C. S. Dharmadhikari
M. J. Builders Pvt. Ltd.
(AIR 1999 Supreme Court - page 2468)
“Mahanagarpalika is the Trustee for the purpose of
management of the Park. When true nature of the Park, as it existed is destroyed
it would be violative of the doctrine of public trust. Public trust doctrine is
part of Indian Law.”
‘’In America public trust doctrine was applied to
public properties.... As to here doctrine works it was stated... that the idea
of a public trusteeship rests upon the related principles. First, that certain
interests like the air and the sea - have such importance to the citizenry as a
whole that it would be unwise to make them the subject of private ownership.
Second, that they Partake so much of the bounty of nature, rather than of
individual enterprise; that they should be made freely available to the entire
citizenry without regard to economic status. And finally, that it is a principal
purpose of Government to promote the interests of general public goods from
broad public goods from broad public uses to restricted private benefit… This
public interest doctrine in our country, it would appear has grown from Article
21 of the constitution.”
Capitalism means an order of things in which the
basis of distribution is purchase or barter. Unless you have the purchasing
power, you are unable to get anything that you need; even food for hungry. It is
an irony of fate that things can only be bought, forcibly snatched or acquired,
but nobody can get it because they are just “needed”. This is why, in the
present day social order, needy persons are deprived of the primary amenities of
life. Therefore everything has got exchange value, that is price. It is a price
based economy and not a need based or value based economy. It is a diabolical
There is of course scope for charity. Human
dignity cannot be preserved on charity if those who live in perpetual misery are
condemned to live on the sufferance of those who are well to do, then it is
difficult to preserve human dignity and the whole civilization will come to an
end sooner or later. Charity is a weapon invented by capitalists to preserve
capitalism and protect their property by gaining sympathy of the poor class.
Therefore Gandhiji invented and preached trusteeship, as a technique of social
change. He called it, the technique of change of heart.
Gandhi gave us symbols of revolution. The Spinning
Wheel and Broom-stick. Spinning wheel is a symbol for productive labour which
contemplate face-to-face community based on dignity of labour. He wanted to
transform the existing relationship between production and distribution. He was
against depersonalisation and dehumanisation in the process of production and
distribution. Today there is no relationship between the producer and the
consumer. Gandhi wanted to end the Kingdom of non-producers.
Broom-stick is the symbol of social equality. It
reminds us of our relationship with the lowliest and the lost, the Antyodaya,
which should be the foundation of even economic growth.
Gandhi derived a new definition of Swadeshi. He
said: “Swadeshi means neighbourliness.” You produce for your neighbour.
Production for sale is capitalism hence, Gandhi advocated production for home
consumption and not for sale or export only.
For Gandhi, Khadi and Village Industries meant
decentralization of production and distribution of the necessaries of life.
Khadi, to him was the symbol of unity of Indian humanitv, of its freedom and
equality and therefore, ultimately in the poetic expression of Pandit Jawaharlal
Nehru, “The livery of India’s freedom.”
For him, Khadi is the central sun around which the
other village industries revolve like so many planets. Even today as the
statistics go about sixty lakhs of people are employed in the production of
Khadi and village industries i.e. Gramodyog. If each and every citizen of India
uses one khadi dress in a year, about one crore people will get employment. I do
not think any industry, how so ever big it may be, or multinational can provide
such an employment. Unemployment is bound to destroy our whole culture. Empty
hands are bound to cause destruction and violence. They will destroy the very
fabric of our nation.
It is a misunderstanding that, using khadi is very
costly. Today it is noticed that a large number of divorcee Muslim women are
employed in the production of khadi. Cottage industries provide employment to
lakhs of women. While calculating the price, the cost of cotton produce, the
living wages for the labouring class are taken into consideration. It is a
social cost which is most reflected in the price of khadi. It is value based
rather than price based. Exploitation is always cheap. The mute question is
whether “exploitation” should be tolerated and encouraged.
The centre of Gandhiji’s economics was man. For
him man was the measure of everything. He wanted production by masses and not
mass production. He wanted production by men and not at the cost of men. He was
interested in ‘Man Power’ and not ‘Horse Power’. For him foundation of economy
should be man; Gandhi believed in humanism even in the economic field. The
system of production and the system of distribution should be coupled with the
cultural development of human being. The Human personality should be capable of
being developed through this process, which means that the system of production
and distribution should be conducive to the growth of all human faculties. He
was not against machines. In a sense, the spinning wheel is also a machine. Use
of tools should be as an extension of our limbs. The hammer is the extension of
man’s fist. It is Upakaran ’upa’ in Sanskrit means samip i.e. next, upakaran is
one which is next to sense. Hence tools or machines should not be as substitute
for human power, but to augment it, to extend it. We should not allow tools or
machines to replace human power. If glasses replace eyes, the very eyesight is
lost. The man machine relationship should not mis-match. For Gandhi man is the
measure of all things. He is above technology or science. Man is greater than
In his economy, nature and animal had an
honourable place. For him culture is the art of living with others. This means
our planning should be such which will give ample scope for the development of
faculties of the animal. For him nature is our ally. Natural resources are not
meant for exploitation only. It is not our enemy. We are not interested in
conquering nature or exploiting it. We want to co-operate with nature and
animals to enrich our life. To make life richer, greater and more beautiful.
Gandhi’s principle of non-violence was basically
based on non-exploitation of man by man, or of nature. It is not a negative
concept but a dynamic positive principle of life. For Gandhi ‘live and let live’
was not enough, he wanted that people should also help others to live. It was a
positive, living, dynamic non-violence. For him exploiting villages and
villagers is in itself organised violence. As rightly said by Martin Luther
King, “Nothing in our glittering technology, can raise a man to new heights,
because material growth has been made an end in itself, and in the absence of
moral purpose, man himself becomes smaller as the works of man become bigger.”
Gandhi wanted a change in basic mechanism of
ownership, production and distribution. He wanted freedom from the rule of
merchandise and nationality in the productive and distributives system on human
Thus, fundamental principles of his economics were
simplicity, non-violence sanctity of human labour. He was against the craze for
machines and its indiscriminate multiplication to replace men. He was against
inventing labour saving devices but wanted to provide employment to forced
idleness. His plan was for peace, security and progress rather than war &
exploitation. He wanted growth in national wealth for men and not at the cost of
Notes and References
For a very useful discussion of Voegelin’s concept of Phenomenalism, see Barry Cooper, Eric Voegelin and the
Foundation of Modern Political Science (Columbia: University of Missouri Press,
Needless to say that such a mode of
reconstruction of reality equates historiography with something that is and must
be organised around a rationalistic ideal of history. This idea stresses the
need to lay bare the objective conditions under which human actions take place.
This is tantamount to reconstructing men and societies as natural objects and
applying “medical rationalism to exploring historical conditions in which men
lived and worked.” This means a rigorous and objective construction of the
historical conditions that constitute not only the context but also
conditioning, limiting factors for human action. Such a historical account
requires that one must steer clear of a set of a a prioristic ethical principles
for a better understanding of historical process as it unfolds. For a very
useful example of this mode of writing, see Thomas Hobbes, Eight Books of
Peloponnesian War by Thucydides (London: the Author, 1629: This is available
also in The English Works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmsbary, ed. William Molesworth
and published in London in 1893-45 as Vol. VII).
For a good example of this, see D. R. Nagraj, The Flaming fac,: A study of the Dalit movement in India (Banglore :
South Forum Press,1993); See Ramashray Roy, “Gandhi and Ambedkar Collision of
Two Worldviews,” in politics and society: A New Perspective (Delphi: Shipra
Publication,2002) for a critique of Nagraj’s approach to the relationship
between Gandhi and Ambedkar.
Eric Voegelin, quoted in Ramshray Roy,
“Purush, Purana, and Itihas: A Spiritual Perspective,” am unpublished paper.
Needless to say that these categories
of language are not neat classification; they overlap each other. Moreover,
substantively speaking, if the saintly language is separated from either the
traditional the modern language, it leads to certain adverse consequences. For
examples, the traditional language loses its significance, if it is disrupted
from its spiritual or saintly source. Similarly, modern language depicts a world
that rests on hubris.
Eric Voegelin, History of political
idea. The Middle Ages to Acquinas, ed. and intro. by peter Von
Sivers ( Columbia:Missouri University press,1997) Vol.2, p.126
David Walsh, Introduction to Eric Voegelin, History of political ideas: The latter Middle Ages (Columbia:
University of Missouri Press, 1998), Vol.3,P.17.
Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar Writings and
Speeches (Bombay: Education department, Government of Maharashtra, 1982),
pp.222-23 (To be cited hence forth as Writings and Speeches).
Ibid. It is, however, very difficult
to justify this claim on two grounds. First, Ambedkar did embrace Buddhism but
very late in his life. However, his references to the central importance of
these seminal modern political ideas go earlier in time. Second, in his
expositions of Buddhist philosophy, he superimposes on Buddhism a battery of
liberal ideas and makes Buddhism not so much the instrument of the spiritual
transformation of man, but of socio-economic emancipation of the depressed and
deprived segments of the people in India, especially the Untouchables, which he
called the bahiskrit samaj (the outcast).
Taking part in the Bombay Legislative
Council debates on 2 October 1939, Ambedkar strongly underlined that his loyalty
to his country was not in any way lesser than anybody else. However, he also
underscored the fact that he had another loyalty, “loyality to which I am bound
and which I am bound and which I can never forsake; that loyalty is to the
community of the Untouchables, in which I was born, to which I belong and which
I hope never to desert.” Writings and Speeches, II, P.258. He also wanted to
make it clear that whenever there was any conflict of interests between the
country and the interest of his community, he would always give precedence to
the latter. “As between the Depressed Classes, Depressed Classes will have
precedence, the country will not have precedence. “Ibid.,Vol.2 pp. 503-504
For a very useful discussion on the
central role of freedom and equality in the life of man in modern times , see
Charles Taylor, “Growth, Legitimacy, and Modern Identity, “Praxis International
1, 2 July 1981
H. V. Desai, My Interview with Eminent
Personalities, P.26 Quoted in Dhananjay Keer, Dr Ambedkar: Life and Mission
(Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1954), p.389.
For a very useful discussion on Ambedkar;
economic thought see Sukdeo Thorat, Ambedkar’s Role in Economic Planning and
Water policy (Delhi: Shipra Publications 1998).
Government of India, Reconstruction
Committee of Council (1944); Record of the First Meeting of the Policy
Committee, No, 3C (Public Work and Electronic power) held at Delhi on 23
September 1943, Magazine Government of India.
For a very insightful discussion in this
regard, see Fred Hirsh, Social limits to Growth (Londan: Routledge & Kegan Paul,
See Pierre Manent, “Modern Democracy as a
System of Separation.” Journal of Democracy, Vol.14 No.1 (January 2003).
Martin Buber, Pointing the way :
Collected Essay: Quoted in Roy Oliver, The Wanderer and the way: Hebrew
Tradition in the Writing of Martin Buber (Ithaca, Cornell : Cornell University
Press, 1968), p.53
Writing and Speeches, Vol.2, pp. 222-23
Ambedkar’s address at Poona (22 December
1952) while unveiling the portrait of L. R. Ranada in Poona District Law
library. Quoted in Keer, Dr Ambedkar : life and mission, P.442.
Writing and speeches, p.442.
Bombay Legislative Assembly Debates, 27
October 1939 in Writings and speeches, vol.2, p.529.
A. K. Comaraswamy, The Living Thoughts of
Gautam the Buddha (Bombay: Jaico Publishing House, 1958),p.29.
Anguttara Nikaya, IV: 445: Dhammapada,
28. Ibid.,pp.379,380 It is argued by many that Buddhism does not merely
deny the self but also the self. This denial is, to say the least,
simple-minded. Note, for examples, that one cannot be selfless without having a
self. As Edward Conze admits, the doctrine of anatta is very deep. One must
assume that is will need more than a life time to get to the bottom of Buddhism.
Buddhism: Its Essence and Development (New York: Harper Torchlooks, 1959), P.19. The Buddhist doctrine of nibbana is akin to
Meister Eckhart’s saying: the Kingdom of God is for none but thoroughly dead,
“And, as Coomaraswamy notes, “ Nirvana is a death, a being finished (both in the
meaning of ended and of “perfected”) “ The living Throughts of Gautam the
Buddha, P.28. The means employed to get nibbana are not themselves nibbana; The
means are directed to taming, Conquiring, Curbing and rejecting the self (atta)
and making it quiet. Thus, for Buddha, the Archant is one “whose self (atta) has
been cast off (atta-jaha), his burden, has been laid down (ahit-bharo), and what
there is to done, has been done (katam-Karaniyam),” Ibid. What needs to be stressed here is the fact that
Buddhism does talk of the distinction between the Great self (mahatma) and the
little self (alpatment), natho ( The self alone is the Lord of the self 380,
attahi, natho gato (The Self alone is the destiny of the self) Thus Buddhism
recognises many selves but only one Self). That is why it insist, just as
Jainism does, that it is the one that many are to find.”He who conquers many
Banarsidas (1964), Part I Of the Akrang Sutra, Tr Herman Jacobi ( Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidas(1964), Part I of the Akrang Sutra, The Kalpasutra, Vol. XXII of the
Sacred Books of the East).
Anguttara Nikaya, III: 444.
Samyutta Nikaya, IV:298.
C. Plato, Republic, 515c 7-9.
Timothy Fitzgerald, “ Ambedkar, Buddha and
the Concept of relidgion,” in S.M.Michael, ed.,Dalits in modern India, Op. Cit.,
Undoubtedly Ambedkar believed in the
liberation of the individual. However, he argued that this liberation should no
more refer to its traditional spiritual meaning emphasising the need to renounce
the worlds; it must now the liberation from social institutional
bondage. Ambedkar argues the latter are not only those karmic hindrances which
condition the individual’s consciousness from one birth to the next, they are
also institutionalised realities, sympotomatised for example, by they are also
caste system. These institutionalised realities prove injurious to the interests
of the Untouchabilities; these too need to be modified. This requires an
appropriate political situation that can prove efficacious in improving life
chances (in the material sense) of the poor and the deprived, especially the
Untouchables. See Fitagerald, op. cit, pp. 199-20.
Jati pratha Unmulan (Aannihilation of
caste) In Baba sahib Ambedkar : Sampurna Vargamay, ed Shyam Sing Shastri( New
Delhi: Ambedkar Pratisthanm, Ministry of welfare, Government of India, 1993), I,
D. R. Jatav, “Dr Ambedkar’s Philosophy of
Religion” In Ambedkar and Social Justice (New Delhi: Ministry of Information
and Broadcasting Government of India, 1992 II, P. 91, a volume prepared
under the auspices of Dr B. R. Ambedkar Birth Centenary Celebration
Committee, Ministry of welfare, Government of India.
Fitzgerld, P.124. For a fuller discussion on
Ambedkar’s effort to secularise Buddhism, see Ramashray Roy, Gandhi and
Ambedkar A Study in Contrast, Ch.5
S.C. Gail Omvedit, when she argues that
Ambedkar saw modernity from a perspective quite contrary to that of Gandhi. As
Omvedit puts it, “He looked to the values underlying it as the revolutionary
aspirations to liberty, equality and community. Modernisation was something that
he sought, not feared. “Democratic Movements and Environmentalism: Gandhi,
Ambedkar and the Polarities of Revolution in India. “Fourth World, April 1997.
Competition for scarce resources creates
inequality in the life condition and life chances; this inequality gets frozen
into social order that institutionalises what Johann Galtung calls “structural
violence. “Structural violence is discernible within society as well as in the
interrelationship of nations.
This has a reference to Gandhi’s comment on
a cartoon published in English Journal, The NewAge, in 1910 under the caption,
“March of civilisation. “This cartoon depicted an army on March under a general
with a grotesque figure, with a gun in one hand and swords dripping with blood
and a cross in the other hand.
Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Delhi:
The Publication Division, Government of India), LXIII, p.241. To be cited as
Note what john Locke has to say in this
regard: We are not born in heaven, but In this world where
our being is to be preserved with meat, drink and clothing, and other
necessaries that are not born with us must be got and kept with forecast, care
and labour, and therefore we cannot all be devotion, all praises and hallelujah,
and perpetually in the vision of things above. Quoted in Sheldon Wolin, Politics
and Vision (Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1960), p.298
For an excellent discussion about it, see
Darrel Dobbs, “Choosing Justice: Socrates’ Model City and the Practice of
Dialectics,” The American Political Science Review, 88,2(June1984). See also Ramashray Roy Political Science Review,88,2(June 1984).See also Ramashray Roy,
Political Order : The Vedic Perpective (Shimla : Indian Institute of Advanced Study,
CWMG, VOL.7 P.243.
Sriman Narayan, ed., Selected Works of
Mahatma Gandhi ( Ahmedabad : Navajivan Publishing House,1969), Vol.6,pp.110-11. To
be cited as SWMG hereafter.
CWMG, Vol.37, p.18.
CWMG, Vol.57, Appendix, p.440.
John H.Schaar, Escape from Authority: The
Perspective of Erich From on (New York: Basic Books, 1969), p.296.
Jhrgln Glebhart and Thomas A. Hollwec,eds.,
Eric Voegelin, History of political Ideas: The New Order and Last Orientation (Columbia:Missouri
University Press, 1999),P.194.
Ibid., Loc cit.
Gandhi Today, Vol. 4, 2007