
These apparently negative virtues stemmed from the cardinal virtues of love and wisdom.
These Buddhists precepts constituted a direct challenge to the caste system which had defiled
the essence Aryan Brahmanical order. The Buddha preached against the caste order and
freely admitted Shudras to his Bhiku order. He also opposed lower status accorded to women
in the ancient regime, and admitted. Buddhism opened up its educational system both to the
shudras and the women.
It was in this context and due to these compelling reasons that Dr. Ambedkar embraced
Buddhism and advocated it as an ideal not only for India but for the whole strife-ridden
world. His acceptance of Buddhism was not merely a negative gesture of leaving Hinduism.
But was a positive act of commitment to a superior religious way of life. That is why. he was
hailed ‘Nav Buddha’
POLITICAL IDEAS:
Though Ambedkar was not primarily a political theorist, he had work with a fairly definite
political and legal thinking, which is widely reflected in the views lie expressed on a variety
of subjects, especially on the floor of the Constituent Assembly of India. Ambedkar regarded
the State as a necessary institution which he thought exists for the performance of the
following three sets of goals:
.(a) In the first place, it has individualistic functions, as its goals. He subscribed to the view
that “The right of even subject to life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness and to free speech and
free exercise of religion” is sacred.
b) The second place, he also expected the State to perform judicial functions and maintained
social, political and economic justice within the society, by eliminating or atleast reducing
inequalities of class, caste and religion. It must ensure the maintenance of law and order
functions
(c) In the third place, the State is required to see that every individual citizen enjoys “freedom
from want and freedom from fear.”
By performing these functions, the State would act as a servant and an instrument of public
welfare and would, thus, essentially be democratic.
Ambedkar had a marked preference for democracy not only because it gives largest possible
participation to the people in their governance but also because it ensures immense
opportunities of challenge and change, without necessarily shedding unnecessary blood.. It is
a system which is neither hereditary, nor does it allow political power to be vested in or to be
identified with a particular person. People elected through the system of Universal Adult
Franchise hold the reigns of power.
Ambedkar was generally in favour of the parliamentary form of democracy because he
thought it to be the best available system. However, in view of the then prevailing
extraordinary and highly abnormal circumstances in India, he personally preferred a
presidential of government as that would protect and promote India’s security, unity, integrity
and sovereignty. It would be a highly centrifugal system as it would not only divide powers
between the Centre and the States but would also effectively ensure political stability. Hence,
in his view a Presidential form of government, unlike the parliamentary system, would imply
a kind of federal system ensuring not only division of powers, but also encourage the
strengthening of democratic federalism.
He had come to this conclusion by studying the views of the thinkers and writers like
Alexander Pope who had publically expressed his view that “Power corrupts its possessor
and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Hence, ideally speaking that the State would be
good or viable which is based on the division, decentralization and maximum defusion of
power. Such a system would protect not only a strong central government but also the rights
and freedom, of the minorities who would general be treated at par with others
CITIZENS RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS:
Ambedkar was of the view that a democratic federal framework would ensure every citizen
sum minimum set of equal rights and freedoms and would not deprive them of the benefits of
their profession.. He also believed that the guarantee of minimum freedoms and rights alone
would not make State an ideal State. In his view, each and every citizen should be able to
enjoy all the freedoms and rights in consonance with similar freedoms and rights available to
all others in the State. However, he believed that however rich a State may be, it will have to
provide these basic rights equally to one and all.
The rights and freedoms which Dr. Ambedkar wanted the citizens of every liberal democracy
to posses and enjoy are the rights which he succeeded in including in the list of Fundamental
Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in our Constitution. These are in
fact the rights which are intended to improve the quality of democracy and also help people
in improving the quality of their own. However the most important of these rights which he
was able to think of and provide was the right to constitutional remedies which enables every
citizen to have his violated rights restored by approaching the Courts to issue appropriate
writs. He believed that if this right is not ensured to the citizens, all other rights would loose
their importance as the State would go on delimiting and restricting these rights and these
would, one day, virtually disappear. He regarded Fundamental rights as the very soul of
democracy, the fountain democracy and the fragrance of democracy.
RESERVATION FOR THE BACKWARD SECTIONS QV THE SOCIETY:
Ambedkar was eager that not only these elaborate sets of rights be available to all the
citizens, without discrimination, but that, by itself, would not meet the ends of justice. This is
because there are iii India a number of classes and sections of people which have been
historically, socially, educationally and economically backward. These include the shudras,
the avarns, the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the other socially, economically
and sexually backward citizens of India. These have always been kept apart and away from
the society and have never been allowed to get themselves assimilated in the mainstream of
the Indian society. Therefore, the State will have to make special efforts to ensure these rights
to them on the basis of priority, so that they are also able to come up to a normal level to
enjoy the rights and freedoms which others would ordinarily be enjoying in any case.
A LINGUISTIC REORGANIZATION OF THE STATE:
In order to promote the cause of the unity of India on the one hand and reduce social tensions
on the other, he was eager to reorganize the Indian Provinces on a national linguistic basis.
Such reorganization would curb casteism, communalism, regionalism and fundamentalism.
He was not willing to allow the State to reorganize itself on any other basis. as that would
seriously threaten the unity and integrity of India. Here, it may be recorded that Ambedkar
was also eager to encourage the various scripts and languages, whether regional, provincial
or sectional. The scripts may vary, but in the interest of the Unity of India, the language
should be one, so that it may serve as a cementing force, and not a divisive force. That it why,
of all the languages spoken in India lie wanted Hindi to be the official language not only of
the central Government but also of all the provinces, so that it becomes a strong denominator
of India’s unity and integrity.
VIEWS REGARDING INDIA’S PARTITION:
As stated earlier, Ambedkar was probably the only non-Muslim leader of India’s struggle for
freedom who openly defended the Partition of India into India and Pakistan on communal
grounds. He was of the considered view that every community should have the Right and the
autonomy to preserve, protect and enrich its culture and religion, and to that end, every
community which has all the essential elements of a nation should have the right to secede
and declare itself as an independent sovereign State. Therefore, he not only supported
Jinnah’s demand for Pakistan, but also asked for the creation of an independent sovereign
Dalitistan. He declared that those who have deliberately been kept separate for decades and
centuries should have the right to live separately, so that they are no longer oppressed,
suppressed and exploited.

RELIGION AND POLITICS:

Ambedkar was strongly in favour of a secular State. i.e. a State which does not accord to any
religion the status of a State religion. This view of Ambedkar was in contravention of his
defence of Pakistan which, in any case, was to be an Islamic State. This is indicative of a
clear contradiction in his views.
However, apart from his defence of Pakistan, we find him asking the State to accord to even
religion the status of equality and would not like it to interfere with an religion. He also did
not want the State to impose or levy a religious tax, nor would he like the State to force
peoples’ conversion to others religions, because otherwise a citizen would loose the freedom
of voluntary conversion. Hence, he wanted even Province, having a distinct majority—
religion of its own, to protect, preserve and enrich its religion, as that would be in accordance
with, and not opposed to, the spirit of federalism.
CRITICAL EVALUATION:
During his life time, Dr. Ambedkar ventured to bring about a total change in the social,
economic and political transformation in India’s social and political structure and in this
effort he succeeded to a very large extent. He dedicated his life towards the eradication of
Untouchability and the issues with which it had identified itself. Like the Indian liberal
moderates of the First World War era of our freedom struggle, that is in line with Naoraji,
Ranade and Gokhle, he would give precedence to social reform and consider the task of
political independence only as a second priority. His position was “reforms first, freedom
afterwards.” Similarly, lie dedicated his life as much to improve the condition of Indian
women as he had done for raising the status of the dalits. The oppression, suppression and
exploitation which the dalits and the women had to suffer at the hands of the male and
Brahmin dominated society was, in fact, a blot on the face of India. Just as he wanted
reservations for the Dalits, he was equally eager to bring about the Hindu Code Bill to
improve the condition of women. And, when he thought he would not be able to reform
Hinduism during his lifetime, he just got disgusted, left Hinduism as uncurable and
unreformable religion, and adopted Buddhism not only himself, but also encouraged his
followers to leave this incorrigible religion and adopt Buddhism. However, despite all these
shortcomings limitations and failures. Dr. Ambedkar would be remembered by the
generations to come as a great social reformer, a jurist and one of the most prominent
framers, rather the guiding spirit, of the Constitution of India. It was a belated recognition of
his unprecedented contribution and his services not only to Dalits and the women, but to the
nation as a whole, that he was posthomously decorated with the highest civilian award of
India, the Bharat Ratna.
CHAPTER VIII
MANVENDRA NATH ROY
(1886-1954)
M.N.Roy was one of ‘the most original and systematic political thinkers of modern India”.
He was “a theorist’ and a ‘‘system-builder in politics’’ Roy was also an acknowledged
academician. He was open-minded enough to absorb new ideas and ever ready to learn from
fresh experience. He never missed the sight of his overall objective and pursued it constantly.
And yet, he was a ‘tragic-figure’ in Indian politics. He remained, more of less, obscure and.
generally, swam against the main currents of Indian nationalism and freedom movement. A
man of ‘iron determination’ and ‘inflexible attitude’, a person ‘fired by highest idealism’ and
‘armed with almost encyclopedic knowledge’, Roy failed to leave a deep impression upon the
political life of India. This is how G.P. Bhattacharjee, one of the celebrated commentators on
M.N. Roy’s philosophy, concludes. He also feels that Roy was not politically successful
because he was basically a thinker and a philosopher and not a practising politician. That is
why he turned out to be almost ‘a misfit’ in the field of practical politics.
His style of living, his overall appearance, attire and language, presented him as an alien to
the masses of Indian people. Though Roy was, by birth, a Brahmin, he was thoroughly
westernised in culture. That is why he could never become a popular leader of the Indian
masses like Mahatma Gandhi, for whom it was so natural, easy and obvious to identify
himself with the poorest of the poor. He looked like them, talked like them and lived like
them. He could talk to the millions of his countrymen in the language they could understand.
In line with most other young Bengali political activists of his time, Roy also began his
political carrier as an admirer of Swami Vivekananda. He was also immensely influenced by
the religious reform movements of Swami Ram Tirtha, Swami Dayanand Saraswati and
Bankim Chandra Chatterjee. Politically, he was inspired by the militant nationalism of Sri
Aurobindo Ghosh, Surendra Nath Bannerjee, Jatin Mukherji and V.D. Savarkar. As a young
Bengali activist, he was attracted to the politics of armed struggle, including the politics of
the bomb, dacoities and terrorism, in order to terrorise the alien British Government to quit
India. He played an active role in the movement against the partition of Bengal in 1905.
Inspired by Bankim Chandra Chatterji’s Anand Math and the activities of Jatin Mukherji,
whom he regarded as his Guru, Dada (elder brother) and Commander-in Chief, lie joined the
underground revolutionary movement of Bengal at an early age of eighteen. Jatin Mukherji
trained him in the science and art of making bomb and taught him that its real purpose was
not to kill people but only to create terror in the hearts of the political opponents in order to
make them and their families feel insecure. At this point of time, Roy had also come under
the influence of the famous Yugantar group of Bengali Revolutionaries.
M.N. Roy was the first person to introduce Marxism to the politics of the 20th century India.
He was the very first thinker who presented Marxism as an alternative to free India from the
yoke of British colonialism and imperialism. However, having failed to find either Marxian
or Gandhian models as viable, he tried to work out his own alternative which he called
Radical Humanism or New Humanism.
PERSONAL LIFE:
M.N.Roy (Birth Name Narendra Nath Bhattacharya) was born in the priestly family of Pandit
Deen Bandhu Bhattacharya (Head- priest of the temple of goddess Kahaputeshwari) and
Basanta Kumari (his father’s second wife) on February 6, 1886 (corresponding to the Bengali
year 1293) in the Abelia village of the famous 24 Pargana District of Bengal. Narendra Nath
was the name by which M.N. Roy was known until 1916, when, on the suggestion of one
Dhan Gopal Mukherjee, he changed his name to Manvendra Nath Roy, in order to avoid
possibility of his imminent arrest. There were two other occasions when he changed his name
temporarily first, in 1916, when he left India secretly as a Muhajarin and landed in New York
under the assumed name of Charles A. Marting; and second, in 1930, when he returned to
Bombay under the fake name of Dr. Mahmood.
In so far as the year of Roy’s birth is concerned, there is a controversy between the versions
of the father and the son. While Pandit Deen Bandhu Bhattacharya has recorded in his diary
the date of Narendra Nath’s birth as February 6, 1886, the latter had once pointed out in his
Radical Humanist (February 7, 1954), that as far as he can recollect, he was born in 1983 and
not in 1886. However, the course of events leading to his early education, and political
activity, corroborate his father’s version, rather than his own, which, in any case, was based
on his dwindling memory.
Narendra Nath had his early education in the Jnan Vikasini School of Abelia and Harinabhi
Anglo Sanskrit School of Kodalia. Thereafter, he received his higher education at the Bengal
National College and the Bengal Technical Institute.
Like his father. M.N. Roy, too, was wedded twice, inter-spaced by the gap of a decade. It was
in 1916, that he met Ms. Evelyn Trent, a Stanford graduate. He married her in 1916 in New
York and remained with her for a decade until 1926, when they decided to separate. There
was another American girl Ms. Ellon Gottschalk (daughter of Mr. Oscar Gottsclalk and Mrs.
Adele Fritzler), with whom he had maintained contacts for nearly two decades, until she
came to India and got married with him on March 10, 1937, in Bombay. At the time of this
marriage, Ellen was 33 and Roy 50. She remained with Roy until his death on January 23.
1954. on the eve of India’s fifth Republic Day. While contributing her articles to various
journals, magazines and news papers, she too had assumed a pseudo name, Santa Devi. After
Roy’s death, she became the joint editor of Radical Humanist. She travelled extensively in
America and Europe and died in 1960, at the age of 56 in a car accident in Berlin.
WRITER AND EDITOR:
M.N. Roy was an acknowledged scholar and writer. During his five decade-long public
carrier, he authored 72 books of which as many as 66 were published during his lifetime, the
remaining 6 were published posthomously. He also wrote 39 pamphlets and research papers.
The most notable of his works are as follows
(1) Indian in Transition (1922);
(2) India’s Problem and its Solution (1923);
(3) The Future of Indian Politics (1926);
(4) The Historic Role of Islam (1939);
(5) Materialism: An outline of the History of Scientific Thought
(1940);
(6) Gandhism, Nationalism and Socialism (1940);
(7) Constitution of Free India: A Draft (1944-1945);
(8) New Humanism(1947);
(9) Racial humanism (1952): and
(1 0) Reason, Romanticism and Revolution, 2 Vols. (1952).
Roy not only wrote a large number of research-papers and articles in a number of Journals,
Magazines and news-papers, but also edited the following
1. Independent India;
2. The Humanist Way;
3. The Marxian Way;
4. The Radical Humanist; and
5. Vanguard of Indian Independence.
The first three of these papers were published from Calcutta, the fourth from Dehradun and
the last one from Berlin.
FOUNDER OF POLITICAL GROUPS AND PARTIES:
Roy also founded a number of political groups and parties and actively participated in the
ones founded by others, the most celebrated of which were the following
(1) The Mexican Communist Party (1918);
(2) The Communist Party of India (at India House, Tashkant: October 1920):
(3) The League of Radical Congressmen (an integral part of the Indian National Congress,
1939);
(4) National Democratic Union (1940):
(5) The Radical Democratic Party (October 1943); and
(6) A politico-cultural Movement, called Radical Humanism (1948).
On the eve of the 1922 Gaya Session of the Indian National Congress, Roy had drafted, for
its consideration, a comprehensive programme of action, the salient features of which were
the following:
(I) Abolition of Zamidari;
(2) Reduction of Land Revenue;
(3) State Assistance for the Modernization of Agriculture;
(4) Abolition of Indirect Taxes;
(5) Nationalization of the Public Utility Services;
(6) Development of modern industries;
(7) Fixation of Minimum Wages and limiting the Working Hours to eight:
(8) Free and Compulsory Education: and
(9) Separation of Politics from Religion.
After his release from jail, he joined the Indian National Congress in 1933, at the invitation of
Jawaharlal Nehru and soon became its active member. He also attended a couple of its annual
sessions, specially the one held in Faizpur. In 1940, he contested for the presidentship of the
Congress but was defeated by Mahatma Gandhi’s nominee, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad.
Humiliated by his defeat, he felt disgusted by the manner in which the Congress had handled
the issue of World War-II. As a consequence, he left the Congress in 1940.
ROY: A POLITICAL PRISONER:
Even in his early political life, Roy had to suffer a number of imprisonments. The most
notable of his jail incarcerations were the following
1. The Political Dacoity Case at the Changripota Railway Station
(1907);
2. A dacoity which he committed together with Han Kumar Chakravarti (1909);
3. The Howrah-Sibpur Conspiracy Case (1910);
4. The Belia Ghat Dacoity Case (1910);
5. The Garden Beach Robbery Case (1915); and
6. The Kanpur Conspiracy Case (1930).
Roy and his fellow-Bengali Revolutionaries had to commit these dacoities in order to raise
money sufficient enough for carrying on their revolutionary activities.
EVOLUTION OF ROY’S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY:
The political ideas of M.N. Roy were constantly evolving from one stage to another. His
political thinking passed through three distinct, though unusual stages
1) The Era of Anarchism, Pragmatism, Terrorism and Romantic Revolution (1906-1916);
2) The Era of Orthodox Marxist Revolution (1916-1946); and
3) The Era of Radical Humanism (1946-1954).
ERA OF ANARCHISM, PRAGMATISM AND ROMANTIC REVOLUTION: 1906-1916:
Communism came to India through the efforts of individual Indian terrorists who had left the
country as Muhajarins in order to avoid the alien government repression. They had failed to
raise sufficient money to buy arms and raw material for making bombs. They had, therefore,
to adopt the path of committing dacoities. And., as this was just not enough to raise sufficient
amount of money from Indian sources, they also tried to receive money and anus from Asian
and European countries who, too, were anti-British and, therefore, pro-Indian revolutionaries.
The young Indian terrorists turned to Germany and Russia who proved to be quite
sympathetic. They were also eager to help them because they sincerely believed that:
I. British administrative measures were repressive;
2 Social and Educational reforms initiated by the British government in India were
inadequate;
3. British policies had created discontent among the masses;
4. Continued presence of the British in India would not hasten the process of either ‘good’ or
‘self’ government in India; and that.
5. India’s status would never rise in the eyes of the world, as long as the British continued to
rule over India.
The story goes back to April 1915, when MN. Roy left India for Java where the German ship
carrying arms and money for the Indian terrorists had to arrive. Roy received only money but
not arms. He was disappointed and moved from Java to Philippines, Korea, Manchuria and
then to China and Japan, and finally to America, where he stayed for about two years. It was
in America that Roy became interested in Marxist literature and read the works of Karl Marx
extensively in the New York Public Library.
Here, he came into close contact with the topmost leaders of Great Britain’s Communist
Party like Phillip Spratt and Rajni Palme Dutt, who proved to be very helpful and inspiring.
While in New York, he also came into contact with Lala Lajpat Rai, leader of Indian
Extremist Movement, and had occasion to collaborate with him too, in the political activities
he was directing from abroad.
From America he moved to Mexico where he established the Communist Party and became
the leader of the Mexican Communist Movement which he represented, along with his first
wife Evelyn Trent, at the second conference of Communist International held in Moscow
from July 19 to August 7. 1920.
ERA OF ORTHODOX MARXIST REVOLUTION:
1916-1946:
He impressed Lenin by his views on several subjects, including the Central Asian Question.
Lenin appointed him on the Central Asiatic Bureau which was to meet at Tashkant for
planning revolutionary strategy in Central Asia.
At this stage, also arrived some sixty young Indian revolutionaries via Afghanistan. These
people had left India on hijrat, i.e. in order to avoid continuous repression. They had to leave
Afghanistan also as it did not prove to be quite hospitable. Roy brought these Muhajarins to
India House at Tashkant. It is there that he established the Communist Party of India in
October 1920, as a nerve-centre to train Muhajarins in the science and art of revolutionary-
strategy, including the manufacture and use of bombs. It was at India House that Roy, the
father of Indian Communism, trained 36 of these Indians in what he called the science of
violent revolution to overthrow the British government in India”. The forum of India House
was also to be used to indoctrinate these revolutionaries in the fundamental principles of
Marxism and their relevance for India.
The Communist Part of India that Roy had established at Tashkant had Mohammad Shafiq as
its first secretary. And, the most prominent of the people trained and indoctrinated by Roy
included Shaukat Usmani, Mohammad Ali, Mohammad Shafiq, M.P.T. Acharya, Abani
Mukherji and Meer Abdul Majid. These Trained people were later sent to India in ones or
twos and as they arrived, they joined the other terrorists and became active on India’s
political scene. The result was the formation of as many as 9 communist groups in various
parts of India. They finally succeeded, with the help of members of the Communist Party of
Great Britain (CPGB) in organizing the illegal CPI at Calcutta in January. 1929. with S.V.
Ghate as its First Secretary.
To complete the story of Roy collaboration with Lenin and his subsequent differences with
him, in 1928 he was not only expelled from comintern but also from Russia. Upon his
expulsion, Roy proceeded to China to study the role of the Communist Party in the context of
a predominantly agricultural society. Upon completion of his first-hand empirical study of the
Chinese conditions, he returned to India, lending at Bombay incognito under a fake passport
and assumed name of one Dr. Mahmood. In India, he first tried to divide the Indian National
Congress, but was not successful. Even in his days as a young Bengali revolutionary, he had
strongly criticized both the Moderate and the Extremist tactics of the Congress. He used to
call the former as ‘enunches’ and the latter ones as swamped into Hindu Religion. He had
gone to the length of dubbing the Indian National Congress as the fascist organization.
However, upon his release, after his six-year long imprisonment, in 1936 (21-7-1931 to 2-1
1-1936) in the Kanpur Conspiracy Case, he started participating actively in Indian politics,
specially in the Congress politics and persuaded others to follow suit. He even addressed its
Faizpur Session.
ROY’S CRITIQUE OF MARXISM:
As a young nationalist-revolutionary, Roy had become an ardent disciple of Marx. In his
Radical Humanist of August 30, 1953, he wrote: “Marxism succeeded not only in cleansing
my sub-conscience of the lingering of the past, but also gave me a new faith to guide me in
the promising future.”
During 1920-1930, Roy remained an Orthodox Marxist and subscribed to the basic concepts
of Marxism. Until 1930, he was merely a theorist and had no personal or empirical
knowledge of the Indian conditions. It was only in the 1930s, that he started modify his ideas.
He made an attempt to work out a scheme of revolution based on the fundamental principles
and values of Marxism. He also analyzed India’s social framework on the basis broadly of the
Marxian class structure.
Roy subscribed to the following tenets of Marxism, though lie did not allow himself accept
Marxism as “a closed dogma, immune to any change”:
(I) HUMAN NATURE:
Roy subscribed to the three basic ingredients of the Marxian conception of human nature, i.e.
reason, morality (ethical values) and freedom. He believed that human nature was
conditioned by social relations. In his book, Reason, Romanticism and Revolution, he calls
human nature as an “Ensemble of social Relations”. Roy had believed that man’s rationality
is, to a large extent, determined by his environment. He also believed that moral values are
not absolute. They are relative and that “Moral codes are determined by social necessities.
Therefore, what may be moral for one may not be moral for another. In other words, “moral
codes are determined by social necessities.” Like Marx, Roy himself was a great humanist,
believing in the essential goodness of man. He agreed with Marx that man must be given
requisite economic liberty, to enable him to live a successful socio-political life and that man
can be politically free only if he is economically independent. Thus, Roy painted Marx on an
elastic canvas, describing him as a great advocate of freedom, knowing full well that
Marxism was a totalitarian theory.
The contribution of Roy was to modify the Marxian position by stating that, instead of mere
economic welfare, Marx should have talked about all round develop of man’s “intellectual
and other human potentialities.
(II) MAN AND THE STATE:
According to Marx, State is an organ of capitalism, an instrument of class-struggle, and the
force by which the exploited classes are kept in subjugation, in the Marxist political order, the
individual does not have an autonomous status of his own. He is simply a cob in the wheel of
the State or, at best, one of those whose sum total is called the State. In other words, State is
nothing but “The arithmetic sum of its constituent units, the individuals”. Roy also
subscribed to the Marxian view that the State is not an end in itself, but only a means created
“To serve the purpose of the individual’s being and becoming.”
(Ill) ECONOMIC DETERMINATION:
Until 1940, Roy subscribed completely to the orthodox Marxist belief that “there was an
economic motive behind the struggle of man in society.” Like Marx, Roy also believed that
“dialectical materialism is the greatest human heritage and the quintessence of human
knowledge.” He believed that it is not the Consciousness of men which determines their
existence but, on the contrary, it is their social existence which determines their
consciousness.” As an orthodox Marxist, Roy regarded “matter as a human necessity; hunger
as the most important driving force in human culture, philosophy, history and materialism as
the explanation of all aspects of the world”.
Roy makes a significant contribution to the Indian Socialist thought by giving Marxist
interpretation to Indian history in its contemporary set-up. To him, its basic feature was the
gradual decay of federal economy and the slow but steady rise of capitalism.
He also believed that the conquest of India was the conquest on behalf of the interest of
bourgeoisie of the home country, their need for market, export of capital and new fields of
exploitation.
(IV) CLASSLESS SOCIETY:
Like an orthodox Marxist, Roy characterized India’s struggle for 1 from the British, as a form
of class struggle. He also believed that the British Indian society was divided in classes. In
his Communist Manifesto, Marx had stated that ‘the history of all existing societies is the
history of class-struggle.” In common with Marx, Roy too believed not only in the theory of
class-struggle but also in the emergence of classless society. To him, the contribution of Marx
to the theory of class struggle was to prove:
(a) That the existence of classes is boundup with particular historical phases in the
development of production:
(b) That class struggle leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; and
(c) That this dictatorship leads to the transition and ultimate abolition of all classes and the
creation of a classless society.
CLASS STRUCTURE & CLASS STRUGGLE:
Roy’s concept of the class-structure of Indian society includes landed aristocracy,
bourgeoisie, petty-bourgeoisie and the working class, whereas the intellectuals are treated as
part of the bourgeoisie and the landless peasants fall in the category of working class. The
Indian intellectuals were a product of the British Raj, which found it more profitable to
employ natives in the administrative posts of lower ranks than bringing men from England
for these jobs. Through them, they captured the professions of medicine, law and teaching.
Relying on the loyalty of the landed aristocracy and the passivity of Indian masses, British
imperialism could afford to ignore the feeble demands of the rising bourgeoisie. Whereas
World War-I made Indian bourgeoisie restless to participate in the exploitation of economic
resources, the growing poverty and unemployment produced widespread discontent among
the masses and curbed their passivity. The Indian bourgeoisie knew very well that British
imperialism could not be overthrown ‘‘without the help of the masses’’. Thus, the Indian
bourgeoisie and the masses constitute the objective factors of revolution.
Explaining the place of peasantry in his analysis of India’s class- structure, Roy found the
productive power of land drawn into the orbit of capitalist system. The introduction of British
laws facilitated the mortgage and sale of land, twining bulk of the peasantry into tenants of
money-landers. The rural poverty had become so chronic and chances of any radical change
so non-existent that Roy found “a complete agrarian revolution as the only solution.” In the
Indian proletariat he included “the class of industrial workers living exclusively on wages
earned in cities”. The class-struggle acquired identity in Indian politics, and the freedom
struggle was looked upon by Roy as a prelude to the social emancipation of the working-
classes.
An orthodox marxist, Roy characerised India’s struggle for freedom from the alien British
Rule as a form of class-struggle. He also believed in the supremacy of the proletariat. He
maintained that the three classes in India—the workers, the peasants and the petty
bourgeoisie, the workers constituted the most advanced section. In order to let these workers
discharge their role perfectly, they should be allowed to organise themselves as a class. Their
leadership should remain in the hands of the communist—vanguard so that after obtaining
national Independence, the masses in the backward country may reach communism not
through capitalist development, but peacefully, with the leadership of the class-conscious
proletariat of the advanced capitalist countries, i.e. the Communist International.
Roy concluded that the proletariat class was the only class which could make and lead a
Revolution in India. The Indian revolutionaries, he thought, were ‘numerically weak’:
‘socially immature’: ‘politically backward’; and ‘without the rudimentary ideas of class-
struggle. Roy, thus, felt that the leadership of a revolution must be entrusted to the middle-
class intelligentsia.
(V) THEORY OF SURPLUS VALUE:
Like Marx, Roy maintained that the amount of surplus value could be more in a capitalist
economy, than in a socialist economy. He was of the considered view that the accumulation
of capital is the sine qua non and that is possible only on the basis of production of surplus
value. He argued that if production of surplus value represents the exploitation of labour, then
labour is exploited also under socialism. He thought that under the socialist economy of
Russia, labour is exploited even more to produce larger surplus value to be accumulated into
new capital.
(V1) DECOLONISATION THEORY:
The theory of anti-imperialist role of the colonial bourgeoisie in India in relation to the
economic policy of British imperialism is known as the decolonisation theory. In his
Aftermath of Non-Cooperation, Roy summed up the whole process as follows: “It is no
longer profitable for Britain to hold India as a purely agricultural reserve. It would, instead,
be more profitable for it to industrialise her. Industrialized India would offer lucrative
investment in the British capital, cheap labour, and easily accessible raw material of India
would increase, thus helping British trade.” In his view, the policy of industrialisation would
amount to ‘the gradual decolonisation of India which, in turn, would evolve out of the state of
dependency of the dominion status.
In this process, “from a backward agricultural colonial possession, India would become a
modern industrial country”, as a full-fledged member of the British Commonwealth of
Nations.
The implications of Roy’s explanation are:
(a)The unavoidable process of gradual ‘decolonisation’ has in it the germs of the destruction
of the Empire; and that
(b)This industrialisation would satisfy the ambitions of national bourgeoisie, as they would
become joint partners in exploitation
Thus, a compromise between imperialism and nationalism would be reached.
Roy’s intelligence and philosophic nature did not allow him to accept Marxism as a closed
dogma, immune to any change. His conscience continued to drag him towards a liberal
philosophy. He asked for ideological liberty for the individual as he looked at Marxism as
“the philosophy of the future”. And, with this objective in view, he tried to remake Marx to
suit his tastes and to make it mentally compatible.
He criticised Marxism on several counts. In the first place, he thought that Marxism attached
supreme importance to economic consideration. He could not accept the Marxian assertion
that man was conditioned only by the economic factor. He was of the view that man was not
conditioned by economic factor alone. Man’s need to emancipate himself to higher plane of
moral, intellectual and social life “need not necessarily be confined within the economic
needs alone.” Roy was critical of the undue stress on economic factors. He thought that man
needs emancipation from economic needs, but he also wants to achieve a higher plane of
moral, intellectual and social life. There is no ‘one’ determining factor.
Roy also criticised Marx for tracing everything to the means of production. To Roy, the
human brain “is the most important means of production”. In other words, while settling fate
of humanity, Marxism takes into account everything except the man. To Roy, on the other
hand, man was of primary consideration and the State was the creation of man to work for his
welfare. In any case, he believed that the role of idea, belief, aspiration and a number of other
considerations can not just be ignored. By ignoring such considerations, Marxism
unnecessarily enslaved man to the machinery of the State. By treating man merely as a part
of the whole, Marx diminished his individuality, his autonomy. The fact, however, is that the
very existence of a boast of social organizations proves that man is prior to the State. He
aggravated the crisis of our time by clouding the intellectual climate of the world. Unlike
Marx, Roy wanted that the State should perform its minimum functions and free man from
economic determination. Roy wanted man to be able to live in a socially and psychologically
conducive atmosphere, free from all kinds of cultural and intellectual regimentation.
Roy also believed that Marx was wrong in maintaining that the history of civilization was the
history of class struggle. He modified his views regarding the nature and role for class
struggle in India. In his view, the refusal of the contemporary capitalist society to be
polarised into two classes, as predicted by Marx, throws doubt on the Marxian theory of class
struggle.
He also denounced the proclamation of Marx that Communism is the last stage of human
evolution by stating that if mankind does not progress anymore, if there is to be no further
room for social evolution, then there is stagnation, and under conditions of stagnation life
disintegrates and deteriorates.
Marxian prophecy about the polarization of the society into two classes, the haves and have-
nots, is also not correct. In Roy’s opinion, the middle class, instead of becoming a symbol of
the status quo, has infact become a potential enemy of the status quo, in order to bring about
a more equitable social order.
Roy also condemns the Marxian concept of classless society because in that society “the
dialectics of history would cease to operate, progress would come to a standstill, humanity
would die.” Unlike Marx, Roy gave due importance to the role of the petty bourgeoisie, as he
found this middle class to be far more keen to bring about revolution.
Though Roy was fully in favour of reconstruction of society for eliminating the inequalities
of life, yet he felt that the abolition of private property and nationalisation of the means of
production would not by itself establish an equalitarian social order. He thought that the
leadership of the revolution must be entrusted to the middle class intelligentsia who would
think in the broader term of the good of the entire society, and thereby play the role of the
‘Philosopher-politician’.
Further, in opposition to Lenin, Roy saw in the British rulers’ attempt to develop India
Industrially “the prospect of the decolonisation of India” by the British imperialists
themselves. He thought that such a policy was likely to lead to the weakening and ultimate
dissolution of the British Empire. He also did not accept Lenin’s conception of Democratic
Centralization, as he was basically a supporter of federalism and decentralization of political
power and economic resources.
Roy’s freely-expressed views on India clashed with Stalin’s post 1927 colonial policy of
‘socialism in one country” which made the latter dub the former as a ‘renegade’.
Towards the end of 1946, we find Roy rejecting Marxian concepts one by one. He, now came
to regard Marxism as simply ‘a method’, ‘a way of thinking’ and not ‘immutable’. He
thought that by applying this method, one should try to elaborate, amplify and even revise
Marxism in the light of growing experience and knowledge. Thus, we find Roy extending
Marxism and reaching certain conclusions which were against the very fundamentals of
Marxism. For example, the Marxists do not believe, like Roy, that human ideas, apart from
economic factor, can be influenced by reason.
ROY’S CRITIQUE OF GANDHISM:
Roy acknowledged the constructive contribution of Gandhi in India’s struggle for freedom.
He appreciated Gandhi’s use of mass action for the enforcement of political demands. In
particular, he was beholden to Gandhi for the latter’s adoption of the methods of intensely
aggressive Satyagraha, like Non-violent Non-cooperation, Civil Disobedience, Non-payment
of Taxes. Protest Resignations, Strikes, Hartals, Courting Imprisonment, Boycott, Peaceful
Picketing and Raids, and Fasting even unto Death to overthrow the British alien rule from
India. He also admired Gandhi for the release of national forces from government repression,
not by violence, hatred or retaliation, but by love, peace and non-violence.
Roy was also appreciative of Gandhi’s effort to re-build a nation wide organisation like the
Indian National Congress to awaken and involve the Indian Masses into the national
movement. He was of the considered view that Gandhi had infact transformed the elitist
Congress into “a gigantic mass organisation focusing the revolutionary will of the entire
people to become free from the imperialist domain.”
It is, however, generally believed that Roy’s critique of Gandhi and Gandhism was
conditioned by the former’s subscription to Marxism. Roy had criticized Gandhi from the
Marxist point of view. He criticized Gandhi, as he stood for practically everything that the
communists were opposed to.
Marx had denied the existence of God but was not apathetic to religion. On the other hand
Gandhi introduced metaphysics into the realm of politics, confusing thereby the spiritual
aims with the temporal aims. In line with his acknowledged political Guru, Gopal Krishna
Gokhale, Gandhi went to the length of declaring that “those who say that religion has nothing
to do with politics do not know what religion means.” Moreover, as a Vaishnavite Hindu,
Gandhi recognised evils of the traditional Hindu social structure, but called for its reform and
not overthrow.
He felt that his efforts in this direction did not, in any way, temper with his basic commitment
to the ideal of secularism. Roy also gives due credence to the autonomy of the individual and
the universally acknowledged moral values and would very much like his entire social
system to be based thereon, especially in the context of the corrupting influence of the
politics of opportunism. But, he would not agree with Gandhi in regarding love, not struggle,
as the denominator of natural relationship between the classes of Indian people. Roy would,
instead, tend to agree with Marx, not Gandhi.
Roy also criticized Gandhi for his opposition to the communist doctrine of violent struggle.
His concept of Satyagraha was called ‘demagougic’ and his strategy of bloodless revolution
as impossibility. Roy believed that freedom would be won, not through soul-force, as Gandhi
had proclaimed, but with blood and tears and will be maintained by blood and iron and the
British were not likely to leave India “out of respect for Indians’ ability to suffer.”
Roy had also condemned Gandhi’s effort to unite all sections of Indians, irrespective of their
inherent contradictions. He was simply amused and could never once appreciate Gandhi’s
effort to bring together the juxtaposed classes of landlords and peasants, capitalists and
proletariat, moderates and extremists in a common struggle to free India from the foreign
yoke, while Tilak as well as Gandhi had proved it possible.
Gandhi was also criticised for the lack of an economic programme and to make the positive
aspects of ‘swaraj’ intelligible to the masses. His economics was dubbed as reactionary,
signified by the rustic symbols of Charkha - the spinning-wheel. His economic philosophy
was rejected as the most desperate manifestation of the forces of reaction.
Roy equated Gandhism with fascism. In his opinion, the Indian philosophy, which Gandhi
had inherited and enriched, was fascist owing to its spiritual character. He thought that such a
philosophy was taking the people of India away from the realities of life. He also believed
that as a philosophical tradition, Gandhism was inspired by the ideal of revivalism which
was, in fact, the ideal of Hitlerism and had denied the progressive significance of modern
civilisation.
Roy had predicted a pre-mature obituary of Gandhi’s leadership of India’s freedom
movement. He thought that the imminent collapse of Gandhism will close a romantic and
exciting chapter of India’s struggle for freedom. However, the course of Indian history
proved M.N. Roy wrong.
Gandhi was also criticised by Roy for his vacillations, and inadequacies. For instance, at the
beginning of his Non-cooperation Movement, he had called the British Indian Government
‘satanic’, but after the Chauri-chaura incident, the same Gandhi not only withdrew his Non-
Cooperation Movement, but also sought compromise with the Viceroy. That is why, Roy
called Gandhism, a weak and watery reformism, rather than revolutionism.
It seems that much of Roy’s criticism was that of an unsympathetic outsider. He never tried to
get close to Gandhi and his followers in order to find for himself from where did Gandhi’s
extraordinary power come? Was it due to Gandhi’s conviction, his readiness to suffer rather
than impose his loin cloth, giving the impression of a “saint” or a “fakir”, the simplicity of
his living, his appeal to India’s culture, civilisation, spiritualism and secularism, his adoption
of the techniques of holding a prayer-meeting before giving his political sermons, his rustic
appearance or his effort to communicate with the masses in the language with which they
were accustomed. With all these techniques, Gandhi became a man of the masses, though he
was otherwise as much Westernised as Roy was and could speak and write better English
than even an Englishman. On the other hand, we see M.N. Roy, a Bengali Brahmin by birth,
who just could not discard his Western suit, boot and tie, and who preferred to speak and
write in English with which a lay Indian was not familiar. Hence, Roy failed to become a
leader of the masses and remained confined to Dehradoon, where he could sit by himself,
along with his second American wife, Ms. Elvyn Roy and confine himself to chalking out a
political, social, cultural and economic system which would combine the positive aspects of
Marxism, Gandhism and Western Liberalism. He thought his system would be more
democratic, federal, sensitive and liberal.
(III) THE THIRD PHASE (1946-1954)
ERA OF RADICAL HUMANISM:
Towards the end of 1946, we find Roy heading towards an alternative both to Marxism and
Gandhism, neither of which he was able to accept in its totality. In this era, he not only
presented a detailed outline of the new system and the principles on which it was to be built.
He was also, probably, the first academician - philosopher of modern India who took upon
himself the task of drafting the Constitution of Free Indi, all by himself.
PHILOSOPHY OF RADICAL HUMANISM:
In his New Humanism, Roy has observed that, in order to rationalise politics, the fighters for
a new world must turn to the traditions of Humanism and moral radicalism. New Humanism
is, probably one of his most celebrated works, wherein he first elaborates his sympathetic
philosophy in considerable details and then abridges it into 22 Theses. Of these he amended
thesis No. 19 and 20 in 1948 and brought out its amended version soon thereafter.
HUMAN NATURE:
Roy begins discussion of his new philosophy by explaining his own concept of Human
Nature, on the rock-bottom of which stands the whole structure of his political, social,
cultural, economic and educational ideas. In thesis No. 17, he finds himself in agreement with
Protagores who had regarded man as “the measure of everything”. In the same thesis we also
find him acknowledging the Marxian Thesis that man is “the root of mankind”. While
accepting these philosophical positions, Roy begins his own conception by calling man as
“the Archetype of Society” (Thesis No. 4) and “the maker of his world” (Thesis No. 15). He
was able to come to these conclusions because, to him, man is essentially ‘‘a thinking being’’
(Thesis No. 15) i.e. “a rational being” (Thesis No. 13). This instinctive faculty enables man to
reason ‘why’ and choose amongst the various alternatives available, at a given period of time,
the one which he considers to be the most viable and profitable for himself and the society
which he inhabits.
To Roy, it is the human will which is the most powerful determining factor-the causative
factor of the determined process of history “(Thesis No, 5). Roy was of the considered view
that “Ideas exist by themselves, governed by their own laws” (Thesis No. 6). Historical
events and the movements of ideas influence each other mutually in the process of integral
human evolution.
He thinks that man is “moral” because he is “instinctively rational’’ (Thesis No 13). To him,
morality is an appeal to conscience, and conscience is, in turn, the instinctive awareness of,
and reaction to, environment Thus, to Roy, morality is the highest and finest stage of reason
itself. He does hot accept Gandhi’s view that man is moral because he is ‘divine’. To him,
morality itself is a I unman quality and has no ‘divine or ‘super-natural’ origin whatsoever.
Roy does not, however, accept the Marxian thesis of man as “essentially an economic
being’’. He rather denounces this position by holding that the ‘‘economic man is bound to be
a slave or a slave- holder’’ (Thesis No. 13). And that this position does not fit into man’s
basic nature of rationality, in terms of which alone, he thinks, man is different from and
superior to all other beings.’’ To Ro the human brain, is ‘‘a means of production’’ It produces
the most revolutionary commodity. ‘‘the iconoclastic ideas” (Thesis No. 15), i.e. the ideas
critical of accepted principles. The human brain, true to itself, does not take anything for
granted .It is constantly in the process of examination and exploration.
It is this creativity power of man, which enables him to “remote’’ the world and enhance the
chances of democracy to be successful. In his Thesis No. 15, he observes meticulously: ‘An,
increasingly large number of men conscious of their creative power, motivated by the
indomitable will to remake the world, moved by the adventure of ideas and fired with the
idea of a free society of freemen, can create the conditions under which democracy will be
possible.” Hence, the men who are conscious of this faculty of reason have the basic potential
to bring about the most revolutionary change in their existing social and political fabric and
make genuine democracy (in Roy’s phrase, ‘the organised democracy”) possible, as a way of
life.
THE IDEAL OF LIFE:
Having thus explained his concept of human nature, Roy proceeds to present his considered
views on the immediate as well as the ultimate objective, purpose or ideal of man’s life, His
views on the subject are widely scattered in his 22 thesis.
To Roy, “Quest for Freedom and search for Truth” constitute the basic urge of human
progress (Thesis No.2). Explaining the goal of the “Quest For Freedom”, Roy explains as
continuation of the biological struggle for existence of the higher level of intelligence and
emotion.
Roy was of the considered view that the ‘‘social philosophy or scheme of social
reconstruction should recognise the sovereignty of the individual and the ideal of his
freedom” (Thesis No. 8). In other words, any viable “programme of social revolution” must
be based “on the principles of freedom, reason and social harmony’’ (Thesis No. 16). In short,
it is only the spiritually (rationally) free men, united in their determination of creating a world
of freedom’’ (Thesis No. 19), who can bring about a revolution which would improve not
only the quality of human institutions but of human beings themselves. Hence, our social and
political system should be so well-organized as to enable detached individuals to come to the
forefront of public affairs (Thesis No. 20), and enable them to design a new system which
would be based on the principle of “the widest diffusion of power”.
It is man’s basic ‘Quest For Freedom’ which, Roy thought, would ultimately result in tile
elimination of:
(i) every form of monopoly and vested interests in the regulation of social life;
(ii) possibility of exploitation of man by man;
(iii) possibility of subordinating the man of flesh and blood to an imaginary collective ego;
and
(iv) all other forms of slavery.
On the positive side, his “Quest for Freedom” would result in the:
(i) development of individual potentialities (which is the measure of social progress);
(ii) attainment of freedom by the individual “in ever-increasing measure”;
(iii) rise in the individual’s “standard of living”, leading to his all- round ‘well-being’;
(iv) reconciliation of individuality with collective life;
(v) widest possible diffusion of power;
(vi) reorganisation of society, as will be conducive to common progress and prosperity; and
(vii) reconstruction of the world as a commonwealth and fraternity of free men, by the
collective endeavour of spiritually emancipated moral men” (Thesis No. 22)
On the other hand, the ideal of “Search for Truth”, or the increasing knowledge of nature,
would enable man to “be progressively free from the tyranny of natural phenomena and
physical and social environment” (Thesis No. 2). That is why, Roy pleaded for “such a
reorganization of society as will be conducive to common progress and prosperity” without,
at the same time, encroaching upon the freedom of the individual’’ (This No 20). For this
purpose, he proposed setting up of people’s committees to bring about ‘‘the political and civic
education of the citizens.’’
In this Roy’s Radical Humanism recognises the importance of autonomy of the individual,
the set of moral and ethical values, and the social system based on the freedom of the
individual.
MEANING OF FREEDOM:
The comprehensive view of Roy’s concept of Freedom is contained in his Thesis No. 3, 7 and
8. He records his disagreement with Marx by observing candidly that “Freedom does not
necessarily follow from the capture of political power in the name of the oppressed and
exploited classes, and abolition of production.” (Thesis No. 7).
In negative terms, freedom implies “the progressive disappearance of all restrictions on the
unfolding of the potentialities of individuals, as human beings”. (Thesis No, 3). Roy was of
the definite view that under no circumstances whatsoever, the individual should be sacrificed
“at the alter of the imaginary collective ego”. For, after all, the position of the individual is
the measure of the progressive and liberating significance of any collective effort. In other
words, the success of any collective endeavour is to be measured by the actual benefit for its
constituent units.
THE POLITICAL STRUCTURE: THE STATE:
Roy’s views on the political structure of the Indian State, which he calls ‘organized
democracy’ are also scattered all through his thesis.
Unlike Marx, Roy, was of the considered view that planned economy on the basis of
socialised industries presupposes “a powerful political machinery”, and not a political
anarchy or stateless society or, to use the phrase of Marx and Engels, the withering away of
the State. Roy’s State would also not be an instrument “in the hands of any particular class to
coerce others”, i.e., it would not be a dictatorship of any particular class, as “dictatorship
defeats its proposed end.”
Subscribing to the view that “Economic democracy is no more possible in the absence of
political democracy than the latter in the absence of the former” (Thesis No. 9), he wanted
the political organization of society (The State) to be co-incident with the society” (Thesis
No. 14).
So far as the structure of Roy’s democratic State is concerned, it was to be “based on the
direct participation of the entire adult population, through the countrywide network of
‘people’s committees, at the apex of which would be the Parliament.
Unlike the formal democracy of powerless atomized individual citizens, as in the West, Roy‘s
State would reflect a ‘higher form of democracy”, an ‘‘organised democracy’’ in which power
would always remain vested in the people’’, who would have ‘‘the means to exercise their
sovereignty’ and wield a ‘standing’, and not merely a periodic control over the State
machinery”. Such a ‘‘Standing democratic control’’ over the State machinery would alone
“guarantee freedom”.
Roy’s organized democracy would aim ‘‘at the widest diffusion of power’ as concentration of
power is ‘‘inconsistent” with the freedom of the individual. It would enable detached
individuals to come forward to the forefront of public affairs. And, once the State is ‘‘manned
with such individuals’’ and has the support of ‘‘enlightened public opinion’’, it would ‘‘smash
all chains of slavery and usher in freedom for all” and “continue to rise” from one stage to
another, Thus, the ideal of Radical Democracy will be “attained through the collective efforts
of spiritually free men, united in their determination of creating a world of freedom’’, ‘‘a
commonwealth and fraternity of free men”, in which their elected representatives would
function as ‘‘the guides, friends and philosophers”, rather than their ‘‘would be rulers”. In
Roy’s view, such a democracy would alone be able to “defend itself”.
ECONOMIC STRUCTURE:
Roy was not only against capitalism, but also State-controlled socialism, He, thus, prepared a
draft of a new economic system based on the principles of maximum cooperation and
decentralization.
In Roy’s view, “Radical Democracy presupposes economic reorganization of society, so as to
eliminate the possibility of exploitation of man by man” (Thesis No.17). He believed that the
masses of the people would not be able to advance towards their goal of freedom, unless they
first become economically free. In other words, “progressive satisfaction of material
necessities is the pre-condition for the individual members of society, unfolding their
intellectual and other finer human potentialities” (Thesis No. 7). In other words, “a
progressively rising standard of living” alone is the foundation on which the structure of
radical democracy is based.
He believed that the economics of the new social order should be based on the solid
foundation of “production for use and distribution with reference to human needs’’ (Thesis
No. 18). It should also be founded on ‘‘reason and science’’. And, to ensure all this, it must
‘‘necessarily be planned’’. The whole planning should, however, have ‘‘the freedom of the
individual” as its main purpose. Such an economy would, in Roy’s opinion ensure, ‘‘a higher
form of democracy in the socialist society’’ (Thesis No. 11)
SOCIAL RENAISSANCE:
Roy believed that a social renaissance can come “only through determined and widespread
endeavour to educate the people in the principles of freedom and rational cooperate living”.
(Thesis No. 16). It can, however, be brought about by:
(i) a rapidly increasing number of men of the new renaissance;
(ii) a rapidly expanding system of people’s Committees; and
(iii) an organic co-ordination of both.
In so far as the programme of social revolution is concerned, in Roy’s view, it would include:
(i) elimination of every form of monopoly and vested interest in the regulation of social life;
(ii) implementation of the principles of freedom, reason and social harmony;
(iii) universal dissemination of knowledge.
Once this programme is implemented, it would provide “maximum scope and incentive to
scientific and creative activities” (Thesis No. 18). Further, the new society, being founded on
reason and science, would involve “minimum control”. That alone would it be able to present
itself essentially as “democratic, politically, economically as well as culturally”.
ROY’S THESIS:
As a theoretician and an academician, Roy made a successful attempt to systematically
summarise his total philosophy into 22 Thesis as follows:
THESIS ONE:
Man is the archetype of society. Co-operative social relationships contribute to develop
individual potentialities. But the development of the individual is the measure of social
progress. Except as the sum total of freedom and well-being actually enjoyed by individuals,
social liberation and progress are imaginary ideals, which are never attained.
“Well-being, if it is actual, is enjoyed by individuals..., collective well-being is a function of
the well-being of individuals.”
THESIS TWO:
Quest for freedom and search for Truth constitute the basic urges of human progress. The
Quest for Freedom is the continuation on a higher level of intelligence and emotion of the
biological struggle for existence. The search for Truth is a corollary thereof. Increasing
knowledge of nature enables men to be progressively free from the tyranny of natural
phenomena, and physical and social environments. Truth is the content of knowledge.
THESIS THREE:
The purpose of all rational human endeavour, individual as well as collective, is attainment of
freedom, in ever increasing measure. Freedom is progressive disappearance of all restrictions
on the unfolding of potentialities of individuals, as human beings, and not as cogs in the
wheels of a mechanized social organism. The position of individual, therefore, is the measure
of the progressive and liberating significance of any collective effort or social organisation.
The success of any collective endeavour is to be measured by the actual benefit for its
constituent units.
THESIS FOUR:
Rising out of the background of the law-governed physical nature, the human being is
essentially rational. Reason being a biological property, it is not the anti-thesis of will.... As a
matter of fact, human will is the most powerful determining factor.” Otherwise, there would
be no room for revolutions in a rationally determined process of history. The rational and
scientific concept of determination is not to be confused with the theological religious
doctrine of pre-destination.
THESIS FIVE:
The economic interpretation of history is deduced from a wrong interpretation of
Materialism. It implies dualism, whereas Materialism is monastic. History is a determined
process; but there are more than one causative factors. Human will is one of them, and it can
not always be referred directly to any economic incentive.
THESIS SIX:
Ideation is a physiological process resulting from the awareness of environment. But, once
they are formed, ideas exist by themselves, governed by their own laws. The dynamics of
ideas runs parallel to the process of social evolution, the two influencing each other mutually.
But in no particular point of the process of the integral evolution, can a direct-casual relation
be established between historical events and the movement of ideas. Cultural patterns and
ethical values are not mere ideological superstructures of established economic relations.
They are also historically determined by the logic of the history of ideas.
THESIS SEVEN:
For creating a new world of freedom, revolution must go beyond an economic reorganisation
of society. Freedom does not necessarily follow from the capture of political power in the
name of the oppressed and exploited classes and abolition of private property as the means of
production.
THESIS EIGHT:
A political system and an economic experiment, which subordinate the man of flesh and
blood to an imaginary collective ego, be it the nation or a class, can not possibly be the
suitable means for the attainment of the goal of freedom. On the hand, it is absurd to argue
that negation of freedom will lead to freedom, and, on the other hand, it is not freedom to
sacrifice the individual at the alter of the imaginary collective ego. Any social philosophy or
scheme of social reconstruction which does not recognise the sovereignty of the individual,
and dismisses the ideal of freedom as an empty abstraction, can have no more than a very
limited progressive and revolutionary significance.
THESIS NINE:
The State being the political organisation of society, its withering away under communism is
an utopia which has been exploded by experience. Planned economy on the basis of
socialised industries presupposes a powerful political machinery. Democratic control of that
machinery alone can guarantee freedom under the new order. Planning of production for use
is possible on the basis of political democracy and individual freedom.
THESIS TEN:
State-ownership and planned economy do not by themselves end exploitation of labour, nor
do they lead to an equal distribution of wealth. Economic democracy is no more possible in
the absence of political democracy than the latter in the absence of former.
THESIS ELEVEN:
Dictatorship tends to perpetuate itself. Planned economy under political dictatorship
disregards individual freedom on the plea of efficiency, collective effort and social progress.
Consequently, a higher form of democracy in the socialist society, as it is conceived at
present, becomes an impossibility. Dictatorship defeats its professed end.
THESIS TWELVE:
The defects of formal parliamentary democracy have also been exposed in experience. They
result from the delegation of power. To make democracy effective, power must always
remain vested in the people, and there must be ways and means for the people to wield the
sovereign power effectively, not periodically, from day to day. Atomised individual citizens
are powerless for all practical purposes, and most of the time. They have no means to
exercise their sovereignty and to wield a standing control over the State machinery.
THESIS THIRTEEN:
Liberalism is falsified or parodied under formal parliamentary democracy. The doctrine of
laisse faire only provides the legal sanction to the exploitation of man by man. The concept of
economic man negatives the liberating doctrine of individualism. The economic man is
bound to be a slave or a slave holder. That vulgar concept must be replaced by the reality of
an instinctively rational being that is moral because he is rational. Morality is an appeal to
conscience, and conscience is the instinctive awareness of, and reaction to, environments. It
is a mechanistic biological function on the level of consciousness. Therefore, it is rational.
THESIS FORTEEN:
The alternative to parliamentary democracy is not dictatorship; it is organised democracy in
place of the formal democracy of powerless atomized individual citizens. The Parliament
should be at the apex of a pyramidal structure of the State reared on the base by an organised
democracy composed of a country-wide network of people Committees. The political
organisation of society (the State) will be coincident with the entire society and consequently,
the State will be under a standing democratic control.
THESIS FIFTEEN:
The function of a revolutionary and liberating social philosophy is to lay emphasis on the
basic fact of history that man is the maker of his world. Man is a thinking being, and he can
be so only as an individual. The brain is a means of production, and produces the most
revolutionary commodity. Revolutions presuppose iconoclastic ideas. An increasingly large
number of men, conscious of their creative power, motivated by the indomitable will to
remake the world, moved by the adventure of ideas, and filled with the idea of a free society
of free men, can create the conditions under which democracy will be possible.
THESIS SIXTEEN:
A social renaissance can come only through the determined and widespread endeavour to
educate the people in the principles of freedom and rational cooperative living. The people
will be organized into effective democratic bodies but build up the socio-political foundation
of the post-revolutionary order. Social revolution requires, in a rapidly increasing number,
men of the new renaissance, and a rapidly expanding system of Peoples Committees, and an
organic coordination of both. The programme of revolution will similarly be based on the
principles of freedom, reason and social harmony. It will mean elimination of every form of
monopoly and vested interest in the regulation of social.
THESIS SEVENTEEN:
Radical Democracy presupposes economic reorganisation of society so as to eliminate the
possibility of exploitation of man by man. Progressive satisfaction of material necessities is
the pre-condition for the individual members of society unfolding their intellectual and other
finer human potentialities. An economic reorganisation such as this will guarantee
progressively rising standard of living, is the foundation of the Radical Democratic State.
Economic liberation of the masses is an essential condition for their advancing towards the
goal of freedom.
THESIS EIGHTEEN:
The economy of the new social order will be based on production for use and distribution
with reference to human needs. If political organisation excludes delegation of power, which,
in practice, deprives the people of effective power; it will be based on the direct participation
of the entire adult population through the People’s Committees. Its culture will be based on
the universal dissemination of knowledge and on minimum control and maximum scope and
incentive to scientific and creative activities. The new society, being founded on reason and
science, will necessarily be planned. But it will be planning with the freedom of the
individual as its main purpose. The new society will be democratic, politically, economically
as well as culturally. Consequently, it will be a democracy which can defend itself.
THESIS NINETEEN:
The deal of Radical Democracy will be attained through the collective efforts of spiritually
free men united in their determination of creating a world of freedom. They will function as
the guides, friends and philosophers of the people rather than their would be rulers.
Consequently, with the goal of freedom, their political practice will be rational, and therefore
ethical. Their effort will be reinforced by the growth of the people’s will to freedom.
Ultimately, the radical Democratic State will rise with the support of enlightened public
opinion as well as intelligent action of the people. Realising that freedom is inconsistent with
concentration of power; Radical Democrats will aim at the widest diffusion of power.
THESIS TWENTY:
In the last analysis, education of the citizens is the condition for such a reorganisation of
society as will be conducive to common progress and prosperity without encroaching upon
the freedom of the individual. The Peoples’ Committees will be the schools for the political
and civic education of the citizen. The structure and function of the Radical Democratic State
will enable detached individuals to come to the forefront of public affairs. Manned with such
individuals, the State machinery will cease to be the instrument in the hands of any particular
class to coerce others. Only spiritually free individuals in power can smash all chains of
slavery and usher in the freedom for all.
THESIS TWENTY-ONE:
Radicalism integrates science “into social organisation, reconciles individuality with
collective life; it gives to freedom both a moral- intellectual and social content.” It offers a
comprehensive theory of social progress, in which both the dialectics of economic
determination and dynamics of ideas find their due recognition and deduces from the same a
method and programme of social revolution in our time.
THESIS TWENTY-TWO:
Radicalism starts from the dictum that “man is the measure of everything” (Protagoros) or
“man is the root of mankind” (Marx); and advocates reconstruction of the world as a
Commonwealth and fraternity of free men, by the collective endeavour of spiritually
emancipated moral men.
ROY’S OUTLINE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF FREE INDIA:
The draft of the “Constitution of Free India” was finalized by M.N. Roy in May 1945, almost
a year ahead of the creation of the Constituent Assembly of India. It dealt with the
fundamental questions and controversial issues facing India of his times, leaving details to be
filled in at a later stage. In his introduction to this Draft, Roy has himself reflected on the
non-inclusion of certain provisions, like:
(i) the Procedure of Amendment;
(ii) Arms, National Flag, Seal of Government, etc.; and
(iii) Relations of the armed forces with civil authorities.
On the other hand, Roy has commented on the following “temporary and transitional
provisions” before outlining the contents of the proposed Constitution.
(i) Formal and legal transfer of power to Indians, as a whole, on the initiative of the British
Parliament;
(ii) Creation of a constitutional authority to draft the Constitution for enabling Indians to
exercise the right of sovereignty in practice; and
(iii) Composition of the provisional government, consisting of persons committed to the
responsibility of promulgating a particular Constitution.
Roy has envisaged under this Draft:
(1) Establishment of a Democratic Indian Federation;
(ii) Disappearance of the Feudatory States and their incorporation with the provinces
according to the principles of linguistic and cultural homogeneity;
(iii) Creation of an organized democracy as the source of all constitutional authority-the
instrument for the exercise of popular sovereignty;
(iv) Combination of the legislative and executive functions of the State;
(v) the head of the Republic of India, to be known as ‘the Governor General’, and the heads
of various provinces, as the Governors, all of whom to be elected by their respective
electorates.
The Constitution as drafted by M.N. Roy is divided into thirteen chapters. Chapter 1 has
appropriately been designed and entitled as “the declaration of Rights and fundamental
principles”.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES:
The purpose of Roy’s Constitution was to enforce the following fundamental principles of
democratic freedom:
(i) Sovereignty of the people;
(ii) Control of States legislative and executive functions by elected representatives of the
people;
(iii) Autonomy of provinces;
(iv) Right of every territorial unit of India to have a democratic constitution;
(v) The Land as well as the underground riches as the collective property of the people;
(vi) Promotion of the productivity of labour, through the introduction of modern mechanical
means of production;
(vii) State control over basic industries and the credit system;
(viii) Collective membership over large-scale industries;
(ix) Promotion of large-scale co-operative agriculture through supply of modern machinery
and cheap credit;
(x) An irreducible standard of living for all, labouring in the fields, factories, mines,
transport, offices and schools;
(xi) Guarantee of minimum wages by law;
(xii) Statutory provision of social security for the old, the sick and the incapacitate;
(xiii) Identical rights and responsibilities of citizenship for both men and women; and
(xiv) Protection of the rights of minorities.
In Roy’s view these are the fundamental political and economic principles, on which the
Constitution of free India should be based so as to meet the hopes and aspirations of its
people.
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS:
in chapter 1 of his Draft, Roy also recognizes the following fundamental, political, civil,
social, religious and economic rights which he would like the citizens of free India to enjoy
in common with one another:
POLITICAL RIGHTS:
(i) Right of every citizen to vote on attaining the age of 18 years (Art. 5);
(ii) Right of initiative, Referendum and Recall (Art. 6);
(iii) Inalienable right of the people to alter and modify the political organisation of society;
(iv) The social right of revolt against tyranny and oppression; and
(v) Right of minorities to proportional representation, through separate electorates, on all
elected public bodies.
CIVIL RIGHTS:
(i) Identical rights and responsibilities of citizenship for both men and women;
(ii) Freedom of press and speech;
(iii) Right to association;
(iv) Inviolability of person (no person to be placed under arrest, except on order by legally
constituted court); and
(v) Inviolability of the homes of citizens and privacy of their correspondence.
SOCIAL RIGHTS:
(i) Right to the freedom of free, compulsory and secular education for all children upto the
age of 14 years; and
(ii) Facility of public health and sanitation at the cost of the State.
RELIGIOUS RIGHTS:
(i) Full Freedom of worship.
ECONOMIC RIGHTS:
(i) Right of the cultivator to hold land, without any disability, subject to payment of a unitary
land tax to be fixed by law;
(ii) Right to adequately remunerative employment or relief;
(iii) Right of the workers to limited hours of works, i.e. 8 hours a day and 6 days a week;
(iv) Right of the workers to one month’s leave with full pay every year;
(v) Right of women workers to three months maternity leave with full pay; and
(vi) Right to social security of the old, the sick and the incapacitated.
THE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY AND ITS EXERCISE:
Roy has expressed his views about the source of political authority and the manner in which
it is to be expressed in the organised democracy of his conception.
In the first place, Roy observes that in an organised democracy, which is the foundation of
the State, “All authority emanates from the people” (Article 2) and is to be expressed through
the “local peoples’ committees in villages, towns and cities” (Article 4). The peoples’
committees would be elected every year by “all the men and women of the respective
localities who have attained the age of eighteen years” (Article 5). In so far as the
composition of these committees is concerned, the number of members in each of them
would be “one-fifth of the total number of voters of the locality” (Article 6).
The people’s committees were to be constituted to attain two objectives
(i) To help enable citizens to exercise their sovereign right, individually as well as
collectively; and
(ii) To make democratic power effective.
And, in order to enable them to attain these objectives effectively, to the best of their ability
and to the entire satisfaction of their electors, Roy would assign them the following functions,
with regard to the Federal and Provincial Assemblies:
(i) Nominate candidates for election to the Federal and Provincial Assemblies;
(ii) Guide their Federal and Provincial representatives;
(iii) Discuss and express opinion on proposed legislation;
(iv) Recommend recall of the representatives of the particular constituency, if he fails to act
according to the mandate of his constituents;
(v) Initiate legislation in these Assemblies;
(vi) Demand referendum on an legislative or executive measure.
Additionally, these committees were also empowered to recommend the recall of the
Governor-General and for the Governors of respective provinces.
STRUCTURE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
THE SUPREME PEOPLES’ COUNCIL:
In Roy’s scheme of the structure and functions of the federal Government, the Supreme
People’s Council would be “the depository of all State power”. It would consist of the
Governor-General, the Council of State and the Federal Assembly. Its Sessions, i.e. the joint
sessions of the two Houses shall be convened and presided over by the Governor-General. It
was empowered to “give the final sanction to all legislative as well as executive acts of the
Government.”
THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL:
The Governor-General would be elected for a term of five years by the entire electorate of the
federal union, composed of all adult votes of the age of 18 years and above. The
Government-General would be elected directly be the people themselves for a period of 5
years. He would have the power to sign and place his seal on all legislation after they have
received the final sanction of the Supreme People’s Council. He would have the power to
dissolve the Federal Assembly and order fresh elections.
THE COUNCIL OF STATES:
The members of the federal upper house, called the Council of States, would be appointed by
the Provincial Governments on the basis of equality/parity between the Federating provinces.
They would be appointed for a period of 6 years and be eligible for re-appointment. It would
normally be in session simultaneously with the Federal Assembly. It may, additionally, meet
when the Federal Assembly is not in Session, in order ‘to advice the Council of Ministers on
urgent political, economic or administrative questions.
THE FEDERAL ASSEMBLY:
The Federal Assembly shall be composed of the deputies of the people of the Federal Union,
elected on the basis of one deputy for 500,000 inhabitants. The elections would be held on
the basis of universal adult franchise. in which all men and women of 18 years and above
shall be free to contest as well as to vote. The Electoral rolls for elections shall be prepared
by the Peoples’ Committees and the Federal elections would be funded by the Federal
Government. The Federal Assembly would be elected for a term of 4 years and would be
subject to premature dissolution either upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister or by
tile Governor-General on his own. Its session would be so convened as not to allow more
than six months to elapse in between the two sessions.
The legislative power of the Federal union would be vested, under Article 52, in the Federal
Assembly. It would have the power to legislate on all matters, subject to ratification by the
Supreme Peoples’ Council and endorsement by the Provincial Legislatures in the following
matters:
(i) Defence;
(ii) Foreign Relations;
(iii) Foreign Trade;
(iv) Customs;
(v) Currency;
(vi) Posts and Telegraphs;
(vii) Railway Administration;
(viii) Ports and Maritime shipping; and
(ix) Air Navigation.
In case of dispute between the Federal and Provincial legislatures on any subject, other than
the ones specifically mentioned above, the matter shall be settled through the Federal
Referendum to be conducted through the Peoples’ Committees.
In General, in case of conflict between a Federal law and a Provincial law, the former shall
prevail. The Supreme Council would also have the Right to veto any provincial legislation on
the ground that “it is repugnant to the Federal Constitution or Contradicts any Federal law.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS:
As the chief executive officer of the Federal Union of India, the Governor General would
have the power to nominate a Council of Ministers “to carry on the executive functions of the
Federal Government”. The Governor-General would appoint a member of the Federal
Assembly as the Prime Minister and upon the tatters’ recommendation, the other members of
tile Council of Ministers. The Council of Minister would be “collectively” responsible to the
Supreme Peoples Council and remain in office so long as it enjoys its confidence. The
Council of Ministers was to resign if the vote of no-confidence was endorsed by the Supreme
People’s Council.
THE SUPREME FEDERAL COURT:
The highest judicial authority of the Federal Union of India would be the Supreme Federal
Court, consisting of the Chief Justice of India and four or more federal judges. The Chief
Justice of India shall be appointed by the Governor General himself, and the other federal
judges in consultation with the Chief Justice. Once appointed, they shall hold office until they
attain the age of 65 years, unless they resign earlier.
The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Federal Court has been described as follows
(i) Disputes between the Federal Government and the Provincial Governments or between the
latter inter Se, concerning their constitutional and legal rights, and
(ii) Reference made by the Federal Government or the Provincial Government regarding tile
interpretation of the Constitution.
In its appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Federal Court shall hear appeals against the
decisions of tile provincial High Courts in civil and criminal cases, provided such cases
involve legal questions of special or general interest.
THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT:
Roy recognises all the provinces as equally autonomous and democratic.
THE PROVINCIAL PEOPLES’ COUNCIL:
The legislative authority in the province would be the Provincial Peoples’ Council, composed
of the Governor and Deputies of the people. Both the executive and legislative powers of tile
province would be vested in the Provincial Peoples Council.
THE GOVERNOR:
Every Province would have a Governor as the chief-executive of the Province. He would be
elected for a period of five years directly by all men and women inhabitants who have
attained the age of 18 years. Every Citizen of the Province who has attained the age of 30
years would be eligible for election as the Governor.
THE PROVINCIAL PEOPLES COUNCIL:
The Deputies to the Provincial Peoples’ Council would be elected directly by all men and
women inhabitants of the province who have attained the age of 18 years. They would be
elected in the ratio of one deputy per 100,000 electors. In towns and cities with populations
over 25,000 this ratio will be one to 50,000 These deputies would be elected for a term of
four years. It would also be subject to earlier dissolution by the Governor if no Council of
Ministers can command a majority or on the demand of the local people’s committees,
representing a majority of the provincial electorate. The Council would meet within three
months of the election of deputies. They would have the right to legislate on all subjects
except the ones reserved for the Federal Assembly.
A unique feature of the powers of the Council was to demand recall of the Governor, by
atleast 40% of its members, in that situation, the Governor would submit the demand to a
General Referendum. He would resign if the demand for his recall is supported by a simple
majority of the provincial electorate.
THE PROVINCIAL COUNCIL OF MINISTERS:
The Chief Minister would be appointed by the Governor from amongst the member of the
Provincial People’s Council and other members of the Council of Ministers would be
appointed upon the latter’s recommendation. It would be collectively responsible to the
Provincial Peoples Council who would have the right to oust them from office by its 70%
majority.
THE PROVINCIL HIGH COURTS:
Each Province would have a High Court, consisting of a Chief Justice and six or more other
judges. The Chief Justice and Judges would be appointed by the Governor and would serve
until they attain the age of 65 years, unless they resign earlier.
THE LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT:
of things. Below the provincial level is the District level. At this level. the Peoples’
Committee would be composed of five delegates from each sub-divisional People’
Committee. The District Officer would be its chairman. This Committee would assist the
District Officer and help him in the discharge of all his duties. This would be in addition to
the functions of local governments to be exercised at the District level.
Similarly, at the intermediate level. i.e. at the level of the sub-division. there would be a Sub-
Divisional Committee to perform the functions of local self-government. The Sub-Divisional
Officer (S.D.O.) would be its chairman, to advise him in the exercise of all his duties.
However, the district and sub-divisional People’s Committees would not supersede the
sovereign status of the Local People’s Committees, which have been declared as ‘‘the
primary organs of democratic authority and power”.
Roy’s Constitution specifically vests the Local Peoples Committees with “the sovereign right
of controlling the entire State machinery, as per provisions of the Constitution. The following
functions were vested in the People’s Committees at the grassroot, local, level which these
committees would perform “on behalf of the Provincial Government and/or on their own
initiative’’.
(1) Sanitation and public health;
(2) Primary and Secondary Education (upto matriculation);
(3) Building and maintaining the roads and public parks;
(4) Promotion of the organisation of producers’ and consumers’ Cooperative Societies;
(5) Maintenance of public order (local police administration);
(6) Administration of law in cases of petty crime; and
(7) Collect taxes, subject to the approval of the Provincial Government.
THE ECONOMIC ORGANISATION OF SOCIETY:
Economically, the Federal Union of India would be planned as
“a co-operative commonwealth” for “reorganising the economic life of the country”, so as to
guarantee “to every citizen all the material requirements for civilised existence” and also
“adequate leisure for cultivating the finer aspects of life.”
Under this system, goods would be produced primarily for satisfying the requirements of the
people. And, the entire production. agricultural as well as industrial, would be planned for
that purpose. It is stipulated that ‘‘to plan production and regulate distribution’’ are functions
of the State. On State’s behalf, these functions would be exercised by the State Planning
Authority to by constituted by the Supreme People’s Council and to consist of experts and
representatives of State enterprises, industrial and agricultural. This authority would be
subordinate to the Supreme People’s Council and would function under its advice and general
supervision.
The freedom, individual as well as collective, of enterprise has been guaranteed, subject to
the principle that the purpose of production is to satisfy the requirements of the people. It is
also provided that in planning the economic life of the society, the State would have the right
to fix the maximum or minimum return on private investment, the prices of goods produced
or exchanged, the remuneration and working conditions of wage-earners and salaried
employees, and take over the private enterprises under State ownership by paying fair
compensation to the owners thereof.
The Federal and Provincial Governments would have the power to raise loans to finance
economic development and to make budgetary provisions for extending credit to industrial
and collective agricultural enterprises. The ownership of land, underground resources and
railways would, however, be transferred to the people. Finally, the State Bank would control
the entire credit system of the State.
IN CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, we find in Roy’s political philosophy of Radical Humanism, there is a
remarkable synthesis of the positive features of both Marxism and Gandhism. In his new
system, Roy specifically provides for a full-fledged Sovereign, Federal, Secular, Socialist,
Democratic Republic. Free India would be a Sovereign State, though it would voluntarily be
a member of the larger federation known as the Indo-British Commonwealth of free peoples.
Its Federal structure would guarantee full autonomy not only to all of its provinces, but also
to the units of local self-governments at the District, sub-district and local levels. The
democratic system of this union has been so systematically and judiciously designed as to
combine the best features of both the direct and indirect (representative) democracies. It is
also a full Republic in as much as not only the Governor General of India but also the
Provincial Governors would be elected by the people directly on the basis of Universal Adult
Franchise. Its economic organisation would be based on socialist principles, as Roy believed,
that political democracy is not possible without economic democracy. Finally, the spiritual
basis of the State would be in its secular outlook, both in its day-to-day functioning and in
terms of the exercise of its powers and functions by the State and, with reference to the
context of rights and freedoms of the citizens. The Draft prepared b M.N. Roy single-
handedly closely resembles the draft finalized by the Constituent As of India. The features of
the present Constitution of India bear unmistakable testimony to the philosophical and
political objectives and principles which were so dear to MN. Roy and on the basis of which
he was so eager to make India of his dreams an ideal state, an ideal society, and an ideal
economy. He was striving very hard to translate into practice the basic ideals and principles
he had so maticulously propounded in his New Humanism.
The generations to come would remember MN. Roy not only as the propounder of a new
synthetic philosophy, but also as a forerunner of the formal framers of the Constitution of
India. In other words, if any political thinker of modern India could rightly be called as the
father of the Constitution of India, it was Manvendra Nath Roy, who drafted the first
Constitution of Free India, article by article, clause by clause, single handedly and on his own
initiative, way back in 1944, almost two years prior to the composition of the Constituent
Assembly of India.
There are only two other political philosophers and social reformers of modern India who
could share this honour with M.N. Roy. The first of them was Mahatma Gandhi who, in his
Hind Swaraj of 1909, had given a broad but comprehensive outline of the political, social and
economic system which he would like free India of his dreams to possess. Another person
who could belatedly be covered in this category would be Jaya Prakash Narayan who, not
satisfied with the Constitution which had guided the political system of India for a decade,
prepared his own alternative draft in 1959, entitling it as ‘A Plea For the Reconstruction of
Indian Polity’ essentially as a partyless democracy.
Hence, if due credit is to be given for laying down the foundations of the Constitution of
India and for suggesting a total review thereof the honour, in fact, goes collectively to the
trinity of Mahatma Gandhi, Manvendra Nath Roy and Jayaprakash Narayan.
I would find it very difficult to agree with a hoast of commentators on Indian Government
and politics who tend to regard Dr. Rajendra prasad, Chairman of the Constituent Assembly
of India. and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. chairman of its Drafting Committee, or the Constituent
Assembly of India as a collectivity, as the Father of the Constitution of India who put
together their heads and hearts to synthesise provisions from a hoast of constitutions and
constitutional drafts, so as to hammer cut a document which would design a political system,
in conformity broadly with the principles and ideals of India’s Struggle For Freedom. The
attempt here is, however, not to belittle the indelible imprint of the loyal luminaries and
freedom fighters who, after all, did come up to the expectations of the people, which the)
were able ‘to reflect eminently in the Constitutions of India. The point of difference relates
only the ‘originality’ of the thinking process, the vision, and the practical craftsmanship.
CHAPTER IX

JAYAPRAKASH NARAYAN (1902-1979)

Loknayak Jayaprakash Narayan lived a chequered life. He was the foremost leader,
propagandist and spokesman of Indian socialism, who had taken initiative in the formation of
the Congress Socialist Party, as an integral part of the Indian National Congress, way back in
1934. As a student-activist, he was immensely influenced by Gita’s gospel of ‘Karmayoga’
and Gandhi’s Satyagraha’for India’s Swaraj. Yet, once he came under the spell of the left-
wing intellectuals in America, he easily got converted to Marxism. But, even as a Marxist, he
never once became a total apologist for the Russian brand of communism. And, as soon as he
got disillusioned by Marxism as a philosophy and technique, he returned to the fold of
Gandhi and Vinoba and dedicated himself as a Jeevandani in the post- Gandhian sarvodaya
movement.
As a champion of Partyless democracy. He was eager to free democracy from the clutches of
Party-Politics, just as he fought against the increasing influence of money and muscle-power
in elections. He was a staunch critique of corruption and criminalization of politics and thus
advocated the cause of maximum decentralization of both political power and economic
resources. His plea for the Reconstruction of Indian Polity presents him not only as a
dauntless defender of democracy, but also as a Humanist.
J.P. was a ‘born-rebel’ and, as such, he had recourse to the politics of ‘mass-agitation’ and
‘pressure’ not only against the oppressive alien British Rule in India, but also against the
authoritarianism of Prime-Minister Indira Gandhi and gave a call for ‘Total Revolution’.
The ‘born-rebel’ also assumed the role of a ‘King-maker’, when he succeeded in replacing
the authoritarian regime of Indira Gandhi by the Janta Party Government under the Prime
Ministership of Morarji Desai, a staunch Gandhi-ite.
A great peaceful-revolutionary, an ardent champion of Partyless democracy, a Jeevandani, a
sympathiser of Gandhian and Marxian
Principles and techniques, a social-reformer who was eager to bring the dreaded dacoits back
to the mainstream of Indian Society, a born- rebel, a king-maker and a leader of the masses.
Javaprakash could not, however, always cam his own co-workers, comrades,followers and
admirers with him and had, therefore, to retire from active Politics and take long—spells of
political Sanyas which invariably provided him with vet another opportunity to reconsider his
own position and find vet another excuse to return to active politics in one form or the other.
Thus, quitting and re-entering active politics had become the style of his politics.
The Political career of Jayaprakash was, thus, significantly marked by recurrent spells of
“retirement and return” to active polities. In other words, his style of functioning made him
oscillate between active- politics and political-wilderness.
BRIEF LIFE-SKETCH:
Jayaprakash Narayan was born on October 11, 1902, in the family of Harsoo Babu and
Phoolrani Devi, in the Siabtiara village of Chhapra district of Bihar which is ideally situated
on the confluence of Ganga and Sarjoo rivers and which, at present, forms part of Uttar
Pradesh. Like his parents, his mother-tongue was also Bhojpuri. As a child, he did not speak
for almost five years and his parents were not sure as to whether he would be able to speak at
all, although he was able to listen, understand and write. He, thus, came to be called by the
nick-name of baoolji and he was addressed by his parents as such until he attained the age of
twenty years. However, when he was six, he was able to utter a few words.
When Baoolji started uttering a few words, he was admitted to the primary school of his
village, Here, he received education upto sixth grade and for further education he was sent to
Patna and was admitted in the Collegiate School. His interest in studies, from the very
beginning was unique and extraordinary. Whenever he got an opportunity to choose his
subjects, he would select/opt for such subjects in which most of his other classmates would
not be interested. For, instance, while getting admitted to the Seventh Grade, he opted for
Mathematics and Physics, in addition to English, Hindi and Sanskrit. Later, while seeking
admission for Entrance Examination, he opted for Chemistry, in addition to his earlier
subjects. He secured first division in his Entrance Examination and was awarded a
fellowship.
He was not even eighteen when, on May 16, 1920, he was married to Prabhawati, the
daughter of Brajkishore Prasad, the noted Barrister and political agitator, and Phooljhari
Devi. His marriage, too, was an extraordinary event, keeping in view the then prevailing
conditions and circumstances. Encouraged by the views of Dr. Rajendra Prasad, there was no
giving or taking of down in his marriage. It was a simple marriage by all standards. Secondly.
Baoolji, after taking his wife into confidence, undertook a pledge not to get engrossed in
family affairs and to live a life of an ascetic, Prabhawati only followed suit. Consequently,
while Baoolji pursued his studies in India. Prabhawati lived mostly with her parents, and
thereafter, when he went abroad. Gandhi brought Prabhawati to his Sabarmati Ashram where
she continued to live and work during Baoolji’s stay abroad.
The month of January 1921 brought revolutionary changes in his life. At that time, he was
preparing for his Intermediate examination. A political relly was held in Patna which was
addressed, inter alia, by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. This inspiring speech shook his head and
heart so much that he decided to quit his studies and plunge in Gandhi’s I Civil Disobedience
Movement. However, Dr. Rajendra Prasad was able to persuade him to resume his studies.
Once he got sufficiently persuaded, he got himself admitted to the National Vidyapeeth in
Sadakat Ashram and was able to accomplish his studies. Thereafter, he moved to Kashi to
undertake his higher studies in Chemistry.
After accomplishing his studies in India, on May 16, 1922, he boarded the ship ‘Jinas’ to
proceed to America to continue his higher studies in Chemical Engineering in the University
of California at Berkeley. However, as he did not find the study of this subject interesting
enough, he moved to Chicago to study Sociology at the University of Wisconsin. He
succeeded in the ensuing examination and was awarded the Degree of B.A., which he felt
proud to use as a suffix to his name. It was the opportunity of his life time and a rare honour
when he was invited to teach Sociology at his alma mater. While he was teaching, he
continued to study Sociology at the Master’s level in which, too, he was quite successful. He,
then, got himself enrolled for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy to work on “Social
Transformation”. His hypothesis was that social changes depend, by and large, on the
improvement in the instruments of production. However, while he was seriously engaged in
his doctoral studies, he received the news of his mother’s serious illness. This compelled him
to leave his studies in between to take care of his alling mother who died soon thereafter. It
was due to her illness and consequent demise that Jayaprakash could not takepart in Gandhi’s
Salt Satyagraha which he regretted allthrough his life.
As a student of Sociology Jayaprakash had occasion to study the works of Marx and Engles.
He was so much enamoured by their works that the total way of his thinking, speaking and
writing became Marxist. Besides the works of Marx and Engels, he also came across the
works of Lovestone and MN. Roy which too influenced him considerably. These works
further strengthened his commitment to Marxism. It was almost until 1940 that J.P. remained
an orthodox Marxist.
The decade of I 930s is generally belived to be a milestone in the history of India’s Struggle
for Swaraj. It was in this decade that all those Indians who had left India during world war I
started returning to their motherland. During their stay abroad they had obtained training in
the use of armaments, in guerilla tactics and in the strategy of terrorism. Others were
indoctrinated in the Principles of Marxism which they were eager of experiment with in the
context of India which, like China, is based essentially on an agricultural, rather than an
Industrial, economy. When these Marxist-Socialists reached India, they found in Jawahar Lal
Nehru a person who had adopted and adapted modernism, democracy and socialism to suit
the then prevailing conditions and circumstances of India. On the inspiration of Jawahar Lal,
he joined the Indian National Congress and started partaking in India’s struggle for Freedom
under its banner.
The youngmen joined hands with Jawaharlal to create an India which would not only be free
from alien British Rule, but would also be independent and sovereign. With a democratic
form of government, ensuring not only good’ but also ‘self’govérnment. The democratic
India of their vision would ensure them widest possible participation in their own affairs and
enable them to exercise their basic rights and freedoms as citizens. They wanted free and
independent India to be a society which would be free from exploitation of man by man and
in which there would be no place for anti-social institutions like Zamindari.
In the Second Non-violent Non-cooperation Movement, J.P. alongwith his wife Prabhawati,
played an active role under the leadership of Gandhi, Nehru and Rajendra Prasad. As a
consequence, J.P. and Prabhawati were detained in the Nasik Jail for two years. It was a
strange coincidence that among the political prisoners who were inturned in the Nasik Jail,
there was a number of like-minded socialists, the most notable of whom, besides J.P., were
Acharya Narendra Deva, Achyut Patwardhan, Asoka Mehta, M. R. Masani, N .G. Gore, S. M
Joshi,M N Dantwala and Yusuf Mehar Ali. Upon their release from the Nasik Jail in 1936,
they all got together in Bombay and founded the Congress Socialist Party (CSP) as an
integral part of the Indian National Congress itself.
Jayaprakash emerged as an Indian Marxist intellectual. He was only 32 when lie received
nation-wide image as a revolutionary writer, and author. His book entitled Why socialism
made the entire left-oriented Indian population aware of the fundamental principles of
Marxism. He also ventured to remove the prevailing misconceptions about this philosophy.
His book was published on behalf of the Congress Socialist Party. In this book, J.P tried to
develop the following hypothesis:
(1) Foundation of Socialism;
(2) Aims of the Congress Socialist Party;
(3) The Alternative; and
(4) Methods and Techniques.
J.P. believed that socialism is based essentially on the fundamental principles of Marxism.
He, thus,strove to adapt Marxism to the conditions and circumstances of India. Vis-a-vis the
other Indian socialists, he was totally committed to the economical reorganization of society
on Marxist lines. He did not wish the State to whither away’. He would rather bring about its
total transformation through democratic and constitutional means available to them, through
peace and non-violence, by undergoing self-suffering instead of imposing suffering and
hardships on his opponents. Such an Indianization of Marxism was acceptable to a hoast of
other Indian socialists as well. They too were eager to bring about a total transformation of
India’s social, political and economic system. They too wanted this transformation to take
place through the methods of democracy and constitutionalism, through non-violent means,
by following the path of peaceful agitation, an acceptable para-legal method of bringing
about change,
On December 18, 1941, the British Government proclaimed J.P. as “Enemy and Conspirator
Number One.” Consequently, he was interned in the Hazaribagh Jail for a long time. Here, he
was not allowed to exchange his views with fellow political prisoners. However, whenever
lie got an opportunity, he used it to explain the fundamental principles of Marxism and
remove misconceptions about its philosophy and strategy .Later, he explained his views to
the youth leaders who were actively involved in Gandhi’s Quit India Movement.
Time immediate result of J.P.’s efforts was infusion of a fresh spirit of enthusiasm, especially
through the motivation provided by his ‘Open Letters’ of 1943. They formed a number of
guerilla groups to attack public property so as to cripple British administration and make it
increasingly ineffective. This programme of action was beyond considerations of violence or
non-violence. The purpose was to have a direct confrontation with the administration so as to
create terror in their heads and hearts so that they may ultimately loose their will to govern
India:
(1) Attacking and destroying the means of communication and transportation, the radio and
television, railways and roads, bridges and vehicles;
(2) Attack on and destruction of industries, factories, lakes and airports;and
(3) Putting on fire public buildings patrol pumps and stores keeping armanents and means of
warfare
This movement was practically the most violent agitation launched to encounter the agonies
of British imperialism in India. It completely shook the British administration in India and in
the course of this agitation several campaigns were directed to put an end to the oppressive
British rule in India. And all these activities were inspired by the committed Marxist-
Socialists like J.P.
Here, it may, however, be noted that violence used in this Movement was violence only
against the goods and offices of the British and not against the person of British officials or
nationals. To both Gandhi and J.P, this kind of violence was only of second category, as the
target of its attack were the goods and property of the opponent and not the person of the
opponental himself. It was a policy of combating violence by violence, resulting in the
destruction not of the person but only the property of the adversary.
In 1946, J.P. was released from the Hazari Bagh Jail and it was at that time that he voluntarily
undertook a pledge, with Gandhi as a witness, that he would thereafter neither have recourse
to or encourage violence, not would he accept any political office during his lifetime. And, all
through his life he proved worthy of the pledge he had solemnly undertaken. He was eager
simply to devote his life to bring about social, economic and political change so that the
increasing gulf between the haves and the have-nots gets narrowed down. He was keen to
ensure that the quality of life of every Indian man and woman improves as much as possible,
for unless that happens India would not be able to take its place of pride in the comity of
nations.
FEATURES OF THE INDIAN SOCIALIST MOVEMENT:
Here, it may be noted that the Indian Socialist Movement had a distinguishing feature. All
socialist leaders were in agreement that a higher and better social and economic system be
built, but no two socialists ever agreed between themselves as to how could or should it be
brought about. Hence, whenever they came together, it was only to depart alter a while and
once they departed they were keen to get re-united. That is why the history of socialist
movement in India has been the history of ‘splits and reunions.” One probable reason for this
centripetal-centrifugal tendency could be that, like many other political parties, they were
oriented more towards personalities than programes. The point as to how long the party
would remain stable and when would it fall apart, depended a lot on the whims and fancies of
their leaders at the grassroots level.
J.P. resigned from both the Indian National Congress and the Congress Socialist Party in
1948, owing to his serious differences with fellow-socialists. After some time, J.P. founded a
new party called the Socialist Party of India (SPI). In this party, too, he did not feel quite
comfortable and subsequently abandoned it. Later on, he formed yet another socialist party
called the Praja Socialist Party (PSP) which, too, did not last very long and was dissolved in
1952. Thus, in a short span of four years, he founded and deserted three socialist parties. With
the dissolution of PSP came to an end the second era of his public life.
In 1952, started the third phase of his public life, which lasted for almost a decade until 1964
and is generally called the era of Sarvodayee socialism. Having failed to come to terms with
his Nasik Jail socialists and the socialists of Nehru brand, he now got attracted to Gandhi’s
disciple Vinoba Bhave, who was carrying on his new movement which he had called the
Movement of ‘Daans’ i.e. the movement of “sharing together” the rich resources of the
nation. Vinoba’s movement of ‘Daans’ was an offshoot of Gandhi’s Theory of Trusteeship.
Vinoba believed that whatever one possesses, he should share with others or use in common
with others, and not keep the whole of it to himself. He should instead keep the bare
minimum to meet his own basic needs and those of his dependants and share the rest with
everyone else in the community.
Javaprakash participated, rather actively, in Vinoba’s Bhoodan and Gramdan movements and
also added to them his own innovations of “Sampattidan” and “Jeevan Daan” His romance
with his novel ideas lasted for over a decade. However, once he got completely disillusioned
by the successive failures of these movements, be bade a good-by to them and imposed on
himself a life of political renunciation. a political ‘Sanyas’. This, however, did not bring his
public life to an end. It rather served as an interval between the failure of one movement and
launching of another.
The failure of his movement of ‘Daans’ and the sharp decline in the number of his camp-
followers shook him completely. He found that he had, for all practical purposes, become a
‘persona non-grata’, that he had become politically ‘unacceptable’ and socially ‘out caste’.
This time, the extent of his disillusion was so heart-breaking and intense, that he not only
disowned the movement, but also left India, alongwith his wife Prabhawati and Sarva Seva
Sangh colleague, Siddhraj Daddha, on April 28, 1958.
During his long sojourn, he toured practically the whole of Europe and America. On August
19, 1963, he was awarded the famous Ramon Magsaysay Award for his work in the area of
awakening the conscience of India for constructive programme. It was on his way back to
India that he stopped at Beirut to attend an International Conference in December 1963. A
major outcome of this Conference was the formation of a World Peace Corps. J.P. was elected
as its Asian President. From Beirut he went to Moscow, where the very sight of Lenin’s well-
preserved body overwhelmed him. After paying his tribute to Lenin the great, he went to
Tashkant and visited the hotel suite where India’s former Prime Minister, Lal Bahadur
Shastri, had breathed his last. From Tashkant, he came to Afghanistan and met the veteran of
India’s struggle for Freedom, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and invited him to visit India.
Finally, he reached India on April 28, 1964.
J.P’s problem was that he could never sit idle, even if he did not know what to do next. He
looked around to find some problem which would bring him back to public life. Thus, he
devoted his attention to the issue of rehabilitation of dacoits in the mainstream of India’s
social life. He established contacts with various groups of dreaded dacoits who were
operating mainly from the ravines of Chambal and Bhind Morena. On August 12, 1972, came
the first success when a group of eighty-two dacoits led by Mohar Singh surrendered before
him in a Dak Bunglow, 25 Km. away from Morena. Four days later, Dacoit Madho Singh,
alongwith two others, also surrendered. The movement soon became popular. A month later,
a large group of five hundred and one dacoits surrendered in Bundelkhand. However, the
initial success in this area of social reform did not last very long. He was once again
disillusioned by the failure of his mission and took another leave (the so called retirement)
from public life.
He was utterly disgusted to find that India continued to be miles away from the Sarvodaya
society of Gandhi’s vision, despite the fact that he and a hoast of his colleagues and
coworkers had done probably their best to bring it about. Instead of getting socially and
economically reorganized and reformed, India was becoming politically debased. Indira
Gandhi’s policies and programes were becoming unpopular and unacceptable and her rule
was becoming autocratic and oppressive, which was detrimental to the conscience of India.
This situation gave J.P. yet another opportunity to return to public life, accept the challenge
and plan the strategy to get rid of it. Consequently, he gave a call for a mass rally in the
Gandhi Maidan of Patna on June 5, 1974, from where lie gave the call of ‘Total Revolution’.
The purpose of this revolutionary call was to check the oppressive rule of Indira Gandhi, the
increasing criminalization of politics, inordinate price-rise and discrimination on the basis of
caste and religion. He thought that the political situation in India had got debased to such an
extent that for all practical purposes India did not remain ‘Hindustan’, it had become
‘Qabristan’ (Cemetery).
The declared objective of his movement for ‘Total Revolution’ was to restore this Qabristan’
into Hindustan’. His movement had an unexpected success. In fact, it became so popular that
it shook the very foundation of Indira Gandhi’s autocratic and oppressive rule. Indira Gandhi
sensed danger to her position and, in utter self-defence, had a state of National Emergency
proclaimed on June 26, 1975. Soon followed the arrest and detention of J.P. and his
colleagues and coworkers and a host of youth leaders who were participating in this
movement actively. In Jail, J.P’s condition deteriorated considerably. Indira Gandhi was not
prepared to take the risk of his death in jail. Hence, after keeping him in jail for five months,
she released him un-conditionally.
After release from Jail. J.P’s condition improved and Indira Gandhi’s circumstances became
adverse. She had to give a call for General Elections. J.P. took keen interest in the elections
and helped in the formation of a new political party, called the Janata Party under the
leadership of Morarji Desai. Janata party won the elections and J.P. did a lot of work and
created condition to enable Morarji Desai to succeed Indira Gandhi as the prime Minister
India witnessed the born revolutionary suddenly in the new role of the ‘king-maker’. Owing
to the significant role he had played in this movement and the popularity that he had gained,
he came to be called ‘Lok Nayak’ (Leader of the Masses).
J.P‘s health started deteriorating once again and this time he failed to recover. Finally, on
October 8. l9 J.P. breathed his last at the age of 77. Here, it may parenthetically e noted that
just as his life was not uneventful, his death too was not eventful. He was one of those rare
persons who lived long enough to have his obituary go to the official records of the Lok
Sabha. What had happened was that on October 7 afternoon, when the Lok Sabha was still in
session, the rumours about his death spread. Indira Gandhi without verifying the facts,
officially informed the House that was dead. She paid her tributes to the departed soul of her
sworn Enemy No. one. Other members of the House followed suit, and paid rich tributes,
recalling J.P’s Multi-faced role as the crusader extraordinary. Towards the end, the House was
only shocked to learn that the Hero was still alive. His condition had nevertheless
deteriorated and the very next day he breathed his last.
With J.P’s death, an area of ‘gentle revolution’ and ‘open rebellion’ came to an end. India lost
her great son whose head and heart could never once accept anything which was unjust,
intolerable or discriminatory. J.P. was always ready ‘lot only ‘to rebel’ but also ‘to retire’. He
wanted to bring about a total transformation of India’s social, economic and political system
which would not only be totally free of all its deformities, but also be popular and
benevolent. It was for this reason that he was eager to redevise it into a system which would
be under standing survelliance of tile people and above party- politics, which had corrupted
and criminalized it completely. And, to this end he pursued the politics not only of
constitutionalism but also the para-legal politics of agitation.
All said and done, J.P’s public life was full of turmoil and uncertainty. When people found
his Policies and programes convenient, they readily followed him and the moment they got
disillusioned, they left him to his fate. The whole personality of J.P. was meteoric. Whenever
he found that there was an occasion for him to lead a social, economic or political movement
he would suddenly spring into action with as much vigour as he was able to muster, and the
moment he would find that his movement had failed or about to fail and that his followers
and co-workers had started deserting him, he would, with equal suddenness, announce his
‘retirement’. As a social reformer and a political agitationist, he was mentally impatient,
politically ‘vacilliating and socially wavering
Here it may be noted that though his public life was extremely crowded’ and ‘tension-
generating’, his considered views on contemporary issues and problems always found clear
expression in his books, booklets, pamphlets and articles. The most important of J.P’s works
were as follows
(I) Why Socialism (1936);
(2) Democratic Socialism: Our Ideal and our method (1949);
(3) Towards A New Society (1958);
(4) A Plea for the Reconstruction of Indian Polity (1959);
(5) From Socialism to Sarvodaya (1959);
(6) A Picture of Sarvodaya Social Order (1961);
(7) Socialism, Sarvodaya and Democracy (1964);
(8) Prison Diary (1967); and
(9) Towards Total Revolution (1978).
Thus, the process of academic thinking and writing moved hand in hand with his movements
and agitations for India’s social, economic and political reconstruction; so that the
generations of Indians to come may live in an atmosphere which would be less violent, less
corrupt and less discriminatory than the one in which J.P. and his illustrious predecessors had
lived.
STAGES OF THE EVOLUTION OF J.P’S POLITICAL THINKING:
The eminent commentators on J.P.’s thought and action more of less agree that the evolution
of his ideas can better be studied into the following four stages:
(1) The Marxist Era (1933-1940);
(2) The Era of Democratic Socialism (1940-1952);
(3) The Era of Sarvodayee Socialism (1952-1964); and
(4) The Era of Total Revolution (1974-1979).
Commenting on the role played by Jayaprakash Narayan in the politics of free and post
independent India. Appadorai has observed:
“In the beginning” Jayaprakash Narayan was totally drenched in Marxism and, therefore, he
did not have any faith in the conceptions and constructive programes of Mahatma Gandhi. At
that time, he had believed that everyone should be free to choose his method for the
achievement of Swaraj, irrespective of the fact whether it was violent or non-violent But,
once he started moving away from Marxism and, instead, got attracted towards Gandhism, he
realised the significance of Gandhi’s approach. He was able to fully comprehend and
appreciate it only after Gandhi’s cruel assassination, when he identied himself with the
Bhoodan Movement of Vinoba Bhave. Ultimately, he becomes a self-styled .Jeevandani.”
According to Prof. Bimal Prasad, J.P. should be regarded as the super most of the political
thinkers born in India, as he had led the socialist movement for almost quarter of a century.”
J.P. was eager to completely transform the social, economic and political condition of India
so as to free her from untruth, injustice, Inequality, corruption and oppression, so that a really
democratic system may be established, a democracy which is both responsible and
responsive, increasingly federal, based on the decentralisation of political power and
economic resources which would, in turn, be under the standing control of the people.
J.P.’S PLAN FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF INDIAN POLITY:
In 1959, J.P. came up with his new plan for a total reorganization of Indian polity which
would be in consonance not only with the broad features of ancient Indian polity, but would
also be relevant to the context of modern India. He was looking for a political system which
would be immune from political corruption which had, unfortunately, become a striking
feature of Indian democracy. He, thus, wanted that our democratic system should be based on
the human values which had governed our political system in ancient India. He wanted his
democracy to be free from party-politics, caste-politics and sectarian politics, so that the
people running various agencies of the government may strive for the all-round welfare
equally of all, without any distinction whatsoever and ensure to the people freedom of
conscience, expression and association. As a Liberal, he would like democracy of his
conception to be based on the rule of law and be able to protect the life, liberty and property
of the people. It was this broad canvass on which he painted the picture of Indian polity of his
conception.
J.P. also suggested some guidelines and laid down a code of conduct which lie thought was
essential for the success of a true democracy. He wanted citizens to relied the following
values in their public conduct:
(i) Faith in Truth;
(ii) Faith in Non-violence;
(iii) Faith in the dynamic nature of man and its corrigibility;
(iv) Faith in the fundamental equality of all human beings:
(v) Faith in the faculty of mutual cooperation;
(vi) Commitment to Freedom and the courage to face oppression;
(vii) Readiness to keep national interest above personal interest.
viii) Readiness to fulfill their duties and obligations;
(ix) Feeling of respect and tolerance towards the opinions of others; and
(x) Readiness to delimit one’s desires and keep away from materialism.
J.P was of the view that the reflection of these moral values and mental attitudes was not only
essential for the success of a true democracy, but could also be adopted and adapted by
everyone according to his capacity and willingness. To him, democracy was not only a
system of government which allowed people to participate in their governance, it was also a
way of life which ensure social and economic justice, equality of opportunity, and balance in
agricultural and industrial development. In J.P.’s view economic democracy could not and
should not be separated from political democracy, because the two put together make
democracy complete. In the absence of any of them, democracy would remain incomplete.
That is why he talked of the self-development and self-regulation of regional and
professional life. Unless this happens, man’s moral, social and economic life would get
delinked from his political life. Keeping in view the oneness of man’s life, he regarded
spiritualism and Gram Panchayats as the twin basis of man’s social and political system.
These were the two pillars on which stood the ancient Indian Polity which he was so eager to
re-establish.
CONCEPT OF HUMAN NATURE:
While highlighting the basic characteristics of human nature, J.P. accepted man as a ‘social
animal’ in the same sense in which Plato and Aristotle had conceived him to be. Like them,
he too believed that man is born, lives and dies in society. He can not live without society. It
is his nature that he is a always longing for society.
The very first social unit in which man is born and spends his early life is called the family. A
group of adjacent families makes the next larger unit called the Grain Sabha level or the
village level. In the Gram Sabha, an individual has the status similar to the one he has as a
member of the family. The Gram Sabha, or the general body of adult villagers, functions
through its executive which is generally known as the Gram Panchayat which is elected by
the consensus of the village and functions on the basis of mutual cooperation. Just as family
is man’s First social unit. Gram Sabha is his first political unit. That is win J.P. wanted the
village to remain as the foundation on which should be erected the entire political super-
structure. This would also be in consonance with the ancient Indian practices. The basic unit,
the Gram Sabha, being the nearest to the individual, should be fully self sufficient, self-reliant
and self-regulatory and in this unit the spirit of mutual cooperation would be more likely to
prevail. The Gram Panchayat of J.P.’s conception would have the freedom of political
initiative and would be based on the principles of mutual cooperation and tolerance, so that it
remains free of oppression and violence.
J.P. also regarded man as a ‘political animal’ because he has reason, he has the capacity to
think, to distinguish between just and unjust, good and bad, fair and foul, and after
distinguishing between the variety of options available, he chooses the one which he thinks
would be the best for himself and for the society of which he is a member.
Like Gandhi, J.P. regarded man as ‘essentially good’. It may sometimes appear that it is
easier and more convenient to be bad, but it is never impossible for him to become good. He
has the innate capacity to improve the quality not only of his own life, but also of those who
came in contact with him.
PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY:
To J.P., Parliamentary democracy was probably the best system of human governance, as it
ensures the Possibilities of both ‘challenge’ and ‘change’. It is the only system which can be
decentralised and multi-faceted. It is this system which can maintain a balance between
agriculture and industry, rural and urban areas, and between various institutions of local self-
government and create an order which would be self-sufficient and self-reliant.
Every democratic system is based on elections which are held periodically on the basis of
universal adult franchise. It is established and sustained b majority. J.P. however, found that
in this context the principle of ‘majority’ was only elusive. For all practical purposes it is a
system which has the support only of a small minority’ and not of the so called majority. His
analysis was based on a number of basic considerations In the first place in this system
everyone does not have the right to vote, only adults have the right to vote. Even out of the
adult electors, the number of persons who actually turn up to cast their vote is roughly 50 to
60 per cent. Hence, the government which is established on this basis carries the support of
some 25 percent of the people, and not that of 51 percent as claimed. Hence, the
parliamentary democracies of today are elected and sustained by insignificant
minority/minorities, leaving some 70 to 75 percent of the people out of the rim.
Even the people by whose support the government is elected vote on the basis of sympathy,
favour, fear or some such pressure. Votes are given and taken often on the basis of money and
muscle power. Hardly ten percent of the people may vote on the basis of merit of the
candidate or election manifesto of the party. Can such a democracy be described as a
government elected and sustained by ‘majority’? Moreover, the elections are becoming more
and more expensive. The industrial houses, trade unions, erstwhile feudal lords of
principalities, zamindar families and a number of other pressure and interest groups vitiate
the entire electoral process. It seems that the present-day democracy has been mortgauged to
these interest groups. That is one reason why J.P. was not in favour of such an exhibitionist
system of elections. In its place, J.P. wanted the elections and the process of formation of
legislatures to be above party-politics, above the politics of pressure and interest groups.
The practice of having the whole house elected afresh periodically was also not acceptable to
J.P. on several counts. For instance, it allows free play to money and muscle power, and all
kinds of pressures which are not in consonance with the spirit of democracy and secularism.
He, instead, wanted the legislatures to be constituted as a Permanent House, with a fixed
percentage of their members retiring periodically and the vacancies caused by their
retirement to be filled in through the process of by-elections. This, he thought, would make
the house an admixture of the old and the new, the tradition and modernity, and help maintain
not only continuity in law making but also keep pace with changing times and circumstances.
Under this system, the members would, more likely, be elected on the basis of their
qualifications, experience, popularity, record of social service and content of election
manifesto.
J.P. would not like political parties to have any role in the election of members of deliberative
bodies. He would expect them to keep their hands off so that ‘national interest remains above
party-interest’. Infact, J.P. wanted the entire electoral process to be free from par politics so
that merit of the candidates remains the sole criterion and the chances of corruption to which
party-politics leads inevitably, become minimal. In his view, party-politics not only negates
the role of conscience’ but also deprives the individual of his right of ‘initiative’. It also gives
rise to the politics of ‘defaction’ and ‘re-defaction’ (the infamous politics of ‘Aya Rams and
Gaya Rams’). the politics of ‘coalition’, the politics of ‘hung Parliaments’, the politics of
‘Vote Banks’ and the reign of ‘minority governments, leading ultimately to political
instability, political and bureaucratic authoritarianism, oppression and repression. It turns
democracy into monocracy, anarchy and bureaucracy and releases the forces of separatism
and secession.
J.P. was of the view that once we make politics party-based, it tends to centralise political
power and economic resources both. The powers of the Central Government increases
disproportionately and it finds itself unable to perform all the functions that are entrusted to
it. The result is that the cabinet is able to arrive only at broad policy- decisions, leaving the
vital details to be finalized by the bureaucracy which is responsible to none. Party-politics,
then, strikes at the very soul of democracy and encourages the dictatorship of bureaucracy,
which functions in the name of democracy. There should, instead, be maximum
decentralization of both political power and economic resources, so that the chances of both
democracy and monocracy becoming corrupt are minimized.
J.P. made concented efforts to put the pyramid of traditional democracy upside down, so that
the power shoots up from the grass- root level to the national level, rather than flowing from
the centre to the provinces and from the provinces to the lower units of governance. J.P.’s
arrangement of political power flows like a ‘fountain’ from the bottom to the top. The most
fundamental, the basic unit of political governance would be the ‘Gram Sabha’ at the
grassroot level and not the Parliament sitting on the top of the pyramid. In J.P.’s order of
things, the Gram Sabha in the village and its counterparts in the cities would have all the
adults, within its territorial limits, as ex-officio members. He was in full agreement both with
Plato and Gandhi, that the unit of government which is nearest and closest to the people
should have maximum political power and economic resources. The farther the unit,
proportionately lesser would be its power and resources. The Gram Sabha would be the
general body, consisting of all the adults in the area. They would have, for its day-to-day
functioning a small executive committee, called the Village Panchayat, consting of five or
more members, elected periodically by consensus. In their election, there would be no place
either for a candidate, or a proposer or a seconder. Further, in order to enable every member
of the Grain Sabha to be elected as a ‘Panch’ by rotation, there would be a total ban on the re-
election of any person whatsoever. If the same person gets re-elected every time or most of
the time, where would be the scope for others to be elected. The purpose was to ensure active
participation of an ever-increasing number of people at the grass-root level. In this respect,
there is a striking similarity between the views of both MN. Roy and J.P. J.P.was also of the
view that the government should have no power to nominate anyone to any deliberative
agency, from the Gram Sabha to the Lok Sabha. The total number of their members should be
popularly elected.
J.P. wanted the Panchayat to be the nerve centre of politics and would entrust to it the most
fundamental task of fulfilling the basic needs of food, shelter, clothing and primary
education. It would also have the obligation to eradicate unemployment and illiteracy and
ensure to every family a decent and comfortable standard of living. In order to perform these
basic functions, the Panchayats would be free to establish committees or sub-committees and
discharge their functions through them.
Keeping in view the recommendations of the Balwant Rai Mehta Committee on State
Reorganization, J.P. named the second unit or level of government as the Panchayat Samiti
level. It would be a union of specified number of adjacent Gram Sabha areas. It would consist
of the representatives of the consituent Gram Panchayats elected on the basis of broad
consensus. The job of the Panchayat Samiti would be to guide and coordinate the activities
and development projects of the Gram Panchayats within its administrative jurisdiction. The
Panchayat Samiti would be autonomous and would be free from dictation from above.
At the third level of local self-government, there would be a District or Zila Parishad whose
members would be elected by the constituent Panchyat Samitis, again on the basis of broad
consensus. It would have its own quota of power guaranteed by the Constitution. It would
also have economic resources sufficient enough to enable it to exercise its functions.
The fourth level of government would be the provincial level. At this level, there would be a
Provincial Assembly to make laws on matters entrusted to it by the constitution, it would be
elected directly by the adult voters of the province on the basis of universal adult franchise. It
would also have a Council of Ministers exercising its executive power and for which it would
be directly and collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly or the Vidhan Sabha.
The sixth level of government would be the national level. At this level, there would be a
House of the People or the Lok Sabha which would have its own exclusive powers specified
by the Constitution. It would be elected directly by the people on the basis of universal adult
franchise. It would, also have a Council of Ministers to exercise the executive powers of the
Union and would be directly and collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha.
At the national level, there would also be a formal, ceremonial head of the state, the President
who would be elected directly be the adult voters throughout the nation. Besides exercising
his routine executive powers, he would specially be responsible for ensuring the security of
the nation against foreign egressions and wars. He would, accordingly, be designated as the
Supreme Commander of Armed Forces. At the immediately lower level of provincial
administration, there would be Governors who too, would be elected by the adult voters of
their respective provinces.
Subscribing to the notion of ever-expanding federalism, J.P. wanted that at the international
level too. there should be a deliberative agency elected by the sovereign States independently
and equally, more or less, on the pattern of the American Senate, and would have such
powers and functions as are vested in it by ‘common agreement” of the participating nations.
Such a World organization would, in the beginning, have a regional character and these
regional organizations would ultimately tend to convert themselves into a world-wide
federation.
J.P. was not merely interested in the democratic federal secular structure of State and society.
He was also keen to awaken among the people a genuine spirit of democracy, federalism and
secularism. And once that takes place, the bureaucracy would either get subordinated to the
executive or become redundant and ultimately disappear. The more the people would become
conscious of their sovereign status, the more they would tend to take initiative, the more they
would take active interest in their administration and run their affairs themselves. The
number of civil servants and the huge expenditure incurred on maintaining them would
ultimately be reduced to the bare minimum.
J.P. was ve1l aware that such a democratic federal system would not easily be realised. For
this task, millions and millions of Indians would have to volunteer their services. In this
Herculean national task, the services of social reformers, scientists, teachers, businessmen,
women, youth, peasants and farmers would have to be procured and coordinated. Unless
society is able to enlist the contribution and active participation of all these sections of
society, the national task of dedication, creation, self-discovery and swaraj would only
remain a distant dream.
ECONOMIC SYSTEM:
The Ultimate objective of J.P.’s restructured economic system was the welfare of each and
every one in the society. This system would neither be competitive nor exploitative, it would
rather be based on the basic principles of cooperation and co-sharing. It would be for the
equal welfare of any particular person or group. It would work for a balanced development of
the society as such. Although it would be impossible for it to be totally self dependent and
self relient, it would nevertheless make an effort to attain self-dependence to the extent
possible.
The restructured economy would be directed towards such a planned development of the
society which would begin with the village. At the second level, there would be a regional
plan for the development of the block and a district-level plan for the development of the
district. At higher levels, the society would have the provincial level plan and the national-
level plan, which would ultimately direct the process of the formulation of plans at the
international level. Every organization, at the local level, would possess and use the land
within its territorial jurisdiction.
The very first objective of planned development would be to enable every adult to earn his
livelihood which would, in turn, be sufficient to meet his basic needs and those of his
dependents. There would be plenty and variety of jobs available so that every one may
choose a creative work of his choice. It would provide equal opportunity to work for limited
hours and days and provide to every one a piece of land which would be sufficient to meet
his residential and agricultural requirements.
The restructured economic system would be in consonance with the restructured political
system. It would be an ideal system which would establish and maintain a balance between
agriculture and industry on the one hand and between villages and cities on the other. It
would promote the spirit of cooperation, participation and self government in the fields of
agriculture and industry. Thus, the restructured economic system of the vision of J.P. would
be able to generate a social, economic and politic system which would be self dependent,
self-reliant and self and it would strive to achieve such a system by striking a synthesis
between villages and cities, agriculture and industry and between various local organizations.
SARVODAYEE SOCIALISM:
Like Gandhi and Vinoba, Jaya Prakash also accepted sarvodaya as the ultimate purpose of the
State, wanted the State, the society and the individual social reformers to keep this objective
in view and strive to achieve it as far as possible. Here, the meaning of .car is welfare of each
and everyone in e and every field of human activity. J.P. was of the view that just as all are
equal in the eyes of God, the State and society should also work for the welfare equally of all.
It is only by pursing this ideal the high ideals of Justice, Equality, Freedom, Peace and
Welfare can be attained. However, it would be possible only if and to the extent every
member of the society shares together his resources, experiences and achievements.
This society would be able to provide to everyone not only an opportunity of justice and
equality but also generate a democratic system, which would be based on individual’s
freedom and in which individual would be able to regard him as an author of his political
system. In this system, there would be total decentralisation of political power and economic
resources and the maximum power and resources would vest in the unit which would be
nearest to the people and on which they would be able to have a direct continuous and
standing control. Though the sarvodaya order is meant for both the villages and cities, the
basic thrust is on the village as nearly seventy percent of the Indians live in villages.
In so far as the negative aspect of this social order is concerned, it would neither exploit
anyone nor discriminate against anyone on any ground whatsoever. The central vis-à-vis the
village Panchayat would have lesser power and resources. In fact, the machinery of the
central government would be used as the “alarm chain” of the railway. It would be used on
the rarest of the rare occasion to safeguard against imminent danger. In this system, there
would be no place for party politics, as it corrupts not only the politics but also the
politicians. In it, there would also be no place for organized violence, because violence
destroys humanity.
From the economic point of view, the society would be the owner of the means of agriculture,
irrigation, and small and big industries and their management would be in the hands of
peasants and workers so they may receive the fullest benefit of their labour. Like Gandhi, he
also believed that God is the owner of land and its resources and therefore it should remain
under the collective ownership of society so that the labourer may be able to get his due.
J.P. believed that the organization of society on the principles of “Sarvodaya” would be
possible neither through violence nor through State laws. To achieve this objective, he would
have to transform human nature itself. We would have to awaken man’s mental and moral
values and faculties in the absence of which he would not be able to improve either the
quality of his own life or that of his society. Like Gandhi, Jayaprakash also believed that man
is essentially good and that it is possible to change his nature and help him come up to the
best of his nature. By reason, discussion and appeal to his mind and soul, he can be saved
from the path of sin, the path of untruth and the path of injustice and thereby improve the
quality of his life.
It was on the basis of these fundamentals that Vinoba has started the movement of “Daans”,
that is the movement of “sharing together”, the lands and resources of the village. His
“Bhoodan” and “Gramdaan” movements were comprehensive enough to improve “Sadhan
Daan” (sharing together the means), and “Buddhidaan” (sharing together of intellectual
faculties), and “Premdaan” (sharing together the love and affection with one another). In
short, the meaning of “Daan”, i.e. the sharing together of the mental, the moral and the
material resources and achievements. The principle is that of the total sum of all these, one
would keep to himself such a minimum portion that it would be sufficient to fulfill his basic
needs and that of his dependents and the rest would be shared by one another for the common
welfare of all. J.P. not only adopted the Bhoodaan and Gramdaan movements of Vinoba but
also extended this series by including in them his own movement of “Smapattidaan” (sharing
together of property) and “jeevandaan” (sharing together the whole life and devoting it for
the welfare of all). J.P. thought that in India non – violent revolutions can be brought about
only by sharing together as the means, the resources, the faculties, the knowledge, the
experiences and the achievements of one another.
IMPLICATIONS OF J.P.’S JEEVANDAAN:
J.P. believed that the transformation of the State from an instrument of physical force in to the
one of the masses would be possible only if and when everyone dedicates his whole life for
the achievement of stated objectives. In the context, J.P. laid down the following guidelines
which he wanted every Jeevandaani to follow;
(1) Pledge to dedicate oneself for bringing about social revolutions based on Bhoodan and
village industries;
(2) Pledge to keep oneself away from party politics;
(3) Pledge to devote exclusively to the constrictive programmes based on the principle of
sharing together;
(4) Pledge to keep oneself away from family responsibilities to the extent possible;
(5) Pledge to involve oneself in agriculture, industry or some other productive labour;
(6) Pledge to regard oneself as a trustee of the land and property, except the minimum
portion which is essential for his living and those his dependents;
(7) Pledge to hold only that much property that is essential for his living and those of his
dependents;
(8) Pledge of simple living and high thinking;
(9) Pledge to wear khadi;
(10) Pledge to remove his hunger from production within his own area, to the extent possible;
(11) Pledge to persuade his wife and children not only to wear khadi but also to adopt the
new system of education proposed by Gandhi under the Wardha Scheme;
(12) Pledge to render,” bread labour”;
(13) Pledge to earn one’s livelihood by the sweat of one’s brow;
(14) Pledge to involve oneself in the organised efforts initiated by the Bhoodan Ashrams; and
(15) Pledge by every resident of the Ashram to secure sufficient land for the Ashram for the
promotion of the agriculture and industries.
J.P. also highlighted the ideals which, Jeevandaanis should keep view, while adopting the
movement;
(1) self sufficiency:
(2) direct democracy;
(3) partyless politics:
(4) direct and active participation by every adult villager in the activity of his village
republic:
(5) maximum decentralisation of political power and economic resources;
(6) education and awakening of the masses;
(7) Extensive self-reliance;
(8) Freedom from inequality and exploitation;
(9) decision based on consensus and not on majority;
(10) acceptance of decision of the panches, as their decision reflects the voice of God;
(11) independent, equal and state-less society; and
(12) voluntary education in place of education determined by the State and its bureaucracy.
J.P. believed that if every individual Jeevadaani acts in accordance with these objectives
honestly, it would result in the creation or transformation of the State into an organization
based on the will of the people, instead of being traditionally based on physical force. To the
extent the power of the people is promoted, the possibility of the centralization of political
power and its use by political parties would decrease and the politics of the State would be
replaced by the politics of the people. J.P. was of the considered view that the establishment
of a stateless welfare society would be possible only by and to the extent the spiritual, the
mental and the physical resources and achievements are utilized by sharing them together for
the welfare of all.
TOTAL REVOLUTION:
On June 5, 1974, J.P. formally launched total revolution from the Gandhi Ground of Patna.
The ultimate objective of this movement was the balanced development of society. He
wanted to bring about such a balanced development of the whole society which would
revolutionise the entire social structure and awaken the dorment soul of India. He wanted to
completely transform the entire system whether social, economic, political, spiritual or
educational. He not only wanted to change the external organization of the society, he was
also eager to awaken mass conscious ness. That is why he put his whole emphasis on the
restoration of India’s fundamental spiritual values. He was eager to lndianise the British
system of Indian education so that it becomes relevant for our times and comes up to people’s
expectations. J.P. wanted to establish in India a democratic system which is totally secular
and in which neither the State would interfere with religion nor religion with politics. Like
Gokhale and Gandhi, he too wanted to spiritualise the Indian society by restoring the ethical
values which are universally accepted by all religions. He was eager to make these spiritual
values the basis of politics, for he believed that otherwise politics would become debased and
corrupt. He was a strong supporter of decentralised democracy in which the primary unit of
government would be self-sufficient and self-reliant and which would possess atleast 50
percent of political power and economic resources.
In J.P. ‘s view, the electoral system of India was polluted as in this system votes are given and
taken on the basis of money and muscle power or under pressure of some political party or
pressure group. The entire electoral process is under the influence of political parties and
personalities. To serve their own interests, they deliberately divide the voters on the basis of
religion, caste, region or language and try to attract them by promising a variety of favours
like jobs and also make a concerted effort to change their mentality. J.P. was fed up with this
system. He, instead, pleaded for an electoral system which would be free of corruption and
encourage the voters to vote according to their conscience.
J.P. had vision of a society which would be free from untruth, injustice, violence and
exploitation and for the attainment of which lie launched an essentially non-violent struggle.
He was in favour of the recreation of a social order which would be casteless, classless and
religion-less and which would provide social, economic and political opportunity equally to
all, without discrimination. The ideal society of his conception would work for the equal
welfare of all, giving priority to the lowest strata of society like the landless peasants,
agricultural labour, Harijans, tribals and Muslims so that they may also come up at the level
of equality with others. Once this takes place, no preference whatsoever would be given to
any section of society and everyone would be treated on the footing of perfect equality.
In the economic field, he was in favour of a kind of mixed economy. He wanted an economic
system which would provide to everyone food, clothing and shelter and would encourage
people to share together their economic resources. If the State could achieve this basic ideal,
it would help in the re-establishment of India’s ancient culture. That is why he talked of the
socialization of the means of production, a decentralised economy which would encourage
cottage and small scale industries and whose units of local self government would he
autonomous and self-reliant. Under this system, everyone would have the opportunity to
work, that is the opportunity to earn his livelihood and which would also ensure equality of
payment for equal work. In order to achieve such a social order, he regarded the
establishment of co-operative societies and voluntary associations of the youth, especially the
students, most essential.
J.P.’s vision of Total Revolution would not be realised unless such revolutionary and
constructive changes take place. That is probably why he devoted the last four decades of his
public life to implement the socialist and the sarvodayee order of his conception. And, when
despite his untiring efforts and those of his colleagues and co-workers a democratic welfare
State could not be established and, on the contrary, the government oppression and
suppression became intolerable, he felt compelled to give a call for Total Revolution on June
5 1974 from the Gandhi Ground of Patna. As a consequence of this call, the government
oppression further increased. The government tried to suppress the unarmed agitationists,
specially the young students. They were cane-charged. They were arrested. They were fired
upon and a number of other forms of oppressive measures were frequently used. J.P.’s
conscience did not allow him to accept such an uncalled for oppression. To combat the
unacceptable policies and programmes of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, thus, became the
most immediate aim of his Total Revolution.
At this point of time, J.P. had become extremely worried by the increasing incidence of
political corruption. He could not believe that to give and receive bribe by legislators and
ministers, the attempts of the party in power to encourage splits in opposition parties by
buying their support, by encouraging them to leave their parties had become the order of the
day. JR was of the view that in the post-Independent India, the rulers had destroyed
democracy and corrupted the electoral process by pursuing vigorously the politics of buying
and selling votes. The people were finding it increasingly impossible to keep their elected
representatives under control. There was no provision in the Constitution or law enabling the
people to recall their elected representatives who had become corrupt. Under these
circumstances, the second immediate aim of Total Revolution was to have these legislative
assemblies dissolved, as these had become corrupt and were indulging in the politics of
defaction and redefaction. And, to have these governments dismissed which were disturbing
the legislators at odd hours in order to buy their support. It was in the direction of this
objective that J.P. adopted this strategy and put forward the demand for dissolution of the
Bihar Legislative Assembly and the dismissal of Bihar Government.
The third immediate aim of Total Revolution was to check price rise. J.P. was disturbed to
realise that on the one hand prices of essential commodities were rising and on the other the
problems of poverty and unemployment were becoming more and more acute. In fact, the
value of Indian rupee had come down from 100 to 30 paise. To deal with such a complex
economic situation was a goal towards which Total Revolution was directed.
The fourth immediate aim of Total Revolution was to combat increasing discrimination on
grounds of caste and religion. J.P. just could not accept that in the first place very few people
were given jobs on the ground that they belong to a historically lower caste and once they
were able to get the jobs the government tried to get rid of them on some excuse or the other.
In fact, the total situation had become so much deteriorated that, in his view. Hindustan had
become a ‘Qabristan’ (a cemetery). The re-establishment of India as a true Hindustan was the
overall objective of J.P.’s Total Revolution.
In so far as the question of means for bringing about Total Revolution, J.P. was in favour of
the adoption of such peaceful means which do not disturb the democratic system. He belived
that the pursuit of the path of truth and non-violence and reaffirmation of commitment to
ethical values would be able to combat the politics of State oppression.
In the means which should be adopted for pursuing the goals of Total Revolution, J.P.
underlined the need for reassertion of our commitment to the values of fraternity,
cooperation, co-existence and co-sharing. He was of the view that such a revolution can be
brought about only by those youth organisations which can keep themselves away from the
politics of caste, class, religion and political parties. This would call for a nation-wide effort
and if each of the six lakh Indian villages could offer the services of one young man or
woman, a battalion of six lakh youth could be formed and such a large youth organization
would be able to attain the goal of Total Revolution by democratic and peaceful means.
Every member of this youth organization would be educated about the aims of Total
Revolution, familiarised with the problems of the people and trained in the use of the means
which would be peaceful, democratic and yet effective. An effort would also be made to
awaken in them a sense of dedication by educating them on democratic lines. J.P. used to say
that if administration is run according to the will of the administrators or bureaucrats, than
“cracy” would overpower the “demos” or the people. The human development demands that
the “demos” should prosper and “cracy” disappear. This, however, would be possible only if
the society keeps offering new alternatives so that ‘cracy’ becomes increasingly delimited.
J.P. also wanted total decentralization of administration and delimitation of the powers of the
bureaucrats so as to enable them to change their role from people’s masters into their
servants. In J.P.’s view, India was under the grab of corruption and failure. He used to say that
failure demands greater sacrifice than success. He was ready for it and he was encouraging
others to be ready for it. That is why before giving a formal call of Total Revolution. J.P.
organized and led an unprecedented silent procession in Patna on April 8, 1974. Every
Participant had covered his mouth with an orange colour bandage and his hands were tied
backwards. The band was playing only a ten-word tune: “Our hearts are agitated and our
tongue has been silenced”. Alongwith organizing such protest marches, J.P. also organized
protest meetings, No-Tax campaigns and established students committees and popular
struggle committees so that they may join their hands together to offer candidates in the
ensuing General Elections and, once they win the election, these organizations should be able
to keep their elective representatives in check and if they are found to be corrupt they may be
forced to resign so that they are kept under people’s standing control.
The immediate effect of J.P.’s Total Revolution was that the Indira Gandhi Government
rapidly lost people’s confidence and was left with no alternative but to have a state of
national emergency proclaimed in self-defence and thereunder imprison J.P. and the middle
and lower level leaders and followers of this movement. However, in view of his
deteriorating physical condition, he was released from Jail. Thus J.P. was able to gain
sufficient time to lead the course of the next General Elections, 1 a new political party called
the “Janta Party”, help it win the elections and have its President Morarji Desai installed as
the Prime Minister to succeed Indira Gandhi. J.P ‘the born rebel’ had thus become J.P.
“King-maker”. The question is that if J.P. had remained alive for a longer period, would he
himself been successful in bringing about the “Total Revolution” of his conception through
the means he had adopted and advocated? Would he himself have been able to restructure
India’s social, economic and political set up of his own conviction? Would he himself have
achieved the mission of his life?