Ambedkar and Gandhi

1
Socio-Economic Thoughts of B.R. Ambedkar
D.R. Gadekar
Bharat Ratna B.R. Ambedkar, one of the illustrious sons of India and the chief
architect of the Indian Constitution, had a multi-faceted personality. Though his
formal education was primarily in economics and political science, he was equally
at ease in law and sociology. In the later part of his life, he developed a keen
interest in Buddhist studies.
The present day problems of the Indian economy are very serious. Mounting
unemployment, rising number of poor people, growing social tensions, brutality on
oppressed groups, concentration of resources, lack of proper distribution of
income, negligible access of marginalized sections to public facilities, labour
unrest, gender based discriminations, pitiable level of living of urban slum
dwellers, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, agriculture-industry mismatch,
failures in the land reforms sector, foreign exchange crisis, faster population
growth and lack of moral values and nationalism are some of the issues of concern
in our economy. Ambedkar who belonged to the oppressed and dalit section of
society, tried his best to raise these issues after the first World War. His
contributions firstly as a professional economist and later on as a sound social
scientist, a forceful parliamentarian, a real social reformer and a propagator of
human love and peace show a true testimony to his affection and approach for the
development of the nation. He had a scientific forecasting power. That is why, his
life and career was fully dedicated to key socio-economic issues which the nation
is facing currently. Even today, Indian economy is mainly rural based where the
symptoms of inequitous land dis
24
D.R. Gadekar
tribution, semi-feudal production relations, constraints of extension of green

revolution, improper linkages of agricultural and industrial sectors, negligible
availability of service sector and disguised unemployment are observed. Babasaheb
Ambedkar, in a paper published in the Journal of Indian Economic Society in 1918,
stressed the need of balancing farm size and productivity of crops, emphasized the
reflex effects of agricultural sector for industrialization of the economy and
explored the growth path of employment generation. These contributions are still
relevant for our labour-surplus economy. We are still considering the same options
in order to solve these problems.
cacy The relevance of his thoughts may also be seen in his advofor freedom for all,
end of slavery, a federal structure of the country and abolition of rural evils
such as Mahar Watan system and to bring land revenue under the net of income tax.
To consider agricultural income as taxable and to bring it under the category of
direct tax is a contentious issue at present. But the government is unable to take
a concrete decision. As a result, inequitable distribution of income is a reality
in the national economic scenario, particularly in states where cultivable land is
unevenly possessed. As a result, holders having big size land are free from income
tax. Regarding the role of purchasing power of rupee for the help of the poor, he
advocated that it was the internal purchasing power of the which was of primary
importance for the poor and not its exchange value as discussed by several other
economists of the present day. He concluded further that the stability of the
currency in terms of gold was favourable to gold merchants. In contrast, its
stability in terms of goods and services will affect all sections of society. This
theoretical conclusion is highly praised even today. rupee
Ambedkar was of the strong belief that social tensions, untouchability and
backwardness of dalits and down-trodden would remain constraints for socio-economic
development, which is a reality even today. As a member of the Maharashtra
Legislative Assembly, he presented a few bills in the assembly
Socio-Economic Thoughts of B.R. Ambedkar
for the welfare of dalits. While drafting the Constitution of India he mentioned
several Articles including Articles 14,17 and 22 for social justice and changes.
Insurance policy, which comes under the priority area of the government today, was
propagated by him. The ideas of state monopolized insurance and crop insurance were
also initiated by him. He tried to balance an approach of laissez-faire and
publicity owned socialist economy and encouraged the tenets of mixed economy for
India. The situation of our economy would have been slightly different and probably
worse if the theory of the mixed economy would not have been followed.
His concept of the society and socialism deserve careful attention which are aimed
at the welfare of the poor classes, ending inequality based on socio-economic
characters, reorganizing the political economy for the benefit of all, maintaining
full employment and education, providing social security for the weak and the sick
and finally rebuilding the Indian society on the foundation of cooperation, love,
friendship rather than division of men into rigid social barriers.
As a social reformer, Ambedkar always advocated against gender discrimination,

untouchability, labour exploitation, landlordism-led exploitation and
pauperization. He advocated for the promotion of inter-caste dining and inter-caste
marriage. His professionalism was eroded when he joined active politics for the
upliftment of dalits and untouchables. The dominance of political activities
overshadowed his study of economics. His contributions may enthuse one to conclude
that the 20th century history of Indian economic thought has commanded ample of
Ambedkar's contributions. His approach of economic thinking is a topic of lively
debate and will remain so even in the 21st century. Thus, it will be clear that the
issues which he discussed for Indian socio-economic development are quite pertinent
even today. These are related to rural employment, agricultural development,
industrial growth, insurance, women's participation and exploitation,
redistribution of wealth and assets and exchange problem. These are contempo
25
D.R. Gadekar
rary Indian economic problems which Babasaheb visualized by the mid-20th century
and put forth his views to counter these problems. Therefore, it may be wise to
conclude that Ambedkar assessed the problems of the future and as an academician, a
social scientist, a parliamentarian, a social reformer and a propagator of Buddhism
gave valuable directions which are very much relevant today and will remain so in
the 21st century also.
26
23 Ambedkar on Hinduism and Social Transformation

Bhima Sen Hantal
Ambedkar, drawn from-the untouchable community of Maharashtra, climbed up from the

lowest of the low positions to the highest of the high positions, and contributed
his whole life for social transformation and nation building. He was not satisfied
merely with the upliftment of the so-called untouchables to which he belonged, he
wanted the total restructure of the Indian society, thereby establishing the true
democratic nation based on equality, liberty and fraternity. Some critiques who
have not touched the original works of Ambedkar wrongly assume that he was a
sectarian and his activities were confined to the untouchables only. However, their
assumptions are based on prejudice and bias, and are without with any scientific
fact and objectivity. In fact, Ambedkar was much more concerned for the labour
class, women and other deprived sections of the society than any other social
reformers and politicians during his period. He associated himself with Marxists
for real development and progress of the labour class. But when the Marxists were
restricted to their viewpoints that caste system was the super structure of the
economic structure rejecting out-rightly the socio-cultural realities, he parted
from them as he rightly was dissatisfied with the principle of Marxists that the
eradication of poverty would automatically eradicate the caste system. Similarly he
was very keen on complete eradication of social evils which were imposed on women
under the umbrella of Hindu social order for which being a Law Minister, he
proposed the Hindu Code Bill which, however, was not accepted due to the exponent
of the so-called modern par excellence-Nehru and
Bhima Sen Hantal
his cabinet. Owing to the failure of the Hindu Code Bill, he resigned from the
Cabinet.
He was a true nationalist and freedom fighter. His thesis, to be submitted to

London University entitled "Evolution of Provincial Finance in British India", had
to face several jolts as he projected the true picture of the British's
exploitation of Indian economy. He was never sympathetic to the British. He needed
the true freedom for the people of India. According to him, both political as well
as social freedom are essential embodiments for the development of individual
personality. A true intellectual and highly rational in his philosophy and
analysis, Ambedkar was an eminent economist, sociologist, anthropologist, lawyer,
fighter and politician. He worked very hard to find the truth and to fight for the
emancipation of the down-trodden.
As the Marxis theory on social transformation is based on the economic structure of

the society, Ambedkar's theory of social transformation is based on the caste
structure of the society. However, unlike Marx's "Utopian Communism” Ambedkar was
more realistic in his approach and objective. He had great love for the emotional
appeal of Marx for the cause of the labour class, but he had several reservations
for Marxism as it was not practical and pragmatic according to him.
According to Ambedkar, the Hindu social order is the root cause of the various
social evils perpetuated in various forms in the Indian society. For him Hinduism
is responsible for the abominable conditions of the down-trodden, especially of
lower castes and women. In the ensuing pages some of features of Hindu social order
have been stated in correlating with the deprived sections of the country.
Hinduism is based on the principle of inequity for which it has established the
caste system. One striking feature of the caste system is that the different castes
do not stand as a horizontal series all on the same plane. It is a system in which
the different castes are placed in a vertical series one above the
292
Ambedkar on Hinduism and Social Transformation
other.
In the scheme of Manu, the Brahmin is placed as the first in rank. Below him is the
Kshatriya, after him is the Vaishya, then the Shudra and finally at the bottom is
the Ati-Shudra (the untouchables). With regard to occupation of Shudra, Manu says¹:
“(a) I(91) one occupation only the Lord prescribed to the Shudra is to serve meekly
even these other three castes."
“(b) X (129) No collection of wealth must be made by a Shudra even though he be

able to do it, for a Shudra who has acquired wealth gives pain to Brahmins."
Manu also alienated Shudra and women from studying the Veda. According to the rule
of Manu² "the twice-born must never read the Veda in the presence of the Shudras,
and women have no business with the text of the Veda." The successor of Manu made
the disability of the Shudra in the matter of the study of the Veda into an offense
involving dire penalties. For instance, Goutama says³: “If the Shudra intentionally
listens for committing to memory of the Veda, then his ears should be filled with
(molten) lead and iac, if he utters the Veda, then his tongue should be cut off; if
he has mastered the Veda his body should be cut to pieces.”
According to Ambedkar, in Hinduism inequality is a religious doctrine adopted and

conscientiously preached as a sacred dogma. It is an official creed and nobody is
ashamed to profess it openly. Inequality for the Hindus is a divinely prescribed
way of life as a religious doctrine and as a prescribed way of life it has become
incarnated in the Hindu society and is shaped and moulded by it in its thoughts and
in its doings. Indeed inequality is the soul of Hinduism.
The Shudra is morally obliged to serve the Brahmin as the Brahmin is the superman,
and by worshipping of whom alone he can gain all his ends. Because Manu says:
"(a) X (123): The service of the Brahmina alone is declared to be
293
294 Bhima Sen Hantal
an excellent occupation for a Shudra; for whatever else besides this he may perform
will bear no fruit.”
"(b) X (22) But let a Shudra serve Brahmins, either for the sake of a heaven or
with a view to both this life and the next, for he who is pe called the servant of
a Brahmin thereby gains all his ends."
With regard to punishment of offences as laid down by Manu, the gross

discrimination on Shudra is seen as accordingly to Manu:
"(a) (VIII 268): A priest shall be fined fifty if he slanders a soldier, twenty-
five if a merchant and twelve if he slanders a man of the servile class."
"(b) (VIII 270): A Shudra who insults a Dvija with gross invectives, ought to have
his tongue slit for he sprang from the lowest part of the Brahma."
With regard to food of the Shudra, Manu says: “It is as impure as semen or urine."
As already stated, Manu also treated women in more or less similar way as the
Shudra. Apart from restricting her from studying the Veda, he also says:
"(a) IV (205): A Brahmin must never eat food given at a sacrifice performed by a
woman.' ""
"(b) IV (206): Sacrifices performed by women are inauspicious and not acceptable to
God. They should, therefore, be avoided,"
According to Ambedkar, "the triumphant brahminism began its onslaught on both the
Shudras and women in pursuit of the old ideal, namely, servility, and brahminism
did succeed in making the Shudras and women the servile classes; Shudras the serfs
to the three higher classes and women the serfs to their husbands. The women
represent one half of the population. Of the balance, the Shudra represents not
less than two-third. The two together make up about 75 per cent of the total
population. It is this huge mass of people that has been doomed by brahminism to
eternal servility and eternal degradation. It is be
cause of the colossal scale of degradation whereby 75 per cent of the people were
deprived of their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that India became
a decaying if not a dead nation."⁹
Ambedkar's research on the philosophy of Hinduism goes to the extent of proving

that both Ram and Krishna were the staunch supporters of the Hinduism and upholders
of the caste system. He summarized the following four pronouncements made by
Krishna in the Bhagwad Gita. 10
1. "I myself have created the arrangement known as chaturvarna (i.e., the fourfold
division of society into four castes Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras)
assigning them different occupations in accordance with the native capacities. It
is I, who am the maker of this chaturvarna." Gita IV 13
2. "Even if it may be easier to follow the occupation of another varna yet to

follow the occupation of one's own varna is more meritorious, although one may not
be able to do it quite efficiently. There is bliss in following the occupation of
one's own varna, even if death were to result in performing it; but to follow the
occupation of another varna is risky." Gita III 35.
3."The educated should not unsettle the faith of the uneducated who have become
attached to their occupation. He himself should perform the occupation of his varna
and make others perform their's accordingly. An educated man may not become
attached to his occupation. But the uneducated and dull minded people who have
become attached to their occupation should not be spoiled by the educated by
putting them on a wrong path by abandoning their own occupation." Gita III 26. 29
4. "Oh Arjun whenever this religion of duties and occupations (i.e., this religion
of chaturvarna) declines, then I myself will come to birth to punish those who are
responsibly for its downfall and to restore it." Gita IV 7-8.
Similarly, Ram was also a strict follower of the rule of law of caste system, as
prescribed in Hinduism. The story in the
295
296
Bhima Sen Hantal
Ramayana of Ram killing Shambuka will clarify the other side of the same Ram whom
all the Hindus worship as a Supreme God-an incarnation of Lord Vishnu.
"Ram Raj was Raj based on chaturvarna. As a King, Ram was bound to maintain
chaturvarna. It was his duty, therefore, to kill Shambuka, the Shudra, who had
transgressed his class and wanted to be a Brahmin. This is the reason why Ram
killed Shambuka. But this also shows that penal sanction is necessary for the
maintenance of chaturvarna. Not only penal sanction is necessary, but penalty of
death is necessary. That is why, Ram did not inflict on Shambuka a lesser
punishment. That is why Manu-Smriti prescribes such heavy sentences as cutting off
the tongue or pouring of molten lead into the ears of the Shudra, who recites or
hears the Veda.¹ 11
According to Ambedkar's observation, though Shudras were treated as inferior

animals and non-Aryans, the condition of the Aryan civilization was very degraded
at the time when Buddha started on the mission of his life. "The Aryan community of
his time was steeped in the worst kind of debauchery; social, religious and
spiritual."12
Gambling and drinking were widespread among the Aryans. Every king had a hall of
gambling attached to his palace. King Virat, king Nala, and king Dharma (the eldest
of the Pandavas) were the few names to be cited as an example. Liquors were of two
sorts-soma and sura. "The Mahabharat mentions an occasion when both Krishna and
Arjun were dead drunk. That liquor and dancing were common among the Aryan women is
cleared from the Kausitaki Grihya Sutra I, 11-12, which says: 'Four or eight women
who are not widowed after having been regaled with wine and food are to dance for
four times on the night previous to the wedding ceremony. '¹3 The sexual immorality
of the Aryan society must shock their present day descendants. The Aryans of the
pre-B -Buddhist days had no such rule of prohibited degrees as we have today to
govern their sexual or matrimonial relationship.
"According to the Aryan mythology, Brahma had three sons and a daughter. His one
son Daksha married his sister. The daughters born of this marriage between brother
and sisters were married some to Kashyapa the son of Marichi the son of Brahma, and
some to Dharma, the third son of Brahma...
A father could marry his daughter. Vashishta married his own daughter Shatrupa when
she come up of age. Manu married his daughter Illa. Tanhu married his daughter
Jahnavi. Surya married his daughter Usha... (Similarly) Drahaprachetani and his son
soma cohabited with Marisha the daughter of soma....
Instances of grandfather marrying his grand-daughter are not wanting. Daksha gave
his daughter in marriage to his father Brahma and from that marriage was born the
famous Narada. Dauhitra gave his 27 daughters to his father soma for cohabitation
and procreation....
The Aryans did not mind cohabiting with women in the open and within the sight of
people.... Instances of this may be mentioned, the case of the sage Parashara who
had sexual intercourse with Satyavati and also of Dirghatapa....
There was prevalent among the Aryans the practice of renting out their women to
others for a time. As an illustration may be mentioned the story of Madhavi. The
king Yayati gave his daughter Madhavi as an offering to his Guru Galav. Galav
rented out the girl Madhavi to three kings each period. Thereafter, he gave her in
marriage to Vishwamitra. She remained with him until a son was born to her.
Thereafter, Galav took away the girl and gave her back to her father Yayati....
There was prevalent among the Aryans another practice, namely, allowing procreation
by the best amongst them. The Aryans allowed their women to have sexual intercourse
with any one of the class of Devas (superior class among the Aryans) in the
interest of good breeding....
Bestiality was also prevalent among the Aryans. The story of the sage Dam having
sexual intercourse with a female deer is well known. Another instance is that of
Surya cohabiting with a mare.
297
Bhima Sen Hantal
But the most hideous instance is that of the women having sexual intercourse with
the horse in the Ashvamedha Yajna."¹4
So to say "the Aryan religion was just a series of observances. Behind these there
no yearning for a good and a virtuous life. There was no hunger or thirst for
righteousness. Their religion was without any spiritual content. The hymns of the
Rig Veda furnish very good evidence of the absence of any spiritual basis for the
religion. ¹5
Hence, the Hindu religion was not meant for any spiritualism in true sense. In
fact, it was a cultural forum of exploitation. Under the religious dogma the weaker
sections which constitute more than 75 per cent of the population were sidelined
from the main-stream.
To perpetuate the degradation, various mythologies/purans were created and time to

time modified so as to suit best the interest of the so-called upper caste.
Otherwise at one time Shudra too were the integral part of the Aryan society. The
Shudra was accepted as an Aryan and as late as Kautilya's Artha Shastra was
addressed on Arya.
"Who were the shudras? How they came to be the fourth varna in the Indo-Aryan
Society" written by B.R. Ambedkar proved that: 16
1. The Shudras were Aryans.
2. The Shudras belonged to the Kshatriya class.
3. The Shudras were so important a class of Kshatriya that some of the most eminent
and powerful kings of the ancient Aryan communities were the Shudras.
For instance, verses 38-40 of chapter 60 of the Shanti Parvan of the Mahabharat
reads as follows: 17
"It has been heard by us that in the days of old a Shudra of the name of Paijavana
gave a dakshina (in his own sacrifice) consisting of a hundred thousand
purnapatrars according to the ordinance called Aindragoni."
The important statements contained in this passage are

298
three: (1) that Paijavana was a Shudra, (2) that this Shudra Paijavana performed
sacrifices, and (3) the Brahmins performed sacrifices for him and accepted dakshina
from him.
In the same book Ambedkar proved that the conflict between a Brahmin priest
Vashishta and a Kshatriya priest Vishwamitra was the root cause of the degradation
of the Shudra. Because Vashishta was a family priest of a Shudra king Sudas and it
was Vashishta who helped him to win the battle against the ten kings. Not
withstanding this, he was removed from office. In his place, Vishwamitra was
appointed as Purohita who performed Yajna for Shudra king. This was the first deed
of that Shudra king which created enmity between Shudra and Vashishta. 18 This
conflict between Brahmin and a branch of Kshatriya class persisted-till the Brahmin
made up his mind to degrade the Shudras into fourth varna. The technique employed
by the Brahmin to degrade the Kshatriya was the 'Upanayana'. Hence, the Brahmin
refused to perform the Upanayana of the Shudras.1' So to say through this weapon of
Upanayana the Brahmin could relegate the Shudras into the fourth varna. Otherwise
there is, as Ambedkar observes, "enough evidence to show that there was a time when
both women and Shudras had the right to Upanayana and did have it performed. 19
As to the Upanayana of women the statements contained in the Hindu religious books
are quite explicit. Anyone who examines them will find that Upanayana was open to
women. Women not only learned the Vedas but they used to run schools for teaching
the Vedas, they are even known to have written commentaries on the women Purva
Mimamsa.
As to the Shudras, the evidence is equally positive. If Sudas was a king, if Sudas
was a Shudra, if his ceremony was performed by Vashishta and he performed the
Rajasuya Yajna, then there can be no doubt that the Shudras did at one time wear
the sacred thread. In addition to circumstantial evidence, and that of the authors
mentioned before, the Sanskara Ganapati cited by Max Muller contains an express
provision
299
Bhima Sen Hantal
declaring the Shudra to be eligible for Upanayana.
The only difference between the women and the Shudras is that in the case of women
there is some plausible explanations given as to why the Upanayana of women was
stopped, while there is no such explanation for stopping the Upanayana of the
Shudras. It is argued that the Upanayana of women continued
as long as the age of Upanayana and the age of marriage continued to be different.
It is said that in ancient times the age of Upanayana was eight and the age for
marriage was considerably
later. But at a later stage, the age of marriage was brought down to eight, with
the result that the Upanayana as an independent ceremony ceased to exist and became
merged in marriage. Whether this explanation is right or wrong is another matter.
The point is that in the case of Shudra the Upanayana was at one time open to him,
that it was closed to him at a later stage and that there is no explanation for his
change. 20
The Upanayana was the main and sole technique through which the Brahmin degraded
the Shudras into lowest position; this is known from the following few points drawn
by Ambedkar from the Bombay Presidency.² 21
(1) The Brahmins have the exclusive right to perform the Upanayana.
(2) The Brahmin is the sole judge of deciding whether a given community is entitled
to Upanayana.
(3) The support of the Brahmins for the performance of the Upanayana need not be
based on honest grounds. It could be purchased by money. Shivaji got the support of
the Brahmin Gagabhat on payment of money.
(4) The denial of Upanayana by the Brahmin need not be on legal or religious
ground. It is possible for the denial to be based on purely political grounds. The
refusal by the Brahmins of Upanayana to Kayasthas was entirely due to political
rivalry between the two.
(5) The right of appeal against the denial of the Upanayana by a Brahmin is only to
do Vidvat-Parishad and the Vidvat-Par
300
ishad is an assembly for which a Brahmin alone is eligible to be a member.
Being enlightened and far-sighted Ambedkar tried to resolve the problems of Indian
society by destroying the caste system in totality. As stated already, Ambedkar
proved beyond doubt that caste system was a mythological instrument to oppress the
down-trodden in India. He also reviewed that the caste system has changed its
colour from time to time as per the various circumstances. He proved that the
Shudras of today were the powerful Kshatriyas of one time. He also clarified that
even after Manu the two powerful dynasties such as the Nandas and the Mauryas were
the dynasties of the Shudras kings. 22
Coming to the contemporary crises created by the Hindu religion, he pointed out
that caste system was not only poisonous to certain sections of the society, but
directly and indirectly, it affects the whole nation due to the following
features:23
Caste system is not merely division of labour. It is also a division of labourers.

Civilized society undoubtly needs division of labour. But in no civilized society
is division of labour accompanied by this unnatural division of labourers into
water-tight compartments.
(2)) Caste disassociates work from interest. Caste system will not allow Hindus to
take occupations where they are wanted if they do not belong to them by heredity.
By not permitting readjustment of occupations, caste becomes a direct cause of much
of the unemployment that is seen in the country.
(3)) Caste disconnects intelligence from manual labour. The theory of the caste is
that a Brahmin who is permitted to cultivate his intellect is not permitted to
labour, indeed is taught to look down upon labour. While the Shudra who is required
to labour is not permitted to cultivate his intelligence.
Caste devitalizes a man. It is a process of sterilization. Edu
301
302
Bhima Sen Hantal
for cation, wealth, labour are all individual necessary every if he is to reach a
free and full manhood. Mere education without health and labour is barren. Wealth
without education and wealth is brutal. Each is necessary to everyone. They are all
necessary for the growth of a man.
(5) Caste prevents mobilization. Occasions arise when society must mobilize all its
resources in order to save it itself from a catastrophe. To face a catastropne like
war, the society must mobilize all its resources for militarization. But this is
not possible under the theory of caste. Only the Kshatriyas are expected to fight.
The Brahmins and Vaishyas are not armed and the Shudras who form the large majority
of the country are disarmed. Hence, the country is destined to be defeated as we
see throughout history. It could offer no resistance.
Caste gave rise to untouchability. This prevents one from taking the help of
another human being even if it is essential. The Hindu would prefer to be inhuman
rather than touch on untouchable. For instance:24
In Kaladi, a village of Calicut, the child of a young woman fell into a well. The
woman raised an alarm but none present dared to go down the well. A stranger who
was passing by jumped into the well and rescued the child. Later, when the people
asked the benefactor who he was, he said he was an untouchable. Thereupon, instead
of being thankful, the man was fully abused and assaulted as he had polluted the
well. (Bombay Samachar, 19th Dec., 1936).
Several examples of this kind have been cited by Ambedkar and can be seen in his
two chapters (i) Unfit for Human Association; and (ii) Untouchability and
Lawlessness in Vol.5.
The impact of British Rule in India led to certain changes in the Hindu Social
order. Governments had declared that all public utilities and public institutions
were open to all citizens including the untouchables. The right to wear any kind of
clothes or ornaments were some of the rights which the British Indian Law gave to
untouchables along with the rest. To these
were added the right to the use of pubic utilities and institutions, such as wells,
schools, buses, trams, railways, public offices, etc. But owing to the opposition
of the Hindus the untouchables could not make any use of them. It was to meet this
situation that the untouchables decided to resort to direct action to redress their
wrongs. Among the open revolts in the form of direct action against the Hindu
established order, the following 25 are mentioned in which Ambedkar played the
leading role.
The Chowder Tank of Mahad was made a public tank in 1869. In 1923, the Bombay
Legislative Council passed a resolution to the effect that the untouchable class be
allowed to use all public watering places. The Mahad Municipality passed a
resolution on 5th January, 1927, to the effect that the Municipality had no
objection to allow the untouchables to use the tank. Soon after this resolution was
passed a conference of untouchables of the Colaba district was held for two days,
18th and 20th March, 1927, at Mahad in which Ambedkar presided. In his presidential
address Ambedkar exhorted them to fight for their rights, give up their dirty and
vicious habits and rise to full manhood. A few caste Hindus also addressed the
gathering and told the untouchables to be bold and exercise the rights that had
given to them by law. On 20th the conference exhorted the untouchables present to
go to the tank and exercise their right to take water from Chowdar Tank. The Hindus
who had exhorted them to be bold instantly realized that this was a bombshell and
immediately ran away. But the electrified untouchables led by Ambedkar marched in a
procession through the main streets and for the first time the untouchables drank
the water. Soon the Hindus went into a frenzy and committed all sorts of atrocities
on the untouchables, who had dared to pollute the water. The untouchables on the
other hand were determined not to be satisfied with merely exercising their right
but to see it established. Accordingly, a second conference of untouchables was
called. Meanwhile, the Hindus applied to the District Magistrate to prohibit
untouchables from entering the
303
Bhima Sen Hantal
tank which, however, was turned down by the District Magistrate as it was a public
tank. However, Ambedkar observed that later on the Civil Court as well as the
District Magistrate took sides with the caste Hindus and were not ready to help the
untouchables. However, the long agitation of the untouchables helped them win the
case to use the public tank.
The next item in the history of direct action which is worthy of mention relates to
the entry into the famous Hindu Temple of Nashik known as the Kala Ram Temple.
There are other instances of direct action aimed at achieving specific objects.
This includes two cases of direct action aimed at the demolition of Hindu social
order by applying dynamite to its very foundations---one is the burning of the Manu
Smriti on 20th December, 1927, and the second is the mass refusal by the
untouchables to lift and skin the dead cattle belonging to the Hindus.
Throughout these movements, Ambedkar faced hostility not merely from caste Hindus
but also from the officials. As he observed:26
The official is anti-untouchables and pro-Hindu. Whenever he has any authority or

discretion it is always exercised to the prejudice of the untouchables...........
The Police and Magistrate are sometimes corrupt. If they were only corrupt, things
would not perhaps be so bad because an officer who is corrupt is open to purchase
by either party. But the additional misfortune is that the Police and Magistrate
are often more partial than corrupt. It is this partiality to the Hindus and his
antipathy to the untouchables which results in the denial of protection and justice
to the untouchables. There is no cure to this partiality to the one and antipathy
to the other. It is founded in the social and religious repugnance which is in born
in every Hindu. The Police and the Magistrate by reason of their motives, interest
and their breeding do not sympathize with the living forces operating among the
untouchables. They are not charged with the wants, the pains, the cravings and the
desires which actuate the untouchables. Consequently they are openly hostile and
304
inimical to their aspirations, do not help them to advance, disfavour their cause
and snap at everything that smacks of pride and self respect. On the other hand
they share the feelings of the Hindus, sympathize with them in the attempt to
maintain their power, authority, prestige and their dignity over the untouchables.
In any conflict between the two they act as the agents of the Hindus in suppressing
this revolt of the untouchables and participate quite openly and without shame in
the nefarious attempt of all Hindus to do everything possible by all means, fair or
foul, to "teach the untouchables a lesson" and hold them down in their own place.
The above statement of Ambedkar can be examined in the light of current scenario in
independent India. It is needless to state that gross atrocities on untouchables
are seen today. Due to partiality the constitutional representation of 22.5 per
cent is not fulfilled. For instance, according to public enterprises survey, 1984-
85, Vol. 2, only 4.12 per cent of SC and 0.89 per cent of ST in group 'A' and 5.50
per cent of SC and 1.57 per cent of ST in group 'B' were represented in the public
enterprises including nationalized banks and other financial institutions.27
Similarly, according to the Commission for SC and ST 1983-84, for group 'A' posts,
the departments like Parliamentary Affairs, Personal Affairs and Administrative and
Cabinet Secretariat represented not even a single SC candidate, while six
Ministries/Departments reported 0.29 per cent to 4.72 per cent representation. In
23 Ministries/Departments, the representations of SC ranged between 5.00 per cent
and 9.98 per cent. The STs were not represented for group 'A' posts in 16
Ministries/Departments and in 31 Ministries/Departments their representation ranged
from 0.06 per cent to 4.83 per cent. 28
Hence, the caste Hindus are even today not ready to annihilate the caste system.
They are not ready as yet for social transformation.
"What congress and Gandhi have done to the untouchables" written by Ambedkar made
it clear that Congress and Gandhi have always maintained double standards on the
issue
305
Bhima Sen Hantal
of the so-called untouchables.
The work which is claimed by Gandhi and his friends to have been done by him and
the Congress for the untouchables falls into two periods, the period which precedes
the Poona Pact and that which follows the Poona Pact. The first may be called the
period of the Bardoli programme. The period may be called the period of the Harijan
Sevak Sangh. The first period attempted to abolish untouchability. It does not
attempt to break up caste.
There is no mention of inter-marriage or inter-dining. It accepts the principle of

separate wells and separate schools for untouchables. This implies that they were
not ready to abolish untouchability. The Congress failed to carry through this
programme. So, it requested the All India Hindu Mahasabha to take up this matter.
According to Ambedkar, it was a grave mistake on the part of the Congress to hand
over this programme to the Hindu Mahasabha. "If there is any body which is quite
unfit for addressing itself to the problem of the untouchables, it is the Hindu
Mahasabha. It is a militant Hindu organization. Its aim and object is to conserve
in every way, everything that is Hindu, religious and culture. "29
8 To save the life of Mahatma Gandhi, Ambedkar agreed to sign the Poona pact in
which Gandhi promised to fight untouchability and the evils of caste system, for
which he formed an organization called Harijan Sevak Sangh. On the basis of the
Poona Pact, the Government of India Act, 1935, came into operation. As per the
Government of India Act, 1935, elections took place in February 1937, in which the
Congress graved 75 seats of 151 reserved for the untouchables. Rao Bahadur Raja, a
Gandhian and a Member of the Madras Legislature brought in a bill to secure the
entry of the untouchables into Hindu temples in the Madras Presidency, which,
however, was rejected by the Congress. Rajagopalachary whose consent was taken
before such step, even quietly asked him to withdraw the bill. Rao Bahadur Raja,
however, refused to do so. It was a dilemma for the •
306
untouchable members of the Madras Legislature. But they had no choice. "The
representatives of the untouchables were supposed to be the watch-dogs of the
untouchables. But by reason of having joined the Congress they are muzzled dogs."
30 They have to follow discipline of the Congress high command. "The untouchables
who are in it are at the end of the tail and the tail so lengthened that it cannot
wag. This is the second reason, why joining the Congress can be of no benefit to
the untouchables. "31
Rao Bahadur Raja who was a staunch supporter of Gandhi and who delivered the
following speech³2 on an adjournment motion moved in the Central Legislature on
September 13th, 1932, relating to Gandhi's fast, narrated the detail to the Gandhi
about his bill:
Never in the annals of the history of India has the issue of the Depressed Class
assumed importance as it has today, and for this we the Depressed Classes must
forever be grateful to Mahatma Gandhi. He has told the world, in words which cannot
be mistaken, that our regeneration is the fundamental aim of his life. If world
conscience cannot be roused even now to the realization of the position of the
Depressed Classes, then we can only conclude that all instincts of humanity are
dead in the world today.
Gandhi replied to Raja on 14th September, 1938, as follows:33
I wish you would trust C. Rajagopalachary to do his best. He should be allowed to

do the things in his own way. If you cannot trust, naturally you will take the
course which commends itself to you. All I know is that Harijans have no better
friend than him. Go to him, reason with him and if you cannot persuade him, bear
with him. That my advice.
Again Raja sent a letter to persuade Rajagopalachary to consider the temple entry
bill. Gandhi replied on 5th October, 1938, as below:34
307
Bhima Sen Hantal
I am not partial to Rajaji (Rajagopalachary) But I know that he is as firm on

untouchability as I am myself. I must, therefore, trust his judgement as to how to
do the thing... you cannot force the pace except to the extent that reforms
immolate themselves. The process is going on vigorously.
The temple entry question is a mighty reform. I would like you to apply your
religious mind to it. If you will, you will give your whole-hearted support to
Rajaji and make his move a thorough success.
Hence, instead of helping Raja, he rather advised him to support the move of Rajaji
that is, not to pass the temple entry bill. The untouchables of UP also have their
hostility to the Poona Pact. Ambedkar observed: "All over India the untouchables
have realized that the Poona Pact has been a trap and the change of the British
Gove ents' communal Award by Gandhi Poona Pact is a change which in reality is a
change from freedom to bondage." >>35
Ambedkar commented in the following way to the new name 'harijan' given to the
untouchables by Mahatmaji.
"The new name provides no escape to the untouchables from the curse of
untouchability. With the new name they are damned as much as they were with the
old. Secondly, the untouchables say that they prefer to be called untouchables.
They argue that it is better that the wrong should be called by its known name. It
is better for the patient to know what he is suffering from. It is better for the
wrong doer that the wrong is there still to be redressed."36
In fact, before 1932, Gandhi was a staunch casteist. After 1932, for purpose of
political gain he pretended to be the sympathizer of the untouchables. Before 1932,
Gandhi was opposed to allow the untouchables to enter the Hindu temples. To quote
his own words he said (Gandhi Shikshan Vol.2, page 132):37
How is it possible that the Antyajas (Untouchables) should have the right to enter
all the existing temples? As long as the law of
308
caste and ashram has the chief place in Hindu religion, to say that chup every
Hindu can enter every temple is a thing that is not possible today.
People may interpret that Gandhi was opposed to caste and varna as to abolish
untouchability. But that is not correct. In fact, he was a firm believer in caste
system. To quote his own words, "I gave support to caste because it stands for
restraint... The number of castes is infinite and there is a bar against
intermarriage. This is not a condition of elevation. It is a state of fall. The
best remedy is that small castes should fuse themselves into one big caste. There
should be four such big castes so that we may reproduce the old system of four
varnas." 9938
From the above observance of Gandhi's role and views on the untouchables, it would
be clear that how Gandhi was antagonistic to social transformation and the
upliftment of untouchables, and how he was an obstruction to the path of revolution
of the untouchables. Hence, Ambedkar concludes:39
In short, Gandhi is still on the war path so far as the untouchables are concerned.
He may start the trouble over again. The time to trust him has not arrived. The
untouchables must still hold the best way to safeguard themselves. That is to say,
‘Beware of Gandhi'.
Finally, it can be concluded with the following points of Ambedkar about social
transformation:
(1) "There are many cases which allow inter-dining. But it is a common experience
that inter-dining has not succeeded in killing the spirit of caste and the
consciousness of caste. I am convinced that the real remedy is inter-marriage.
Fusion of blood can alone create the feeling of being kith and kin and unless this
feeling of kinship, of being kindred, becomes paramount, the separatist feeling-the
feeling of being aliens---created by caste will not vanish. Among the Hindus inter-
marriage must necessarily be a factor of greater force in social life than it need
be in the life of non-Hindus.
309
Bhima Sen Hantal
Where society is already well-knit by other ties, marriage is an ordinary incident

of life. But where society is cut asunder, marriage as a binding force becomes a
matter of urgent necessity. The real remedy for breaking caste is inter-marriage.
Nothing else will serve as the solvent of caste." "40
310
(2) "To ask people to give up caste is to ask them to go conatrary to their
fundamental religious notions... The Hindus yhold to the sacredness of the social
order. Caste has a divine basis. You must, therefore, destroy the sacredness and
divinity with which caste has become invested. This means you must destroy the
authority of the Shastras and the Vedas. "41
(3) "The Hindus must consider whether the time has not come for them to recognize
that there is nothing fixed, nothing eternal, nothing sanatan, that everything is
changing, change is the law of life for individuals as well as for society. In a
changing society there must be a constant revolution of old values and the Hindus
must realize that there must be standards to measure the acts of men there must
also be a readiness to revise those standards."42
(4) Finally, Ambedkar warns the down-trodden to unitedly fight for political power.
For self interest, people belonging to the deprived section or dalit may join other
political parties. But he would be restricted and cannot work for the welfare of
the dalits. Hence, even if it is a small power, the independent political power of
dalit alone would enable them to uplift their socio-economic position. Because of
lack of economic power, the political power of dalits could be only weapon through
which they would work for social transformation, as Ambedkar says: "Political Power
is the master key through which you can open each and every lock."
Gandhian State-Economic Order
"Whilst this machine age aims at converting men into machines, I am aiming at re-
instating man turned machine into the original estate." -Harijan
The economic order shall rest on the foundations as laid down and discussed in
chapters 4th and 5th of this work. Here too, as will be noticed in the preceding
pages, he proposed a highly decentralised rural economy as opposed to highly
centralised competitive economy.¹ Centralisation is inconsistent with the non-
violent set up of society, because it results in the concentration of wealth in the
fewer hands with the possibility of the abuse of such power and gives rise to class
antagonism.² As a result while only a few roll in luxury, many do not get even the
bare necessities of life. To him that economics is untrue which disregards the
moral values. True economics stands for social justice and promotes the good of
all. It never conflicts with the moral standards, as all true ethics must be also
good economics.6 "An economics that includes Mammon worship, and enables the strong
to amass wealth at the expense of the weak, is a false and dismal science,"7 Gandhi
believed: tr
Gandhi was severely opposed to the present day economic order based on industrial
civilisation. He regarded it as a disease and all evil. It has been erected on the
disruption of society and community. It has made life materialistic devoid of moral
and ethical standards. The motives that a man has are predominently economic. "The
basis on which good repute in any highly organised industrial community ultimately
rests is pecuniary strength; and the means of showing pecuniary strength." The
economy of acquisition
144
GANDHI AS A SOCIALIST
which had hitherto been practised by rare and fabulous. creatures like Midas and
Croesus, became once more the everyday mode; it tended to replace the direct
'Economy of Needs" and to substitute money values for life values.10
This motive has given rise to two problems. One is multiplication of wants and
other labour problem. "The expansion of the machine during the past two centuries
was accompanied by the dogma of increasing want. Industry was directed not merely
to the multiplication of goods and to an increase in their variety; it was directed
toward the multiplication for the desire of goods.": "⁹11 Thus mankind passed "from
an economy of need to an economy of acquisition."¹2 This also signifies. a desire
on the part of all to avoid the direct productive work. "Labour is considered
painful and work is not considered a source of satisfaction."13 The tive of
personal gai dominates the worker for "there remains little or nothing in work to
make it worth while except the money that can be got out of it."14 On the part of
labourer his wage is one important consideration and on the part of the capitalist
his profit. This state of affair has reduced our civilisation devoid of any
purpose. However, there is one general agreement that "the good life should be made
available to all members of the community. But the problem of what is the good life
receives little attention."15 The remedy lies in the reorientation of the values of
life and the proper recognition of the significance of non-economic aspect of life.
"If the nineteenth century is the culmination of three centuries of the scientific
revolution, the twentieth century, beginning with two world wars is preeminently
the century of an ethical revolution to correct world massacres resulting from the
triumphs of science. "16 "The major error of the last century", remarks Frank
Tannenbaun, "has been the assumption that a total society can be organised upon an
economic motive."¹7 Gandhi realised that if economic motive dominates as social
aim, society will be dominated by violence. Therefore, he contrived to create a
society where economic motives are properly checked and controlled. "The
GANDHIAN STATE-ECONOMIC ORDER
exclusive emphasis on pleasures and possessions......makes the very idea of a

society led by man devoted to the high ideals and austere poverty as absurd."18
Gandhi held, "that economics is untrue which ignores or disregards moral values."19
And added "True economics never militates against the highest ethical standard,
just as all true ethics to be worth its name must be at the same time be also good
economics. An economics that inculcates Mammon worship, and enables the strong to
amass wealth at the expense of the weak is a false and dismal science.""20 True
economics, to him 'stands for social justice and fosters the good of all including
the weakest." Such an economics, he considered as indispensable for a decent life.
22 221
A religious genius, as he was, he would establish the economic order on the ancient
Hindu Principle of Varna-Vyavastha.23 Hinduism, he conceived as nothing without the
law of Varna and Ashrama. 24 Following the Hindu ideal, he maintained that as
political life is governed by the political Dharma, economic life is governed by
'Varnashrama Dharma', which he said, "can be traced to our ancient scriptures-the
Vedas". It is difficult to find any Smiriti or Puran of which a considerable part
is not devoted on it.25
Varna, according to Gandhi, is the law of our being. 26 It means the pre-
determination of one's profession. It signifies that one should follow the
profession of his ancesstors in order to earn his livelihood. The observance of
Varna, held Gandhi, would mean, "the following on the part of us all of the
hereditary and traditional calling of our forefathers, in so far as the traditional
calling is not inconsistent with the fundamental ethics, and this only for the
purpose of earning one's livlihood."27 He further said, "just as everyone inherits
a particular form so does he inherits the particular characteristic and qualities
of his progenitors and to make their admission is to conserve one's energies. That
frank admission, if he will act upon it, would put a legitimate curb upon our
material ambitions and thereby our energy is set free for extending the
145
146
field of spiritual research and spiritual evolution."28 Thus conceived Varna rules
out competitive economy and class antagonism. It postulates a cooperative economy.
29 In it "all occupations are placed on equal footing, all are paid equal wages by
society. Under it a person will choose an occupation, not because of the personal
prospects it offers, but because he has a special skill or aptitude for it."30 And
as the skills and aptitudes more or less follow the line of hereditary, the average
person under the normal circumstances, would tend to follow the occupations of his
ancestors provided there are no inequalities of remuneration to lure him away,
believed Gandhi.³1 In it wage motive or profit motive would give place to service
motive and the choice of vocation would be with a view to foster the good of the
society as a whole rather than the advancement of one's own interests or the
interest of one's family.32 Varna-Vyavastha implies the followings :
1. Equality of profession.
2. Equality of remuneration.
3. Equal opportunities without any discrimination of status, profession, caste,

creed and sex. 4. Elimination of competitive economy.
5. A cooperative common-wealth. 33
**34 Nevertheless, it should be observed that though, Varna is closely related with
birth, it can be attained by observing the obligations it places. "There is no bar
in any shape or form to the highest mental development. "One born of Brahamana
parents", said Gandhi, "will be called a Brahamana, but if his life fails to reveal
the attributes of a Brahamana when he comes of age, he cannot be called a
Brahamana."35 Whereas one who is not born Brahamana but if his conduct exhibits the
attributes of a Brahamana, shall be called a Brahamana though he himself disclaims
the label.36 "There is no such thing as inherited or acquired superiority."⁹7 In
this connection Pyare Lal has quoted the following discussion :
"Would that mean that one would be debarred from changing his hereditary occupat
on, if he felt a special urge ?"
147
"No", said Gandhi "not so long as one does not depend on it for one's living. Such
cases will naturally be few. Thus Buddha was a ruling prince, Socrates a sculptor,
St. Paul a tent maker, yet the prince of philosophers and St. Paul an apostle. But
none of them", he continued, "regarded their calling as a means of livelihood. On
the contrary, they relinquished the occupations they were born in to set an example
of utmost renunciation. If society followed", he believed, "that principle,
philosophers and artists would all labour with their hands for their living. All
artists would be craftsmen and craftsmen artists and life a thing of beauty and a
joy for ever.""38
'Varna', according to Gandhi, is not a caste but a class.39 Varna has nothing to do
with the caste system. Gandhi conceived caste system as an anti-thesis or negation
of Varnashrama, 40 The various divisions it makes are classes rather than castes
and refer to traditional callings.41 He believed that everyone is born in this
world with certain limitations which he cannot overcome and it is from these
limitations that the law of Varna has come into being. 42 42 According to this law
different spheres of actions for different people with different limitations, are
established. However, it does not admit any distinction of any kind. All the
classes constitute an organic whole. All are of equal importance. A Shudra is as
important for the growth of society as a Brahamana or a Kshatriya or a Vaisha. Each
class completes the other and is completed by the other. In fact the fourfold caste
is merely a 'theoretical division and a sociological notion, '44 and represents a
'notional division of society,'45 and "does not lay down a rigid or unalterable law
to be imposed by authority, it only takes note of a tendency arising out of the
operation of a natural law the law of hereditary and environment" 16 Thus viewed
Varna-Vyavastha is not a system of the division of society into water tight
compartments. "It is a system of voluntary social organisation in which the whole
society is classified according to the predominent quality of individuals.
148
It provides for that type of individual liberty which consists. for Gandhi, not in
an escape from limitation but in voluntary acceptance of obligations."47 Thus
conceived Varna-Vyavastha satisfied the religious, social and economic needs of a
community, said Gandhi. It satisfies the religious cravings since the entire
community accepting the law is free to pursue spiritual perfection, 48 as the
observance of the law obviates social evils and puts an end to the killing economic
competition. And if Varna-Vyavastha lays down not privileges or rights but the
duties, it ensures the fairest equitable distribution of wealth.50 But observed
Gandhi, "when people in disregard of the law mistake duties for privileges and try
to pick and choose occupations for self-advancement, it leads to confusion of Varna
and ultimate disruption of society."51
The above ideal of Varna-Vyavastha is added with the ethical ideal of Bread Labour.
In nutshell the ideal is that every able bodied man must produce something in order
to satisfy his physical or material needs, by undertaking manual labour. 52 "The
great nature", he maintained "has intended us to earn our bread in the sweat of our
brow. Every one, therefore, who idles away a single minute becomes to that extent a
burden upon his neighbours, and to do so, is to commit a breach of the very first
lesson of Ahimsa."53 He further said, "Ahimsa is nothing if not a well-balanced
exquisite consideration for one's neighbour, and an idle man is wanting in that
elementary consideration." He found his belief confirmed in Geeta where the Lord
says that to enjoy without offering sacrifice is an act of theft.55 Sacrifice, in
this context, affirmed Gandhi, meant bread labour.58 Manu Smiriti also proclaims,
"He eats but sin who cooks for himself, a meal of what remaining after sacrifice
has been offered is ordained to be the good of the good." The Holy Koran goes even
farther, "For He that eateth and drinketh unworthly, eateth and drinketh damnation
to himself. 58 Similarly, Gandhi maintained, "the reason too leads to an identical
conclusion... ..A millionaire cannot carry for long, and will soon get tired of his
life, if he rolls in 5954
149
"And his bed all day long, and is even helped to his food."59 if everyman has to
perform labour in one way or the other", he said, "let it be the productive
labour."60
Bread Labour, as such, shall be the foremost duty of every member of society. 61 It
would matter a fig only whether one does mental or physical labour. Intellectual
labour, according to Gandhi, could never be a substitute for bodily labour.62 "The
needs of the body", he opined, "must be supplied by the body."63 Here he would
endorse the Christian Gospel. "Render Unto Caesar which is Caesar's and to God what
belongs to God." , ,64 It should not be taken to mean that he underestimated the
importance of intellectual labour, but he wanted that everyone should do some sort
of manual labour to earn his bread. "If all worked for their bread, distinctions of
rank would be obliterated, the rich would still be there, but they would deem
themselves only trustees of their property, and Thus conceived, would use it mainly
in the public interest."⁹65 Gandhi believed, bread labour would bring about a
steady and silent revolution in society. 66 It would brush aside the
individualistic and capitalistic instincts-private property as -a means of private
profit and struggle for existence-cooperation would replace competition, and
service the struggle for existence. Whereas Varna-Vyavastha would put an end to
unhealthy competition bread labour would ensure an equitable distribution of
national wealth.
2967 An inevitable outcome of the above set up shall be a highly decentralised

economy. Decentralisation as an economic proposition means the absence of large
scale industries and the introduction of rural economy in its place. "You cannot
build non-violence on a factory civilisation, but it can be built", said Gandhi,
"on self contained villages.' Industrialisation, he regarded as a curse to
mankind.69 It depends entirely on your capacity to exploit, on foreign markets
being open to you and on the absence of competitions." And because "exploitation of
one nation by another cannot go on for all times, as such he believed that the
future of industrialisation was 969
1
150
dark.70 "Machinery", to Gandhi, was like a, "snake hole which may contain from one
to a hundred snakes." In the ideal set up of society there shall be no machinery.
Gandhi's opposition to industrialisation was due to his predominently spiritual

genius. To him man is essentially a moral being. His purpose is self-realisation
rather than the material accumulations. Material development, he held obstructs the
spiritual progress,72 as the Bible says, 'It is easier for a camel to go through
the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."73
Adoption of voluntary poverty, to him, constituted the essence of life. He
condemned industrialisation because it accentuates materialism and spreads moral
corruption. Commenting on the development of industrialisation in the west, he
maintained, "Indeed the west has had a surfeit of industrialisation an
exploitation. The fact is that this civilisation is all evil......I I have no
quarrel with steamship, and telegraphs. They may stay, if they can without the
support of industrialism and all its connotates."75 He further remarked "they are
not an end ......they are in no way indispensable for the permanent welfare of
human race. Now that we know the use of steam and electricity, we should be able to
use them on due occasions and after we have learnt to avoid industrialism our
concern is, to destroy industrialism at any cost."76 "Would this not mean a
rejection of technology and fruits of progress ? You would not industrialise
India ?" He was once asked. Gandhi affirmed that, of course, he would industrialise
India, but not in the present form, rather in his own sense of the term.77
"You would then go back to Natural Economy?" He was again asked. He replied in
affirmative but held "I am industrialising the village in a different way." >>78 At
this he was asked to express his views on the place of machine. "I would prize", he
maintained, “every invention of science made for the benefit of all."79 And added
that every machine that helps every individual has a definite place in society.
However,
he made it clear that he would not tolerate such machines. which might result in
the displacement of labour and the centralisation of wealth.80 Machine has its
place; it has come to stay. But it must not be allowed to displace necessary human
labour.81 "I would welcome every improvement in the cottage machine, but I know
that it is criminal to displace hand labour by the introduction of power driven
spindles unless one is at the same time ready to give millions of farmers. some
other occupation in their houses."⁹82 Sometimes it is said that Gandhi was against
the machinery as such. Such a view is unjustified. In fact as I have shown in the
preceding pages his opposition was not against machinery but against its
indiscriminate multiplication.83 He refused to be dazzled by the seeming triumph of
machinery. Simple tools and instruments and such machinery as saves individual
labour and lightens the burden of the millions of cottages, I should welcome." "⁹84
In other words, as he himself explained to an inquirer, that he was not opposed to
machinery but the craze for machinery.8 He further said, "the craze is for what
they called labour-saving machinery... I want to save labour, not for a fraction of
mankind, but for all; I want the concentration of wealth, not in the hands of few,
but in the hands of all.86 Today, he said, "machinery helps a few to ride on the
backs of millions. The impetus behind it all is not the philanthrophy to save
labour, but greed. It is against this constitution of things that I am fighting
with all my might."87 For Gandhi the supreme consideration is man, his welfare, his
good. He believed "the machine should not tend to make atrophied the limbs of man
saving of labour of the individual should be the object, and honest considerations
and not greed, the motive."88 85 ......
Gandhi made an intelligent exception of the Singer Sewing Machine-one of the useful
things invented, similarly about heavy machinery for work of public utility which
cannot be taken by human hands. "But", as he was asked, "there would have to be a
factory for making these sewing machines; and
151
152 it would have to certain power-driven machinery of ordinary type.' "89 Gandhi
agreed but he affirmed that, "he was socialist enough to say that such factories
should be nationalised."90 MORGAN S But he was again asked, "If you make an
exception of the wwwwwww mo Singer Sewing Machine, "where would these exceptions
end." "Just where", answered Gandhi, they cease to help the individual and encroach
upon his individuality. The machine should not be allowed to cripple the limbs of
man."01 As a matter of fact "Gandhi wanted and strived to restore man 720-21 to
1024 ble material E. rule, "capital exploits the labour of a a source 046 to his
proper place in the scheme of things, and production should be harnessed to the
basic welfare of man rather than to be used as expendable increase production.""⁹2
He firmly believed if money and mechanism are allowed to KOMPON few to multiply
itself, wh but the sum total of the labour of the crores, wisely utilised,
automatically increases the wealth of the crores."93 He wanted labour to be
utilised in such a way that production is ce of li life, joy and freedom, rather
than any of these being sacrificed to production and to money values.94 Thus
ideally Gandhi rules out all machinery as he would this body for it is not helpful
to salvation, but as a practical idealist would retain the machine because like the
body they are also inevitable.95 This is the concession he gives to the frailty of
mankind. According to Dr. V.P. Varma, the concessions that Gandhi makes are
tempered by three reservations (i) Nationalisation of key-industries, (ii) the
dispersion of the centres of industrial production and (iii) production not for
private accumulation but for social services.96 It may, thus, be seen that his
objection against the machine arises mainly for two reasons. The one is based on
the evils arising out the capitalist one is exploitation of the machine and the
second out of the evils of technological civilisation. His opposition is not only
against the manner in which the machine is utilised under the present economic
order but also against its indiscriminate use. *** M 27
Now the question arises what sort of economic system did Gandhi visualise in place
of industrialisation. Gandhi wanted
India to evolve a system of "non-violent occupations" instead
of industrialism. 97 He defined non-violent occupation as one that is fundamentally

devoid of violence and involves no exploitation, envy or injury of others.98 He
believed that the large scale production with its competitive economy would not be
compitable with the concept of a society of equal and free. Hence his favour to
rural economy.⁹⁹ Village was to be the basic unit of economic system. It was to be
self-contained and self-sufficing, 100 While explaining the aim of Gandhian economy
Mahadev Desai wrote, "The ideal economic condition of a country is not to remain an
exploiter of raw products for foreign countries but to be self-contained."101 In
support of his argument he quoted Arthur Kilson who held, "the ideal economic
condition of an industrial nation is to be selfcontained e.g. to be able to produce
every necessity and as many luxuries of life as possible, sufficient for supporting
the population."102 The opinion of Catholic Herald of India was also endorsed which
stressed that, "England must return to stable equilibrium of a semi-agricultural,
semi-industrial country, if she wants to have her predominance, she must go back to
the land to produce her own food, re-establish land proprietorship, re-instate a
healthy and vigorous peasantry though it must ruin a few of the jews and
capitalists."103 Explaining the meaning and matter of All India Village Industry
Association, Gandhi held that, "we shall have to find out whether the villager who
produces an article of food stuff, rests content with exporting it and with using a
cheap substitute imported from outside. We shall have to see that the villagers
became first of all self-contained and then cater for the needs of the city-
dwellers.'"'10+
The self-contained unit, according to Gandhi, will constitute an area covered by a

radius about five miles.105 Every basic units shall include several others and each
family or the individual shall constitute the centre of the unit.106 Each basic
unit shall have a definite pattern of consumption and a well integrated system of
production. The consumption pattern
153
will depend upon the geographical situation of the locality,. the temperament of
the people, the traditional regulation,. economic pattern and upon the educational
and cultural attainment of the people.107 The above factors shall determine the
mode of living and the consumption of a community. The production in such a
community will be related to the natural consumption requirements and limited by
the availability of natural resources and human skill.108
Gandhi wanted village to be self-contained and selfsufficing, 10 109 The village

shall produce all it needs. In the villages the small scale industries shall be
established, producing various articles of need. One of the many items; and at the
same time very significant, in the scheme of rural economisation is Khadi. In
Khadi, Gandhi saw the revival of the entire economic, social and cultural life of
the villages that constitute India. To him it connoted, "the beginning of economic
freedom and equality of all in the country."11⁰ It meant, a wholesale Swadeshi
mentality,¹ 111 a determination to find all the necessaries of life within the
country and that too with the labour and intellect of the villagers.112 Through
Khadi he wanted to make every village self supporting for its food and clothing.113
He conceived it, as such. a sound economic proposition. It symbolises freedom,
self-reliance for the society as whole. It is "a movement in which the prince and
pauper, men and women, boys and girls, Hindus and Mussalmans, Christians and Parsis
and Jews, Englishmen, American and Japanese, if they wish well to India get rid of
the spirit of exploitation, can also take part."115 114
Gandhi conceived Khadi as a universal industry. 116 This should not be taken to
mean the elimination of other industries, but what he wanted was that the fruits of
everyone's labour are enjoyed by all. "Khadi does not seek to destroy all machinery
but it does regulate its use and check its weddy growth. It uses machinery for the
service of the poorest in their own cottages." Dr. V.P. Varma has rightly observed
that the Charkha, "was not only calculated to offer immediate
154
155
economic advantages to the poor weavers but symbolised the sentiment of the poorest
against the machine civilisation. The Charkha was an attempt to eliminate the
exclusiveness and the exploitationist character of modern machinery."118 Khadi,
moreover, ensures the proper utilisation of human labour. "119 It would supply work
to millions of villages. It would give them hope where but yesterday there was
blank despair. 120 Large scale production, inspite of all its achievements makes
the majority of hands to slave. It gives work to few and leaves majority of them
without any work. Since mechanisation requiring technological know-how which the
common labour does not possess owing to his limited resources, hence his
exploitation by the Haves and a reckless waste of JSEMU human energy. As a result
we live in a state of suspended amination. 121 Gandhi believed this terrible waste
of human energy could be revived "If only every home is again turned into a
spinning mill...... A semi-starved nation can have neither religion nor art nor
organisation."122 In an another context he asserted, "Give them (the labourers)
work that they may eat. 'Why should I, who have no need to work for food, spin' ?
may be the question asked. Because I am eating what does. not belong to me. I am
living on the spoilation of my country men. Trace the source of every coin that
finds its way in your pocket, and you will realise the truth of what I wrote.
Everyone must spin." Spinning, thus, according to Gandhi must be a compulsory
objective of every ablebodied man. 'Just as everyone of us must eat and drink and
clothe himself, even himself.'124 "'123
so everyone of us must spin
Gandhi conceived spinning as an emblem of non-violence or a doctrine that has its

roots in the purest Ahimsa.¹25 In spinning there is no room for competition and
exploitation. It rests on self-help and self-reliance. "It is a symbol not of
commercial war, but of commercial peace. It bears not a message of ill-will towards
the nation of the earth but of goodwill and self-help. It will not need the
protection of a Navy threatening world's peace and exploiting its resources, but it
156
needs the religious determination of millions to spin their yarn in their own
homes."126 To this he also added, "I may deserve the curse of posterity of many
mistakes of omission and commission, but I am confident of earning its blessings
for suggesting a revival of the Charkha. Intake all on it. For every resolution of
the wheel spins peace, goodwill and love."127 He claimed that the revival of
spinning would result in the freedom from capitalism and imperialism. "We will not
then be dragged into an imperialism which is built upon exploitating the weaker
races of the earth, and the acceptances of a giddy materialistic civilisation
protected by Naval and Air Forces that have made peace living almost
impossible.""¹28 the other hand he said, "we shall then refine that imperialism
into a commonwealth of nations which will combine, if they do, for the purpose of
giving their best to the world and of protecting, not by brute force but by self-
suffering, the weaker nations or races of the earth."129 But this transformation is
possible on the complete success of the spinning wheel.130 But on
11 Khadi spirit, according to Gandhi implies the followings :It is the symbol of
unity of economic freedom and equality 13 1.
Decentralisation of the production and distribution of the necessaries of life.132

2.
3. Its message is one of simplicity, service of mankind, being so as not to hurt
others, creating an indissoluble bond between the rich and the poor, capital and
labour, the prince and the pauper.133
All must have equal opportunities. Given the opportunity, every one has the same
possibility for spiritual growth. 13. 4.
5. A joint cooperative effort and the dedication of crores of lives to the common
good.13
Gandhi was once asked by Mr. Andrews Freeman, "Has the spinning wheel a message for
America ? Can it serve as a counter weapon to atom bomb ?"136 "I do feel", replied
Gandhi, "that it has a message for the U.S.A. and the whole
world. But it can not be," he added, "until India has demonstrated to the world
that it has made the spinning wheel, its. own, which it is not done today."137 He
further contended, "If India becomes the slave of machine, then I say, Heaven save
the world."138 He was convinced that unless it is effectively adopted in India,
there would be little chances of its success in other countries. "If...... India
adopts it for clothing itself, I would not need to tell the world. It will adopt it
of itself", he said.1⁹9 He was pained to see the unprecedented onslaught on India
of western machinery. "I must confess that today everything seems to point to the
contrary."140
Apart from Khadi, which constitutes the part and parcel of rural economy, Gandhi
has mentioned some other significant village industries. They are such as hand-
grinding, handpounding, soap making, tanning, oil pressing etc. etc.¹41 But, as he
said, these stand on a different footing.1 142 They come as a handmade to Khadi.143
Without Khadi they cannot have, he observed, the existence of their own. 144 At the
same time 'Khadi will be robbed of its dignity without them.145 There-fore the
revival of village industries is but an extension of the Khadi.146 Khadi signifies
decentralisation of the production as well as of distribution of necessities of
life.147 It signifies. a simple and chastened life and the awakening and realising
the spirit of collective responsibility for the wellbeing of the society. In the
poetic expression of Late Shri Jawahar Lal Nehru, it represents "the livery of
India's freedom."148 Khadi signifies the service of the less fortunate and also
putting selfimposed obligations to achieve social solidarity without which
socialism would be a dead letter, a high sounding nothing.
Thus, it shall be seen, that the change over from centralised and large scale
production to decentralised, cooperative rural economy does not conflict with the
major industries. 149 "The minor industries will not replace the major ones but
supplement them."150 The major industries, since do not need any support, said
Gandhi, they can be self-sufficient, stand on their own legs and command a market.
151 But the village industries.
157
158
. cannot compete the major ones unless they are properly protected and popularised.
As such when Gandhi talks of the village industries, he talks of a judicious
synthesis of the major and village industries. Village industries were to be
constantly improved and developed. "Our clear duty", he said, "is, therefore, to
investigate the possibilities of keeping in existence the village wheel, the
village crusher and the village pounder, and, by advertising their products,
discovering their qualities, ascertaining the condition of the workers and the
number displaced by the power driven machinery and discovering the methods of
improving them, while retaining their village character to enable them to stand the
competition of the mills."152 Gandhi, exhibited a deep and thorough understanding
of the ills of modern technological civilisation and his emphasis on the place and
role of village economy is, indeed, enchanting. Late Prime Minister Pandit Nehru,
stressing the need to combine science and technology with spirituality, said, "the
spiritual approach is necessary and good, and I have always shared it with
Gandhiji, probably more today when we see the need for finding some answer to the
spiritual emptiness facing our technological civilisation than I did
yester"day."153 He continues, "It is really the problem of creating a fully
integrated human being, e.g., of what might be, called the spiritual and ethical
counterpart of the purely material machinery of planning and development being
brought into the making of man."154
The fact that Gandhi relied on the customary handicrafts and the minor industries,
has given rise to widespread misunderstandings that he was against modern
technological -advancement or that he puts the hands of the clock back and sails
against the wind,155 and some go to the length of saying that his outlook was
unscientific and that he wished to perpetuate 'Bullock Cart Economy' in the present
age.156 Dr. Meghnad Saha a distinguished writer and fellow of Royal ciety informed
ussian scientists that he and his brother scientists had, "as little regard for
Gandhiji's economic and
"157 social theories as you (the Russians) have for Tolstoy." But Gandhi rejected
such allegations. He was sure that if the small industries were provided proper
protection and encouragement, that would certainly mean going ahead rather than
putting the hands of the clock back. The cottage industry, he believed, was capable
of limitless expansion without requiring much capital and would provide honourable
employment to those who starve for want of it.158 However in a few cases the size
of the firm had to be big, but not in every case. For a balanced growth of an
economy the major and the minor industries should develop in harmony with one
another. This is what Gandhi meant by rural economy. No doubt he argued often in
such a way that implied quite otherwise but when the -direct question was put, his
reply was highly revealing.
Q. "Do you think that cottage industries and big industries may be harmonised ?"
Ans. "Yes, if they are planned so as to help the villages. Key industries, which
the nation needs may be centralised. But then I should not choose anything to be a
key-industry, that can be taken up by the villages with a little organising......"
The operative phrase is-'a little organising' Gandhi did not want to attempt the
impossible in decentralisation-he however, believed that there is an excessive
degree of unplanned and unnecessary centralisation. "159
Therefore his emphasis on traditional handicrafts should in the true sense be

interpreted as "his response to the overwhelming short run need to utilise the
surplus labour power in the village economy. In modern economic terminology he saw
that the shadow-price' of labour in the village sector was zero and the shadow-
price of capital embodying modern techniques was extremely high."160 It was through
the balanced harmony between the major and the minor industries, that he wanted to
bridge up the gulf between the shadowprice of labour in village and that in the
centralised system. His approach, as such, is highly practical and sound. He is
159
160
neither a medievalist nor anti-diluvian nor he is putting the hands of the clock
back, but is ahead of the age.161 Since he was essentially a man of action, "he
deliberately chose to clothe his ideas in the simple language of the masses through
whom he had to work his resolution instead of using the current scientific jargon
to express them."162 The following. are the salient features of Gandhian economic
system :
(i) Intensively decentralised.
(ii) A balance between the large scale and village industries. (iii) Development of
cottage industries.
(iv) Voluntary protection of human power against the competitive technological

economy.
(v) Balance between the spiritual and the material.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. Dr. G.N. Dhawan, The Political Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi'. P. 267.
2. Ibid
. p. 267.
3. "The extension of the Law of Non-Violence in the domain of Economic means

nothing less than the introduction of Moral Values. as a factor to be considered in
regulating international commerce". Young India. 26-12-1924.
4. Young India. 26-11-1924. p. 421.
5. Harijan. 9-10-1937. p. 292.
6. Harijan. 9-10-1937. p. 292.
7. Harijan. 9-10-1937. p. 292.
8. Young India. 9-10-1926. p. 348.
9. Veblen, 'The Theory of Leisure Class'. p. 84. George Allen and Unwin, London,
1949,
10. Lewis Muniford, Techniques And Civilisation'. p. 23. Harcourt Brass And
Company, New York. 1984.
11. Lewis Muniford, 'Quoted in Harris Brown' 'The Challenge of Man's. Future'. p.
187.
12. Ibid. p. 187.

13. A.S. Mathur and J.S. Mathur, 'Economic Thought of Mahatma Gandhi'. p. 25.
Chaitanya Publishing House, Allahabad, 1962.
14. A.E.C. Hare, 'Industrial Relations in Newzealand'. pp. 35-36 Victoria

University College Wellington, Newzealand. 1946.
Relevance of Gandhian Economic Thought Dr. S.L. Pedgaonkar
In the nineteen eighties the world capitalism has reaffirmed its faith in laissez-
faire doctrine of Adam Smith, as evidenced by collapse of socialist economies of
Soviet bloc and the wave of privatization and globalization throughout the world.
Rising consumerism, consequent drain on natural resources and environmental
problems have attracted attention of the world intelligentia and social activists
alike. It is at this stage perhaps we may turn to Gandhiji for alternative or
solutions to these problems. 1360
This paper is an attempt to examine the relevance of Gandhian economic thought in

resolving the problems faced by the world on the eve of 21st century. The paper is
divided in three sections. Section I deals with a brief account of Neo classical
liberalism and its critique. In Section II Gandhiji's views regarding nature of
economics and his thoughts on inequality are dealt with. The Ill Section is devoted
to understand relevance of Gandhian ideals for the present day.
SECTION-I
Neo-classical Liberalism and its critique.
Adam Smith [1776] established the first systematic proto-type of classical liberal
proposition. In Smithian system the market automatically decides through the price
mechanism the basic question of what, how and for whom to produce. The market
system operates through the invisible hand of self interest which leads the
entrepreneurs to those endevours where profit are largest, while labour seeks those
jobs that offer the highest wages.¹ [Nayak p.3, 1995]. Adam Smith believed that in
pursuing one's own advantage each individual is led by an invisible hand to promote
an end which was not part of his intention. In the Smithian scheme state was
Rethinking Mahatma Gandhi
greatest barrier to spontaneous working of market system. He advocates laissez-

faire doctrine with limited scope to government in economic activities. Neo-
classical economics which came to stage with marginalist or utilitarian school
around 1870, also endorsed the Smithian philosophy of laissez-faire.
An offshoot of the utilitarian tradition is welfare economics/ The first attempt at

distinction and definition of 'welfare' was made by Prof. A.C. Pigou in 1932 in his
Economics of welfare. Welfare economics is the branch of economics relating to the
evaluation of social desirability of alternative policies.
Much of welfare economics is used to justify the market economy on efficiency

ground. "Welfare economics", according to A.K. Sen [1973] is not useful to tackle
the problem of inequality." Neo-classical welfare economists viewed that actual
markets may differ from the competitive ideal. They accepted causes of market
failure and government intervention in case there are externalities.
The laissez-faire doctrine was challenged by J.M. Keynes [1936] who saw deficiency
of effective demand as a cause of unemployment. He supported government
intervention with public works programme to maintain effective demand which has
inherent tendency to lag with rising income. However, Keynes was not ready to break
way from classical tradition.
If we suppose the volume of output to be given i.e. to be determined by forces

outside the classical scheme of thought, then there is no objection to be raised
against the classical analysis of the matter in which private self interest will
determine what in particular is produced in what proportion [Kenyes 1936] p.378
quoted by Robinson [1962 J.
Socialism that developed as a reaction against laissez-faire capitalism had the

same world view and differed in strategy and machanism. In elaborating the general
law of capitalist accumulation Marx provides the economic explanation of the
necessity and inevitability of the revolutionary transformation from capitalist to
socialist society [M.L. Jhingan [1980] P 87]. But the socialist system has the
problem in allocation of resources and incentives [Sen 1973]. With the collapse of
socialist economies of Russian bloc and the penetration of foreign capital in
China, socialism has become a subject of academic discussion rather than practice.
56
Relevance of Gandhian Economic Thought
The neoclassical economics saw another three counter revolutions after the
Kenyenesian revolution. They are [1] Monetarism [2] New classical [3] Supply side
economics [Gupta- Rana [1997] P523 ] Though the three counter revolutions differ in
many ways they have in common conservative, message popular in today's political
climate: Government intervention, however well instituted, do harm and no good.
They lead to inflation, instability, inefficiency and declining productivity.
Economic growth has created problems of inequality and strain on natural resources
besides the problems of pollution. A section of economists that care for these
problems, is termed as 'antigrowth camp' that includes J.K. Galbraith, Joan
Robinson and Mishan. They say that growth has produced pollution and wasteful
consumption of trivia that contribute nothing to human happiness [Lipsey 1979 P.
704 1].
SECTION-II Gandhian Economics
It is on this backdrop of thinking in economics that one has to consider Gandhi and
his economic thought. It is needless to say that Gandhi was never a professional
economist. But his economic thought is so fundamental and universal that time and
space cannot limit it.
Gandhiji did not approve watertight division of human activity into social,
economic, political and religious. According to him whole gamut of man's activities
today constitute an invisible whole. He says "I did not know any religion apart
from human activity" [Mahatma Gandhi- [1948] p. 321] He did not draw any
distinction between economics and ethics. Gandhiji states the relation between
economics and ethics in the following words.
"Economics that hurts the moral well being of an individual or a nation is immoral
and therefore sinful. Thus the economics that permits one country to prey upon
another is immoral" [ibid].
He continues, "A economics that inculcate Mammon worship and enable the strong to
amass wealth at the expense of the weak is a false and immoral science. It spells
death. True economics, on the
57
other hand stands for social justice, it promotes the good of all equally including
the weakest and is indispensable for decent living." [ibid p.1322 1 He calls that
economics which neglects moral value as untrue.
On Inequality
Gandhiji had deep concern for inequality and poverty. He thought that poverty can
be banished if there is full employment and everybody accepts simple living.
According to him root cause of inequality was greed. He accepted 'need
satisfaction' in place of 'want satisfaction'. A certain degree of physical harmony
and comfort is necessary but above a certain level it becomes hindrance instead of
help. Therefore, ideal of creating an unlimited number of wants and satisfying them
seems to be a delusion and a snare. The satisfaction of one's physical needs, even
the intellectual needs of one's narrow self, must meet at a certain point, a dead
stop, because it degenerate, in to physical and intellectual voluptuousness [ibid
P.326].
Gandhian ideal of simplicity and limiting the wants is rooted in Indian philosophy
of life that gives prime importance to 'moksha' salvation in preference to ‘artha'
i.e. material things. This ideal is echoed in the writings of the Gandhian
economist Prof J.K. Mehta, who has recommended wantlessness in place of multiplying
the wants. According to Mehta to satisfy a want is to yield to it. " Instead of
obeying the orders. We can ourselves order the want to quit. When we order it to
quit we do not merely make it quit. We kill it as it were. The final want, the
satisfaction of which frees us from all wants can be called the wants of being
wantless". [ Mehta [1962] P.63 ] This is the state in which perfect happiness is
experienced.
Gandhiji has condemned multiplication of wants and use of machinery for that
purpose. He says "I whole heatedly detest this mad desire to destroy distance and
time, to increase animal appetites, and go to the ends of earth in search of their
satisfaction." [ibid P.326].
Gandhiji has introduced the concept of bread labour. According to him every one
should earn his living by manual labour. If every one laboured physically for his
bread it followed that poets, doctors, lawyers and others would consider it their
duty to use those talents
58
59
gratis for the service of humanity. Their out put will be all the better and richer
for their selfless devotion to duty, leisure is good and necessary upto a point
only. Gandhiji believed that a God created men to earn his bread in the sweet of
his brow. The problem of inequality according to Gandhi would not remain there if
everyone laboured for their bread and no more.
There will be no rich and no poor, none high and none low no touchable and no
untouchable. Gandhiji saw the source of inequality in the supply of intellectual
labour, which he skillfully avoided in his doctrine of bread labour. Gandhiji
thinks that more mental or intellectual labour is for the soul and is for its own
satisfaction. It should never demand payment.
For economic equality, Gandhiji stressed the need for equal opportunity. All must
have equal opportunity. Given the opportunity every human being has the same
possibility for spiritual growth. But it does not mean that perfect equality can be
attained. He, therefore, made it clear that even in the perfect world we shall fail
to avoid inequalities, but we can and must avoid strife and bitterness.
Gandhiji was aware of inequality in natural abilities but was of the view that it
should not be a source of exploitation. He says "All men are born equal and free is
not nature's law in the different sense. All men are not born equal in intellect,
for instance but the doctrine of equality will be vindicated if those who have
superior intellect will use it not for self advancement at the expense of others,
but for the service of those who are less fortunate in that respect than they"
[ibid P.340 ].
Gandhiji approves the maxim of ideal of equality, i.e. to each according to his
needs but such equality is to be achieved by nonviolence. He was against the cruel
inequality that is characteristic of capitalist society.
His concept of equality is that of perfect equality, and he accepted equitable

distribution only as a compromise. For equality the entire social order has to be
reconstructed. His programme of reconstruction is based on decentralised economy,
village upliftment, and implementation of his ideal of trusteeship.
P.K. Choubey [1985] has described Gandhian social welfare function, on lines of
Bergson Samuelson's social welfare function, which is addictive symmetric cardinal
function. The speciality of
Gandhian function is that he would assume the weight '1' to worse off and '0' to
others. His underlying philosophy of sarvodaya conveys that the good of all is
served by promoting the good of the poor the lowliest and the last. Where as Rawls
recommend the maximin rule, Gandhi would not mind commending action from both sides
i.e. maximin and minimax. In this scheme equal distribution could come about by the
application of trusteeship.
Gandhiji opposed industrialization. According to him industrialization on a mass

scale will necessarily lead to passive or active exploitation of villagers as the
problem of co-operation and marketing come in. He says "Industrialization is, I am
afraid, going to be a curse on mankind" [ibid p.377]. Industrialization according
to him depends entirely on your capacity to exploit, on foreign markets being open
to you and on the absence of competition. He did not agree with Nehruvian idea of
socialism to avoid the evils of industrialization. According to him no amount of
socialization can eradicate evils of industrialization.
Gandhiji's views on machinery are rather puzzling. He sometimes opposes and some
times welcomes machinery. Gandhiji has opposed machinery that displaces the
necessary human labour. He thinks it criminal to displace the hand labour by the
introduction of power driven spindles unless one is at the same time ready to give
millions of farmers some other occupation in their homes.
Gandhiji was not against all types of machinery. He was aware that the progress
cannot be reversed. The machinery which is product of scientific invention has come
to stay and will continue. He welcomed the machinery like sewing machine that
reduced human drudgery. He liked use of machinery for the production of simple
tools and machines like sewing machine.
According to J.K. Mehta [1985] Gandhiji was against machinery on moral or spiritual
grounds. He says that whether it is simple tool or complicated piece of machinery a
capital good is a result of what we might call man's enslavement of nature's gifts.
It is by enslaving nature or by harnessing natural forces that we are able to
increase the effectiveness of labour as a factor of production. If it is a sin to
exploit others, it is sin also to use nature as our slave. [Mehta 1985] Thus
Gandhiji's opposition to machinery has one more justification from the angle of
protection of environment.
60
61
Gandhiji pleaded for decentralization and village self sufficiency he says "I
suggest that if India is to evolve along non-violent lines, it will have to
decentralize many things. Centralization cannot be sustained and defended. Without
adequate force- you cannot build non-violence on a factory civilization" [ibid p.
349 ].
Gandhiji recommended Swadeshi and Khadi. According to him "khadi connotes beginning
of economic freedom and equality to all in the country, It means whole sale
swadeshi mentality, a determination to find all the necessities of life in India
and that too through the labour and intellect of the villagers" [ibid p. 385].
Khadi, Says Gandhi "means decentralization of the production and distribution of

necessities of life". The message of the spinning wheel is one of simplicity,
service of mankind living so as not to hurt other, creating an indissoluble bond
between the rich and the poor, capital and labour, the prince and the peasant [ibid
p.386].
Trusteeship:
Idea of Trusteeship occupies important place in Gandhian plan of restructuring the

society. It is more important for urban enterprises and village land ownership. The
doctrine is based on two ethical concepts from Bhagwat Gita that inspired Gandhiji
viz. aparigraha [non possession ] and sambhava [equability]. Gandhi acknowledges
the debt of Gita in the following words." It becomes clear to me as daylight that
non-possession and equality presupposed a change of heart, a charge of attitude.
When an individual had more than his proportionate portion he becomes the trustee
of that portion for God's people". [ibid P. 356] As a matter of fact men should not
stock things, they should live from day to day or else they should work as trustee
for the surplus they stock.
Idea of trusteeship is nonviolent and voluntary way of attaining equality in the

society. All cannot have the same height or colour or degree of intelligence etc.,
therefore, in the nature of things, some will have ability to earn more and others
less. People with talents will have more and they will utilize their talents for
this purpose. Gandhiji expects that these people should work as trustee to help
other who are in need with their extra earnings. Such persons would not be
prohibited from showing their talents and earning more, but the greater earnings
should be used for the good of the state.
Gandhiji invites those people who consider themselves as owners today to act as
trustees i.e. owners not in their own right but owners in the right of those whom
they have exploited. They are asked to voluntarily surrender the major part of
their surplus earnings. By surplus we mean excess over and above the subsistence
earnings. Some part of the surplus will be allowed as the rent of their ability,
may be a percentage of earnings.
Gandhiji would not hesitate to use non-violence, non co-operation and civil
disobedience as the right and infalliable means to get the surplus. He is also in
favour of using state power for this noble cause. He says "I would be very happy
indeed, if the people concerned behaved as trustees, but if they fail I believe we
shall have to deprive them of their possession through the state with minimum
experience of violence". [ibid p.369].
To sum up trusteeship provides a means of transforming the present capitalist order

of society into an equaliterian one. It gives no quarter to capitalism but given
the present owning class a chance of reforming itself. It is based on the faith.
Alternative System:
Some writers, find Gandhi to be advancing an alternative economic order in

suppression of capitalism and communism.
Delef Kantowsky, a German sociologist notes that the western materialistic paradigm
of development which seeks to bring about economic growth through capital intensive
technology, individual competition and/ or centralized planning has reached a print
of self destruction. He sees Gandhian sarvodaya which embodies an altruistic ethics
of self realization as constructing, a first step in an alternative direction.
[Quoted by Thomas Pantham, 1998].
According to K. Raghvendra Rao [1987] Gandhiji's Swarajist conception of self and

its relationship to society and state is a studied departure from both the liberal
and marxian conceptions. Mill's Liberal Theory regards the individual to be an
association bearer of rights and Marx's socialist conception of the individual is
cut in a materialist mould. Gandhiji takes the human person to be a self limiting,
self disciplining duty accepting truth searching moral agent [ibid p. 113].
62
63
Gandhian ideals of limited wants ascetic restraint and a decentralized structure of

political power makes the system inconsistant with both liberalism and marxism.
According to V.K.R.V. Rao Gandhi's satyagraha and sarvodaya is needed and effective
alternative to Maxist-Leninist model of scientific socialism or communism for which
class war and proletarian dictatorship are the means. Gandhian alternative
according to Rao ruptures means-end dichotomy and maintains that only non violent
means can lead to non violent ends [ibid p.114]
Gandhi's alternative thus contains socialist goal of equality without the evil of
violence, without losing freedom and private property characteristics of
capitalism. But the essence of the system is neither capitalism nor socialism but
blending of ethics and rationality of economics.
III
Relevance
We have examined the growth of capitalist system and its problems in section I. In
section II we have described the essentials of Gandhian economic thought mostly in
his own words. There are obvious doubts in adopting this thought to solve the
problems [created] by capitalist order based on self interest and a narrow view of
rationality.
One such doubt is that much water has flown, since then and as free nation we have
already made tremendous progress in science and technology. Can we go back to
Gandhian Charakha? Another serious doubt is whether there is any economic thought
in Gandhi? was he an economist? If not why should we listen to him ? Is it possible
to follow his frame of action? Is it just an ideal or a pragmatic thought?
We address to these questions in light of main currents in the Gandhian economic

thought i.e. his concern for morality and his views on inequality.
Let us take the question of need first. Both the developed and under-developed
countries are facing the problems of instability, inequality and environmental
degradation, particularly due to rising
Rethinking Mahatma Cardi
consumerism. Under-developed countries are facing mass poverty and inequality in

the midst of affluence of a few. To solve the proble of instability the modern
capitalist system takes recourse to creating new demands [wants ] through
advertisement that appeals to great Gandhian thought that is based on simplicity,
needs in place of wants, can help solve the problems, both of poverty and affluence
is the only alternative as socialism has failed.
Turning to the question is it relevant in India today? It should be clear that

Gandhi addressed his thoughts for the whole world. Ever though he talked of Indian
and Indian villages, his thoughts have universal applicability, because they are
based on full understanding of human behaviour. Gandhi talks of 'soul' a higher
form than mind and body. We are living in age of high technological development and
village and the Gandhian thought concentrates on the self sufficiency of villages
and apposition to machines and large scale production. It is difficult to reverse
the wheel of technological development.
The khadi and village industries have failed in India, V.M. Dandekar [1971] has
shown that Khadi is not a viable proposition in India. There is no substitute for
productivity and adoption of new technology. What then is the relevance of Gandhian
thought? The answer lies in the fact that technological progress was not new to
Gandhi, he was aware of it. He welcomed machinery. What he read more was man. He
opposed not the machinery but the industrial culture that comes with it. i.e. the
greed based on industrial society, that Galbraith has described, in affulenlficiry
Gandhian Ideal can be adopted in present world with suitable modification. In the
Gandhian scheme, the problem of technological change and productivity is
constrained by simple living and his concept of bread labour.
He would definitely oppose the speed of technological development and its

devastating impact on civilization. He would definitely not support the machinery
that replaces human labour, unless alternative jobs are created.
We can recommend modern small scale industries for the village communities to
obstruct their flow to urban areas. The greed can be controlled by adopting
Gandhian concept of trusteeship and spread of moral education. To the environmental
problem and depletion of
64
natural resources, Gandhian thought is the only remedy. Western economists are now
considering the future of mankind and a break on higher standards.
We take up the question of economics in Gandhian thought. It is said that Gandhi

was not an economist. Why should we pay heed to his thought? Gandhi has not made
any original contribution. There is no theory of economics associated with Gandhi.
But he talked about employment, poverty, inequality standard of living, foreign
trade etc. Are these not economic indictors or factors? He had a plan to
restructure economy. Don't these views of Gandhiji relate to development economics
and welfare economics? Is not Marx called an economist? Gandhi's position is
similar to that of Marx. He was much more than an economist. It is not possible to
separate ethics from economics, Gandhi does not accept economics that is devoid of
morality. This is the main contribution of Gandhiji to economics.
Amartya Sen [1990] has regretted divorcing economics from ethics and he argued that
modern economics has been substantially impoverished by the distance that has grown
between economics and ethics. Sen [1983] has examined the assumption of rational
behaviour in economics. Rationality means [1] consistency [2] selfinterest
maximization. This second approach of rationality involves a firm rejection of
ethics related view of motivation, Self interest. Maximization approach to
rationality implies individual's disregard to fellow human beings. Sen has
highlighted sympathy and commitment as motives of human behaviour which links
economics with ethics.
If we accept Gandhian view of economics there will be radical change in economic

polices throughout the world. Economics then will not be neutral to ends. The whole
concept of growth will undergo change. We are witnessing some change in the
direction of human development. This is in line with what Gandhi prescribed.
Concern for environment will call for controlling urbanization, check on
extravagant living and five star culture, based on liquor and tobacco, lottery and
gambling.
Gandhian economics needs non economic means for its application. It needs
application of moral principles rather than the customary laws of economics. To
make Gandhian economics a reality, it is necessary that moral principles should be
imbided in the heart
65
of every actor in the economic field. This would require an army of saints, social
reformers, enlightened political leaders, who will show the way through their
preaching and practice. Every political leader and government servant should work
as trustee. Gandhian philosophy of simplicity cannot be adopted without change from
within for every one in this world. It required change in the objectives of life.
Realization of self should be the mission of life.
Turning to the question of it's pragmatism, Let us consider the Gandhian ideal of
trusteeship. A careful examination of this doctrine will show that it is not
against the capitalist frame-work that we are used to. What is new is the belief
that I am not entitled to all that I earn, if others cannot get it. This can be
achieved only by moral teaching. It is not against the human nature. Religion has
already stressed the importance of 'dan' [charity] to part with a portion of
earnings for God, particularly under Jainism.
The state action is already institutionalized in the concept of taxation and

nationalization. Why it fails is again the question of moral faith in the
institutions, and those that are custodian there of.
We observe that present political system cannot help achieve the social
transformation envisaged by the Gandhiji. What we need is voluntary and non party
citizen's struggle for domestic rights. To use Rajani Kothariword 'people's action
[of Pantham 1985 p.158 1. Those that believe in the Gandhian ideal of society
should unite and take lead for the depressed classes and castes. The struggle by
the oppressed classes and castes by woman and the trials by the marginalized
regions or endangered ecological areas etc. are seen as constituting a broad social
movement for change.
To sum up, Gandhian ideal is difficult but not impossible to achieve. It is the
only alternative before mankind to save the race from greed. It would naturally
take time to achieve as it requires mental and moral training.
171435 V2:25, M692 PI
66
12
What is Living and What is Dead in Gandhi's Socio-Economic Philosophy?
S. M. Gaikawad
Mahatma Gandhi, the prophet of non-violence and satyagraha, the utopian dreamer
upholding and practicing the ideal of a simple co-operative community life based
upon John Ruskin's three principles¹, and, above all the great leader of Indian
people who transformed the Indian National Congress, then an elitist political body
into a truly mass based political organization, spearheading India's largely non-
violent struggle for independence, which in conjunction with certain other internal
and external factors forced the British to transfer power to Indians, had been
turned into a myth both by his admirers and detractors long before he met his
martyrdom at the hands of a Hindu bigot few months after India gained independence.
Fifty one years after his demise, the myth of Gandhi lives on and, will continue to
live on for centuries to come; for men prefer to live with myths rather than face
history and truth.
To his millions of admirers world over Gandhi was and continues to be a political
saint who walked the length and breadth of the Indian sub-continent trying to
awaken and unify India's ignorant, poor, tradition bound and socially divided
peasant masses under the emergent nationalist leadership to fight for national
independence. This image as a savior of the oppressed and suppressed and an
unyielding champion of freedom endures and inspires thousands of people around the
world.
Gandhi has now become a world-wide cultural symbol of man's irrepressible will to
freedom and equality; a symbol of our constant yearning for peace, harmony and
intercommunity/inter-religion and
international understanding and co-existence. He has come to symbolize our

collective dream of a world and man free from oppression, natural, religious
bigotry and greed. In Gandhi we see and worship our own subconscious dreams of a
possible world of human beings and their varied activities not visited by a
dictator or superman. It is indeed an act of deification not only of the Mahatma
but, also of our own spirit seeking peace with itself and with the world too.
Such profound feeling of spiritual enlightenment born of our own repeated acts of
self destruction finds its sublime expression in our worship of men like Gandhi
whose thoughts and actions, we presume to hold a solution to the crisis of
industrial civilization. Such deifying sentiment about the Mahatma was most
eloquently expressed by Albert Einstein, perhaps the greatest physicist-philosopher
sage of all times who wrote of him, "Generations to come will scarce believe that
such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth"2.
Albert Einstein's poetic tribute to Gandhi, though highly perceptive is also marked
by an equally high degree of emotiveness and, hence like any other subjective
account it helps only to strengthen further the myth of Gandhi as a political
saint, obscuring the historically authentic Gandhi and his work.
However, the deification of Gandhi as a political saint is just one aspect, perhaps
the best known aspect of the Gandhi myth. There is yet, a lesser known but
certainly not less significant aspect of that myth which stems from his (Gandhi's)
denigration by his detractors and political foes.
His less magnanimous political opponents in general and the muslim communalists in
particular dismissed his spiritualism as a hoax and accused him of harbouring a
secret ambition of creating Hindu domination over the minorities under the
convenient cloak of Indian nationalism. They refused to accept the Congress as a
national political party representing all communities, and called it a Hindu
political organization and Gandhi its leader.
Dr. Ambedkar, the indomitable leader of the scheduled castes disputed what the
Muslim leaders had tacitly conceded, by rejecting forthright the Congress claim to
represent all Hindus including the
158
What is Living and What is Dead in Gandhi's Socio-Economic Philosophy? 159
scheduled castes. Ambedkar charged Gandhi of attempting to prevent the scheduled

castes from securing their legitimate political rights without which they stood no
chance of organizing any meaningful action to end their age long condition of
servitude.
The deep lying feeling of mistrust of Gandhi and his politics born of through long
fought Gandhi-Ambedkar duel remains dormant in the minds of a vast multitude of
people belonging to the scheduled caste and occasionally finds its sudden and
rather crude manifestation in an outburst of a person like Ms. Mayawati who
denounced Gandhi as the evil incarnate some time ago.
Not surprisingly the conservative Hindu reactionaries fearful of loosing their age
long socio-economic and political domination through Gandhi's liberal pragmatic
politics of adjustments and accommodations with the emergent socio-political and
economic forces, attacked him as the major malefactor of Hindus. The Hindu
revivalist's feeling of estrangement about Gandhi hardened with the partition, and
led inevitably to his assassination and depiction as a betrayer. The feeling of his
alleged betrayal is certainly not dead. It finds its manifestation in very subtle
ways through literary or artistic works such as the controversial Marathi play Mee
Nathuram Godse Boltoya.
Gandhi remains unique in being both revered and despised by millions in the land he
struggled all his life to keep undivided. He failed in his mission but succeeded in
passing on his legacy to the larger part of divided India which rightfiilly resumed
its role as the successor to the British India in all respects except losing the
provinces that formed Pakistan. The success or failure of this great ancient nation
in resolving the very fundamental socio-economic and political issues before it
which were there also in Gandhi's time will therefore in some sense decide whether
there is a future for Gandhi's legacy.
All myths-good or had of great men and women need to be discarded forthright as
they can only colour our individual perceptions of historically important events
and personalities and thus prevent us from developing the right perspective on our
historical past, without which we can not hope - deal with our present day problems
effectively. -
The need to evaluate critically and objectively great men like Gandhi who through
their personal struggles and sacrifices helped to shape our present day world
holding atop man and his freedom becomes all the more significant at this historic
juncture when we stand here at the door steps of the twenty first century (and the
third millennium too) gazing in awe on a whole brave new world of unimaginable
things like super computers, robots, cloning and interplanetary travel brought
within the realm of possible by the scientific and technological progress, we
become increasingly conscious of growing threat to the existence of man posed by
the uncontrolled exploitation of science and technology to further narrow sectarian
interests of the rich and the powerful of the world. Further the mindless pursuit
of industrial growth and the concomitant plunder of nature have created serious
ecological problems posing a serious threat to the life on this planet.
This is indeed a crisis of our present day industrial civilization propelled by the
capitalist spirit which has totally looses the sight of 'man' in its blind pursuits
of power and wealth. At this very crucial stage in the history of human
civilization when, man has developed the necessary scientific and technological
capability to control the future direction of the development of civilization, we
have got to make a conscious choice between the present day world order
characterized by unequal development of nations and the mindless competition among
them to score higher and higher rates of industrial growth and also of military
expenditures on the one hand; and the construction of a new world order in which
the goal of protecting man and his civilization through a planned restructuring and
reorganization of the existing world economy on the other hand.
Undoubtedly all men and women, except the power hungry mad brutes will be in favour
of competition free, co-operative, environment friendly planned global economy
which can alone ensure the long term survival of man and his civilization. But such
a man and environment friendly global economic order can be created if we show
sufficient wisdom and courage to change the basic impulse of the modem industrial
civilization which is generally glorified as the capitalist spirit but, that is in
reality nothing but greed for material wealth and power.
And it is here in such a problem area an area of irreconcilable conflict between
the demands of capitalist development and the
160
What is Living and What is Dead in Gandhi's Socio-Economic Philosophy? 161
requirements of human welfare- that the ideas of Gandhi on man, economy,

industrialization and ideal community could be fruitfully examined to see whether a
workable solution to above problem could be developed by using some of his concepts
and ideas. Further it would be useful to find out whether Gandhian method of
satyagraha could be extended to the international domain to organize some useful
action across international frontiers against the multinational monopolies which
undertake production activities in the developing world which are considered to be
highly inimical to man and his environment.
However, we will not address to this very vital problem of reorganizing the
international economy so as to make it serve the interest of man in general.
Instead we shall confine ourselves here to a no less important local i.e., national
problem, confronting us directly . The problem is one of effecting the necessary
socio-economic transformation which alone can help millions of those unfortunate
human beings eking out a most degrading existence in the urban slums and rural huts
found in backward regions of the country, to gain some measure of freedom from want
without which all other freedoms become meaningless. Therefore, the important
question that needs to be raised and answered unequivocally is: can Gandhi's socio-
economic thinking be a vehicle of a thorough going socioeconomic transformation
without which a just and egalitarian socioeconomic order can not be established?
At the outset we must say that Gandhi was never directly concerned with problem of
socio-economic transformation. However, he came to face certain socio-political
demands stemming from changed material conditions of Indian social life and, was
thus forced to express his stand point on issues involving the problem of
socioeconomic transformation.
To understand Gandhi's position on socio-economic change it is important to bear in

the mind that Gandhi was never interested in understanding the historical process
of socio-economic evolution of human societies. It is doubtful if he had any
understanding of the underlying dynamics of socio-economic changes. But he was
certainly interested in the changes that were already there which possessed
sufficient potential for generating new forces in the existing social order which,
if no successfully tamed and properly accommodated
Rethinking Mahatma Ga
within the existing power structure, contained a veritable danger of destabilizing

the whole system. For the central objective of Gandhi was never a thorough going
socio-economic transformation, but the preservation of traditional way of life in
face of mounting pressure for change generated by the forces of industrialization
and concomitant modernization, by adopting certain measures of sociopolitical
change that helped preserve the overall traditional balance of power.
Gandhi's abiding desire to maintain the continuity of tradition, which funds its
clear expression in his constant hankering after the village community as an ideal
form of community life, prevented him from appreciating the real significance of
socio-economic change. Moreover his conception of social reality was essentially
static, treating every change as a fortuitous occurrence that was to have no real
impact on the underlying structure of society. He was never able to understand that
the socio-economic life was governed by certain material forces, and when these
forces changed a totally new conditions of material life came into being demanding
new solutions ( i.e., socio-economic transformation). Consequently he kept
attempting to resolve socio-economic contradictions of modern industrial life by
proposing utopian solutions which were totally intellectual.
New conditions demand new solutions is a most basic law of life, but Gandhi failed
to understand it. Gandhi's belief that the Indian village community was an ideal
form of co-operative community life was just a romantic fantasy far removed from
the reality. The village community was founded on unequal power and property
relations and the pre-modem Indian village was as much a tyranny as the modem one
is. The talk of creating a genuinely free village community without rooting out the
feudal and pre-feudal property relations that still exist is certainly no less
absurd idea than a talk of creating a democratic society under a fascist
dictatorship.
Gandhi's opposition to the use of violent methods to achieve a given socially

desirable goal, say, socio-economic equality is certainly laudable. No reasonable
man would recommend use of force to achieve those goals which can be secured
through the peaceful means. But is it really possible to achieve a full measure of
social and economic change which involves a complete restructuring of
162
the existing unequal power relations rooted in the prevalent social relations of
productions without involving any use of force? Gandhi's fetish of non-violence
appears to be totally misconceived when one pauses to think of the unmeasurable
amount of violence that is constantly being used against those unfortunate human
beings who live in ignorance and socio-economic bondage. The invisible violence
perpetuated by the defenders of the inequitable social order against the
vulnerable, defenseless, poor, hungry masses is far more ghastly and deplorable
than a measure of force needed for expropriating the oppressors.
Socio-economic change is a bye-product of the ongoing process of material advance

of human civilization. The need for such a change manifests with the force of
historical necessity through the ever widening gap between the potential and
realized development. Societies which failed to close this gap by adopting
necessary socioeconomic changes are condemned to economic stagnation and the
inevitable socio-political crisis.
Gandhi's conception of socio-economic change with a human face is a good topic for
an after dinner talk, but certainly not a good measure to effect the necessary
socio-economic changes without which the dream of a humanly equitable and
egalitarian social order will remain a pipe dream for ever. But this should not be
construed to mean that Gandhi has no relevance to the twenty-first century. Indeed,
Gandhi transcends both the spatial and temporal limits for he was certainly
concerned with "man"- the real man (and not with the metaphysical one troubling the
minds of the great religious leaders and philosophers through the ages) who lives
only through his participation in the collective endeavour of men to reproduce
themselves socially, carrying in his heart an immutablend indestructible spark to
oppose every thing that poses a threat to the man and his freedom.
References
1. Ruskin, John, (1885), Unto This Last, John Wiley & sons, New York. 2. Einstein,
A. (1954), Ideas and Opinions, Alvin Redman, London.
7
Ethical and Socio-economic Implications of the Varna Dharma in Gandhian Philosophy
-V.P. Varma
It is a well-known fact that a tremendous change has occurred in social, political

and economic conditions of our country and all other countries of the world during
the last two decades, and consequently the present-day world is very much different
from the world Gandhiji lived in. It is, therefore, necessary to make a re-
appraisal of his views in order to see whether and to what extent they are relevant
to and practicable in the changed circumstances of our modern world. This, indeed,
is a very comprehensive and difficult task which no one can claim to accomplish in
one article or book. I therefore propose to make a critical appraisal of only one
concept of Gandhiji's social philosophy-namely, the concept of Varna Dharma; and in
this context I shall try to point out some far-reaching moral, political and socio-
economic implications of this concept.
Let us then first see how Gandhiji defines "Varna Dharma" and what, according to
him, is the origin of this concept. He frankly admits that this concept, like many
other principles of his philosophy, was originally propounded by ancient Hindu
sages in the pre-historic age of the Vedas, and was later supported by other Hindu
scriptures. Varna Dharma is, in fact, a social order which divides the members of
society according to their occupations into four classes-namely, Brahmanas who are
expected to devote themselves to the acquisition of knowledge for teaching and
spiritual advancement of society, Kshatriyas who are entrusted with the
responsibility of defending the community against internal disorder and external
aggression, Vaishyas whose main obligation is to increase the wealth of society
Gandhian Alternative--Vol. III
by trade and agriculture, and Shudras whose only duty is to serve the community by
performing all sorts of manual labour.
Now Gandhiji fully supports this ancient Hindu social order of Varna Dharma, and
wants us all to follow it thoroughly and strictly. He also claims that the Varna of
each individual is to be determined by birth rather than by his occupation. "The
meaning of 'Varna' ", he says, "is incredibly simple. It simply means following on
the part of us all of the hereditary and traditional calling of our forefathers, in
so far as the traditional calling is not inconsistent with fundamental ethics, and
this only for purpose of earning one's livelihood...... 'Varna' means pre-
determination of the choice of man's profession. The law of Varna is that a man
shall follow the profession of his ancestors for earning his livelihood... 'Varna'
therefore is in a way the law of heredity... It does not attach to birth. A man
cannot change his Varna by choice. Not to abide by one's Varna is to disregard the
law of heredity... I believe that some people are born to teach and some to defend
and some to engage in trade and agriculture and some to do manual labour, so much
so that these occupations become hereditary."¹ It is now clear from this passage
that, in spite of cherishing great reverence for Bhagavad Gita, Gandhiji does not
accept its principle of determining the Varna of each individual by his or her
Gunas and Karmas (qualities and actions), but rather insists that each individual's
Varna must be determined solely by birth.
This law of Varna, if followed strictly and sincerely, would, according to

Gandhiji, greatly contribute to the spiritual, moral and socio-economic progress of
mankind, for it would minimise our worldly ambitions and would thus put an end to
cut-throat competition now prevailing everywhere in the world because of increasing
greed for money and unceasing desire for material comforts. In order to show the
absolute nature and inevitability of this law Gandhiji compares it with Newton's
law of gravitation and attributes to it divine origin by maintaining that “it is
not a human invention, but an immutable law of nature." He also claims that if all
of us sincerely abide by this law of Varna, we shall have at our disposal an ample
time for spiritual pursuit and social service. "When I follow my father's
profession", he says, "I need not even go to a school to learn it, and my mental
energy is set free for spiritual pursuits, because my money or rather livelihood is
ensured. Varna is the best form of insurance for happiness and for real religious
pursuit." Thus, the fulfilment of the law of Varna, in Gandhiji's view,
142
Ethical and Socio-economic Implications of the Varna Dharma... 143
is necessary for socio-economic advancement as well as moral and spiritual

evolution of mankind.
Now I think the propriety of this ancient Hindu law of Varna and Gandhiji's views
on this principle should be critically examined in the light of their far-reaching
psychological and socio-economic repercussions in our modern age of science and
technology. It is not difficult to see that this law draws our attention to the
division of labour in human society which is as important today as it was in the
primitive ages. No one can deny the fact that it is neither possible nor desirable
for all members of a community to follow the same kind of professions, because they
greatly differ in their physical and intellectual capacities and aptitudes. It is a
well-known psychological principle that, owing to great differences in mental and
physical abilities, some people are suitable for intellectual occupations while
others are fit for only semi-skilled or unskilled jobs.
But this psychological principle, which is the fundamental basis of the division of
labour, by no means supports the law of Varna as interpreted by Gandhiji. This law
of Varna, as we have already pointed out, is, in his view, the law of heredity, and
therefore none of us can abrogate it even if we want to do so. In fact, this
contention of Gandhiji is based on his erroneous assumption that acquired
characteristics, like colour and form, are inherited by children. Explaining this
hereditary basis of Varna Dharma on the ground of this assumption, he writes: "I
believe that just as everyone inherits a particular form, so does he inherit the
particular characteristics and qualities of his progenitors, and to make this
admission is to conserve one's energy...The law of Varna is nothing if not by
birth." Now it is worth pointing out here that this assumption of the inheritance
of acquired characteristics is not accepted by most modern psychologists who
rightly attribute the similarity in the habits of parents and their children to
environmental factors and not to heredity. Thus, the fundamental basis of the
principle of Varna by birth, as expounded by Gandhiji, can reasonably be
challenged.
Similarly, it is very hard to subscribe to Gandhiji's contention that the law of

Varna can greatly contribute to our moral and spiritual advancement. In the first
place, it is wrong to hold that we shall have more time for our spiritual pursuit
by following this law, since everyone has to devote a great deal of time and energy
to learn even his father's profession if it is not an unskilled job requiring mere
physical labour. Secondly, even if we admit that the law of Varna can
Gandhian Alternative-Vol. III
provide us with more time, it is almost certain that all of us will not and cannot
devote this time to religious and spiritual pursuit, because such a pursuit is
possible only for a few. As a matter of fact, those whose basic necessities of life
are not met by traditional occupations carrying very little remuneration can hardly
be expected to engage themselves in spiritual advancement and devotion to God. It
is thus clear that the law of Varna has nothing to do with our moral and spiritual
progress.
I am fully convinced that if we really abide by the law of Varna as interpreted by

Gandhiji, it would have extremely fatal socioeconomic repercussions specially for
those whom he called "Harijans" and whose upliftment was his real and sincere
concern. It is a well-known fact that the chief reason of the miserable plight of
Harijans is their crushing poverty inevitably resulting from those occupations
which they have been following for so many centuries and which carry only nominal
remuneration. Now it is quite obvious that if, following the law of Varna, they are
compelled to adopt the professions of their forefathers and are denied the freedom
to choose higher occupations carrying more remuneration, they can never get rid of
their poverty and can never achieve better social status. Thus, the observance of
the law of Varna, as defined by Gandhiji, would make the upliftment of Harijans a
mere empty slogan which would only worsen their present deplorable socio-economic
position.
Whether Gandhiji himself ever thought of this appalling implication of his views
regarding the law of Varna, I do not know, but this much is quite certain that he
wants all Hindus, including Harijans, to follow this law strictly and sincerely.
He, therefore, maintains that Harijans must earn their livelihood by following only
the occupations of their ancestors. He is, of course, willing to give Harijans the
right to acquire as much knowledge as they can, but he strongly refuses to give
them the right to use that knowledge for earning their livelihood. Such a
contention may appear to most of us unbelievable, but this is a fact that Gandhiji
has always been strongly advocating it. Advising Harijans to follow strictly the
law of Varna, he clearly says: "A Shudra has as much right to knowledge as a
Brahman, but he falls from his estate if he tries to gain his livelihood through
teaching...The only profession after his heart should be the profession of his
fathers. There is nothing wrong in choosing that profession; on the contrary, it is
noble...why should my son not be a is, one born a scavenger must
scavenger if I am one?... What I mean
144
Ethical and Socio-economic Implications of the Varna Dharma... 145
earn his livelihood by being a scavenger, and then do whatever else he likes.": 5
Now it is needless to say that such a view about the law of Varna, if really
implemented, would make the socio-economic advancement of down-trodden people
absolutely impossible. It is an undisputed fact that today the objective of
education is not to enable an individual to achieve so-called spiritual liberation
but rather to provide him with the effective means for economic prosperity upon
which alone his social status actually depends. If, as Gandhiji holds, a Shudra has
no right to use his education for earning his livelihood and if he has no freedom
to choose any profession other than that his ancestors have so far been following,
it is really very hard to understand how he can extricate himself from the clutches
of poverty and ameliorate his present deplorable status in Hindu society. So far as
I know, Gandhiji has given no satisfactory solution to this fundamental issue.
As a matter of fact, it is quite impossible to reconcile the law of Varna, as

defined by Gandhiji, with his keen desire and ceaseless struggle for the socio-
economic progress of Harijans. It is perhaps for this reason that his views
concerning the law of Varna have never been implemented by social reformers and
political leaders of our country who claim to follow him, and for this they really
deserve great commendation. They seem to have rightly realised that in this modern
age the ancient Hindu concept of Varna Dharma has outlived its utility and
significance owing to the rise of thousands of new occupations which our ancestors
could never have imagined and which require special skills and abilities to be
acquired not by heredity but only by long and difficult training.
Before I close this essay, I would like to point out that the stigma of
untouchability prevailing in Hindu Society is the direct result of this law of
Varna. Although Gandhiji claims that untouchability has nothing to do with this law
because it does not imply the superiority of one Varna over another, yet it cannot
be denied that, in practice, the members of four Varnas have never been given an
equal status in society. Shudras were always considered to be the most inferior and
degraded people, and therefore were compelled to do all the menial jobs repugnant
to the members of other three Varnas. This completely isolated them from the rest
of the society, and eventually converted them into "untouchables” to be subjected
to every possible cruelty by the members of so-called higher Varnas. Thus, it is
clear that unless
Gandhian Alternative-Vol. III
we completely abandon the concept of Varna Dharma as defined by Hindu scriptures

and Gandhiji, we can never get rid of the deeprooted irrational idea that one
member of society is inferior or superior to another simply by birth; nor can we
ever hope to remove the stigma of untouchability from Hindu society.
In fact, I am fully convinced that in our present era marked by growing

internationalism and extraordinarily rapid progress of science and technology there
is no place for such an outmoded concept as Varna Dharma which deprives millions of
human beings of their fundamental right to choose their occupations according to
their interests and abilities. In my opinion every person must be left free to
chose any profession he is capable of, and this is possible only when we get rid of
the concept of Varna Dharma.
REFERENCES
1. Hindu Dharma, edited by Bharatan Kumarappa, pp.362, 365, 374, 587. 2. Ibid.,
p.365.
Ibid., p.368.
Ibid., pp.361, 370.
4.
Ibid, pp.366, 367, 368.
3.
5.
146
Ambedkar's Contribution for Economic Planning and Development

and cultivated through capitalistic enterprise, it will not solve the problem as it
will only aggravate "the evils by adding to our stock of idle labour". According to
Dr. Ambedkar, mere size of land small or large does not determine the land to be
economic or uneconomic and the economic holding depended on all the factors of
production including land. Consequently, the remedy for the ills of agriculture in
India did not lie primarily in the matter of enlarging holdings but in the matter
of increasing capital as capital goods. The only way out of this impasse was to
take people away from land. This would automatically "lessen and destroy the
premium that at present weighs heavily on land in India" and large "economic
holding will force itself upon us as a pure gain". Dr. Ambedkar advised for
sponging off this surplus labour for non-agricultural areas, to lessen pressure on
land. He concludes that "industrialization of India is the soundest remedy for the
agricultural problems of India". This can generate adequate surplus that will also
eventually benefit the agricultural sector. Indeed a shift from primary industry to
secondary industry is vital and it must be attempted seriously to prevent the
present enlargement of the rural population that was being witnessed and remedies
based on what he calls "faulty political economy" were being advocated. It is seen
that in spite of best efforts of the Government, it is apparent the rural people
still largely depend on agriculture as industrialization is still lagging behind.
State and Minorities
Dr. Ambedkar prepared a memorandum "State and Minorities" in 1948 and submitted it
to the Constituent Assembly on behalf of All India Scheduled Castes Federation.
This memorandum is unique and depicts the blueprint of Dr. Ambedkar's model of
economic development.
It proposes state socialism in important fields of economic life, and it does not
leave establishment of state socialism to the will of legislature. It establishes
state socialism as the law of the Constitution and thus makes it unalterable by any
Act of the Legislature and Executive.
Salient Features of State Socialism
Some salient features of state socialism proposed by Dr.
24
Ambedkar are:
An Eminent Economist
(1) Key industries shall be owned and run by the state. (2) Industries which are
not key industries but are basic
shall be owned and run by the state or by corporations established by the state.
(3) Insurance shall be the monopoly of the state and the state shall compel every
adult citizen to take out an insurance policy.
(4) Agricultural industry shall be state industry.
The scheme shall be brought into operation as early as possible, but in no case
shall the period extend beyond the tenth year from the date of the Constitution
coming into operation.² 25
Dr. Ambedkar had argued for state socialism involving nationalization of

agriculture, insurance and basic industries. He desired that there would be neither
a landholder nor a landlord. The objective behind his nationalization policy was to
put squarely on the shoulders of the state the duty to supply necessary capital
brought to the industry and agriculture, which would improve the productivity,
rapid industrialization and equitable distribution of wealth. He had emphasized
nationalization of key and basic industries and agriculture to prevent exploitation
of socially and economically deprived classes.
Dr. Ambedkar was quite disappointed, when his views on collective farming were not
accepted. Instead, the Government of India has opted for a more soft measure of
land reforms. As, the State could not solve the problem of landlessness of
Scheduled Castes in India, the Union Government had opted for redistribution of
surplus land in favour of SCs and STs acquired through the implementation of Land
Ceilings Act.
The Land and the Scheduled Castes
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes even today continue to be mostly landless
poor. The State policy to redistribute surplus land acquired from implementation of
Land Ceilings
25
Status of Poor and Labour in Economic Planning
The appointment of Dr. Ambedkar as Member-in-charge of the Labour, also Irrigation

and Power portfolio of Executive Council of the Viceroy from 1942-46 coincided with
the formulation and implementation of the post-war plan for economic development of
India. In fact, this particular plan marks the beginning of systematic economic
planning by the Central Government with an all-India perspective. Its importance
also lies in the fact that the policy measures and action plan conceived and
implemented during 1942-46 not only had an impact on the type of economic regime
that India adopted on gaining Independence, but many of these plans continued and
became a permanent feature of our planned economic development, as Dr. Ambedkar
continued as a Minister of the Central Cabinet and was also a Member of
Reconstruction Committee, the highest body set up to decide the objective and
policy of the plan. As the President of 'Policy Committee', he was personally
involved in formulating the objective and strategy of socio economic plan on labour
policy.
Focus on Poorv
Given the limitation of the capitalistic economic system in ensuring economic

security to the masses, Dr. Ambedkar argued for an important place to the "labour"
and the "depressed
Status of Poor and Labour in Economic Planning
classes" in the planned economic development of the country. He was particularly

concerned that planned economic development should not only develop programmes but
translate them in terms which the common man could understand, namely, food,
housing, clothing, education, good health and above all, the right to work with
dignity.
According to Dr. Ambedkar, the state could not be content with securing merely fair
conditions of work for labour but also fair conditions of life. A great
responsibility lay on the State to provide the poor with facilities for the growth
of individuals according to their needs. In his view, the Scheduled Castes and
Backward Classes needed to be treated as a separate entity for the purpose of
planning and this provision was incorporated in the Plan objective. The plan
Document stated that:
"One of the objectives of the government would be to take steps to ameliorate the
condition of the Scheduled Castes and backward classes. Care must be taken to see
that social amenities such as education, public health, water supply, housing,
which are meant to be provided under the plan, work especially for the benefit of
such classes and that handicap of ignorance and poverty under which they now labour
is offset by special concessions in the shape of educational facilities, grant,
scholarships, hostels, improved water supply and similar measures. It would be the
special responsibility of the government to see that early measures are taken to
remove the handicap of these classes and help them to raise their level to that of
their more fortunate fellow citizens."
Economic Development of Dalits
The founding fathers of our Constitution wished to secure for all the citizens of
this country, social, economic and political equality. In order to achieve this
objective, it was realized that the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes (SCs)
would require special protection and concessions to emancipate them from the
centuries-old prejudices and exploitation that have characterized the Indian social
scene. Special provisions were, therefore, incorporated in the Constitution to
encourage and
47
Ambedkar's Contribution for Economic Planning and Development promote their

economic, educational and social development.¹
The economic development of Dalits since Independence, need to be viewed in the

context of philosophy profounded by Dr. Ambedkar for improving the socio-economic
conditions of Dalits. Notwithstanding the various special developmental measures
initiated since the First Five Year Plan, majority of Dalits have remained as
agricultural labourers. There is a substantial gap in the level of development
between SC and There is a need for strict ST population and others. implementation
of land reforms, redistribution of surplus and waste-lands particularly among SCs
and STs, agricultural labourers and marginal farmers. There is also need for
increasing the outlay on welfare for SCs and STs. The state should provide micro-
credit to improve their productivity and financial assistance to improve their
educational level.
| The major objective of planning in India right from First Five Year Plan onwards
was acceleration of economic growth with justice, as advocated by Dr. Ambedkar
State has been assigned a crucial and active role in the process of economic
development. In case of socially and economically deprived sections such as Dalits-
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, variety of special developmental programmes
had been launched in addition to general developmental programmes Land reform was
viewed as an important anti-poverty programme as it not only promoted equity but
also increased the agricultural productivity. A specific sector of backward classes
was included in the Plan to cater to the specific needs of the SCs/STs/OBCs in
addition to the general programmes Special component plan for SCs and STs during
the Sixth Plan, to facilitate monitoring of the developmental programmes for SCs
was introduced in 1979-80 and to channelise the flow of funds from the general
sectors in the plans of States/Union Territories and Central Ministries for the
development of the Scheduled Castes. These funds should not be less than the
proportion of their population. In addition, the Government of India extended
Special Central Assistance (SCA) scheme to further augment the funds under the
Special Component Plan. The National Scheduled Castes Finance Development
Corporation (NSCFDC), National Scheduled Tribes Finance Development Corporation
48
Status of Poor and Labour in Economic Planning 49
(NSTFDC), and Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd.

(TRIFED) were constituted primarily to act as a catalytic agent in developmental
schemes for employment generation and financing projects to these depressed
classes. Special consideration was accorded to SC/ST families in the Integrated
Rural Development Programme (IRDP), the most important poverty alleviation
programme in the post Ambedkar period. In the wage employment programme of Jawahar
Rojgar Yojna, preference was given to SCs/STs and bonded labourers. It has been
provided that at village Panchayat level, 15% of the annual allocation must be
spent on works, which directly benefit SCS/STs. Through positive discrimination and
scholarship facilities, it has been planned to promote education and employment
among Dalits. In order to ensure that the fruits of economic reforms are shared by
all sections of society, five elements of social and economic infrastructure,
critical to the quality of life in rural areas, were identified. These are health,
education, drinking water, housing and roads. To impart greater momentum to the
efforts in these sectors, the Government launched the Pradhan Mantri Gramodaya
Yojana (PMGY).³ |
In the light of the national economic policy of growth with justice and various
developmental programmes implemented by Government of India for the economic
development of Dalits (SC/ST) right from First Five Year Plan onwards, an analysis
was made to find the economic progress made by Dalits and identify the factors
coming in the way of their economic development.
The major problem of the Dalits is poverty, superimposed by social discrimination

and segregation. In India about 81% of SC and about 93% of ST population live in
rural areas and about 19% of SC and about 7% of ST population live in urban areas
while the corresponding percentages are 74% and 26% in case of general population.
The improvement in the conditions of SCs/STs depends on their access to land, and
access to education and non-farm employment and consequent improvement in the
consumption levels. About 75% of the SC workers depend on agriculture and of whom
about 50% are agricultural labourers and about 25% are cultivators while
PHILOSOPHY OF HINDUISM
1. In the first place in the religion of the savage of God. In savage society there
is no no trace of the idea of the second place in the religion of the sa society
there is no bound between morality and Religion. In the savage society there is
religion without God. In the savage society there is morality but it is independent
of Religion. in
20
2. In modern society abandoment of religion or acceptance of another is not

necessary for social fusion.
3.
Religion as a social force can not be ignored.
4. Hinduism does not recognise Equality, Liberty, and Fraternity.
5. In short justice is simply another name for liberty, equality and fraternity.
6. Thus in Hinduism, there is no choice of avocation. There is no economic

independence
Dr. Ambedkar's Thought
and there is no economic security. Economically, speaking of a Shudra is a

precarious thing.
7. The ancient world may be said to have been guilty for failing to take the
responsibility for the education of the masses. But never has any society been
guilty of closing to the generality of its people the study of the books of its
religion. Never has society been guilty of prohibiting the mass of its people from
acquiring knowledge. Never has society made any attempt to declare that any attempt
made by the common man to acquire knowledge shall be punishable as a crime. Manu is
the only divine law giver who has denied the common man the right to knowledge.
8. Brahmins caste is a crore and a half but it has 1886 subcaste (1931 census).
9. No country has such a dismal record of class war as Hindustan. It was the proud
boast of the Brahmin Parasuram that he exterminated the Kshatriyas twenty one times
from the face of Hindustan and recreated them by Brahmans cohabiting with the
widows of the Kshatriyas.
24
Philosophy of Hinduism
10. For in Hinduism inequality is a religious doctrine adopted and conscientiously

preached as a sacred dogma. It is an official creed and nobody bed is ashamed to
profess it openly.
11. Conclusions :
(1) Caste divides Labourers SPRODA
(2) Caste disassociates work from interest
from (3) Caste disconnects intelligence from manual labour
(4) Caste devitalises by denying to him the right to cultivate vital interest and
(5) Caste prevents mobilization.
Caste System is not merely division of labour. IT IS ALSO A DIVISION OF LABOURERS.

be Civilized society is undoubtedly needs division of labour. But is no civilized
society is division of labour accompanied by this unnatural division of labourers
into water-tight compartments.
12. Hindus refuse to share because his religion tells him not to share.
13. For in Hinduism inequality is a religious doctrine adopted and conscientiously
preached as a sacred dogma. It is an official creed and nobody
25
26
is ashamed to profess inequality openly. Indeed inequality in the soul of Hinduism.

Inequality for the Hindus is a divinely prescribed way of life as a religious
doctrine and as a prescribed way of life, it has become incarnate in Hindu Society
and is shaped and moulded by it in its thoughts and in its doings. Indeed
inequality is the Soul of Hinduism.
14. Caste becomes a direct cause of much of MADONACEBO unemployment we see in the
country.
15. There is only one period in Indian history which is a period of freedom,
greatness and glory. That is the period of the Mourya Empire. At all other times
the country suffered from defeat quod and darkness. But the Mourya period was a CH3
period when chaturvarnya was completely annihilated, when the Shudras, who
constituted the mass of the people came into their own and became the rulers of the
country.
16. Indeed the destiny of a defeat which has been o the lot of India throughout
history is due to caste. Caste prevented general mobilization.
17. The Philosophy of Hinduism therefore neither satisfies the test of social
utility not does it satisfy the test of individual justice.
18. Hinduism is not interested in society as a whole. The centre of its interest
lies in a class and its a philosophy is concerned in sustaining and Touthic
supporting the rights of that class. That is why yd in the Philosophy of Hinduism
the interests of el not the common man as well as of society are denied, suppressed
and sacrificed to the interest of this class of Superman. What is the value of such
a religion to man?
brs frolimbilding met grind me
19. In short the Philosophy of Hinduism cannot be ebne called the religion of
humanity.
20. I told in Hinduism there is no distinction between legal philosophy and moral
philosophy. That is #l, mellen because in Hinduism there is no distinction om the
between the legal and the moral the legal being 01.200.. also the moral.
21. What difference is there between Geeta and the Manu Smriti? Geeta is Manu in a
nutshell. abs! Those who run away from Manu Smriti and want to take refuge in Geeta
either do not know hotpnico Gita or are prepared to omit from their consideration
that soul of Geeta which makes it akin to Manu Smriti.
22. The Primitive Tribes form a total of 25 million souls. The Criminal Tribes
number 4 1/2 millions
UNIVERS
27
28
and the Untouchables number 50 millions. This makes a grand total of 79 1/2
million. Now ask how these people could have remained in the state of moral,
material, social and spiritual degradation surrounded as they have been by
Hinduism. Hindus say that their civilization is older than any civilization, the
Hinduism as a religion is superior to any other religion. If this is so how is that
Hinduism failed to elevate these people, bring them enlightenment and hope; how is
it that it failed even to reclaim them; how is it that it stood with folded hands
when millions and millions were taking to life to answer to this. M shame and
crime? What is the LYRKE The only answer is that Hinduism is overwhelmed with the
fear of pollution. It has T SA PAG not got the power to purify. It has not the
impulse to serve and that is because by its very nature it is inhuman and immoral.
It is a misnomer to call it religion. Its philosophy is opposed to very thing for
which religion stands. Hindus philosophy is opposed to very thing for
23. which religion stand.
24. A society without any respect for human personalities is a band of robbers. 4
25. The unit of Hindu society is the class or Varna to use the Hindu technical name
for class. In the Hindu social order, there is no room for mindividual merit and no
consideration of individual Justice.
214 26. Isolation and exclusiveness make them antisocial and inimical towards one
another. Isolation makes for rigidity of class V consciousness, for
institutionalizing social life and for the dominance of selfish ideals within the
classes. Isolation makes life static, continues the separation into a privileged
and underprivileged, masters and servants.
27. Representative Government rests on the belief that people must be governed by
law and law can be made only by the representative of the people. The Hindu social
order recognises the first part of this thesis which says that people EUCHOMA ned
by low. But it do must be governed by law. But it denies the second part of the
thesis which says that law wib he can be made only by representatives chosen by the
people.
28. Other social orders such as those of the Muslims or the Nazis, follow the
opposite course. They allow equal opportunity to all.
29
30 Dr. Ambedkar's Thought They allow freedom to acquire knowledge. They allow the
right to bear arms and take upon themselves the odium of suppressing rebellion by
force and violence. To deny freedom of opportunity, to deny freedom to acquire
knowledge, to deny the right of arms is a most cruel wrong.
29. The shape and form of Caste as it existed when Meghasthenes wrote his account
was very different from what the shape and form it had taken when Alberuni came and
the appearance bne trit gave to Portuguese was different from what it was in the
time of Alberuni. But to understand caste one must have more exact idea of its
nature than these foreigners are able to give.
$30. Buddha's religion offered salvation to women and sudra's.
(31.) Mahabharat is a romantic story but not religious グ one.
32. Afghans were once Buddhists. Buddhism did not remain confined to Asia. There is
evidence to show that Buddhism was the religion of Celtic Britain.
33. Kshatriya widow praying to Brahmins for offspring and just cohabit at the
proper seasons focal and made them pregnant.
34. Women got all right in pre-manu period.
35. War there may be but it must not be for selfish ends. Why can't a property
owner be killed if his ownership leads to emissary for the rest of humanity.
Buddha's teaching is to acquires wealth lawfully.
36. To mention only a few of the social evils, attention may be drawn to gambling.
Gambling had become as widespread among the Aryans as drinking.
37. Every king had a hall of gambling attached to his palace. Every King had an
expert gambler in his employment as a companion to play with. King Virat had in his
employment rank as an 2 dal expert gambler. Gambling was not merely a www pastime
with King's. They played with heavy stakes. They staked kingdoms, dependants,
relatives, slaves, servants. King Nala staked everything in gambling with Paskkar
and lost everything. The only thing he did not stake was himself and his wife
Damayanti. Nala had to go and live in the f in the forest as a beggar. The
31
32 Dr. Ambedkar's Thought Mahabharat tells how Dharma the eldest of the enoa
Pandavas gambled and staked everything, his brothers and also his and their wife
Draupadi. Gambling was a matter of honour with the Aryans and any invitation to
gamble was regarded is an injury to one's honour and dignity. Dharma gambled with
such disastrous consequences although he was warned beforehand. His excuse was that
he was 1206 PA initiated to gamble and as a man of honour, he DERECED I could not
decline such an invitation.
to w
38. This vice of gambling was not confined to kings. DEG TANU It had infected even
the common folk. Rig-Veda contains lamentations of a poor Aryan ruined by gambling.
The habit of gambling had become so common in Kautilya's time there were olam
gambling houses licensed by the king from which the king derived considerable
revenue.
ann myck
39. Drinking was another evil which was rampant wong was ORA among the Aryans.
Liquors were of two sorts Soma and Sura. Soma was a sacrificial wine. The drinking
of the Soma was in the beginning permitted only to Brahmins, Kshatriyas and
Vaishyas. Subsequently it was permitted only to Brahmins and Kshatriyas. The
Vaishyas were excluded from it and the Sudras were never
www.20
33
po permitted to taste it. Its manufacture was a secret known only to the Brahmins.
2013 40. Even Aryan women were addicted to drink. For Instance Sudeshna the wife of
King Virat tells her maid Sairandhri to go to Kichka's palace and bring Sura as she
was dying to have a drink. Kausitaki Grihaya Sutra I. 11-12, which a sulla l. 11-1
says: "Four or eight women who are not widowed, after having been regaled with wine
and food are to dance for four times on the night previous to the wedding
ceremony." ter>
41. The Aryan of pre Buddhist days had no such nola rule of prohibited degrees as
we have todays beto govern their sexual or matrimonial nou relationship.
42. According to the Aryan Mythology, Brahma is the creator, he had three sons and
a daughter. His one son Daksha married his sister. The 201 daughters born of this
marriage between brother 067 and sister were married some to Kashyapa the T son of
Marichi the son of Brahma and some to 1872 Dharma the third son of Brahma.
ob
o the 43. In the Rig Veda there in an episode related of 2. Yama and Yami brother
and sister. According to this episode Yami the sister invites her
34
brother Yama to cohabit with her and becomes angry when he refuses to do so. Some
more name like Pushan and his sister Acchoda and Amavasu, Purikutsa and Narmada,
Viprachiti and Simhika, Nahusa and Viraja, Sukra-Usanas and Go, Amsumat and Yasoda,
Dasaratha and Kausalya, Rama and Sita; Suka and Pivari; Draupadi and Parasti all
are the cases of brother marrying sisters.
44. The Bhagwat Purana says:
"We have heard, O Kshatriya, that Swayambhu (Brahma) had a passion for Vach, his
slender and enchanting daughter, who had no passion for him. The Munis, his sons,
headed by Marichi, seeing their father bent upon wickedness, admonished him with
affection; 'This is such a thing as has not been done by those before you, nor will
those after you do it,-that you, being the lord, should sexually approach your
daughter, not restraining your passion. This, O preceptor of the world, is not a
laudable deed even in glorious personages, through limitation of whose actions men
attain felicity. Glory to that divine being (Vishnu) who by his own lustre revealed
this (universe) which abides in himself, he must maintain
e righteousness'. Seeing his sons, the Prajapatis, thus speaking before him the
lord of the Prajapatis (Bramha) was ashamed, and abandoned his body. This dreadful
body the one regions received and it is known as foggy darkness." and to the te
The result of this degrading and defamatory attacks on Brahma was to damn him
completely. No wonder that his cult disappeared from the face to India leaving him
a nominal bem and theoretical member of the Trimurti.
no 45. It will be noticed how the Brahmins have 100. changed and chopped. There was
a time when they worshipped the Vedic Gods. Then came a time when they abandoned
their Vedic Gods and started workshipping non-Vedic Gods. One may well ask them-
where is Indra, where is Varuna, where is Brahma, where is Mitra-the Gods mentioned
in the Vedas? They have all disappeared. And why, because the worship of Indra,
Varuna and Brahma ceased to be profitable. Not only did the Brahmins abandon their
Vedic Gods but there are cases where they have become the worshippers of Muslim
Pirs. In this connection one glaring case may be referred to. In Kalyan near Bombay
there is 20
35
36
hew ved
Dr. Ambedkar's Thought putty famous Darga of Pir called Bawa Malangsha on the top
of a hill. It is a very famous Darga. Every year a Urs (pilgrimage) is held and
offerings are made. The person who officiates at the Darga as a priest is a
Brahmin, sitting near it, wearing the clothes of Muslims and receiving monies
offered at the Darga.
46. If an unmarried daughter living in the house of her father has through illicit
intercourse given birth to a son and if she subsequently was married the son before
marriage was claimed by her husband as his son. Such a son was called Kanina.
47. Religion no doubt started its career by asking. many questions: "What am I?"
"Who made the Universe?" "If God made it what is the relation of Ego to God?" "What
is the right way to propitiate God?" "What is the relation between I and the Non-l
i.e. between man and universe?" "What constitutes good life or that will please God
etc.?"
Most of these questions have been taken over by theology, metaphysics, philosophy
and ethics, into which religion has become split. But there is one question that
remains with 20
37
religion to preach and propagate namely what constitutes good life. A religion
which does not do so is no religion at all.
Why have the Brahmins made the Hindu religion so nude; so devoid of morality? The
Hindu religion is nothing but worshipping so many Gods and Goddesses, worshipping
so many trees, visiting so many places of een pilgrimage and making offerings to
the Brahmins. Was the religion formulating for enabling the Brahmins to earn their
living? Did they ever think that morality is the foundation of society and that
unless morality is imbedded in religion it (has no driving) force. These are
questions which the Brahmins must answer.
48. Kshetraja literally means son of the field i.e., of the wife. In Hindu ideology
the wife is likened to the field and the husband being likened to the master of the
field. Where the husband was dead, or alive but important or incurably diseased the
brother or any other sapinda of the deceased was appointed by the family to
procreate a son on the wife. The practice was called Niyoga and the son so begotten
was called Kshetraja.
12
38
49. Brahaspati was far more bold and militant in his opposition to the Vedas than
the Charvakas. As reported by Madhava Acharya, Brahaspati argued:
"There is no heaven, no final liberation, nor any soul in another world; Nor do the
actions of the four castes, orders etc., produce any real effect. The Agnihotra,
the three Vedas, the ascetic's three stages and smearing one's self with ashes,
where made by Nature as the livelihood of those destitute of knowledge and
manliness; If a beast slain in the Jyotishtoma rite will itself go to heaven; why
then does not the sacrificer forthwith offer his lown father? ....
Charrak,
If the Sraddha produces gratification to beings who are dead, then here, too, in
the case of travellers when they start, it is needless to give provisions for the
journey.
If beings in heaven are gratified by our offering the Sraddha here, then why not
give the food down below to those who are standing on the housetop?
While life remains let a man live happily, let him feed on ghee even though he runs
in debt;
39
When once the body becomes ashes, how can it ever return again?
If he who departs from the body goes to another world, how is that he comes not
back again restless for love of his kindred?
Hence it is only a means of livelihood that Brahmans have established here.
All these ceremonies are for the dead, there is no other fruit anywhere. The three
authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves and demons.
50. We have no direct evidence that the Broken Men were Buddhists. No evidence is
as a matter of fact necessary when the majority of Hindus were Buddhists. We may
take it that they were.
Jncil
That there existed hatred and abhorrence against the Buddhists in the mind of the
Hindus and that this feeling was created by the Brahmins is not without support.
SonNilkant in his Prayaschit Mayukha¹ quotes a verse from Manu which says:
1. Edited by Gharpure, p. 95.
TWELVE
AMBEDKAR'S VIEWS ON LAND REFORMS AND INDUSTRIALISATION : AN EVALUATION HUN
C. K. Renukarya*
Ambedkar was a well-trained economist. His thinking as an economist has two

dimensions. First, as an economist his contributions relating to The Evolution Of
Provincial Finance In British India and The Problem Of The Rupee2 are professional
in nature. Second, his writings on (a) Land Reforms, (b) Socialism, (c) Fiscal
system of India and (d) Employment, (e) Capital formation, (f) Industrialisation
and (g) Nationalisation are reflections of a political-statesman.
This article makes an attempt to examine only two aspects of his contribution viz.,
his ideas on land reforms and industrialisation in the context of present day
developments. -
Land Reforms
Ambedkar's views on land reforms have been expressed in his paper "Small holdings
in India and their Remedies". In this, he makes original and practical
contributions to land reforms in India. He believed that land reform is very much
needed in India from the point of stepping up agricultural production. As an
economist, he wished to emphasise the input-output relations that may emerge as a
consequence of land reforms. He opined that "the existing holdings are uneconomic,
not however, in the sense that they are small but that they
Dr. C. K. Renukarya is Professor and Chairman, Department of Studies in Economics

and Cooperation, University of Mysore, Mysore, Karnataka, India.
AKA
Studies in Ambedkar
are too large. Consequently, the remedy for the ills of agriculture in India does
not lie primarily in the matter of enlarging holdings, but in the matter of
increasing capital and capital goods". Thus he was able to visualise a production
function, which had its independent variables mainly money and real capital. His
formulation can be put forth as follows:
Where Ag = f (M. C) Ag Agricultural production, Money Capital, and M C pane capital

goods necessary for the agricultural output.
This idea makes it clear that Ambedkar, was keen on viewing agriculture as an
industry. Hence, if agricultural output has to be stepped up, the land reforms
should come about in such a manner that they resulted in creation of 'economic
holdings', which would eventually result in higher agricultural output. Departing
from the conventional definition of 'economic holdings' Ambedkar pointed out that
"any defination (of an economic holding), therefore, that leans on consumption
mistakes nature an economic holding which is essentially an enterprise in
production. What is important for the purpose of production is the process of
combining the factors of production". In order to practice scientific agriculture,
economic holdings are inevitable. The land should not be subdivided after a
particular point. To overcome the problem of the subdivision he propagated a novel
idea that after the adoption of the one-man rule of succession, a survey number
should be given to cover a piece of land which would be of the size fixed for an
ideal economic holding. A piece of land with a separate and distinct survey number
should not be below the economic unit.
Ambedkar practically argued that the large agricultural population complicated the
solution to land holdings problem in India. In his opinion. the universal existence
of the small farms was due to this enormous pressure on land. He pointed out that
"it is the failure to grasp the working of this pressure on land that makes the law
of inheritance such a great grievance". He was aware of the fact that land reform
was an intensely political matter, which involved substantial conflicts of
interest. He was of the opinion that the remedy for preventing subdivision and
fragmentation was consolidation of holdings, but under the existing social economy,
it was not possible. In his view, such a measure was only a legal eye-wash.
Ambedkar propagated the idea that the urgent problem of landless labourers could be
solved by taking over the uncultivated lands for cultivation
149
Land Reforms And Industrialisation
150
and giving them to landless labourers. He emphasised that the consolidation of

holdings and the tenancy legislations cannot help untouchables who are landless
labourers. He advocated collective farms, as they could help them to some extent.
He expressed, "I too agree, that after abolishing landlordism, the state must be
the owner of the land and not the proprietor or the peasant. The natural
consequence of the abolition of landlordism must be collective farming or co-
operative farming, though useful and improving in production, is regarded by the
peasant as an aggression on our system. This is due to individualist tendencies of
our farmers. Though we abolished landlordism we would not be able to build our
economy on sound basis by such methods. The whole outlook of our peasant must be
changed. Then and then only we would be able reap the fruits of our revolutionary
attempt to throw off the yoke of landlords".7
Looked at from the present day point of view, Ambedkar seems to be right in his
expression on land reforms. Though it has been the declared policy of the
Government of India that "Land reforms should be recognised to constitute a vital
element both in terms of the antipoverty strategy and for modernisation and
increased productivity in agriculture", very little achievement has been made in
this regard. The seventh plan document accepts that "The full potential of covering
the entire surplus that may be available and taking possession of and distribution
of that already identified, legal and administrative bottlenecks have led to large
gaps between declaration of surplus land, taking actual possession of the land and
its distribution. Appropriate measures have to be taken to reduce the gap".9
Hence, Ambedkar's vision that land reform is only a legal eyewash and it is also
not a solution to the landless agricultural labourers has by and large been true
even today. His concept of 'economic holding' needs to be given a trial.
Contemporary economic thinking is, however, more surprisingly with regard to the
need for land reform, is related to agricultural production. Many studies have now
revealed that the reform on output is clear. Studies by Gerovitz¹0 Bhagwati and
Chakravarthy¹¹, Berry and Cline¹2 and Bhalla¹3 establish this point clearly. There
is no clear-cut evidence to show that productivity will be higher in consolidated
holdings compared to small holdings. The situation where individual rights are
vested in the community is also interesting. In a pure collective type of
agriculture; all members have equal claims on the net revenue of the enterprise,
which generates two potentially severe problems. First, sheer nurabers blunt
individual incentives.
Studies in Ambedkar
Second, since only members can exercise such claims, there are strong disincentives
to expanding employment in the enterprise. For if output is to be expanded, the
existing members will vote for capital intensive methods. Hence collective farm
experiences do not go in favour of creating employment opportunities to rural poor.
It should be noted that in a country like India, even a radical redistributive

reform of individual rights and a permissive attitude toward tenancy will not
ensure that all rural families will have viable holdings. Ambedkar was very well
aware of this fact and truth that many of the rural families will have to depend on
wage employment for the their livelihood. Another contemporary development
regarding the population pressure and land reforms is worth noting. The argument
that population pressure on the land will restore land reform to its former pre-
eminence in debates about policy is now open to dispute. Population growth may, in
fact, be fully offset by technical progress in agriculture. This fact is supported
by the fact that population has been swarming for at least 40 years and yet the
agrarain structures and economies of most countries have managed to accommodate the
pressure thus generated.
Industrialisation
Ambedkar preferred fast industrialisation in India for many reasons. He maintained

that " Industrialisation facilitates consolidation. It lessens the premium of land.
It must precede consolidation. It is a barrier against future subdivision and
consolidation". 14 He was of the opinion that industrialisation in India was an
absolute necessity. Capital formation through industrialisation, to him, was
important as it could utilise the surplus labour of the country-side for productive
purpose. In essence, Ambedkar had visualised what we now refer to as the forward
and backward linkages of industrialisation. ¹5 15
Ambedkar was aware that surplus agricultural labour had to be accommodated in

industries if we want to solve the problems of unemployment. As such, he insisted
on capital intensive agriculture as well as industry. In this regard he was totally
opposed to Gandhian views. Gandhi held that it was only the labour intensive method
of production that could solve the problem of rural unemployment in India. The
production function and growth curves of Ambedkar and Gandhi can be formulated as
follows:
Ambedkar's Production Function P = f (La, L, M, M)
151
Studies in Ambedkar 154
characterised by mass poverty. He was able to grasp the nature of the production
function of agriculture, the political economy of land reforms, the importance of
industrialisation, the backward and forward linkage kage effects of
industrialisation. He emerges as a 'structuralist' who was concerned with the
persistence of archaic rural institutions. He was able to recognise the demand for
and supply of institutional change demand coming from demographic and technological
changes which generate pressure for the institutional change, supply from political
enterpreneurs who try to resolve the collective action
problem.
References
See B.R. Ambedkar, Provincial Finance in British India (London. P.S. King and Sons
Ltd., 1925).
Vide B.R. Ambedkar, Problem Of The Rupee Its Origin And Its
Solution, (London, P.S. King and Sons Ltd., 1923).
2.
See B. R. Ambedkar, " Small Holdings In India And Their Remedies", Journal Of
Indian Economic Society, 1918.
3.
4.
p.13.
Ibid., p.21.
5.
Ibid., p.24.
6.
Karnik, Kirloskar Magazine.
Government of India, Planning Commission, Seventh Five Year Plan 1985-1990, Vol.II,
p.62.
7.
8.
Ibid., p.63.
9.
Gersovik Mark, "Land Reform: Some Theoretical Considerations", Journal of

Development Studies, 13 October, 1976, pp. 1979-82. 11. Jagdish N. Bhagwati and
Sukhamoy Chakravarthy, "Contribution To
10.
Indian Economic Analysis: A Survey, American Economic Review, Vol.59, September,

July, 1969, pp.1-73.
12. See Berry R. Albert and William R. Cline, "Agrarian Structure And Productivity
In Developing Countries", (New York, John Hopkins University Press, 1979).
13. Surjit S. Bhalla, "Does Land Quality Matter? Theory and Measurement
14. Journal Of Development Economics, 29 July, 1988, pp. 45-62. B.R. Ambedkar,
"Small Holdings In India And Their Remedies". op., cit.. p. 28.
15. See Albert Hirschman's article on "A General Linkage Approach To Development
with Special Reference To Surplus In Agriculture", in Manning Nasu (ed.,) ,Essays
On Economic Development And Culture Change, (1977).
16. H. Pack, "The Substitution Of Labour For Capital" in Kenya Manufacturing.

Economic Journal, March, 1976.
18. 17. Y. Rhee and L. Westphal, "A Micro-Economic Investigation Of Choice Of

Technology", Journal Of Development Economics. September, 1977G. Ranis, "Industrial
Technology Choice And Employment: A Review Of Country Evidence", Intersciencia,
1977.
. Developing
19. L.J. White, Evidence On Appropriate Factor Proportions For
DHARWAD.
SIXTEEN
AMBEDKAR'S PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION
D. R. Jatawa*
This article presents Ambedkar's philosophy of religion, who himself was a

philosopher to examine the basic tenets of world religions like Hinduism, Islam,
Christianity, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism, from the viewpoint of the prevailing
social situation in India. For he saw religion not as a means to spiritual
salvation of individual souls, but as a 'social doctrine' for establishing the
righteous relations between man and man. Ambedkar's philosophy of religion does not
mean either theology or religion. Theology studies the nature, attributes and
functions of God; whereas religion deals with things divine. Theology and religion
may be linked together; but they are not philosophies. When we talk of philosophy
of religion, it is taken critical estimate of the existing religions in general,
and in particular, to evaluate the teachings and doctrines of each religion,
whether it be Hinduism, Islam or Christianity, in relation to man and society,
because, as I think, a religion, ignoring the empirical needs of either man or of
society, does not come upto the expectations of an intellectual like Ambedkar. as a
Before I venture to come to the main subject, I would like to bring to your notice
the fundamental differences between philosophy, religion, theology and philosophy
of religion. The elucidation of these terms, I hope, would help you to understand
Ambedkar's philosophy of religion. You may believe it or not, the text of this
article, I wonder, would make you plunge in some sort of amazement to the extent to
which you would not have thought
Library
Shri D. R. Jatawa, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.
of it.
Studies in Ambedkar
Let me now proceed to analyse :
What is Philosophy?
Philosophy has been explained in various ways, however, it is difficult to define

it. At the most, it may be described as the 'synoptic view of things' as Plato saw
it long ago. It is an attempt "to see things together to keep all the main features
of the world in view, and to grasp them in their relation to one another as parts
of one whole", wrote Prof. Pringle Pattison¹. Philosophy explains "the nature of
the universe and man's positions and prospects in it". For Karl Marx, the main
object of Philosophy is not only to explain the nature of the world, but also to
change it", and to Ambedkar, "Philosophy is nothing but a standard to measure the
conduct of man"2. He also took Philosophy as 'human experience', which studies and
explains the world-process and the world-ground with regard to man, and thus, he
agreed with Prof. Pringle Pattison when he said that "philosophy is an analysis and
interpretation of the experience in question in its bearing upon our view of man
and the world in which he lives". In a nutshell, philosophy is an evaluation of
human conduct and experience so as to make man's life worth-living in the spheres
of empirical nature. -
What is religion?
Religion, too, has been explained in various ways; and like philosophy, it is
difficult to define Religion. However, it may be described as "man's faith in a
power beyond himself", or "a belief in an Everlasting God", who manages the affairs
in the world, and gives reward or punishment to beings according to their acts
(Karmas). It is also said to be "a fantastic reflection in people's minds of
external forces dominating over them in every day life, a reflection in which
earthly forces assume non-earthly forms. Ambedkar took "Religion to mean the
propounding of an ideal scheme of divine governance the aim and object of which is
to make the social order in which men live a moral order". Prof. Bettany has
defined "Religion broadly as man's attitude produce on his conduct or on his
relations to fellow-men". In brief, religion, as assumed to be emanated from
`divine authority', has become a social force embedded in institutions of worship,
prayers, rituals and ceremonies of sacred and infallible nature.
193
Ambedkar's philosophy of religion
What is Theology?
Theology is not religion as such; but a subject which signifies "a discourse or
doctrine concerning divine things". "It is now generally understood to mean the
system of doctrines which concern the person, attributes and works of God". It is,
however, related to religion as Ambedkar saw it. Although there are different kinds
of Theology such as mythical theology, civil theology, natural theology, revealed
theology; yet in Ambedkar's view, Theology stands for three fundamental ideas,
namely: L
(i) "The existence of God;
(ii) God's providential government of the
universe; and
(iii) God's moral government of mankind".
What is philosophy of religion?
First of all, it may be asserted that philosophy of religion is neither philosophy

nor is it religion or theology. The philosophy of religion is something different
from them. It involves the language which is related to religious discussion,
religious thinking, which may also be anti-religion. Philosophy of religion is not
a religious experience, nor is it connected with any faith, worship and ritualism.
It is an examination of what religion or theology stands for like the belief in the
existence of God, life beyond the empirical world, rituals and ceremonies emerged
in the long process of social development, divine authority over moral standards,
infallibility of sacred book, immortality of soul and its transmigration.
Philosophy of religion is not an appendage to any religion. It is an evaluation of
religious life of a particular community in view of the existing conditions of man
and society. Philosophy of religion, in fact, involves a 'critical reason' with
regard to the pre-suppositions, ideals and practices, rituals and behaviour-
patterns of the existing religions. While evaluating them, it sees human interest
at large. The main subject of philosophy of religion is an examination of the
relevance of a particular religions's social and moral norms.
Here it may be emphasized that Ambedkar took the word 'philosophy' in its two-fold
original sense, that is, (i) "It meant teachings as it did when people spoke of the
philosophy of Socrates or the philosophy of Plato", and (ii) "In another sense it
meant critical reason used in passing judgments upon things and events". On this
basis, he said, "philosophy of Religion is to me not merely a descriptive science.
I regard it as being both descriptive as well as
194
Studies in Ambedkar
normative. In so far as it deals with the teachings of a Religions, philosophy of

Religion becomes a descriptive science. In so far as it involves the use of
critical reason for passing judgments on those teachings, the philosophy of
Religion becomes a normative science"
According to Ambedkar, a study of the philosophy of religion involves the

determination of three dimensions, the first being religion to mean theology, both
of which deal with the highest meta-physical abstractions and divine revelations.
The second dimension of the philosophy of religion is to know the ideal scheme for
which a religion stands and justifies it. The third dimension of the philosophy of
religion is to adopt the criterion for judging the value of the ideal scheme of
divine governance. From time to time, a religion must be
put on its trial. "By what criterion shall it be judged ?" asked Ambedkar. The
criterion, for him, was some sort of revolution which took place in the field of
science, philosophy and religion. In fact, a revolution could change the authority
and contents of a religion. The revolutions of scientific nature during the Middle
Ages diminished the divinity of religion and the authority of church. There was a
time when religion had covered almost the entire field of knowledge such as
Biology, Psychology, Geology and Medicine. Religion claimed infallibility over
whatever it taught. But bit by bit, the vast empire of religion was destroyed
because of religious revolution that had taken place in the history of some
religions. For examples, the Copernican Revolution freed Astronomy from the
domination of religions and the Darwinian Revolution freed Biology and Geology from
the trammels of religion. A religious revolution at times becomes a great blessing,
for it establishes 'freedom of thought', and it enables society to assume control
of itself dispelling most of the fears and superstitions that people used to face
earlier. From among the revolutions of various kinds, Ambedkar considered
'Religious Revolution' to be the most significant and immense one, because "that
Revolution touches the nature and content of ruling conceptions of the relations of
God to man, of Society to man and of man to man that it has brought about a
complete transformation in the nature of Religions as it is taken to be by savage
society and by civilized society although very few seem to be aware of it". In
other words, the religious revolution results in far-reaching changes, because it
is always a Revolution in the norms of the socio-moral life of the people as
Ambedkar considered it to be.
Now let us come exactly to the main subject, namely: what does Ambedkar's
philosophy of religion encompass in its study and how does it examine all that
through the means of 'critical reason'?
195
Ambedkar's philosophy of religion
Ambedkar's philosophy of religion, in may opinion, encompasses and examines the

following ideas :
(i) That all religions are true and equally good;
(ii) That God is an essential element of a religion;
(iii) That religion must necessarily nourish a scheme of divine governance, an

ideal for society to follow;
(iv) That infallibility of religious books as divine authority must be maintained;
(v) That the sole aim of an individual's life is the salvation of soul (Moksha);
(vi) That the relation of morality to God and religion is necessary; (vii) That the
tests of justice and social utility to judge the
relevance of a religion must be applied; and
(viii) That whether or not a religion should be based on rules or principles.
Now to begin with an exposition of the above points in the light of Ambedkar's
philosophy of
religion: 1. The idea that all religions are true and equally good and there was an
essential unity among them, was expounded by orthodox philosophers like Dr. Bhagwan
Dass, an author of the Essential Unity of All Religions. But to Ambedkar, it was
positively and demonstratively a wrong belief. The study of comparative religions
had broken the claim and arrogance of revealed religions as being the only true and
good religions. He observed, "While it is true that comparative religion has
abrogated the capricious distinction between true and false religions based on
purely arbitrary and a prior considerations, it has brought in its wake some false
notions about religion. The harmful one, is the one I have mentioned, namely, that
all religions are equally good and that there is no necessity of discriminating
between them. Nothing can be a greater error than this Religion is an institution
or an influence like all social influences and institutions it may help or it may
harm a society which is in its grip" This view may well be supported by the results
each religion has produced in its social and national life. A religion can form or
disrupt nations, create inhuman institutions and barbarous customs, cause wars,
persecutions, rebellions and revolutions; but it can also bring freedom, peace and
happiness to millions of people. A religion may be foe to progress, science and
art; but also a friend to innovation and good civilization or cultural heritage.
All this can be testified after reading the histories of world religions like
Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity as to what extent they have done good or
196

Ambedkar and Gandhi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ambedkar and Gandhi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ambedkar and Gandhi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Socio-Economic Thoughts of B.R. Ambedkar

tribution, semi-feudal production relations, constraints of extension of green

Socio-Economic Thoughts of B.R. Ambedkar

As a social reformer, Ambedkar always advocated against gender discrimination,

23 Ambedkar on Hinduism and Social Transformation

Ambedkar, drawn from-the untouchable community of Maharashtra, climbed up from the

Bhima Sen Hantal

He was a true nationalist and freedom fighter. His thesis, to be submitted to

As the Marxis theory on social transformation is based on the economic structure of

Ambedkar on Hinduism and Social Transformation

“(b) X (129) No collection of wealth must be made by a Shudra even though he be

According to Ambedkar, in Hinduism inequality is a religious doctrine adopted and

"(a) X (123): The service of the Brahmina alone is declared to be

294 Bhima Sen Hantal

With regard to punishment of offences as laid down by Manu, the gross

Ambedkar on Hinduism and Social Transformation

Ambedkar's research on the philosophy of Hinduism goes to the extent of proving

2. "Even if it may be easier to follow the occupation of another varna yet to

Bhima Sen Hantal

According to Ambedkar's observation, though Shudras were treated as inferior

Ambedkar on Hinduism and Social Transformation

Bhima Sen Hantal

To perpetuate the degradation, various mythologies/purans were created and time to

1. The Shudras were Aryans.

2. The Shudras belonged to the Kshatriya class.

The important statements contained in this passage are

Ambedkar on Hinduism and Social Transformation

Bhima Sen Hantal

declaring the Shudra to be eligible for Upanayana.

Ambedkar on Hinduism and Social Transformation

ishad is an assembly for which a Brahmin alone is eligible to be a member.

Caste system is not merely division of labour. It is also a division of labourers.

Bhima Sen Hantal

Ambedkar on Hinduism and Social Transformation

Bhima Sen Hantal

The official is anti-untouchables and pro-Hindu. Whenever he has any authority or

Ambedkar on Hinduism and Social Transformation

Bhima Sen Hantal

of the so-called untouchables.

There is no mention of inter-marriage or inter-dining. It accepts the principle of

Ambedkar on Hinduism and Social Transformation

Gandhi replied to Raja on 14th September, 1938, as follows:33

I wish you would trust C. Rajagopalachary to do his best. He should be allowed to

Bhima Sen Hantal

I am not partial to Rajaji (Rajagopalachary) But I know that he is as firm on

Ambedkar on Hinduism and Social Transformation

Bhima Sen Hantal

Where society is already well-knit by other ties, marriage is an ordinary incident

Gandhian State-Economic Order

GANDHIAN STATE-ECONOMIC ORDER

exclusive emphasis on pleasures and possessions......makes the very idea of a

3. Equal opportunities without any discrimination of status, profession, caste,

GANDHIAN STATE-ECONOMIC ORDER

GANDHIAN STATE-ECONOMIC ORDER

2967 An inevitable outcome of the above set up shall be a highly decentralised

Gandhi's opposition to industrialisation was due to his predominently spiritual

GANDHIAN STATE-ECONOMIC ORDER