💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › geoffrey-ostergaard-gandhian-sarvodaya-and-anarchism.gm… captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:37:26. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Gandhian Sarvodaya and Anarchism
Author: Geoffrey Ostergaard
Date: 10 March 2013
Language: en
Topics: Mohandas Gandhi, Sarvodaya
Source: Retrieved on 3rd May 2021 from http://www.satyagrahafoundation.org/gandhian-sarvodaya-and-anarchism/

Geoffrey Ostergaard

Gandhian Sarvodaya and Anarchism

“In the ideal state every one is his own ruler. He rules himself in such

a manner that he is never a hindrance to his neighbour. In such a state,

therefore, there is no political power because there is no State.”

-M. Gandhi (Young India, 2 July 1931)

The practical difference between socialism and anarchism, at the purely

local level, is small. They differ, of course, in how each responds to

the question of a state and national policy. Gandhi saw an India with a

plethora of local problems, and for them he prescribed local solutions.

In this respect, his thinking and philosophy most closely resemble

Western anarchism than any other political philosophy. In fact, he

acknowledges Tolstoy, especially his spiritual anarchist treatise The

Kingdom of God Is Within You, as an influence. But Gandhi’s political

thought is not derivative, it originally combines his Hinduism and his

thoughts on non-violence. Nevertheless, many concepts familiar to the

student of Western anarchism are also present in the philosophy of

Sarvodaya.

One small example is that of decision-making through consensus or

unanimity. Vinoba Bhave, who was to continue and extend Gandhian

concepts of social organization and progress (sarvodaya) into the

Sarvodaya Movement wrote: “Now we ‘pass’ decisions by a majority ... as

though God now speaks through such a majority. I contend that such

proposals are not really passed, so long as they fail to convince even

one person. Only that proposal deserves to ‘pass’ which commends itself

to all. We must revive this ancient Indian tradition, for a people’s

democracy can only be built on mutual trust and cooperation.” [1]

Vinoba contends that such procedures are the method of ancient

organization in India, though sarvodaya is not merely an unsophisticated

appeal to recreate the past. It is an attempt to bring about self-rule

(or swaraj), carefully defined. As Vinoba asks: “If I am under some

other person’s command, where is my self-government? Self-government

means ruling your own self. It is one mark of swaraj not to allow any

outside power in the world to exercise control over oneself. And the

second mark of swaraj is not to exercise power over any other. These two

things together make swaraj: no submission and no exploitation.” [2]

Vinoba and Gandhi both understood that they could not rely on all to

voluntarily abide by the principle of “no submission and no

exploitation”, especially exploitation. In a sense, they willfully

labored under an illusion to bring about such a change in humanity. When

revolutionary violence broke out against the British, though, Gandhi

expressed doubt that India was ready for self-rule. In the words of

Vinoba, “Government can be had through violence. Self-government is

impossible without nonviolence.” [3]

As the transformation to a nonviolent state is a long one, something

must be done in the meantime: “Until all men, or at least a large

proportion of them, are fit for a society without government,

government, as a matter of fact, will continue to exist. In this

situation, it seems reasonable to accept the best government of which

society is presently capable. For sarvodayites this means at least a

democratic government, with all its faults.” [4]

Thus the Sarvodaya commitment to nonviolence requires a degree of

moderation when it comes to dismantling the state apparatus. As Vinoba

writes: “We too believe in a stateless society as our ultimate goal. We

recognize that in the preliminary stages a certain measure of government

is necessary, but we do not agree that it will continue to be necessary

at a later stage. Neither do we agree that totalitarian dictatorship is

necessary to ensure progress towards a stateless society. On the

contrary we propose to proceed by decentralizing administration and

authority. In the final stage there would be no coercion but a purely

moral authority. [5] In the end, therefore, sarvodaya relies on the

moral development of the citizen and the community to achieve its

highest organizational structure.

In this respect, sarvodaya differs from much (but not all) Western

anarchist thought, which posits that the mere destructive abolishment of

the state will immediately release the oppressed goodness of man.

Sarvodaya requires both the transformation and the man to cultivate a

high moral standard. In the end, the revolution is not one of violence,

but one of love.

Instead of talking of ‘abolishing power’, one talks of abolishing

coercive and remunerative power, or better still, of replacing coercive

and remunerative relationships by purely normative relationships. This

is not to say that all normative power relationships are necessarily

acceptable. It may be that, once we have rid ourselves of linguistic

confusions, we shall be able to focus attention on distinguishing

morally acceptable from morally unacceptable forms of normative power.

For sarvodayites such a distinction would centre upon the concept of

love: that is, a positive concern for the integrity, dignity, and

self-respect of others. Only normative power relationships consistent

with love for others would, in the last analysis, be acceptable. In this

sense, but only in this sense, the politics of sarvodaya is not the

politics of power but the politics of love. [6]

EDITOR’S NOTE: Geoffrey Ostergaard (1926–1990) was Professor of

Political Science, University of Birmingham (England). A more extensive

biographical note can be found at the end of our previously posted

article by him.

[1] OSTERGAARD, Geoffrey and Melville CURRELL. The Gentle Anarchists: A

Study of the Leaders of the Sarvodaya Movement for Nonviolent Revolution

in India. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971; pp. 112–13.

[2] Ibid; p. 33.

[3] NARAYAN, Shriman. Vinoba: His Life and Work. Bombay: Popular

Prakashan, 1970; p 129.

[4] OSTERGAARD, op cit pp. 39—40

[5] Ibid, p. 40

[6] Ibid, pp. 179–80