UNIT 5 RIGHTS AND DUTIES

Structure
5.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives

5.2 Gandhi’s Individualism

5.3 Concept of Autonomy
5.4 Individual and Satyagraha
5.5 Satyagraha and Swaraj
5.6 Rights and Duties
5.7 Rights of Women
5.8 Conclusion
5.9 Summary
5.10 Terminal Questions
Suggested Readings

5.1 INTRODUCTION
The discourse on rights is linked with the rise of liberal individualism. The language of rights
permeates and dominates all walks of modern political, social and economic life. In defining
the proper relationship between the individual and the state, the philosophical defence of
rights have assumed unparalleled importance in the modern political discourse exemplified in
the philosophies of Rawls and Dworkin, the proponents of rights-based liberalism. The other
streams including the Communitarianism do not emphasise on rights; yet individual theorists
like MacIntyre and Walzer accord importance to individual rights. There is a general belief
that rights secure liberty by protecting the individual against the state and other persons,
even a majority, gives a person the shield against arbitrariness and tyranny. It safeguards the
individual’s private sphere ensuring that neither the state nor others can interfere without
justification. Embedded in the concept of right is the acceptance of ideas of personal
autonomy, individuality, liberty and human equality and, any denial or discrimination would
have to have sufficient reasons. The concept is quintessentially anti-statist in nature, also the
basis of Gandhi’s perceptions and philosophy.
Aims and Objectives
After reading this Unit, you would be able to understand
 Gandhi’s concept of rights and duties
 His concepts of individualism and autonomy
 Gandhi’s vision of the individual’s role in Satyagraha
52 Gandhi’s Political Thought

5.2 GANDHI’S INDIVIDUALISM

Gandhi’s suspicion of the modern state apparatus, his denial of the all-powerful state, his
description of the state as a soulless machine and the supreme importance that he accords
to the individual makes him an individualist par excellence. Iyer considers Gandhi as “one
of the most revolutionary of individualists and one of the most individualistic of revolutionaries
in world history”. Writing in 1924, Gandhi declares that ‘the individual is the one supreme
consideration’ and held on this belief right till the end of his life. He writes:
If the individual ceases to count, what is left of society? Individual freedom alone can make
a man voluntarily surrender himself completely to the service of society. If it is wrested from
him, he becomes an automaton and society is ruined. No society can possibly be built on
a denial of individual freedom. It is contrary to the very nature of man. Just as a man will
not grow horns or a tail, so will he not exist as a man if he has no mind of his own. In
reality even those who do not believe in the liberty of the individual believe in their own.
Gandhi also does not lose sight of the fact that the individual is essentially a social being
and in this sense his individualism is like that of T.H. Green. He is critical of unbridled
individualism and considers it as unsuitable for social progress.
Unrestricted individualism is the law of the beast of the jungle. We have learnt to strike the
mean between individual freedom and social restraint. Willing submission to social restraint
for the sake of the well being of the whole society, enriches both the individual and the
society of which he is a member.
Gandhi views society as an aggregate of individuals and that a society is incomplete if it
does not cater to individual’s self-development. The individual, for him, is not only a social
person but also a moral one. Individual initiative enhances human dignity and also provides
for a mechanism for resolving conflicts in a non-violent manner. He underlines the importance
of common good without denying the pivotal role for the individual. He considers the
individual as the bearer of moral authority vested with the moral law and duty (dharma)
to judge the state and its laws, by the standards of truth (satya) and non-violence (ahimsa).
His faith in the individual as the basis of a modern society is strengthened by his notion of
relative truth.
Gandhi considers truth and God as inter-dependent and acknowledges the need to go
beyond ‘God is Truth’ to ‘Truth is God’. “In ‘God is Truth’, is, certainly does not mean
‘equal to’ nor does it mean, ‘is truthful’. Truth is not an attribute of God, but He is That.
He is nothing if He is not That. Truth in Sanskrit means Is. Therefore Truth is implied in
Is. God is nothing else is. Therefore the more truthful we are, the nearer we are to God.
We are only to the extent that we are truthful” (Gandhi, 1949, p.29). In view of the concept
of relative truth and recognising the need for establishing some standard and that is human
needs, Gandhi recommends non-violence (ahimsa) as truth differs from person to person
and describes satyagraha as ‘soul force’.

5.3 CONCEPT OF AUTONOMY

Gandhi’s individualism is embedded in his notion of autonomy and is derived from his
extensive view of power which he locates in the state, economy and society and in each
individual. Within this framework he insists that everyone can and should take charge of his
life. Accepting human dignity and worth as intrinsic goods, he is severe in his indictment of
Rights and Duties 53

colonialism and untouchability and interestingly, sees the seeds of degeneration that undermines
and suppresses human dignity within Indian traditions. He emphasises that India got subjugated
because of its moribund and repressive practices and stresses on the need for reforming the
Indian society and in particular, Hinduism, by highlighting some of its inequities and
discriminatory practices towards women, the lower castes and the untouchables. According
to Gandhi, individuals make and remake their lives through their choices and action. The
highest duty for Gandhi is to act morally, regardless of the consequences. The moral way
to proceed is through non-violence. Since each person knows best about his moral project
and the means to realise it in action, each one ought to be free from both domination and
violence.
Gandhi’s autonomous person is also a social person, never apart from the community to
which he belongs and therefore he expects everyone to be concerned not only about their
self-governance but also the autonomy of others. This, in a nutshell, is the meaning of
‘swaraj’ or self-rule, a vision of India ruled by Indians with concern for the poorest, the
destitute and the most vulnerable. Self-rule not only means end of British colonialism but
also an end of other forms of domination such as untouchability and modernisation.
‘Swaraj’, for Gandhi, is when Indians learn to rule themselves, individually and collectively.
It means self-control and self-rule. Like Green, Gandhi seeks to “make life morally meaningful
for all people and both viewed the community as held together not by compulsion but by
the sense of a common interest or good”. The individual has a soul while the state is a
soulless machine “which can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its existence”.
The individual has the moral authority as he consistently pursues satya and ahimsa and
hence his description of the individual as possessing a soul while the state is soulless. He
accepts the state if it uses minimum of violence but the fear is always that the state may
use too much violence against those who differ from it. His concern with the consequences
of excessive centralisation of power makes him concede only a minimal role to the state.
Decentralisation of power ensures greater chance for the collective pursuit of satya and
ahimsa. He admits that state ownership is preferable to private ownership involving the
exploitation of the masses, but in general he considers the violence of private ownership as
less injurious than the violence of the state. In an enlightened anarchy ‘everyone is his own
ruler’. In an ideal state, there is no political power because there is no state. As this ideal
is not realisable, he prefers a minimal state, like Thoreau, namely that government is best
which governs the least. Gandhi limits the ambit of the state and focuses on the civil society
and the role of the individual within it.
“I look upon an increase in the power of the state with the greatest fear, because, although
while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind
by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of all progress.”

5.4 INDIVIDUAL AND SATYAGRAHA

According to Gandhi, as all states violate satya and ahimsa, “every citizen renders himself
responsible for every act of his government. And loyalty to a capricious and corrupt state
is a sin, disloyalty a virtue. Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state
becomes lawless or, which is the same thing, corrupt, and a citizen who barters with such
a state shares its corruption and lawlessness”. Satyagraha is the moral right of every
individual, a ‘birthright that cannot be surrendered without losing self respect’. Gandhi
describes satyagrahi as ‘real constitutionalist’ on the grounds that disobedience to evil laws
is a moral duty and in disobeying and accepting punishment, he obeys a higher law. The
54 Gandhi’s Political Thought

existence of injustice justifies political resistance and political protest is basically moral. “To
put down civil disobedience is to imprison conscience. Civil disobedience can only lead to
strength and purity”. The state, for Gandhi, has no right to dehumanise or suppress the
individual. “It is the inherent right of a subject to refuse or assist a government that will not
listen to him”. The individual citizen has the responsibility to uphold satya and practise
ahimsa which cannot be relinquished or abdicated. Gandhi also accepts that a majority
could be wrong and stresses on the fact that an individual, at all times, must have the power
to veto over state action. A citizen, as stated by Antigone1, must have the right to judge
the state on the basis of higher law and like Socrates2 must willingly accept the consequences
of challenging the laws of the state. This is all the more necessary, according to Gandhi, as
modern day states, including representative democracies augment greater power and violence
and ignore truth. Like Locke and Jefferson, he believes that loyalty to a constitution and its
laws need to be reviewed and affirmed once in every generation. He accepts the Lockean
principle that political authority has be judged and questioned, and, if necessary disobeyed.
Satyagraha demonstrates an intricate relationship between means and ends through a
philosophy of action. In its approach to conflict, Gandhi does not seek a compromise but
a synthesis, as a satyagrahi never yields his position which he regards as truth but he is
prepared to accept the opponent’s position, if it is true. By sacrificing one’s position he does
not make any concessions to the opponent but only to a mutually agreeable adjustment.
Both parties are satisfied without either feeling triumphant or defeated as both do not
compromise in course of the resolution of the conflict.
Satyagraha, for Gandhi, is based on a profound respect for law and is resorted to non-
violently and publicly. The Satyagrahi willingly accepts full penalties, including the rigours
of jail discipline as resistance is respectful and restrained, undertaken by law-abiding
citizens. Gandhi insists that ‘disobedience without civility, discipline, discrimination and non
violence is certain destruction’. A satyagrahi accepts personal responsibility publicly. He
must inform the concerned government official(s) about the time and place of the act, the
reason(s) for protest and if possible, the law that would be disobeyed.
A satyagrahi cooperates not out of fear of punishment but because cooperation is essential
for the common good. Satyagraha is resistance without any acrimony or hatred or injury
to the opponent. A satyagrahi also suffers the consequences of resistance. As a person he
owes it to himself to suffer, if necessary for his conscience and as a citizen, it is his duty
to suffer the consequences of his conscientious disobedience to the laws of the state. A
satyagrahi invites suffering upon himself and does not seek mercy. The following rules have
to be followed in satyagraha: (1) self-reliance at all times; (2) Initiative in the hands of the
satyagrahis; (3) Propagation of the objective, strategy and tactics of the campaign, (4)
Reduction of demands to a minimum consistent with Truth, (5) Progressive advancement of
the movement through steps and stages- direct action only when all other efforts to achieve
an honourable settlement have been exhausted, (6) Examination of weakness within the
satyagraha group- no sign of impatience, discouragement or breakdown of non-violent
attitude, (7) Persistent search for avenues of cooperation with the adversary on honourable
terms by winning over the opponent by helping him. There must be sincerity to achieve an
agreement with rather than triumph over the adversary (8) Refusal to surrender essentials
in negotiation and there must be no compromise on basic principles and (9) Insistence on
full agreement on fundamentals before accepting a settlement.
Gandhi suggests on the need to follow these steps in a satyagraha: (1) Negotiation and
arbitration, (2) preparation of the group for direct action- exercise in self-discipline, (3)
Rights and Duties 55

agitation – demonstration such as mass meetings, parades, slogan-shouting, (4) issuing of an

ultimatum, (5) economic boycott and forms of strike- picketing, dharna, non-violent labour
strike and general strike (6) non-cooperation, (7) civil disobedience, (8) usurping of the
functions of government and should step 8 fail then resort to the last one, namely establishment
of a parallel government by securing greatest possible cooperation from the public.
In 1930, Gandhi laid down a code of discipline that satyagrahis would have to adhere to:
(1) harbour no anger but suffer the anger of the opponent, refuse to return the assaults of
the opponent; (2) do not submit to any order given in anger, even though severe punishment
is threatened for disobeying; (3) refrain from insults; (4) protect opponents from insult or
attack, even at the risk of life; (5) do not resist arrest nor the attachment of property, unless
holding property as a trustee; (6) refuse to surrender any property held in trust at the risk
of life; (7) if taken prisoner, behave in any exemplary manner; (8) as a member of a
satyagraha unit, obey the order of satyagraha leaders and resign from the unit in the event
of serious disagreement and (9) do not expect guarantees for maintenance of the dependants.
For Gandhi satyagraha incorporates civil disobedience though it went beyond the pressure
tactics associated with strikes and demonstrations to include moral, social and political
reform (Dalton, 1982, p.148). Satyagraha, unlike civil disobedience, is resistance without
acrimony or hatred or injury to the opponent. ‘Satyagraha’, for him, is both a ‘mode of
action and a method of enquiry’ (Bondurant, 1958, v). Satya is derived from the Sanskrit
word sat, ‘being’, and means both truth and essence. For Gandhi, it means the continuous
search of truth and also a means of resolving conflict by which a person comes to know
himself and the process of his evolution. The idea of openness is embodied in satyagraha.
Actions based on pre-conceived notions and marked by violence are characterised as
duragraha and is similar to the forms of passive resistance.
Passive resistance may be offered side by side with the use of arms. Satyagraha and brute
force, being each a negation of the other, can never go together. In passive resistance there
is always present an idea of harassing the other party and there is a simultaneous readiness
to undergo any hardships entailed upon us by such activity; while in Satyagraha there is not
the remotest idea of injuring the opponent. Satyagraha postulates the conquest of the
adversary by suffering in one’s own person (Gandhi, 1928, p.179).
Satyagraha is coined during the movement of Indian resistance in South Africa to the
‘Asiatic Law Amendment Ordinance’ introduced into the Transvaal Legislative Council in
1906. At first, Gandhi called the movement passive resistance but realised that a new
principle had crystallised as the movement unfolded. He then announced through the pages
of his new newspaper, Indian Opinion, a prize for the best name to describe the
movement. One competitor suggested ‘sadagraha’ meaning firmness in a good cause.
Subsequently it was changed to satyagraha, “a force which is born of Truth and Love or
non violence” and gave up the phrase ‘passive resistance’3. Iyer interprets it as following:
“Gandhi’s analysis of civil disobedience conflated two separate notions –the natural right, the
universal obligation of every human being to act according to his conscience in opposition,
if necessary, to any external authority or restraint, and secondly, the duty of the citizen to
qualify himself by obedience to the laws of the state to exercise on rare occasions his
obligation to violate an unjust law or challenge an unjust system, and to accept willingly the
consequences of his disobedience as determined by the legal sanctions of the state”.
Gandhi’s perceptions were determined by the British colonial traditions and the faith he had
in the “British love of justice and fair play”, mainly because of the British constitutional
56 Gandhi’s Political Thought

practice of equality before law, not only of the British citizens, but for all. He idolised the
British constitution because it guarantees both individual freedom and racial equality. Until
the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, he was a loyalist of the Empire and was convinced that
helping the Empire would qualify for swarajya, i.e. self-rule. His understanding of the British
history and character led him to the use of the technique of Satyagraha. He opined that
grievances could be redressed only if people demonstrate their willingness to suffer to get
relief and cited the example of the British Suffragists for Indians in South Africa to emulate.

5.5 SATYAGRAHA AND SWARAJ

Satyagraha is inextricably linked with his notion of swaraj or self-rule or self-restraint.
Swaraj would be attained through the method of satyagraha in which the individual through
voluntary self-sacrifice and suffering achieves self-control, in other words self-discipline. For
Gandhi, swaraj is attained when there is social unity in three major areas of the Indian
society: among the untouchables and the various castes, between the Hindus and Muslims
and narrowing the gap between the city and villages, the former urban, westernised and
educated and the latter rural and illiterate. To be of service for the betterment of the
ordinary people, an idea that Gandhi derived from Vivekananda, Tolstoy, ‘Sermon on the
Mount’ and numerous texts and saints of the Indian tradition, is the quintessence of swaraj.
Swaraj means “all around awakening-social, educational, moral, economic and political”
(Young India, 26-8-1926, II, p.1231). Merely replacing British rulers with their Indian
counterparts is Englishstan and not Hindustan, an “English rule without the Englishman, the
tiger’s nature, but not the tiger” (1997, ch. IV).
By Swaraj I mean the government of India by the consent of the people as ascertained by
the largest number of adult population, male or female, native born or domiciled, who have
contributed by manual labour to the services of the state and who have taken the trouble
of having registered their names as voters…. Real Swaraj will come not by the acquisition
of authority by a few but by the acquisition of the capacity by all to resist authority when
it is abused. In other words, swaraj is to be obtained by educating the masses to a sense
of their capacity to regulate and control authority (Gandhi, 1947, p.14).
Gandhi makes welfare of the masses, with fulfilment of their basic needs as basis of
economic freedom, thus reflecting the inspiration that he derives from Ruskin. The India of
My Dreams, as Gandhi envisioned, is the swaraj of the poor person. A truly non-violent
state would be composed of self-governing and self-sufficient small cohesive village
communities in which the majority would rule with due consideration to the rights of the
minorities. It would be a participatory democracy whereby citizens have the positive
freedom to “participate in the process of politics in every possible way, restricting its
activities to the bare minimum,… it did not mean that the state was all-powerful, rather an
intimate relationship should exist between the state and all its citizens”. Satyagraha is the
glue that cements on one hand his ideal of enlightened anarchy and common good and on
the other hand his ideals of individual autonomy and moral self-determinism. Like Thoreau,
Gandhi stresses on the supremacy of the individual conscience against all claims of the state.

5.6 RIGHTS AND DUTIES

The crux of Satyagraha, for Gandhi, is in deciphering what one’s duty is. Gandhi speaks
of rights in the context of duties and that is his distinctiveness; he considers ‘real rights as
a result of performance of duty’ meaning, that all rights to be deserved and preserved as
Rights and Duties 57

rights is derived from duties which are performed well. Rights cannot be divorced from
duties and that rights have to be exercised in the interests of all. The concept of duty, for
Gandhi, is derived from the idea of dispassionate action which the Bhagavad Gita
advocates. Unless one’s action is performed with a degree of detachment one would not
be free from the anxiety of its future consequences. He contends “if we are sure of the
‘purity’ of the means we employ, we shall be led on by the faith, before which any fear
and trembling melt away”. Non-attachment does not mean lack of clarity about the ends
one desires to achieve. For Gandhi, the important thing is to get the people to do what they
ought to do without offering inducements or threats or theological sanctions.
Interestingly, Gandhi accepts the core idea of right-based individualism, the dominant
paradigm in contemporary political theory, namely human equality and moral worth of every
person but rights are coalesced with the idea of duties, assigning individuals with responsibilities
to lead a moral life and devote to the good of their community. He also supports the basic
rights of those at the margins of society, namely women, untouchables and the vulnerable,
who have been objects of domination and humiliation. According to him, Freedom is not
being left alone but the freedom to cultivate love and service which he describes as the best
feature of human nature. He champions equal rights for women and the right of everyone
to make the choices they desire. He rejects ascriptive properties such as gender, class,
birth, caste, education or nationality that can justify unequal treatment and disqualify some
as moral agents.
For Gandhi any discourse of rights would have to focus on how persons are treated. He
pays attention to the role of institutions or the way resources affect choices available for
individuals, an aspect which most theorists on autonomy, with the exception of Raz, ignore.
Another difference between Gandhi and conventional theories of autonomy is that for
Gandhi, individuals are equal members of a harmonious and interdependent cosmos rather
than abstracted selves. It is only through an association with others based on mutual respect
and cooperation that persons become complete or achieve good. The community ought to
be one that is open and tolerant of diverse conceptions of good and that its institutional
practices do not hinder the pursuit of their good by ordinary persons. Gandhi considers
duties as primary and considers the duty to act morally regardless of the consequences as
the highest.

5.7 RIGHTS OF WOMEN

Gandhi speaks of equal rights for women. He wanted women and men to be complimentary
to one another and insists that women and men differ but their differences cannot be the
basis of women’s subjugation and oppression. He wanted marriage to be one of partnership
between two equals. He censured women if they imitated men and appealed to women to
get out of their habits of pleasing men. Writing in 1927, in an address to women in Ceylon,
now Sri Lanka, Gandhi remarks:
What is it that makes a woman deck herself more than a man? I am told by feminine friends
that she does so for pleasing man. Well, I tell you, if you want to play your part in the
world’s affairs, you must refuse to deck yourself for pleasing man. If I was born a woman,
I would rise in rebellion against the pretensions on the part of man that woman is born to
be his plaything.
Gandhi sees the primary tasks of a woman in being a mother and a householder. Additionally
a woman, according to Gandhi, is the repository of spiritual and moral values and a teacher
58 Gandhi’s Political Thought

to man. A woman is the embodiment of suffering and sacrifice and it is for this reason that
he considers her to be the best messenger of peace and non-violence. A woman is
inherently more peaceful than a man. On these grounds he recommends separate education
for women and men as women would make better soldiers than men in non-violent
struggles. He credits his wife Kasturba and the black women in South Africa for helping him
to evolve the technique of satyagraha. He considers the nature of women as being
conducive to non-violent satyagraha based on dharma.
…woman is the incarnation of ahimsa. Ahimsa means infinite love, which again means
infinite capacity for suffering. Who but woman, the mother of man, shows this capacity in
the largest measure? She shows it as she is the infant and feeds it during the nine months
and derives joy in the suffering involved…. Let her transfer that love to the whole of
humanity, let her forget that she ever was or can be the object of man’s lust. And she will
occupy her proud position by the side of man as his mother, maker and silent leader. It is
given to her to teach the art of peace to the warring world thirsting for that nectar. She can
become the leader in satyagraha which does not require the learning that books give but
does require the stout heart that comes from suffering and faith.
Gandhi’s credit lay in the fact that under his stewardship women participated in large
numbers in the nationalist struggle. Initially, in the 1920s he confined them to their homes
and made them take up the spinning-wheel. Subsequently he allowed them picket liquor
shops as he knew majority of women suffered at the hands of drunkard husbands. At the
peak of the civil disobedience movement in the 1930s, he allowed them to join the salt
satyagraha. Women played an important role in many of the humanitarian works that
Gandhi undertook such as helping the poor, nursing, promoting khadi, spinning and weaving.

5.8 CONCLUSION
The distinctiveness about Gandhi’s formulation is not only the acceptance of rights as central
to individual well-being but also stressing on the performance of duties. He considers the
two as inter-twined and that the realisation of one without the other is not possible as both
pave the way for the fulfilment of common good. The underlying assumption of Gandhi to
which he remains steadfast is the idea that the individual is a social person and that the
essence of individuality is social self. The emphasis on duties emanates from his quest for
building a humane society and conflict(s) would be resolved non-violently through adherence
to truth or satyagraha. Duty, for Gandhi, is disinterested action which is performed without
much attention to the result and one which morally conforms to the order of the Universe.
Rights and duties lead to common good which is the basis of swaraj- self-rule, self-
restraint, self-discipline and voluntary self-sacrifice and this in turn is based in the notion of
individual autonomy and moral self-determinism. Gandhi, as a philosophical anarchist, stresses
on individual claims against that of the state, with the aim that the individual armed with
dharma or the moral law is the best to judge authority, take corrective steps if necessary
through acts of satyagraha, and bring about common good with which his good is
inextricably linked.

5.9 SUMMARY
Gandhi is unique in theorising about rights within the framework of duties. Rights cannot be
divorced from duties and that rights have to be exercised in the interests of all. The concept
of duty is derived from the idea of dispassionate action which the Bhagavad Gita
Rights and Duties 59

advocates. Unless one’s action is performed with a degree of detachment one would not
be free from the anxiety of its future consequences. Interestingly, Gandhi accepts the core
idea of right-based individualism, the dominant paradigm in contemporary political theory,
namely human equality and moral worth of every person but rights are coalesced with the
idea of duties, assigning individuals with responsibilities to lead a moral life and devote to
the good of their community. Accepting human dignity and worth as intrinsic goods, he is
severe in his indictment of colonialism and untouchability and interestingly, sees the seeds of
degeneration that undermines and suppresses human dignity within Indian traditions. Gandhi
expects everyone to be concerned not only about their self-governance but also the
autonomy of others. This, in a nutshell, is the meaning of ‘swaraj’ or self-rule, a vision of
India ruled by Indians with concern for the poorest, the destitute and the most vulnerable.

5.10 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

1. Explain Gandhi’s concept of individual autonomy.
2. What is the role of the Individual in Satyagraha?
3. What is the link between Satyagraha and Swaraj?
4. Explain Gandhi’s views on rights and duties.

SUGGESTED READINGS
Andrews, C.F., Mahatma Gandhi’s Ideas, New York, Macmillan, 1930.
Bandyopadhyaya, J., Social and Political Thought of Gandhi, Bombay, Allied Publishers,
1969.
Bhattacharya, B., Evolution of the Political Philosophy of Gandhi, Calcutta, Calcutta Book
House, 1969.
Bondurant, J. V., Conquest of Violence: Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict, Berkeley, University
of California Press, 1967.
Chatterjee, M., Gandhi’s Religious Thought, London, Macmillan, 1983.
Chatterjee, P., Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse, Delhi,
Oxford University Press, 1986.
Dalton, D., India’s Idea of Freedom, Gurgaon, Academic Press, 1982.
Haksar, V., “Rawls and Gandhi on Civil Disobedience” Inquiry, 19, 1976.
—————., “Coercive Proposals: Rawls and Gandhi”, Political Theory, 4, 1976.
Iyer, R. N., The Moral and Political Thought of Gandhi, Bombay, Oxford University Press,
1973.
Pantham, T and Deutsch, K., (ed), Political Thought in Modern India, New Delhi, Sage,
1986.
Parekh, B., Gandhi’s Political Philosophy, Notre Dame, Notre Dame University Press,
1989.
Woodcock, G., Mohandas Gandhi, New York, Fontana, 1971.
60 Gandhi’s Political Thought

(Endnotes)
Antigone is torn between two loyalties, that of her religion which commands her to bury the body of
her brother while that of the state commands that his body be left unburied and unmourned, to be eaten
by dogs and vultures. She obeys her conscience on the grounds that no ruler, however powerful, has
the right to demand acts contrary to divinely ordained norms.
2 A general reading of the Crito, a dialogue about the trial and death of Socrates, reveals that civil
disobedience requires fulfillment of certain conditions. Its underlying assumption being the imperative
obedience to the city, if one is reasonably satisfied with its laws. For Socrates, the entitlement of the
state to obedience is because it confers benefits. Anticipating Locke, he argues that Athenian citizens
ought to obey the laws of their city since they have freely consented to do so and obedience to the
state is for three reasons: gratitude, consent and morality. He does not acknow ledge any limits to an
individual’s duty. He does not consider the fact that person(s) accept benefits with certain assumptions
and in the hope of certain reasonable expectations. If these are not fulfilled then obedience to the state
is no longer tenable, though breaking or defying the law may undermine and eventually destroy the
state, a proposition that is valid if the state is just. In case there are unjust laws, it is better to rectify
it and make the state stronger and just. Socrates and Crito never discuss the justification of disobedience
but rather the reasons for citizens’ obedience to a city. Their answer is that is anybody remains in the
city willingly, that demonstrates his readiness to comply with its laws. Disobedience is only permissible
if vocalized by a superior authority, in that case, the latter’s command overrides that of the city.
3Passive resistance is used first by Bipin Chandra Pal (1858-1932) and became a part of the lexicon of
his compatriots - Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856-1920) and Aurobindo Ghosh -within the extremist movement.
UNIT 6 MEANS AND ENDS
Structure
6.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives

6.2 Conflict and its Resolution

6.3 Purity of Means and Ends
6.4 Ahimsa as the Means to Realise Swaraj
6.5 Conclusion
6.6 Summary
6.7 Terminal Questions
Suggested Readings

6.1 INTRODUCTION
One of the major concerns of Gandhi’s discourse on the relationship between ends and
means flows from its centrality of his entire edifice which means that it is not merely a
question of an instrument. An interesting postulate of social action is the ultimate elimination
of conflict which means eliminating the factors that create a conflict situation. Since, in the
process of resolution of conflict, there is neither a winner nor a loser as in the case of a
war or a settlement arrived at by use of brutal force, this framework provides the blueprint
for lasting peace. This also means that peace is intrinsically linked to non-violent action and
a commitment of resolution of conflict only by peaceful means. As such, non-violence ceases
to be a negative concept and has a positive dimension in the context of peaceful evolution
of society. This leads to the exposition of the emergence of a compassionate individual
which tries to bridge the gulf between two important factors: compassion and non-violence.
This synthesis eliminates any need for revolutionary violence and creates a situation of
continuous co-relationship between means and ends. Bringing the question of morality and
ethics as the core to understand the importance of this crucial relationship between a
particular activity, to lead to a particular redress ultimately has a larger ramification in the
context of the universal ethical content of any such local act. This also means that the moral
force by itself will make it totally redundant the issue of a conflict between ends and means
as the unfoldment of the non-violent mass struggle will itself lead to the logical culmination
of reaching a larger ethical point. Gandhi’s experiments with truth in itself is an indication
of this kind of an activity which is conducive to the larger framework of an ethical code.
This also leads to another interesting innovation in Gandhi with his doctrine of relative truth
and suspicion of any kind of determinism. For him non-violence is a method and not merely
a rule book or prescription. This was a deliberate act on the part of Gandhi because when
he was requested to prepare a manual of non-violence being a guide to action he refused
as he laid emphasis on the primacy of the method being a technique in its rudimentary and
tentative sense and could not be reduced to a doctrine or a set of rules. It is because of
the initiation of a major change in the mechanism of resolution of conflict from wars to non-
violent resolutions he was categorical that the ethical content can never be diluted.
62 Gandhi’s Political Thought

Aims and Objectives

After reading this unit, you would be able to:
 Understand the meaning of the concept of ends and means.
 Discuss how Ahimsa can be a tool towards Swaraj.
 Examine Gandhi’s views on the importance of ends and means.

6.2 CONFLICT AND ITS RESOLUTION

The concept of ends-means relationship is the core of Gandhi’s social philosophy and
conflict resolution. For Gandhi, means and ends are inextricably linked that ends justifies the
means and that “an end which requires unjust means is not a just end”. In the Hind Swaraj
(1909) the Editor tells the Reader, who argues in favour of the forcible overthrow of the
British rule in India: “Your belief that there is no connection between the means and the end
is a great mistake. Through that mistake even men who have been considered religious have
committed grievous crimes. Your reasoning is the same as saying that we can get a rose
through planting a noxious weed. If I want to cross the ocean, I can do so only by means
of a vessel; if I were to use a cart for that purpose, both the cart and I would soon find
the bottom…. The means may be likened to a seed, the end of a tree; and there is just
the same inviolable connection between the means and the end as there is between the seed
and the tree. I am not likely to obtain the result flowing from the worship of God by laying
myself prostrate before Satan….We reap exactly as we sow”. Impure means would result
in impure end. Justice could not be secured through unjust means; freedom could not be
obtained through unfair means and peace could not be realised by war. Gandhi also stresses
on the close link between the notions of right and duty; to insist on one and forget the other
is a redundant argument.
Gandhi rejects the idea that ends justify the means, a notion which Kautilya and Machiavelli
endorsed in the context of self-preservation and of the raison d’etat’. To restrict the choice
of means on grounds of expediency rather than principle would be unacceptable to Gandhi.
Any means is fine for the attainment of power, which in turn is employed for higher ends,
is an argument which Machiavelli espouses but what Machiavelli forgets is that attainment
and maintenance of power becomes an end in itself.
Marxism too is not rigid on the notion of ends and means as it rejects supra-historic
morality and categorical imperatives, both religious and secular. Engels and Lenin justify the
use of any means to realise the desired end. In his pamphlet Socialism and War, Lenin
points out that the Marxists differ from the pacifists and anarchists in their belief that the
justification of each war must be seen individually in relation to its historical role and its
consequences1. Means could be justified with reference to the historical end it serves.
Trotsky, unlike Engels and Lenin, emphasises on the dialectical interdependence of means
and ends and underlines that the means chosen are those that are likely to lead to human
liberation2. For Trotsky, ends do not justify the means but that means could be justified only
by its end, which for him, is the increase of the power of man over nature and the end of
the power of one over the other. For Gandhi, the end is satya or truth which requires no
justification and the means- ahimsa or non-violence must be justified not only with reference
to the end but also in itself. Every act must be justified with reference to satya and ahimsa.
Means and Ends 63

6.3 PURITY OF ENDS AND MEANS

Iyer notes that Gandhi not only completely rejects the dichotomy which is established
between ends and means but also insists on the use of right and/or moral means to the
extent that they, rather than the ends provide the standard of reference. The relationship
between means and ends is not a technical one but an ethical one, one that involves choice
which requires an initial decision about the desired end and the obligatory acceptance of
whatever steps are necessary to secure it or most likely to do so. He constantly emphasises
that evil means could never lead to good ends. Noble and good ends could never be
attained by evil and/or immoral means. Guided by his belief in the law of Karma he
underlines the organic interdependence between means and ends. He also stresses on the
fact that individuals have control over the means but not over the end.
Gandhi’s conception of ends and means ought to be also understood in the context of his
insistence that all of us are bearers of relative truth and none can stake a claim to know
absolute truth or sat. As bearers of relative truth we know our version and that satya or
truth would appear differently to different people, in the same manner as the five blind
persons who held to different parts of an elephant; each knew his version but far removed
from the totality of reality. If there are disagreements about ends it is because human beings
are creatures of relative truth. The concept of relative truth and the factual have a common
concern for truth that led Gandhi to insist on ahimsa or non-violence towards one another.
A seeker of truth or satya is a practitioner of non-violence or ahimsa. Iyer also observes
that Gandhi’s “concept of satya, with ahimsa as the means, determined his doctrine of
satyagraha or active resistance to authority, while the concept of ahimsa, with satya as
the common end, enabled him to formulate his doctrine of sarvodaya or non violent
socialism”. Iyer’s further explanation deserves to be quoted as follows: Writing an introduction
to Ruskin’s Unto This Last Gandhi states that “the polis is nothing more or less than the
domain in which all men are free to gain skill in the art of action and learn how to exemplify
satya and ahimsa; the means in which both the individual quest could be furthered and
social virtues displayed among the masses of citizens in a climate of tolerance and civility;
a morally progressive society in which neither the State nor any social organisation is
allowed to flout with impunity the sacred principle that every man is entitled to his relative
truth and no one can claim the right to coerce another, to treat him as a means to his own
end” (cited in Iyer, Ibid, p.371).
Gandhi’s view on the close link between means and ends is also influenced by the idea of
dispassionate action which the Bhagavad Gita advocates. Unless one’s action is performed
with a degree of detachment one would not be free from the anxiety of its future
consequences. He contends “if we are sure of the ‘purity’ of the means we employ, we shall
be led on by the faith, before which any fear and trembling melt away”. Non-attachment
does not mean lack of clarity about the ends one desires to achieve.

6.4 AHIMSA AS THE MEANS TO REALISE SWARAJ

Gandhi places the end of swaraj and points out that its realisation would depend on the
adoption of the right means. He insists on the need to focus on the selection of means
keeping in view only a broad image and a sense of direction regarding the end, the
attainment of swaraj. Like Aldous Huxley, Gandhi believes that a corrupt means does not
fail to corrupt the end. Like Tolstoy, Gandhi observes that once violence is injected into
non-violence, the latter would become superfluous and cease to be a guide for life.
64 Gandhi’s Political Thought

Regarding the means of non-violence, Gandhi says ‘if we seek it first everything else shall
be added unto us’. Both are convinced that with non-violence it is possible to overwhelm
all governments resting on violence, all wars and all coercive institutions, as non-violence
works as a dynamic force. Gene Sharp identifies 125 methods of non-violent action and
classifies them into three categories: non-violent protest, non-cooperation and non-violent
intervention. “Non violent resistance and direct action”, according to Sharp, “refers to those
methods of resistance and direct action without physical violence in which members of the
non violent group perform either: (1) acts of omission that is, they refuse to perform acts
which they usually perform, and are expected by custom, or are required by law or
regulation to perform; or (2) acts of commission- that is, they insist on performing acts
which they usually do not perform, or not expected by custom to perform, or are forbidden
by law or regulation from performing, or (3) both”. These methods are extra-constitutional
as they do not rely upon established procedures of the state for achieving their objectives.
Gandhi considers non-violence as an all-pervasive and eternal Principle “applicable to every
situation in life without any exception’. The practice of non-violence requires moral
discipline that would control passions and emotions. Non-violence consists in allowing
others the ‘maximum of convenience at the maximum of inconvenience’ to the self and
therefore a satyagrahi must be ready to embrace self-suffering and self-effacement. Gandhi
pleads for voluntary poverty, voluntary simplicity and voluntary suffering as that would free
the soul from the bondage of the material body. He insists that real endurance comes from
physical discipline and suffering. He stresses on voluntary poverty and set a personal
example as he endeavoured to identify himself with the most vulnerable, marginalised and
the poorest. He considers it as necessary for fostering the welfare of the soul and the
happiness of the mass of people. He regards voluntary poverty as a moral and patriotic
duty. Voluntary simplicity is needed to minimise the greed that exists among human beings
and sees greed as the ‘root of most of the major political problems. Voluntary suffering
would purify the soul and intellect. There are no limits to non-violence’.
Like Newman, Gandhi insists that one step is enough for him. He insists that if rightful
means are used, the attainment of the end is assured and he considers non-violence as
opposed to violence as the rightful means to winning India’s freedom. He prefers non-
violence to violence and violence to non-violent act born of cowardice which he regards as
negative violence. Mere absence of force is not non-violence. He regarded violence as the
outcome of weakness, moral impotence and intolerance to views and opinions of others. He
considers non-violence as a value and that society must actively seek elimination of conflict.
Peace is possible only with non-violence. This implies that non-violence has no instrumental
value as it has a positive content, namely a non-acquisitive, non-exploitative and an
egalitarian society. For Gandhi, non-violence represents heightened compassion. It is the
bridge between means and ends; as a means it prepares the way for the realisation of non-
violence as a comprehensive end that ends all conflict.
Gandhi is concerned with the ethical purity of means. He contrasts between his conception
of non-violent resistance and pacifism. Merely not offering to perform military service is not
enough. It is superficial and different from non-cooperation with the system which supports
the state. This proves that Gandhi is not interested in symbolic protest or an action which
is purely transitory without resolving the basic question of the basis of the state which is
intrinsically linked with coercive powers. Gandhi, as a philosophical anarchist, is sceptical of
the very existence of the state as a repressive apparatus. He is looking not merely at the
philosophy of resistance of a localised and sporadic nature but rather he wants a more
lasting framework to emerge on building a non-violent model of resistance and social
Means and Ends 65

change. A state can be effectively demilitarised by non-payment of taxes than pacifist

courting of imprisonment. The latter would be effective if it is done on a mass basis. He
considers non-violence as the most active force, as the ‘supreme law’, ‘omnipotent’, ‘infinite
and synonymous with God’. Non-violence as means affects and elevates the end. He
rejects passive resistance as a policy as it hides weakness and potential violence is not the
right means to achieve the desired end. He opposes supine helplessness involved in non-
resistance to evil.
This position is of fundamental nature in understanding Gandhi’s conception as being
committed to a large majoritarian perception of social change he knew that its success is
linked to the adherence of its principles by the active participants who, by their acts of
sacrifice, courage and determination, would become the role models to motivate others to
join the emancipatory collectivist stand. He knew the task itself was a stupendous one and
reflected on it in 1922 when violence erupted during a mass civil disobedience which he
was spearheading at that time. Even the towering presence of the Mahatma proved
insufficient to control the violent elements. He was well aware of the fact that the cyclical
order of violence leading to more violence had to be contained and was categorical in his
assertion that “civil disobedience is never followed by anarchy. Criminal disobedience can
lead to it. Every state puts down criminal disobedience with force. It perishes, if it does not.
But to put down civil disobedience is an attempt to imprison conscience”. This motivated
Gandhi to move away from his large-scale mobilisation of people terming it as a ‘Himalayan
blunder’ and advised that in a situation like this, “aggressive civil disobedience should be
confined to the vindication of the right of free speech and right of free association”.
For Gandhi, the important thing is to get the people to do what they ought to do without
offering inducements or threats or theological sanctions. Human beings acquire moral
precepts only by acting on it or reflecting on it through their actions. “A person often
becomes what he believes himself to be. A man who broods on evil is as bad as a man
who does evil if he is not worse…. He who is not prepared to order his life in unquestioning
obedience to the laws of morality cannot be said to be a man in the full sense of the word”.
At the same time Gandhi also believes in the indomitable nature of the human spirit and that
no person could be made to do something against one’s will. For a person to become
irresistible and for his actions to have all-pervasive influence it is important that a person
reduces himself to a zero.
Writing in 1947, Gandhi says: “passive resistance as a policy is the second best alternative.
At least it minimises loss of life, disruption and demoralisation when it is an unequal battle.
At least it limits the chain reaction of violence and preserves the humane character of society
as a concept and as an assumption”. He is categorical that non-violence can succeed only
when (a) the participants practice non-violence strictly; otherwise the combination of violence
and non-violence, even tactically speaking fails, because the entire weight of repression
comes down on everyone, in the name of averting anarchy; (b) repression and suffering
alienate an increasing number of people who join the group of non-violent resisters; (c) the
methods of non-violent action are chosen in such a way that the economic or civil disruption
caused by it do not alienate large numbers of people from non-violent action.
Alinsky3 points that the Mahatma’s “use of passive resistance in India presents a striking
example of the selection of means”. As an activist the most important consideration for
Gandhi is the means that are available. Asserting that “if he (Gandhi) had the guns he might
well have used them” he quotes from Gandhi’s autobiography My Experiments with Truth
to prove his point. Giving the example from Punjab, Gandhi writes “as I proceeded further
66 Gandhi’s Political Thought

and further with my enquiry into the atrocities that had been committed on the people, I
came across tales of government tyranny and the arbitrary despotism of its officers such as
I was hardly prepared for, and they filled me with deep pain. What surprised me then, and
what still continues to fill me with surprise was the fact that the province that had furnished
the largest number of soldiers to the British government during the war, should have taken
all the brutal excesses lying down”. The other example is Gandhi’s severe indictment of the
British to what he considered “the four fold disaster of our country”. This included
compulsory disarmament which “spiritually… has made us unmanly and the presence of an
alien army of occupation, employed with deadly effect to crush in us the spirit of resistance,
had made us think we cannot look after ourselves or put up a defence against foreign
aggression or even defend our homes and families”.
Gandhi was merely making an assessment of the Indian situation and in this there was a
great deal of affinity between his views with the other nationalist leaders. The many reasons
that were given included general weakness, non-availability of arms and general submissiveness
which Gandhi mentions in the Hind Swaraj (1909). Nehru describes the Hindus of that
period as “a demoralized, timid, and hopeless mass bullied and crushed by every dominant
interest and incapable of resistance”. Gandhi himself charged the British for making the
Indians unmanly. As such, Alinsky argues that “if Gandhi had the guns form violent resistance
and the people to use them this means would not have been unreservedly rejected as the
world would like to think”.
To reinforce his argument, Alinsky quotes Nehru after India’s independence. When Nehru
had to use military power in Kashmir against Pakistan, he had lot of worries about the
possible opposition from the Mahatma but he did not and Nehru wrote that “it strengthened
my view, that Gandhi could be adaptable”. In fact Gandhi himself acknowledged that
majority of his followers accepted his leadership and principles more out of convenience
rather than conviction. However, all great leaders invoke higher moral principles because “all
effective actions require the passport of morality”. This also means that the end must be
expressed in a generalised manner like liberty, equality and fraternity. But the fact remains
that in the context of means and ends there are no well laid out universal principles about
the means and ends, but only an analysis of the important dictum that a particular end
justifies a particular means.
Alinsky quotes from Orwell to justify his claim that Gandhi’s method of non-violent mass
action was time and country-specific and has no chance of succeeding in totalitarian
regimes. This view is endorsed by Mandela. However, what Alinsky ignores is the fact that
for Gandhi, the non-violent mass action was a substitute for war for ending human conflict.
Gandhi never perceived a conflict-free world but only envisaged a world where the conflict
between the haves and the have-nots would be resolved much more amicably than at the
present. His favourite example was the British Suffragists who, through a protracted struggle
for more than a century, achieved universal adult suffrage in Britain which slowly changed
the elite view of democracy being a bad thing till the nineteenth century to becoming good
in the twentieth century. Gandhi, through his life’s work, was trying to demonstrate that a
co-relationship between the means and ends may be achieved at a distant future. As a
practical idealist, he reminded the world that he was a believer in the maxim of one step
at a time.
Alinsky misses this larger framework of Gandhi which will always remain the ideal type,
whereas, all other considerations of particular means for particular ends will be locally and
Means and Ends 67

narrowly based, reflecting aberrations and fault lines, rather than moving towards an
optimistic and also realistic framework of resolving conflicts anywhere in the world peacefully.

6.5 CONCLUSION
Gandhi sees the relationship between ends and means as between a seed and the tree and
consistently underlines the close and intimate link between the two. The end lies in the
means just as the tree is within the seed. He regards ‘means and end as convertible terms
in my philosophy of life. We have always control over the means but not over the end’.
Means are everything. Gandhi does not segregate means and ends and insists that in all
spheres of life, including politics, we reap exactly as we sow.
Gandhi also emphasises that for achieving one’s ends there is a need for dispassionate
action and a degree of detachment. If the means employed are pure then the fear and
anxiety about the result would evaporate. Unconcern about the result does not mean lack
of clarity about the end. While the cause has to be just and clear, so must the means and
also the recognition that impure means would lead to impure ends; truth cannot be attained
through untruthful means; justice cannot be secured through unjust measures; freedom
cannot be obtained through tyrannical methods, socialism cannot be realised through enmity
and coercion and war cannot lead to enduring peace. Gandhi categorically rejects the notion
of ends justify the means and asserts that moral means is an end in itself because virtue is
its own reward.
For means to be pure, Gandhi also insists that the human soul has to be devoid of all
impurities and for attaining purity he recommends fasting and prayer. Gandhi stresses on the
purity of means as he finds God in the whole world. He chooses non-violence and
satyagraha as the means for realising swaraj and categorically rules out its realisation
through bloodshed and violence. He desires a social transformation through change in the
character of individuals. In 1942 Gandhi reminded that ‘country’s will to freedom must not
be paralysed by the ‘dread of violence’. I am convinced that we are living today in a state
of ordered anarchy…. This should go…. I should like to believe, that 20 years of
continuous effort at educating India along the lines of non violence will not have gone in vain
and the people will evolve order out of chaos’. Gandhi is the lone voice among the social
and political thinkers to firmly reject the rigid dichotomy between the ends and means and
in his extreme preoccupation with the means, to the extent that they, rather than the ends
become the benchmark for judging action.

6.6 SUMMARY
A major concern of Gandhi’s discourse on the relationship between ends and means flows
from its centrality of his entire edifice which means that it is not merely a question of an
instrument. An interesting postulate of social action is the ultimate elimination of conflict
which means eliminating the factors that create a conflict situation. Since in the process of
the resolution of conflict, there is neither a winner nor a loser as in the case of a war or
a settlement arrived at by use of brutal force, this framework provides the blueprint for
lasting peace. This also means that peace is intrinsically linked to non-violent action and a
commitment of resolution of conflict only by peaceful means. As such, non-violence ceases
to be a negative concept and has a positive dimension in the context of peaceful evolution
of society. For Gandhi, means and ends are inextricably linked. Gandhi’s conception of ends
and means ought to be understood also in the context of his insistence that all of us are
68 Gandhi’s Political Thought

bearers of relative truth and none can stake a claim to know the absolute truth. Gandhi
places the end of swaraj and points out that its realisation would depend on the adoption
of the right means, the adoption of ahimsa. Gandhi considers non-violence as an all-
pervasive and eternal principle and the practice of non-violence requires moral discipline that
would control passions and emotions. He emphasises self-suffering and moral discipline to
become a non-violent satyagrahi and recommends voluntary poverty, voluntary simplicity
and voluntary suffering as the key to attain this moral discipline. He also stresses on purity
of means for realising the end.

6.7 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

1. How does Gandhi understand conflict and what are the means to resolve conflict?
2. Why does Gandhi insist on purity of means for realising the end?
3. What is the link between ahimsa and swaraj?

SUGGESTED READINGS
Bandyopadhyaya, J., Social and Political Thought of Gandhi, Bombay, Allied Publishers,
1969.
Bhattacharya, B., Evolution of the Political Philosophy of Gandhi, Calcutta, Calcutta Book
House, 1969.
Bhattarcharya, S., Mahatma Gandhi: The Journalist, Bombay, Times of India Press, 1962.
Bondurant, J. V., Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict, Berkeley,
University of California Press, 1967.
Chatterjee, P., Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse, Delhi,
Oxford University Press, 1986.
Dalton, D., India’s Idea of Freedom, Gurgaon, Academic Press, 1982.
—————., Mahatma Gandhi: Nonviolent Power in Action, New York, Columbia University
Press, 1993.
Heater, D., Citizenship: The Civic Ideal in World History, Politics and Education, London,
Orient Longman, 1990.
Iyer, R. N., The Moral and Political Thought of Gandhi, Bombay, Oxford University Press,
1973.
Mukherjee, S., Gandhian Thought: Marxist Interpretation, Delhi, Deep and Deep, 1991.
Pantham, T, and Deutsch, K., (ed), Political Thought in Modern India, New Delhi, Sage,
1986.
Parekh, B., Gandhi’s Political Philosophy, Notre Dame, Notre Dame University Press,
1989.
Woodcock, G., Mohandas Gandhi, New York, Fontana, 1971.
Means and Ends 69

(Endnotes)
1 Lenin writes in the pamphlet: There have been many wars in history which, notwithstanding all the
horrors, cruelties, miseries and tortures, inevitably connected with every war, had a progressive character,
i.e. they served in the development of mankind, aiding in the destruction of extremely pernicious and
reactionary institutions… or helping to remove the most barbarous despotism in Europe.
2 “…not all means are permissible. When we say that the end justifies the means then for us the
conclusion follows that the great revolutionary end spurns those bad means and ways which set one
part of the working class against other parts, or attempt to make the masses happy without their
participation, or lower the faith of the masses in themselves and their organisation, replacing it by the
worship of the leaders”.
3 Saul D. Alinsky (1909-72), a social ativist of the United States organised the poor and the underprivileged
as citizens, to get their social and political rights, mainly in and around Chicago to begin with, and then
spreading the movement to the rest of the US and was jailed many times during his long years of
struggle, analyses the problems of the relationship between ends and means both from a pragmatic and
strategic terms. He links it to the resources available and the various choices one has in a given situation.
In this choice the important consideration is the achievability and the cost involved and the question
of means arises in the context of if it could be pursued successfully. In the context of means and ends,
Alinksy is flexible enough to argue that the process of life and social strife is complicated, corrupt and
violent and in this context, a practical revolutionary is to ask the question as to what particular kind
of means will bring about salvation in a particular situation. To discuss the entire ethics of means and
ends without linking it to real life experience would be sterile. Such discussants are by and large
onlookers and are not faced with the actual organisational problems of real action. Their debate centres
around a hypothetical and non existent situation and the entire end result that “the means-and-end
moralists, are non doers always wind up on their ends without any means”. The ethics of the means
normally leads to a situation where such moralists stand with the haves and not with the have-nots.
Alinksy places them along with the allies of the haves. Remarking succinctly, he says “the most unethical
of all means is the non use of any means”. On the basis of this action oriented philosophy, Alinksy
provides a number of rules to resolve the apparent conflict between the ethics of ends and means. One
important consideration is one’s involvement and interest and also the presence and absence of the
debater from the scene of action. The second depends on the political position of all those who sit on
judgement. The example that he provides in the context of the supporters and opponents of Nazi
resistance and whether they were selfless or patriotic or courageous persons depended on which side
of the conflict they were. The third rule in a war situation, where the end virtually justifies any means
and here he argues that the Geneva conventions of treatment of prisoners or nuclear weapons are
observed only because there is probability of retaliation. The fourth aspect that judgement made must
be in the context of the time of the event and the action required is elasticity, as flexibility is one of
the basic requirements of decision making at a particular time of crisis. Alinsky gives the example of
Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus which meant defying a directive of the Chief Justice of the
United States and the illegal use of military commissions to try civilians, which was in total variance,
to what Lincoln did in a similar situation earlier on where he categorically said laws must be religiously
observed. Another example is of Jefferson who was critical of Washington for basing his policies only
on national self interest instead of world interest. But when he assumed the office of the President his
policies were solely decided on national interest. The fifth rule is where there is a large number of means
available in that situation use the method which is the most effective. The cardinal principle here is
“ethics is doing what is best for the most”. The sixth rule revolves around the importance of the desired
end and less is the importance of such an end more one can debate about the ethical dimensions of
means. Seventh, is related to the possibility of success and failure as Alinsky remarks the judgement
of history leans heavily on the outcome of success or failure. It spells the difference between the traitor
and the patriotic hero. There can be no such thing as a successful traitor or if succeeds, he becomes
the founding father. The eighth rule of the ethics of means and ends depends on the situation of timing
of imminent defeat or imminent victory. Morality or immorality depends on circumstances as “from the
beginning of time killing has always been regarded as justifiable if committed in self defence”. The ninth
rule is effective means are normally considered unethical by the opponents. The tenth rule depends on
the means at one’s disposal and one’s capacity to present it in as much moralistic terms as possible.
For an activist, the most important consideration is the means that are available for reaching a particular
goal. The question is not what weapon to use, but what is the most appropriate means available for
action?
UNIT 7 LIBERTY AND EQUALITY
Structure
7.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives

7.2 Individual Freedom and Swaraj

7.3 Individual Conscience and Freedom
7.4 Equality as an All-Pervasive Value
7.5 Economic Equality
7.6 Racial and Caste Equality
7.7 Conclusion
7.8 Summary
7.9 Terminal Questions
Suggested Readings

7.1 INTRODUCTION
Gandhi described himself as a practical idealist, yet there is a larger projection of an ideal
world based on human equality and freedom. His philosophy begins with the expression of
deep love and respect for the neighbour which is the basis of concealing a universal
association of free individuals superseding the artificial barriers of race, creed, wealth,
power, class and nation. All these form the basis of his doctrine of universal brotherhood
as any of these categories which tries to extract or dominate is a form of gross injustice
and such a situation of exploitation can only be maintained by force. In such a situation there
is a continuous process of hatred, suspicion and fear of losing on the part of the possessed
in the hand of the dispossessed who are the overwhelming majority of the humankind. For
Gandhi, a good society could be attained if it could realise liberty, equality and fraternity
through non-violent means. This is the lesson, he observed to the Indian princes in 1942
that Europe has learnt from the French Revolution of 1789. Gandhi distinguishes between
the fuller moral connotation of freedom and the narrower conception of individual or national
freedom while analysing swaraj or self-rule. Asked to explain the meaning of purna swaraj
in 1931, he says:
The root meaning of swaraj is self rule. Swaraj may, therefore be rendered as disciplined
rule from within and purna means “complete”. “Independence” has no such limitation.
Independence may mean licence to do as you like. Swaraj is positive. Independence is
negative. Purna Swaraj does not exclude association with any nation, much less with
England. But it can only mean association for mutual benefit and at will. Thus there are
countries which are said to be independent but which have no Purna Swaraj e.g. Nepal.
The word Swaraj is a sacred word, a vedic word, meaning self rule and self restraint, and
not freedom from all restraint which “independence” often means.
Swaraj or self-rule is the core of freedom and is the crux of real home rule. Just as with
Vivekananda and Aurobindo, for Gandhi, right conduct is right form of civilisation. Freedom
Liberty and Equality 71

is not to be left alone but one that will enable the individual to cultivate love and service.
Individual and society are complementary and a society, where citizens are not free cannot
be a good society. He does not agree with the liberal conception, according to Terchek,
in two ways: how people are treated and how are individual choices and capacity to make
choices affected by the institutional practices and asymmetrical distribution of power. The
more mature Gandhi, observes Dalton, establishes the link between non-violence and the
preservation of liberty seeing the former as the bedrock of freedom. Yet in his commitment
to non-violence he does not sacrifice the social and political freedom of the individual: “…to
make mistakes as a freeman… is better than being in bondage in order to avoid them (for)
the mind of a man who remains good under compulsion cannot improve, in fact it worsens.
And when compulsion is removed, all the defects well up to the surface with even greater
force” (Harijan 29th September 1946).
Aims and Objectives
After reading this Unit, you would be able to understand:
 Gandhi’s thoughts on the concepts of liberty and equality
 Gandhi’s notion of individual freedom and swaraj
 Gandhi’s concept of economic, racial and caste equality.

7.2 INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND SWARAJ

Gandhi rejects the notion of unbridled individualism and stresses on the notion of the
individual as a social self. Within this framework he analyses freedom as not being left alone
or to abdicate moral obligation towards others who are equally entitled to freedom for
themselves. A free person can choose to enter into any association with others but cannot
simply cut off from others. This is true of nations also. Gandhi’s equation of freedom with
self-rule is to underline the intrinsic link between freedom and obligation to others and to
oneself, without abandoning the voluntary basis of freedom. Self-rule means voluntary
internalisation of one’s obligations towards others and that a free person and a nation cannot
be selfish and isolationist.
Gandhi emphasises on the voluntary nature of freedom as a human being by nature is an
autonomous moral agent having the capacity for choices and freedom to experiment. The
individual that Gandhi has in mind is the social self and like Green, he too argues that it is
the freedom which the individual enjoys that makes possible for the survival and the
continuance of society. Gandhi writes, “Individual freedom alone can make a man voluntarily
surrender himself completely to the service of society. If it is wrested from him, he becomes
an automaton and society is ruined. No society can possibly be built on a denial of
individual freedom. It is contrary to the very nature of man. Just as man will not grow horns
or a tail so he will not exist as man if he has no mind of his own. In reality even those
who do not believe in the liberty of the individual believe in their own”. For Gandhi,
freedom is rooted in human nature and is to be claimed as part of self-awareness earned
through self-effort; conversely, any external threat to human freedom arises not from
circumstances outside one’s control but by recognising our weaknesses in the first place.
Self-purification is therefore integral to the concept of swaraj as that gives us strength and
capacity to translate the abstract notion of freedom into a practical reality in society and
politics.
72 Gandhi’s Political Thought

Gandhi wrote extensively on national freedom and self-rule but these were applicable to the
individual as well. He considers the individual to be the bedrock of swaraj and that
“swaraj of a people means the sum total of the swaraj (self-rule) of individuals; government
over self is the truest swaraj, it is synonymous with moksha or salvation. He considers
individual swaraj as logically and conceptually prior to the notion of collective or national
swaraj. He also clarifies that “self-government means continuous effort to be independent
of government control whether it is foreign government or whether it is national. Swaraj
government will be a sorry affair if people look up to it for regulation of every detail of life”.
Gandhi’s conception of swaraj includes four aspects: Truth, Non-violence, political and
economic independence. Swaraj would be incomplete without realisation of each, since
each, for Gandhi, is interwoven with all. His conception of swaraj makes the same
distinction between ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ forms of freedom which Vivekananda and Aurobindo
conceive of. Vivekananda’s distinction involves a relegation of political freedom and national
independence to a subsidiary position. But as the struggle for national independence gathers
momentum merely relying on ‘inner’ freedom does not seem enough. Aurobindo’s identification
of national with spiritual freedom takes on an extreme form of religious nationalism which
threatens individual liberty, which he subsequently abandons. Gandhi never espouses this
view of freedom as he consistently emphasises on the supreme importance of a supra-
political form of freedom which very few Indian leaders concur with. Dalton observes that,
Swaraj, for Gandhi, means acquiring inner freedom which means that Indians gain sovereignty
over themselves and over their nation.
Swaraj would become a reality only if people have the capacity to regulate and control
authority. Real swaraj, for Gandhi “will come not by the acquisition of authority by a few
but by the acquisition of the capacity by all to resist authority when it is abused…. Swaraj
for me means freedom for the meanest of my countrymen. I am not interested in freeing
India merely from the English yoke. I am bent upon freeing India from any yoke whatsoever.
I have no desire to exchange ‘king log’ for ‘king stork’. Elaborating further he points out
“there is no freedom for India so long as one man, no matter how highly placed he may
be, holds the hollow of his hands the life, property and honour of millions of human beings.
It is an artificial, unnatural and uncivilized institution. The end of it is an essential preliminary
to swaraj”.
Gandhi does not consider good government as better than self-government as there is a
connection between individual and national self-rule. The evolution of the nation and its
component parts, the individuals are inter-twined; one cannot advance without the other.
Individual self-rule is included in swaraj. Self awareness, self-discipline and self-respect are
key components of swaraj. Fundamental to swaraj is the essence of freedom which is
more important than the social, political and economic liberty. Swaraj “is infinitely greater
than and includes independence”.
“Let there be no mistake about my conception of Swaraj. It is complete independence of
alien control and complete economic independence. So, at one end you have political
independence; at the other, economic. It has two other ends. One of them is moral and
social, the corresponding end is Dharma, i.e. religion is the highest sense of the term. It
includes Hinduism, Islam, Christianity etc., but is superior to them all. You may recognize
it by the name of Truth, not the honesty of experience, but the living Truth that pervades
everything and will survive all destruction and all transformation. Moral and social uplift may
be recognized by the term as we are used to, i.e. Non-violence. Let us call this square of
Swaraj, which will be out of shape if any of its angles is untrue. We cannot achieve this
Liberty and Equality 73

political and economic freedom without Truth and Non-violence in concrete terms, without
a living faith in God and hence moral and social elevation’ (Harijan, 2nd January, 1937).

7.3 INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE AND FREEDOM

A person is truly free if he listens to his conscience or the inner voice, the only tyrant that
one would accept. He advises every individual to weigh his circumstances in the court of
conscience according to the criteria of satya and ahimsa and the obligation of sarvodaya.
This would redefine radically both the means and the ends of action providing the basis of
fundamental reform of society. He advises political workers to engage wholeheartedly in the
Constructive Programme and bread labour and to sacrifice their comforts in the service of
the poorest of the poor.
Gandhi links his views on conscience with his arguments for satyagraha. “When people
cease to think for themselves and have everything regulated for them, it becomes necessary
at times to assert the right of individuals to act in defiance of public opinion or law, which
is another name for public opinion. When individuals so act, they claim to have acted in
obedience to conscience”. He expects the satyagrahi to be honest to their deepest
convictions and ready to suffer on behalf of their commitments. Gandhi goes on to argue
that those who witness the suffering will be prompted by their conscience and be converted.
A satyagrahi, when he sacrifices and voluntarily suffers, appeals not only to the reason but
also the heart of others and this brings people on the same moral plane.
Like Thoreau, Gandhi does not consider the government to be important in the day-to-day
activities of the individual. The disinterest and lack of enthusiasm towards the government
that is found in perceptions of both Thoreau and Gandhi is because of their belief that all
states, including the democratic ones, are the embodiment of force and physical strength,
concerned with functions related to law and order, and protection of property. Laws,
policies and associations are essentially coercive, stifling and hindering individuality and
spontaneity. Thoreau sees law as a form of control and is not different from any kind of
coercion and observes that ‘the law will never make men free. It is men who have got to
make law free’.
Thoreau had insisted that persons with conscience should disassociate from the state as that
enabled them to lead lives untainted by the evils which the state sponsors and promotes.
The government is incompetent to control the diabolical forces that it releases among
individuals. It is for this reason that he suggests withdrawal and reliance on one’s inner
resources. Thoreau perceives individual conscience as inseparable from common standards
and humane sensibilities and since the conscience is above the state, it is the true criterion
of what is politically just and right. It is important that individuals perceive themselves first
as individuals and only then as citizens or subjects. Conscience, which for him is the inner
voice and the ‘genius’, as an exclusive and purely personal thing, is expressed through acts
of civil disobedience. Conscience, for Thoreau is secular, the ability to do what one thinks
to be right. However, his notion of morality and politics is subjective and anti-legalistic as
he does not acknowledge the existence of general principles or universal standards of right,
including the Bible and the constitution. For Thoreau, conscience has three implications for
politics: first it becomes clear as to why does not restrict conscientious action to non-
violence and passive disobedience, as conscience may demand more than non complicity or
withdrawal. He does not rule out the use of violence and force if conscience demands. In
fact, he views conflict as the gist of life itself and any action that flows from one’s
74 Gandhi’s Political Thought

convictions is good and it is for this reason, that violence is necessary. Second, intolerance
is the crux of a militant conscience. Belief in one’s convictions makes tolerance impossible.
Third, in light of his anti-institutionalism he contends that solitary action rather than collective
ones as good (Rosenblum, 1981, pp.101-03).
Gandhi differs from Thoreau and is more like Green, when he links individual actions to
public interest or sarvodaya though he is certain that the dictates of individual conscience,
if genuine, would culminate in conduct that would arouse and appeal to the conscience of
others. Moreover, his emphasis on ahimsa as the means to be used in the vindication of
satya makes him believe that resistance to injustice, properly conducted, could not lead to
general anarchy. He regards satya and ahimsa as universal principles with an inseparable
link between them. The omnipresence of truth and non-violence is derived from another
basic foundation of his theoretical edifice, that human beings are amenable to moral
persuasion. The individual, a moral and a social person, follows the paths of truth and non-
violence since it is the best possible way of leading a good and satisfactory life. It enhances
human dignity, relative equality and human perfectibility, as it allows for individual initiative
and recognition and provides a mechanism for resolving conflicts in the complex modern
world. It is the logical culmination of democratic principles based on active citizen’s
participation and civility leading to self-realisation, self-awareness and responsibility.
The individual, for Gandhi, is the bearer of moral authority and has therefore, the right and
the duty to judge the state and its laws by the standards of dharma which in turn is based
on satya and ahimsa. The individual can challenge and even disobey the state, as all states
violate satya and ahimsa. Gandhi, like Raz, places considerable emphasis on autonomy as
he pays attention to the role of institutions or the way resources affect choices that are
available to the individual. But he differs from conventional theories of autonomy as he
emphasises on duties along with rights and considers duty to act morally regardless of the
consequences as the highest. Another difference is the stress on individuals as equal
members of a harmonious and interdependent cosmos rather than as abstracted selves.
Persons achieve good and become complete only in association with others based on
mutual respect and cooperation. Such a community ought to be open and pluralistic. It
would have to be tolerant of diverse conceptions of good and ensure that its institutional
practices do not become obstacles to the ordinary persons’ pursuit of their good. The gist
of tolerance is the belief that differences can be resolved through reason and not by force
and this belief is based on the faith that ultimately truth prevails. Tolerance allows for co-
existence of competing forms of partisanship while civility enables the transcendence of
partisanship for the pursuit of common good. As Iyer says, “Tolerance and civility both point
out to the limitations of human powers, the folly of dogmatism and the futility of violence,
the common search for truth by equal citizens in the service of common good. They provide
the basis of respect for the inalienable freedom and the fundamental equality of all citizens
united in their concern for truth and peace”.

7.4 EQUALITY AS AN ALL-PERVASIVE VALUE

The crux of freedom, for Gandhi, is not being unrestrained or unhindered but to cultivate
love and service as these are the quintessence of human nature. Freedom is worthwhile as
long as it fulfils basic needs in dignity. Gandhi pleads for both freedom and equality of status
which he thinks would make it possible for the establishment of a universal community of
free persons. Those who accept such a community would have to overcome the artificial
barriers of race and creed, wealth and power, class and nation. If one segment augments
Liberty and Equality 75

for itself at the expense of others it would be adopting an undemocratic method and would
have to use arms to defend the injustice that it perpetrates. The possessing class would
always be in fear of dispossession and the oppressed would be storing up resentment.
Gandhi laid emphasis on equal claim that every individual is entitled to by birth and he also
acknowledges that in spite of many setbacks, the human civilisation has enhanced the
philosophy of oneness and that is how we see that the ideals of justice, equality and
freedom have been accepted by the major philosophies and social movements. This is also
a reflection of the growing consciousness of being human which had to fight continuously
a process which tried to retard them from this noble mission.
Gandhi’s talisman of keeping the face of the poorest in mind while making policies and in
undertaking any social reform is with the concern to bring the marginalised and the most
vulnerable into the mainstream of politics and society. He champions the basic rights of the
untouchables and women, as they have been objects of domination and humiliation. He
rejects ascriptive properties such as gender, class, birth, caste, education or nationality that
can justify unequal treatment and disqualify some as moral agents.
I believe implicitly that all men are born equal. All… have the same sort as any other. And
it is because I believe in this inherent equality of men that I fight the doctrine of superiority…
that I delight in calling myself a scavenger, a spinner, a weaver, a farmer and a labourer….
I consider that it is unmanly for any person to claim superiority over a fellow human
being…. He who claims superiority at once forfeits his claim to be called a man. That is
my opinion.
For Gandhi, equality logically follows from non-violence; non-violence entails non-exploitation
and non-exploitation is impossible without equality and thus equality and non-violence are
interdependent. In Gandhi’s perception, freedom and equality are also inter-related; without
social and economic equality, there cannot be freedom and without freedom, there can be
no social and economic equality. Thus, in Gandhi’s thought, freedom, equality and non-
violence mutually depend on one another and together constitute justice, which is the basis
of good society.

7.5 ECONOMIC EQUALITY

Of all the dimensions of equality, Gandhi focuses most on economic equality and sees
economic equality as the basis of non-violence and freedom. He considers economic
equality “as the master key to non-violent independence. Working for economic equality
means abolishing the eternal conflict between capital and labour. It means the levelling down
of the few rich in whose hands is concentrated the bulk of the nation’s wealth on the one
hand and the levelling up of the semi-starved naked millions on the other. A non-violent
system of government is clearly an impossibility so long as the wide gulf between the rich
and the hungry millions persists. The contrast between the palaces of New Delhi and the
miserable hovels of the poor labouring class nearby cannot last one day in a free India in
which the poor will enjoy the same power as the richest in the land”.
According to Gandhi, violence stems from inequality, the wide gap that exists between the
possessing and the non-violence and unless the root cause of violence is weeded out
through non-violent means, one cannot rule out the possibility of violent revolution. In
Gandhi’s ideal society there would be absolute equality of incomes for all types of work and
for all individuals. Believing in the concept of bread labour and dignity of work, Gandhi
insists that same amount of work in any occupation ought to be rewarded by the same
76 Gandhi’s Political Thought

amount of wages. Echoing Ruskin, Gandhi observes that “if India is to live any exemplary
life of independence which would be the envy of the world, all the bhangis, doctors,
lawyers, teachers, merchants and others would get the same wages for an honest day’s
work”.
Gandhi knew that such an ideal would not be realisable in the foreseeable future but that
does not justify the gross inequalities that existed in the contemporary human society nor is
the argument that some need more than others is acceptable. He points out “let no one try
to justify the glaring difference between the classes and the masses, the prince and the
pauper, by saying that the former need the more….The contrast between the rich and the
poor today is a painful sight. The poor villages…produce the food and go hungry. They
produce milk and their children have to go without it”.
Gandhi clarifies equal distribution as his ideal and till that is realised he would like to settle
for work for equitable distribution as that would not only ensure elimination of gross
disparities in income but also allow every member of the society to receive enough goods
and services to meet his basic requirements and enjoy a certain minimum standard of living.
“The real implication of equal distribution is that each man shall have the wherewithal to
supply all his natural needs and no more….To bring this ideal into being the entire social
order has got to be reconstructed. A society based on Non-violence cannot nurture any
other ideal”.
Gandhi considers accumulation of wealth as immoral which is why he proposes trusteeship.
To achieve equitable distribution he proposes four specific measures: (a) Bread Labour or
manual labour which for Gandhi would remove exploitation. “If all worked for their bread,
distinctions of rank would be obliterated; the rich would still be there, but they would deem
themselves only trustees of their property, and would use it mainly in the public interest”.
Bread labour would reduce not only economic inequality but also social inequality and in
the Indian context, it would undermine caste-based inequalities. Bread labour ensures that
none would be rich and poor; high or low and touchable and untouchable. (b) Voluntary
renunciation, a value that Gandhi reiterates from the Isopanishad of not coveting the
possessions of others and not accumulating beyond one’s basic needs. Personal wants ought
to be kept to the barest minimum keeping in mind the poverty of one’s fellow human beings
and try for a new mode of life. (c) Satyagraha to resolve industrial and agricultural disputes
as legitimate and the proposal of trusteeship to resolve the conflict between labour and
capital with the core idea of non-appropriation by owners. He writes, “If, however, in spite
of the utmost efforts the rich do not become guardians of the poor in the true sense of the
term and the latter are more and more crushed and die of hunger, what is to be done? In
trying to find the solution to this riddle I have lighted on non-violent non-cooperation and
civil disobedience as the right and infallible means. The rich cannot accumulate wealth
without the cooperation of the poor in society….If this knowledge were to penetrate to and
spread amongst the poor, they would become strong and would learn how to free
themselves by means of non-violence from the crushing inequalities which have brought them
to the verge of starvation”. (d) Governmental Action is necessary to ensure that every work
receives a minimum or living wage. Gandhi insists that his ideal would have to be realised
through non-violent measures, through moral process of transformation involving individuals
and keeping the role of the state to its minimum. This is what separates the Gandhian ideal
from the Marxists and socialists, who too emphasise on equality as a moral ideal but while
the Marxists advocate violent transformation, the socialists insist on a democratic
transformation. Gandhi categorically rejects the Marxist ideal of the dictatorship of proletariat
as a means of securing social and economic justice for the poor.
Liberty and Equality 77

7.6 RACIAL AND CASTE EQUALITY

Gandhi was well aware of the contemporary situation, the savage brutality of the Nazi’s
treatment of the Jews and was saddened by the expression of racialism anywhere in the
world. What puzzled him was that even in democracies, racialism is a fact of life both in
the British Empire and the United States. His initiation to politics was his first hand
acquaintance of racialism in South Africa and what disturbed him the most was that both
the Church and the state approved the basic denial of equality to non-European races. For
him, any form of inequality based on race and colour was unreasonable and immoral and
to fight for the redress of such illegitimate inequality and to restore one’s own dignity and
honour, he began his satyagraha movements in South Africa.
Gandhi was a great believer in the principles of democratic equality and the British
constitution providing equality and justice to all and could not accept this serious violation
when it came to involve the Indians in South Africa. When he arrived in India he was struck
by the inequalities from which the Indian society suffered and took a vow to get rid of all
stark inequalities. Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan considers that one of the greatest contributions
of Gandhi is the removal of untouchability. Gandhi went to the extent of declaring “if I have
to be reborn I should wish to be born as an untouchable so that I may share their sorrows,
sufferings and the affronts levelled at them in order that I may endeavour to free myself and
them from that miserable condition”. Though Gandhi called himself a sanatani Hindu, he
was one of the severest critics of the curse of untouchability and any other form of inequality
that was practised in the name of religion, caste, race or nation. He did not spare even the
Indian princes and was very critical of the condition of the poor in their states. He was
equally critical of the Permanent Settlement Act and the landlords and cautioned them
hoping that “they will realise before it is too late that their safety and survival are bound up
with the rapid introduction of responsible government which even the paramount power with
all its strength was obliged to concede to the provinces”.
One of the severest criticisms that Gandhi levelled against the British occupation of India
was that it has led to extreme oppression of the poor, pointing out the earlier periods of
plentiful situations; he castigated the British for keeping majority of the population in a
situation of abject poverty and a system that is totally inhuman. As Gandhi himself says, “the
semi starved millions scattered throughout the seven hundred thousand villages dotted over
a surface of nineteen hundred miles broad” and added that it is a painful phenomenon that
“those villages through no fault of their own have nearly six months in a year are idle upon
their hands”. This, he contrasts with the situation before the advent of the British, which was
self-sufficient, with no shortage of food and clothing. He blamed the British East India
Company for ruining the supplementary village industry for this situation and as a remedial
measure proposed the regeneration of the villages through the Constructive Programmes
with due emphasis on cottage industries. Gandhi was equally conscious that the problems
of thickly populated underdeveloped colonial situations like India cannot have the same
solution as the sparsely populated industrialised western countries. It is because of such an
understanding that Gandhi discounted capital intensive production mechanism and pleaded
for the revival of the village economies that were labour-intensive production as these would
guarantee meaningful employment to our teeming millions. One of his close associates, J.C.
Kumarappa, worked out the details of his plans.
78 Gandhi’s Political Thought

7.7 CONCLUSION
Gandhi puts the consciousness of enjoying freedom as the very cornerstone of human
history and accepts temporary setbacks which is led by the perpetrators of inequality and
exploitation but always had the confidence of the human ability to overcome them. In a way,
this is a dialectical understanding of the historical evolution as he gives important examples
from history like serfs becoming freemen; no more burning of heretics and the privileges of
the nobility is under increased threat; slaves are becoming equal citizens and the rich are
becoming apologetic for their wealth; Mightiest of empires are understanding the necessities
of peace and we find the dreamers dreaming about unity of the entire humankind as
increasing all the time. He is critical and cautioning of the obstacles to this cherished path
by the lust of the powerful, the lies and the hypocrisies that go by blindly following the
diktats of arrogant racialism and nationalism, but again here his optimism is demonstrated
when he talks of the inevitable march of democracy and increasing awareness that give the
poorest of the poor the essential right to food, sunshine in their houses and hope, dignity
and beauty in their existence equal to others. This optimism of Gandhi allows him to
transcend the immediate setbacks and retreat towards equality and freedom and keep the
torch alive as the servant of entire humanity.

7.8 SUMMARY
Gandhi rejects the notion of unbridled individualism and stresses on the notion of the
individual as a social self. Within this framework he analyses freedom as not being left alone
or to abdicate moral obligation towards others who are equally entitled to freedom for
themselves. A free person can choose to enter into any association with others but cannot
simply cut off from others. This is true of nations also. Gandhi’s equation of freedom with
self-rule is to underline the intrinsic link between freedom and obligation to others and to
oneself, without abandoning the voluntary basis of freedom. Self-rule means voluntary
internalisation of one’s obligations towards others and that a free person and a nation cannot
be selfish and isolationist. He considers the individual to be the bedrock of swaraj. The
individual, for Gandhi, is the bearer of moral authority and has therefore, the right and the
duty to judge the state and its laws by the standards of dharma which in turn is based on
satya and ahimsa. The individual can challenge and even disobey the state, as all states
violate satya and ahimsa.
Gandhi pleads for both freedom and equality of status which he thinks would make it
possible for the establishment of a universal community of free persons. Gandhi’s talisman
of keeping the face of the poorest in mind while making policies and in undertaking any
social reform is with the concern to bring the marginalised and the most vulnerable into the
mainstream of politics and society. Of all the dimensions of equality, Gandhi focuses most
on economic equality and views it as the basis of non-violence and freedom.

7.9 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

1) What is the link between individual freedom and swaraj according to Gandhi?
2) Explain how individual conscience is the basis of freedom.
3) Why does Gandhi consider equality as an all-pervasive value?
4) Why is economic equality important and how does Gandhi propose to achieve it?
5) Explain Gandhi’s views on racial and caste equality.
Liberty and Equality 79

SUGGESTED READINGS
Andrews, C.F., Mahatma Gandhi’s Ideas, New York, Macmillan, 1930.
Bandyopadhyaya, J., Social and Political Thought of Gandhi, Bombay, Allied Publishers,
1969.
Bhattacharya, B., Evolution of the Political Philosophy of Gandhi, Calcutta, Calcutta Book
House, 1969.
Bondurant, J. V., Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict, Berkeley,
University of California Press, 1967.
Chatterjee, M., Gandhi’s Religious Thought, London, Macmillan, 1983.
Chatterjee, P., Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse, Delhi,
Oxford University Press, 1986.
Dalton, D., India’s Idea of Freedom, Gurgaon, Academic Press, 1982.
Haksar, V., “Rawls and Gandhi on Civil Disobedience”, Inquiry, 19, 1976.
—————., “Coercive Proposals: Rawls and Gandhi”, Political Theory, 4, 1976.
Iyer, R. N., The Moral and Political Thought of Gandhi, Bombay, Oxford University Press,
1973.
Pantham, T, and Deutsch, K., (ed), Political Thought in Modern India, New Delhi, Sage,
1986.
Parekh, B., Gandhi’s Political Philosophy, Notre Dame, Notre Dame University Press,
1989.
Woodcock, G., Mohandas Gandhi, New York, Fontana, 1971.
UNIT 8 POWER AND AUTHORITY
Structure
8.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives

8.2 Spiritualising Political life and Political Institutions

8.3 Concept of Power
8.4 Concept of Truth as Authority and Individual Conscience
8.5 State, Obligation and Civil Disobedience
8.6 Authority in Anarchist Society
8.7 Conclusion
8.8 Summary
8.9 Terminal Questions
Suggested Readings

8.1 INTRODUCTION
Gandhi’s views on power and conflict resolution puts him apart from all the other major
theories developed in contemporary times. His serious reservations about the desirability of
what constitutes the major components of modern civilisation allows him to transcend
known categories of power and enables him to develop a conceptual framework which is
in total variance from the other dominant views. The starting point of his view can be traced
back to the Indian roots of maya or illusion and moha or delusion. Gandhi uses these two
categories as being symptomatic of modern civilisation because within this neither an
individual human salvation nor a collective well-being can be conceived. One can only think
in terms of an idealised world of harmony and bliss if an alternative thought process can
be conceived and popularised. Modern civilisation, according to Gandhi, is not conducive
to reaching higher end of life as it perpetuates false consciousness and encourages the
pursuit of materialistic ends. However, Gandhi is also aware of the fact that it is practically
impossible to go back to the golden past. Nor can one do away with all the facets of the
modern civilisation by a quick violent intervention. The satanic nature of the modern
civilisation pervades the entire evolution of Gandhi’s formulation of power and authority in
a reformed political order. The major characteristics of the degradation of the modern
civilisation are discovered in the soullessness of the entire political process which inevitably
makes the entire state system corrupt and irresponsive to the genuine needs of the people.
In such an order, all the major political institutions become merely instruments for pursuing
power, to enhance one’s own authority and acquire ownership of property. As a philosophical
anarchist, the essential nature of the state as striving for more concentration of power and
egoism is writ large in Gandhi’s entire philosophy. He concedes the point that the pursuit
of power is an endemic human desire but he was equally careful on emphasising the
countervailing and more effective role of moral values which may create a new category of
power which will be in consonance with individual fulfilment and a humane collective face.
Power and Authority 81

Aims and Objectives

After reading this unit, you would be able to understand:
 Gandhi’s intention behind spiritualising politics.
 Gandhi’s concept of power
 His concept of making truth as authority.
 His concept of Authority in an Anarchic society.

8.2 SPIRITUALISING POLITICAL LIFE AND

POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS
Iyer rightly observed that, Gandhi challenges the conventional view of the nature and sphere
of politics, widens the concept of power and undermines the distinction between private and
public morals, religious values and political norms, and ethical principles and political
expediency. In 1915, he declares that his aim was “to spiritualise” political life and political
institutions. He underlines the importance of religion to politics observing that politics-
divorced from religion- is completely meaningless. Politics is a part of individual’s being and
cannot be separated from the rest of life, in particular the deepest things of life. Gandhi
approaches politics in a religious spirit: “I could not be leading a religious life unless I
identified myself with the whole of mankind and that I could not do unless I took part in
politics. The whole gamut of man’s activities today constitutes an indivisible whole….I do
not know any religion apart from activity. It provides a moral basis to all other activities
without which life would be a maze of sound and fury signifying nothing”.
Gandhi insists on the need to look at political work within the framework of social and
moral progress as power resides in the people and not in legislative assemblies. He
dismisses disparagingly power politics as irrelevant and insists that “political power is not an
end but one of the means of enabling people to better their condition in every department
of life”. Like Huxley, not only does he distinguish between power politics and goodness of
power but also does not see power politics as being co-extensive with the whole of life and
the entire gamut of human activity in society. Politics divorced from religious values is a
cynical game of power played according to its own immoral rules under the guise of
morality. When Gandhi stresses on religion as the bedrock of politics what he means are
religious values that are common to all religions rather than any kind of sectarianism. It
means a belief in the “ordered moral government of the universe” as “when morality
incarnates itself in a living man it becomes religion, because it binds, it holds, it sustains him
in the hour of trial”. True religion and true politics is concerned primarily with human life and
action and both must have a common basis in a common morality determined by a common
set of values. Gandhi, however, rejects the idea of state religion even if a country has only
one religion. Sectarian religion is purely personal and has no place in politics. “A society or
a group which depends partly or wholly on state aid for the existence of religion does not
deserve or have any religion worth the name. In reality, there are “as many religions as there
are individuals”.
Gandhi rejects the attempts to compartmentalise human life as that leads to segregation of
politics from religion. “Politics, like religion, is ever concerned with the happiness of the
toiling masses, a means to the realisation of the highest realizable in life”. Echoing the
sentiments of Aristotle and Gramsci, Gandhi considers public life as the arena for bringing
82 Gandhi’s Political Thought

out the highest spiritual qualities of an individual. “Politics is art of doing on the largest scale
what is right, and, as an affair of principle, it touches the eternal interests and religious
sentiments”. Politics is not the art of capturing, holding and managing governmental power
but the art of transforming social relations in terms of justice; “a non-violent revolution is not
a programme of ‘seizure of power’, but it is a programme of transformation of relationships”.

8.3 CONCEPT OF POWER

Gandhi identifies two kinds of power: one which is obtained by the fear of punishment and
the other by acts of love. He points out in 1947 that “by abjuring power and by devoting
ourselves to pure and selfless service of voters, we can guide and influence them. It would
give us far more real power than we shall have by going into the government. But a stage
may come, when the people themselves feel and say that they want us and no one else to
wield the power…. It is my firm view that we should keep altogether aloof from power
politics and its contagion. To set our own house in order is the first indispensable requisite,
if we want to influence political power…to regard adult suffrage as a means for the capture
of political power, would be to put it to a corrupt use....Today, politics has become
corrupt….The greater our inner purity, the greater shall be our hold on the people, without
any effort on our part”.
Stressing on the close link between religion and politics, Gandhi suspects politics as
understood in the ordinary sense as power over the lives of the people that is vested in
governments and is sought by legislatures. He rejects the notion of power for one’s selfish
gains and motives devoid of public good. Power for Gandhi, like Rousseau, lies in being
an actively engaged citizen with a capacity of public involvement and political participation
rather than being a passive acquiescent subject. If individuals recognise the power in their
hands and use it constructively to bring out sarvodaya or good of all through non-violent
means against injustice and repression of the state, then the monopolistic nature of state
power could be reduced undermining morally and materially its coercive authority. This
would ensure purification of politics which can be achieved through constructive programmes.
Power based on coercion and hierarchy only ensures spiritual poverty of the society.
Society ought to be changed through the efforts of morally evolved persons; if not, it would
be diseased. Gandhi asserts the primacy of social power and political power and insists that
social and political power is co-extensive. Politics has to be subordinated to morals; of
doing the right thing and readily suffer for one’s beliefs or to withdraw into oneself to find
a basis for action. There is no justification for abdication of one’s responsibility or a passive
resort to continued inaction. Gandhi sees a close link between firm and pure intentions and
the capacity for effective choices and decisions on the basis of what is considered right and
necessary. Gandhi rejects the view that politics is intrinsically sinful or inherently moral or
that it is essentially pragmatic with some utilitarian or prudential justification. For Gandhi,
politics is inherently impure and is never ideal but could be purified by repudiating the
distinction between the public and the private, political and personal morality. Impure
politics, for Gandhi, is power seeking that hinders the relationships between individuals. A
leader must seek acceptance and maintain it not just through reasoning with the people but
by identifying with their dreams, activities and sufferings. The life of a leader ought to be
one of continued sacrifice of the self for the immediate service of his fellow beings. A leader
must never hold office or occupy any formal position of power.
Gandhi points out that while it is natural for those in authority to use force but if those who
obey the commands of the government also decide to express their will by physical force
Power and Authority 83

then it would become impossible for sanity. Individual citizens have the alternative of using
‘soul force’ which they should and to disregard non-violence is the surest way to destruction.
He stresses on the need to make a conscious choice between coercion and peaceful
conversion and stakes his preference for the latter as it is enduring: “True democracy or the
Swaraj of the masses can never come through untruthful and violent means, for the simple
reason that the natural corollary to their use would be to remove all opposition through the
suppression or extermination of the antagonists. That does not make for individual freedom.
Individual freedom can have the fullest play only under a regime of unadulterated ahimsa”.
Non-violence must be the means to influence power politics and a non-violent state would
be the one based on the will of the people with no infringement on just rights, without
exploitation and without inequality, namely the disparity between the rich and the poor, and
the privileged and the underprivileged. Inequality exists as long as private property exists as
that leads to sentiments of possession. Only through a detached attitude towards property,
an attitude that possessions ought to service the needs of others can a non-violent society
succeed. Differences must be settled through reason and not by force in the belief that truth
would be ultimately vindicated and that is the essence of tolerance. Competing ideas could
be transcended with the help of civility in the hope of reaching common good and that
ensures respect for the inalienable freedom and the fundamental equality of all citizens.
Dogmatism conceals one’s fallibility preventing the expression of a sense of human solidarity.
Exploitation could be reduced if individuals are allowed to freely develop their moral
capacities and not depend on the state. Increase in the power of the state is the greatest
fear that Gandhi has, “because, although while apparently doing good by minimizing
exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies at
the root of all progress”. For Gandhi, if there is greater decentralisation of power in any
society, then there are greater the chances for the collective pursuit of truth or satya through
non-violence or ahimsa among individual citizens. For citizens to accept the authority of the
state and render obligation depends on the extent to which the laws and the policies of the
state are just and non-repressive respectively. Gandhi categorically asserts that “a government
is an instrument of service only in so far as it is based upon the will and consent of the
people. It is an instrument of oppression where it enforces submission at the point of the
bayonet”. While all states misuse power, it is the citizen(s) whoever retains his moral
authority which is why a citizen can never afford to allow his conscience to become silent.
He insists that a citizen is responsible for the acts of the government, even if these acts are
of minimal nature. Citizens are collectively responsible for the acts of the government and
for the very nature of the state.

8.4 CONCEPT OF TRUTH AS AUTHORITY AND

INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE
For Gandhi, authority is to be understood with reference to satya, which he considers as
the supreme value in ethics, politics and religion, as the raison d’ être of all existence, as
it is ‘philosopher’s stone’, the sole talisman available to mortal human beings. It is the
highest of human ends, all important and all inclusive principle surpassing all other values and
leading eventually to emancipation. This belief is an underlying axiom of Indian tradition and
is common to Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism. For Gandhi, morality is the basis of all
things and truth is the quintessence of morality. Satya is derived from Sat which implies that
truth alone exists and everything else is an illusion.
84 Gandhi’s Political Thought

The concept of truth as elaborated by Gandhi affirms the moral autonomy and authority of
the individual as an active agent and performer in political and social life. He writes: I would
reject all authority if it is in conflict with sober reason or the dictates of the heart. Authority
sustains and ennobles the weak when it is the handiwork of reason but it degrades them
when it supplants reason sanctified by the still small voice within”. Once the quest for truth
becomes universal, individuals begin to enjoy real freedom and the need for authority
diminishes. The individual, in Gandhi’s scheme, turns inward not to abandon his political and
social responsibilities but to arm himself in his struggle against external authority. He needs
the moral courage and spiritual equilibrium to become inward while remaining amidst society
and fight untruth: “In the attitude of silence the soul finds the path in a clearer light and what
is elusive and deceptive resolves itself into crystal clearness. Our life is a long and arduous
quest for Truth, and the soul requires inward restfulness to attain its full height”.
The individual is the votary of satya and ahimsa and has the moral authority to judge and
if necessary, oppose the authority of the state, as all states violate satya and ahimsa. For
Gandhi, ahimsa or non-coercion is essential in order to accord respect to the human being
and that minimal coercion is a necessary evil to secure the larger good thus establishing
superiority of ahimsa over himsa. Gandhi insists on the need for more and more people
to affirm the value of ahimsa not as an elusive ideal or a pious hope but as a widely
relevant principle of social action. Fear breeds force but if more and people become
fearless then force would become redundant. Gandhi points out that it is because of this
commitment to ahimsa that has made us question the retributive theory of punishment and
forms of himsa like capital punishment, duelling, slavery, torture, collective retaliation or
revenge, acts of aggression by states, preventive wars, cruelty to animals, flogging and
corporal punishment, which were seen as respectable at one time. Gandhi’s attitude towards
ahimsa was that of an absolutist as he declares “a votary of ahimsa cannot subscribe to
the utilitarian formula. He will strive for the greatest good of all and die in the attempt to
realise the ideal. He will therefore be willing to die so that others may live…. The
absolutist’s sphere of destruction will always be the narrowest possible. The utilitarian’s has
no limit”. Gandhi was convinced that the masses could be trained in the acts of non-
violence and he consistently insists that ahimsa is the power of the stronger and not of the
weak; that it requires greater physical and mental courage to be non-violent. Strength comes
from the indomitable will and not physical power. Ahimsa needs the cultivation of self-
control. For the success of non-violent mass action Gandhi relied on a small band of
committed, intelligent and honest persons who have an abiding faith in non-violence as they
would ensure the non-violent atmosphere required for the working of civil disobedience in
accord with ahimsa.
Gandhi aims for social and political transformation by relying on satya, ahimsa and
dharma. Resistance to unjust authority armed with the power of truth and to resolve
conflicts, to bring change to non-violent action are central to his plank. Through the doctrine
of Satyagraha, Gandhi shows how a person of conscience could engage in heroic action
with the intention of vindicating truth and freedom against tyranny and injustice. By appealing
to dharma or the moral law, Gandhi challenges the conventional notion of authority, law and
obligation through self-suffering and sacrifice. There is no external authority which is higher
than satya either in religious or the political sphere and no political or social action can be
given legitimacy superior to ahimsa. Iyer pints out that, “Like Proudhon, Gandhi visualizes
the establishment of a new system of moral sanctions in society, based on universal harmony
in nature”. By that yardstick, Gandhi is critical of modern civilisation as it is unjust,
coercive, untrue and exploitative.
Power and Authority 85

Gandhi defends the action of the individual citizen who challenges the might of the centralised
bureaucratic state on the basis of dharma, satya and ahimsa. The state, for Gandhi,
represents violence in a concentrated and organised form and is described as a ‘soulless
machine’; it can never be weaned away from violence and force as these are the bases of
its existence. The individual has a soul. People normally take for granted the legalised
coercion of the state as the state has too much violence which it could use against those
who differ from it. Gandhi’s fear of the centralised state makes him emphasise on a minimal
role for the state. He admits that the state ownership is preferable to individual ownership
but concedes that the latter’s violence is less injurious than that of the state. However, he
supports minimal state ownership on unavoidable grounds.

8.5 STATE, OBLIGATION AND CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

Gandhi desires a society without the state but being the practical idealist that he is, he
supports a minimal state. In a state of enlightened anarchy everyone is his own ruler, ruling
in a manner without obstructing others. There would be no political power as there would
be no state. In the absence of this ideal, Thoreau’s maxim of that “government is best which
governs the least” is the next possible option. According to Gandhi, human beings have the
capacity for developing their moral capacities to such an extent that exploitation could be
reduced to the minimum which is why he states that he “looks upon an increase in the
power of the State with the greatest fear, because, although while apparently doing good
by minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality,
which lies at the root of all progress”.
The relation between the state and citizens follows from Gandhi’s exaltation of satya and
ahimsa as ultimate values on which individual and social morality must be based. The
citizens’ pursuit of satya and ahimsa makes them morally superior to the state, the former
with soul while the latter is soulless. Since social progress is towards furthering satya and
ahimsa, the coercive role of the state would be weakened. This process could also be
achieved with greater decentralisation of power in any society.
The citizens’ obligation to accept the authority of the state would depend on its just laws
and non-repressive policies. A government is an instrument of service if it is based on the
will and consent of the people. It is citizens’ obligation that distinguishes a democratic from
an authoritarian state though Gandhi views all states as soulless machines. A citizen’s
responsibility is greater under a democratic regime as citizens would have to safeguard
against authority becoming corrupt and farcical. In every state there is a possibility of abuse
of power and it is the citizens vested with superior moral authority who should not lose their
conscience or lose their distrust of state authority. Gandhi makes it the responsibility of
every citizen for every act of the government.
It is the citizen who ought to decide whether to show active loyalty or total opposition to
the state, to resist none or few of its laws as the citizen is endowed with satya and ahimsa.
The citizen cannot relinquish a portion of this responsibility in the name of a social contract
or legal sovereignty or tacit consent or the rule of law or similar notions that are implicit
in democratic constitutionalism. According to Gandhi, for the sake of peace there can be
no unconditional consent, even if secured under majority rule nor can the limits of state
action be established in advance in a manner that will automatically secure the citizen his
natural rights. Gandhi distrusts the institutional safeguards in societies with many factions and
class conflict, as the majority could be wrong. The individual alone, for Gandhi, is a moral
86 Gandhi’s Political Thought

person which no state or institution could ever become. A citizen could appeal to eternal
unwritten laws against the laws of human beings and of states and the commandments of
religion, but like Socrates accept the consequences for challenging the laws of the states.
Gandhi rejects the idea and institution of the state based on two anarchistic arguments: the
state represents an authority that poses a threat to the liberty of the individual and the state
represents violence in an organised form. Classical anarchism as articulated by Proudhon,
Stirner, Bakunin and the early Kropotkin supports revolutionary violence to put an end to
the organised violence represented by the state. Gandhi insists on non-violent resistance as
the only means to end the tyranny of the state and desires a purely non-violent society
based on voluntary organisations as the alternative to the state. He is convinced that once
society becomes truly non-violent, true anarchy would be established, as non-violence is
possible only in an anarchistic society. In 1940 Gandhi categorically stated that “the ideally
non-violent state will be an ordered anarchy”.
Not only are states undesirable but even parliaments are as these are ineffectual and can
do only when there is an outside pressure. Gandhi is critical of the parliamentary system of
government in the Hind Swaraj (1909), as the members of parliament ‘are hypocritical and
selfish’; indifferent to matters of serious concern and engage in endless talk. “Members vote
for their party without a thought. Their so-called discipline binds them to it. If any member,
by way of exception gives an independent vote, he is considered a renegade. The Prime
Minister is more concerned about his power than about the welfare of the Parliament. His
energy is concentrated upon securing the success of his party. His care is not always that
Parliament shall do right. Prime Ministers are known to have made Parliament do things
merely for party advantage…. If they are to be considered honest because they do not take
what are generally known as bribes, let them be so considered, but they are open to subtler
influence. In order to gain their ends, they certainly bribe people with honour. I do not
hesitate to say that they have neither real honesty nor a living conscience”. Through his
criticisms of the British parliament, Gandhi tries to show, according to Bandyopadhyaya
(1969), that even the best of the parliaments are not the ideal substitute for anarchy.

8.6 AUTHORITY IN ANARCHIST SOCIETY

Regarding the nature of the ideal society under anarchy Gandhi does not offer a clear
answer. He is unconcerned about preparing the blueprint for the future because he insists
that the future end would depend on the means that are adopted at present, and that a
purely mental construction is quite meaningless but offers few pointers.
Indian independence must begin at the bottom. Thus every village will be a republic or
panchayat, having full powers. It follows, therefore, that every village has to be self-
sustained and capable of managing its affairs, even to the extent of defending itself against
the whole world. It will be trained and prepared to perish in the attempt to defend itself
against any onslaught from without. Thus ultimately, it is the individual who is the unit. But
this does not exclude dependence on the willing help from neighbours or from the world.
It will be free and voluntary play of mutual forces…. In this structure composed of
innumerable villages, there will be ever widening, never ascending circles. Life will not be
a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But will be an oceanic circle, whose
centre will be the individual always ready to perish for the village, the latter ready to perish
for the circle of villages, till at last the whole becomes one life composed of individuals,
never aggressive in their arrogance, but ever number, sharing the majesty of the oceanic
circle of which they are integral units.
Power and Authority 87

The social basis of the ideal society would be Varna system which is a qualitative and
functional division but without its humiliation, feeling of high and low, and indignities, and
guaranteeing each, fruits of one’s labour. The economic basis, the relationship between
labour and capital in both agricultural and industrial sectors will be a harmonised one
reconciling freedom, equality and non-violence through the system of Trusteeship. There
would be no need for armed forces or the police. Defence from external aggression would
be organised non-violently in two stages. In the first stage, people would offer satyagraha
at the frontier in the form of an unarmed human wall, but if this failed to stop the aggressor,
occupation of the country would be resisted by complete non-cooperation. If the entire
population refuses to cooperate with the invading army even risking its personal safety, it
would be impossible, according to Gandhi, for the foreign army and administrative personnel
to maintain themselves in the occupied territory. The same principle applies to internal
security as well. Police would be like a body of reformers than a coercive agency of the
state.
Gandhi later diluted his rigorous opposition to parliaments. In 1937, he points out that
today’s legislatures, unlike that of the past, are composed of representatives of people and
that people must be taught how to stand up effectively against the government. Members
of the legislature ought to render service to the people, undertake constructive social work
and ensure the passage of right legislations. He clarifies that he does not want to destroy
the legislatures but “destroy the system which they are created to work”. In the late 1930s,
Gandhi also moved away from minimal role of the state in the economy to state ownership
of key industries as it would provide employment to large number of people. The state
would look after secular welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency and
own land as cooperative farming by the peasants subject to state ownership of land is
something that he toyed with but never really developed in full detail. Gandhi also insists that
the state must eschew physical violence. He supports the idea of a decentralised, non-
industrial, non-violent, self-sufficient and self-reliant free society; village swaraj would
advance the cause of individual freedom.

8.7 CONCLUSION
Gandhi theorised about the nature of power and authority keeping in mind his commitment
and preference to anarchist ideals of how to ensure wider diffusion of power to realise
justice in society. His essential distrust of power and authority led him to articulate an
alternative which he called enlightened anarchy. Gandhi insists on the need to anchor power
and authority in the supreme values of satya, ahimsa and dharma to ensure that politics
ultimately is service of all people in general and the underprivileged and the marginalised in
particular. The distinctiveness of Gandhi lay in the fact that he desires social and political
transformation through non-violent means. He also provides a vision of his ideal and at the
same time accepts alterations to this ideal on grounds of feasibility.
The activist theoretician that Gandhi was, he is categorical that it would be futile to theorise
about the future and expects the ongoing movements to yield the desired end, constantly
reminding of the intimate relationship between ends and means. Gandhi also consistently
reminds of the corruption that centralised power results in and underlines the need for the
devolution of power to the grassroots. Rejecting modern civilisation and its stress on
industries and technology as highly unequal and violent, Gandhi offers an alternative that
would maximise self-reliance and self-sufficiency of ordinary persons. Gandhi stresses that
devolution of power is the key to a better and fuller democracy. Gandhi’s vision had its
88 Gandhi’s Political Thought

critics. A major critic was Rabindranath Tagore who points out that a civilisation which is
predominantly based on villages cannot advance the cause of individuals as the village-
centric life revolves around the community. Offering an alternative to what Tagore offers,
Gandhi argues from the standpoint of a philosophic anarchist who seeks to defend the
freedom of the individual against the authority of the state and social tyranny which is why
he focuses on decentralisation. He clarifies that the “outermost circumference will not wield
power to crush the inner circle, but will give strength to all within and will derive its own
strength from it”. Gandhi reminds of the mutual dependence of the individual and the next
larger group on a voluntary basis stating that no individual is an island and that the individual
is the social self. His consistent emphasis that it is the individual and not the state with the
moral authority to question and judge injustice and repression and to bring about desired
changes through non-violent means is the framework within which he defends the supremacy
of the individual.

8.8 SUMMARY
Gandhi’s views on power and conflict resolution put him apart from all other major theories
developed in the contemporary times. His serious reservations about the desirability of what
constitutes the major components of modern civilisation allows him to transcend known
categories of power and enables him to develop a conceptual framework which is in total
variance from the other dominant views. Modern civilisation, according to Gandhi, is not
conducive to reaching a higher end of life as it perpetuates false consciousness and
encourages the pursuit of materialistic ends. He dismisses disparagingly power politics as
irrelevant and insists that “political power is not an end but one of the means of enabling
people to better their condition in every department of life”. True religion and true politics
is concerned primarily with human life and action and both must have a common basis in
a common morality determined by a common set of values. Gandhi, however, rejects the
idea of state religion even if a country has only one religion. Power, as Gandhi says, lies
in being an actively engaged citizen with a capacity of public involvement and political
participation rather than being a passive acquiescent subject. Gandhi rejects the idea and
institution of the state based on two anarchistic arguments: the state represents an authority
that poses a threat to the liberty of the individual and the state represents violence in an
organised form. He supports the idea of a decentralised, non-industrial, non-violent, self-
sufficient and self-reliant free society, in essence, a village swaraj that would advance the
cause of individual freedom.

8.9 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

1. Why does Gandhi stress on the need to spiritualise political life and political institutions?
2. Explain Gandhi’s concept of power.
3. Why does Gandhi consider Truth as Authority?
4. Explain Gandhi’s concept of state and obligation.
5. What is the role of authority in the anarchist society?
Power and Authority 89

SUGGESTED READINGS
Andrews, C.F., Mahatma Gandhi’s Ideas, New York, Macmillan, 1930.
Bandyopadhyaya, J., Social and Political Thought of Gandhi, Bombay, Allied Publishers,
1969.
Bhattacharya, B., Evolution of the Political Philosophy of Gandhi, Calcutta, Calcutta Book
House, 1969.
Bondurant, J. V., Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict, Berkeley,
University of California Press, 1967.
Chatterjee, M., Gandhi’s Religious Thought, London, Macmillan, 1983.
Chatterjee, P., Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse, Delhi,
Oxford University Press, 1986.
Dalton, D., India’s Idea of Freedom, Gurgaon, Academic Press, 1982.
Haksar, V., “Rawls and Gandhi on Civil Disobedience”, Inquiry, 19, 1976.
—————., “Coercive Proposals: Rawls and Gandhi”, Political Theory, 4, 1976.
Iyer, R. N., The Moral and Political Thought of Gandhi, Bombay, Oxford University Press,
1973.
Pantham, T, and Deutsch, K., (ed), Political Thought in Modern India, New Delhi, Sage,
1986.
Parekh, B., Gandhi’s Political Philosophy, Notre Dame, Notre Dame University Press,
1989.
Woodcock, G., Mohandas Gandhi, New York, Fontana, 1971.