Gandhian Economy
If there is anything that
characterizes Gandhiji's life, it is his devotion to Truth and Non-violence.
Any economy that is associated with his name should, therefore, answer to these
fundamental principles. At the present time, the world is steeped in violence
and false propaganda, and it is Gandhiji alone who stands beckoning the world,
to these eternal principles and to the economy based on them which will be
permanent and will lead to the peace and happiness of mankind.
The Natural Economy
The natural economy calls for the
satisfaction of the demands made by the primary needs of our body and by the
requirements to keep it in good working condition. As long as we satisfy our
needs in this way without infringing on the rights of others, there is no
occasion for violence.
The Artificial Economy
The ordinarily understood
economic organization of the West believes in a multiplicity of wants. It
creates the supply, and then creates a demand for it, and thus strives to
dispose of its production. It therefore means cultivating a great many
artificial desires. Such an economic organization produces goods without
reference to the demand. A shoe factory, for instance, will work to its full
capacity irrespective of the market it is intended for as it is working in
competition with other similar units, and when it has produced its full quota
of goods, then it seeks to dispose of these goods elsewhere. Italy may be
producing, we may say for the sake of illustration, a million pairs of shoes
and if these cannot be disposed of within the country itself, then she has got
to find markets outside. She sees in Abyssinia, where people go bare-footed, an
opportunity to "civilize" them and fit them with up-to-date shoes,
and thus create a market for their own goods. To control other people's lives
in this manner, it requires political power; and to obtain such power, it is
necessary to resort to violence.
In the same manner, Japan when
she industrialized herself in the beginning of this century began to push her
goods in various countries. But she found as days went on that it was not
possible to control her markets satisfactorily without direct political power.
That then is the reason for Japan desiring to control China. When we buy
foreign goods - especially goods other than luxuries - it will call for
violence at one stage or another. Japan also came to India and sold her flimsy
articles at cheap prices and captured a big section of her market. Now, after
nearly half a century, Japan feels the necessity of having direct control over
all her markets.
Foreign Domination
Thus, buying of foreign goods is
a definite invitation to or a bait for foreigners to occupy our country.
Therefore we, who want to be left alone, should reduce the demand for foreign
articles. We cannot, on the one hand, extend an invitation to these countries
to come to us by demanding their goods, and on the other hand, try to drive
them out with machine guns and atom bombs. Where the carcass is, there will the
vultures be also. The best way to get rid of the vultures is to bury the
carcass, and this carcass is our foreign trade in necessities. Such foreign
trade as we might have should always be in surpluses. When foreign trade is
restricted to the surplus, it need not lead ultimately to violence, because
both the parties to the transactions are exchanging goods which they do not
need for themselves; and this exchange leads to mutual profit; and where there
is complete satisfaction on both sides there is no occasion for violence.
Untruth in Business
This creation of a demand to take
up the existing supply is generally done by intensive propaganda in the form of
advertisement advocating the use of such stock. Therefore, such advertisements
often infringe the borders of Truth and lead to false advertisements and
over-statements and propaganda being based on falsehoods is objectionable.
Development of Personality
Our life does not consist in the
multitude of things we possess. Our life is something higher than material
possessions, and our life is also to be looked at from the possibilities of
development of our personality. The personality of an individual does not
require for its development the satisfaction of a multiplicity of wants. In
fact, the simpler the life the more conducive it is for exercising the higher
faculties. The phrase "to plan for the future of our country"
commonly used by people to denote the betterment of the life of the people, is
often misleading. They also talk, constantly, of "raising the standard of
living". In a country like ours, where people live on the margin of
subsistence, any such raising of the standard of living must refer to the
satisfaction of the primary needs, and not the acquisition of new habits. The
term "high standard of living" is often made use of to connote a life
led with a desire to satisfy multiplicity of wants, and it has no reference to
the qualitative condition of life. It refers to the quantitative aspect of
one's existence. Therefore, the more accurate way of describing this position
would be to talk of a "complex life" and a "simple life"
rather than a "high" and a "low" standard. Simply because a
British Tommy requires a hundred and one things for his apparel, food, drinks,
smokes, etc., it does not mean his standard of living is "high" as
compared to the life of say a person like Gandhiji. We may say that Gandhiji is
a "high" standard of living while referring to the quality of life he
leads and a "simple" life referring to his material wants; while that
of a British Tommy would be a "low" standard of life qualitatively
and a "complex" standard quantitatively. Hence, what we want to give
our people is a high standard of life which will be simple. A great many
possessions of material wealth will choke human life with the cares and worries
attached to them. With such possessions and encumbrances, man is not free to
think his higher thoughts and to develop freely, and hence a complex standard
is like shackles to a man. It cramps his higher self from free development.
The Purpose
What the Gandhian Economy aims at
is to furnish all our people with their full requirement of food, clothing,
hygiene, etc. These are our primary needs and it is not beyond our capacity to
meet them if we will only concentrate our efforts in this direction. Over and
above these, if we aspire for luxuries and indulgences, man's life becomes
wasted in the effort to acquire such things. Therefore, if any planning is to
be done for our country, it should be with definite reference to an emphasis on
our subsistence, such as food grains, vegetables, fruits, growing of cotton,
and obtaining building materials for simple dwellings.
Distribution of Wealth
This must be done in a form in
which it will distribute wealth, and will work in a satisfactory manner. Our
problem is to give employment to 400 millions of people in such a way that
everyone would get his own primary needs satisfied. That means, our method of
work has to be such which will distribute wealth in the process of producing
wealth. Distribution and production if they do not go together or take place
simultaneously, often lead to accumulation of wealth on the one side, and
poverty and misery on the other.
The Method
In our country there is a dearth
of capital; while there is an inexhaustible source of human labour. Material
wealth can be produced in two ways: One is by using capital instruments of
production with very little labour, and the other is a minimum of capital
instruments with the maximum labour. In the conditions that prevail in our
country, therefore, the latter method is more suitable. People have not the
capital to obtain instruments of production standardized and centralized industries.
But we have unlimited labour power waiting to be used. In America and England,
the methods of production that they have evolved, have a direct reference to
the means of production that were available to them. There the labour force was
meager, while capital was in plenty; while the opposite is true of our country
at present. Hence to apply the methods that will fit into the set of conditions
which obtained in the West to our country now, where another set of conditions
prevails, would be a folly.
Real Values
The wealth of our country cannot
be measured by the number of millionaires the country possesses. The country's
well being is dependent on the happiness of the largest number of people, which
means on the capacity of the largest number to satisfy their needs. In our
country, therefore, it is not the accumulation of wealth, but the distribution
of wealth as evenly as possible, that is to be desired. Even without any
production it is possible to increase wealth by merely adjusting the distribution
of wealth. For instance, a rupee in the hands of a labourer may represent the
means of satisfying his hunger and the wants of his family for a whole day;
while the same amount in the hands of a rich man may represent the cost of a
chhota-peg, a cigar or just a tip to a taxi-driver. Therefore, when we take a
rupee from a poor man and pass it on to a rich man, we are reducing the human
value of satisfaction that amount can give; whilst the reverse process where
the value of a cigar is made to satisfy the hunger of a family for a whole day
increases its human value. The satisfaction of human wants in this case has
increased the value of the rupee. In the same manner, even our governmental
expenses should be so planned that the taxes that are collected from the poor
people should not be used to benefit the rich; but the wealth should flow from
the rich to the poor. This, in itself, will enrich the national wealth of the
country even though there may be no extra production.
Trade Cycles
When we take to centralized
methods of production, we have to sink a great deal of capital in the
instruments of production. This capital represents wealth restrained from
freely circulating in the country. Just as we put a dam across a river to
accumulate water in a reservoir, in the same way the current of wealth has to
be restricted so that it may accumulate capital. In so far as capital is a
result of restricted distribution, it is an evil in itself. Periodically we
have economic depressions and booms. These are caused largely because of such
restrictions in distribution. A mill-owner who produces Rs. 10,000 worth of
goods would pay in the form of wages and salaries about Rs. 3,000. That is, in
other words, he puts into circulation Rs. 3000 while the stock of goods
available in the market is increased by Rs. 10,000 worth. Naturally, therefore,
there is not sufficient purchasing power to enable the public to take up all
the production. When this state of affairs becomes common, it leaves a residue
of production from every mill which does not get into the hands of the
consumers. When such unsold goods accumulate, we have a period of depression
and to liquidate this depression it becomes necessary to have a war.
War as an Economic Factor
These periodical business cycles
are relieved from time to time by wars between nations. Wars, therefore, have
become a part and parcel of the Western economic organization based on
centralized production. A producer should aim at setting in circulation as
large a purchasing power as is required to absorb his production, if he desires
his goods to be taken up by the consumers. This can only be done when
production is mainly based on the cost of materials and the wages. But when a
large proportion of the cost of production goes into interest on capital and
replacement of heavy instruments of production, immediately it restricts the
distribution of wealth. This is one of the main causes of the periodical
upheavals in the form of global wars that we are becoming accustomed to.
From what has been said hitherto,
it would be clear that, in our country at least, the methods of production
ordinarily used in centralized industries and highly specialized instruments of
production, will be out of place, and id resorted to, will lead to unrest and
dissatisfaction. Hence, if we aim at obtaining peace and prosperity for the
masses, we should eschew the use of such methods of production.
False Claims
It is wrong to argue that
centralized industries are m ore likely to utilize our resources to the best
advantage. Take, for instance, a centralized paper-making mill which uses
bamboo pulp as raw material. To feed such a mill, you will have t get a forest
of tender bamboos which can be cut down and brought to the mill regularly, to
supply raw materials. We have to have this growth of bamboos regulated
according to the needs of the mill. On the other hand, if paper is made by
cottage process, the bamboo from the forest is not used directly as raw
material. First of all, the bamboos may be used for making mats, baskets, roofing
materials, etc. These will serve their purpose for some years during which time
they will get rotten and when they become useless, this material will be
reduced to pulp and made into paper. Which then is the more economic use of raw
materials - the bamboo which is fed directly to the mill or by a process by
which the bamboo serves to satisfy several other wants before it is reduced to
pulp?
As regards to cheapness of
production often attributed to large-scale industries, there is not much basis
for such an argument. The cheapness is largely due to the legitimate expenses
that should be borne by the mill-owners, being borne from other funds. It is on
the same basis as the selling of stolen goods. A man who steals a gold watch
worth Rs. 100 can sell it for Rs. 15 and yet make a profit of Rs. 15 on it;
because he himself has not borne the cost of the watch. But a goldsmith who
buys the gold and makes a necklace or some such ornaments out of it will have
comparatively very little profit. That does not argue that stealing is a better
method of acquiring wealth. Cotton that is grown in the backyard of a cottage
by a half-starved old woman and woven into cloth by a village weaver may be
worth a rupee per yard, while the mill-cloth from Manchester Mills may sell at
6 annas per yard. The owner of the mill may be leading a life of luxury in
England. It naturally seems to be contradictory to commonsense that the cloth
produced by our poor people out of their meager resources should be more
expensive than the cloth produced by the mill-owner. Therefore, it puts us on
our enquiry as to why the mill-cloth is cheap. Cotton that is needed for the
mills is long-staple cotton. This long-staple cotton has been produced in India
with great research and expenditure of money for this research, and such cost
has not been borne by the mill-owner. They have been paid out of the taxes to
maintain the so-called Agricultural Colleges. The cotton is transshipped by
railways to the ports. These railways and ports have also been built at public
cost. The actual freight that is charged does not compensate for the
construction and maintenance of these means of transport. The freight rates
themselves are fixed by the Government, not on a cost basis, but to make it
cheaper to send out raw materials and to bring in manufactured goods from
abroad. That being so, here also the cost of the Manchester Mill has been made
less at the cost of the public expenditures. Towards all these, the mill-owner
pays nothing comparatively. Then, is it a wonder that his cost is low? If he is
made to pay the full cost that is incidental to the supply of his raw
materials, it would not be possible for him to sell his cloth at all. From this
point of view, Khadi can be said to be an honest product as it bears all its own
expenditure, while in the case of mill-cloth only a part of its cost is
represented in the price. Therefore, when we buy mill-cloth, we pay only a part
of the cost, the balance is made up by expenditure out of public funds. Hence
its apparent cheapness.
Social Inequalities
The poor people use little or
nothing of this fine mill-cloth, while the expenditure for producing this has
been partly paid out of the taxes paid by them. Comparatively, the richer man
uses more cloth than the poor. Hence, their benefits from the public
expenditure are much greater. As we have pointed out earlier, this mode of
expenditure which enriches the rich man at the cost of the general public,
which is the poorer section, leads to the lessening of national wealth; hence
the mill production of cloth harms the economy of the country. It makes the
rich richer and the poor poorer.
Imperialism
Apart from this cost of
production, a centralized industry has to draw its raw materials from the four
corners of the world. That means a centralized industry should be able to
control politically those places from where it gets its raw materials. That again
leads us to the use of violence, to subject a simple people to political
domination and make them merely raw material producers, securing to the more
violent nations the right and privilege of manufacturing the finished goods.
This is the basis of all imperialism. If we feel that this form of political
organization does not lead eventually towards a betterment of the masses of the
people, then it becomes necessary for us to oppose these methods of production
even from the point of view of equity. In India when we buy cheap foreign goods
the lower price that we pay is in a measure made up by the loss of our
independence. So that when we say a thing is cheap, it means we pay less for it
in cash and make up the balance by our political bondage. Is this not too big a
price to pay for what may be considered a transient and a passing advantage, if
advantage it be?
The Duty of Buyers
If our better sense dictates to
us that these methods are ruinous from the point of view of the welfare of the
people, then what is the curse that we should adopt? Every one of us who buys
or has a means of buying a certain article, has the power also to direct it s
production in a particular channel. When we buy a Japanese article, we are
directing production towards Japan. That is in other words, we are creating
unemployment in India, and additional employment in Japan. When we consistently
buy foreign articles, we are deliberately impoverising our own people, as we
are driving employment away from the country. Therefore, everyone who buys,
whether it be for one rupee or a thousand rupees, has a moral responsibility to
see that the way he expends money does not impoverish our country, and bring
ruin and desolation to the people.
Our Moral Responsibility
We ourselves become parties to
the methods of production used in producing goods we buy. If a tin of cocoa is
produced from nuts cultivated in West Africa, roasted and tinned in England,
brought to India and sold her; if the cultivation takes place in Africa under
the terms and forms of slavery or indentured labour, and the toasting and
tinning take place I England under sweated labour, and favourable customs and
tariffs are afforded for the sale of this tin of cocoa by the Government of
India, because of the political power they hold here, then when we buy a
simple, harmless looking tin of cocoa, we become parties directly for
supporting the slave labour conditions in Africa, the exploited labour
conditions of England and the political subjection of India, in the same
manner, as if one were to buy an ornament that has been taken from a child
which had been murdered for it, one would become guilty or a party to that
murder. No one of us would want to buy such an article, however cheap it may be
offered. Our moral vision is wide awake enough to recognize this. But when it
comes to buying our everyday requirements, we often say: "How can I be a
party to things done in other countries?" We cannot in this way repudiate
our responsibilities and get clear of it morally.
Self-sufficiency
The only way to clear oneself is
not to buy goods, the conditions of production of which one is not aware. That
is, we have to limit our circle from which we draw our requirements. If instead
of buying cocoa, we find a neighbour who has a good cow which he looks after
will, then buying the milk from such a neighbour will not make us parties to
grave moral responsibilities. This argument or outlook is the basis for the
advocacy of self-sufficiency under the Gandhian method of life. If we produce
everything we want from within a limited area, we are in a position to
supervise the methods of production; while if we draw our requirements, from
the ends of the earth, it becomes impossible for us to guarantee the conditions
of production in such places.
Need for Self-control and
Discipline
These various considerations
drive us to the conclusion that we have to restrict our consumption of goods
produced locally, and by methods in which labour forms the major part. It may,
therefore, mean that we cannot indulge our desires freely. It brings into
effect a considerable amount of restraint on our pursuit of happiness. We have
to develop self-control, and our discipline has to be formed within, if our
organization is to be one based on non-violence and truth. This is comparatively
a harder life to lead, a life in which values are not directed towards the
satisfaction of our own desires but by a consideration of benefits to and
welfare of others. It calls for a farsightedness and a standard of values in
which the price of mechanism will not be the final deciding factor. There are
values other than those indicated by prices. The large scale industries which
have to find markets for their goods in remote parts of the world depend purely
on money values. The one thing that would be necessary in an organization based
on non-violence and truth would be the standard of values based on moral
considerations rather than self-indulgence. All this will point towards the
development of character of the individual. Unless an individual is highly
trained and disciplined, he will find it irksome to live within such an
economy. No life of indulgence can ever lead to progress and further
development of the individual. Every man under training must be under
restraint, if he has to develop in a line laid out for him. The modern methods
of production and distribution have made indulgence their goal. This has
naturally deteriorated the moral qualities of our people. It is necessary for
us, therefore, to re-educate the people in a standard of values which will have
a bearing on human life as a whole, and not merely on economic production and
self-discipline and self-control. Everyone of us who desires to bring such
economy into existence has to plan our lives so that we do not live ourselves,
but be conscious of the fact that every act of ours affects our fellow beings
one way or the other.
The Daily Drill
As a measure of developing this
discipline, Gandhiji has introduced one technique, and that is Daily Spinning.
Just as an army has to be disciplined by daily marching orders, drilling and
maneuvering in the fields, in the same manner our non-violent army of consumers
will have to control ourselves through this daily spinning hour. People may ask
if they may not take to something else. Where a national programme is
concerned, there is need for uniformity, and by conforming to that uniformity
also we are under discipline; and such discipline helps in the building up of
character. They very foundation of a national economy based on Non-violence and
Truth is character, and character cannot be formed overnight. If cannot be
subject to foreign domination. It is in this connection that Gandhiji says:
"Spin and you will get Swaraj." Spinning requires discipline, and a
disciplined nation will be able to resist intrusion into its life by
foreigners.
Foreign Trade
Often people wonder if it is
possible at this stage to keep off the foreigner by non-violent means. We have
already seen the foreigner is coming into our land not by himself. He comes at
our invitation, and with our co-operation. We extend our invitation when we buy
foreign made goods, and we co-operate with him when our consumption is based on
his production. Therefore, when we keep away from foreign goods, we naturally
give no room or cause for foreigners to come here. This does not mean that
there should be no foreign trade at all; it only means that there should be no
foreign trade in necessities. Foreign trade should be strictly limited to
surplus articles that we do not need, and for obtaining surplus articles from
other countries which they do not need. Such foreign trade based on surpluses
will never lead to international warfare.
The Way
The only way to bring peace and
happiness to mankind, and realizing the Economy that Gandhiji stands for, is to
take up his programme of constructive work. Such an economy cannot be brought
in by force from without. It needs co-operation and our willing submission to
the conditions which will ultimately lead us to realize this Economy.
Therefore, it demands our best, conscientious efforts. We cannot drift into it
by merely floating easily down-stream. We have got to survive for it with all
our strength of will, with a purposeful outlook on life and with a
determination to achieve what we are after. If we do that we shall be
contributing, not only to the welfare of our country, but towards the
brotherhood of mankind as a whole.
--- By. Dr. J. C. Kumarappa