Swarāj Śāstra

Precepts of Self-Rule

[ THE PRINCIPLES OF A NON-VIOLENT POLITICAL ORDER ]

VINOBA

•

Translator: Bharatan Kumarappa
SIXTH edition 1973

Revised by Parag Cholkar

OUTLINE OF CONTENTS

How many and of what kinds are the political theories and forms of political organisation prevailing in the world today?
Examining the prevailing political systems from the practical point of view, which one of these is the better one?
If the prevailing political systems are considered defective, what should be the characteristics of an ideal polity?
Can a polity based on nonviolence endure?
When other nations are protagonists of violence, how can a single nation remain wedded to nonviolence?

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

Few English readers are acquainted with Sri Vinoba Bhave; for though he knows English well, whatever he has written has been in Marathi, his mother tongue. Besides, he is of a retiring disposition which leads him to bury himself in some remote village, trying to put into practice his gospel of non-violence.

He belongs to Konkan in the Bombay Presidency, was brought up in Baroda, and while still in his teens, after two years of college, left in for Benaras in 1916 in quest of religious truth. In Politics he was a revolutionary; but his religious bent made him a revolutionary of the non-violent type. This drew him to Gandhiji in whose Ashram at Sabarmati he remained till 1921, when with a handful of other young men he started a branch of the Sabarmati Ashram at Wardha. During the last few years when not in jail for political reasons, he has been conducting an Ashram of his own a few miles from Wardha and organising village work in the neighbourhood. He was forced into the limelight in 1940 when Gandhiji launched his individual Civil Disobedience Movement and chose him to start it off as the first war-resister. Gandhiji then described him as the ideal Satyagrahi, or one who came nearest to embodying in his own life and thought the ideal of non-violence. The views developed in this booklet may, therefore, be regarded as representing the Gandhian philosophy of non-violence in the realm of political theory.

At a time when nations are excelling each other in violence and hoping thus to establish democracy, the four freedoms, international brotherhood and what not, this little book indicates briefly that the way to peace, brotherhood, true democracy and human happiness lies in an entirely different direction. Its message is one that comes from the heart of ancient India and represents its true genius, viz. the teaching and practice of non-violence. But it is here applied to indicate in the light of a brief review of modern forms of Government, the lines along which political life should be organised if it were truly animated by the spirit of non-violence. This is adumbrated in the third and succeeding chapters which thus form the most important part of the book. The third chapter is also of special interest as laying bare the principles underlying Gandhiji’s Civil Disobedience Movement or non-co-operation and Satyagraha.

The author brings to his task deep learning, a capacity to penetrate to essentials, freshness of thought, minute application to detail whether in theory or in the technique of hand-labour, integrity of character, a disciplined life of service and sacrifice, and a fervent devotion to religion — a combination so rare today and yet so essential if men are to be called away from the certain destruction to which Politics divorced from religion is fast leading them.

This booklet was originally written in Marathi by the author, and translated into Hindi by Dada S. T. Dharmadhikari. In the work of translation from Hindi I have received the help of the latter as well as that of Sri Gopalrao Kale, an intimate friend and colleague of the author. Both of them, as fellow political prisoners with me in Nagpur Jail, helped to check up my English translation from day to day with the Marathi original. I have since been able to have the translation revised and approved by the author himself. In translating into an altogether foreign language like English, it is impossible to give a word for word rendering, without making the sense almost unintelligible. I have therefore tried while closely adhering to the language of the author to translate his ideas rather than his actual words.

1945, – Bharatan Kumarappa

X X X

Since Gandhiji’s death in 1948, Vinoba has come into great prominence, so much so that it seems ridiculous now to ask: Who is Vinoba Bhave? He is becoming a bye-word in India and has come to be known throughout the world. Gandhiji became world-famous chiefly because of his application of non-violence in the political sphere. That task having found fruition in our attainment of political independence, Vinoba is concentrating on Gandhiji’s experiments with non-violence in the economic sphere and is seeking to obtain land for the millions of landless cultivators of India, not by the sword or by compulsion but by an appeal to the reason and conscience of the landowner. His Bhoodan-Yajna (or Land Gifts mission), whereby, since 1951 when he started it, he has been able to secure hundreds of thousands of acres of land for distribution among the landless, reads like an epic. Vinoba’s idea is not thus merely to obtain land for the landless but to re-build the economic life of the village and therefore of the country, in such a way that our people will co-operate with each other as members of a family and make themselves self-dependent in small groups for all their essential requirements. For, this, according to him, is the fundamental economic basis of Swāraj or non-violent self-government. Those who are struck today by the success of Vinoba’s Land Gifts mission will through this book gain some idea of the depth of philosophical thought and insight into non-violence that underlie this epoch-making movement.

26th January, 1955. – Bharatan Kumarappa

PREFACE TO THE NEW EDITION

Swarajya Shastra is Vinoba’s exposition of the science of self-rule. Written in 1940 during a jail term, ‘Swarajya-shastra’, by any standard, should be rated as one of the classics in political science. Kaka Kalelkar, a leading Gandhian, has rightfully opined that this booklet has to be given a place next only to Gandhiji’s ‘Hind-Swaraj’ in Gandhian literature. Kalelkar’s brief write-up on ‘Swarajya-shastra’ is included in this book. Vinoba has said that ‘Swarajya-shastra’ was the grammar of ‘lokniti’.

In his preface to ‘Swarajya-shastra’ Vinoba makes a distinction between rajya (State) and swarajya (self-rule). He lists logically possible forms of polities and points out that the rule of minority, which has been the most predominant kind, can have different forms depending on the domination of physical strength or arms, wealth and knowledge. Those welcoming the domination of knowledge as signified by the triumph of information technology will do well to realize that people remain on the periphery — no matter whether arms, wealth or knowledge occupy the centre-stage.

‘Swarajya-Shastra’ had been translated in English by B. Kumarappa and published by Sarva Seva Sangh Prakashan. While full use of that translation has been made, it has been revised/changed wherever found necessary.

– Parag Cholkar

On ‘Swarajya-Shastra’

This book deserves a place next only to ‘Hind-Swaraj’, Mahatma Gandhi’s pioneering work, in the Gandhian literature. Gandhiji wrote his book during a samudra-yatra (sea voyage); Vinoba wrote his during a jail-yatra (incarceration). Gandhiji wrote his book using both of his hands; Vinoba dictated his book. ‘Hind-Swaraj’ is in the form of questions and answers; Vinoba has finished what he had to say in answers to five questions. Gandhiji’s consecrating work is imbued with faith characteristic of a sage; Vinoba’s tract is in the category of Upanishads; its reasoning is akin to that of the great masters. The experience of life seems to corroborate Gandhiji’s statements; Vinoba’s statements are backed by sound logic. Gandhiji’s writing style is lucid; Vinoba’s style is marked with scientific precision and brevity. Vinoba himself will have to write a commentary on his work. Gandhiji’s life of experiments with Truth spread all over India is itself a great commentary on ‘Hind-Swaraj’.
The first question in this book (‘Swarajya-Shastra’) is of primary nature. The ‘important’ point in the second question (14), appears to have been dealt with inadequately. The discussion brightens up from the third question. The points regarding the varna system have however been put up too briefly. That grand concept of social order in India deserved to be discussed more neatly. In the replies to the fourth and the fifth question, futility of the path of violence has been convincingly impressed upon the readers, but the efficacy of the path of nonviolence has not been similarly driven home. But it is not a shortcoming in the discourse; for all nations in the world are exerting themselves in an extra-ordinary way to demonstrate the self-destroying might of violence, whereas the efficacy of nonviolence to bring about deliverance of the Self and the world is yet to be proved. India’s quest in this regard should contribute in this respect — this is an expectation as well as a prayer.
– Kaka Kalelkar

Preface of the Author to the first Marathi edition

These few notes on the principles of self-rule, which were originally conceived in Nagpur jail, are presented here in a slightly amended form. Had Shri Biyani not respectfully and insistently made me dictate this to him, I must admit that this booklet most probably would not have seen the light of day.

Rule (Rājya) is one thing; Self-rule (Swarājya) is another. Rule can be had through violence. Self-rule is impossible without non-violence. So the wise and the thoughtful do not desire Rule or State power; they yearn for the collective striving for self-rule. Two aphorisms — one negative and the other positive — denote their political pronouncements: ‘Na twaham kamaye rajyam’ (I do not desire to rule) and ‘Yatemahi swarajye’ (Let us strive for self-rule).

Swarājya is a Vedic term. It is defined as the rule by everyone, that is, a rule which everyone considers their own. It is thus the rule by all; or in other words, Ramrājya - the rule of God (or “the Kingdom of God”).

The science of self-rule is ever-growing. While its actual form may vary according to time and place, its fundamental principles are eternal. It is on the basis of those eternal principles that an outline of that science has been drawn here. It can be elaborated as much as we want. Entrusting that task to the future, let us stop here for the present.

2nd February, 1942.
Nalvadi.
– Vinoba

Swarāj Śāstra
The Principles of a Non-violent Political Order

I. How many and of what kinds are the theories and forms of political organisation prevailing in the world today?

(A)

1. Nature of the political problem.

First of all, let us see how many kinds of political theories are logically possible. The existing ones would either be less or the same in number; they cannot be more. However, answer to the question depends on what we mean by political theory. Therefore we must first examine what is meant by political theory.
Had there been only one human being in the world, no political question would have arisen. The only problem before him would have been to see how and to what extent the material world around him could be used for the maintenance of his life. But since human being exists as part of a group, he has to face a social problem as well besides this material one. Besides the problem of controlling the nature, he has to tackle the equally important problem of ordering mutual relationships within the group. What we call political theory has its genesis in this problem.
One question that arises in this regard relates to the distribution of material goods — land and other forms of wealth — created through human activity. The second question is, how should individuals ensure mental equipoise in society while dealing with each other. The first question is usually termed as political while the second one is considered social. But these two cannot always be entirely separated from each other. So, broadly, both of them can be regarded as parts of the political problem. The Political problem can thus be defined as the problem of regulating life within and between human communities.

2. Artificial approaches currently in vogue

(a) Today human society is unnecessarily divided into three classes: the upper, the middle and the lower class; and the political problem is thought to be concerned with how these three classes should order their mutual relations. (b) Again, as far as Hindu society is concerned, it is arbitrarily divided into four castes and the political problem is thought to be concerned with how these castes should order their mutual relations. (c) Similarly, taking into consideration the fact that there is concentration of wealth in the hands of a few in the world while others are deprived of it, two classes, viz the rich and the poor, are imagined and the political problem is thought to be concerned with how these two classes should order their mutual relations.
But all these divisions are artificial, as they are based on imaginary or non-fundamental distinctions. Classifying the people in three categories — upper, middle and lower — is purely arbitrary. Castes too are of our own making. So, any ideology founded on their basis is a product of our imagination; and even where it is not false, it is certainly not fundamental. It is difficult to say that the difference between the rich and the poor is imaginary; still it is certainly not fundamental, as it is the product of particular circumstances. A closer examination reveals that this distinction too is imaginary, as the so-called rich have money but they are poor as regards the capacity for labour, and the so-called poor are rich from the point of view of capacity for labour. Thus the categorisation as rich or poor is also imaginary.
In addition to these three types, divisions are also made on the basis of language and religion and the problem of ordering relations within linguistic or religious groups is considered a political problem. But a little reflection will reveal that these divisions are not fundamental either.

3. Natural meaning of the political problem

How then should we order collective human life in a way that is fundamental and natural?
Individuals naturally differ in intelligence and physical strength. Intelligence and physical strength, both can be denoted by the term ‘capacity’ or ‘capability’. Wealth, command over resources, status — all these arise from capability. So, division of human society into two classes — a small class of those endowed with ability and the other one consisting of the majority not so endowed — can be conceived.
But, to be classes in the true sense, they must be considered organized. Thus, if all those endowed with ability unite into an organization, they can be deemed to form a class; otherwise such a class is imaginary. If the incapable ones become organized, they too become entitled to be termed as a class; but then they no longer remain incapable, as capability arises from numbers also. On the other hand, if they do not organize, their ‘class’ would be fictitious.
In short, there are no natural classes in society; there are individuals with different abilities. Political science is basically and naturally concerned with the way in which these individuals with different capabilities should collectively manage their affairs. This can be conceived to give rise to many non-fundamental and imaginary problems, and they need to be tackled in the course of time.

4. Natural types of polity

So, there would be three natural ways of establishing order in the society: (a) a wise or capable individual may look after the affairs of all, (b) a group of such individuals may look after the affairs of all, and (c) all the people may come together and look after their affairs with equal responsibility. We shall call these three types ekayatan (rule by one), anekayatan (rule by more than one), and sarvayatan (rule by all) respectively.

5. Possible forms of polity

These are the three logical types, but several other sub-types could arise from them on the basis of different conditions — both real and artificial, or arbitrary but worth of consideration. While ekayatan (rule by one) and sarvayatan (rule by all) represent two extremes, and can therefore have only one form, anekayatan (rule by more than one) can have different forms and can be further divided into two sub-types, alpasankhyayatan (rule by minority or “by the few”) and bahusankhyayatan (rule by majority or “by the many”). The Majority of the people — in other words, the masses — are devoted to labour and are not much endowed with wealth, physical strength or learning. The character of the masses is generally the same everywhere and at all times; so rule by the majority too can normally be of one kind only. Rule by a minority, however, can take three forms depending on who dominate — the wealthy or the learned or those with physical power, i.e. arms. Any two of these groups may combine together, one being dominant, forming six forms of the political organization viz (i) rule of the learned and the armed, (ii) rule of the armed and the wealthy, (iii) rule of the wealthy and the learned, (iv) rule of the armed and the learned, (v) rule of the wealthy and the armed (vi) rule of the learned and the wealthy, the former in the pair being dominant. In the same way, all the three groups can combine together resulting in six forms, with different degrees of domination of the three classes.
The 18 possible forms can be presented thus:

                          Rule
       _____________________|_____________________
      |                     |                     |
 Rule by one      Rule by more than one      Rule by all
 (Ekayatan)           (Anekayatan)           (Sarvayatan)
                 ___________|__________
                |                      |
         Rule by minority        Rule by majority
      __________|_________________________
     |                 |                  |
One-element        Two-element      Three-element
 ____|____      _______|______       ______|____________
|    |    |    |  |  |  |  |  |     |   |   |   |   |   |
A    B    C    AB BC CA BA CB AC   ABC ACB BAC BCA CAB CBA

[A = Armed; B = Wealthy; C = Learned]

6. Other forms of polity included in the above

More than these 18 forms of political organization are not theoretically possible. We do see other forms bearing different names, for example, those based on race (rule of the Whites over the Blacks) or caste (rule of the caste Hindus over the non-caste Hindus), or religion (of the Christians over the Jews), or nationality (of England over India) or citizenship (of ancient Rome over others) etc. But the 18 forms enumerated above cover each one of them.

(B)

7. Sarvayatan (Rule of all)

Once we logically know the different possible types of polity, it follows that all the existing political organisations must belong to one or the other type, although they may have different names. However, it is perfectly obvious that sarvayatan does not exist anywhere today. Gandhiji is striving for it, and he has also evolved a technique to establish such a system. He is trying to use that technique in India.
There is a polity that calls itself ‘democracy’ (“rule of the people”) and poses as ‘sarvayatan’ (“rule of all”). Its drama is being staged in Europe and America. But no system based on violence is really “rule of all” even if it pretends to work on the principle of ‘one person - one vote’.
As against this, if all the people, consciously and willingly, entrust power to one or more of themselves, whom they know to be wise, competent, free from attachment and hatred and devoted to the welfare of all, then that polity, although ekayatan (rule by one) or anekayatan (rule by more than one) in appearance, should be regarded as sarvayatan (rule by all), as it is based on nonviolence.
The old Panchayat (the village council) system in India may be said to be a somewhat imperfect but honest attempt in this direction; but it is so unscientific that it is hardly of any use to us today and at the most deserves a passing mention.
It suffices to state here that sarvayatan does not yet exist anywhere and is yet to be established.

8. Ekayatan (Rule by one)

Rule by one individual has existed since time immemorial at different places. The native states in India [ruled by native princes in pre-Independent India under British sovereignty - Tr.] may be mentioned as a familiar example. Compared to the founders of such states, their descendants are normally more autocratic and follow their own whims. A founder of such a state is willy-nilly forced to seek cooperation from others in order to acquire power. His descendants feel no such compulsion; and can therefore be more irresponsible — as a Sanskrit proverb puts it, ‘sand gets hotter than the sun’. Ekayatan continues to exist in many parts of the world.

9. Alpasankhyayatan (Rule by a few)

Some forms of alpasankhyayatan are getting strengthened in Europe and elsewhere. Nazism, Fascism and Imperialism are different varieties of this system. Their weapons are violence, mechanisation, accumulation of capital and large-scale planning. They resort to violence while proclaiming that it is all for the sake of nonviolence. Since it is necessary to placate the majority, they have to pretend to work in their interest. Collisions and counter-collisions within such systems continue to escalate as they are bound to. Their whole edifice rests on the assumption that there cannot be any better alternative for the masses than their system. As long as the majority remains ignorant or weak enough to submit to this assumption, persistence of this system in some form or the other is inevitable.

10. Bahusankhyayatan (Rule by many): The Russian experiment

As against this, Russia appears to have launched an experiment of bahusankhyayatan (rule by many) with blind zeal. But violence can nowhere and at no time be the weapon of the masses; so the Russian experiment is bound to turn out to be an experiment of alpasankhyayatan — rule of the few possessing arms, learning and wealth. The present policy of Stalin seems to provide testimony to this inference. Whatever has been gained by the sword has to be retained by the sword. As it is assumed that getting armed on a large scale is necessary for success, the majority of the people would have to be armed. But as the masses are naturally incapable of wielding arms, they would have to submit to the few who are competent in this respect. This would also invariably need accumulation of wealth and diplomatic intrigues would have to be resorted to for its protection. And then that experiment would no longer be one of bahusankhyayatan; although it may well continue as long as it appears to the masses to be in their interest.
We have termed this as the rule by a few with arms, wealth and learning. It is impossible to say which of these will predominate, when and how much. At the most, it can be said that perhaps the experiment has been started with an honest intention, for the welfare of the masses, but actually it is only a new experiment of alpasankhyayatan (rule by a few).
‘New experiment’ does not mean that it is different from the forms enumerated above. It is one of them, although it may not perhaps have been hitherto attempted. Of course, it cannot be said confidently that such an experiment had never been attempted in the human history of thousands of years. Ideas of human beings move in a wheel-like fashion, traversing the same familiar tracks, although human beings may not be aware of it. When a woman gives birth to a child, she feels that she is the first one to do so!
This, in short, is a review of the political organisations and thoughts currently in vogue in the world.

II. You have explained all this theoretically; but it is necessary to examine Nazism, Fascism and Communism from the practical point of view. Which one of these is the better one?

(A)

11. People are wedded to life, not to any particular system

We have enumerated above the four main forms of political organisation (ekayatan, alpasankhyayatan, bahusankhyayatan and sarvayatan) and different forms of alpasankhyayatan — in all 18 forms. Nevertheless one element is common to all. When we keep that in mind, the differences between these ideologies or systems will become clear.
Even in an autocratic rule of a king, all power is not wielded by him alone. He has some assistants; and the masses too cooperate with him to some extent. That is the reason for sustenance of his rule. On the other hand, even in a sarvayatan polity, it is not that everyone directly participates in actual administration. That task is entrusted to a few people, taking for granted the cooperation by all. And some one individual has normally to be regarded as the final authority.
The people at large are never wedded to any particular ideology or form of political organisation. They are concerned only with their lives. Provided life goes on smoothly, they do not bother about the ideology or system of government. Political philosophers produce theories, practical persons devise systems, and the people give their cooperation. Political philosophers are wedded to particular ideologies, practical persons to particular systems. But they are so wedded only because they are concerned with their lives according to their lights. A political philosopher believes that good life is impossible without a particular theory, and that is why he subscribes to that theory. A practical person concludes from his experience that good life is impossible without a particular system; and because of this concern he upholds that system. But sometimes concern for life is relegated to the background because of strong attachment to and insistence for particular theory or system, and commitment to it captures the minds of political philosophers, practical persons and others as well for a while.

12. Four common factors in the polities

But in any case there are four common factors in all the theories and systems and in the implementation of these systems:
(a) Commitment to life: It may be genuine or may only outwardly appear so; it may be for all the time or at least for the time being; it may be universal or at least at the local level.
(b) Cooperation of the people: It may be voluntarily given (consciously or tacitly) or obtained through coercion; and it may be total or just sufficient for the purpose.
(c) Actual administration in the hands of capable persons: Such persons may be elected or nominated or may have come together at their own initiative.
(d) Final authority with a single individual: He/she may be elected by all or by the majority or by a few (directly or traditionally); or may be self-appointed.

When there is so much in common, why should there be conflict between different ideologies and systems of government? Why should there be political upheavals and revolutions? Why is there scope for comparison between them, and what could be the basis for such comparison?
The answer to these questions is but one, and is inherent in the qualifications attached to these common factors.
(a) Commitment to life: (1) If it is only at the local level, it comes into conflict with the life elsewhere; and such a commitment cannot last. It dies away, eventually giving rise to another system. (2) If it is only for the time being, and therefore not farsighted, it gradually loses its momentum like a football set in motion and then requires fresh impetus. (3) If it is only make-believe, it lasts only as long as its spell lasts.
(b) Cooperation of the people: (1) If it is based on coercion, the State would somehow survive till the people become enlightened and capable. (2) If the government conduces more or less to the happiness of the people, it would last relatively longer, even if the cooperation has been received through coercion. (3) If the rulers can skilfully manage to prevent awakening of the people either by denying education to them or by devising a scheme of bad education, their coercive rule would last even longer. (4) If the rulers, even though they do not do anything conducive to the basic welfare of the people, succeed in creating an impression that some minor things have been done to make them happy, people can get reconciled to their rule to some extent. But the rule is bound to come to an end some time or the other. (5) If cooperation of the people is voluntary, but is not given consciously and with full knowledge, the rule can last only as long as people do not start thinking differently.
(c) Actual administration in the hands of capable persons: Actual administration would always be run by capable individuals. But (1) if they are elected, continuance of their rule would depend on their capacity to rule well, (2) if they are nominated, they would continue till the people become capable or so long as there is no split in the ranks of such capable persons, (3) if they have come together at their own initiative, their rule would last relatively longer. But a band of capable persons lacking people’s support cannot remain united for long, as the capable ones normally suffer from mutual jealousy because of their capabilities.
(d) Final authority with a single individual: (1) If such an individual is self-appointed, the rule would last so long as his valour and charisma last. (2) If elected, survival of the rule would depend on the extent of the franchise and to the extent the elections are free and fair.

14. Non-opposition or fraternal relations between different nations

Besides these points, one very important point needs to be taken into consideration while considering political organisations. Besides orderly relations within the nation, how far international relations are free from conflicts? This question was not less important even when means of communication were not advanced. Today lack of conflicts between nations — rather, favourable disposition of nations towards each other and fraternal relations between them — should be considered the foundation for the policy of any nation or groups of nations.

15. Ideal polity

To sum up, we may enumerate some criteria to judge a polity:

Fraternal relations between nations throughout the world.
Conscious cooperation of all the elements within a nation, given to the best of their abilities but spontaneously and sincerely.
Unity of interests between the capable few and the masses.
Concern for comprehensive and equal development of all.
The maximum possible decentralisation of political power.
The minimum possible governance.
The least complicated system of administration.
The lowest possible administrative expenditure.
The minimum possible arrangements for security and defence.
Universal, uninterrupted, unbiased and free dissemination of knowledge.

(B)

16. Nature of Nazism, Fascism and Russian Communism

We can now revert to the original question. The only difference between Nazism and Fascism appears to be that the former is better organized and embraces more aspects of society than the latter. There is hardly any other difference between the two. Racial pride is common to both. Both are imperialist, having made England their teacher in this regard. Both put their trust in military strength. They are trying to expand their reign in the way Portugal, Spain, Holland, England and France had done. Their political ideas are in a flux — opinion formed about them on the basis of their literature today would have to be changed after reading their literature a fortnight later.
As against these two, an experiment has been started in Russia in the name of Communism or Socialism. The original idea was that of global revolution; however, it later got deteriorated and restricted to a particular nation. As far as faith in military strength is concerned, the Communists are no different from others. Today they may be lagging behind others in preparation, but may eventually surpass them. None of them has any scruples about unprincipled manoeuvring to ensure success. As other nations have already captured trade, and because it has plenty of land, Russia is focusing more on agriculture. But this difference is not a fundamental one; it is because of the compulsions of situation.
The Russian Revolution has lost so much of its sheen in just twenty years that it has almost lost its earlier attraction. The reason is that, out of the four aspects of Capitalism — centralization, worship of the machines, faith in arms and exploitation — Socialism seeks to avoid the last while retaining the first three. But it is an illusion. It should not be difficult to realize that the fourth one inevitably accompanies the first three. But fascination for the efficiency of centralization, for the comforts that worship of machinery gives and for the protection that the military strength promises is so strong that comfort-loving minds entangled in this delusion fail to discard even one of these three in order to end exploitation.
As compared to Nazism and fascism, the Russian ideology — by whatever name it may be called — appears to be well-intentioned. But all the three ideologies are equally ill-conceived; and therefore appear to have become equally incapable of securing the interests of even the majority, leave alone the interests of all.

17. Further comparison between these ideologies

When a particular system is in the making, and is therefore in a flux, any discussion of its merits and defects can be deceptive. For example, if fraternal relations between nations is taken as one of the criteria to judge a polity, we find it totally missing in the Italian or German ideology. It is expected to have a place in the Communist ideology of Russia. But Communism appears to believe that its global spread is necessary for its system to get firmly established in any one country. And in propagating it, violence is not shunned. So Russia can invade any country even though the latter has not caused any offence to it, provided the invasion offers scope for propagation of its ideology. Until an opportunity for such aggression arises, fraternal relations between nations may find a place at least in its texts; thereafter they would be expunged from the texts too. Devotees believe that whoever was killed by Lord Rama’s arrows achieved spiritual liberation. Similarly, gullible devotees of Communism are often heard saying that Russian aggression would always be for the good of the invaded country. In the light of all this, it is difficult to say that Russia fares better than Germany or Italy as far as fraternal relations between nations are concerned.
If we apply the last test — that of freedom of dissemination of knowledge — such freedom is absent both in Russia and Germany, not only in the present time of War but even otherwise. Violence being the means of defence for all these systems, the nation spending more on defence would have to be considered more prudent. Nazism and fascism lack the force of idealism that is found in the Russian ideology. In its place, people in Germany and Italy presently appear to be driven by national and racial pride.
In the Russian idealism, there is a concern for the interest of the masses, which is really not opposed to the welfare of all which Sarvodaya seeks. In fact, welfare of all can be secured only through securing the welfare of the masses. Had this concept of unity of interests of all the people been there, a more stable revolution could have been brought about. But the idea of conflict of interests was thought to be more forceful and quicker in yielding results; and was therefore adopted. It did appear to hasten the results; but in the process of preventing collapse of the system, national pride had to be eventually made its foundation.
Leaders eager for quick results cannot resist the temptation of rousing passions of the people rather than imparting a balanced and discriminating attitude. The Russian ideology of welfare of the masses and the German ideology of national organisation provide two illustrations of this fact. The German leaders were under the delusion that national organisation would not perhaps be attained quickly without stoking racial pride, and the Russian leaders were under the delusion that revolution would not be quickly brought about without accentuating class conflict.

18. Mazzini’s Italy in dire straits; a martial class rose to power in the name of the people

When the situation in Italy is seen from the perspective of Joseph Mazzini, we see a strange spectacle. Mazzini is a devoted follower of Gigot; but he finds unsatisfactory Gigot’s idea of seeing others as oneself as the foundation of freedom and advocates freedom of all the nations on the basis of the fatherhood of God. He lives to see the rise of the Italian State. People celebrate the end of foreign rule, but Mazzini laments disappearance of his ideals. The Italian government has since been swept aside and political power of the martial class has been concentrated in a single individual.
When a martial class comes forward as a class, it does so in the name of the people. It regards itself as heir to the protective power of God. It is always characterised by racial pride. So the vigour necessary for quick results is available to it. If this class is defeated due to internal dissensions or external aggression, people regret it for a moment and then get busy with their day-to-day activities.

It is difficult to decide which one of these ideologies is better and why so. People tormented by a particular system welcome its end and think that the new system which has taken its place is better. They are happy mainly about the end of the old system. Peshwa Rule¹ gave way to Elphinstone’s administration, and the people were happy at the establishment of the rule of law. But within 50 years, that happiness gave way to discontent. It cannot be said that the happiness of the people under Elphinstone’s rule was entirely unfounded; but we cannot afford to have such happiness today.
People in Italy, Germany or Russia feel that they are happy today. We in India have been under foreign rule for a long time, our poverty is unparalleled and racial pride can be attractive to a tradition-bound society. Hence, in India there has sprung up a group favouring Communism which has sympathy for the poor as well as a group favouring organisation on communal lines. But if we think without any reference to the conditions in India, it must be said that Communism is more attractive to discerning minds and is more amenable to refinement than Nazism and Fascism.

¹ Peshwas, prime ministers of the Maratha kingdom of Satara (Maharashtra), virtually ruled the kingdom, which for some time extended up to Punjab in North-Western India. Their defeat by the British in 1818 A.D. led to the establishment of British hegemony over India.

III. If the prevailing political systems are considered defective, what should be the characteristics of an ideal polity?

20. Four characteristics of a faultless system

It is best to keep on changing the system rather than insisting on any one particular system. For, a system is not like some incontrovertible principle on which life can be based. Normally, people tormented by a particular system look out for another system. But the defects or merits which are harmful or beneficial are overlooked. A society plagued by the baneful effects of child marriages opts for adult marriages; and a society plagued by the baneful effects of adult marriages may opt for child marriages. In reality, it is the principle of self-restraint which protects the society. Merely fixing the age for marriage is of little avail.
The actual form of polity wherein all the people look after their affairs will depend on the stage of development of society. However, it must invariably have at least the following four characteristics:

All the capacities of capable individuals should be devoted to the service of the people.
People should be fully self-reliant and should cooperate with each other.
Nonviolence should be the basis of continual cooperation in the normal course, and of non-cooperation or resistance occasionally.
Honest work of all should have equal (moral and monetary) value.
Let us discuss these points briefly.

(A)

21. Public opinion should make capable persons serve society

‘Capable’ means those who are naturally more intelligent and physically stronger. This difference is physiological and there is no way to get over it at least for the time being. There is also a group which is capable because of wealth and other resources. This group is not natural unlike the first two groups; it arises because of circumstantial factors. The capable individuals belonging to all these types have been given the capacities they have, either by nature or by circumstances, for the service of the people. They, as well as the people at large, should always be conscious of this fact. And the polity should be such as will ensure that the capacities of capable individuals are dedicated to the service of the people. Intellect should be utilized for informing the life of the people with knowledge, physical strength for brave deeds for the good of the people, and wealth for promoting equitable, appropriate and continuous flow of productive resources throughout society. If capable individuals are not using their capacities in this way, public opinion should hold them guilty.

22. Law and public opinion

If public opinion has been formed in regard to some matter, a suitable law may be enacted to enforce it. Law — that is, discipline or restraint — has a place in a nonviolent system based on popular will. The popular notion that society keeps to the right path only out of fear of punishment still holds sway, in spite of experience to the contrary. The fact is that the fear of public opinion — or to put it more aptly, respect for public opinion — has proved, and does prove most useful in keeping society on the right path. There are always a few great and noble souls in society who do not need the pressure of public opinion to hold them within the bounds of morality. There are also a few individuals who lack wisdom and discrimination, and therefore behave waywardly without any regard for public opinion, disregarding the edicts of morality. A great majority of the people, however, observe what is ordained and avoid what is prohibited by public opinion. Such public opinion is the basis of law which is normally respected by the masses. There is no need to use police or military to forcibly restrain the few wayward individuals; they should rather be put in the company of the few wise ones. In short, the majority of the people should follow the law and put those who do not pay heed to the law in the charge of those who do not need the law.

23. Hoarding should be considered theft

Today public opinion is against theft. It should also be against the accumulation and hoarding of wealth, and those who accumulate and hoard wealth should be considered fit to be restrained and punished by law. Such should be the public opinion. Good parents always teach their children that taking anything without permission is a grave wrong. Similarly, not giving something to the needy when they ask for it should be considered a moral lapse by the science of education. This is not a new idea, but it has not yet been put into practice. In an Upanishad, King Ashwapati, while describing the glory of his kingdom, says that there are neither thieves nor hoarders in his kingdom. He thus puts both of them in the same category, and suggests that thieves are the progeny of hoarders. It is not at all difficult to incorporate this idea in the legal framework.

24. The uses of wealth

Expropriation of the rich is needlessly talked about. The rich, in fact, do not accumulate wealth for the sake of hoarding only. They seek it for status, happiness, secure future and well-being of their descendants, and to earn fame as philanthropists — for all or for at least some of these purposes. If they could have all these without any botheration, everyone of them would surely welcome this. Even today, the wealth of the wealthy is invariably shared among their partners, managers and such others. The rich know that their agents dupe them; but they comfort themselves with the idea that the agents must not be duping them too much. The political system should convincingly show the capable persons that their wealth is being used for the good of society, that they have no worries; rather they have an opportunity to think of the welfare of society; and as far as status and other things are concerned, these are not lessened a whit, rather they have more of everything, and that too in a true sense.

25. Example of the teaching community

In ancient India, the learned teacher was poor. But that does not mean that his outer life, not to speak of his inner life, was not happy. That he was free from riches meant that he was free from the worries associated with wealth. His pupils used to take adequate care of him. He wielded power even over the emperor, if needed. He did not let anyone control the education system. He enjoyed long life. Whether a class of such teachers actually existed may be disputed. But if it existed, it would not have been deficient in any way as far as status, happiness or glory are concerned. The teacher today teaches books; he does not teach students in the true sense. He has no place in the life of his students, nor have students any place in his life. He gets more money, but at the cost of affection. And that money ultimately reaches the pockets of doctors etc.! He is not better off with that money, and he loses an opportunity to serve the people as his services become expensive for them. The political system — that is, public opinion — should be such that everyone should readily realise that it is not in their interest to accumulate wealth by antagonising the people.

Knowledge, it is said, doubles when imparted to others. This is not considered true for wealth; but it is a misconception. Wealth too doubles when shared with others. In the terminology of economics this is called ‘increase in the purchasing power of the people’. Moneylenders lend liberally, because they know that their money would increase thereby. It is not difficult to understand that distribution of wealth would increase wealth even more. But it needs a social structure which facilitates distribution of wealth; and an ideal polity presupposes such a social structure. Society is like a bank for individuals and an individual’s money would be far safer in the bank of society than in any other bank.

27. Concept of ownership is the hindrance

It behoves capable individuals to use their capacities for the service of those lacking those capacities; and that is what would be really gratifying for them. Human being is fond of society, and he never really enjoys anything exclusively, without sharing it with others. However, today we do find the rich enjoying their riches within the four walls of their houses while people are starving outside. How can such an attitude persist despite being against human nature? It is not that the rich are not human; it is because of the prevailing idea that it is the responsibility of every individual to earn for himself and that he has total claim on his own earning. But this idea is only partly true. Every individual must, of course, earn to the best of his ability. One who does not, in spite of being able to do so, can have no right. But all those who work to the best of their abilities have equal entitlement to society’s total earnings. This is the whole truth. Had there been no difference in the capacity, difference in the earnings of different individuals would have reflected the difference in the extent of their honesty. Then it would have been justifiable to say that everyone should earn for oneself and stake claim on their earnings only. But when differences in capacity is a fact, it is wrong to apply the principle of individual responsibility mechanically.

28. The true task of the State

The State exists precisely to create in society the economic structure which exists in the family to some extent — which is a task beyond the capacity of a family. If the State does not do this, there is no need for its existence. If the State, instead of doing this, is creating inequalities, it will be a sacred duty to destroy it, even at the risk of anarchy. Managers of the political system have spread the fear of anarchy to make people submit to their system, howsoever evil and disorganised it may be.
We regard capable individuals as capable, but they too cannot accomplish anything without the help of those considered incapable. In this sense the capable ones are really incapable. On the other hand, those considered incapable too have some capacities; and the State too cannot do without those capacities. In short, both the so-called capable and the incapable ones are dependent on each other; they become capable when they cooperate with each other and incapable when they do not. This is like cooperation between the lame and the blind. The polity wherein the capable ones do not realize that such cooperation is in the interest of both, is not a polity in the true sense of the term; it is anarchy of the worst type. A polity has therefore to vest authority in the capable individuals, but that must only be the authority to serve the people.

(B)

29. Village industries for village self-sufficiency

In order to ensure that capable individuals have no other power than that of service, the people must not be helpless and weak. They must be sufficiently self-reliant to become conscious of their own independent strength. They must, therefore, have productive occupations under their exclusive control. Majority of the people should never be engaged in occupations controlled by others, like the mill workers. Every village should, for the most part, become an economically self-sufficient unit. Conditions should be such that the capable cooperate with the people of their own accord and the incapable ones cooperate with the capable ones without compromising their freedom. This can happen only when the people are self-reliant. All the basic necessaries of life, as well as most of the secondary needs of the villagers should be fulfilled in the village itself. The State should step in only to fulfil remaining secondary needs through capable individuals.
Agricultural produce should be processed as far as possible in the homes of the farmers and the rest in the village. Today the farmer in India hardly does anything besides producing raw materials. He sells oilseeds and purchases oil even for his own consumption; produces cotton, but purchases not only cloth but even cottonseeds for sowing and for feeding his cows and bullocks. He has to sell grains to fulfil all his needs. In selling his produce, he suffers loss; and in purchasing his requirements he also suffers loss. Such a helpless condition of the people is not in their interest, nor is it in the interest of the State and the few persons considered capable. There should therefore be an extensive network of village industries throughout the country, complementary and supplementary to agriculture, and in an ideal social order, the State should make arrangements for their protection and sustenance. This is sine qua non for an ideal social organisation. Just as the rain falls equitably, so should the distribution of wealth be. Only village industries can ensure this in a natural, simple and efficient way; only they can strengthen mutual cooperation among the people and ensure that people receive service from the capable ones and also render service to them according to their abilities.

30. Communist scheme fraught with danger

Communists put forward an alternative scheme which first involves accumulation of wealth at one place and its equal distribution thereafter. But it appears to be fraught with three dangers. Firstly, such a process is bound to be costlier than the one which ensures equal distribution simultaneously with production. Secondly, special arrangements are needed for the protection of accumulated wealth, which could even then be an easy target for foreign aggression. Thirdly, it would make the social organisation so complex and intricate with extreme interdependence between its parts that the whole mechanism may collapse any time because of extreme friction.

31. Interdependence should be simple, not complicated

Interdependence is good, but it should be between groups which are in themselves strong and self-supporting. Interdependence between groups which are dependent on others is like that of two weak bullocks yoked to a cart, each trying to shift the burden to the other one. A three-legged stool stands on all the three legs; each leg stands on its own strength, but there is interdependence between the legs. This is a simple mechanism. If one of the legs breaks, only that leg needs to be repaired. But if a machine has wheels within wheels, the mechanism becomes complex and the entire machine could come to a halt if one of the wheels breaks; and it would then be much more difficult to repair it. Besides, even when such a machine is in operation, there would be friction at a number of places, making lubrication a lengthy and elaborate job.

32. Polity based on self-sufficient villages

All plans which seek to concentrate wealth first and then distribute it put too much strain on the political organisation and have to rely ultimately on violence. So, if resort to violence, strain on the State and complexity of the social structure are to be avoided, every villager should be his own ruler and cooperation between villagers should be as strong as that between the fibres of a well-knit rope. Then the villager and his village would become a natural and almost self-sufficient political unit.
These autonomous villages would be brought together by the nominal provincial political organisation, and the nominal national political organisation would bring together such provincial units. Mutual cooperation between autonomous national units would be brought about by the nominal political organisation of all humanity. The latter would be the seat of wise and dispassionate individuals representing the entire humanity. They would not have any coercive power; but would have all the moral authority necessary to keep people on the right path. It is for the people to give shape to this grand vision. Political scientists are right in holding that the central government must be all-powerful; but it is in dispassionate wisdom and character that real power lies, not in lifeless wealth or weapons. It is clear that such a structure cannot take shape so long as the people are not self-reliant and do not cooperate with each other.

(C)

33. Polity dependent on the human element

Howsoever good a political system may be, its goodness is bound to depend, at least to some extent, on the quality of individuals to whom the authority of governance has been entrusted by the people. It is an essential characteristic of a good polity that normally good individuals are chosen for this purpose. Still, their personalities are bound to have some effect — positive or adverse — on the operation of the political system. Political science is not a science like pure mathematics or even like applied mathematics. It deals with human affairs, and it is not possible to give it a mechanical form independent of the human element.

34. Necessity of Satyagraha

Political science aims to safeguard fully and comprehensively the interests of all the people, which are not antagonistic to each other. For this purpose, a good polity is supposed to have, inter alia, the following external elements: (1) widest franchise, (2) administration in accordance with the majority opinion, (3) complete protection to and full satisfaction of the minority, (4) freedom to propagate one’s opinions, (5) impartial, cheap and easy dispensation of justice, (6) a system for public education and (7) a code of reformatory punishment.
These elements are indeed desirable for a good polity. Still, due to the human factor many defects, controversies and disputes can arise in the realm of politics. To get over them, people should be able to discern right occasions for cooperation, non-cooperation and resistance and should have enough strength to resort to them as required by the circumstances, and the necessary nonviolent technique in this regard should have been ingrained in them.

35. Cooperation in the true sense and fitness for non-cooperation

Cooperation is an eternal principle of life, but it is worthwhile only if it is voluntary and given with full knowledge. Only then can it be nonviolent; in fact, only then can it be called cooperation. Cooperation given out of helplessness or ignorance is of no use to a good polity. Although it may appear to be cooperation, it would not last long because it is not cooperation in the true sense. It is bound to result, first in hidden and then in open violence. Everyone should therefore feel that ‘we have made the law in accordance with the majority opinion and we can change it too; but as long as it has not been changed, we shall obey it happily, voluntarily and unreservedly even if it is not to our liking, provided it is not against morality.’ There is no question about the cooperation of those who concur with the law, but those who are opposed to it should also have the attitude described above; then only can their cooperation be said to be nonviolent. And only the individuals who extend such cooperation have the right to non-cooperate or resist when the occasion so demands; they alone are capable of doing so in a nonviolent way, and they alone have a duty to do so.

36. Educating people in non-cooperation and resistance is positively necessary

To impress upon the people the need to cooperate as far as possible, voluntarily and consciously, is one aspect of the education and conscientisation of people. The second aspect is to teach them to discern occasions for non-cooperation and resistance and take recourse to them on those occasions.
Non-cooperation and resistance are two stages of one and the same thing. The second stage is more drastic; and is not to be resorted to when the first one is sufficient. In non-cooperation, we withdraw our cooperation and give an opportunity to the opponent to remedy the situation. When this is found inadequate, it becomes necessary to break the State laws (i) civilly; that is, within certain bounds, (ii) in an orderly manner; that is, not allowing any breach of discipline anywhere, (iii) openly; that is, without any secrecy or deceit and (iv) firmly; that is, putting forward the minimum demand in regard to the matter in dispute and not giving in till it is met. Whatever punishment is given for such violation of laws should be borne gladly and without any illwill. Such training should be ingrained in the life of people, and should therefore have a permanent place in education and in the ethical code of the nation.

Although need for non-cooperation and resistance arises in a good State only occasionally and in particular contexts, they have a permanent place in the social life. For they are required not only in politics, but also more or less constantly in social life, family affairs and in dealings between different individuals. Nonviolent non-cooperation and resistance is the most appropriate middle way that avoids both the extremes of bearing injustice passively on one hand and resisting it violently in a fit of passion, indiscreetly or even calculatedly, on the other. The attitude of mind and the strength required for resisting injustice whenever necessary should be kept alive in the ethical code of society, irrespective of the quality of polity.

38. Education in non-cooperation

For this purpose, children should be taught from the earliest years exceptions to general rules. For example, besides teaching their children to obey them humbly, parents should also tell them to disobey politely, if the orders go against the conscience. Public opinion should be in favour of such exceptions. As Manu has said, the wise should invariably follow eternal moral principles like truth and nonviolence, but rules of conduct need not be so followed. Such rules, whether they pertain to family, society or the nation, ought to be followed so long as they do not conflict with the fundamental principles; and should be disregarded politely when they go against the fundamental principles.
In a good social order, rules are not normally inconsistent with eternal principles. But when a machine is in operation, possibility of friction is always there. So also it is never the case that once an ideal State has been established, it can be trusted of itself to look after the people and make them happy while the people themselves comfortably fall asleep or go about with their eyes shut. Even if this is assumed to be possible, there can be no uplift of the individual in such a State; and therefore, by the grace of God, this is not possible.
In short, it must be considered an essential characteristic of a good polity that people are alert, or kept alert, enough to practise nonviolently cooperation, non-cooperation and resistance as required by the circumstances, keeping in mind the limitations of these modes of action.

39. Nonviolence in India

Solving a problem of a country like India, with a multitude of communities, religions and languages, with vast population and large area, is almost like solving a global problem. Those who regarded so huge a country as one at a time when modern means of communication were not developed must have done so after learning from experiences of different types of conflicts the essential principle of organisation. They realized that such a big nation cannot be kept united except through nonviolence and therefore they gave, in principle, the highest place to nonviolence in politics, social life, family affairs, economic organisation and education.
As a result, the common people in India had given up long ago the faith in the efficacy of arms. They had come to regard India as one nation which, in the words of Rabindranath Tagore, is ‘an ocean of humanity’ and believed that it should be kept open to all. However, even when the policy of nonviolence was so prominent, we do not find examples of application of nonviolence on an extensive scale in the realm of politics, though we find in the Indian history many such experiments in the realms of individual, social and family life. It appears that it is because of such application of nonviolence in social life that this country assimilated all communities coming from outside.

40. Nonviolence as the basis of unity between the masses, the good individuals and the elite

But why was non-violence not applied in the political field? It appears that this was mainly because politics itself did not have an important place in India. But today politics touches every aspect of life. So the good and virtuous individuals in society, the elite as well as the masses—in short, no one can afford to be indifferent to it.
If the masses have to take an active part in politics, which has become so extensive, on their own strength, they cannot do so without the practice of nonviolence, as violence is not a power that the people can naturally wield. If the good and virtuous individuals have to take an active part in politics, they cannot do so without nonviolence, as violence is not a part of their nature. If the elite is to take part in politics (it would appear that it is not new to them, but the politics that they took part in earlier was not so extensive) they too have no alternative to nonviolence, even if they are disposed towards violence and have the capacity to use it, as there is no scope for violence in politics that is co-extensive with life. Nonviolence is therefore the only safe basis for politics that brings together the masses, the good individuals and the elite.

41. Only such unity is a permanent deterrent to evil-doers

The good individuals should naturally know how to wield this protective weapon of nonviolence, and it is their duty to educate the masses in this regard. The State should give them freedom to do this; if it does not, they should secure that freedom by impressing on the elite the importance of such freedom, and resorting to satyagraha, if necessary. All this is expected in a good polity.
It is not that the elite cannot have the attitude and power to wield nonviolence as much as violence. But when the masses are weak and the good individuals become indifferent, the elite alone are saddled with the responsibility of reining in the evil elements in society, and they can then see no way of countering violence of those elements other than counter-violence. But when the masses, the good individuals and the elite come together — and they have to come together in an all-embracing politics — it is not impossible to fight the evil elements nonviolently, howsoever organized they may be. And that alone is desirable too, as it leaves scope for destroying the root of the evil, that is, evil tendencies in the minds of those elements.
Evil elements within society can be effectively held in leash permanently only if the masses, the good individuals and the elite combine together on the basis of nonviolence; and they can never combine together except on that basis. They should thus combine together and permanently create awe in the minds of those elements. This is the main characteristic of a sound polity. All the other characteristics should, in comparison, be considered secondary. A polity will be like a beautiful but lifeless picture even if it has all the characteristics enumerated above except this main characteristic.

(D)

42. Estimating value of work

In an ideal polity, the method of estimating the value of labour cannot be mechanical and irresponsible as it is today. The ideal polity would undertake the responsibility of looking after and protecting all the people, whatever be the level of their intelligence, capacities and capabilities. All cannot put in equal amount of work. The work may be intellectual or physical. Again, physical labour could be skilled or unskilled. But in spite of all these differences, everyone putting in socially useful work according to their capacities honestly and faithfully should be equally entitled to the fulfilment of their necessities.

43. ‘Economic value of service’ is a misnomer

In fact, it is wrong to speak of economic value of physical or mental service. For, service belongs to the realm of ethics and can therefore be evaluated only in terms of its ethical value. How can the service of nursing the sick, of keeping awake at night to look after them be evaluated in economic terms? How can a judge’s service of giving an impartial judgement be evaluated in terms of money? Can the value of the act of saving a person from drowning or rescuing him from a raging fire be calculated by some mathematical formula? The examples cited above involve intellectual labour, physical labour or a combination of the two. But all of them are of infinite value; that is, they are examples of invaluable service. It is not therefore proper to talk of remuneration for service or labour. An individual should devotedly serve society with all his might and society should do its duty of providing good living to him — that is what our approach should be.

44. The operative principle in family

When this principle is upheld, extreme differences between wages that we find today would automatically disappear. We find that in families expenditure on children is often more than that on the earning members. These children have not rendered any service; they are expected to do so in the future. But money is not spent on them by calculating their expected service in the future; parents consider it their responsibility to bring up their children. A State should regard it its duty to look after all the individuals in society. The individuals, in turn, should dedicate all their capacities to the service of society. But the individual’s service and the security offered to it by the society need not be directly proportionate to each other. It is the aggregate of service rendered by all the individuals in society that would be equal to the aggregate of security provided by society to all the individuals.
It is also necessary here to keep in mind the difference between wages and (economic) security. Security provided to everyone would be equal; wages need not be so. For, equal wages do not imply equal security. For providing equal security, wages would have to be given to everyone as per their needs. Thus, a more capable person with fewer needs would get less wages, while a less capable person with more needs would get more wages. A military commander with good digestion may get much less than an ordinary soldier with a weak digestion.

45. Conclusion

In short, we can enumerate the principles discussed so far as follows:

Everyone would be provided with equal (economic) security.
Service from each would be according to his/her capacity, and therefore unequal.
Equal security does not imply equal wages.
But difference in wages would never be as large as it is today.
Wages would be as less unequal as possible.
Inequality in wages would not be in accordance with the difference in service; it would be in accordance with the difference in needs.
The aggregate of service rendered by all individuals would be equal to the aggregate of security provided to them.

46. Reconciliation of differences in labour

An organisation based on these seven principles is not entirely unknown today. When groups of labourers in villages undertake a particular task, all of them do not do equal work, but they distribute the contract money more or less equally among themselves. In this arrangement, nobody can shirk work and an honest but weaker individual receives some concession. There is greater enthusiasm in work done collectively and it strengthens the feeling of brotherhood among the workers. It is not impossible to make this mode applicable to the whole of society.
Such an arrangement would perhaps pose no problem as far as different types of physical labour are concerned. But difficulty would arise with regard to commensurability of physical and mental work. The educated class is likely to create problems in this regard. But there should not be any difficulty if we take into account the security and satisfaction arising out of the feeling of brotherhood developed by such an arrangement. As regards inequality between wages of male and female workers is concerned, it has absolutely no foundation. Women work with more perseverence, care and creativity. On the other hand, they cannot do some tasks requiring much physical strength. Taking these two facts into account, there is no difficulty in having equality in the wages of men and women. Differences in men and women, in different kinds of physical labour, in physical and mental labour, in different kinds of mental labour — all these are on the same footing from the point of view of the nation. The real difference is between honesty and dishonesty; similarly difference between skilled and unskilled labour is inevitable. There is no question of protecting dishonesty, but the State does have the responsibility of reforming dishonest persons. This responsibility does entail provision of security. The State should also strive to develop the skills of workers. However, some tasks, by their very nature, need less skills, and they too are needed by the nation. They can be assigned to the less skilled labourers.

47. Collective responsibility: a good incentive

It is assumed today that difference in remuneration is the only way to encourage skill-building, honesty, enthusiasm and a sense of responsibility. But, in fact, collective responsibility motivates human beings much more, as it invariably gives social esteem and self-satisfaction. A mother’s pat on the child’s back is much more enthusing to the child than sundry other rewards. And the latter, even if they enthuse a little, may stoke his greed too. Hence, there is no way to ensure equilibrium everywhere other than regarding social esteem, and to a greater extent self-satisfaction, as motivating principles and erecting economic structure on the foundation of the principle of comparable remuneration.

48. Varna system²: An experiment of Hinduism

In this respect, Hinduism carried out a great experiment in form of the varna system. But the notion of superiority and inferiority crept into it and vitiated it and economic competition eventually ruined it completely. An individual should do the work allotted to him by society, society should allot him work on the basis of his fitness for it, inherited dispositions should be taken advantage of for developing skills; he should consider it his duty to undertake the particular work after acquiring necessary fitness and others should not compete with him; all should get equal security and commensurate remuneration; individuals carrying out their tasks with responsibility, being devoted to their duty, should be considered to be on equal footing, and their worship in the form of work should please God — that is how the varna system can be briefly described.
An ideal polity will need to devise some such arrangement. The varna system, in essence, includes commensurate remuneration, lack of competition and a scheme of education and training that takes advantage of inherited dispositions. The first two are principles of great importance in economics and the third one belongs to the realm of sociology. Some find this third principle controversial. Even if it is so, the first two would remain unaffected, and they would have to be made foundations of the social order. And if the third one also proves to be true, as is very likely, on the basis of reflection and experience, the varna system would have to be revived, without any idea of superiority and inferiority and without any rigid framework.

² The four varnas as originally conceived, are not the same as the four “Castes” which Gandhi and Vinoba wanted to overcome, especially Vinoba, being born a Brahmin, has consciously done all kinds of stuff forbidden for his caste, both of them did the labour of a Shudra and so forth. In difference to the understanding of castes into which one is born, the original idea behind the varnas are ideal human “callings” with none of them being considered higher than another. One is not a Brahmin, a Kshatriya etc. by blood, but by calling and in some people more than one calling may combine. Inherited dispositions can for sure play a role in the formation of ones calling, but it always remains an individual calling and thus it can never be justified to force one into e.g. the callings of their parents by law. While they opposed the rigid and violent caste system giving rise to conflict and unjustified pride, they valued the ancient idea of the four varnas as interpreted by them. – Flosha

49. Essence important; not the form

The spirit of service, self-reliance, nonviolent strength and commensurate remuneration to all are the four pillars on which the edifice of the polity should be erected. Its outer form may, of course, vary in accordance with time, the local conditions and social psyche. A family consisting of young parents and their infant children is of a particular form, a family with young children and middle-aged parents is of a different form, and a family with old parents and their grown-up offspring has still another form. A family may be big or small, joint or nuclear — it may be of different kinds. But, although different outer forms of the family could be visualized on the basis of natural factors and factors which depend on conditions, the root idea of the family is one and the same.
Protagonists of different healing systems are insistent about their respective systems; so also political thinkers become protagonists of different ideologies and hold that a particular ideology or system is applicable at all places and times. But when even a science like mathematics is being obliged to accept the doctrine of relativity, branches of knowledge like political science and sociology can never claim finality for themselves in a broad sense.
In fact, there are few fundamental sciences that can be called science in the true sense, and they regulate human life. Other so-called sciences are only practical guides devised and regulated by human beings. These two kinds of science are altogether different from each other in nature. An attempt to cast the latter in the same mould as that of the former is an indication of unscientific reason. So, it is best to insist on the four principles mentioned above, which are essential in any political system that makes the people happy and promotes their welfare, and leave all other matters to be determined by particular needs of the time.

IV. Can a polity based on nonviolence endure?

50. Violence culminates in total war

The question appears to presume that a polity based on violence can endure. Actually, throughout the history, all have used violence for perpetuating their systems. And yet none of the systems has been found to survive by means of violence. Yet, the hold of violence on our minds is so great that even though violence has failed a thousand times, our faith in its efficacy persists. No system based on violence has ever survived — this negative evidence should be enough to make us conclude that a polity cannot endure without nonviolence. Moreover, the polities which are based on violence and which still appear to endure to some extent are also anxious to obtain the support of public opinion; in other words, of nonviolence. This should, in fact, create a strong suspicion in the minds of even the most ardent believers in violence that nonviolence alone provides the basis for an enduring polity. Experiments in violence have always failed. How many times are we going to give benefit of doubt to violence and think that failure of those experiments is not because of violence but due to some other shortcoming? In fact, the process of countering violence with greater violence has brought us to a total war.

51. Nonviolence: the logical alternative

In a way, it is good that this has happened. The criterion used in ethics to decide whether a principle is morally right or advantageous from a practical point of view, is to apply it universally and see the outcome. The principle which destroys itself after universal application is undoubtedly worthless both from the moral and the practical points of view. For example, to decide whether begging [instead of working] is good or bad, we should see what happens when everyone starts begging [and stops working]. It will then be clear that it is impossible. So begging [without working] is not good. But who will experiment in this way for determining the rightness of the principle of violence? Still nations in Europe, competing with each other in the use of violence, have embarked upon such an exercise!
There is now no room for sundry fights or fights between individuals or tribes. Total war or abstention from war — the valiant and experimenting people of Europe have left no third course open. Now the only possibility is that a nation defeated in a war may take the help of other nations and wars would be fought between groups of nations or continents. But there is no scope for this process too to go much farther. After experimenting with violence to the widest extent and to the highest degree, the only course left for violence is to destroy itself and make way for nonviolence. Not only the enlightened opinion but public opinion at large also has come to, or is moving towards this conclusion.

52. Nonviolence does not seek to outdo the opponent

When violence is thus rejected, we are left with the method of nonviolence only. Then there remains no room for entertaining any doubt in regard to nonviolence; there is scope only for experiments with faith. There is no question of outdoing the opponent in nonviolence. If someone is more nonviolent than me, he does not seek to crush me; he rather seeks change in my heart. He naturally succeeds in this attempt; and his success turns out to be success for me too. It is in violence that one man’s victory is another man’s defeat. In nonviolence, one man’s victory is also another man’s victory. If there is anything in dispute, it may be submitted to arbitration — that is all. So simple is the way of nonviolence.

53. Nation-wide experiment of nonviolence is, in a way, easier

A nation-wide experiment of nonviolence would, in a way, be easier than an experiment at the individual level. In an interaction between a violent and a nonviolent person, the violent person may kill the nonviolent person recklessly before nonviolence of the latter affects, or has an opportunity to affect, the mind of the violent person. Such a thing is possible in individual interactions, but it is not possible in interactions between nations. It is difficult to imagine that an entire nation instantaneously goes berserk and destroys a nonviolent nation before its nonviolence can have any effect on the violent nation. But we find that in individual conflicts, where such a possibility exists, nonviolent persons have normally won against their violent opponents. There is therefore no reason why a nonviolent nation cannot win where there appears to be no such possibility. Moreover, when there is no question of defeat of any party, as in a violent war, there is no reason to doubt the victory of a nonviolent nation.

54. Nonviolence too needs organisation, training and sacrifice

When we have to choose between a nonviolent political system and preparation for a total war, there is no other choice than nonviolence. However, a nonviolent polity too needs organisation, education of public opinion etc.; and though a nonviolent organisation is bound to be different from the one required for a total war, it would also have to be so extensive as to touch the life of every individual. A plan therefor has already been suggested. Before it could be implemented, the people who are nonviolent by nature would have to be made nonviolent through full understanding of the principles. Ordinary people are always nonviolent by nature, but they should become nonviolent by conviction. It means that inactive nonviolence would not do. Active nonviolence, extending to all spheres of life, would be needed. Nonviolence is a sovereign philosophy and ideal. A philosophy cannot remain restricted to any one area of life; it is bound to pervade the whole life. If economic and social orders are to be left undisturbed, where is the scope for non-violence? But when both the internal affairs of a nation and the international affairs are organised on the basis of nonviolence, there is no reason why such a system should not endure.
We see that nations have to make tremendous sacrifices in order to defend violent political orders. Still it is hoped that defence of a nonviolent order would not entail any damage to life and property. But although nonviolent defence is right in all respects, its success cannot be guaranteed without effort. There would have to be preparedness to suffer and even to lay down one’s life peacefully without doing the slightest harm to the opponent. The battle of nonviolence takes place not on the battlefield but in the heart. But there must be preparedness for battle even in nonviolence. Even if nonviolence spreads throughout the world, there would still be need for preparedness. Achievement of something once and for all is possible neither in violence nor in nonviolence. It would always be essential to keep awake the power of resistance. A life of nonviolence does not mean only occasional sacrifice, it implies life of continual sacrifices; and not merely sacrifices but joy in sacrifices.

55. Nonviolent system not beyond human capacity

Many wonder how all this could come about. Some ask if superhuman beings would be required for this. Had we been thinking of superhuman beings, there would have been no question of resistance. When we talk of resistance, we are clearly talking with reference to ordinary people; we exclude only their animal nature. And we do not even foresee total disappearance of animal nature from all the people; we only expect it to be under the control of their higher nature. Creation of a nonviolent order is thus definitely not impossible from any angle; in fact, no other order could be as sustainable as a nonviolent one.

V. When other nations are protagonists of violence, how can a single nation remain wedded to nonviolence?

56. Armour of universal sympathy would protect a nonviolent nation

According to the nonviolent way of thinking, human society is one; and separate nations can be conceived of merely for the sake of convenience. A particular nation having the good sense to adopt nonviolence would not regard itself as separate from and opposed to others. It would rather be as anxious to safeguard the legitimate interests of neighbouring nations as those of its own. Even if a nation is wedded to violence, it is not that its entire population has gone berserk. In fact, nations become violent because of mutual rivalry. People never like violence for its own sake. So, if a nation desires to follow nonviolence and therefore does not want to have any conflict in its relations with the whole world, it would awaken the conscience of neighbouring nations and, to the extent it is awakened, bring them to the path of nonviolence.
A nonviolent nation would not forcibly dump its goods on another nation. Every village in it would be self-sufficient and devoted to labour. So there would be no scope in it for the greed of other nations. If other nations imagine their interests to be opposed to the interests of such a nation, the latter would try to remove their misgivings with a friendly attitude. If famines or other calamities befall other nations, it would selflessly render all possible help to them. It would always be ready to submit controversial matters to arbitration. If other nations do not accept arbitration, or accept it but reject its award and commit aggression, the nonviolent nation would resist it nonviolently. A nation with such an attitude, even if initially alone, would not remain so; it would gain an armour of sympathy for itself from the whole world. Why should it not be possible to imagine such a nation?

57. A nonviolent nation is fully secure

After all, why should another nation want to commit an aggression on us — a nonviolent nation?
(i) Would it be because it has less land and more population while we have more land and less population? In that case, why would we not welcome those in it who want to come and be part of our system? A nonviolent nation, as has already been noted, does not regard itself as separate from others. Even though ancient India may not be considered to have a firm and scientific commitment to nonviolence, did she not give shelter to the Parsees in distress? And what did she lose thereby?
(ii) Or, if another nation commits an aggression because of difficulties like a famine, would not a nonviolent nation help it even at the cost of bearing hardships?
(iii) Or, would a nation commit an aggression out of greed, coveting the latter’s market? But greed never works unless reciprocated. If we are lazy or wallowing in luxuries, we would invite the aggressor’s greed; but in that case, we would not be nonviolent either.
(iv) Or, if the invasion is because of the clash of interests in the communities in border areas? In that case, would it not be possible for a nation, which practises nonviolence of the brave and not of the weak, to find a solution agreeable to both the parties?
And even if it is assumed that war finally becomes imminent, why should such a nation be less defensible through nonviolence than violence, when it has brave individuals willing to undergo suffering even unto death?

58. Weak nonviolence cannot stand

In fact, it is lack of imagination that rouses doubts about the sustenance of a nation after its adoption of nonviolence. In fact, those engaged in a violent war do not have to undergo less suffering. If the same sacrifices are contemplated for the sake of nonviolence, there is no reason to imagine that the gains accruing thereby would be less. There is no psychological foundation for such assumption. But we assume that violence needs great sacrifices, but nonviolence would need little sacrifice, or would not even need it at all. Such non-violence is weak and would certainly not endure in the world.

59. A nonviolent order has no fear of internal disorder or external aggression

Fear of internal disorder or external aggression always stretches our imagination. But a nonviolent polity, pledged to secure happiness for all, would not be perturbed by such fears. When the system cares equally for all with antagonism for none and there is arrangement to allay the distress of everyone, and still some individuals try to create disturbances, it should not be difficult to meet such a situation. A nonviolent order implies existence of public-spirited workers engaged in the service of the people in their neighbourhoods and in close touch with them all. When such a band of workers is there, readiness for a little sacrifice on their part should be enough to quell the riots. When the rioters realize that persons who serve them and are well known to them are ready to lay down their lives, and are ready any time to listen to their grievances, assuring their well-being, that should be sufficient to quell the riot.

60. No police, only public-spirited workers would be there in an ideal nonviolent order

It is asked, “Your polity will have no army; will it not have even a police force?” The normal reply is that there would indeed be such a force, but it would have a different character. Why is it not said that there would be no police; there would be an alert band of public-spirited workers and the masses would be conscious of their duties? Such a reply is not given because we are not talking here of the ideal polity; the reply is in the context of the pace with which we are proceeding on the path of nonviolence and the extent to which our imagination can look ahead without losing sight of the present situation.