GANDHIJI AND TRUSTEESHIP

M. V. GOPALA RAO

It cannot be claimed that all goes well with politics now in the country. At the new turn they have assumed the minds of the people are not free from anxiety and frustration and since those who came into power are claiming Gandhiji as the father of the nation, the necessity has arisen for a review and reassessment of Gandhiji’s views on politics, as envisaged by him, for the effective working of the democratic form of government to be set up in the country, then under contemplation, and it is hoped such a study will not be in vain.

Gandhiji assigns the Doctrine of Trusteeship an important role in his politics for the upkeep of the true democratic spirit in society. Writing on equality Mahatma Gandhi advocates “Voluntary abdication of riches and the power that riches give, and sharing them with people, for the common good” and commends, to that effect, the trusteeship doctrine in the following words: “I adhere to my doctrine of trusteeship, in spite of the ridicule that has been poured over it. It is true that it is difficult to achieve in practice. So is non-violence. But we made up our minds to negotiate that steep ascent. We have found it worth the effort.” For the operation, (of non-violence) however, Gandhiji lays down the condition that “complete reliance on God is essential for non-violence.” The same condition in a wider sense holds good with this doctrine too. In the course of his talks on socialism, Gandhiji said: “Trusteeship is my answer to the issue of class conftict.” Such a doctrine must have more than purely secular notions behind it. This doctrine has its genesis in the divine dictum that “Nothing in this world belongs to thee or thine”, which great religions all do proclaim. Religion assigns man the status of a trustee in the worldly aspect of his life. Man’s thoughts might be working in terms of its negation, consciously or unconsciously, but life in its practical working would not miss it, but would be running its course in pursuit of its spirit.

Mahatma Gandhi says, “You earn your crores, by all means, but understand, your wealth is not yours. You are trustees.” He also says, “I do nut grudge the rich their riches, provided they hold them in trust for the good of humanity and provided they are not instrumental in impoverishing others.

The Mahabharata provides some basic texts which elucidate the principle and the following are culled from the great epic, Janaka, the great king, said, “I have heaps of wealth all around me but none of it is mine.” When Yudhishtira defined wealth as the harbinger of sin, the great Rishis said to him “God created wealth for Yajna (sacrifice) and He enjoined it on man to acquire wealth. “The Rishis also urged on him that he was in duty bound to acquire wealth and perform Yajna. Yajna was at the time considered the best means to serve the social good and the sustenance of humanity. Vemana, the great philosopher-poet interpreting it said: “With all the earnestness inspired by hope of immortality for one’s life, one should earn wealth and knowledge, for service to humanity, and he should attend to it with due promptness awaiting death’s call at any moment.” To prevent all possible misunderstanding, it is further clarified in the Mohabharata that it does not imply that all wealth is intended for Yajna or Dana (gifts and charity), but it may be utilised for one’s maintenance, for help to his relatives and others, for meeting other legitimate obligations, and for Dana and Yajna as well.”

Wealth in all its forms is the product of God’s creation, and man is destined to work for acquiring it for his sustenance. It becomes a life-problem for him and he exerts himself to the best of his abilities to gain wealth. But, “however man might strive for wealth, he cannot have it without the grace of God” so says the Mahabharata. This is to be treated as a fact of experience God Sree Krishna said that he would bestow health, wealth and prosperity on his devotee who surrenders himself to him with unequivocal faith in him. Mahatmaji says that “if you believe that God permeates everything he created, you must also believe that you cannot enjoy anything that has not been given by him.”

Man’s efforts must be there, but worked in the spirit of dedication to God, surrendering all action to the Divine will for in effect. God helps those who help themselves. The Mahabharota also endorses his view and even warns that God’s help would not be forthcoming without man’s efforts.

Man’s mind always aspires for health, wealth and prosperity. Desire, acquisitiveness and ambition are integral factors of human nature: acting as creative forces they provide the initiative, the incentive and the impetus for all man’s productive activities, rousing his aspirations to their limits and also according to the will cherished, that the benefits thereof do survive him for his posterity too. These human impulses impelling him, man takes to acquiring wealth in right earnest, absorbing himself entirely in the work with all his mental and physical resources, and his mind solely devoted to God for his blessings to ensure success for his efforts. These conditions are designed for the individual and it is the individual that could acquire wealth, build up reserves and hold it sustained. The duties, responsibilities and functions of the State lie on a different footing and they do not fit in with these conditions.

Individual wealth or private property has thus behind it the divine will and the divine sanction. Even conceding Marx’s dictum that all wealth is the product of labour, labour itself, physical or intellectual, has to be recognised as the gift of God, world experience testifying to it. The sanctity of private property should not be infringed upon. The State is there to encourage, help and promote it by all means. Private property serves as the bulwark for the economic structure of the State and the State which destroys the integrity of private property or discourages its acquisition in any manner, always stands faced with the risk of economic disaster. European economy has already been experiencing the fallacy, as the policy of discountenancing private property is being pursued there, and it has since lost its vantage ground in the pattern of world economy. Mahatmaji says: “Complete renunciation of one’s own possessions was a thing which very few, even among the ordinary folk, were capable of. All that we could legitimately expect of the wealthy class, is for them to hold their riches in trust and use them for the service of society. To insist upon more would be to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs.” Mahatmaji’s conception of trusteeship does not differ from that elaborated and clarified in the Mahabharata.

Inequality is a fact of life. Politics may aim at equality, but it could never be achieved to perfection. If at all attempted, it may be at the cost of individual freedom, perhaps its entire suppression. It was attempted in Russia and China under conditions of unprecedented regimentation, binding down the individual, with State control in every aspect of his activity, followed by the abolition of private property; all to put down disparities. Yet disparities persist in the physical and intellectual capacities of the individual and the State cannot help recognising it.

According to the Karma theory of Hindu philosophy, the responsibility for the existence of inequality is attributed to the individual himself, as also the responsibility for mending or ending it. This responsibility may be met a long way by the individual, as a response to his self-exertions, followed by incessant efforts, conditioned by their purity and the purity of their cause, and all action surrendered to the Divine will for its effect, with due faith in God. As the spirit develops in society, the evil gets mitigated in due course, the disparities becoming less and less acute. At least bare necessities would scarcely be felt wanting. Mahatmaji says “God will give food and cloth to one who exerts himself to the best of his abilities with faith in Him.” In case any such contingency arises, society may be trusted with the responsibility to meet it. Gandhiji justifies the claim of the individual to this limit, as a matter of divine verdict for the sustenance of the body and soul to pursue life’s purpose, and he urges on the responsibility of the State and the society to meet it. Bare necessity is a physical need and it may be met; but beyond this, all luxury is a mental craving and could not be satisfied at any stage. Happiness is more a mental phenomenon and it could be had by the proper set up of the mind, by a knowledge of life’s working, its limitations and the vicissitudes that confront it, and the ways and means to avert them. With all the disparities in wealth and the attendant amenities of life, Dharmavyadha, the butcher, Toladhara, the grocer, and Janaka, the great king, are all said to have lived happy and peaceful, and equally so, conscious of their duties and responsibilities, duly responding to them, by prompt and conscientious attendance to them, surrendering all action to the divine will. The Mahabharata assigns to them the seat of knowledge. Disparities or no disparities, a society of people brought up in this spirit, equipped with the requisite knowledge, could be ensured happiness, true and real, the sole aim of man’s life and equality assured to that effect.

Freedom for the individual to work out his own destiny is essential for rendering his progress real and enduring, morally and economically. It infuses the sense of godliness and purity of life in him and gives all encouragement to his enterprising spirit. It may be implemented by an economic programme, providing for free enterprise, permitting due economic freedom to the individual, opportunities being wide open, and the incentives set free, to work their way unfettered, to keep up the initiative and the impetus for man’s productive activities. Gandhian politics inculcate it and Gandhian methods facilitate it. Gandhiji deprecates all force and says: “The good brought about through force will ultimately destroy individuality which is the foundation of all real and abiding progress. Only when the change is effected through persuasion and the force of love, it can be fully preserved.”

Wealth carries with it the divine responsibility to serve the social good. Yajna (sacrifice) and Dana (gifts and charities) are enjoined by our scriptures to meet the purpose, and they include several forms of gifts; gifts of food, cloth, house, land, cows, gold, marriage donations and others; all tending to social good. These gifts are prescribed as a religious or divine injunction for one’s own salvation, particularly gifts of food and cloth which should be scrupulously attended to by the rich and the poor alike, as occasions arise and means permit. Underlying this is the wide-spread faith, that as Danam (gift) is duly observed, wealth gets perpetuated from birth to birth and brings salvation to man. According to Mahatmaji “the majority follow the path of purity by faith and not by knowledge.” This process goes on on no simple scale, but working as it does on a decentralised system it passes unnoticed and when brought to account, it would reach significant proportions. Breach of this responsibility will have its repurcussions, and wealth will be changing hands to suit its conditions. The moral influence this process exercises is a unique feature of Hindu society, and any interference by the State, or otherwise, in its working, would greatly impair it, and it could never be restored by the State with its mechanical means. Danam or gift is a divine injunction and has behind it the religious aspect, and the State cannot interfere with it in any way.

Gandhiji reiterates the traditional religious view that man by nature is God-minded. He is endowed with knowledge and he possesses the power of thinking and discrimination. Enlightened, he could realise the realities and implications of life and his status in the world in the light of their spirit, in relation to God and to humanity, and in the course of it, the God consciousness and the force of love, the embodiment of God in him, awakened, inspire in him the spirit of service to God and service to humanity. The individual thus influenced, the moral sense and the humanitarian tendencies thus prevailing over his mind, the required change of heart, insisted upon by Gandhiji, for the proper set up of the democratic spirit, would be ensured to society, the requisite social consciousness forthcoming. Religion will be of effective service in this respect to equip society with the requisite knowledge and enlightenment to set the human values to action, to play their part to restore integrity to social life and promote the true democratic spirit in its working. Mahatmaji commends for this purpose ‘non-violence and the doctrine of Trusteeship’ which places man in the status of a trustee in the worldly aspect of his life. They are the fundamental principles of religion, which promote the ethical and spiritual standards of man regulating his relations and conduct, his duties and responsibilities to humanity, and as well also, his activities for the progress of his life to its real ends. The Mahabharata commends them as the moral and spiritual guide to pursue life’s purpose. This is practical religion and is capable of universal application and would be congruous to working in co-operation with politics to bring up a society well ordered, with social conduct and social relations self-restored and self-adjusted and truly democratic in its spirit, society getting conscious of its moral and economic bindings, duly enlightened by the knowledge of the implications of these doctrines.

Gandhiji says, “The spirit of democracy is not a mechanical thing to be adjusted by the abolition of forms. It requires change of heart.” This truth is not finding due appreciation even among his followers, now in power, and they are resorting more to the former course only, following more or less the Marxian methods of working.

Western socialism aims at the building up of society predominantly on considerations of economic values, ignoring the human values, the vital role they play in shaping it; and it could not maintain the moral and spiritual stamina of the society, to bring in the necessary sense of duties and responsibilities; it has only promoted misconceived notions of rights, material considerations outweighing all others, fostering bitterness among men and all resulting in unrest and constant political struggles with no end in sight. Gandhian politics, influenced by the element of religion, provide the safeguard against the materialistic preponderance society is generally prone to, in its working. Individual freedom, the doctrine or trusteeship and non-violence, and an economic policy based on the principles and the spirit underlying them, these playing the leading role in mending their operation, accommodate the co-ordinate functioning of the material and spiritual values and ensure society’s progress in both the aspects; and they, as well, maintain the moral stamina of the society, promote an appropriate sense of duties and responsibilities and a legitimate understanding of rights, and render the social relations and conduct mutual and cordial, peace and contentment reigning all through. Gandhiji assures us that Marxian aims could be realised through his politics while he denies their achievement through the Marxian methods.

Back