Exploring Gandhian Ideas on Political and Economic Decentralization as Peace-Keeping Forces

- By Pranjali Bandhu

Abstract

Gandhi's and Kumarappa's ideas on political and economic decentralization have been taken as the starting points for possible resolution and avoidance of current intra-national and international conflicts. In his writings Kumarappa has targeted the imperialistic world order and division of labour as being primarily responsible for the lack of world peace. The same unvanquished, barbaric forces are fomenting tensions in various parts of the globe as part of their resource grab and market expansion. Within India the forces of internal colonialism are at work. Finally, the paper shows how we could fruitfully apply Gandhi's and Kumarappa's principles on decentralized, self-determined, self-reliant development and, on an individual personal level, justice-oriented action keeping the needs of society at large in mind, for disengaging ourselves from militarist violence being unleashed against humankind and Nature nationally and internationally.

Introduction

"I feel convinced, with the strife and tension the world is experiencing, that the Gandhian way is the way, if our planet is to survive." (A.K. Dasgupta)¹

Between NATIONS, WITHIN nations, among religions and ethnic groups and along class lines strife is on the ascendancy in the world today. The same barbaric, unvanquished forces that had unleashed two world wars are fomenting tensions in various parts of the globe as part of their resource grab and market expansion. Within India the forces of internal and attempted external colonialism are at work as part of the same scenario. Among the conflict zones in India, today we find secessionist movements in Kashmir and the North-East and resource grab by corporations in league with the state being implemented in the Adivasi inhabited zones of Central India. Internationally, North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria are some of the numerous zones of violent tensions involving several nations. The confrontation between the US and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea portends possible nuclear conflict, not to speak of that between India and neighbouring Pakistan.

In the following, on the basis of taking the issues of Kashmir and Nagaland within India and policies of US hegemonism on the international level, I propose to show that we would benefit from following the counsels of M.K. Gandhi and J.C. Kumarappa as apostles of peace. We could fruitfully apply Gandhian principles, also advocated by Kumarappa and others, on decentralized, self- determined, self-reliant and sustainably restrained production and consumption at the community level. On an individual personal level, justice-oriented action and limitation of wants, keeping in mind the needs of society at large, only will help to disengage ourselves from militarist violence being perpetrated against humankind and Nature.

Kumarappa had targeted the imperialistic world order and division of labour as being primarily responsible for the lack of world peace.

We usually understand by imperialism a state where one nation holds down another in bondage so as to obtain some benefit to itself at the cost of the subjugation of the other… The essence of imperialism is often found in even a single individual or within national, geographical boundaries… We have the elements of imperialism whenever there is a desire to gain something for oneself at the cost of another.

In terms of production relations, he says:

In centralized industries under private ownership we find this spirit in a virulent form. Therefore every country that takes to this form of economic organisation will in the end produce imperialism and not freedom....It flourishes only with outside compulsion and external discipline. Naturally, to such an evil the antidote is one's own initiative and self- discipline. The promotion of decentralized industries helps us to develop both. ("Freedom," Gram Udyog Patrika, February, 1940).

The Saga for Azadi in Kashmir and the Struggle for Nagalim

The present imbroglio in the valley of Kashmir took its beginnings post-Partition in 1947. M.K. Gandhi had accepted the need for Indian military intervention at the request of Maharaja Hari Singh after the invasion of the Valley by Pathan tribes, who were incited and supported by the Pakistan government and military. The Nehru-led Indian government had made accession to India the condition for military aid to prevent annexation by Pakistan of this Muslim majority territory, in which the population was ethnically related to the Pathans and other Central Asian peoples. Gandhi at no stage had been in favour of the Partition of India on religious grounds, which has only helped in distorting the national question in the subcontinent. In the case of the Kashmir too, the Mahatma did not favour its partitioning between India and Pakistan. He regretted the fact that at Lord Mountbatten's suggestion (who in fact carried out the vivisection of the country in great haste in imperialist interests) Nehru had submitted the dispute to the United Nations Security Council. In his view, rather than allowing international powers to intervene, it would be better that the conflict, rather war, between India and Pakistan be resolved through negotiations between the two parties concerned and the representation to the UNSC be withdrawn. He also envisaged the possibility of a plebiscite or referendum in order to ascertain the wishes of the people in that State, considering that an unpopular, unrepresentative head of State had acceded to India in return for military help. He was firmly of the view that popular rule had to be established and the people of varied ethnicity and religions in Jammu and Kashmir had to be left free to decide their own destiny without coercion from any side.² In the last analysis, it was and remains a question of people's self-determination rights, their sovereignty.

Strategically located, with rich mineral, hydro power and human resources, with three wars fought over it, Kashmir is today a divided territory occupied by three alien powers of India, Pakistan and China (which occupies Aksai Chin and 5180 sq km of POK, ceded by the Pakistan government in a 1963 boundary agreement). Gandhi's approach to the Kashmir issue was focussed on the political democratic rights of the people. J.C. Kumarappa, on the other hand, suggested peaceful and equitable economic development policies in a series of articles titled "Industries of Kashmir" (Gram Udyog Patrika, August, Sep. and Oct. 1945). Under the rapacious rule of Hari Singh— descendant of a Dogra Raja from Jammu, who had purchased the territory from the British rulers by the Treaty of Amritsar in 1846— poverty was widespread in Kashmir. Internationally renowned for its fine handicrafts traditions, its highly skilled artisans were getting very low remuneration with middle persons gaining the bounty. Some ancient crafts were neglected and on the decline.

Kumarappa talks about various local crafts which could be developed further as cottage industries by using Kashmir's rich resources and natural advantages with government support, and through cooperatives, eliminating middle persons, for generating employment and better living and working conditions for the actual producers. Among those mentioned were sericulture, toy making, paper making, pottery, and wood work. In his view the plentiful availability of water enabled the installation of water mills for de-husking rice, flour grinding and crushing of mustard seeds. Improved practices of cattle and sheep breeding, bee-keeping, poultry farming, and pisciculture are also recommended by him in addition to the use of carcasses for the production of bone meal and meat meal manure after their fur is procured for wool production. During his visit to Jammu and Kashmir, Kumarappa noticed the tendency to cheat the tourists, common to all tourism destinations, and recommended a closer regulation of the tourism traffic by the authorities. Though the Kashmiri economy caters to a great extent also to external demand in terms of its crafts, horticulture and tourism industry, in line with his general approach to economic questions, he emphasized equitable, self-reliant, local resources-based and self-respecting production relations. Post-independence, in addition to revitalizing village industries, he took up the questions of agrarian reform and balanced cultivation too in a strong way.

In no way in Gandhi's and Kumarappa's perspective was Kashmir to become an arena for meddlesome interventions by external forces, foremost among them being the United States through the UNSC,³ but also including the newly independent powers of India and Pakistan, creating havoc for selfish ends, keeping the wounds festering and destabilising the economy, making it into a tragic vale of aggression and tears as it has become since then.

As in the case of Kashmir, Gandhi did not advocate forcible union of the Naga Hills into the Indian Union after independence.

On 19 July 1947, he is quoted as having said to a Naga delegation that visited him in the Bhangi Colony in Delhi:

Nagas have every right to be independent. We did not want to live under the domination of the British and they are now leaving us. I want you to feel that India is yours. I feel that the Naga Hills are mine, the matter must stop there. I believe in the brotherhood of man, but I do not believe in force or forced union. If you do not wish to join the Union of India, nobody will force you to do that.⁴

Here Gandhi was articulating the publicly avowed policy of the Indian National Congress. But when three weeks later the delegation met Nehru with their demand of sovereignty, he was forthright in his refusal and was willing at the most to grant autonomy. His stand was due to the fact that if such demands were countenanced a Pandora's box would be opened up and Indian national integration would not come into being as desired by the Indian big bourgeoisie and related political class. Though the Naga National Council declared independence on 14 August 1947, and the same was endorsed by an overwhelming majority of the Naga peoples⁵ through a plebiscite conducted by it in 1951, the Nehru government was stubborn in its stance for forcibly retaining the entire North-East within the Indian Union. In the Constitution of 1950, the Naga Hills were included under the Sixth Schedule. The stage was set for collision, and bloody confrontation ensued, not only with the Nagas but eventually also with other hill tribes of the North-East. The aim of the Indian government has been not just to secure in this way the frontiers with bordering countries but also to exploit the resources, which include oil, natural gas, coal and other minerals, forest wealth and hydro power resources. Bypassing the traditional ethos and culture of the various ethnic groups, this is being done without due regard for the ecology of this geologically sensitive area. Control is retained by diabolically pitting them against one another and distorting their relationships among themselves and with the plains people.⁶

Colonialism is being practised by the central government, not just in relation to the tribal areas of the North-East but also in relation to those in Central India, an area which also abounds in natural resources. Gandhi is said to have been in favour of "local area autonomy" or self-government for areas where hill tribes lived, so that they could preserve their traditional ways.⁷ This was in line with his scheme of political decentralization in independent India, where political power would move upwards from the villages, to district, province and central levels on the basis of universal suffrage. Dispersion of power and decentralized local resources based economic development on a caste and classless basis would not have disturbed from outside the largely self-sufficient Naga village republics and other tribal areas. The internal colonialism subsequently carried out by the central Indian government is in the interest of resource extraction by profit-seeking domestic and foreign corporates. It is also symptomatic of the dependency syndrome that has crept into India's relationship with more advanced capitalist-imperialist powers, particularly the USA. It is no less militarily dependent on US support. This was evident at the time of the 1962 border skirmish with China.

Militarisation of Society and its Consequences

As the corporate sector enriches itself at the cost of the common people, militarisation of the country is proceeding at a fast pace. The armed might of the Indian state is not only directed towards neighbouring 'enemy' forces, but to a greater extent it is used for crushing internal dissent by populations affected by its development policies. India is one of the biggest buyers of arms from the advanced capitalist countries and the fifth largest military spender. Its high expenditure on so-called defence is in line with global trends. The USA, of course, heads the list. On a world scale, nuclear armed nations spend close to US$ 300 million (INR. 2000 crores) a day on their nuclear forces.⁸ Apart from the dangers associated with the use of nuclear weapons such skewed expenditure is obviously at the cost of the standard of living and well-being of the vast majority of humankind and its planetary home. In our country, the pattern of growth and development is high technology driven, now called 'disruptive technology.' It is highly urban centric with the rural agricultural and agro-industrial small-scale sectors being neglected and exploited ones.⁹ Ensuing unemployment and underemployment are utilized for sucking youth into the armed forces, police, paramilitary forces of the government, political parties, right and left wing organisations, oppositional militant groups, assorted mafia and criminal gangs. Society gets enmeshed in chains of pathological violence and counter violence. Atrocities and human rights violations abound from all sides. Such activities are expressions of the distortion of human personality, which can grow in a balanced way only through engaging in productive work by expressing itself and developing innate aptitudes. Such a state of affairs is diametrically opposed to Kumarappa's Gandhian concepts of economy of permanence, freedom, nurturing and sharing, egalitarianism, peace and so on, expatiated in various writings and talks.¹⁰ His concept of an economy of permanence emphasized the need for a natural economy in cooperation with Nature rather than the imperialistic Western mode of production which seeks mastery and control over Nature. Only such an economy that does not diminish natural non-renewable resources at too fast a pace and relies increasingly on locally available renewable resources and animal power rather than on fossil fuels can be a sustainable one.

When we talk about growing Indian economic, political and military dependency on diverse imperialist powers, foremost among them the US, it is clear that in its turn the US is bent upon trying to subordinate all others in the interest of its military-industrial complex and to retain its global supremacy. In the view of some analysts, World War Three began almost right after the end of World War Two and is directed against the possible independence of Third World countries. A series of over twenty-one such countries have been bombed by the US, innumerable dictatorships propped up and sanctions imposed since then under varied pretexts with the aim of control and pillage of the natural resources of the continents of Eurasia, Africa and Latin America. It must, however, be noted that since quite some time the parasitic US economy has been a declining one and its growth is being maintained only by a systematic and massive expansion of consumer and government borrowing. A large number of goods and services are imported and it has an extremely high current account deficit covered by borrowings making it into the world's largest debtor.¹¹ Increased militarisation and nationalism (of the Trump variety) are efforts to stave off a collapse of the US economy.

The current "axis of evil" is presented by the countries of Iran, North Korea and Venezuela, as they challenge US hegemonism in their respective regions. In 2002 the US adopted a "Nuclear Posture Review" directing its military to prepare for use of nuclear weapons against at least seven countries (China, Russia, pre-occupation Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria).¹² North Korea's defiant nuclear belligerence, possibly imagining this as the only way to retain its independence, is difficult for arrogant Washington to swallow. The nuclear weapon threat indeed looms large in many a conflict spot including India's borders. In view of this, the UN General Assembly passed the "Treaty Prohibiting Nuclear Weapons" on July 7, 2017. And the Nobel Peace Prize for 2017 was bestowed upon the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).¹³ Seemingly, good news. But, as a big power, the US is known for utilizing or ignoring the UN at will and violating international laws. And within the present world order it is unlikely that the world's nuclear stockpile including India's nuclear arsenal are going to be destroyed as a result of this treaty.

In this context, we have to remember Kumarappa's exhortations that no organisation such as the League of Nations, or disarmament proposals, non-proliferation treaties, UN resolutions, peace talks or ceasefire agreements are going to be able to hit at the roots of the present violence in the world. In his view, the only way to a peaceful world is to weed out all parasitic growth from the daily life of every citizen. As he repeatedly pointed out, centralized methods of production, with or without private profit, with their accompanying problems of raw materials and markets, lie at the root of all violence in the modern world. It is not as if Kumarappa was totally against centralized, large-scale industries in key areas. Only these had to be run by the state on a non-profit basis for serving the requirements of cottage and village industries, which would form the pivot in the new economic order. And there had to be income parity in the two sectors so that the cottage industries do not become adjuncts to the large-scale industries.¹⁴ In the long-run international trade too should be made to function in such a way that it fosters rather than destroys or subordinates to itself local cottage and village industries.

In order to be true pacifists, we cannot use products which have taken part in international trade based on or enforced by violence. Each individual has to accept responsibility for all acts that precede the economic transaction into which s/he enters. To do this we have to realign the layout of society, withdraw from the imposed imperialist division of labour, simplify our lives and limit our primary consumption needs of food, clothing and shelter to such that have been produced under our ken, that is, as far as possible locally and in a decentralized way.

If we genuinely desire a peaceful world, the following words of J.C. Kumarappa need to be kept in mind:

The present economic organisation rests on violence for its foundation. If we seek peace we have to rebuild our social structure on conditions which will have no need for resorting to violence as a means of maintaining our social order… Are the pacifists prepared to make the necessary fundamental adjustments in their own life in the first instance and in the life of the nation eventually? ...
Let there be no soft pedalling on mass murders euphemistically called 'wars.' Let the youth know when he enlists in the 'Forces' that he is joining a gang of international murderers and brigands. We cannot call in the noble patriotism, enthusiasm and energy of youth into action for so vile a purpose. Let us raise the moral consciousness and lower money considerations and material values... In this way we shall usher in an age of peace in this war-torn world and rescue civilization from barbarism.¹⁵

Conclusion

Taking a relook at the wealth of ideas of these stalwarts of the independence movement and developing and adapting them within the contemporary setting can surely help in resolving humungous problems staring humanity in the face.

Notes and References

1. Quoted in Pulin B. Nayak, "A.K. Dasgupta on Gandhi and the Economics of Austerity", Economic and Political Weekly, 16 Dec. 2017.
2. See Louis Fischer, The Life of Mahatma Gandhi (London, Granada Books, 1982), pp. 609-10. Also see V. Ramamurthy, Mahatma Gandhi - the Last 200 Days (Chennai: Kasturi & Sons Ltd, 2003), p. 277.
3. See, for e.g. L. Natarajan, American Shadow over India (Bombay: PPH, 1952), which expounds on the U.S. American manoeuvres in the Security Council debates on the Kashmir issue (pp. 166-175). This book also has a Foreword by J.C. Kumarappa, who comes down firmly on the side of the USSR in the then beginning Cold War without endorsing its internally violent methods ensuing from centralization, and warns against the exploitative neo-colonial financial web being woven by the U.S. to entangle countries like India.
4. Cited in "The Naga Nation and its Struggle Against Genocide." IWGIA (International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs) Document 56, Copenhagen, 1986, p. 3. In 1949, then Governor-General C.R. Rajagopalachari, is also believed to have reiterated the same.
5. Each Naga tribal community considers itself a 'nation' and each Naga village is a republic in its own right. The Naga nation is hence conceived by them as a federation of such nations with far-reaching local level powers, which fits in well with the Gandhian concept of a decentralized political and economic framework.
6. Among the plethora of material available on these issues we would like to mention the report: "Damming Northeast India: Juggernaut of hydropower projects threatens social and environmental security of region" by Neeraj Vagholikar and Partha J. Das, published by Kalpavriksh, Aaranyak and Action Aid India (Pune, Guwahati and New Delhi) November 2010.
7. V Ramamurthy, Mahatma Gandhi: The last 200 Days, op.cit. , p. 40.
8. Arun Mitra: "Promote Health, not Nuclear Weapons." Millennium Post, 6.1.2018.
9. Cf. T.G. Jacob: "J.C. Kumarappa in the Context of Contemporary Agrarian Crisis" in this issue.
10. Pranjali Bandhu(Ed.), Back to Basics: A J.C. Kumarappa Reader (Udhagamandalam: Odyssey, 2011).
11. RUPE (Research Unit for Political Economy): "Global Power, Client State: India's Place in the US Strategic Order," Aspects of India's Economy, No. 41, December 2005. Available at: http://www.rupe- india.org/41/order.html
12. Ibid.
13. The ICAN was formed in 2007 at the initiative of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and has been consistently building public opinion and lobbying with governments for a world free of nuclear weapons.
14. The Senior Partner," Gram Udyog Patrika, July 1942.
15. "Pacifism and Bellicosity," 2 September 1946 in Back to Basics: A J.C. Kumarappa Reader," op. cit., p. 39

Source: 'Gandhi Marg', Volume 39, Number 4, January-March 2018.

PRANJALI BANDHU is an activist, researcher and writer and co- founder of Odyssey Press and South Asia Study Centre, based in the Nilgiris. She has taught at universities like JNU, IIT Madras and Visva Bharati. Email: pranjali.bandhu@gmail.com