MUMBAI INSTITUTE OF

MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH

WADALA (E), MUMBAI - 400 037

SUBJECT:
BUSINESS ETHICS
&
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

(PROF: NADIRSHAW.K.DHONDY)

1
 PROJECT

ON

GANDHIAN Trusteeship

is the

need of the hour

CERTIFICATE

2
 I, Nadirshaw K. Dhondy Advocate of supreme court, have
examined the thesis of Ms.Suman Sharma who is enrolled in
Mumbai institute of management & research, Wadala for the
academic year 2007-2009 in the Master of Management Studies
Programme his roll number 709 (Div. B).
This thesis is in put fulfillment of the University Programme
for the subject Legal and Tax aspects of Business. He has been
rated to receive marks out of 40.
Dated this 4th day of February 2007.

Signature Signature

(Suman Sharma) (Nadishaw Dhondy)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

3
It gives me great pleasure to present this report on “Gandhian
Trusteeship is the need of the hour”. It was a great learning
experience to work on this project.

I thank Prof. Nadirshaw Dhondy for providing me with the

valuable inputs required for the successful completion of my
project and for sharing his immense knowledge and experience
with me in the most interesting and humorous manner.

Suman Sharma
MMS-II, Roll No. 709
Mumbai Institute of Management & Research, Mumbai

Executive summary of the project

4
This project tells about the Gandhian Philosophy regarding the Indian
Context, along with that the Introduction of the Mahatma Gandhi. The life
of Gandhi and there principles are mentioned.

It also includes the Gandhian Philosophy in the context of the Indian

Religion, along with there Philosophy regarding the Industrial and
Economical Prosperity.

Finally Gandhian Philosophy and Quotes for harmony is mentioned, what

are there aims for life for prosperity.

Content of the Gandhian Philosophy

5
 INDEX

TOPICS
SR NO PG NO
Introduction
1 6
Life of Mahatma Gandhi
2 8
Gandhian Principles
3 11
Gandhian Philosophy in the context of Indian
4 religion 16
Gandhi’s Philosophy Of Industrial And Economic
5 Prosperity 22
Social, Political and Economic Philosophy
6 25
Gandhian Philosophy and Quotes for Harmony
7 27

6
 Introduction

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (2 October 1869 – 30 January 1948)

was a major political and spiritual leader of India and the Indian
independence movement. He was the pioneer of satyagraha—resistance to
tyranny through mass civil disobedience, firmly founded upon ahimsa or
total non-violence—which led India to independence and inspired
movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. He is commonly
known around the world as Mahatma Gandhi (Great Soul", an honorific
first applied to him by Rabindranath Tagore) and in India also as Bapu
("Father"). He is officially honored in India as the Father of the Nation; his
birthday, 2 October, is commemorated there as Gandhi Jayanti, a national
holiday, and worldwide as the International Day of Non-Violence.

Gandhi first employed non-violent civil disobedience as an expatriate

lawyer in South Africa, in the resident Indian community's struggle for civil
rights. After his return to India in 1915, he set about organizing peasants,
farmers, and urban laborers in protesting excessive land-tax and
discrimination. Assuming leadership of the Indian National Congress in
1921, Gandhi led nationwide campaigns for easing poverty, for expanding
women's rights, for building religious and ethnic amity, for ending
untouchables, for increasing economic self-reliance, but above all for
achieving Swaraj—the independence of India from foreign domination.
Gandhi famously led Indians in the Non-cooperation movement in 1922 and
in protesting the British-imposed salt tax with the 400 km (249 mi) Dandi
Salt March in 1930, and later in calling for the British to Quit India in 1942.
He was imprisoned for many years, on numerous occasions, in both South

7
Africa and India. Gandhi was a practitioner of non-violence and truth, and
advocated that others do the same. He lived modestly in a self-sufficient
residential community and wore the traditional Indian dhoti and shawl,
woven with yarn he had hand spun on a charkha. He ate simple vegetarian
food, and also undertook long fasts as means of both self-purification and
social protest.

8
Life of Mahatma Gandhi
Mahatma Gandhi was born as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi on October 2,
1869 at Porbandar, located in the present day state of Gujarat. His father
Karamchand Gandhi was the Diwan (Prime Minister) of Porbandar. Gandhi's
mother Putlibai was a pious lady and under her tutelage Gandhi imbibed
various principles of Hinduism at an early age.

In 1883, all of 13 and still in high school, Gandhi was married to Kasturbai
as per the prevailing Hindu customs. For a person of such extraordinary
visionary zeal and resilience, Mahatma Gandhi was by and large an average
student in school and was of a shy disposition. After completing his college
education, at his family's insistence Gandhi left for England on September 4,
1888 to study law at University College, London. During his tenure in
London, Mohandas Gandhi strictly observed abstinence from meat and
alcohol as per his mother's wishes.

Upon completion of his law degree in 1891, Gandhi returned to India and
tried to set up a legal practice but could not achieve any success. In 1893,
when an Indian firm in South Africa offered him the post of legal adviser
Gandhi was only too happy to oblige and he set sail for South Africa. This
decision alone changed the life of Gandhi, and with that, the destiny of an
entire nation. As he descended in South Africa, Gandhi was left appalled at
the rampant racial discrimination against Indians and blacks by the European
whites.

9
Soon Gandhi found himself at the receiving end of such abuse and he vowed
to take up the cudgels on behalf of the Indian community. He organized the
expatriate Indians and protested against the injustices meted out by the
African government. After years of disobedience and non-violent protests,
the South African government finally conceded to Gandhi's demands and an
agreement to this effect was signed in 1914. A battle was won, but Gandhi
realized the war that was to be waged against the British awaits his arrival in
India. He returned to India the next year.

After reaching India, Gandhi traveled across the length and breadth of the
country to witness first hand the atrocities of the British regime. He soon
founded the Satyagraha Ashram and successfully employed the principles of
Satyagraha in uniting the peasants of Kheda and Champaran against the
government. After this victory Gandhi was bestowed the title of Bapu and
Mahatma and his fame spread far and wide.

In 1921, Mahatma Gandhi called for the non-cooperation movement against

the British Government with the sole object of attaining Swaraj or
independence for India. Even though the movement achieved roaring
success all over the country, the incident of mob violence in Chauri Chaura,
Uttar Pradesh forced Gandhi to call off the mass disobedience movement.
Consequent to this, Mahatma Gandhi took a hiatus from active politics and
instead indulged in social reforms.

10
The year 1930 saw Gandhi's return to the fore of Indian freedom movement
and on March 12, 1930 he launched the historic Dandi March to protest
against the tax on salt. The Dandi March soon metamorphosed into a huge
civil disobedience movement. The Second World War broke out in 1939 and
as the British might began to wane, Gandhi called for the Quit India
movement on August 8, 1942. Post World War, the Labour Party came to
power in England and the new government assured the Indian leadership of
imminentindependence.

The Cabinet Mission sent by the British government proposed for the
bifurcation of India along communal lines which Gandhi vehemently
protested. But eventually he had to relent and on the eve of independence
thousands lost their lives in communal riots. Gandhi urged for communal
harmony and worked tirelessly to promote unity among the Hindus and
Muslims. But Mahatma's act of benevolence angered Hindu fundamentalists
and on January 13, 1948 he was assassinated by Hindu fanatic Nathuram
Godse.

11
GANDHIAN PRINCIPALS

Truth
Gandhi dedicated his life to the wider purpose of discovering truth, or Satya.
He tried to achieve this by learning from his own mistakes and conducting
experiments on himself. He called his autobiography The Story of My
Experiments with Truth.

Gandhi stated that the most important battle to fight was overcoming his
own demons, fears, and insecurities. Gandhi summarized his beliefs first
when he said "God is Truth". He would later change this statement to "Truth
is God". Thus, Satya (Truth) in Gandhi's philosophy is "God".

Nonviolence

Although Mahatama Gandhi was in no way the originator of the principle of

non-violence, he was the first to apply it in the political field on a huge scale.
[28]
The concept of nonviolence (ahimsa) and nonresistance has a long history
in Indian religious thought and has had many revivals in Hindu, Buddhist,
Jain, Jewish and Christian contexts. Gandhi explains his philosophy and way
of life in his autobiography The Story of My Experiments with Truth. He was
quoted as saying:

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and
love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time
they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall — think of it, always."

12
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless,
whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or
the holy name of liberty and democracy?"

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

"There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am
prepared to kill for."

In applying these principles, Gandhi did not balk from taking them to their
most logical extremes in envisioning a world where even government, police
and armies were nonviolent. The quotations below are from the book "For
Pacifists."

The science of war leads one to dictatorship, pure and simple. The science of
non-violence alone can lead one to pure democracy...Power based on love is
thousand times more effective and permanent than power derived from fear
of punishment....It is a blasphemy to say non-violence can be practiced only
by individuals and never by nations which are composed of individuals...The
nearest approach to purest anarchy would be a democracy based on non-
violence...A society organized and run on the basis of complete non-violence
would be the purest anarchy

I have conceded that even in a non-violent state a police force may be

necessary...Police ranks will be composed of believers in non-violence. The
people will instinctively render them every help and through mutual
cooperation they will easily deal with the ever decreasing
disturbances...Violent quarrels between labor and capital and strikes will be
few and far between in a non-violent state because the influence of the non-

13
violent majority will be great as to respect the principle elements in society.
Similarly, there will be no room for communal disturbances....

A non-violent army acts unlike armed men, as well in times of peace as in

times of disturbances. Theirs will be the duty of bringing warring
communities together, carrying peace propaganda, engaging in activities that
would bring and keep them in touch with every single person in their parish
or division. Such an army should be ready to cope with any emergency, and
in order to still the frenzy of mobs should risk their lives in numbers
sufficient for that purpose. ...Satyagraha (truth-force) brigades can be
organized in every village and every block of buildings in the cities. [If the
non-violent society is attacked from without] there are two ways open to
non-violence. To yield possession, but non-cooperate with the
aggressor...prefer death to submission. The second way would be non-
violent resistance by the people who have been trained in the non-violent
way...The unexpected spectacle of endless rows upon rows of men and
women simply dying rather than surrender to the will of an aggressor must
ultimately melt him and his soldiery...A nation or group which has made
non-violence its final policy cannot be subjected to slavery even by the atom
bomb.... The level of non-violence in that nation, if that even happily comes
to pass, will naturally have risen so high as to command universal respect.

In accordance with these views, in 1940, when invasion of the British Isles
by Nazi Germany looked imminent, Gandhi offered the following advice to
the British people (Non-Violence in Peace and War)

"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving
you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take

14
what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these
gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do
not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and
child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."

In a post-war interview in 1946, he offered a view at an even further

extreme:

"The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They
should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."

However, Gandhi was aware that this level of nonviolence required

incredible faith and courage, which he realized not everyone possessed. He
therefore advised that everyone need not keep to nonviolence, especially if it
were used as a cover for cowardice.

"Gandhi guarded against attracting to his Satyagraha movement those who

feared to take up arms or felt themselves incapable of resistance. 'I do
believe,' he wrote, 'that where there is only a choice between cowardice and
violence, I would advise violence.

"At every meeting I repeated the warning that unless they felt that in non-
violence they had come into possession of a force infinitely superior to the
one they had and in the use of which they were adept, they should have
nothing to do with non-violence and resume the arms they possessed before.
It must never be said of the Khudai Khidmatgars that once so brave, they had
become or been made cowards under Badshah Khan's influence. Their
bravery consisted not in being good marksmen but in defying death and
being ever ready to bare their breasts to the bullets.

15
Satyagraha
Gandhiji pioneered the term Satyagraha which literally translates to 'an
endeavor for truth.' In the context of Indian freedom movement, Satyagraha
meant the resistance to the British oppression through mass civil obedience.
The tenets of Truth or Satya and nonviolence were pivotal to the Satyagraha
movement and Gandhi ensured that the millions of Indians seeking an end to
British rule adhered to these basic principles steadfastly.
Khadi
Khadi, an unassuming piece of handspun and hand-woven cloth, embodies
the simplicity synonymous with Mahatma Gandhi's persona. After
renouncing the western attire of his advocacy days in South Africa, Gandhi
embraced the practice of weaving his own clothes from thread he himself
spun and encouraged others to follow suit. Mahatma used the adoption of
Khadi as a subtle economic tool against the British industrial might and also
as a means of generating rural employment in India.

Gandhian philosophy in the context of Indian religion

`Mahatma Gandhi who is also called “Rashtrapita” was a unique

personality, a great saint, an economist, a social reformer and an advocate of

non-violence and what not. Indians are proud of him who led India to the
path of freedom. He preached to the world the ideas of unity and
brotherhood. He worked for the enlistment of the Harijans. He was the
greatest figure who dedicated his whole life to the cause of the common
man. He was essentially a man of the masses and an ideal of the millions.
Being the champion of love and peace, he was respected and loved all over
world.

16
 Mahatma Gandhi did not believe in the theory that, ends justify the
means, rather he always taught the people that it were the means that could
justify the end. He stood for religious values in a materialistic age. His
religion was truth and non-violence. For him, the centre of the whole was the
very basic of truth. He always emphasized that only cowards follow the path
of violence and it is only brave people who fight their battle with the weapon
of non-violence and always come out to be victorious. In fact, he said that
the world can always be safe from effects of wars and destruction if
everybody follows his teaching of love, non-violence and patience. He liked
all without any type of discrimination based on religion, nationality and
caste. This made him one of the greatest religious thinkers of world history.
Gandhiji always advised the upper caster Hindus for justice to all those
innocent and poor people whom the high class Hindus had enslaved and
forced to live and work worse than animals. He put all his efforts for social
cause and justice to all. He said that the eradication and untouchability were
the very basic – issues of his mission towards bringing about social reforms
inIndia.
He advocated equality in treatment to women, particularly who are
working at par with their men counterparts. In this way, he really expressed
his opinions practically on each aspect of day-to-day life and invariably what
he advised has far reaching impacts and importance even after 50 years of
his death. He really stood to preach and practice self-sacrifice in the crazy
world of today where each one of us is after wealth, power and has become
self-centered.
Gandhiji realized that thousands of poor masses are being exploited by
the British rulers and such people were not able to get two square meals a
day. The Indian people were getting crushed under the heels of poverty and

17
social injustice. He decided to give a new thought to economic problems
being encountered by India and suggested very practial and easy solutions
which are really a class of its own.
He advocated his ways of self dependent by spinning the Charkha and use of
swadeshi items. He advised people to spin and wear these clothes, and avoid
the use of any imported material. He asked them to wear only swadeshi
cloths and follow the economics of the charkha. This was the way to give
employment to hundreds of farmers who could not do anything for most part
of the year and were getting poor and idle.

Thus the British rule was also getting affected as it thought that in this way
India would no longer be a profitable and economical market. The cloth
made in mills of England would find no buyers in India and British would
have to leave the country within a short time.
In the pursuit of Swadeshi movement, even small articles of daily use like
soap, matches, paper, leather and other articles began to be made in India. At
several places, British cloth was burnt in heaps. People were persuaded not
to even go to the shops which kept British cloth. Women took a leading part
in this movement. They even sold their ornaments and other jewellery items
to open shops where only Swadeshi goods were sold. The Mahatma Gandhi
launched a movement called ‘Quit India’ to ask the British rulers to leave
India immediately to allow the Indian people to sort out their problems the
way they like. Mahatmaji gave this message to the people all over India “Do
or Die”. Inspite of cruel acts by the British rulers over this movement,
Mahatmaji fought bravely with patience and restrain. Gandhiji sought to
arouse a feeling of self-conscience in every human being.
Gandhiji’s policy was to hate the evil and not the evil doer. He said that the

18
British rule was an evil but we must not hate the Englishmen. Rather we
must no co-operate with the British rule and wage a non-violent struggle to
get freedom from the hands of foreign rule. Gandhiji was always against the
policy of separating morality from politics. He tried to bring religion and
politics closer. He tried to moralise politics. For him, the political weapon
was the path of non-violence. His message to follow the path of non-
violence is true even in today’s world which is full of tension over small
issues and superiority over the other.

Facts about Mahatma Gandhi:

Mahatma Gandhi's life is so much entwined with the Indian freedom
movement that rarely do people endeavor to acquaint themselves with other
facets of his eventful life. We provide below some interesting facts about
Gandhi:

Mahatma Gandhi was born Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and the

title 'Mahatma' was accorded to him much later. Mahatma literally translates
to 'great soul' in Sanskrit. Even though opinion is ambivalent as to how
Gandhi came to be known as Mahatma, people generally believe that noted
poet and philosopher Rabindranath Tagore bestowed the title of 'Mahatma'
Gandhi.

Despite his lifelong pursuit of nonviolence, Gandhi found himself

embroiled in a war at an early stage of his life, albeit in a humanitarian role.
During his stay in South Africa the Second Boer War broke out and Gandhi
organized a volunteer medial unit of free Indians and indentured laborers
called the Indian Ambulance Corps. This unit provided exemplary medical

19
service to wounded black South Africans and post -war Gandhi became a
decorated sergeant of the Corps.

Pietermaritzburg in KwaZulu Natal province of South Africa was the

place where Gandhi was shoved out a train 1893 after refusing to move from
the first class to a third class coach while holding a first class ticket. This
unsavory incident proved to be landmark event in Gandhi's life as he made it
a mission to protest such incidents of racial abuse. The downtown of
Pietermaritzburg city now hosts a commemorative statue of Mahatma
Gandhi.

` It is indeed a sad irony that Mahatma Gandhi, the greatest exponent of

peace and nonviolence, was never deemed eligible for the Nobel Peace
Prize. After four previous nominations, Gandhi was chosen for the Prize in
1948, but because of his unfortunate assassination the Nobel Committee had
to shelve their plans and the Peace Prize was not awarded that year.

20
Mahatma Gandhi Quotes
Throughout his life, Mahatma Gandhi held certain principles dear to his
heart and unfailingly adhered to them. The ebullient speaker that he was, the
Mahatma's words were pearls of wisdom that inspired an entire nation to
embrace his principles and tread the path showed by him. Following
aresome famous quotes by Mahatma Gandhi that captured the essence of
Gandhi's values and beliefs:

• Permanent good can never be the outcome of untruth and violence.

• First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
you win.
• As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to
remake the world - that is the myth of the atomic age - as in being able
to remake ourselves.
• The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing
would suffice to solve most of the world's problems.
• You must be the change you want to see in the world.
• Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is
momentary.
• One needs to be slow to form convictions, but once formed they must
be defended against the heaviest odds.
• I object to violence because when it appears to do well, the good is
only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
• Prayer is not an old woman's idle amusement. Properly understood
and applied, it is the most potent instrument of action.
• The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.

21
Gandhi’s Philosophy Of Industry And Economy
My following article was published on 08.05.1977 in National
Herald a daily founded by Jawaharlal Nehru (now defunct). I am submitting
it on the occasion of the 3rd International Dialogue On Economics Of
Non-Violence being held in Jaipur on 13th and 14th November, 2008.But,
alas, even after more than half century of freedom the gulf is ever widening
and with all the glitter of globalizations hunger, starvation and suicide deaths
are increasing amidst agricultural surplus, and sometimes fifty million
tonnes of grain in godowns rots but cannot be sold at subsidized prices for
fear of pushing the market prices down. That is the harsh economic reality! I
would like to give a link to my article

However I would like to add a post-script to it in the context of the global

financial meltdown, which is reminiscent of the Great Depression of 1930s.
The world leaders of Group-20 are meeting in Washington to find a solution
to the unbridled, US-style capitalism. This global crisis confirms the need to
hearken back to the Gandhian economics and his stark reminder to the G-20
world leaders that: “the economic constitution of India and for that matter of
the world, should be such that no one under it should suffer from want of
food and clothing. In other words everybody should be able to get sufficient
work to enable him to make the two ends meet. And this ideal can be
universally realized only if the elementary necessaries of life remain in the
control of the masses. Their monopolization by any country, nation or group
of persons would be unjust. The neglect of this simple principle in the cause
of the destitution that we witness not only in this unhappy land .

This G-20 meeting is also a second Bretton Woods Conference, which led

22
to the International Monetary Fund. It would be also pertinent to remind
ourselves what the godfather of the IMF had no illusions about the eventual
capitalist doom. The Keynesian observation in his Essays in Persuasion in
"Let us clear from the ground the metaphysical or general principles upon
which, from time to time, laissez-faire has been founded. It is not true that
individuals possess a prescriptive "natural liberty" in their economic
activities. There is no compact conferring perpetual rights on those who
Have or on those who Acquire. The world is not so governed from above
that private and social interests always coincide. It is not so managed here
below that in practice they coincide. It is not a correct deduction from the
Principles of Economics that enlightened self-interest always operates in the
public interest. Nor is it true that self-interest generally is enlightened; more
often individuals acting separately to promote their own ends are ignorant or
too weak to attain even these. Experience does not show that individuals,
when they make up a social unit, are always less clear-sighted than when
they act separately." This is the politics and economics of social justice. And
hence it was natural for the Father of the Indian Nation, Mahatma Gandhi to
give a dire warning: "Economic equality is the master key to non-violent
revolution. A non-violent system of government is clearly impossibility so
long as the wide gulf between the rich and hungry millions persists. The
contrast between the palaces of New Delhi and the miserable hovels of the
poor, labouringly class cannot last one day in a free India in which the poor
will enjoy the same power as the richest in the land.

But, alas, even after more than half century of freedom the gulf is ever
widening and with all the glitter of globalization hunger, starvation and

23
suicide deaths are increasing amidst agricultural surplus, and sometimes fifty
million tonnes of grain in godowns rots but cannot be sold at subsidized
prices for fear of pushing the market prices down. That is the harsh
economic reality!

Social, political and economic philosophy.

24
 Gandhiji wanted the rich to hold their riches in trust for the under-
privileged. His trusteeship idea was the golden mean between class-conflict
and non-violence. It was also the Gandhian answer to the Marxist
expropriation of the expropriators. Because Gandhiji perceived rightly that
even after expropriation had been accomplished there would remain
inequalities resulting from varying capacity and talents which in turn would
again give rise to privilege and class unless held in trust in the interests of
society.

But all the same Gandhiji feared the above possibility if the rich were
not to see the writing on the wall and mend their ways in time. One has to
bear in mind that the concept of non-violence as a way of life is capable of
being put into practice only on an elevated level. It would be absurd to
expect a majority of the people to get attuned to such a level for too long and
without apparent results. And therefore this is a very real possibility of an
abrupt social conflagration. One can recall in this context Jawahararial
Nehru’s words in his presidential address at the Lahore Congress: “The new
theory of trusteeship is equally barren. For trusteeship means that the power
for good or evil remains with the self-appointed trustee, and he may exercise
it as he will. The sole trusteeship that can be fair is the trusteeship of the
nation and not of one individual or a group.”

The persistence and growing incidence of violence in our times

though apparently stemming from local and parochial causes is in reality a

25
symptom of deep-seated and chronic economic malaise of the masses and
from which they are despairing of recovering.

The temper of the times seems to be moving inexorably towards some

sort of confrontation. Could it be that the worst fears of the Mahatma would
materialize? Or would Indian rally back from the brink and thus give lead
world?

But it would be wrong to give way to such dark misgivings. Gandhiji

loved India dearly. “I cling to India”, he once declared, “like a child to its
mother’s breast, because I feel that she gives me the spiritual nourishment I
need. She has the environment that responds to my highest aspirations.” And
he was even noble enough to say: “Let India live though a hundred Gandhi’s
have to perish”. And therein lies at once the hope and the challenge for all
Indians.

26
Gandhi's Philosophy and the Quest for
Harmony

The four aims of life

Introduction
“The fact that I have affected the thought and practice of our times does not
make me fit to give expression to the philosophy that may lie behind it. To
give a philosophical interpretation of the phenomenon must be reserved for
men like you.”1

Harmony is the coming together of the different elements that constitute a

coherent whole. Gandhi’s philosophy is made up of different elements. That
is why it has been interpreted from different angles. Some treat it primarily
as a political theory. Others approach it as a religious philosophy of great
contemporary relevance. Still others see it as an original theory of conflict
resolution and non-violence. There are those who regard it as containing
ideas extremely relevant for both economic development and for the
maintenance of a sustainable economy. Finally there are those who find in it
significant ideas on the relationship of art to society.

There is of course a great deal of truth in what these interpretations have to

say. Taken individually, each gives an in-depth, but unavoidably partial
understanding of the whole. The fact is that individual themes in Gandhi’s
philosophy make full sense only when they are seen in their relationship to
one another and to the whole. It is the reality of this interaction that needs to
be understood. It is not enough to juxtapose a series of different Gandhis –

27
the political, the religious, the ethical, or any other. It is not enough to know
that Gandhi teaches non-violence. To know his doctrine of non-violence
really well one has to know how it interacts with his position on war or his
theory of the state and the relations between states. Likewise it is not enough
to know that he put his religious insights into socially and politically
beneficial practice. To know his religious philosophy really well we have to
know how it comports with secularism that he also professed. And so on
with the other major themes of his philosophy. The point is that there is an
inner dynamism that brings the diverse elements into a fruitful relationship
with one another. And it is necessary to understand the nature of this inner
dynamism if we are to understand his philosophy accurately and fully.

While specialists tend to focus on specific elements of Gandhi’s thought, it

is often the generalist – apart from the historian, of course – who catches a
glimpse of the whole. This is the case, for example, with the assessment
made by Sir Ernest Barker, a Cambridge political philosopher and a personal
friend of the Mahatma. He saw different elements meeting in him and
reinforcing one another. There was the St. Francis, “vowed to the simple life
of poverty, in harmony with all creation and in love with all created things.”
There was the St. Thomas Aquinas, “able to sustain high argument and to
follow the subtleties of thought in all their windings.” And then there was
the statesman, “who could come down from mountain tops, to guide with
shrewd advice transactions in the valley.” Finally there was the bridge that
connected the Indian tradition of “devout and philosophic religion” and the
Western tradition of “civil and political liberty in the life of the community.”
“The mixture was the essence.” He could mix “the spiritual with the
temporal, and could be at the same time true to both.” “What he was to the

28
world, and what he could do for the world, depended on his being more
things than one.”

“Being more things than one” is a label that fits Gandhi well. Any study of
his thought that aspires to be comprehensive is bound to expose the student
to the comparative perspective that it provides. The ancient and the modern,
the Indian and the Western perspectives jointly illumine the substance of his
thought. The question is how the different elements come together and
constitute a coherent whole. This book attempts to answer this question. It
uses a framework of analysis that does justice to the basic unity of his
practical philosophy. Gandhi was not a philosopher in the normal sense of
that term, much less a system builder. But a philosophy does underlie his
thought and actions. He was aware of this, though not willing to expound
systematically the underlying philosophy. He wisely left the task of
exposition and interpretation to the philosophers themselves. That was the
point of his letter to Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan cited at the beginning of this
Introduction.

This letter is of great value to every serious interpreter of Gandhi. For it

tells us that non-philosophers like Gandhi often work from certain basic
philosophic principles. The fact that he was not a philosopher in the formal
sense need not therefore inhibit his interpreters from looking for the
underlying philosophy. By the same token, there is no excuse for not looking
for the philosophic underpinnings of his thought. In the history of human
thought there have been several non-philosophers who produced important
bodies of philosophical ideas. Machiavelli is a well-known example from the
West. The crucial issue is whether in interpreting such thinkers we can find
the right interpretive key, the key that fits the available data. I believe that in

29
Gandhi’s case such a key is available. It is the Indian theory of the
purusharthas (the aims of life). Apart from opening the vast storehouse of
Gandhian ideas, it also enables us to enter a truly Indian intellectual edifice.

The concept of purushartha has three related meanings. First, it means any
human striving. Secondly, it refers to human striving directed towards
overcoming fate and karma. And thirdly, it refers to any one of the four
canonically recognized aims of life, viz., dharma (ethics and religion), artha,
(wealth and power), kama (pleasure), and moksha (liberation from samsara,
the cycle of birth, death and rebirth). The bulk of our argument will be taken
up with the third meaning, even although the other two meanings also, as we
shall see, will receive their due attention.

Etymologically the term purushartha, made up of purusha (spirit) and artha

(for the sake of), carries the literal meaning of “that which is pursued for the
sake of the spirit or the immortal soul.” In Indian philosophical anthropology
humans are seen as composites of body and spirit. It is the purusha that
provides the spiritual and moral “foundation” (adhistan) to the human
personality. Accordingly, human values are seen, ultimately, as those that
are pursued for the sake of the purusha. Put simply, the pursuit of
purushartha is what gives human activities their basic meaning and purpose.
Not that the body and its interests do not have their own internal structure
and relatively autonomous goals, but that, in moral and philosophic terms,
such goals acquire their full human significance only when they retain a
reference to the immortal purusha. Any human pursuit that deliberately
excludes a reference, however remote, to the purusha is considered pro tanto
not beneficial to human well being.

30
 It is no wonder that those who wish to understand the Indian civilization as
a whole find in the theory of the purusharthas a very convenient tool for
analysis and communication. For example, William Theodore de Bary’s
Sources of Indian Tradition, a well-known college text, uses “the four ends
of man” as its framework of analysis of Indian thought. Heinrich Zimmer’s
Philosophies of India does something similar. He groups Indian
philosophical thought under two headings: “philosophies of time” and
“philosophies of eternity.” Under the first heading he deals with the three
“temporal” purusharthas of artha, dharma and kama. The masterworks of
these purusharthas are, respectively, the Arthasastra of Kautilya’s, the
Dharmasastra of Manu, and the Kamasutra of Vatsyayana. And under the
second heading he deals with moksha, the fourth purushartha. Historically it
received canonical recognition later than did the other three. But it soon
acquired preeminence over them. As many as six systems of philosophy –
Nyaya, Vaisesika, Yoga, Samkya, Mimamsa and Vedanta – were invented to
do justice to this one purushartha. And, as if to underline the contemporary
relevance of the theory, the Centre d’études de l’Inde et de l’Asie du Sud,
Paris, has entitled its annual publication Collectio Purushartha.

The mutual relationship of the four aims

The question of the mutual relationship between the four aims has been one
of the major methodological questions associated with this theory. Do they
interact positively with one another or do they counteract each other? The
question was raised in Indian classical thought, and it continues to be raised
even today. The Arthasastra, for example, advises the good ruler to devote
himself or herself equally to dharma, artha and kama, because they are
morally “bound up with one another” (anyonya-anubaddham). Any one of

31
the three, when indulged in excess, does harm to itself as well as to the rest. 8
If one’s duty (svadharma) is pursued within the context of the balance
achieved by the three mundane goals of life, it would lead to the
transcendent goal of svarga, i.e., “endless bliss.”9 The Dharmasastra of
Manu, in its turn, takes note of the different views held by its
contemporaries. Some held that the chief good consisted in dharma and
artha, others in kama and artha, and still others in dharma alone or artha
alone. But the correct answer, according to Manu, was that it consisted of the
aggregate of the three.10 The aggregate of the three would lead to moksha.11
Vatsyayana’s Kamasutra also noted the existence of competing views on the
subject. The prescribed procedure was that dharma should have precedence
over artha, and artha over kama. However, there were exceptions, as in the
case of kings, where artha should have precedence over the other two, just as
in the case of courtesans, kama should have precedence over the rest.
Vatsyayana’s own advice was in favor of a balanced approach: “Undertake
any project that might achieve the three aims of life, or two, or even just one;
but not one that achieves the one at the cost of the other two.”12

Adding moksha to the existing canon of three, the so-called triad –

dharma, artha, and kama – created a problem of its own. It was that the triad
was held by some to be unable to contribute directly to the attainment of
moksha. The claims of the sramanic or the “renouncer” movements –
Brahminical, Buddhist, and Jain – were largely responsible for this. We see
the Buddha, the sramana (renouncer) par excellence, renouncing his princely
status, and even family ties, for the sake of attaining nirvana. As a result, in
Buddhism, as in ascetic Brahminism and Jainism, artha and kama came to be
marginalized to the point of being treated as negative values. At best artha

32
was conflated with dharma, as in the case of Asoka the Great, the Buddhist
emperor. His famous edicts sought to establish the reign of dharma at the
expense of artha.

The radical separation of moksha and nirvana from the other purusharthas
had had disastrous consequences for Indian civilization taken as a whole.
The achievements of Kautilya’s, for example, were rendered nugatory and,
as a result, Indian political philosophy stagnated for nearly two millennia.13
The great thinkers of India, including Sankara and Ramanuja, supported the
ascendancy of moksha over all the other purusharthas.

The trend continued even after the nineteenth century, despite Raja Ram
Mohan Roy’s (1772–1833) effort to reverse it. Swaminarayan (1781–1830)
and Ramakrishna Paramahansa (1836–86) lent their support to the world-
renouncing and artha-devaluing approach to moksha.14

The ascendancy of moksha is so great that even today some of the major
discussions on the relationship between the purusharthas often come down to
a discussion of the relationship between dharma and moksha, as if the other
purusharthas do not matter. For an example we need to look no farther than
the debate between D. H. H. Ingalls and J. A. B. van Buitenen on the subject.
Van Buitenen held dharma and moksha to be incompatible. Moksha was the
release from the entire realm governed by dharma. The idea was that “the
world and phenomena,” being transitory, could never be an ultimately valid
goal, that there was lesser truth in creation than in the principle or person
from which creation originated.

33
 Ingalls on the other hand found dharma and moksha “to have been usually
harmonized within one single religious path.” The two arose in different
milieus, and the majority of Hindus attempted “to harmonize” the two. To
those who accepted the goal of moksha, it was a goal beyond dharma. The
harmonizers regarded the two “as points along a single journey, a journey for
which the viaticum was discipline and self-training.” The conflict was the
exception rather than the rule. It was “the monastic disharmonizers,” as
Ingalls called them, (among them Nagarjuna, Sankara and Vallabha), who
insisted on “the contradiction” between the two.

In the late twentieth century, however, the scope of the discourse

broadened to include all four purusharthas. But disagreements still persist on
the question of whether the four constitute a system of oppositions or one of
relative harmony. Louis Dumont and A. K. Ramanujan, for example, defend
a theory of opposition.

Dumont, in his Homo Hierarchic us, first of all radically separates moksha
from the rest. Even within the rest, i.e., the triad, a hierarchical relationship
exists. Dharma, artha, and kama represent a hierarchy of ends – moral
universalism, calculating egoism, and immediate satisfaction, respectively.
Each is accorded legitimacy. At the same time, each is opposed to the other,
though not absolutely. A hierarchical opposition exists when an “inferior”
goal is pursued only when a “superior” goal does not intervene. Thus, in case
of conflict, kama should yield to artha, and artha to dharma. If this rule were
followed, the triad would work as a system of hierarchical opposition.
However, between the triad and moksha, no positive relationship is possible,
as the latter requires the radical renunciation of the former. In the end, any

34
attempt to bring together the four into a system will only mask the
heterogeneity that exists between moksha and the rest.

Dumont appears to be oblivious of Kautilya’s principle of mutuality

(anyonya-anubaddham), which should relate the four to each other. That is
why he is forced to posit opposition where mutuality should prevail. This
faulty concept of the relationship between the purusharthas forces him to
make a faulty analysis of Gandhi’s philosophy. He sees two Gandhi’s – the
politician and the sannyasi (ascetic) – co-existing without any internal
integration. It was as if the two Gandhi’s were unable to communicate with
each other. To the British, Gandhi appeared to be a political representative of
Indians, to the Indians he appeared to be a holy man. At the root of this
falsification of Gandhi is Dumont’s inability to see what Gandhi was really
attempting to do, namely to reconstitute the system of values of Indian
civilization and to rehabilitate the principle of mutuality especially between
artha and moksha.

A. K. Ramanujan, in his turn, favors what he calls a theory of “successive

encompassment” to explain the internal relationship of the purusharthas.
Dharma, artha and kama form “concentric nests” (kosas or sheaths) formed
from the center – the individual. In so far as they are concentric nests they
are relational in their values. The individual needs to follow them in
succession. Moksha, however is not part of the system of nests, for it is
“release from all relations.” Sannyasa (the final stage in life), writes
Ramanujan, “cremates” all one’s past and present relations. Moksha for him
is pure isolation, kaivalyam. Once more, disharmony between values is the
end result of this particular interpretation of the theory of the purusharthas.

35
From opposition towards harmony

The need to go beyond the negative attitude fostered by these

“disharmonizers” is recognized by many Indian thinkers today. For them it is
not enough to restate what the last two millennia thought of what the
relationship of the triad to nirvana or moksha had been. For them it is
necessary to rethink the whole theory of the purusharthas. No one has
expressed the need for this with greater conviction and intellectual authority
than has Pandurang Vaman Kane, the author of the monumental History of
Dharmasastra. One of the general conclusions that he has reached is that the
radical separation of the spiritual from the political, the economic from the
ethical had cost Indian civilization dearly. He lays much of the blame at the
feet of the acharyas (Indian religious philosopher-saints) for placing “too
much emphasis on other worldliness and Vedanta,” and for not placing
“equal or greater emphasis” on the importance of the active life. He is
saddened not to find an Indian Alberuni21 in the eleventh century who would
inquire into the reasons why Indians did not form a permanent state for the
whole of India, why they did not develop manufacturing and industries, and
why they were unable to resist successfully external aggression. Indian
intellectuals were mostly engaged in “mental gymnastics” about Logic,
Vedanta, Poetics and similar subjects, giving little attention to the means of
removing the weaknesses and the defects of the country’s political and
economic systems.22 The starting point of such rethinking should include a
new understanding of the meaning of the theory of the purusharthas.

Several students of Indian thought have contributed to this rethinking. The

work of the philosopher R. Sundara Rajan has been quite innovative here.
His knowledge of Western phenomenological thought enabled him to see the

36
purusharthas as “modes of being in the world,” or “the grounds of the
possibility of our humanity.” It is the purusharthas in their “simultaneity”
that distinguish us as human. To sunder one from the other is to negate it as
a purushartha. Kama, for instance, without the other three would be animal
impulse, but with them, it would be a form of being human. What makes
Kama a human value is its mediation by the other three. And so on with the
other three.

------------------------------------xxxxxxxxxxxx--------------------------------------

37