Why we need a Friendly Market?

We are certainly living through very exciting times. The development pendulum is beginning to swing once again, from an over commitment to public sector to an over enthusiasm for the private sector. There is ‘garage sale’ of public enterprises going all over the world- from New Delhi to Rio, and from Warsaw to Moscow- enough to warm of any ideologue of capitalism. Certainly the long overdue return to the market has started in many developing countries. But the fact that is being feared by the experts is that the pendulum may once again swing so far and we may all live to regret it.

Before going deep into the changes that occur in the present day world market we need to take a quick review into the over commitment made to the public sector in many developing countries. Our societies faced the challenge of tremendous poverty in the formative years. We realized that great disparity existed between various income groups and that we needed to pursue a range of social objectives, not only higher economic growth, to liberate our societies from poverty. In this search for social objectives, many developing countries lost their way. There was an innocent flirtation with socialism but unfortunately there was a mix up between ends and means. The means that were chosen were a large role for the public sector and, instead of a pursuit of the real social objectives, often it became bureaucratic capitalism. The economy was handed on a silver platter to the civil servants, often ill-trained and ill-paid. Many times they used controls and regulations, not to enrich the economy but to enrich them.   

A very strange world emerged in the past 30 years. We had public enterprises in agriculture, industry, trade--all productive sectors--many of them inefficient and losing money. Most developing countries were short of financial resources. Yet they wasted their scarce financial resources, and even more scarce management skills, on inefficient public enterprises that could have been privatized with great benefit to all sides. As such, there was a strange "Alice in Wonderland" situation in many parts of the developing world. They committed their scarce resources and energies to things that the private sector could have done more efficiently and they did not then have enough resources left in their budgets to do the things that only the government could have done, particularly provision of social services and investment in education and health. Then they all complained about poverty of resources. Restructuring the priorities of many of these countries’ budgets would have really given them the resources they needed for urgent human development.

In many of these countries, markets are neither free, nor efficient, nor equitable. Unless there is a good regulatory role of the state, and unless free markets are combined with social compassion, we may have a good deal of upheavals coming in many of these countries.

Markets are not very friendly to the poor, to the weak, to the vulnerable, either nationally or internationally. Often we act as if markets are free. They are not. The markets are often the handmaiden of powerful interest groups, and they are greatly affected by the prevailing distribution of income. In fact, Brazil spends 12 percent of its GNP on social services. But the main beneficiaries are higher income groups. About 88 percent of its public sector health budget is spent on expensive urban hospitals for a few rather than on primary health care for all. Brazil gives eighteen times more subsidy to university students than to primary education while only 1 percent of the enrollment in its universities comes from the bottom 20 percent of the income group. That is why Brazil has four times the child mortality of Jamaica, despite having twice the per capita income of Jamaica and despite spending more on social services. This dramatically illustrates how even the distribution of public services is skewed in favor of the rich, not just the allocation of resources in the market, if the initial distribution of income and assets is extremely unequal in a society. Markets cannot become neutral or competitive in such a situation unless the playing ground is made more even and playable to begin with.

Is everybody in a position to compete in the market or are some people going to fall outside the marketplace because they do not have enough education, health, and nutrition to compete on any footing, let alone equal footing? That is why there is a much better distribution of income and assets, of credit, of power structures, and certainly a better distribution of knowledge and skills is vital to make markets work more efficiently. Now you may not often be able to distribute income and assets more equitably. There are many practical problems, there are several political limits. But you can distribute knowledge and skills quite equally in many countries and that is a tremendous leveling force to enable people to compete in the market. Unless there is a tremendous investment in human capital formation in many of these countries, the markets will continue to work inefficiently and inequitably, and may be hijacked by the rich.

The basic point is that markets do not automatically favor the poor, the weak, the vulnerable. Unless some policy steps are taken to enable the poor to compete on an equal footing, they may stand to lose a great deal from the workings of the unregulated market system. So our first step must be to accept the logic of the marketplace but then to turn around and make these markets work more efficiently in the interests of all the people. What we need are people-friendly markets.  After all, markets are only a means: people are the end. Inorder to establish people-friendly markets, which are accessible to all the people, which encourage full participation in the mainstream of economic life, which extend their potential benefits to everyone rather than to a privileged few, then some preconditions must be met. There should be a more equitable distribution of income, productive assets (particularly land), and credit. There must be sufficient human investment to enable people to compete on an equal footing. There must be no barriers to market entry--religious, ethnic, gender, or any other barriers. There must be competitive market conditions and regulations for monopolistic practices so as to prevent the powerful few from bending the markets to serve their own narrow interests. There must be a regulatory role of the state to ensure that external diseconomies are not created for the entire society in the pursuit of private greed and that those who create such external "bads" (such as environmental pollution) are made to pay for the privilege. In other words, people-friendly markets require a very activist role of the government, not to over regulate economic enterprises but to create conditions of more equitable access to competitive markets.

Even when markets are fully competitive, it is inevitable that some people will fall outside the market place and require a social safety net. Because the preconditions for people-friendly markets are often missing in many economic and political systems, particularly in the developing countries, the need for such a social safety net often increases. Every society develops a certain social consensus over time as to how to balance market efficiency and social compassion. In the United States, the New Deal was an historic watershed when the American Society articulated a new social consensus between markets and government action -- a social contract that is still there despite some recent weakening. In many developing countries, less than 5 percent of their national income is often spent on such social safety nets, while the need for social programs is much greater in these societies than in industrial countries because their income and asset distribution is generally worse, their markets are generally less competitive, their barriers to market entry are generally more formidable, and their systems of democratic accountability are generally less institutionalized. And yet many international consultants and financial institutions have the courage to advise these developing countries to dismantle even their existing meager social safety nets in the pursuit of market growth. Obviously, they feel that there are no political limits to change in these poor lands while they would cringe at suggesting a fraction of similar structural adjustment in their own richer societies.

The basic point, which many professional shock therapists forget, is that the opening of market mechanisms need not inflict unacceptable social and human costs on the people. Their challenge is to design strategies that can combine rapid change with the minimum possible human costs. It is no use shrugging away the social pain with the banal observation that pain is inevitable in a major transition to the markets. Maybe so, but the most critical question is the distribution of pain: is it borne only by the masses or also by the privileged economic groups in societies? My own perception is that much of the pain for the poor people can be avoided if the burden of adjustment is placed on the favored strata of society--military establishments, industrial tax evaders, corrupt civil servants, and higher income groups. The international institutions should calculate the distribution of the pain of adjustment in a society and try to protect the poor within the society, rather than nonchalantly walk away from the issue.

How lightly the issue of more equitable distribution of pain was treated by outside consultants and institutions can be illustrated by just one example: their criminal silence on military spending levels in the developing countries in the last three decades. During the last three decades, military expenditures in developing countries increased by 7.5 percent a year, three times as fast as in the industrial countries. There are eight times more soldiers than physicians in these countries today. Many poor countries are spending two to three times more on their military establishments than on the education and health of their children. We have a situation today where military generals go around in air-conditioned jeeps while small children sit in windowless school rooms and suffocate. And yet never in these three decades did the level of military spending become a question of aid conditionality. There was more tolerance for military subsidies than food subsidies. International institutions carried out no serious economic analysis of military spending levels in the developing countries. No attempt was made to collect data on military debts--a frightening omission. No international screams went up against powerful military establishments in the developing countries. Sometimes those who pride themselves on designing "rational" aid conditionality for the poor nations should pause and think whether their machoism extends only to beating up on the poor or also to standing up to powerful vested interests.

The basic point is that it is possible to combine the painful transition to the market with social safety nets for the poor if some of the irrational spending priorities are changed in the system. The advocates of shock therapy should first look for some decent solutions, which can combine gradual reform with acceptable social pain, fairly equitably distributed. Opening up of the markets is the best thing that has happened to the developing countries and to the former socialist bloc. But this transition to the markets must be accompanied by a regulatory role of the state to make the markets accessible to all people and a compassionate role of the community to extend social safety nets to the victims of the market place. This is a time to strike a balance, not to go to any excesses.

Some analysts have contended that the recent years have seen the demise of socialism and the triumph of capitalism. If this is the demise of socialism, let us hope it is not the demise of all social objectives. And if this is the triumph of capitalism, let us hope that it is not the triumph of only private greed. We have come to a new crossroads in history when individual initiative must be combined with social objectives. It is not one or the other: it is both. And the future course of our societies may well depend on how skillfully we combine market efficiency with social compassion.

നരേന്ദ്ര മോഡിയുടെ സദ്ഭാവന

മോഡിയുടെ നേതൃത്വത്തില്‍ ഗുജറാത്തില്‍ ഒരികളും സദ്ഭാവന പുലരില്ല. പത്തു വര്ഷം കോര്‍പ്പറേറ്റ് ഭീമന്മാരുടെ കയ്യാളായി ഫാസ്സിസം മാത്രം പ്രവര്‍ത്തിച് സാമൂഹ്യപ്രസ്നങ്ങള്‍കുമേല്‍ അടയിരുന്ന മുഖ്യമന്ത്രി ഒരു സുപ്രഭാതത്തില്‍ മാനസാന്തരപെട്ടു സാമൂഹിക നന്മക്കായി നിരാഹാരം അനുഷ്ടിച്ചത് സമീപകാല ഇന്ത്യന്‍ രാഷ്ട്രീയം കണ്ട ഏറ്റവും മികച്ച ഫലിതനാടകം  എന്നതിനപ്പുറം  ഒന്നുമില്ല.

ഗുജറാത്തിനെ അറിയാവുന്ന ഒരാള്‍ക്ക് ഈ പ്രഹസനം എളുപത്തില്‍ മനസിലാക്കാം. ഗുജറാത്ത്‌ ഇന്ന് ഭയത്തിന്റെ പിടിയിലാണ് . 2002 കലാപത്തില്‍ ഒതുങ്ങുനതല്ല അവിടുത്തെ പ്രശ്നങ്ങള്‍. ഫാസ്സിസ്മാണ് ഇന്നും നടമാടുന്നത് . കലാപത്തെ തുടര്‍ന്നു പലായനം ചെയ്തവരില്‍ 25000 പേര്‍ ഇനിയും മടങ്ങി വന്നിട്ടില്ല . തങ്ങള്‍ക് നേരെ നടന്ന , നടക്കുന്ന, അക്രമങ്ങള്‍ക് നേരെ നിയമനടപടി സ്വീകരിക്കില. തുടങ്ങി ഒരു പൌരന്റെ അവകാസങ്ങള്‍  ഹനിക്കുന്ന ഒരുപാടു വ്യെവസ്ഥകള്‍ തിരികെ വന്നവരുടെ പക്കല്‍ നിന്നും ഒപ്പിട്ടു വാങ്ങി. മുസ്ലിം സമുദായം മാത്രമല്ല ദളിതരുടെ നൂറുകണക്കിന് ഗ്രാമങ്ങളും ഇന്ന് ഊരുവിലക്കിലാണ്. കടയില്‍ നിന്ന് സാദനം വാങ്ങാനോ , കിണറുകളില്‍ നിന്ന് വെള്ളം ശേഖരിക്കാനോ അവര്ക് അവകാസമില്ല . സമൂഹത്തിലെ ഒരു വിഭാഗത്തെ ഭയപ്പെടുത്തി നിസ്സബ്ദരാക്കി സാമൂഹ്യ തുല്യതയും വികസനവും പ്രസങ്ങികുന്നതിനു പിന്നില്‍ വെറും അധികാരലക്ഷ്യം മാത്രമാണുള്ളത്. സംസ്ഥാനം വികസനത്തിന്റെ പാതയിലാണ് എന്നാവര്തിക്കുന്നവര്‍ എന്ത് കൊണ്ട് മുഴുവന്‍ ചിത്രം കാണുന്നില്ല.

സമൂഹത്തിന്റെ കീഴ്തട്ടിനെ പൂര്‍ണമായും അവഗണിച്ചു ഒരു ഫോട്ടോ ഫ്രാമിനെ മനോഹരമാക്കുന്ന മുഖം മിനുക്കല്‍ മാത്രമാണ് വികസനം എങ്കില്‍ ഗുജറാത്തില്‍ വികസനം നടന്നിട്ടുണ്ട്. റോഡുകള്‍ നന്നാക്കി , ബസ്‌ സര്‍വീസ് സ്വകാര്യവല്കരിച്ചു , കെട്ടിടസമുച്ചയങ്ങള്‍ വന്നു , വ്യെവസായങ്ങളെ പ്രോല്സാഹിപിച്ചു.മറുവസത് വെള്ളവും വയിദ്യുതിയും സഞ്ചാരസംവിധാനങ്ങളും എത്തി നോക്കാത്ത  ഗ്രാമങ്ങള്‍, മത്സ്യതൊഴിലാളികള്‍. നര്‍മധയിലെ ജലത്തിന്‍റെ 94 ശതമാനവും ലഭ്യമാകുന്നത് കുത്തക വ്യെവസായങ്ങല്‍ക്കാന്. 6 ശതമാനം ലഭിക്കുന്ന കര്‍ഷകര്‍ക്കാവട്ടെ അത് തങ്ങളുടെ കൃഷിയിടെതിലേക്ക്  എത്തിക്കാനുള്ള വയിദ്യുതി പോലും ലഭ്യമല്ല .പാവങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് നേരെ കണ്ണടച്ച് കുത്തകകളെ പ്രീനിപ്പികുകയാണ് സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ ചെയ്യുന്നത് 

ഗുജറാത്തിലെ ജനങ്ങള്‍ക് വേണ്ടിയാണു സദ്ഭാവനയജ്ഞം  എങ്കില്‍ മോഡി എന്ത് കൊണ്ടാണ് കര്‍ഷകരെയും മത്സ്യതൊഴിലാളികളെയും കലാപബാധിത ഗ്രാമങ്ങളെയും അവഗണിക്കുന്നു?. ആര്‍ എസ് എസ് പ്രോസിക്യൂട്ടര്‍മാരെ  ഒഴിവാക്കി കേസുകളുടെ വിചാരണ സ്വതന്ത്രമായി നടത്താന്‍ തയരാവുന്നില ? എന്തിനു ലോകയുക്തയെ എതിര്‍ക്കുന്നു ? ഇങ്ങനെ നിരവധി ചോദ്യങ്ങള്‍ക് ഉത്തരം നല്‍കേണ്ടതുണ്ട്. നിര്‍ഭാഗ്യവശാല്‍ ചോദ്യങ്ങള്‍ ഉയരുമ്പോള്‍ തന്നെ അടിച്ചമര്‍ത്തുന്ന  ഫാസ്സിസ്റ്റ് രീതി നടപ്പാക്കുന്നതില്‍ മോഡി വിജയിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. അത് നിലനില്‍ക്കുന്നിടത്തോളം ഗുജറാത്തില്‍ ഒരു നീതിയും നടക്കില്ല. 

വംശഹത്യ ഏറ്റവും രൂക്ഷമായി നടന്ന പ്രദേശങ്ങളില്‍  ഒന്നായ നരോധ  പാട്ട്യാലയിലെ ജനങ്ങള്‍ നിരാഹരതിനെതിരെ പ്രതിഷ്ഹെധതിനു ഒരുങ്ങിയപ്പോള്‍ നരോധ ഗ്രാമം മുഴുവന്‍ പോലീസെ  വളഞ്ഞു. ജനങ്ങള്‍ വീടിനു വെളിയില്‍ ഇറങ്ങുന്നത്  തടഞ്ഞു. അവിടെ എത്തിയവരെ നീക്കം ചെയ്തു . ഇതേ സമയം  ഗുജറാത്തിന്റെ നന്മക്കും സാമൂഹികക്ഷേമതിനുമായി മോഡി സദ്ഭാവനയജ്ഞം  ആരംഭിച്ചിരുന്നു.

  

അവിടെ നടപ്പിലാകുന്നത് മോഡിയുടെ ഫാസ്സിസ്റ്റ് അജണ്ടയാണ്. ഭീതിയിലാണ് അനേകം വിഭാഗം ജനങ്ങള്‍ അവിടെ കഴിയുന്നത്‌. സട്ഭാവനകള്‍ അവരില്‍ നിന്ന് ഒത്തിരി ദൂരെയാണ്. ആ അവസ്ഥയില്‍ മുഖ്യമന്ത്രി നടത്തിയ സദ്ഭാവനയജ്ഞം , രാഷ്ട്രീയഭാവി ഊട്ടിയുരപ്പികാനുള്ള ഒരു റിയാലിറ്റി ഷോ മാത്രമാണ്.

Mamata Victorius in SINGUR!!!!!!!!!!!!

It was a major victory for West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee when the Calcutta High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Singur Land and Rehabilitation and Developmental Act, 2011 which was challenged by Tata Motors. The judgment was delivered by the single bench of Justice I.P. Mukherjee, who inter alia held that the act was constitutional and valid. According to the court, compensation enshrined in sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

 The verdict says: “Furthermore. The application has to be determined by award of compensation by the District Judge, Hughly, within six months of making such application by the Tatas. Furthermore, If the government admits any compensation in its rejoinder to the application to be filed by the Tatas, the government should pay that compensation immediately, since it has been the possession of the land”. The judge allowed the Tatas time until November 2 to appeal against the judgment.

The previous CPI (M)-led Left front Government had acquired 997.11 acres of land in Singur in Hughly district for Tata motors’ prestigious Nano project. It had also leased out the land to Tata motors, which had started construction there. But, of the 130000 land losers, around 2200. Owning a total of about 400 acres, refused to collect the compensation cheques from the state government. Under Mamata Banerjee’s leadership, they began a protracted and violent agitation, causing the Tatas to abandon the project before completion in October 2008. Subsequently, Tata Motors shifted the project to Gujarat.

Following the victory of the Trinamool Congress led alliance in the Assembly Elections in may this year, the Government formulated the Singur Land and Rehabilitation and Developmental Bill, 2011, to facilitate the return of the land to the “unwilling farmers”- which was one of the Mamata’s main pre poll commitments. As soon as the bill received the assent from the Governor, the government declared that it had taken possession of the Land and pasted a notice on the factory gates directing immediate restoration of “ vacant possession of land in the name of District Magistrate Hooghly” on June 21. The Tatas moved the High Court the very next day. The principle objections of the Tatas were that the State Act was unconditional since it infringed upon the provisions of the existing Central Act of 1894 regarding land acquisition, which is in the concurrent list of the constitution. According to Tata motors, the State Act  have been valid if it had the President’s assent, but no such assent had been taken. Secondly, it maintained that it did not voluntarily “abandon” the project but was forced to shift because of difficult conditions, “amidst violence, disruption of activities, damage to property, threats to personnel”.

The Tatas also contended that the State Act did not specify the compensation amount or the principle according to which losses suffered by the company could be determined. The Tata Motors claimed that they had invested a huge amount for the infrastructure. But Kalyan Banerjee, Trinamool MP stated that the State Act did not intended for land acquisition but the act is an emanation of the state governments power enshrined in Item number 18 of the State List( List II) of the Constitution. it was also stated that the State Government was only a lessee and there is no question of acquisition of ownership of title.

For Mamata, the verdict was particularly significant, as it was her relentless agitation for the return of the land for the “unwilling farmers” that paved the way for her political comeback in 2006 and ultimately her victory in the Assembly Elections 2011, making her the first Chief Minister of the State.

Her stand against forcible land acquisition won her the confidence of the vast rural majority and she began to be perceived as a sort f savior of farmers. In fact, the drafting of the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Bill was the first major legislative venture of her Government. The judgment coincided with the result of the Bhowanipoore Assembly by-election, which she won with a thumping majority. However. It is unlikely that the court verdict marks the end of the Singur saga as the Tatas may continue the legal battle.

Relevance of Gandhism in the Corruptive Era

Chanakya’s famous statement in Arthasastra, many centuries ago, testifies to the durability of the phenomenon of corruption. He observed:

 “ Just as it is impossible to not to taste the honey or the poison at the tip of the tongue, so it is impossible for a government servant not to eat up at least a bit of the King’s revenue. Just as a fish moving under water cannot possibly be found out either as drinking or not drinking water, so government servants employed in the government work cannot be found out taking  money. It is possible to mark the movements of birds flying high up in the sky; but not so it is ascertain the movement of government servants of hidden purpose. ”

Corruption in all societies are as old as power itself. It is, therefore, common in all countries, irrespective of their stage of development. However, its nature, volume and dimensions differ largely from country to country and from one environment to another.  India is not free from the evils of political and bureaucratic corruption. Many scams and scandals that took place in India are enough proof for this rampant and widespread corruption due to near total lack of effective vigilance. Corruption is rampant in the administration of welfare schemes, public distribution system, police, revenue, excise and taxation and irrigation department and several other sectors where people come into contact with daily administration. A matter of concern is the vertical integration at various levels of government between officials and politicians and the inability of top functionaries to check the prevalence of corruption. In fact, corruption has now institutionalized and has become a commonly accepted way in life.

Corruption has seeped into every system to such an extent that even if you try to bypass it, it won’t let you do it. The present day system where corruption is rampant, the amount of money lost from the public treasury is too enormous that  a part of which can eradicate the poverty of the whole nation.

In this disastrous situation the widespread and vibrant question arises from the different sects of the society “WHAT IS THE REMEDY FOR THIS?”  And an answer could be Gandhism.  Gandhism is the most adequate weapon against this social cancer. By adopting Gandhian principles in our day to day life, we can achieve the goal of eradicating corruption which was considered a mountain unconquered till date.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the crusader of truth and non violence gave a broader definition for corruption. Gandhi advocated that corruption not only included monitory and material benefits but also anything and everything including personal favors or help. If a teacher gives her favorite student more credit than the other students, it also amounts to corruption under the Gandhian concept. If a parent cares for one child than the other children, that also amounts to corruption. Thus the Gandhian concept gave a broader definition of corruption.

Corruption was rampant in 1937 when the congress party got an opportunity for the first to form ministries at the state level. Mahatma Gandhi took a serious note of the growing corruption in the congress ranks and lashed out at it in the columns of corruption. In ma 1939, he told Gandhi Seva Sangh workers. “I would go to the length of giving the whole congress organization a decent burial than put up with the corruption that is rampant.” Gandhi was much relived when Congress ministers resigned in October 1939 on the political issues due to the arousal of World War II.

Gandhi advocated simplicity and humility. Luxury is something which has been amalgamated to the modern day society. Everyone wants to live in maximum luxury. But none of them are realizing the fact that it’s just a transient status in life. They must understand the truth and must try to lead a simple life. If they are ready to sacrifice the lust for luxury, all the unwanted expenses would be lost and everyone’s income would be adequate to meet the expense. If they are satisfied with what they are earning legally, then none of them would be ready to make money through illegal manner. Gandhi also advocated for self sacrifice. He wants us to care for our fellow ones too. According to Gandhi everyone should care for his fellow beings and do whatever possible by him, even sacrifice his own well being for good of others. If this principle is followed by our citizens, then we could see a better life for all and the society would no longer be corruptive. Gandhi wants everyone to be truthful and transparent. One of the main features which alienated Gandhi from his contemporary world leaders was the transparency in his life. His life was a open book. Similarly if everyone is ready to be transparent in life, then the world would automatically be truthful.

These principles advocated by Gandhi have great social relevance and political relevance too. Prima facie these principles appear to be some basic values that must be followed by all in their life. If we just think for a while, it becomes evident that these are not only certain values but something which can cultivate great social commitment in one’s life. If only one person is following this principle, its benefit would be for many. These principles can contribute a lot in providing better future for the country. By following the Gandhian principles in life one can leave the lust for luxury, both monetary and material. A person who doesn’t need any luxury and leading a simple life would be happy to sacrifice his well being for the betterment of the life of his fellow beings.

PATIENCE AND PERSEVERNACE

Another important principle highlighted by Gandhi patience. Patience is something which can be the keyhole success in life. But in this speedy world where the available time is inadequate for everyone, patience is something which is lacking in the society. Consider a situation where a person needs a driving license. In the right manner he need to stand in queue for two or three days. But if he is ready to give some amount to the officers in the transport department, he can earn the license without even attending the driving test. But if he shows the patience to stand in the queue and to attend all the procedures in the right manner, then there would not be any bribery occurs. The lack of patience, in a way, making us also the parties to corruption. Two other similar principles advocated by Gandhi are persuasion and perseverance. If we are ready to work hard to attain our goal, then we don’t require any shortcuts. We can move in the right manner and attain our goal. Thus persuasion and perseverance can also create a barrior to corruption in society.

END-MEANS RELATIONSHIP

In Gita, Lord Krishna advised Arjuna that it is not the means which matters but the end or the goal matters i.e. we can choose unjust means to attain a just goal i.e. in brief end justifies the mean. But Gandhi rejected this principle. According to Mahatma means justifies the end or in short both the means and the end should be just. He never accepted any unjust means to attain any goal. He wants everyone to work in the right manner, in the just means to attain your goal. Sometimes you may reach our goal earlier when we adopt some unjust methods. But the victory through falsehood is not permanent. You could earn a transient victory. It would be like “ill got ill spent”. Gandhi compared “the means to a seed, the end to a tree and there is just the same inviolable connection between the means and the end as there is between the seed and the tree”. Gandhi advocated that “if one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself”. If we work hard in the right manner, through just means, you could earn a real victory, a victory which is forever. Gandhiji wants us to work hard upholding truth to attain our goal. Since Gandhiji believed in the moral pursuit and achievement of man, he always interlinked the means and the end. Most important example that showed Gandhi wanted both the means and the end should be just is the suspension of the Non cooperation movement due to the Chauri Chaura incident. The non cooperation movement was launched as a part of our nation’s freedom struggle. But Gandhi wanted all agitations and protests to peaceful and non violent. But when a violent incident occurred at Chauri Chaura, he suspended the whole movement. Gandhi believed that only a change brought about by pure means, which is by peaceful and legitimate means, can lead us to real progress”.

SPIRITUALISATION OF POLTICS

Gandhi also advocated the spiritualization of politics. Gandhiji’s doctrine of means justifying the end was manifested not only during the period of our freedom struggle but also in its application in the internal politics. He made a serious attempt to spiritualize politics and establish an organic link between religion and politics. But by spiritualization of religion he does not mean any religious dogmas or fundamentalism. What he implied was a synthesis of the values in all the religions. He regarded religion as self realization, suffering and sacrifice. According to him ‘Politics and Power’ must aim at social reform and service to mankind. In this sense politics become as essential as religion. If politics is divorced from religion, it is like a corpse, fit only for burning. Thus, religious value can guide the political actions in the right direction. But Gandhiji totally discarded the idea of ‘state religion’ or ‘subordination of politics to religion’.

SATYAGARAHA

Satyagraha as a doctrine and a weapon was undoubtedly rose into prominence due to the untiring effort of Mahatma Gandhi. Satyagraha at that time was in the form of ‘passive resistance’. In modern India the doctrine of passive resistance was chiefly expounded as a political technique rather than a spiritual therapy. Gandhi used Satyagraha as a technique of redressing social and political injustice. Gandhi has laid down several guidelines for Satyagraha and satyagrahis. According to him, constructive program is the novel mode of Satyagraha and satyagrahis should engage in silent, active and constructive work of reform and social service. He believed that simply taking over the political power does not make any meaning. Every Satyagrahi should spend his energy for constructive programme to rebuild the society and promote common good. But the present day politicians have interpreted the idea of Satyagraha and used it as political technique violating the true idea of the practice. We have seen the drama’s staged by Karunanidhi and Narendra Modi in the name of Satyagraha. Such political parasites should be erased from the society.

     

SWARAJ

The concept of swaraj is not doctrine emerged from Gandhiji’s idea. Swaraj or self rule is connected with securing self determination to all sections of the society. According to Gandhi the two things that together makes swaraj: no submission and no exploitation. Unfortunately when we gained the swaraj these two things are found terribly in our society. Swaraj means real participatory democracy must be established where very individual must be in a position to rule himself and participate in the functioning of political system. Gandhi, rightly said, “ Purna Swaraj denotes a condition when the dump and the lame millions will speak and walk”. But if such a situation occur now, then all the Corrupt politicians would be seeped into Arabian Sea. Swadeshi and use of khadi will also check exploitation, concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and unhealthy competition. Above all Gandhiji advocated swadeshi and khadi because he believed that an independent India could only discharge her duty towards a groaning world by adopting a simple ennobled life.   

Always a question lurks in the mind of the modern man with regard to the relevance of gandhian thought. Modern man with all his accentricity, lust for power, science and technology for warfare laugh at the basic postulates of Gandhism. But for this, the present generation it is not to be blamed. Nathuram Godse no doubt killed Gandhi, but his successors killed Gandhism forever. Any concept of ideology if not reinterpreted becomes invalid for the present. But Gandhism can never die. Gandhian ideas and principle are too much relevant in the present day society of accentricity. It clearly depicts hoe to tackle the problems in various fields in the society.

His emphasis on political freedom of minority, decentralization of poltical power has been accepted in the form of protection of minority rights and pachayathi raj. Gandhiji’s concept of non-cooperation, satyagraha and civil disobedience even today have proved to be successful as non violent struggle against corruption and exploitation. The successful agitation of Gandhian Anna Hazare and other civil society members have proved that the nonviolent Gandhian methods of agitation are still a powerful weapon or shield against the exploitative measures of the ruling class.

Thus, ‘Gandhism’ though cannot be taken as a model in a strict sense, can be taken as a beacon. As present we have the task of revalidating gandhian ideas by new interpretation of his thought and action. The entire mankind will be entirely benefitted if gandhian thought is followed in the right perspective. Gandhi is dead, long live Gandhism