The current Indian model of development vs. Gandhi’s proposals on Trusteeship

The following is excerpted from the lecture by Ramaswamy Sudarshan (UNDP.org) at the “RE-THINKING PROPERTY: pathway to a Well-Being Society” conference in Bangkok, in August 2011.

“In India we have steadily raised the economic growth rate from what was once called the ‘Hindu rate of growth’ – 3 percent in honour of the Hindu Trinity – to now a little over 9 percent. At the same time we have millions who go hungry and are homeless. Is this progress? No society can be called civilized if it has hunger and homelessness within its communities.

IN 1916 Mahatma Gandhi gave a lecture to students of Allahabad University and asked the question “Is economic progress real progress?” In discussing the subject, Gandhi said, “I take it by economic progress we mean material advancement without limit — and by real progress we mean moral progress.”

The economists may point out that there can be no moral progress, unless there is economic progress, so that the poor can satisfy their daily needs. Gandhi’s reply to this argument was that of course no one has even suggested that grinding pauperism can lead to anything else than moral degradation, that all human beings have a right to live decently and therefore must find the means to feed, clothe and house themselves. But for this simple performance, Gandhi adds, “we need no assistance from economics or their laws.”

Gandhi, continuing his lecture, made the point, “I venture to think the religious scriptures of the world are far safer and sounder treatises on the laws of economics, than many of the modern economic text-books.” And he added, “I believe that Jesus was the greatest economist of his time.”

Gandhi told his audience that persons who have exercised great influence on their lives and moulded the lives of millions were people like Jesus and the Buddha who deliberately embraced poverty – Mahavir, Mohammed, Nanak, Kabir, Shankara, Vivekanand, Ramakrishna, St. Francis: all embraced poverty. And, he added, the world has been made richer for their having lived in it.

Gandhi made the point that in his view modern civilization poses a greater threat than colonialism did. He urged that worldly pursuits should give way to ethical and moral living. Gandhi’s great ambition was to show India the way for its moral regeneration. He redefined the scope of dharma, and included Western notions of liberty, equality, fraternity and mutual help. Gandhi gave an updated version of dharma that would fit life in the modern world.

Within the framework of Gandhi’s concerns about the poor, about the need for dignity and respect in manual work, he promoted the spinning wheel — as a symbol of solidarity between the rich and poor, of the unity of humankind, of economic freedom and equality. In everything that Gandhi did there was a spiritual message together with a deep concern for the poor.

If we want real progress, equitable and sustainable progress, then the starting point is the self. Going back to a simpler life, as Gandhi advocated, is not a step backward; rather the simpler lifestyle may allow us to regain our dignity, our spirituality and our contact with nature. The return to simplicity will also be fulfilling for our soul.

Gandhi’s idea of Trusteeship provides a means of transforming the present capitalist order of society into an egalitarian one.
It gives no quarter to capitalism, but gives the present owning class the chance to reform itself. It is based on the faith that human nature is never beyond redemption.

Trusteeship does not recognize any right of private ownership of property except so far as it may be permitted by society for its own welfare. Trusteeship does not exclude legislative regulation of the ownership and use of wealth.

Under State-regulated trusteeship, an individual will not be free to hold or use his wealth for selfish satisfaction or in disregard of the interests of society.

Just as it is proposed to fix a decent minimum living wage, even so a limit should be fixed for the maximum income that would be allowed to any person in society. The difference between such minimum and maximum incomes should be reasonable and equitable, and variable from time to time so much so that the tendency would be towards obliteration of the difference. This resonates with John Rawls’ ‘second difference principle’, brilliantly elucidated in his Theory of Justice.

The Gandhian concept is based on what he called Aparigraha’, which is non-possession, non- acquisition and minimization of wants. Resources are for everybody and wealth is for those who generate it. Thus one who controls the resources is not the owner but the trustee.
The concept of Trusteeship supposes that the capitalist acts as the trustees of society’s resources. It provides an answer to the economic inequalities of ownership and income and ensures a non-violent resolving of social and economic inequalities.”

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.