|
Gandhi
is dead. Long live Gandhi
The
post-Gandhi Gandhian movement in India
(1998)
By Tom
Weber
La Trobe University, Australia, TFF Associate
As the 50th anniversary of Gandhi's assassination
approaches, the question will inevitably be asked - where
is the Gandhian movement now? And some will argue that
the place to look is not in India at all. Attenborough's
film Gandhi saw a great revival of interest in the
Mahatma worldwide - and this included in India. At around
this time, many of the older generation, including older
Gandhians, lamented the fact that Gandhi was dead in
India and now had to be imported from the West.
Many of Gandhi's closest colleagues had become leading
politicians or have established well respected Gandhian
institutions. To some, who continued to work at the
grass-roots, these were called (not always too kindly)
"professional Gandhians". Those who continued to work at
the grass-roots by and large maintained seemingly
essential symbols - the sacrificial spinning, the wearing
of khadi, strict dietary rules and the like. But there
are also members of a younger generation who were born
after the death of the Mahatma into families that did not
necessarily have any special connection with Gandhi, who
seemed to be "normal" youth, heading off into
professional middle-classdom, who, for some reason, took
the command in Gandhi's "last will and testament" to
heart. They dropped out of university or jobs with a
materially secure future (often under the influence of JP
during the heady days of the Total Revolution) to work in
out of the way villages. It is not that Gandhi no longer
exists as far as Indian youth are concerned; it is more
that too often Gandhian youth are not recognised as
such.
These youth did not necessarily have much contact with
the Gandhian establishment when they started their work,
and if they thought of the professional Gandhians at all,
did not necessarily think much of them. In turn, perhaps
because they simply were not known to the old guard of
Gandhians, or because they did not employ the same
Gandhian symbolism, they were invisible to them. Now some
are receiving recognition as belonging to the Gandhian
family; and, regardless of recognition or perceived
damage being done to the accepted idea of succession,
they can perhaps be seen as the inheritors of the mantle
of Gandhi.
Gandhism and the
Literature
A Thriving
Industry
The books about Gandhi are now far too many to count.
There was a flood of them in the late 1960s to mark the
100 year anniversary of the Mahatma's birth, there has
been another spate during the recent 125th birth
anniversary, and there will probably be another
inundation in 1998 to coincide with the 50th anniversary
of his death. The tide of new books on Gandhian
philosophy shows no indication of ebbing, and although
the main sources of eyewitness accounts of Gandhi's life
are vanishing (one could be excused for thinking that
everyone who even saw Gandhi at a distance in their life,
and could put pen to paper, felt compelled to write about
it), biographies, interpretations of Gandhian philosophy,
selections of the Mahatma's writings and histories of
modern Indian politics, where Gandhi plays a central
role, are still being produced at a fair clip.
Books about Gandhians and the post-Gandhi Gandhian
movement are far more rare. Many leading followers of the
Mahatma wrote autobiographies, or had biographies written
about them, and Vinoba Bhave's land-gift Bhoodan movement
and Jayaprakash Narayan's Total Revolution have received
considerable attention, especially by Indian scholars. In
1977 both Ved Mehta and V.S.Naipaul wrote about Gandhi
and his disciples in highly successful but most
unsympathetic ways. Ten years later American writer Mark
Shepard produced an uplifting book on Gandhi's disciples.
It seems that the books on the Gandhian legacy, as
carried on by his followers, fall into the categories
defined by these books. Either Gandhi's legacy is a
destructive one, holding back development in the country,
his successors being eccentrics or dangerous fools on the
one hand; or, on the other, the only hope for the country
is to adhere more closely to Gandhian principles, and the
Mahatma's followers are depicted almost as saints.
Katherine Mayo
Lives
Exactly a half century after Katherine Mayo wrote an
indictment of almost all things Indian in her
best-selling and very controversial book Mother India1
(which Gandhi called a "drain inspector's report"2), the
London publisher Andre Deutsch released two new books
that seemed to have as their core the denunciation of
Gandhism.
Fiction and travel writer, the Trinidad Indian
V.S.Naipaul sees India as a wounded civilisation, trapped
in an uncritical and dysfunctional glorification of the
past, noting that "The past must be seen to be dead; or
the past will kill."3 Looking at the recent revival of
the more destructive elements of Hindu nationalism his
thesis may bear closer examination, but his assessment of
the complicity of Gandhi and Gandhism in this is grossly
overplayed. While Gandhi did preach simplicity (and in
the twenty years since Naipaul wrote, the adage "live
simply so that others may simply live" has taken on the
character of a truism) he never glorified enforced
poverty. As the century draws to a close, Naipaul's faith
in development and the technological fix seems more
quaint than the attitudes (he brackets with Gandhism)
that he dismisses as primitivist. And his limiting of
Gandhism to the more obscurantist activities of Vinoba
Bhave merely shows his unfamiliarity with the
Gandhians.
No such charge can be levelled at Mehta. Mehta's
(bordering on the malicious) book is specifically about
Gandhi and the Gandhians (who he calls "apostles").4
Mehta, who as a fifteen year old left India to make his
home in the United States soon after Gandhi's
assassination, is, like Naipaul, a social critic and
novelist and a good wordsmith. In Australia, before the
antidote of Attenborough's film, unfortunately thousands
of school children got their only insight into Gandhi's
life and teaching when Mehta's book, which accents the
sexual and scatological, was placed on the educational
syllabus - for English literature.
In his sections on Gandhians, when he is not
describing their clothing, their physical appearance or
the setting in which the meeting took place, Mehta is
poking fun at them (in fact he even tries to ensure that
he does this in his descriptions). He engages in a
hatchet job: unselfish helpfulness on the part of his
interviewees is rewarded with unfair criticism, with
character assassination, constantly negative
interpretations of ambiguous circumstances or statements
and even plain untruths. Many of those who gave Mehta of
their valuable time are made to appear like fools or
worse. And the Gandhians he talks too are generally
elderly big city-dwelling individuals well known for some
past association with the Mahatma. Almost none of them
are village constructive workers working with and for the
downtrodden. None are youthful idealists. It seems he
simply had no idea where to look for real Gandhian work
and Gandhian workers, instead he focuses on a collection
of "Gandhian" personalities.
A Collection of
Stars
In his book Gandhi Today: A Report on Mahatma Gandhi's
Successors, Shepard asks the question about the status of
the Gandhian tradition in India, whether it has died
away, and what has become of the constructive workers
that Gandhi sent to the villages.5 He concludes that with
the passing of Vinoba and JP, "it is unlikely that the
Sarvodaya Movement will again be a major force on a
national level." He notes, however, that there are still
Gandhians who are a "vital force" in the communities they
have settled in, and it is "in these enclaves...that the
main strength of the Sarvodaya Movement is found today."6
The rest of his book show-cases several of these well
known Gandhians, including Narayan Desai the Shanti Sena
(Peace Army) leader, Chandi Prasad Bhatt of the
tree-hugging Chipko movement, Harivallabh Parikh and his
"People's Courts", Radhakrishna Menon and the village
community of Danagram, Prem Bhai and his Agrindus project
working among the tribal population of southeastern Uttar
Pradesh, and a brief account of well known Western
"Gandhians" and "Gandhian" movements.
Ishwar Harris' book, Gandhians in Contemporary India,7
is the latest offering in this vein. While more detailed
and analytical in setting the scene, covers basically
similar ground to Shepard's work. And like it, it is an
extremely positive account of the work and life of some
leading stars, those whose efforts are said to constitute
the main strength of the Sarvodaya movement. As with
Shepard's book, the first section examines Gandhi's
vision and details the Gandhian movement under Vinoba and
JP and looks at the current state of Indian "development"
in which modern Gandhians live and work. The second part,
the heart of the book, provides a description of the life
and thought of fifteen other leading Gandhian visionaries
(most of whose names are not only unknown outside India
but in the majority of cases probably unknown outside
Gandhian circles).
To Harivallabh Parikh (advocate for the rights of
tribal people in Gujarat and founder of the
internationally acclaimed "people's courts") and Narayan
Desai (JP's right hand man and Gandhian educator,
director of the Gandhian peace army, the Shanti Sena),
who appear in Shepard's list of prominent Gandhians,
Harris adds Acharya Ramamurti (a leading Gandhian
intellectual and lok sevak who, unlike most Gandhians, is
prepared to work in the political arena), Achyut
Deshpande (Vinoba lieutenant who has dedicated the latter
part of his life to his leader's campaign for the
protection of cows), Chunibhai Vaidya (the Gujarati
Gandhian elder who has set up countless people's
committees and fought for the villagers' rights to
water), Devendra Kumar (the peacemaker between the
Government, JP, and Vinoba camps during the days of Total
Revolution, and, most importantly, champion of
appropriate technology as leader of the Centre for
Science for Villages), Govind Rao Deshpande (a tireless
promoter of trusteeship as the only sustainable and
spiritually valid economic system), Jagannathan (Tamil
land reform activist and founder of the Association of
Sarva Seva Farms), Krirhnammal (Jagannathan's wife and
co-worker who has dedicated her life to the uplift of
landless "untouchables"), Nirmala Deshpande (Vinoba's
chief supporter in the split with JP and friend of Indira
Gandhi, member of the Raja Sabha and worker for the
uplift of "Harijans"), V.Ramachandran (leading Tamil Nadu
sarvodaya worker and life-long promoter of khadi),
Shobhana Ranade (the well-known educator and empowerer of
women at the Gandhi National Memorial Society situated in
the Aga Khan Palace in Pune), S.N.Subba Rao (a leading
figure in the surrender of the Chambal Valley dacoits and
now widely known as the dominant Gandhian youth worker
through his organisation of major youth camps and
national integration train yatras), Sunderlal Bahuguna
(champion of the Himalayan forests, protester against the
Tehri dam, and here substituted for Chandi Prasad Bhatt
in Shepard's book as the founder of the world-famous
"tree-hugging" Chipko movement), and Thakurdas Bang (a
leader and theorist of the umbrella Gandhian
organisation, the Sarva Seva Sangh, founder of many
Gandhian movements and now a campaigner against
multinational corporations and the effects of
globalisation on India).
These books are extremely positive accounts of the
work and life of some leading stars, whose efforts
constitute "the main strength of the Sarvodaya Movement."
But even these luminaries are fast disappearing, and
anyway Gandhism should not be dependent on a collection
of stars. Only in passing does Shepard concede that while
the movement as a whole has declined, it can still
provide guidance for the new generation of leaders who
"willingly look back to Gandhi for inspiration."8 And
perhaps Harris has passed judgement on the movement when
he talks of it as slowly winding down, and of leaders
doing "their own thing".
It is perhaps time to take more dispassionate look at
the legacy of Gandhi, and a less starry-eyed look at
those inspired by him. The main source on the Gandhian
movement, as opposed to Gandhians, in the latter half of
the 20th century is Geoferry Ostergaard's definitive
Nonviolent Revolution in India9 (and to this possibly
could be added Weber's 1996 work on the Shanti Sena10 and
an earlier article by Harris on the crisis in the
contemporary Sarvodaya movement11). Possibly an
Ostergaard type of analysis could no longer be written
because rather than there still being a sarvodaya
movement, there are now only Gandhians involved in
sarvodaya.
I intend to trace briefly the history of the Gandhian
movement, as movement rather than a catalogue of
well-known personalities, examine its current position,
and make some (necessarily subjective) assessment of the
likely future of Indian Gandhism, again as a Gandhi
inspired movement, rather than concentrating on finding
new leading figures.
Gandhism Yesterday
Social
Movements
Social movements aim to change society from the roots.
They often have a utopian view and they generally use
symbols to achieve solidarity among the members. They
reject existing social values and arrangements. Movements
change over time, as people are mobilised for the cause
and more and more adherents join, beliefs of the movement
change and the movement takes on new characteristics. In
order to realise the goals of a movement a more or less
permanent organisational structure is generally seen as
necessary. Paradoxically, this can defeat the very ideals
which gave rise to the movement in the first place. When
disillusionment with the possibility of achieving the
goals of the movement sets in, the sense of mission may
become blurred, the idealism becoming corrupted by a
tendency of any organisation to become an end in
itself.
Action groups that are formed to achieve short-term
goals often lose relevance and fade away, concentrate on
secondary goals or fragment when the goal has not been
realised. The prominent model used to explain this
progression in organisations is based on Max Weber's
theory of bureaucracy and on Michels' "iron law of
oligarchy". This model focuses on institutionalisation
and goal displacement in organisational transformation.
It points to the major types of changes that occur as
organisations mature - as they attain a solid economic
social base, as goals are achieved or seen to be
obviously unachievable, as the original charismatic
leadership is replaced by a bureaucratic structure, and
as the group achieves a general accommodation with
society at large. These changes are goal transformation -
a shift towards concern over maintaining the organisation
(the previous means becoming ends) - and oligarchisation
(where power becomes concentrated in the hands of a
minority of the organisation's membership).12 Where there
is sufficient change of these kinds a further question is
raised: is it still valid to equate the transformed
organisation with the original organisation?
In the last two decades India has spawned many notable
social movements. Some like the Chipko movement have
gained international fame, others like the ones to
protest the construction of huge dams or against nuclear
power plants, gather a great deal of national press.
These movements use civil disobedience as their protest
technique and espouse an adherence to nonviolence in
their activism - in other words, and this is not
surprising given the historical milieu from which they
sprang, they operate within what may be called a Gandhian
framework. Further, many of the activists involved in
these "new social movements" openly acknowledge their
debt to Gandhian philosophy and the inspiration of the
Mahatma's example.13
Gandhi's
Message
Gandhi held before himself, and attempted to place
before the masses, a picture of an ideal society that was
to be the goal of collective endeavour as the approach
towards "Truth" was to be goal for the individual. This
vision was summed up in the word "Ramrajya", the "Kingdom
of God", where there were equal rights for princes and
paupers, where even the lowliest person could get swift
justice without elaborate and costly procedures, where
inequalities which allowed some to roll in riches while
the masses did not have enough to eat were abolished, and
where sovereignty of the people was based on pure moral
authority rather than on power.
To achieve this end, a new movement was needed. The
day before his death on 30 January 1948, Gandhi wrote, in
what was to become known as his "last will and
testament", that the Indian National Congress (the main
nationalist organisation whose office bearers were
elected annually) in its present form had outlived its
use.14 The Congress had been set up to achieve political
independence; and that goal accomplished the emphasis had
to shift to the social, moral and economic independence
of the rural masses. With this in mind, Gandhi proposed
that the Congress organisation be disbanded to allow Lok
Seva Sanghs, organisations for the service of the people,
to grow in its place. The Congress did not disband
itself. Instead, it became the party of government and
its main office bearers the leading politicians in the
ruling party.
(Incidentally, this has had an unexpected negative
spin-off: many young people in India saw the recent
Congress government as Gandhi's party. They see that the
political system is riddled with corruption, and in their
minds this taints the Mahatma, and gives the Gandhian
movement and philosophy, about neither of which they know
very much, a bad name. In the words of senior Gandhian
elder Manmohan Choudhuri, "Today Gandhi is being
presented to the people as a fusty old grandad who
admonishes children to keep quiet, not to contradict
their elders, to have respect for those in authority and
so on. As ëFather of the Nation' he has been turned
into the patron saint of the Government of India." Those
who do not "care a fig for any of his ideas and
principles...use Gandhi for winning elections").15
Most of the old Gandhians, who did not go into
politics, ended up, after the revitalising impetus of
Vinoba's Bhoodan movement, taking a middle course. They
set up institutions as the centres for constructive work
and training in Gandhian ideology, but generally short of
living in villages as the villagers do.
Gandhism as
Movement
Rather than there being a powerful and united Indian
Gandhian movement as there once was, there are now
countless grass-roots social movements, often strongly
influenced by Gandhi, even though Gandhi may not even be
mentioned and things may not be done in his name. Is this
still Gandhism? Is Gandhism dead, or merely
transformed?
In what way should the word "movement" be applied to
the Indian Gandhian establishment? And in order to list
other social activist groups under the rubric of the
Gandhian movement, is it enough that they may have
started due to Gandhian inspiration or that they do the
type of work Gandhi advocated?
The constructive workers of Gandhi's time became the
cadres of Sarvodaya (literally the "rising" of all, not
merely the majority. "Sarvodaya" is the term used in
India for the social philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi and
Sarvodaya/constructive workers are in effect Gandhian
social workers) after the Mahatma's death. Congress
political leaders went on to become politicians
("political Gandhism" in Ostergaard's words, represents a
group whose membership now can be said to include the
Khadi and Village Industries Board) in the newly
independent India, rather than heeding Gandhi's call to
become lok sevaks who worked directly with the people.
The constructive workers who did heed the call, in March
1948 at Sevagram, set up the Sarva Seva Sangh as an
umbrella organisation of most (some of the more reformist
social work oriented organisations representing in
Ostergaard's category of "institutional Gandhism", and
retained the separate identities of the constructive work
organisations that Gandhi had founded. The Sangh became
the organisational base, again in Ostergaard's words, of
"revolutionary Gandhism", accepting nonviolent social
revolution as its goal.16 And it is those involved with
revolutionary Gandhism that popularly came to be seen as
representatives of the Gandhian movement.
This movement of revolutionary Gandhism has had its
ups and downs. Following Gandhi's death there was a
period of uncertainty until it was given impetus and
direction by Vinoba leading to "the six fat years of the
movement's Bhoodan phase"17 from 1951. This was followed
by six lean years as the Bhoodan and Gramdan movements
faltered and the first splits occurred in the until then
united movement over the appropriate response to the
border war with China.18 A further six good years were to
follow after the 1963 Raipur Sarvodaya Sammelan
(conference) where the simplified or Sulabh Gramdan was
adopted along with khadi and the Shanti Sena as the
Sangh's "Triple Programme".19 This was further boosted by
the toofani or whirlwind Gramdan campaign and the
expanding of the dan (gift) concept to the point where
the declaration of Bihardan became the focus of activity
and seemed achievable by the time of Gandhi's birth
centenary in 1969. Then came another lean period, one of
intense soul-searching and groping for new strategies as
workers realised that often their efforts were not
warranted by the results. The new high in the movement
came as JP emerged from Vinoba's shadow to assume the
leadership of the Sangh and to lead it back onto a
politicised and confrontationalist approach during the
mass mobilisations of JP's Total Revolution. The crushing
of the movement by Indira Gandhi and the debacle of the
Janata government, following the lifting of her
Emergency, spelled the beginning of the latest lull. But
this down period has lasted far longer than the usual
half dozen or so years of previous lean times. And there
is no sign of any revitalisation of a mass movement to be
spearheaded by revolutionary Gandhism as embodied in the
Sarva Seva Sangh.
Over 30 years ago, JP was saying that Western
observers often asked if there was anything left of
Gandhi in India.20 And this was at a time when Vinoba's
movement was still ongoing, when the Gandhians were
setting up the Shanti Sena, and before the mass energy of
th JP Movement. How much more relevant is that question
today?
Jayaprakash Narayan noted that there were those among
the elite "who vaguely feel that deep down there is
something wrong with the country and that Gandhi might
somehow have an answer." This is still the case - young
members of the elite are still joining or founding NGOs
to do Gandhi's work in the villages. They are inspired by
the Mahatma, but are not formally joining the Gandhian
"movement". When JP asked why, regardless of this, "from
all outward appearances, Gandhi appears to have become
irrelevant to the present situation?" perhaps we should
be asking why, today, the Gandhians more than Gandhi have
become irrelevant to the situation. He gives as one of
the major answers the fact that the "Gandhians have been
unable, in the years since Gandhi, to interpret him in
modern terms...".21
Perhaps the time for a Gandhian movement has passed,
and attempts to recreate the heyday will show that it is
no longer viable. That may be a good thing to realise.
While the old Gandhians have been clinging to their
ideals and ways of working, perhaps the iron law has been
in operation. Many of the institutions go on as largely
irrelevant ends in themselves. Perhaps now it is more
accurate to talk of a collection of dedicated individuals
rather than of a movement. And this most likely means
that the movement has come to a final end rather than
that there is merely a hiatus until a leader with the
stature of those of the past emerges to move the masses
with Gandhian rhetoric and revitalise it.
Gandhi's satyagraha was a dialectical process.22
Perhaps in a sense the activities of the Gandhian
movement at its height could also be seen as dialectic.
The movement reacted creatively to what was going on
outside - the communist led terrorism over the unequal
distribution of land led to the Bhoodan movement,
increasingly dictatorial power at the centre to the JP
Movement - but now seems to have lost its dialectical
nature. It appears to have ossified, lost its flexibility
and creatively, and approaches perceived problems in an
almost formula-like manner regardless of the obvious lack
of progress (for example the inflexibility of the Deonar
cow satyagraha has left it as a small ever onging witness
protest23).
Vinoba's triple program is still talked of but in
practice little is being achieved. Despite periodic
attempts to revitalise the shanti sena and push for
gramdan, where individual property rights are given up in
favour of the entire village community, both can be said
to be by and large dormant concepts at the moment. Khadi,
specifically the local production of handspun and
handwoven cloth, rather than the production output of
small-scale village craft industries, for all intents and
purposes, is a large government run enterprise. Some
young Gandhian workers argue that where khadi has become
based on money it has lost its revolutionary aspects and
constructive work must be revolutionary. Sarvodaya is not
on the horizon.
In 1974, at the height of the JP Movement, scholar
T.S.Devadoss wrote: "The Sarvodaya thinkers are still
experimenting to discover a programme of work as would
create enthusiasm in the people and would lead society
towards the realization of Sarvodaya."24 This is much
more true today and while it can be argued that the
current lull in the sarvodaya movement is only temporary,
a realistic assessment would have to be that there is no
momentum, little current possibility of a Gandhian lead
program being devised that would create enthusiasm in the
people, and no Gandhian leader on the horizon who could
help generate it.
In the Gandhian context, following the selfless
examples of JP and Vinoba, the gift of one's entire life
for the cause of nonviolent revolution is referred to as
jeevandan. Some of the Gandhian institutions hoped to
train Gandhian workers who would become jeevandanis, who
would see their Gandhian work as a vocation. Often the
minds of the students were not sufficiently changed -
they wanted money and better jobs. This was not the
outcome desired by the trainers. For those who were with
Gandhi or walked with Vinoba, Sarvodaya work was a
vocation. Can this be expected of others who were not
touched by the association with a great leader,
especially in an environment where it is difficult for
them to be accepted as genuine co-workers rather than
disciples? Many workers see employment in Gandhian
institutions as jobs rather than as the careers of
sacrifice and service that they were for the old, and
when an outside job paying more comes along, they readily
take it.
But even the old jeevandanis, those who gave their
lives for the cause of sarvodaya, are dying out. The
questions are: are more jeevandanis needed? And can more
be expected; or was it something of its time?
In March 1948 at Sevagram, when the representatives of
eleven constructive organisations decided to federate to
form the All Indian Sarva Seva Sangh, a conference of
constructive workers also established a loose
organisation of those with a belief in the teachings of
Gandhi. This Sarvodaya Samaj (society) includes all who
were engaged in some form of constructive work and meets
annually "to enable the members to exchange ideas and
share each other's experiences."25 Perhaps the days of
the Sarva Seva Sangh as the organised body representing
revolutionary Gandhism are over and a loose network of
like-minded people, the Gandhian "family" as symbolised
in the Samaj, without central organisation, is all that
is possible, and perhaps is all that is desirable.
In 1983, Paul Clements, in his investigation of the
Gandhian movement wrote that it is remarkable in modern
times because of its longevity and its combination of
institutional strength and ability to maintain a creative
edge. Thirty-five years after Gandhi himself was
assassinated it continues to attract adherents. It has
evolved along with independent India and continues to
offer a vital alternative to the prevailing ideas about
how India should develop.26
This does not seem to be the case fifty years after
Gandhi's assassination. The post-Gandhi Gandhian movement
really came alive in India in 1951 when Vinoba Bhave
launched his celebrated Bhoodan movement. And Bhoodan,
and its later derivatives, became the central focus of
the movement for the next 20 years. To some observers,
during this phase "it had been a bit like a religious
sect with a community of believers."27 When JP joined the
movement with a contingent of his Socialist followers
this "sect" gradually took on a new atmosphere, becoming
"more flexible and open to broader participation."
This broadness, with different currents pulling in
different directions, is now part of the reason for the
decline of a movement with clear goals and objectives,
united behind an undisputed leader. Following the
political battles of the mid 1970s, much of the energy of
those still active in the movement, and of many of the
young whose social consciences were aroused by the JP
Movement, undertook the work of long-term village
development projects. In Clements' words, these projects
are "usually formed by a few Gandhians settling in a
village area, organising peoples' councils, and starting
a variety of economic and social development works."28
This may have been a logical next-step following upon the
heels of Bhoodan-Gramdan and/or it may be attributable
"to the recent availability of funds from national and
international funding agencies for this sort of work."29
Is this still the Gandhian movement? Or is it merely part
of development aid work that has none of the
revolutionary agenda that Ostergaard and others associate
with the term "Gandhian movement"?
Vinoba's
Message
Vinoba, when soon after Gandhi's death, was asked how
Gandhians should go about setting up peace brigades,
replied that the units had to be formed on a local basis
without an India-wide central organisation. In answering
the question about how to commence the work, he
responded:
The work gets done once it is begun.... Make a very
natural beginning. Take a day off in a week and go out as
if for an excursion. Go to a village alone, or with
friends and members of your family five of six kilometres
away. Take your food with you for the day.... Mix with
the people there, make friends with them. Interest
yourself in their joys and sorrows. In this way make your
acquaintance with a few villages in the neighbourhood one
after another, and then repeat the cycle. The time would
soon arrive when the village folk will learn to look on
you as their friend who does not make any demand on them
other than that of love and cooperation. Moving among the
people is the initial stage of the programme before
Shanti Sena.... The rest will follow automatically.30
Vinoba was a great innovator but, unlike Gandhi, poor
at looking after details (in fact they actively did not
concern him). Even of his ostensibly land-distributing
Bhoodan movement Vinoba could say that the primary task
was to change the hearts of the givers rather than find a
solution to the land problem.31 This disorganisation and
even disinterest meant that with the Sulabh Gramdan
movement things were simplified to the point where they
ended up devoid of meaning, irrelevant. And many of the
gramdan villages were so in name only.
Gandhism and Youth -
Then
Given that the main aim of the Gandhian movement was
to create a nonviolent revolution to bring about a new
non-exploiting, decentralised society based on the
Gandhian ideals of truth and nonviolence, it is
reasonable to assume that one of the main activities of
the movement was to be an educative one aimed at the
youth. Besides Vinoba's appeals to the heart, the primary
direct method of accomplishing this was by running
various camps - a process that continues, although in
recent times on a diminished scale.
In the early 1960s it was decided to incorporate
disaffected students, and youth generally, into the
expanded Gandhian peace brigade, the Shanti Sena, that
Jayaprakash Narayan and Narayan Desai hoped to create.32
In 1962 the Kishore Shanti Dal (Teenagers' Peace Corps)
was organised in the basic education highschools of
Gujarat, Desai's home state. Youth, of either sex, who
were prepared to give one day a month for the service of
their village, were enrolled.33 For a year the Dal served
as the youth wing of the Shanti Sena doing constructive
work in rural Gujarat.
In 1963 the idea was taken up by the Akhil Bharat
Shanti Sena Mandal (All India Peace Army Association) and
camps were organised on a yearly all-India basis during
the summer vacation. Camp "graduates" formed small units
in schools and colleges and the number of camps grew with
the demand. In 1968 the Mandal resolved to focus its
activities on youth. The result was the establishment of
the Bharatiya Tarun (youth) Shanti Sena in 1969 by
Narayan Desai. The aims of this youth peace corps was to
provide youth with constructive opportunities to "find
self-expression and to seek training in responsibility",
to channel their energies towards peace, to instil
"healthy attitudes" and provide "programmes of self-help
and community effort", as well as to "organism youth for
active participation in constructive tasks of national
reconstruction."34
The camps for Tarun Shanti Sainiks were specifically
designated as "work-cum-study camps" where the work could
range from sanitation or harvesting to road building or
well digging depending on the season and work available
in the area. The camps were also designed to include a
program of studies aimed at fostering an understanding of
the project undertaken, an analytical study of the
national situation and appreciation of the cultural
heritage of the country, and, not incidentally, provide
future cadres for the Gandhian movement.
At a 1971 Sarva Seva Sangh meeting it was noted that
students leaving colleges for a year or resolving to join
the Tarun Shanti Sena for a year on the completion of
their studies "is a novel feature in our movement and is
full of rich possibilities."
By 1973, according to records at the central office in
Varanasi, the Tarun Shanti Sena had 1,900 members in 280
centres in thirteen states and, in his Towards a
Nonviolent Revolution, Narayan Desai was able to write
that the Tarun Shanti Sena was "growing so fast that the
reader may find a completely new chapter if a second
edition of this book is published."35 His optimism was
misplaced, however. As was to be the case with the entire
Sarva Seva Sangh, the Tarun Shanti Sena was to
self-destruct in the turbulence of the mid-1970s.
Thousands of youths were being swept up in the JP
Movement. The context of the Tarun Shanti Sena was not
satisfactory to most, who in any case were not wedded to
its ideals. The need of the times was the creation of a
mass organisation which could grow out of the movement
rather than out of a commitment to sarvodaya philosophy.
In January 1975, JP established his new Chhatra Yuva
Sangharsh Vahini (Student and Youth Struggle Force) to
operate as the youth wing of his "Total Revolution".36
The aims of the Vahini were stated as "Total Revolution"
through "peaceful and pure means" in a way that was
"non-party" and "free from power politics". The
activities of the Vahini were to be based on the
four-fold program of the Total Revolution, namely:
"People's Education, Organisation, Construction and
Confrontation". JP disbanded the Bihar section of the
Tarun Shanti Sena and most of the members had no
difficulty finding their place in the Sangharsh
Vahini.
Outside Bihar the Tarun Shanti Sena continued to
operate as a parallel organisation. Eventually it was
felt that this situation was causing confusion, and both
JP and the leading figures in the Sangharsh Vahini wished
to expand the Vahini outside the confines of Bihar. The
amalgamation of all non-political youth organisations
into the Vahini was mooted frequently and finally became
inevitable. As many young people belonged to both groups
and considered themselves as followers of JP, this caused
no problem.
While some of the leaders of the Tarun Shanti Sena
initially resisted this move, finally, at the 1977 Bombay
Sarva Seva Sangh meeting, almost half a year after the
lifting of the Emergency, it was decided that, rather
than disband the Tarun Shanti Sena or merge it with the
Chhatra Yuva Sangharsh Vahini, it would be frozen.
In March 1978, at a meeting of the executive committee
of the Sarva Seva Sangh, the question of merger was again
debated. The different backgrounds and aims of the two
groups was discussed, and while there was a general
feeling that there was no need for two Gandhian youth
organisations, one of the main arguments against a merger
was the indiscipline demonstrated by many Vahini members.
Instead of agreeing to a merger the Tarun Shanti Sena
voluntarily decided to disband itself. The Vahini is
still in existence, but it is a small and relatively
insignificant organisation.
Gandhi had the ability to mobilise the youth, an
ability that was shared by JP. Since JP's time no leader
who could do this has emerged and since the Emergency and
the dismantling of the Tarun Shanti Sena and the running
down of the Vahini the Gandhian establishment has not
been successful in nurturing the next generation of
cadres.
In short, since the heady days of the JP Movement the
youth wing of the Gandhian movement has been largely
neglected. The camps, including integration camps and
rallies organised by veteran Gandhian and life member of
the Gandhi Peace Foundation S.N.Subba Rao, have been more
consciousness raising exercises for youth than training
programs for future cadres. The movement seemed to have
given up even attempting to train a potential next line
of leadership.
Gandhism Today
Gandhism as
Bureaucracy
In trying to understand social structures, thought
experiments may be useful. We can, for example, use the
technique of imagining how a Martian anthropologist, who
came to earth on a field trip, would see certain of our
institutions. In the case of the Gandhian movement we
don't need someone so far removed from ourselves to
conduct an intellectual experiment on the current status
of the Gandhian movement. Imagine for a moment a young
English-speaking person, living outside India, who does
not know India or have contacts within the country, who
does not know very much about the Mahatma but has been
inspired by Attenborough's movie and who decides to
journey to India to "find Gandhi." Where would he or she
start? How much of a Gandhian movement would he or she
find? Probably the first stops would be the historical
ashrams at Sabarmati and Sevagram, and possibly trips to
Birla House and Rajghat, the sites associated with
Gandhi's death, in Delhi; and to his birth place at
Porbandar. A collection of museums, for that is about all
our seeker would have encountered so far, can be
informative about the life of Gandhi, but will say little
about the current state of Gandhism. At Sevagram there
may be meetings with some old guard Gandhians who are
passing through for some gathering, who will probably
lecture our young seeker on Gandhian philosophy and tell
them that they should meet some other notable old
Gandhians and that a visit to Vinoba's ashram at nearby
Paunar is important. The process is backward looking.
While some Gandhians will be met, they will be those
whose creative work is generally behind them. An
introduction to the work and thought of Vinoba is also
interesting, but again backward looking.
There would be no more than a slight possibility of
our seeker happening upon the youngest generation of
Gandhian workers who are stationed in out of the way
adivasi villages. The old Gandhians are not the best
sign-posts in this regard, and to stumble upon the new
generation accidentally is less than likely. To a large
extent the impression gained by our Gandhi seeker may
depend on what they were told, however a keen observer
with a knowledge of Vinoba and JP would likely perceive a
movement that was once active, that has passed its prime
and is now in terminal decay.
On one hand Michels' Iron Law is operating -
institutions have become ends as museum. In some of the
Gandhian institutions that will continue to operate in
Gandhi's name the symbols may become more important than
the results. But on the other it is not operating - the
old have not been able to motivate the next generation or
ensure a steady flow of new recruits even for a
successful bureaucracy. As the old guard disappear,
Gandhi will live through vague inspiration rather than
through a passing down of Gandhian leadership.
Ten years ago, Ishwar Harris wrote about the then
current position of the Gandhian movement in India under
the title "Sarvodaya in Crisis". He starts off by
informing us that the movement "that once was considered
the guiding star for the future of India has been
practically reduced to the status of a voluntary social
work agency."37 He points out that it has split into
factions (where personality clashes are dressed up as
ideological differences), that its constructive work
programs are faltering, that its ideology for
nation-building is being ignored, that its leadership is
aging and that there is a dire need for new blood, and
"that it is losing credibility with the general public as
an alternative philosophy to save India from social,
economic, and political disparities."38
As the country modernises and increasingly adopts
Western culture the movement is being further
marginalised. He concludes his introduction by informing
the reader that Gandhi has been defeated in India and is
on the verge of being ignored. All this is even more true
today. The central dilemma for the movement, as he saw it
then, was to find a way for it to regain the imagination
of the people. Now this is still the dilemma for the few
of the old-guard who remain, but as the movement has
wound down even further, it is becoming increasingly
clear that, despite pious hopes, it will not regain the
imagination of the people.
Movements change goals with new membership. Under the
"political opportunist" JP, the movement, according to
Vinoba supporter Nirmala Deshpande, violated the rules of
the Sarva Seva Sangh by entering into politics.39 This
eventually lead to the fragmentation of the movement.
The JP Movement was the last great Gandhian movement,
but its target was Mrs.Gandhi, and after the fall of the
Janata government, and her return to power, she struck
back. In February 1982, the government appointed the
Kudal Commission (headed by retired Justice Kudal) to
investigate "the workings and activities, including
publications and sources of and misuse of funds",
especially foreign aid, of four Gandhian bodies (The All
Indian Sarva Seva Sangh, The Gandhi Peace Foundation, The
Gandhi Smarak Nidhi and AVARD - The Association of
Voluntary Agencies for Rural Development). These
organisations were in the main headed by JP followers who
had opposed Mrs.Gandhi during the JP Movement and
criticised her during the Janata rule. There were scores
to settle. The Commission investigation, in Harris'
terms, was a "humiliating experience for the Sarvodaya
leadership"40 and served to restrict its access to
foreign funds. This was, besides an act of vengeance, a
reminder to the leadership to stay away from partisan
politics - whatever the issues involved - as Vinoba had
insisted they do.
The Commission, which was to report within six months,
dragged on for five years in what seemed to be little
more than a vendetta (even the personnel selected to
serve on the Commission appeared to have strong biases
against the organisations they were supposed to be
investigating) and a fishing expedition. Many press
reports labelled the Commission a "witch hunt" and in the
end it could come up with nothing substantial that
indicated irregularities in the workings of the Gandhian
organisations investigated. Nevertheless, the legacy
lingers.
There is still a great difference between those who
want to stay clear of politics (because they always
believed that Vinoba was right, because as a result of
the persecution during the Emergency and Janata debacle
they have come to realise that perhaps Vinoba was right,
or because having seen the power of the state they do not
want to have their institutions threatened) and those who
see the roots of evil as residing in a political system
that must be resisted (because they saw, and still see,
things the way JP saw them, or because, as the political
processes in the country becomes further degraded through
seemingly all-pervasive corruption, they have come around
to the view that the "need of the hour" demands political
action, even the setting up of a political party).
But it is not only these differences among Gandhians
that spell problems for the movement. In terms of the
public, the movement is rapidly becoming more and more
marginalised. Where the government promises
"development", the Gandhians speak of "uplift". All too
often the poor vote with their feet, heading to work in
big industry development projects rather than in Gandhian
inspired village industries. Not long ago, as the
Gandhians in the Gandhi stronghold Wardha region were
opposing the development of large heavy industry, one
could hear people making comments about their bad fortune
that of all the areas available in India Gandhi had to
choose theirs to settle in, and as a consequence, because
of his many followers in the region, they will not have
the development projects which would give them and their
children work opportunities.
With all the Gandhian institutions which have grown up
in this area, why is this not a model of Gandhian utopia?
Why is Sevagram still just a dirty Indian village? Why do
the locals consider the Gandhians still in their midst as
irrelevant, or at times worse?
One can read Thomson's recent book Gandhi and his
Ashrams as almost a catalogue of failures. He notes that
the inability of Gandhi's followers to develop the
ashrams as places of community activism had to do with
the negative aspects of the Mahatma's charismatic
leadership.41 He points out that other ashrams, those
founded by people not only dedicated to Gandhi (the type
of people his ashrams often attracted) but also to what
he stood for, continued to serve the people while
Sabarmati and Sevagram have become museums. This meant
that the ashrams did little for the outside world.
The tragedy seems to be that the pattern is being
repeated. When the workers who set up functioning ashrams
die, their ashrams, all too often, also end up as
museums. Again, too often they attracted disciples (at
times actively it would seem) rather than co-workers
committed to the ideals. In effect, there seems to be a
law of diminishing returns operating in the institutions
as chela follows guru. Perhaps hope lies with those who
have shunned institutions and have gone to do the work
Gandhi envisaged for himself when he originally settled
in the village of Segoan (Sevagram).
Sevagram village (quite successfully) resited the
attempts of Gandhi's ashramites to reform it. The
Gandhian workers in the village were ignored or faced
open hostility. The villagers did not want outsiders who
challenged the caste system, which gave them identity and
security, meddling in their lives. But fifty years have
passed since then. The caste system is not what it once
was, and mass communications have reached even the
remotest village. Perhaps Gandhi's call to village work
was merely premature.
The Gandhians of Sevagram have tried to explain the
failure of their work in the Wardha area in a small
booklet as defeat by powerful vested interests and
governmental betrayals.42 This should surely have been
impossible if they were truly seen as doing good for the
majority. (They claim that the successes of their work
were not reported - but the list of projects and groups
working in the area, and the employment they generate,
seem quite small given the time they have been working
there. And the seeming ease with which the locals can be
mobilised against Gandhian schemes by "vested interests"
also seems to speak volumes).
Some of the leading old guard Gandhians have set up
the Sarvodaya Party and then announced it to the rank and
file of the Sarva Seva Sangh. The lack of consensus, or
even of consultation, lead to controversy among the
Gandhians. The party was registered, but due to the
controversy surrounding it has not as yet contested
elections but plans to do so are still current. This
raises an issue that was one of the main factors in the
split in the Gandhian movement in the 1970s. Is it
possible to declare that the political system is corrupt
and then set up a political party to enter that system?
The previous experience with people's candidates by
Gandhians were disastrous. They tended to receive so few
votes that they lost their deposits,43 and they were even
soundly defeated when Gandhian workers stood in areas
they have supposedly served for decades. It seems that
they are simply irrelevant to the majority of people.
Perhaps it is time to reevaluate the position of
Gandhian work with the eyes of the JP of Musahari and ask
whether the results of the type of Gandhian "work" as
currently practiced, justifies the effort.
Gandhism as
Sect
A sect is a voluntary society of strict believers who
live apart from the world in some way. Sects can become
"established" after the passing of the founding
generation by continuing to maintain a sectarian
organisation antagonistic to, or withdrawn from, the
outside world. Sects often spring up as a rejection of a
hierarchical and professional church which has
accommodation with the outside world.
A sect generally refers to a group that is agreed upon
some form of doctrine (usually religious) that is
different from that of the establishment from which it
has separated itself. Some of the old Gandhians see
themselves as theoreticians who produce blueprints,
leaving it to others to experiment with the process. This
of course leads to the danger of the old Gandhians
talking to themselves while the world passes them by.
This may be the intention of some sects, but not the
vision of Gandhi or the stated aim of his followers.
Still, the Mahatma's followers have built a church of
sorts - but one with an ever diminishing
congregation.
In 1921, Gandhi made it clear that he had no desire to
found a sect. He added "I am really too ambitious to be
satisfied with a sect for a following."44 Sixteen years
later Gandhi issued a warning about the danger of the
Gandhi Seva Sangh "deteriorating into a sect." He added,
asking his followers to forget him on his passing, to
"cleave not to my name but cleave to the principles
[of truth and nonviolence]."45 Soon he was to go
even further, stating that if Gandhism is another name
for sectarianism, it deserves to be destroyed. If I were
to know, after my death, that what I stood for had
degenerated into sectarianism, I should be deeply pained.
We have to work away silently. Let no one say that he is
a follower of Gandhi.... You are no followers but fellow
students, fellow pilgrims, fellow seekers, fellow
workers. He asked these fellow workers to, rather than
call themselves members of the Gandhi Seva Sangh, "carry
truth and ahimsa in every home and be individual
representatives of them wherever you are."46
There are now countless splinter groups operating in
Gandhi's name, very often in direct competition with each
other. Obviously this is a disappointment given the
strength and vitality of the movement during Vinoba and
JP's crusades. But then again, putting a more favourable
gloss on what has happened, it could be said that Gandhi
never wanted a sect founded in his name and this shows
that those who, with the best of intentions, may have
tried ended up failing to subvert this wish of the
Mahatma's. The question is, Do we now, in Mao's
terminology, have a situation where "100 flowers bloom"
or do we merely have countless inconsequential sects
instead of one?
There appears to be a lack of unity among the
Gandhians. Even during the destruction of the Babri
Mosque at Ayodhya, the Gandhian groups could not
coordinate their efforts, resulting in a brave but small
and ultimately ineffective action that was overtaken by
circumstances. There is no strategic coordination, or too
often even tactical coordination. The recent "Challenge
of Gandhi" campaign went reasonably well for a year
showing some unity of purpose and results, but even that
seems to have ended in disagreement among the
Gandhians.
Harris also pointed to organisational divisions. Over
the years since his survey, things seem only to have
gotten worse. He noted that the movement is centred
around different leaders who, while all claiming to be
Gandhians, interpret Gandhi differently, and are
ideologically opposed to each other.47 They are engaged
in their own small individual projects. As the
institutionalised Gandhians become ever more irrelevant
this lack of unity and degree of internecine squabbling
shows only too well that Gandhians are quite human
despite their saintly trappings.
The Gandhian establishment spends a great deal of its
time trying to bring Gandhi and Gandhian philosophy to
the people. Where this means the mass production and
distribution of Gandhi's autobiography in local
languages, or organising exhibitions on Gandhi, there is
little problem. However many of Gandhi's philosophical
concepts are difficult to grasp in the way that they are
used to analyse the current situation in the country. And
since villagers enjoy a diversion, Gandhians always draw
large and respectful crowds, who after the meetings go on
as before - untouched by the difficult concepts that seem
to have little direct bearing on their immediate lives.
Many feel that the old Gandhians are repeating well-worn
formulas of decades ago, making long speeches about what
Gandhi and Vinoba said, insisting that they know the
answers instead of listening to the questions of their
audience.
The Gandhian leaders, according to Harris see the
crisis more in terms of a challenge than as a cause for
despair.48 This is still the case. Gandhian values will
probably win out - because there is no other choice, but
not because of their direct efforts. They may "swim
against the tide to fulfil their dream", and history, if
there is to be further history, will prove them to have
been on the winning side, but their dreams will not be
fulfilled because of their leadership, but because of the
symbolism of Gandhi himself. Harris concludes his article
with the observation that "It is a general misconception
in India that Sarvodaya is either dead or on the verge of
dying."49 Ten years after those words were written, it is
no longer so easy to categorise this conception as a
misconception.
Gandhism as
Symbol
A symbol is something that has come to be regarded by
general consent as naturally typifying or representing
something. It is something that can stand for a given
idea. Symbols and rituals can be living things, things
that evoke passions and open doors; or they can be mere
empty formulas practiced for self-gratification or
accoutrements for self-adornment that indicate remoteness
and elicit disinterest.
Gandhi was a master in the effective use of symbols.
It should be remembered, however, that symbols, when they
have outlived their value by continued use outside the
context of time and place that gave them meaning, can
become dysfunctional. The wearing of khadi has long been
the symbol of being "Gandhian". Now that it is no longer
the livery of the freedom struggle, it too can
unnecessarily close doors. All symbols, notes Cenker,
"should be either renewed or discarded when they lose
meaning or significance."50
A statement adopted at the November 1994 Sarvodaya
Conference, held at Savarkundla in Gujarat declared that
"Today Gandhi means not a person, but an ideology."
Perhaps it is enough that Gandhi himself becomes a
symbolic figure, one representing an example of what a
disciplined, selfless and dedicated individual can
achieve. But even this can lead to difficulties.
The Gandhians are having problems with their symbols
being appropriated by others, especially those who are
political opponents. The communal Bharatiya Janata Party,
for example, is making much of swadeshi,51 and the very
person of the Mahatma was used as a extremely potent
symbol by the Congress Party. A more dramatic example of
this misuse of Gandhi as symbol was illustrated recently
in Bangalore. As a direct strike against the rampant
increase in multinational firms operating in India, in
the Mahatma's name and on his 48th death anniversary, a
Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet was wrecked by members of a
nationalist farmers group. Their leader added that the
action demonstrated that "Gandhi is still alive in
India"!
Gandhi as Guru
In Hindu tradition, the guru is a religious teacher
who undertakes to give personal instruction to a
disciple, the chela. The relationship between master and
pupil is a close one with utmost reverence and obedience
required of the chela. An ashram is a community where a
holy man and his disciples live. And it is the presence
of the guru that gives the ashram its importance.
Gandhi was a guru for some, but regardless of Ved
Mehta's characterisation of those that worked with him as
apostles (and in some instances, for example in the case
of Mirabehn, they were) most of the best known ones were
co-workers in India's freedom struggle. And in any case,
Gandhi's philosophy in action actively rejected the
hierarchical dependence and "inequality of the
master-disciple relationship in favour of a dialectic
between equals".52
While Gandhi and some of his more egalitarian
followers have proved to be exceptions to a time honoured
convention, to some degree the tradition has reasserted
itself. Vinoba Bhave seemed to be cast much more in the
mould of the historic guru who gathered disciples rather
than inspired co-workers or co-participants in the
dialectical process of the quest for truth. In other
words, while Gandhi may have filled the role of guru to
those of his followers who were attracted primarily to
him rather than to his ideals, and it seems that many of
his followers (and not just Vinoba) have actively sought
to fill the guru role.
The old Gandhians have often built, or in some cases
are still building, ashrams which become memorial museums
when they die. This may go part of the way to explaining
why a next generation of Gandhians has not been given
room to grow - how can a holy man step aside for people
who are disciples rather than co-workers? Disciples all
too often try to carry on the work of the master, often
following the holy writ without the ability to marshal
the creativity necessary to meet new situations.
Many of those working in Gandhian organisations seem
to be doing Gandhian work as a job rather than as a
creed. (Paradoxically some of the newest generation of
constructive workers, who know least about Gandhi, have
taken to what may be called Gandhian work as a creed). As
the old Gandhian workers have faded from the scene, those
who have come to work in the institutions have come to do
so not just out of a sense of service but also for salary
(and for most of the workers the Gandhian institutions
cannot provide salaries that are competitive with those
being offered by outside companies - hence a frequent
turnover in secretaries, teachers etc.). And perhaps this
can only be expected when these younger workers, who need
money to establish households and families, see many of
the old Gandhians doing very well materially.
Gandhism and Youth -
Now
Some old Gandhians still talk of what they will do,
how they will enthuse youngsters. There is no groundswell
that will bring any of their ideas to fruition, they
should have done this work decades ago, and in any case
the dreams are still centralised - what they will do.
They often have had trouble stepping back, letting the
next line of leadership develop while they play an
advisory role (when young workers ask for advice). They
have often been too rigid, placing too much emphasis on
the outward manifestation (the symbols) of their work,
and not flexible enough to adapt to the times and draw in
the youth. Possibly they were simply not good enough at
listening - either to the youngsters who should have been
flocking to the movement, or to the villagers they
preached to about Gandhi. This meant that too many of
them did not adequately determine the needs of their
intended audiences and of the young who have by-passed
them. The Sarva Seva Sangh has realised that without up
and coming young people any institution is doomed and is
trying to revitalise its youth wing.
But even in this regard there is disagreement as to
the direction to take. S.N.Subba Rao played a leading
role in the JP inspired now legendary surrender of the
Chambal valley dacoits in 1972. These days Subba Rao is
the most prominent senior Gandhian working with youth.
He, and his National Youth Project organises youth camps
and rallies. During 1993-94 he led the ambitious
Sadbhavana Rail Yatra (goodwill rail journey) which
toured India for eight months covering 20 states and more
than 130 major cities and towns in a special train. Over
2000 youths participated in the mission aimed at
fostering national integration and harmony. Because of a
great divide over the issue among those calling
themselves Gandhian, he is criticised by some for taking
government money (the yatra was largely funded by
government departments), for not actively preaching about
Gandhi and for concentrating on quantity of participants
in his various peace and national integration camps
rather than on quality.
There is even disagreement as to the type of
constructive work that should be carried out in villages.
Some of the young Gandhi inspired workers who have gone
to live in the villages have been accused of doing
nothing. They are asked whether it is enough to live the
life of a peasant, whether they should not be doing more
outside campaigning. This raises questions of what it
means to be doing something. Many Gandhians have done a
lot with little effect. Some younger members of the
Gandhi family argue that they too should have gone to the
villages and done less.
When old Gandhians assist visitors with itineraries,
identifying important Gandhian workers who should be met,
generally the list is made up of other old Gandhians.
They work in ashrams and occasionally run training camps.
Many of those that came out of leading positions in the
JP Movement are now in leading positions in large and
successful NGOs, often overseas funded. The younger ones
still, who are Gandhi inspired and have devoted
themselves to constructive work in the villages, are
often critical of both the older and this middle
generation.
Although they respect the work done by the veterans,
the youth also have impatience with them, the impatience
once the JP followers had for Vinoba, for their lack of
radicalism. In turn the old have had trouble seeing the
young as Gandhians.
Many of the youngest generation in the Gandhian family
see the middle generation as again being institution
builders, for whom chasing grant money becomes an
overriding preoccupation. And the benefits of the grant
money lead to relatively comfortable life-styles which
isolate them from the people they are working with. Many
in the middle generation were swept up in the emotion of
the Chhatra Yuva Sangharsh Vahini, without having
necessarily internalised Gandhian values. The most
inspirational of the youngest generation seem to have
taken a more deliberate path, there was no emotional
groundswell that swept them up. There are fewer of them,
but they seem to have thought through where they are
going, in Gandhian terms, a little better.
A decade ago, Zachariah, an analyst of the Gandhian
movement, was already claiming that the Sarva Seva Sangh
"for all practical purposes, merely exists."53 When
Narayan Desai assumed the chair of the Sarva Seva Sangh
late in 1995, he perhaps saw that the optimism for the
future of the movement, as held by some of the old guard,
was a little unrealistic. He has attempted to bring more
youth into the executive and talks about making stronger
contacts with Gandhian groups outside the Sangh.
With the youth, one cannot help feeling that it is too
late. Many of the youth who could be, and perhaps by now
should be, in leading positions in the Sangh, themselves
see the organisation as being largely irrelevant. They
have not had places in it previously and at least among
some that I talked to there was a feeling of "who wants
to join the crew of the Titanic". They see the Sangh as
too institutionalised and too top-down, where the elders
become dispensers of wisdom from on high. They see the
dreams of big campaigns and mass movements amounting to
little more than unrealistic talk.
Of course the Gandhian movement can also claim
successes in the youth area. There are projects by young
Gandhians that senior Gandhians can, and do, point to
with pride. One of these is the Tarun Bharat Sangh
(Indian Youth Group), known locally as the Alwar
Group.
The Alwar Group is a Rajasthani voluntary organisation
working in irrigation development and afforestation in
the drought affected villages of Alwar district. The TBS
was started as an urban conservation group by university
students in 1975. Ten years later it decided to work in a
poor tribal village, building dams. Although government
grants are taken to assist the work, the labour is
undertaken by the villagers so that they "own" their
projects. The TBS works as "friend, philosopher and
guide." Work now goes on in 200 villages where
traditional systems of check dams are being revived to
store rain water. The villages are becoming self-reliant
and self-governing, with the work being organised through
"gram sabhas" or village-level committees - something
that the gramdan and gram swaraj (village
self-government) schemes of the Gandhians aimed to
do.
Zachariah concluded that because Gramdan, a central
focus of the Gandhian movement, was such a radical step
it "met with considerable resistance and made very little
progress."54 The idea of gram swaraj is less radical but
perhaps no less revolutionary. It too has made relatively
little progress. Where significant progress has been made
it has often come through the activities of groups such
as this one. The Alwar group considers itself part of the
Gandhian family and it has come into contact with the old
Gandhians in the area - who in turn recognise it as
successful Gandhian work. Here the youth have been
welcomed into the fold, are accepted and supported.
Other Gandhi inspired groups have not set up large
organisations, something they see as inherently
corrupting. Although they respect the old Gandhians for
what they have done and therefore listen to their views,
they reject getting too close to them because they are
not seen as being completely acceptable models.
Instead, like some Christian groups that eschew
priests and go directly to the Bible as source of
inspiration without feeling the need for a mediator, they
read Gandhi in the original and make their own
experiments. Many in this group see the elderly Gandhians
as talkers, who live comfortably in institutions, while
they want to work among the people.
At the beginning of 1995, the Gandhi Peace Foundation
youth wing, including 42 participants from 11 states,
held a meeting in Assam on the theme of how Gandhian
values could be inculcated among those working in
grass-roots groups. The meeting viewed with some concern
the conflicts among the members of the first generation
of Gandhians (those who had worked with Gandhi) and the
way that it has filtered down through the later
generations of workers. It was noted that many in
voluntary organisations were being coopted by relatively
luxurious lifestyles and a top-down approach to the work
as well as by the compromises necessary to please funding
agencies. The question was further asked why it was that
youth with social consciences were being attracted to
violence and political activism rather than to
constructive work. In part it seemed that those in
leadership positions in these organisations treat
newcomers with less than equal status, that they do not
foster feelings of comradeship - much in keeping with the
approach of many of the old Gandhians.
The group suggested that ashramites should be willing
to leave their ashrams and comforts when the need arises.
Instead of merely engaging in intellectual exercises,
employing the symbols of spinning and using ghee in food,
or concentrating on speeches and padyatras, they should
take up issues which affect the people. And if need be,
to this end they should be willing to sacrifice their
institutions. There is a felt need among many that time
has come to reinvigorate the revolution. And it will be
the young who will have to lead the way.
The best of those who can be placed in the merely
Gandhi-inspired category do not seek publicity or want
public renown, and they do not particularly care whether,
while they are doing their part to fight social
injustice, they are labelled as Gandhians or not. There
is networking among these groups (very evident in Orissan
and Gujarati groups that I visited in 1995/6),
occasionally they have meetings among those of themselves
who share common Gandhian values, at times politely
telling older Gandhians that it was better if they did
not attend (as happened during the December 1995 meeting
of young Gujarati Gandhians).
The old system is being sidestepped - and that may be
a healthy development. Those who may have wanted to set
up a Gandhi sect have clearly failed.
Vaishnava Janato
Vaishnava Janato, Gandhi's favourite hymn, lists the
qualities of the ideal person. Who is this true
Vaishnava? One who holds others' woes to be their own, is
without pride, ready to serve, holds all in honour, who
controls their speech, passions and thoughts, sees other
women as mother, always speaks the truth and does not lay
hands on another's possessions, has overcome
self-delusion and attachments, is ever in tune with
Ramnam and realises that the body is God's most sacred
shrine. The true Vaishnava is free from greed and deceit,
passion and anger. If a similar question is asked in
regard to the identity of true Gandhian, the answer may
not be entirely straight forward.
The professional and old institutional Gandhians too
often think that they have a monopoly on the holy writ,
that Gandhi is their private preserve. It is very
difficult for them to talk to anyone outside their group
on Gandhian matters except in a guru-chela context. They
preach the Gandhian orthodoxy in a way that tends to
alienate the youth. But who gives them the authority to
certify who is or is not a Gandhian?
So who are the Gandhians? The outsider sees some (ever
fewer) figures clad in white khadi and (now very)
occasionally the "Gandhi cap." The more careful observer
will, if he or she visits Gandhian institutions, still
possibly see a few elderly figures plying the charkha.
There are those who serve as administrators at Gandhian
ashrams/museums, those who teach Gandhi related courses
at universities, those who work in Sarvodaya bookshops at
railway stations, those who run their own Gandhian
institutions, those who attend Sarvodaya fairs and those
who serve on the executive of the formal umbrella
organisations like the Sarva Seva Sangh. And where, for
example, do those fit in who were inspired by the
momentous movements lead by Vinoba and JP, who set up
NGOs to work for the uplift of the poor but do not employ
the symbols and do not use the name of Gandhi or push a
particularly Gandhian ideology?
Can Ostergaard's "Institutional Gandhism", represented
by the Gandhi Peace Foundation and the Gandhi Smarak
Nidhi (Gandhi Memorial Trust) and its current rival, the
Gandhi Smriti and Darshan Samiti, be seen as part of the
Gandhian movement? The GPF grew out of the monies of the
Gandhi Smarak Nidhi that were earmarked for the purposes
of setting up various museums and institutions. Its
purpose is to do research in the areas of peace,
education and nonviolence, and it publishes the premier
academic Gandhian journal Gandhi Marg. The Trust,
financed by public donations, was founded soon after
Gandhi's assassination "to propagate the ideas of
Gandhiji, to perpetuate his memory in various ways, and
do continue the work he had started", in short to be the
central funding organisation for Gandhian activities and
institutions. The Nidhi set up several Gandhi museums
around the country, oversaw the creation of the Central
Publications Committee and has served as a coordinating
agency for the various Gandhian institutions in India.
Following the complete rupture between the Gandhian
movement and the Congress government following the
clashes of the JP Movement, the government turned Birla
House, the site of Gandhi's last residence and place of
assassination into a national memorial, the Smriti, and
set up a large exhibition complex, the Darshan Samiti,
adjacent to Rajghat, the site of Gandhi's cremation, and
opposite the main Gandhi museum. In 1984 these two latter
institutions merged and now serve as a government run
parallel organisation to the Nidhi. Which is most
"Gandhian"?
There are many different aspects of the Gandhian
establishment. Generally, when one speaks of the
movement, one refers to peace work. But this is not the
only aspect of Gandhism. There is also, among other
things, the propagation of khadi. Khadi work still goes
on in a business that is worth in excess of $US 1
billion, employing five million craftspersons and
artisans in India. It is a business, but a non-profit
business, aiming to give work to the poor. It may not be
concerned with direct violence but it is concerned about
the alleviation of structural violence. Usually Khadi
institutions are still headed by old Gandhians but the
institutions are not dying out with their passing. It
remains to be seen whether the younger ones are entering
the khadi enterprises are going in as Gandhians or as
business people.
In a review of a recent book about the literature on
India concerning political theories, the reviewer Ananda
Kumar Giri quotes "sympathetic scholar" Ramashray Roy as
saying that as an actual historical movement Sarvodaya
"is almost dead" and "Swadhyaya is currently bearing the
torch."55 The reviewer notes that the "Gandhian agenda of
experimental subjectivity can now be broadened by
understanding the agenda of self-reflection as a
transformative seeking as articulated by the Swadhyaya
movement and its interlocutor Pandurang Shastri
Athavale." Some now see Swadhyaya as carrying on the true
legacy of Gandhi, of filling the gap left by the
perceived decline in the Sarvodaya movement. Swadhyaya is
spiritual and aims to build relationships in line with
Vinoba's early call to go and befriend the villagers. It
now has millions of adherents and in the areas of Gujarat
and Maharashtra, where it is most powerful, is having
some impact on rejuvenating society. This has been
contrasted with the lack-lustre campaigns that the
Gandhians have tried to mount lately. The ambitious
"Challenge of Gandhi" campaign (to organise gram swaraj
in 100,000 villages) and more recent "Swadeshi" and
anti-globalisation campaigns, are often characterised as
tending to be lecture tours after which little happens.
Is Swadhyaya, and mass movements like it, heir to the
Gandhian legacy?
Perhaps as a result of the realisation that the
established Gandhians had lost their vigour, in early
March 1995, the Sarvodaya International Trust was formed
by a group of influential not traditionally Gandhi
associated citizens to "endeavour to revive the moral
ideals and action programmes of the Mahatma, nationally
and internationally." What will come of this initiative
it is too early to know, but it is difficult to see the
membership as being capable of reviving action
programs.
Respected writer and commentator Ashis
Nandy recently had a rather nihilistic but perhaps
also valuably perceptive piece published in the Times of
India titled "Gandhi after Gandhi." He classifies the
post-Gandhi Gandhians into four categories. One is the
Gandhi as patron saint of India, the one coopted by the
politicians. One is the Gandhi of the ragamuffins,
eccentrics and unpredictables that causes problems for
the country and for "sane, rational, well educated
Indians" in the name of Gandhi. The other two are of the
greatest interest. The "Gandhi of the Gandhians", he
claims, is suffering "from an acute case of anaemia." He
continues, noting that this Gandhi is occasionally quite
lovable and has a grandfatherly, benign presence in
public lore. But he is often a crushing bore, apart from
being a Victorian puritan mistakenly born in India.... He
does not touch politics, lest the subsidy and grants from
the government to the various ashrams named after him,
khadi, and the ritual seminars on Gandhism stop.56 With
tongue in cheek, he adds that the average age of these
Gandhians is now above 100 and that of the listeners 85,
and this is because the Gandhians feel that "the Indian
people have failed Gandhi." Others, he suggests, "feel
that the Gandhians have failed both the Indian people and
Gandhi."
His final Gandhi, the only one he seems to have any
time for, is the symbolic Gandhi, whose "realities" of
life are derived from the principles of Gandhism and who
inspires movements around the world. This Gandhi has
become "a symbol of defiance of hollow tyrants and
bureaucratic authoritarianism backed by the power of the
state and modern technology." This Gandhi is a "symbol of
those struggling against injustice." And this Gandhi
cannot be contained by academics and seminar holders.
While they discuss their Gandhi, this "Mythic Gandhi has
moved on to other slums of the world to lead new
formations, sometimes against his own erstwhile
proteges."
In conclusion, it can be stated that there are still
many who use the name of Gandhi (even though the ranks of
the old guard Gandhians become thinner each year) without
now constituting one monolithic organisation.
Gandhism Tomorrow
Optimism
With the passing of Nehru and the estrangement between
the Gandhian movement and his daughter following JP's
call for "Total Revolution", the sarvodaya establishment
lost government support for, and was even actively
obstructed in, carrying out its voluntary social work
activities. As the nation increasingly took on the
trappings of a "hard state",57 particularly under the
regime of Rajiv Gandhi, the Gandhian movement was further
pushed to the periphery in terms of the inputs it could
provide to the shaping of social organisation and
development. This trend has been exacerbated by the ever
declining appeal of Gandhian philosophy among the young
people of the country with a rapidly swelling middle
class desiring an increase in consumer goods, and the
absence of a charismatic leader among Gandhians that
could counter it.
The attempts at Gandhian peace and constructive work,
even at the height of the Gandhian movement, never
reached the critical mass necessary to make it
self-perpetuating. And with the decline in, and
marginalisation of, the Gandhian movement in the years
since, there is little evidence that there is any scope
for optimism on the part of the Gandhian establishment
that there will be any change in this situation in the
foreseeable future. Since the heyday of the Gandhian
movement, India has experienced increased communal
violence, consumerism and globalisation as well as
centralising tendencies about which the heirs of the
Mahatma have been able to do little.
Following the split in the Sangh over the question of
political leadership in the country and its crushing
during Mrs.Gandhi's Emergency, with the election of the
Janata government, there was talk of a second nonviolent
revolution. Since this time there have been periodic
pamphlets outlining the "Sarvodaya Plan", appeals by the
Sangh for Gandhians to work intensely in selected areas
(for example during Gandhi's 125th birth centenary it was
decreed that intensive work be undertaken in 125 areas of
the country), to promote non-party people's candidates at
elections, to garner popular support for "The Non-Party
Alternative", to return to the work of gram swaraj, or to
generally "meet the Challenge of Gandhi", to fight
communalism, corruption or the neo-imperialism of
"globalisation", but there is little indication that the
Gandhian establishment is in a position to mobilise
support for a mass movement Gandhian revolution or even
have a great enough impact to make a difference in
anything more than a marginal sense.
The Gandhians appear to be powerless against the large
negative forces that beset the country. The political
system is corrupt but the Gandhians are still fighting
over whether they should field a political party, or
endorse "people's candidates". Communal tensions are
fanned by ambitious politicians and during the largest
recent manifestation of communal discord, the storming of
the Ayodhya mosque, the few Gandhians who went to try to
do something to restore peace by fasting at the scene,
were arrested, allegedly for their own protection, after
they were beaten by the crowd. As globalisation sweeps
India into its orbit, the Gandhians are concerned and
together with other groups organise protest marches and
lecture and write, but their effect is minimal.
There seems to be little reasons for the descendants
of Gandhi, the "irrepressible optimist", to have any
optimism about their future as a force worthy of serious
consideration.58 They are unable to capture the
imagination of the populace, their message is considered
irrelevant, they have no impact on elections that are
dominated by group interests and personalities rather
than issues; and as the state takes on an increasing
number of the functions that were previously the domain
of the voluntary sector, the sarvodaya movement has
become increasingly side-lined.
Despite the objective reality of their present
weakened position in Indian society, many of the old
Gandhians are nevertheless optimistic about the value of
Gandhism as a force to be reckoned with, one which can
bring about change for the good. They see that their
message, if not necessarily their movement of old, is one
for the ages. They realise that the process will be slow,
that there will be setbacks, but are convinced that it
will eventually win through, that with a continuation of
grassroots work success is assured. By organic means,
Gandhi's message will triumph. They are right in
believing that all signs point to this outcome - the
increasing number of social movements around the world
now employing Gandhian methods and the approach of
environmental collapse is forcing a re-evaluation of the
hegemony of Western lifestyles and consumption patterns
in a way that indicates a shift towards a Gandhian
outlook. Although others may see them as anachronistic,
they believe that the march of history is now coming the
full circle and that they are merely ahead of the times.
For life on the planet to continue a simple life is
necessary, and in order to survive the rest of the world
will catch up eventually. It is not a belief in the
possibility of miracles, but one that says that humankind
is wise enough not to destroy itself or its environment.
Optimism about the future of Gandhism is not misplaced,
only the optimism of some of the old generation about
their own position in this future.
The Shoes of the
Fisherman
In 1963, Morris West published his well regarded novel
The Shoes of the Fisherman about a newly elected
reforming Pope. One of the sub-themes of the book
concerned the question of the degree to which a powerful
institution, in this case the Catholic Church, should
become involved in the politics of the wider world. The
film version of the book goes further, and its main theme
may have relevance to the current Gandhian establishment.
In the film, to avert nuclear war which will result from
a major Chinese famine, the new Pope announces at his
investiture ceremony:
We are in a time of crisis. I cannot change the world.
I cannot change what history has already written. I can
only change myself and begin with unsure hands a new
chapter. I am the custodian of the wealth of the Church:
I pledge it now, all our money, all our holdings in land,
buildings and great works of art for the relief of our
hungry brothers. And if to honour this pledge the Church
must step itself down to poverty, so be it. I will not
alter this pledge, I will not reduce it. And now I beg
the great of the world and the small of the world to
share out their abundance with those who have nothing. Of
course this act of example setting and charity in keeping
with the teachings of Jesus does not go unchallenged by
the hierarchy. One cardinal reminds the Pope that he took
"an oath not to renounce any power or possession which
was necessary to the survival of the Church." The Pope
responds by declaring that the "only thing necessary to
the Church is the spirit of God."
Many of the large Gandhian institutions, those that
were buzzing with activity during the JP Movement, where
camps and various training programs were continually
being held, are now mostly unused (and characterised as
"graveyards" by some), and provide a relatively
comfortable home (or "fiefdom" to some) for the caretaker
family with perhaps the odd small camp or meeting still
being held on the premises. This may be seen as a waste
of a very valuable resource. How can the Gandhian
establishment creatively use its properties and assets to
aid the new generation of activists (as the Sarvodaya
Mandal in Bombay or the Gandhi Bhavan in Bhopal seem to
be doing and as the Gandhi Peace Foundation youth wing
has specifically requested the GPF to do), or how can it
divest itself of its wealth and property in a country
where too many are poor and homeless?
If the Sarva Seva Sangh has passed its prime, if
Gandhian work is now being carried on by the young in the
villages - as Gandhi and Vinoba wanted - then the
question becomes one of how to dismantle the increasingly
irrelevant institutions that have been set up in the name
of the Mahatma. Gandhism of course should not be
institutionalised - it is the last thing Gandhi wanted -
but this process seems to be almost inevitable in any
social movement and, to a large degree, this is what has
happened in the revolutionary Gandhian movement, and that
too without fostering a second generation to take over
the institutions. Hard questions need to be faced.
Gandhi is Dead. Long Live
Gandhi!
Ved Mehta and V.S.Naipaul proclaimed, in effect, that
not only is Gandhi dead but the body is putrefying.
However Mehta and Naipaul got it wrong.
The old guard Gandhians have their faults, faults the
authors delight in pointing out, but, like the rest of
us, they are human. As the old disciples of Gandhi become
increasingly aged and marginalised in today's India, as
the mass movements led by Vinoba and JP fade into memory
and the realisation dawns that there is no one else of
their stature on the horizon to revitalise the movement,
that there is no groundswell for Gandhian values that
would again put them into the forefront of a major
movement, as it becomes clear that they have not been
able to impress the youth of the country and build the
next generation of Gandhian leadership, and as they see
many fairly successful people's movements that have
little to do with Gandhism, some faults have become
magnified.
Since the Vinoba/JP split of the 70s there is no
unified Gandhian organisation or effectively functioning
youth wing. In fact, the Gandhian edifice has splintered
into innumerable small groups - often competing with each
other (rival Gandhi book distributors, rival Gandhi
journals, rival Gandhian educators and institutions,
rival youth organisations, to go with the more
fundamental rivalries that the split and the Kudal
Commission fostered). The historic quip by a leading
Gandhian that "Gandhians are good at loving their
enemies, they are just not very good at loving each
other", is now more true than ever.
In his presidential address at the Savarkundla
Sarvodaya Conference, Manmohan Choudhuri reminded the
audience that while the Sarva Seva Sangh had participated
in some protest movements, there were also thousands of
Gandhian workers engaged "in various kinds of service to
the people across the country" and that if the problems
of increasing industrial enslavement and systematic
destruction of Gandhian values had "touched them to the
quick", then "the whole country would have been afire
with protest and resistance."
This had not happened because, he claimed, many
Gandhian workers and organisations had been co-opted,
that while they think that they are doing constructive
work, they are in fact doing "nothing but contractors'
jobs". They have ended up merely implementing "official
schemes and projects which are part of the process of
development that is just an adjunct of policies meant to
strengthen and stabilize the status quo."59
Observers, both Indian and Western, often make the
point that Gandhi is still relevant in modern India60
Gandhism is not a reactionary force, holding back
development in the country, but a signpost of hope for
the planet. Some, like Shepard, go further saying that it
is Gandhians that are still needed in a country where
"neither capitalism nor centralized socialism has
worked". Shepard notes that there is a growing interest
in looking back to the Mahatma and a greater willingness
among many to take the type of action which brings
change. However, he adds, that this is not likely "to be
expressed through the Sarvodaya Movement, or that the
movement itself will lead India to a massive
change."61
An era has passed. Perhaps in that sense, Gandhi is
dead. But the Gandhians that are described (or ridiculed)
in the literature of the independence era Gandhian
movement, even though they have selflessly dedicated
their lives to the Gandhian cause, are not the sum total
of Gandhism. Mehta and Naipaul did not know where to look
to see an active and vibrant Gandhism among the young of
the country; among those that have retuned to the basics
of constructive work in the villages, who have taken the
Mahatma's last will and testament seriously. Those old
Gandhians "who have upheld the tradition" could step back
from their positions of hegemony and assist the young by
"providing guidance and models for these inexperienced
activists."62 After all the future of Indian Gandhism is
in their hands. Long live Gandhi!
N O T E S
1.
K.Mayo, Mother India, (London: Jonathan Cape,
1927).
2.
Young India, 15 September 1927.
3.
V.S.Naipaul, India: A Wounded Civilisation, (London:
Andre Deutsch, 1977), p.174.
4.
V.Mehta, Mahatma Gandhi and his Apostles, (London:
Andre Deutsch, 1977).
5.
M.Shepard, Gandhi Today: A Report on Mahatma Gandhi's
Successors, (Arcata, Calif.: Simple Productions, 1987),
p.9.
6.
ibid., p.39.
7.
Ishwar C.Harris, Gandhians in Contemporary India: The
Vision and the Visionaries The Edwin Mellen Press,
Lewiston, N.Y., 1998.
8.
Shepard, Gandhi Today, p.39.
9.
G.Ostergaard, Nonviolent Revolution in India, (New
Delhi: Gandhi Peace Foundation, 1985).
10.
T.Weber, Gandhi's Peace Army: The Shanti Sena and
Unarmed Peacekeeping, (New York: Syracuse University
Press, 1996).
11.
I.C.Harris, "Sarvodaya in Crisis: The Gandhian
Movement in India Today" Asian Survey (1987), vol.27,
no.9, pp.1036-1052.
12.
See M.N.Zald and R.Ash, "Social Movement
Organisations: Growth, Decay and Change", Social Forces
(1966), vol.44, no.3, pp.327-340.
13.
See C.Augustine and A.K.Sharma "Gandhi and the
Contemporary Challenges: The Emergence of New Social
Movements", Gandhi Marg (1995), vol.16, no.4,
pp.437-451.
14.
Harijan, 15 February 1948.
15.
M.Choudhuri, "The Global Crisis, Gandhi and the
Gandhians", Vigil (1994), vol.11, no.22/23, pp.3-13, at
p.9.
16.
See Ostergaard, Nonviolent Revolution, pp.4-5; and
G.Ostergaard, "The Gandhian Movement in India Since the
Death of Gandhi", in J.Hick and L.C.Hempel, Gandhi's
Significance for Today (London: Macmillan, 1989),
pp.203-225, at pp.205-206.
17.
Ostergaard, Nonviolent Revolution, p.20.
18.
T.Weber, "Peacekeeping, the Shanti Sena and Divisions
in the Gandhian Movement During the Border War with
China", South Asia (1990), vol.13, no.2, pp.65-78.
19.
Ostergaard, Nonviolent Revolution, p.24.
20.
J.P.Narayan, M.C.Chagla, A.Patwardhan, and
D.Dharmadhikari, Tasks of Social Research, (Varanasi:
Gandhian Institute of Studies, n.d.), p.2.
21.
ibid., pp.2-3. 22.
See J.V.Bondurant, Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian
Philosophy of Conflict, (Berkeley, University of
California Press, 1967), pp.vi-vii, 192-196.
23.
See Weber, Gandhi's Peace Army, pp.157-159.
24.
T.S.Devadoss, Sarvodaya and the Problem of Political
Sovereignty, (Madras: University of Madras, 1974),
p.523.
25.
G.Dhawan, The Political Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi,
(New Delhi: Gandhi Peace Foundation, 1990), p.178.
26.
P.Clements, Lens into the Gandhian Movement: Five
Village Development Organisations in Northeast India,
(Bombay: Prem Bhai, 1983), p.10.
27.
ibid., p.12.
28.
ibid., p.13.
29.
ibid.
30.
Harijan, 22 July 1950.
31.
See Weber, Gandhi's Peace Army, p.142.
32.
ibid., pp.89-92.
33.
N.Desai, Towards a Nonviolent Revolution, (Varanasi:
Sarva Seva Sangh, 1972), p.90. For a history of the youth
wing of the Gandhian movement see Weber, Gandhi's Peace
Army, pp.89-92.
34.
Desai, Towards a Nonviolent Revolution, p.92.
35.
ibid., pp.7-8.
36.
Ostergaard, Nonviolent Revolution, pp.153,
294-298.
37.
Harris, "Sarvodaya in Crisis", p.1036.
38.
ibid.
39.
ibid., p.1043.
40.
ibid., p.1044.
41.
M.Thomson, Gandhi and his Ashrams, (London: Sangam
Books, 1993), pp.251-252.
42.
Gandhians of Sevagram, Industrialisation Through
Poverty or Poverty Through Industrialisation?: A
Presentation on Behalf of the Gandhians of Sevagram,
(Wardha: Sarva Seva Sangh, 1989).
43.
T.Bang, "An Experiment in People's Candidates" Vigil
(1990), vol.XII, no.7, pp.7-9.
44.
Young India, 25 August 1921.
45.
Harijan, 1 May 1937.
46.
Harijan, 2 March 1940.
47.
Harris, "Sarvodaya in Crisis", p.1045; and
K.S.Narayanswamy, "The Prospect for Sarvodaya", Vigil
(1990), vol.12, no.13, pp.7-9, at p.8.
48.
Harris, "Sarvodaya in Crisis", p.1051.
49.
ibid., p.1052.
50.
W.Cenker, "Gandhi and Creative Conflict", Humanitas,
10 May 1974, pp.159-170, at p.166.
51.
For an analysis of the co-option of Gandhi by Hindu
nationalists, see R.G.Fox, Gandhian Utopia: Experiments
with Culture, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1989).
52.
R.Lannoy, The Speaking Tree: A Study of Indian Culture
and Society, (London: Oxford University Press, 1971),
p.381.
53.
M.Zachariah, Revolution Through Reform: A Comparison
of Sarvodaya and Conscientization, (New York: Praeger,
1986), p.27.
54.
ibid., p.26.
55.
A.K.Giri, review of Thomas Pantham Political Theories
and Social Reconstruction: Survey of the Literature on
India, in Gandhi Marg (1995), vol.17, no.2, pp.233-235,
at p.235.
56.
A.Nandy, "Gandhi After Gandhi", Times of India, 30
January 1996, p.8.
57.
G.Myrdal, Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of
Nations, (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968), pp.895-900.
58.
See T.Weber, "Gandhism, Optimism and the Gandhians"
Anglo-Indian Review (in press).
59.
Choudhuri, "The Global Crisis", pp.3-13.
60.
For example see S.Murphy, Why Gandhi is Relevant in
Modern India, (New Delhi: Gandhi Peace Foundation,
1990).
61.
M.Shepard, Since Gandhi: India's Sarvodaya Movement,
(Weare, New Hampshire: Greenleaf Books, 1984), p.38.
62.
ibid.
Copyright © 2001 By the
author
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
Back
to NONVIOLENCE
FORUM
|
|