It is indeed an honour to speak at this very important colloquium on ‘Gandhi, Governance and the Corporation’ organized jointly by Indian
Institute of Management Bangalore and Indian Institute for Advanced Study, Shimla. My congratulations to them for conceiving and organizing it. With the critical challenges of terrorism, food & energy crisis, global warming and a $3 trillion international financial meltdown confronting many governments and corporations today, the colloquium could not have been better timed.
Satyagraha
and Sarvodaya, like other Gandhian concepts of ‘Swaraj’, ‘Sarva Dharma Samabhav’, ‘Harijan’ and ‘Trusteeship’ are all rooted in Truth – the truth that we are all children of God, imbued with the
Divine Spark and therefore required to be motivated by love rather than hate, by justice and nonviolence rather than a “might is right” approach; that all religions are branches of the same Divine Tree, that women have equal rights as men;that all rights emanate from duties,that the total welfare of all should be sought and that all wealth, power and the environment must be handled as trustees of past, present and future generations.
For many intellectuals Truth is as indefinable as God. Gandhi had no difficulty with either. For him, “Truth is God”. He affirms “There is an indefinable mysterious power that pervades everything, a living power that is changeless, that holds all together, that
creates, dissolves and recreates. That Power is God… He who denies the existence of that Force denies to himself the use of that inexhaustible Power and thus remains impotent……Satyagraha (holding firmly to Truth) is soul force pure and simple”.
The fact that millions of Indians followed Gandhi’s lead and were willing to suffer and die in his Satyagraha battles, is proof that they accepted his definition of Truth even though few, if any,comprehended it.
In history’s most blood drenched century Gandhi showed that people could be empowered, imperial and corporate oppression challenged, freedom achieved and age old inequities ended by firm adherence to Truth, Justice, Nonviolence and focus on the most disadvantaged. His success in inspiring, mobilizing and leading millions of poverty stricken Indians in nonviolent battle against an immensely powerful empire, confronting it and its corporates with the charka, and getting them to leave India as friends, is undoubtedly the greatest
management achievement of the 20th century and perhaps of all time.
Though ‘Satyagraha’ was Gandhi’s prime motto and strategy, it was Sarvodaya which was devised first. Having read Ruskin’s ’Unto this Last’ on a 1904 Johannesburg to Durban train journey and been greatly impacted by it, he translated it into Gujarati and titled it ‘Sarvodaya’, ( sarva + udaya : the all round uplift of all). This thereafter became the beacon of his economic and social programmes.
‘Satyagraha’ was fashioned soon after the historic September 11, 1906 meeting at Empire Theatre in Johannesberg. He offered a prize for an appropriate name for the new nonviolent struggle adopted. A cousin, Maganlal Gandhi, suggested “Sadagraha” (firmness in a good cause). Gandhi amended it to “Satyagraha” because of his dedication to Truth (Satya). He wanted a distinctive name for his active nonviolent resistance to differentiate it from “passive resistance” as it was then known. He declared “Passive resistance has been
regarded as a weapon of the weak. That is why the name Satyagraha was coined in South Africa to distinguish this movement from passive resistance….. Nonviolence is not a weapon of the weak. It is a weapon of the strongest and the bravest. In politics its use is based on the immutable maxim that government of the people is
possible only so long as they consent either consciously or unconsciously to be governed”. Louis Fischer comments “For Gandhi, Satyagraha was “the vindication of Truth not by infliction of suffering on the opponent but on one’s self”…. The opponent must be “weaned from error by patience and sympathy”, weaned not crushed, converted not annihilated. You cannot inject new ideas into a man’s head by chopping it off; neither will you infuse a new spirit into his heart by piercing it with a dagger”.
For Gandhi “A nonviolent revolution is not a programme for seizure of power. It is a programme for transformation of relationships ending in a peaceful transfer of power.” Satyagraha’s basic rules are:
Clearly identify the issue on which the struggle would be launched,
Highlight its “Truth” to the opponent and request negotiations,
Keep the
opponent and news media fully informed of the campaign’s objectives and plans,
Instruct, inspire, train and lead the nonviolent warriors,
Fund raise and
economize maximally so as to sustain the campaign as long as necessary
Make suitable arrangements for the care of those who would be injured and the families of those who would be arrested.
When the opponent agrees to negotiate, formulate and conclude a mutually acceptable agreement and thereafter adhere to it faithfully.
Gandhi’s completely open approach emanated from his deep faith in Truth. For him, “Secrecy aims at building a wall of protection around you.
Ahimsa disdains all such protection. It functions in the open in the face of odds, the heaviest conceivable…. People that have been crushed under the heel of unspeakable tyranny for centuries cannot
be organized by other than open, truthful means.”
His letter to Viceroy Lord Irwin just before initiating his Salt Satyagraha is the best example of his “open” approach. After listing his people’s many travails he wrote: “If you cannot see your way to deal with these evils, and my letter makes no appeal to your heart, on the eleventh of this month, I shall proceed with such co-workers of the ashram as I can take, to disregard the provisions of the Salt Tax.…This letter is not in any way intended as a threat but is a simple and sacred duty, peremptory on a civil resister”
Gandhi’s approach to governance, as also to economics, was primarily moral.He focused not on an individual’s likely behaviour but on how he ought to behave and thus benefit himself, his community, country and the world. He decried Western Civilization because its insatiable consumerism, mass production industries, armaments, wars and environmental destruction endangered all life on earth. When specifically asked what he thought of Western Civilization, he tritely replied “It would be a good idea!”
Gandhi’s ideal human behaviour posited simple living. For him
“Civilization in the real sense consists not in the multiplication but in the deliberate and voluntary reduction of selfish wants. This alone promotes real happiness and contentment and increases the capacity for service” He affirmed “I make bold to say that Europeans will have to remodel their outlook if they are not to perish under the weight of comforts to which they are becoming slaves”.
Gandhi’s ideas on Governance, Swaraj, terrorism, and the Charka as antidote for India’s abysmal poverty, were first enunciated in his 1909 booklet ‘Hind Swaraj’, subtitled ‘Indian Home rule’.
Gandhi’s more fully developed ideas on governance are contained in his 1941 booklet: ‘Constructive Program: Its Meaning and Place’. It envisaged a society where self employment, the cooperative approach,communal harmony, complete equality among men, women and all sections of society, full democratic participation from village to national level, minimal state intervention in the economy and adoption of the Trusteeship principle by rulers and the rich would gradually replace mass unemployment, poverty, illiteracy, ill health and urban dominance. His concept of ‘Swaraj’ had by now been enlarged to ‘Poorna Swaraj’―freedom not only from colonial oppression but all forms of oppression – against women,untouchables, peasants & bonded labourers - as also freedom from fear, untruth, injustice, anger, violence, and all vices with firmest “control over self”. He affirmed “He who fears, fails…….As human beings our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world – that is the myth of the atomic age – as in being able to remake ourselves”
His most
notable affirmations on governance are:
“My notion of
democracy is that under it the weakest have the same opportunity as
the strongest”
“Independent
India as conceived by me will have all Indians belonging to
different religions, living in perfect friendship. There need be no
millionaires and no paupers”
“I look upon any
increase of the power of the state with the greatest fear, because
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. I know of many cases where men have
adopted trusteeship, but none where the state has really lived for
the poor.”
“Whenever you are
in doubt, try the following expedient. Recall the face of the
poorest and the most helpless man whom you have seen and ask
yourself whether the step you contemplate is going to be of any use
to him. Will he be able to gain anything by it? Will it restore to
him control over his own life and destiny?”
“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’s ideas on good governance, methodical approach, negotiations
strategy and social responsibility in actual practice are best seen
in his 1917 Champaran ‘satyagraha’. Gandhi undertook a detailed
enquiry into the peasants grievances. Almost ten thousand
depositions were taken and relevant documents collected. He then
called on and induced the Governor to set up an Enquiry Commission.
The evidence he presented was so damaging the landlords agreed to
negotiate. Gandhi demanded 50% of the unjustly exacted amounts but
settled for only 25%. His negotiation strategy, the prime objective
of which always was “a mutually acceptable agreement and never the
defeat, much less the humiliation of the opponent.” – secured an
amicable settlement. Thereupon Gandhi did not leave Champaran but
stayed on to organize education, health and sanitation facilities
for the peasants. Originally planned as a seven day visit, his stay
at Champaran lasted seven months. It proves that even in dealing
with local issues he had the broader vision in mind viz. India’s
liberation not only from colonial but from all oppression. Militant
nationalists were concerned only with the victimizers, Gandhi
focused also on their victims.
Gandhi’s choice of the charka for confronting India’s widespread
unemployment and “Corporate Lancashire” was as brilliant as it was
simple. His Autobiography reveals that he had not even seen one
until he returned to India in 1915. Many economists thought the
Charka choice ridiculous. Yet it generated rural employment, reduced
use of imported textiles, undermined Britain’s economic interests in
India and became the symbol of India’s national struggle.
For
Gandhi “Labour is far superior to capital. Without labour gold,
silver and copper are a useless burden. It is labour which extracts
precious ore from the bowels of the earth. Labour is priceless, not
gold. I want a marriage between capital and labour. They can work
wonders in cooperation.” The 1918 Ahmedabad Textile workers strike
gave him an opportunity to drive home this point.
Gandhi’s ideas of a village based democracy of “concentric circles”,
and minimal state control of the economy were ignored by Independent
India’s constitution makers and political leaders. They opted for
Westminster style democracy and a soviet style planned economy.
India has paid a heavy price on both counts. Gandhi’s indirect
elections to the district, state and national “panchayats” would not
have needed the highly expensive electioneering which has emerged as
the most fecund cause of corruption. Transparency International’s
‘Global Corruption Barometer’ placed India’s CPI (Corruption
Perception Index) on its scale of 10 (very clean) to Zero (very
corrupt) at the dismally low level of between 2 and 3! On its 2008
corruption scale India is ranked 85th, which is a drop of
13 places from its 72nd position in 2007!
As for
India’s state dominated economy, even ardent admirers of Jawaharlal
Nehru and Indira Gandhi now openly concede that this 45 years phase
until 1991, has been more baneful than beneficial.
The
rejection of Gandhi’s Sarva Dharma Samabhav approach and propagation
of “Hindu Rashtra” concept by ultra-rightist political and communal
outfits, which achieved salience after the Babri Masjid destruction
in 1992, has greatly undermined inter-religious harmony, good
governance and national security. Those vociferously promoting
“Hindu Rashtra” might like to recall his words written just five
days before his assassination “ It would spell the ruin of both the
Hindu religion and the majority community if the latter, in the
intoxication of power, entertains the belief that it can crush the
minority community and establish a purely Hindu Rashtra”. Earlier
(in 1931) he had written in Young India “It has been said that
Swaraj will be the rule of the majority community i.e. the
Hindus….If this were to be true, I for one would refuse to call it
Swaraj and would fight it with all the strength at my command. For
to me Hind Swaraj is the rule of all the people and the rule of
justice…..By Ram Raj I do not mean Hindu Raj. I mean Divine Raj, the
Kingdom of God”
India
today has the world’s largest middle class, the second largest
technically trained manpower, some billionaires, many millionaires
and most of its destitutes, illiterates, leprosy and aids patients.
Our finance minister often boasts about India’s high economic growth
rate and occasionally speaks about “Reforms with a human face”. The
big question is whose “face”? That of the fat corporate cat or “the
poorest and most helpless man” Gandhi spoke about. His remark that
“Speed is irrelevant if you are going in the wrong direction”
equally applies to economic growth rates that bring greater
hardships to the multitude and more wealth and comfort to the rich.
Narinder Pani, in his ‘Inclusive Economics’ writes “It is Gandhi’s
skepticism about grand theories that makes him relevant to the
challenges faced by economists at the beginning of the 21st century.
He emphasized the need to go beyond theories to understanding
society. The method he developed was inclusive enough to deal with
both the known and the unknown while reducing scope for expediency.
…. There is a tendency to believe that the Gandhian method is
relevant only to those who accept his ascetic lifestyle. But once we
recognize that the method is equally consistent with a variety of
moral frameworks, it gains wider relevance”
Gandhi’s emphasis on simple living was considered antideluvian by
many during his day, but perhaps less so today. The present global
food crisis highlights the tragic irony of food crops being used as
animal feed and as biofuels for ever growing numbers of
automobiles His affirmation that the “Earth provides enough to
satisfy every man’s need but not for every man’s greed” is now the
prime slogan of the United Nations Environmental Programme. However,
Ernst Schumacher acknowledged his ecological wisdom many decades
ago. He wrote “Gandhi had always known, and rich countries are now
reluctantly beginning to realize, that their affluence was stripping
the world. The USA with 5.6% of world population is consuming upto
40% of the world’s resources, most of them non renewable….Enough is
now known about the basic facts of space ship earth to realize that
its first class passengers are making demands which cannot be
sustained very much longer without destroying the space ship”.
One of
the prime causes of global warming, a major concern today, is
extensive deforestations in India, Brazil, Indonesia and elsewhere.
As early as in 1925 Gandhi had written “It is a well established
scientific fact that where forests are denuded of trees rains cease,
where trees are planted rains are attracted and the volume of water
received increases with the increase of vegetation …..The real
conflict is not between environment and development but between
environment and the reckless exploitation of the earth by man. The
wars of our times spring from greed.” Petra Kelly, founder of the
German Green Party has concurred and declared: “In one particular
area of our political work we have been greatly inspired by Mahatma
Gandhi. That is in our belief that a life style and method of
production which rely on an endless supply and a lavish use of raw
materials generates the motive for the violent appropriation of
these raw materials from other countries. In contrast, a responsible
use of raw materials, as part of an ecologically oriented life style
and economy, reduces the risk that policies of violence will be
pursued in our name”.
Gandhi had declared that “Peace will come where Truth is pursued and
Truth implies Justice”. What the world needs today much more than a
“war on terror” is a war on untruth, injustice, oppression and war
itself.
Terrorism which now plagues many countries needs of course to be
confronted with full state vigour. But it is as much a symptom of
anger and thirst for revenge of those wronged and oppressed, as it
is of distorted minds. It is essential therefore to fathom the
motivations for terrorism. Samuel Huntington in his ‘Clash of
Civilizations’ gives an inkling of this. He writes “The West’s
efforts to universalize its values and institutions, to maintain its
military and economic superiority, and to intervene in conflicts in
the Muslim world generate intense resentment among Muslims. During
the fifteen years between 1980 and 1995, the US engaged in 17
military operations in the Middle East, all of them directed against
Muslim states. No comparable pattern of US military operations
occurred against the people of any other civilization.”
Soon
after “9/11” Paul Kennedy wrote “At 8:45 a.m. Tuesday, Sept. 11,
2001, and not the first day of the year 2000, America fully entered
the 21st century. The millennial celebrations in New
York’s Times Square were ephemeral acts. The devastation of World
Trade Center, only a mile to the south, was an epic, transforming
event….. America is our modern-day Colossus, bestriding the world
with aircraft-carriers, communications systems, giant corporations
and cultural impress. Yet this Colossus has an Achilles’ heel that
is, to a great extent, of its own making” He pointed out that its
cultural, commercial and military dominance are seen as a threat to
many traditional societies and “Its powerful corporations are viewed
by America’s critics as having an undue and powerful influence in
blocking international climate control agreements, opening up
restricted markets, and overawing weak Third World governments.“
Globalization has been strenuously promoted since the mid 80’s as
the magic wand for eliminating poverty by stimulating domestic
production and world trade. What it has actually resulted in is
extensive corporatization of global trade rather than poverty
alleviation. In most countries the rich have got richer, the poor
poorer and corporations more “mega”. In the United States today 1%
of its families own 54% of its wealth! Eminent MIT professor Noam
Chomsky decries globalization as “extension of transnational
corporate tyranny”. and transnationals as “tyrannical, totalitarian
institutions….huge command economies, run from the top, relatively
unaccountable and interlinked in various ways, whose prime interest
is profit”. Their enormous economic power, close linkages with
power elites of most countries, and the nefarious activities they
often indulge in, has gestated the term ‘“Corporate Predator State”
The World
Social Forum (WSF) has emerged as a global “people’s resistance”
against the “Corporate Predator State”. It was born in Puerto
Allegre, Brazil, through the efforts of the Brazilian Workers Party
About these WSF activists David Hardiman writes “They stand for a
human spirit that refuses to be crushed by the ‘Leviathan’ of the
modern system of violence, oppression and exploitation. They aspire
for a better, more equitable and nonviolent future. In them, Gandhi
– their model - still lives.”
Satyagraha and Sarvodaya are more imperative to national and
corporate governance today than during Gandhi’s life time. Even a
cursory survey of the global scenario in the last ten years reveals
that the major problems the world, many nations, corporations and
communities suffer today are because their leaders deserted the path
of Truth, justice and nonviolent conflict resolution in pursuit of
national, corporate, religious or personal agendas.
How
would a Government or Corporation applying Gandhian Satyagraha and
Sarvodaya principles behave today? It would formulate, adopt and
rigorously enforce a comprehensive set of ethical norms for itself
and all its subsidiaries and ensure an equitable balance between its
highest and lowest paid employees. It would seek to build its
distinct corporate image based on these norms and serve as a role
model for others. It would ensure transparency and fairness in all
its dealings and diligently safeguard the interests not only of its
share holders and workers but of all its stake holders including
suppliers, consumers and those living in its operational area. It
would undertake, or support, social action beneficial to its stake
holders and the environment in all the countries in which it
operates and function strictly within the laws of those countries.
It would also refrain from having illegal, secret bank accounts
abroad. Sadly, many of India’s corporates are known to have them.
Gandhi’s innovative Trusteeship concept that “those who own money
now are asked to behave like Trustees, holding their riches on
behalf of the poor”, sought to give an ethical dimension to
economics. It also sought to avert the hatreds and massacres class
wars engender. The 1917 Russian Revolution was sordid proof of this.
He wrote “It is my firm conviction that if the State suppressed
capitalism by violence, it will itself be caught in the evils of
violence…..The individual has a soul, but the State is a soulless
machine and can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its
existence. Hence I prefer the doctine of trusteeship”. Pyarelal has
indicated that for Gandhi, trusteeship was a means for transforming
the capitalist order into an egalitarian one by inducing moral
transformation among capitalists. During his lifetime this concept
was almost totally ignored. Jamnalal Bajaj and J.R.D Tata were
perhaps the only two who supported it. The latter wrote to a friend
“I may say that I have always been in basic agreement with Gandhi’s
concept of trusteeship and have throughout my career tried to live
up to it. In fact, our group of companies have, to the extent
possible, officially adopted it as part of their credo. My only
doubts have been in regard to the practical effect that can be given
to such a concept, considering, on the one hand, the ethical
standards, or lack of them, that seem to prevail today amongst large
sections of our business community, and on the other, the dogmatic
view of socialism and the resultant hostility towards private
enterprise adopted by our government”.
Rotary
International was founded in 1905. However, it was only in 1932, a
few months after Time Magazine put Gandhi on the cover of its first
1931 issue as ‘The Man of the Year’, that it formulated its ‘Four
Way Test’. It reads:
Is it the Truth?
Is it Fair to all concerned?
Will it build
Goodwill and Better Friendships?
Will it be
Beneficial to all concerned?
Over a
million Rotarians world wide, many of whom are senior and middle
level corporates, are pledged to this simple but vital ‘Four Way
Test”. It is the essence of Satyagraha and Sarvodaya and the best
beacons for good governance of nations and corporations alike.
Apple
Computers used a seated picture of Gandhi in its 1998 global
advertising campaign with just two words below it: “Think
different”; Tata Finance used a back view of him, with the words
“Find Purpose, The Means Will Follow”. Ganjam Jewellers of Bangalore
bettered both with “Only the Pure will Endure”, a message very
pertinent not only to global finance today but to all public and
|
