Mahatma gandhis vision for the future of india the role of enli

Penn History Review
Volume 16
Issue 1 Fall 2008
Article 5
10-1-2008
Mahatma Gandhi's Vision for the Future of India:
The Role of Enlightened Anarchy
Joseph S. Friedman
University of Pennsylvania Law School, josephfriedman@law.upenn.edu
This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. http://repository.upenn.edu/phr/vol16/iss1/5
For more information, please contact libraryrepository@pobox.upenn.edu.

MAHATMA GANDHI’S VISION FOR THE
FUTURE OF INDIA
THE ROLE OF ENLIGHTENED ANARCHY
Joseph S. Friedman
55
Few would dispute the notion that Mahatma K. Gandhi was one of the
twentieth century’s transformative political and spiritual leaders. Among
his many notable contributions, Gandhi is rightly credited with pioneering
Satyagraha, resistance to tyranny though mass civil disobedience, and vo-
calizing a transcendent message that helped the Indian National Congress ac-
quire independence from the British in August 1947. Often forgotten or
omitted by standard histories, however, are Gandhi’s idealistic leanings that
in fact compromised the universality of his appeal and confounded the ide-
ological underpinnings of the Indian nation. His vision for India’s future
was highly unorthodox. In Gandhi’s idealized state, there would be no rep-
resentative government, no constitution, no army or police force; there
would be no industrialization, no machines and certainly no modern cities.
There would be no capitalism, no communism, no exploitation and no reli-
gious violence. Instead, a future Indian nation would be modeled off the
India of the past. It would feature an agrarian economy, self-sustaining vil-
lages, an absence of civil law and a moral framework that would express
the collective will of the people. In many ways, Gandhi’s writings reflect an-
archic principles in that they call for a pre-modern, morally-enlightened and
apolitical Indian state.1
Gandhi’s specific ideas on the subject changed
slightly over time, as some of his writings on the eve of the Transfer of
Power suggest, but still contain ample continuity to warrant this depiction.
Some scholars have been reluctant to agree with this characterization of
Gandhi because his musings about the future were ambiguous at times.
Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister and celebrated leader, re-
membered that Gandhi was “delightfully vague” about the actual form of
government to be aimed for.2
Nonetheless, I argue in this essay that suffi-
cient evidence exists to synthesize Gandhi’s views about the future. The
fullest expression of his ideas can be found in the Hind Swaraj, published
in 1909, which has been called “the nearest he came to producing a sus-
tained work of political theory.”3
While sometimes self-contradictory, Hind

Mahatma Gandhi’s Vision for the Future of India
56
Swaraj nevertheless shows a systematic exposition of Gandhi’s ideas on
state, society, and nation. This seminal work, along with his autobiography,
speeches, interviews, pamphlets and articles, offers a panoramic view of
Gandhi’s political desires. Together, these materials form a large corpus of
thought known as the Collected Works, which runs into nearly 90 thick vol-
umes.4
Considering this mass of knowledge, it is possible to cogently sum-
marize Gandhi’s plans for the future. This essay comprehensively examines
the Hind Swaraj, and the Collected Works to a lesser extent, for articulation
of Gandhi’s economic conceptions, political notions and social ideas, in
order to substantiate the claim that Gandhi yearned for individualist anarchy
– a social system opposed to state control and dismissive of private owner-
ship.
Gandhi did not advocate anarchy as an end to itself, but rather as one of
a number of essential conditions for genuine self-rule or swaraj. India’s
most immediate task – before pursuing socio-economic or political change
– was the attainment of swaraj. This required both self-rule over govern-
ment and self-rule over one’s mind and passions. By reducing greed, vio-
lence and communal strife, swaraj would promote increased prosperity,
compassion and individual happiness. In his book Hind Swaraj, Gandhi
writes that India will have nominal “self-rule” when the British disengage,
but will not have actual self-rule until India undergoes a spiritual regenera-
tion. Reform of the soul was the precondition of any future Indian state,
and this transformation could most effectively occur and persist within an
anarchic environment.5
Spiritual renewal would make governance unnec-
essary: according to Gandhi, the trappings of civil government were super-
fluous because a life of bliss was possible in its absence. With the help of
satyagraha (non-violent spiritual resistance), Indians could more promptly
live the spiritually enlightened lives of their forefathers.
Government was an impediment to a moral existence rather than a con-
duit to its attainment. Due to its links to modern civilization, government
ipso facto ensured a future unfit for Gandhi’s enlightened India of the past.
Western government was both culturally chauvinistic and morally offen-
sive. “It is not the British who are responsible for the misfortunes of India,”
Gandhi writes in Hind Swaraj, “but we who have succumbed to modern civ-
ilization.”6
It was thus modern civilization with its prescription for a strong-
armed national government that prevented Indians from limiting their wants
and desires, attaining dignity in labor, and establishing a trusteeship of
wealth. In 1929, Gandhi emphasized this point: “The Western civilization

Joseph S. Friedman 57
which passes for civilization is disgusting to me.”7
Modern civilization fos-
tered materialism, indoctrinated false ideals of merit and wealth, and led to
violence and competition. In contrast, Gandhi said, satyagraha would bring
about a life of simplicity in which people worked not for conspicuous con-
sumption but satisfaction of their essential needs. Only through the moral
resources available in her own traditions could India begin a new life as an
independent nation. ‘Real’ civilization would be found in enlightened vil-
lages unfettered by modernity.8
THE ECONOMIC OUTLINES OF GANDHI’S IDEALIZED STATE.
One of the ways in which Gandhi envisaged a new India involved a fresh
outlook on economics – a view that dismissed capitalism for its exploita-
tive excesses and socialism for its connection to industrialization. In fact,
Gandhi shunned the idea of capitalist society fraught with opportunities for
exploitation and ceaseless competition, eschewing laissez-faire and Keyne-
sian economics.9
No longer should India rely on a global market based on
the freedom of exchange of goods and capital, argued Gandhi. Nor was so-
cialism any more tolerable. In a 1940 interview, Gandhi explicitly stated
his objection to socialism: “Pandit Nehru wants industrialization because he
thinks that, if it is socialized, it would be free from the evils of capitalism.
My own view is that evils are inherent in industrialism, and no amount of so-
cialization can eradicate them.10
Capitalism and socialism—quintessential
hallmarks of modern civilization—made man a prisoner of his craving for
luxury and self-indulgence. Gandhi’s postulations on the matter left I.N.C.
colleagues, particularly Nehru, mystified. In his autobiography, Nehru wrote
off Gandhi’s economic ideas as “utterly wrong… and impossible of achieve-
ment.”11
Despite this less than positive reinforcement, Gandhi continued to
extensively publicize his unorthodox social, economic and political views.
Having rejected capitalism and socialism, Gandhi’s speeches and writ-
ings suggest that he envisaged an Indian state grounded in unconventional
economics advocating self-reliance. It seems that Gandhi desired a self-sus-
taining nation that embraced communal cooperation and manual labor. This
is implied in the Collected Works, wherein Gandhi argues that society should
be organized around the maximization of khadi (handspun cotton) produc-
tion: “Khadi is the only true economic proposition in terms of the millions
of villagers until such time, if ever, when a better system of supplying work
and adequate wages for every able-bodied person above the age of sixteen,

58
male or female, is found for his field, cottage or even factory in every one
of the villages of India.”12
Gandhi advocated the rejection of private prop-
erty in favor of public ownership; owners would be trustees of public prop-
erty managed in the common interest. Accordingly, each person within this
khadi economic arrangement would be “paid” in kind. For instance, a black-
smith would be paid with food for fashioning tools, while farmers would be
paid in equipment for laying seed, and so on.13
This type of pre-modern ex-
change would have far-reaching benefits. “I have no partiality for returning
to the primitive methods of grinding and husking,” Gandhi wrote. In fact,
he suggested the return, “because there is no other way of giving employ-
ment to the millions of villagers who are living in idleness.”14
With an em-
phasis on tradition, Gandhi promoted the spinning of khadi and manual labor
as the ideal method to achieve genuine self-rule. Embracing an organic
khadi-based economy would end exploitation, industrialization and mod-
ernization. It would overcome the moral hurdles preventing spiritual re-
newal, and hence create true swaraj.
Machinery was a case in point and represented a departure from Gandhi’s
ideals. Through its allure of ever-increasing productivity and efficiency,
machinery had serious ramifications that spoiled man’s natural development.
Gandhi believed machinery whetted consumers’ appetite to the extent that
it inevitably produced exploitation, unemployment and ultimately, starva-
tion. His solution was not to perfect industrialization but to eliminate the
process all together. Gandhi writes:
Instead of welcoming machinery as a boon, we should look
upon it as an evil… It is not that we did not know how to
invent machinery, but our forefathers knew that if we set our
hearts after such things, we would become slaves and lose
our moral fibers. They, therefore, after due deliberation de-
cided that we should only do what we could with our hands
and feet.15
As this reference from Hind Swaraj indicates, Gandhi hoped that his
homeland would follow a pre-modern trajectory notable for its emphasis on
tradition. Indians should return to the virtuous, hard labor of their forefa-
thers—who shrewdly rejected modernizing for a different type of progress.

THE POLICITCAL FUTURE OF GANDHI’S INDIAN STATE
Gandhi’s condemnation of modern economy – capitalism, socialism and
industrialization – reflected his critical view of modern political affairs.
Gandhi was particularly vocal about his criticism for contemporary politi-
cal systems. He especially targeted Western democracy and the corrosive
manifestations the system wrought. In Hind Swaraj, for instance, Gandhi
calls the British parliament a “sterile woman” for not having “done a single
good thing” and a “prostitute” because “it is under the control of a minister
who changes from time to time.”16
Gandhi felt passionately about the short-
comings of Westminster: “If India copies England, it is my firm conviction
that she will be ruined. Their condition is worse than that of beasts.”17
Gandhi disparaged communism in a similar way. Certain aspects of Marx-
ism were agreeable in theory, but he detested the fashion by which it was im-
posed and its propagation of atheism. In his words, “… in so far as it is
based on violence and the denial of God, it repels me.”18
In practice, it was
also tainted for its propensity to concentrate power in the hands of the few
(i.e. the U.S.S.R.). Such a hierarchical power structure was anathema to
Gandhi’s conception of the state. This concentration of power was so harm-
ful, according to Gandhi, because it destroyed man’s individuality—the root
of moral progress.19
Gandhi therefore sought to distance India from both democracy and com-
munism. He seems to have favored a political alternative that encouraged
an absence of political institutions and political leadership altogether. Con-
stitutionalism, he suggested, would be rendered unnecessary as the country
moved towards enlightened anarchy. With hope, he said, “there will be a
state of enlightened anarchy in which each person will become his own ruler.
He will conduct himself in such a way that his behavior will not hamper the
wellbeing of his neighbors.”20
This theory of enlightened anarchy paral-
leled Gandhi’s humble worldview in important ways. Gandhi did not be-
lieve that even he had the moral attributes worthy to lead the people in
politics. In his autobiography, Gandhi writes that he unhesitatingly disliked
career politicians; he also dispelled rumors that he had political ambitions.
Praise “stings me”, he wrote, and the title Mahatma (Great Soul) has “deeply
pained me.”21
Despite his immense popularity and worldwide renown,
Gandhi harbored no motives to run for office himself. All the more so, he
was anxious about the intentions of people who did seek power. To allay this

60
fear, Gandhi figured that a pre-modern state endowed with apolitical and
self-sustaining villages would reduce the opportunities for political ex-
ploitation and increase the prospects for unregulated individual liberties.
The empowerment of villages would form the foundation of Gandhi’s
pre-modern state. By sweeping away the oppressive authority of federalist
government, decentralization would benefit India’s villages in a host of
ways. It would make villages economically self-sufficient, allowing for the
expansion of khadi. No less important would be its consequences for the
psychological well-being of India’s peasants, who would increasingly be-
come more confident in their abilities to rule themselves and manage their
own affairs. Society would be composed of “innumerable… ever-widen-
ing, never-ascending” village republics.22
Gandhi elaborated on this village-
centric theory in an article published in 1944:
Independence must begin at the bottom. Thus, every vil-
lage will be a republic having full powers. It follows, there-
fore, that every village has to be self-sustained and capable
of managing its affairs even to the extent of defending itself
against the whole world. It will be trained and prepared to
perish in the attempt to defend itself against any onslaught
form without.23
Gandhi presumably wanted to change the modus operandi of Indian so-
ciety. This would require not only stamping out industrialization, capitalism,
democracy and government regulation, but also making provincial borders
and a national army extraneous. Gandhi goes so far as to suggest that the
only currency that should be permitted in India is the buying and selling of
khadi as yarn.24
Because he dreamed of transforming society and eradicat-
ing modern institutions of the state – such as replacing currency and ab-
solving national armies – Gandhi can legitimately be called an anarchist.25
Although Gandhi strove for an Indian state with as little government as
possible, the Hindu leader did not specify how these changes would be im-
plemented, or to what extent they would create society de novo. In fact,
modern scholars are unsure how Gandhi would have proceeded to reify his
ideas had he gotten the chance (he did not, on account of being assassinated
in January 1948). Historians agree that Gandhi wanted a moral framework
to express the collective will, but they argue over what exactly that para-
digm would look like in practice. Judith Brown asserts that Gandhi desired

a state completely void of positive law: “truthful individuals leading a sim-
ple, cooperative life,” she explains, “would need little outside regulation and
would be able to manage their own affairs harmoniously.”26
Rudrangshu
Mukherjee, meanwhile, states that Gandhi wanted a state “where there was
no gulf between ruler and ruled, where the former always expressed the col-
lective will.”27
Partha Chatterjee, for his part, believes that Gandhi would
have enshrined the state with a titular head. “By his moral qualities and ha-
bitual adherence to the truth”, writes Chatterjee, a symbolic ruler would “al-
ways express the collective will.”28
It is unknown how ambitiously Gandhi
would have pursued his idealistic propositions if the opportunity arose.
Ambiguity exists, in part, because Gandhi subtly modified his views on
the subject over time. For most of his life, he was averse to parliamentar-
ian politics. As late as the winter of 1945, only two years before his death,
Gandhi pleaded with colleagues to desist from their service as I.N.C. min-
isters because of the inadequacies of democratic political activity.29
As the
Transfer of Power became more of a reality, however, Gandhi was caught in
a quagmire. For decades, he wrote about the future Indian state. Now that
independence was imminent, it seemed unlikely that his ideas would come
to fruition. How was he to respond? This was a painful dilemma for Gandhi
since it represented a fundamental incompatibility between his political vi-
sion and the realities of running a state.30
One way in which Gandhi tried to resolve this discrepancy was by con-
ceding a very limited oversight role for government agencies. In the mid-
dle of 1946, Gandhi suggested a narrow scheme by which the government
could play a role in society. It could help in three areas and three areas only:
the production of cotton, preservation of cattle wealth, and the organization
of hand-spinning. At a maximum, a government minister could go so far as
to help invigorate new khadi schemes.31
When pressed to articulate a spe-
cific blueprint, Gandhi answered evasively. “The only question for me as a
minister [would be] whether the A.I.S.A. has the conviction…for guiding a
khadi scheme to success” he responded.32
With independence approaching,
Gandhi hatched a plan that permitted some ministerial obligations, but in
reality reflected an absence or non-recognition of modern government.
THE SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS LANDSCAPE OF GANDHI’S IDEALIZED STATE
In addition to advocating manual labor, self-sustaining villages and com-
munal cooperation, Gandhi felt strongly about the social and religious course

62
of India’s development. While Gandhi was sometimes equivocal about the
political forecast for the state, he was steadfast in his religious outlook. His
religious ruminations involved three mains goals. They included eradicat-
ing Untouchability, maintaining the varna distinctions of the caste system
and grounding India in tolerance, modesty and religiosity. Any future In-
dian state, one would imagine, would be supported by these bedrock prin-
ciples.
One way of reinvigorating India religiously required wiping out Un-
touchability. In traditional Hindu belief, an Untouchable was a person who
did not belong to any Varna, or one of the four classes of society in Hindu
Scripture. Over the centuries, the concept became rigidly routinized in daily
life. Both Hindu and Muslim Untouchables were excluded from normal in-
tercourse and social interaction with Brahmins, Kshatyiyas, Vaishyas and
Shudras (the scholarly community, the high and lower nobility, the mercan-
tile and artisan community and the service-providing community, respec-
tively). Gandhi believed that Untouchability represented a pernicious
obstacle preventing millions of peasants from realizing their dreams and as-
pirations. It interfered with swaraj and the morally enlightened state which
he so avidly sought. In this vein, in the 1920 session of the Congress at
Nagpur, a resolution was passed which condemned Untouchability – a res-
olution inspired by Gandhi. The resolution called the tradition a ‘sin’ and
urged religious leaders to reform Hinduism appropriately. In the early
1930s, Gandhi continued his work on behalf of the Suppressed Classes,
which reached a high note during the so-called Untouchability Abolition
Week in September-October 1932.33
If it is possible to diagnose the disease
from the symptom—and in this case it is—Gandhi favored an Indian state
without Untouchability.
While Gandhi strove to lift up and support the Suppressed Classes, he did
not favor the abolition of the caste system as a whole. Gandhi defended cer-
tain aspects of the tradition, in particular the varna distinctions. In an arti-
cle from 1920, for instance, Gandhi explained why varna should be retained
in a future society: “I consider the four varnas alone to be fundamental, nat-
ural and essential. The innumerable subcastes are sometimes a convenience,
often a hindrance. The sooner there is fusion, the better. But I am com-
pletely against any attempt at destroying the fundamental divisions.”34
The
laws of the caste were eternal, providing social harmony. “I see very great
use in considering a Brahmin to be always a Brahmin.”35
In Gandhi’s future
India, each village would be organized around these four-fold divisions.

Every member of society would perform his or her own duty in a coopera-
tive framework. A complete system of reciprocity, Gandhi believed, would
ensure no one actually felt status differences existed.36
Perhaps the most important component of enlightened anarchy involved
greater observance and tolerance. Gandhi made it clear that he wanted In-
dians to see themselves primarily as Indian citizens, but also as Indian Hin-
dus or Indian Muslims. To borrow his phrase, India ought to be sunk in a
“religious soil”.37
He believed that Indians had the potential to “unlearn
what they learned in the past fifty years” and return to a pre-modern state
where all sects lived in peace.38
Gandhi founded several communities in an
attempt to work out these principles. In ashrams in Ahmedabad and Warda,
he trained followers to adhere to a highly-disciplined life of labor and prayer
within an inter-religious environment.39
They refrained from sexual inter-
course even when married—following Gandhi’s example of modesty. By
fostering unity among Indians of all faiths, and engraining simplicity through
manual labor and self-limitations, Gandhi hoped to plant the seeds for a new
society. In this future Indian state, Gandhi envisioned religious observance
in the foreground. “My first complaint is that India is becoming irreligious,”
he wrote. We must stop “turning away from God.”40
CONCLUSION
Gandhi yearned for a future grounded in a rapid return to the past. Al-
though the standard literature sometimes overlooks Gandhi’s more un-
orthodox notions, the evidence exists to substantiate the argument that he had
firm ideas about the future of his homeland. At the crux of this ideology
was the condemnation of modern civilization, including capitalism, social-
ism, democracy and communism. He detested the self-indulgent aspects of
capitalism, as well as the industrializing tendencies of socialism. Similarly,
Gandhi belittled the virtues of democracy, mocking the British parliament
and minimizing its supposed representative effectiveness. As an alternative,
communism was likened to a mere palliative, doomed for failure: it was vi-
olent in its connotations and atheistic in tone. What India needed, suggested
Gandhi, was to return to a path of purity, morality, and self-discipline.
In the fall of 1945, Gandhi wrote a letter to Nehru explaining his dreams
for the subcontinent. “I believe,” began Gandhi, “that sooner or later we
shall have to go and live in villages – in huts… Nobody will be allowed to
be idle or wallow in luxury. Everyone will have to do body labor.”41
By dis-

64
patching of modernity, Gandhi hoped, India would succeed in inaugurating
a new era unhinged by the trappings of civil law. Today, six decades after
his death, India stands proudly as the largest democracy in the world with a
potent globalized economy. Independence, it would seem, has not paral-
leled Gandhi’s vision, but has followed a “Western” model which Gandhi all
his life opposed. True “self-rule” – as defined by Gandhi – remains confined
to the pages of the Hind Swaraj and the Collected Works.
1
As Judith Brown writes, “He seems to have visualized a loose linkage of independent
village republics as the ideal form of the state… he can therefore properly be called an
anarchist.” Judith Brown, Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy, (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1990), 205.
2
Jawarharlal Nehru, Towards Freedom: The Autobiography of Jawaharlal Nehru, (New
York: John Day, 1941), 76.
3
Anthony Parel “Introduction” in A. Parel, ed., Hind Swaraj: And Other Writings, (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), xiii.
4
Rudrangshu Mukherjee, ed., The Penguin Gandhi Reader, (London: Penguin Books
Ltd., 1993), x.
5
Anthony Parel, “Introduction” in A. Parel, ed., Hind Swaraj: And Other Writings, xxx.
6
Gandhi, “Hind Swaraj” in Parel, ed., Hind Swaraj: And Other Writings, 39.
7
Parel, “Introduction”, xvi.
8
Mukherjee, xiv.
9
Brown, 205.
10
“Interview to Francis Hickman”, Collected Works, 17 Sep. 1940. See Chatterjee, Na-
tionalist Thought and the Colonial World, 88.
11
Nehru, Towards Freedom: The Autobiography of Jawaharlal Nehru, 52. See: Mukher-
jee, x.
12
“Is Khadi Economically Sound?”, Collected Works, Vol. 63, 77. See: Partha Chatterjee,
“Gandhi and the Critique of Civil Society” in Ranajit Guha, ed., Subaltern Studies III:
Writings on South Asian History and Society, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989),
161. Emphasis added.
13
Chistophe Jaffrelot, India’s Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North
India, (London: Hurst & Company, 2003), 27.
14
“Why Not Labor Saving Devices?”, Collected Works, Vol. 59, 356. See Chatterjee, Na-
15
Gandhi, “Hind Swaraj”, 37.
16
17
18
Speech delivered 11 Dec. 1924, Mukherjee, 237.
19
“Extract from an Interview with Nirmal Kumar Bose”, 9-10 Nov. 1935. See: Mukher-
jee, 243.
20
“Enlightened Anarchy: A Political Ideal”, Collected Works, Vol. 59, 45. See: Chaterjee,
Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World, 92.
21
Gandhi, Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth,
Madadev Desai, tr., (London: Phoenix Press, 1949), xii and 420.

22
Chaterjee, Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World, 121.
23
Gandhi, “Independence”, Collected Works, Vol. 85, 460. See: Chatterjee, “Gandhi and
the Critique of Civil Society” in Guha, ed., Subaltern Studies III, 161.
24
25
Brown, 205.
26
ibid
27
Mukherjee, 13.
28
29
Chatterjee, “Gandhi and the Critique of Civil Society” in Guha, ed., Subaltern Studies
III, 189.
30
ibid
31
Gandhi, “If I Were the Minister”, Collected Works, Vol. 85, 211. See: Chaterjee, Na-
32
ibid
33
Jaffrelot, 25.
34
Jaffrelot, 17.
35
ibid
36
Mukherjee, xv.
37
Parel, “Introduction”, xvi.
38
Parel, “Introduction”, xxxii.
39
Brown, 206.
40
Gandhi, “Hind Swaraj” in Parel, ed., Hind Swaraj: And Other Writings, 42.
41
Gandhi, “Extract from a Letter to Nehru”, (5 Oct. 1945) in Mukherjee, 289.

Mahatma gandhis vision for the future of india the role of enli

More Related Content

Similar to Mahatma gandhis vision for the future of india the role of enli (20)

More from Deepak KUMAR (7)

Recently uploaded (20)

Mahatma gandhis vision for the future of india the role of enli