Gandhi’s biggest contribution to the country was to create a sense of nationalism in the public. From the villages to the cities, it was his important endeavor to connect everyone to realize an idea. What is Gandhism? And where is the public today who stood up at his voice?
Recently, the news of the homepage of one of the big Hindi newspapers of the country meant that there has been no difference in job, income and standard of living due to increase in GDP. The newspaper has said this on the basis of quarterly figures. But even the record of the last seventy years cannot be called special. There was a 42% increase in national income after the first and second five-year plans, but the question was still, who got the benefit? Can Gandhi’s philosophy on economy solve the question that why did the common man stand on the margins even after all these years?
Gandhi did not have a specific policy nor was he an economist like John Keynes, John Stuart Mill. Gandhi understood the economy from the perspective of the general public and explained it because the economy was before these big masters and will remain later. JB Kripalani writes, ‘Economic classification, ie classes, had no place in Gandhi’s philosophy of life. This is where his philosophy diverges from Marx or other economists. Gandhi talks about social wealth, according to him, no person can create anything by living alone. His social relationships are formed through this manufacturing process. Therefore, it seemed necessary to distribute this social wealth equally among all. He believed, if this is not possible, then be divided into proportions. The core of Gandhi’s economic philosophy was that the rich are trustees of the poor.
Many intellectuals of India rejected Gandhi’s idea of reviving rural and cottage industries. Would you also say that you sat down with clichés? It may be a cliché, and everyone knows. But why are we forgetting that the villages are getting empty, the migration is taking place? Why is silent that more than 90 percent of the country’s wealth is concentrated in some special hands? Why do not you say that one reason of Naxalism is the eviction of tribals from their areas? Therefore, when economists start saying that capitalism needs to have a human face to save society, it should be assumed that something has gone wrong. Perhaps, if we find a solution to these difficulties in the clichéd talk of Gandhi, then it would be natural to look at his thoughts again.
Before the arrival of the British, the economic wealth of India used to come from villages and homes. Clothes, spices used to go from these places to the markets of Europe and Asia. Groups of villages depended on each other. The British ended this system very cleverly as soon as they arrived. Gandhi used to talk about reviving this system. Because the village is a unit of the country and the unit is strong, the country is strong.
Soon after independence, Nehru took the initiative of industrialization on a large scale, but his advisors gave him the opposite opinion. He believed that urban industries would get laborers from villages which would increase migration. When cities will not be able to handle this migration, dissatisfaction will increase. Nehru was a visionary, bypassing his will and focusing on agriculture. Experts are of the opinion that in countries with geographical system like India where post-independence democratic governments emphasized industrialization, they failed. This was also one of the reasons for democracy in those countries to falter and dictatorship. In the survival of democracy in India, strengthening of the rural system is considered a big thing. You will say that the Panchayati Raj system is responsible for this. So the answer is that if the villages are saved, then the panchayats will also be saved.
Gandhi was also accused that he was against technology and mass production. Gandhi himself had said in an interview, “I did not believe it, it is a spread against me, which has been given by some newspapers. My opposition is against the mass production of machines that villages can easily make. ”
Responding to his so-called opposition to machines, he had said, “When man is a great machine, how can I oppose them?” My protest is about the machinery that will take away employment from the workers. “Now we may find this statement of Gandhi conservative. But today’s successful businessmen like Jack Ma, Elon Musk or famous scientist like the late Stephen Hawkings believed that artificial intelligence would increase unemployment.
Gandhi had said, “It would be better if heavy industries like power projects, ship-queen, steel factories thrive with the industries of the villages.” To strengthen the cottage industry, he talked about the use of electricity, which saves the workers time, Production increases and they should not separate from the ground. Kripalani writes, “Gandhi wanted to make each house a factory.” What happened in Japan in the 60s and 70s could be an example of this.
If seen, this was the essence of the Nehru Industrialization Plan; Construction of capital goods by heavy industries and consumer goods by rural industries leading to employment generation on a large scale. Many years later, Manmohan Singh’s government implemented this model but removed the village from it. What happened after that is in front of everyone. Gandhi wanted to make the villages self-sufficient. Governments first made the villages helpless and then smudged by running schemes. If Gandhi were there, he would have opposed it.
India is not the first and last country where industrialization took place. In this case, see that
Migration Of The Industries
Today we are getting two-four with the problem, has anyone else happened in the first world? In his book ‘Rights and Persons’, the great thinker Bertrand Russell wrote on the end of the cottage industry of hand-woven tweed (coarse cloth that makes coats) in Scotland, “First, a skill was lost that people used To express oneself, to be self-sufficient and to live in difficult times. Secondly, the quality of the product from the machine is not that recorded and third, the migration of local industries will increase the cities randomly. The free weaver will live as a unit in a sick mill in a sick city. Weavers will not be financially independent with the help of their skills, but will be dependent on other forces. He will be lost in one such factory (factory) whose failure will end the weaver. ”
Russell said this in India’s perspective, “India is a country of villages. If the forces of industrialization destroy the traditional industries here, it would be a matter of great pity. “He adds,” The power generated by the rivers of the Himalayas is better than spent in the industry of the cities. Populate, or else central industrialization will change the customs and practices that have been in place for centuries. ”
Gandhi also talks about saving this unit. The process of sending every idea to the person standing last in the row, that is, the unit, can be called Gandhism. Then whether it is non-violence, satyagraha or economy? The villager standing on the fringes of the city was understanding, but the system was helpless.