For Global Peace with Social Justice in a Sustainable Environment

Public Distribution System of Mahatma Gandhi

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. - 09404955338, 09415777229

E-mail-dr.yadav.yogendra@gandhifoundation.net; dr.yogendragandhi@gmail.com

Public Distribution System of Mahatma Gandhi

Mahatma Gandhi knew it that India is a poor country. So he developed public distribution system for India as a Sarvodaya. He had given all required rules and regulation in this book. He had done a lot of experiment on his own life. Then he decided that uplift to every citizen of India. When he studied Ruskin’s’ unto this last during his railway journey in South Africa, he could not sleep. He changed his life for set up Phoenix Ashram. He had done a lot of experiments. Then he decided that it the best for public distribution in India.

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “People in the West generally hold that it is man’s duty to promote the happiness prosperity that is of the greatest number. Happiness is taken to mean material happiness exclusively, that is, economic prosperity. If, in the pursuit of this happiness moral, laws are violated, it does not matter much. Again, as the object is the happiness of the greatest number, people in the West do not believe it to be wrong if it is secured at the cost of the minority. The consequences of this attitude are in evidence in all western countries. The exclusive quest for the physical and material happiness of the majority has no sanction in divine law. In fact, some thoughtful persons in the West have pointed out that it is contrary to divine law to pursue happiness in violation of moral principles. The late John Ruskin was foremost among these. He was an Englishman of great learning. He has written numerous books on art and crafts. He has also written a great deal on ethical questions. One of these books, a small one, Ruskin himself believed to be his best. It is read widely wherever English is spoken. In the book, he has effectively countered these arguments and shown that the well-being of the people at large consists in conforming to the moral law. We in India are much given nowadays to imitation of the West. We do grant that it is necessary to imitate the West in certain respects. At the same time there is no doubt that many western ideas are wrong.

It will be admitted on all hands that what is bad must be eschewed. The condition of Indians in South Africa is pitiable. We go out to distant lands to make money. We are so taken up with this that we become oblivious of morality and of God. We become engrossed in the pursuit of self-interest. In the sequel, we find that going abroad does us more harm than good, or do not profit us as much as it ought to. All religions presuppose the moral law, but even if we disregard religion as such, its observance is necessary on grounds of common sense also. Our happiness consists in observing it. This is what John Ruskin has established. He has opened the eyes of the western people to this, and today, we see a large number of Europeans modeling their conduct on his teaching. In order that Indians may profit by his ideas, we have decided to present extracts from his book, in a manner intelligible to Indians who do not know English. Socrates gave us some idea of man’s duty. He practiced his precepts. It can be argued that Ruskin’s ideas are an elaboration of Socrates’. Ruskin has described vividly how one who wants to live by Isocrates’s ideas should acquit him in the different vocations.

The summary of his work which we offer here is not really a translation. If we translated it, the common reader might be unable to follow some of the Biblical allusions, etc. We present therefore only the substance of Ruskin’s work. We do not even explain what the title of the book means, for it is understood only by a person who has read the Bible in English. But since the object which the book works towards is the welfare of all—that is, the advancement of all and not merely of the greatest number we have entitled these articles Sarvodaya. Man suffers from many delusions; but none so great as his attempt to formulate laws for the conduct of other men disregarding the effects of social affection, as if they were only machines at work. That we cherish such an illusion does us no credit. Like other forms of error, the laws of political economy also contain an element of plausibility. Political economists assert that social affections are to be looked upon as accidental and disturbing elements in human nature; but avarice and the desire for progress are constant elements. Let us eliminate the inconstant and, considering man merely as a moneymaking machine, examine by what laws of labour, purchase and sale, the greatest amount of wealth can be accumulated. Those laws once determined, it will be for each individual afterwards to introduce as much of the disturbing affection elements as he chooses. This would be a convincing argument if the social affections were of the same nature as the laws of demand and supply. Man’s affections constitute an inner force. The laws of demand and supply are formulations concerning the external world. The two, therefore, are not of the same nature.

If a moving body is acted upon by a constant force from one direction and a varying force from another, we would first measure the constant force and then the inconstant. We will be able to determine the velocity of the body by comparing the two forces. We can do this because the constant and the inconstant forces are of the same kind. But in social dealings the constant force of the laws of demand and supply and the accidental force of social affection are forces that differ in kind. Affection has a different kind of effect on man and acts in a different manner. It changes.”1

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “I do not doubt the conclusions of the science of economics if its premises are accepted. If a gymnast formulated laws on the assumption that man is made only of flesh without a skeleton, those laws might well be valid, but they would not apply to man, since man has a skeleton. In the same way, the laws of political economy may be valid but they cannot apply to man, who is subject to affections. A physical-culture expert may suggest that man’s flesh be detached from the skeleton, rolled into pellets, and then drawn out into cables. He may then say that the re-insertion of the skeleton will cause little inconvenience. We should describe such a man as a madcap, for the laws of physical culture cannot be based on the separation of the skeleton from the flesh. In the same manner, the laws of political economy which exclude human affections are of no use to man. And yet the political economists of today behave exactly like the gymnastic instructor. According to their mode of reasoning, man is a mere body a machine and they base their laws on this assumption.

Though aware that man has a soul, they do not take it into account. How can such a science apply to man, in whom the soul is the predominant element? Every time there is a strike, we have a clean proof that economics is not a science, that it is worse than useless. In such situations, the employers take one view of the matter, the workers another. Here we cannot apply the laws of supply and demand. Men rack their brains to prove that the interests of the employers and the employees are identical. These men know nothing of such matters. In fact, it does not always follow that because their worldly interests economic interests are at variance men must be antagonistic to each other. Let us suppose that the members of a family are starving. The family consists of a mother and her children. They have only one crust of bread between them. All of them are hungry. Here, the interests of the two of the mother on the one hand, and the children on the other are mutually opposed. If the mother eats, the children will starve; if the children are fed, the mother will go hungry. There is no hostility between the mother and the children for that reason; they are not antagonistic to one another. Though the mother is the stronger, she does not eat up the bread. The same is true of men’s relations with one another. Let us suppose that there is no difference between men and animals, and that we must fight like animals in pursuit of our respective interests.

Even so we can lay down no general rule either way on whether or not the employer and the employee will always remain hostile to each other. Their attitudes change with circumstances. For instance, it is in the interest of both that work should be well and properly done and a just price obtained for it. But in the division of profits, the gain of the one may or may not be the loss of the other. It does not serve the employer’s interests to pay wages so low as to leave his men sickly and depressed. Nor does it serve the worker’s interests to demand a high wage irrespective of whether the factory pays its way or not. If the owner does not have enough money to keep the engine-wheels in repair, it will obviously be wrong for the worker to demand full wages or to demand any wages at all. We can thus see that we are not likely to succeed in constructing a science on the basis of the principle of supply and demand. It was never God’s intention that the affairs of men should be conducted on the principle of profit and loss. Justice must provide the basis. Man must give up, therefore, all thought of advancing his interests by following expediency regardless of moral considerations. It is not always possible to predict with certainty the outcome of a given line of conduct. But in most cases we can determine whether a certain act is just or unjust. We can also assert that the result of moral conduct is bound to be good. We cannot predict what that result will be, or how it will come about. Justice includes affection. The relation between master and operative depends on this element of affection. Let us assume that the master wants to exact the utmost amount of work from his servant. He allows him no time for rest, pays him a low wage, and lodges him in a garret. In brief, he pays him a bare subsistence wage. It may be argued that there is no injustice in all this. The servant has placed all his time; at the master’s disposal in return for a given wage and the latter avails him of it. He determines the limits of hardship in exacting work by reference to what others do.

If the servant can get a better place, he is free to take it. This is called economics by those who formulate the laws of supply and demand. They assert that it is profitable to the master thus to exact the maximum amount of work for the minimum wage. In the long run, the entire society will benefit by it and, through the society, the servant himself. But on reflection we find that this is not quite true. This method of calculation would have been valid if the employee were a mere machine which required some kind of force to drive it. But in this case the motive power of the servant is his soul, and soul-force contradicts and falsifies all the calculations of the economists. The machine that is man cannot be driven by the money-fuel to do the maximum amount of work. Man will give of his best only when his affections are brought into play. The master-servant nexus must not be a pecuniary one, but one of love.”2

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “It usually happens that, if the master is a man of sense and energy, the servant works hard enough, under pressure; it also happens that, if the master is indolent and weak, the performance of the servant is not of the best in quality or quantity. But the true law is that, if we compare two masters of equal intelligence, the servant of the one who is sympathetically inclined will work better than that of the other who is not so inclined. It may be argued that this principle does not quite hold, since kindness and indulgence are sometimes rewarded with their opposites. The servant becomes unmanageable. But the argument is nevertheless invalid. A servant who rewards kindness with negligence will become vengeful when treated harshly. A servant who is dishonest to a liberal master will be injurious to an unjust one. Therefore, in any case and with any person, this unselfish treatment will yield the most effective return. We are here considering affections only as a motive power.

That we should be kind because kindness is good is quite another consideration. We are not thinking of that for the present. We only want to point out here that not only are the ordinary laws of economics, which we considered above, rendered nugatory by the motive power of kindness sympathy but also that affection, being a power of an altogether different kind, is inconsonant with the laws of economics and can survive only if those laws are ignored. If the master is a calculating person who shows kindness only in expectation of a return, he will probably be disappointed. Kindness should be exercised for the sake of kindness; the reward will then come unsought. It is said that he who loses his life shall find it, and he who finds it shall lose it. Let us take the example of a regiment and its commander. If a general seeks to get his troops to work in accordance with the principles of economics, he will fail. There are many instances of generals cultivating direct, personal relations with their men, treating them with kindness, sharing their joys and hardships, ensuring their safety in brief, treating them with sympathy. A general of this kind will be able to exact the most arduous work from his troops. If we look into history, we shall rarely find a battle won where the troops had no love for their general. Thus the bond of sympathy between the general and his troops is the truest force. Even a band of robbers has the utmost affection for its leader. And yet we find no such intimate relation between the employer and the employees in textile mills and other factories. One reason for this is that, in these factories, the wages of the employees are determined by the laws of supply and demand.

Between the employer and the employee there obtains, therefore, the relation of disaffection rather than of affection, and instead of sympathy between them we find antagonism. We have then to consider two questions: one, how far the rate of wages may be so regulated as not to vary with the demand for labour; second, how far workmen can be maintained in factories, without any change in their numbers irrespective of the state of trade, with the same bond [between workmen and employer] as obtains between servants and master in an old family, or between soldiers and their commander. Let us consider the first question. It is surprising why economists do nothing to make it possible for standards of payment for factory workers to be fixed. We see, on the other hand, that the office of the Prime Minister of England is not put up to auction, but that whoever the incumbent, the remuneration remains the same. Nor do we offer the job of a priest to anyone who agrees to accept the lowest salary. With physicians and lawyers, too, we do not generally deal in this manner. Thus we observe that in these instances a certain standard of payment is fixed. It may be asked, however, whether a good workman and a bad one must both be paid the same wage. In fact, that is as it should be. In the result, the rate of wages for all workers being the same, we shall engage only a good bricklayer or carpenter as we go only to a good physician or lawyer the fees of all physicians or lawyers being the same.

That is the proper reward of the good workman to be chosen. Therefore, the right system respecting all labour is that it should be paid at fixed rates. Where a bad workman finds it possible to deceive employers by accepting a low wage, the eventual outcome cannot but be bad. Let us now consider the second point. It is that, whatever the state of trade, the factories must maintain the same number of workers in employment. When there is no security of employment, the workers are obliged to ask for higher wages. If, however, they can be assured of continued employment for life, they will be prepared to work for very low wages. It is clear therefore that the employer who assures security of employment to his workers will find it profitable in the long run. The employees also stand to gain if they continue steadily in the same job. Large profits are not possible in factories run on these lines. Big risks cannot be taken. Gambling on a large scale will not be possible. The soldier is ready to lay down his life for the sake of his commander. That is why the work of a soldier is considered more honourable than that of an ordinary worker. The soldier’s trade is really, not slaying, but being slain in defence of others. Anyone who enlists as a soldier holds his life at the service of the state. This is true also of the lawyer, the physician and the priest. That is why we look up to them with respect. A lawyer must do justice even at the cost of his life. The physician must treat his patients at the cost of inconvenience to himself. And the clergyman must instruct his congregation and direct it along the right path, regardless of consequences.”3

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “If this can happen in the professions mentioned, why not in trade and commerce? Why it is that trade is always associated with unscrupulousness? We shall see on reflection that it is always assumed that the merchant is moved [solely] by self-interest. Even though he has a socially useful function, we take it for granted that his object is to fill his own coffers. Even the laws are so drafted as to enable the merchant to amass wealth with the utmost speed. It is also accepted as a principle that the buyer must offer the lowest possible price and the seller must demand and accept the highest. The trader has thus been encouraged in this habit, yet the public themselves look down on him for his dishonesty. This principle must be abandoned. It is not right that the merchant should look only to self-interest and amass wealth. This is not trade, but robbery. The soldier lays down his life for the state and the trader ought to suffer a comparable loss, ought to even to lose his life in the interests of society.

In all states the soldier’s profession is to defend the people; the pastor’s to teach it; the physician’s to keep it in health; the lawyer’s to enforce pure justice in it; and the merchant’s to provide for it. And it is the duty of each on due occasion to die for the people. The soldier must be prepared to die at his post of duty rather than desert it. During a plague epidemic, the physician must not run away [from his task] but instead attend to the patients even at the risk of infection. The priest must lead people from error to truth even if they should kill him for it. The lawyer must ensure, even at the cost of his life that justice prevails. We pointed out above the proper occasions for members of the professions to lay down their lives. What, then, is the proper occasion for the merchant to lay down his life? This is a question which all, the merchant included, must ask them. The man who does not know when to die does not know how to live. We have seen that the merchant’s function is to provide for the people. Just as the clergyman’s function is not to earn a stipend but to instruct, so the merchant’s function is not to make profits but to provide for the people. The clergyman who devotes himself to preaching has his needs provided for, and in the same manner the merchant will have his profits.

But neither of them must have an eye only on the main chance. Both have worked to do each a duty to perform irrespective of whether or not they get the stipend or the profit. If this proposition is true, the merchant deserves the highest honour. For his duty is to procure commodities of high quality and distribute them at a price which people can afford. It also becomes his duty at the same time to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the hundreds or thousands of men working under him. This requires a great deal of patience, kindness and intelligence. Also, in discharging these several functions he is bound, as others are bound, to give up his life, if need be. Such a trader would not sell adulterated goods or cheat anyone, whatever his difficulties or even if he was going to be reduced to utter poverty. Moreover, he will treat the men under him with the utmost kindness. Very often a young man taking up a situation with a big factory or commercial house travels a long way from home, so that the master has to accept the role of his parents. If the master is indifferent, the young man will be like an orphan. At every step, therefore, the merchant or the master must ask himself this question, ‘Do I deal with my servants as I do with my sons?’ Suppose a ship’s captain places his son among the common sailors under his command. The captain’s duty is to treat all sailors as he would treat his son. In the same manner, a merchant may ask his son to work alongside of those under him. He must always treat the workers as he would then treat his son. This is the true meaning of economics. And as the captain is bound to be the last man to leave his ship in case of shipwreck, so in the event of famine or other calamities, the trader is bound to safeguard the interests of his men before his own. All this may sound strange. But the really strange thing about the modern age is that it should so sound. For anyone who applies his mind to it will be able to see that the true principle is as we have stated it. Any other standard is impossible for a progressive nation. If the British have survived so long, it is not because they have lived up to the maxims of economics, but because they have had many heroes who have questioned them and followed instead these principles of moral conduct. The harm that results from the violation of these principles and the nation’s consequent decline from greatness, we shall consider on another occasion.”4

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “Economists may reply in the following manner to what we said earlier concerning “roots of truth”: ‘It is true that certain advantages flow from social affection. But economists do not take these advantages into their reckoning. The science with which they are concerned is the science of getting rich. Far from being fallacious, it has in experience been found to be effective. Those who follow it do become rich, and those who disregard it become poor. All the millionaires of Europe have acquired their wealth by following the laws of this science. It is futile to seek to controvert this. Every man of the world knows how money is made and how it is lost.’ This is not quite true. Men of business do indeed make money but they do not know whether they make it by fair means and if their money-making contributes to the national weal. Very often they do not even know the meaning of the word “rich”. They do not realize that, if there are rich men, there must also be poor men. People sometimes believe, mistakenly, that by following certain precepts it is possible for everybody to become rich.

But the true position can be compared to a water-wheel where one bucket empties out as another fills. The power of the rupee you possess depends on another going without it. If no one wants it, it will be useless to you. The power it possesses depends on your neighbor’s lack of it. There can be wealth only where there is scarcity. This means that, in order to be rich, one must keep another poor. Political economy consists in the production, preservation and distribution, at the fittest time and place, of useful and pleasurable things. The farmer who reaps his harvest at the right time, the builder who lays bricks properly, the carpenter who attends to woodwork with care, the woman who runs her kitchen efficiently are all true political economists. All of them add to the national income. A science that teaches the opposite of this is not “political”. Its only concern is with individuals merely accumulating a certain metal and putting it to profitable use by keeping others in want of it. Those who do this estimate their wealth the value of their farms and cattle by the number of rupees they can get for them, rather than the value of their rupees by the number of cattle and farms they can buy with them. Furthermore, men who thus accumulate metal rupees think in terms of the number of workmen whose services they can command. Let us suppose that a certain individual possesses gold, silver, corn, etc. This person will require a servant. And if none of his neighbours is in need of gold, silver or corn, he will find it difficult to get one. He will then have to bake his bread, make his clothes and plough his field all by himself. This man will find his gold to be of no greater value than the yellow pebbles on his estate. His hoard of corn will rot. For he cannot consume more than his neighbour. He must therefore maintain himself by hard labour as other men do. Most people will not want to accumulate gold or silver on these terms.

Careful reflection will show that what we really desire through acquisition of wealth is power over other men power to acquire for our advantage the labour of a servant, a tradesman or an artisan. And the power we can thus acquire will be in direct proportion to the poverty of others. If there is only one person [in a position] to employ a carpenter, the latter will accept whatever wage is offered. If there are three or four persons who need his services, he will work for the person who offers him the highest wage. So that growing rich means contriving that as large a number of men as possible shall have less than we have. Economists generally assume that it is of advantage to the nation as a whole if the mass of people are thus kept in want. Equality among men is certainly not possible. But conditions of scarcity, unjustly created, injure the nation. Scarcity and abundance arising naturally make, and keep, the nation happy.”5

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “Thus the circulation of wealth among a people resembles the circulation of blood in the body. When circulation of blood is rapid, it may indicate any of these things: robust health, effects of exercise, or a feeling of shame or fever. There is a flush of the body which is indicative of health and another which is a sign of gangrene. Furthermore, the concentration of blood at one spot is harmful to the body and, similarly, concentration of wealth at one place proves to be the nation’s undoing. Let us suppose that two sailors are shipwrecked on an uninhabited coast they are then obliged to produce food and other necessaries of life through their own labour. If they both keep good health and work in amity, they may build a good house, till the land and lay by something for the future. All these things would constitute real wealth. If both of them work equally well they will have equal shares. Therefore, all that economic science would have to say about their case is that they had acquired a right to an equal share in the fruits of their labour.

Let us suppose now that after a while one of them feels discontented. So they divide the land and each one works on his land by himself and on his own account. Let us suppose that at a critical time one of them falls ill. He would then approach the other for help. The latter might reply: ‘I shall do this work for you, but on condition that you do the same amount of work for me when required. You must undertake in writing to work on my field when required for the same number of hours that I work for you now.’ Suppose further that the disabled man’s illness continues and that every time he has to give a written promise to the other, healthy person. What will be the position of the reduced to utter poverty? For, during the time that the invalid was laid up, his labour was unavailable. Even assuming that the friend was very hard-working, it is obvious that the time which he devoted to the ailing man’s land was at the expense of work on his own. This means that the combined property of the two would be less than it would have been otherwise. Also, the relation in which the two stood to each other has altered. The sick man becomes a debtor, and can only offer his labour as payment towards the debt. Suppose now that the healthy man decided to make use of the documents in his possession. He would then find it possible wholly to abstain, from work that is, be idle. If he chose, he could exact further pledges from the man who has recovered. No one can attribute any illegality to such a transaction. If now a stranger were to arrive on the scene, he would find that one of the two men had become wealthy and the other had lost his well-being. He would also see one of them passing his days in idle luxury and the other in want, though labouring hard. The reader will note from this that claiming the fruits of another’s labour as of right leads to a diminution of real wealth. Let us consider another illustration. Suppose that three men established a kingdom and then they all lived separately.

Each of them raised a different crop which the others could also avail themselves of. Suppose, further, that one of them, in order to save the time of all the three, gave up farming and undertook to arrange the transfer of commodities from one to the other, receiving in return a quantity of food-grains. If this man provided the required commodity at the right time, all of them would prosper. Now suppose that he kept back some of the grain he was to transfer. Then suppose there set in a period of scarcity, and the middleman offered the stolen corn at an exorbitant price. In this way he could reduce both the farmers to poverty and employ them as labourers. This would be a case of obvious injustice. This is, however, the way the merchants of today manage their affairs. We can also see that in consequence of this fraudulent practice the wealth of the three, taken collectively, will be less than it would have been if the middle man had behaved honestly. The other two farmers have done less work than they could have. Because they could not obtain the supplies they wanted, their labour did not fructify to the fullest, and the stolen commodities the hands of the dishonest middleman were not put to the most effective use. We can therefore reckon with mathematical accuracy how far the estimate of a nation’s wealth depends on the manner in which that wealth has been acquired. We cannot estimate a nation’s wealth on the basis of the quantity of cash it possesses. Cash in the hands of an individual may be a token of perseverance, skill and prosperity, or of harmful luxuries, merciless tyranny and chicanery. Our way of estimating wealth not only takes into account the moral attributes of the different modes of acquiring it but is also sound mathematically. One stock of money is such that it has created ten times as much in the gathering of it. Another is such that it has annihilated ten times as much in the gathering of it. To lay down directions for the making of money without regard to moral considerations is therefore a pursuit that bespeaks of man’s insolence. There is nothing more disgraceful to man than the principle “buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest”. Buy in the cheapest market? Yes, but what made your market cheap? Charcoal may be cheap among roof timbers after a fire and the bricks of buildings brought down by an earthquake may be cheap. But no one therefore will make bold to assert that fire and earthquake redound to the nation’s benefit. Again, sell in the dearest market? Yes, but what made your market dear? You made good profit today from the sale of your bread. But was it by extorting the last cowries from a dying man? Or, did you sell it to a rich man who will tomorrow appropriate all that you have? Or did you give it to a bandit on his way to pillaging your bank? Probably you will not be able to answer any of these questions, for you do not know. But there is one question you can answer, namely, whether you sold it justly and at a reasonable price. And justice is all that matters. It is your duty to act so that no one suffers through your actions.”6

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “We saw that the value of money consists in its power to command the labour of men. If that labour could be had without payment, there should be no further need of money. Instances are known where human labour can be had without payment. We have considered examples which show that moral power is more effective than the power of money. We also saw that man’s goodness can do what money cannot do. There exist men in many parts of England who cannot be beguiled with money. Moreover, if we admit that wealth carries with it the power to direct labour, we shall also see that the more intelligent and moral men are, the greater is the wealth amassed. It may even appear on a fuller consideration that the persons themselves constitute the wealth, not gold and silver. We must search for wealth not in the bowels of the earth, but in the hearts of men. If this is correct, the true law of economics is that men must be maintained in the best possible health, both of body and mind, and in the highest state of honour. A time may also come when England, instead of adorning the turbans of its slaves with diamonds from Golconda and thus sporting her wealth, may be able to point to her great men of virtue, saying, in the words of a truly eminent Greek, “This is my wealth.” Some centuries before Christ there lived a Jewish merchant, Solomon name. He had made a large fortune and earned great fame.

His maxims are remembered in Europe even today. He was so beloved of the Venetians that they erected a statue in the city to his memory. Though his maxims are known by rote, very few persons actually practice them. He says: “Those who make money through lies are afflicted with pride, and that is a sign of their death.” At another place, he adds: “Treasures of wickedness profit nothing. It is truth which delivers from death.” In both these maxims Solomon asserts that death is the outcome of wealth unjustly acquired. Nowadays, people tell lies or perpetrate injustice so cleverly that we cannot find them out. For there are misleading advertisements. Things bear attractive labels, and so on. Again the wise man says: “He that oppressed the poor to multiply his riches shall surely come to want.” And he adds: “Rob not the poor because he is poor. Oppress not the afflicted in the place of business. For God will corrupt the soul of those that torment them.” At present, however, it is the practice in business to administer kicks to those who are already dead. We are eager to take advantage of a needy man. The highwayman robs the rich, but the trader robs the poor. Solomon says further: “The rich and the poor are equal. God is their maker. God gives them knowledge. The rich and the poor cannot live, the one without the other. They always need each other. Neither of them can be regarded as superior or inferior to the other. But evil consequences follow when the two forget that they are equal, and that God is their light.”7

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “Wealth is like a river. A river always flows towards the sea, that is, down an incline. So, as a general rule must wealth go where it is needed. But the flow of wealth, like the course of a river, can be regulated. Most of the rivers run out their courses unregulated, their marshy banks poisoning the wind. If dams are built across these rivers to direct the water flow as required, they will irrigate the soil and keep the atmosphere pure. Similarly the uncontrolled use of wealth will multiply vices among men and cause starvation; in brief, such wealth will act like a poison. But the selfsame wealth, if its circulation is regulated and its use controlled, can, like a river whose stream has been properly harnessed, promote prosperity. The principle of regulating the circulation of wealth is ignored altogether by economists. Theirs is merely the science of getting rich. But there are many different ways of getting rich. There was a time in Europe when people sought to acquire wealth by poisoning owners of large estates and appropriating their possessions. Nowadays, merchants adulterate the food sold to the poor, for example, milk with borax, wheat flour with potato flour, coffee with chicory, and butter with fat and so on. This is on the same level as getting rich by poisoning others. Can we call this either an art or a science of getting rich?

Let us not, however, assume that by “getting rich” economists merely mean “getting rich by robbing others”. They should point out that theirs is a science of getting rich by legal or just means. It happens these days that many things which are legal are not just. The only right way, therefore, to acquire wealth is to do so justly. And if this is true, we must know what is just. It is not enough to live by the laws of demand and supply. Fish, wolves and rats subsist in that manner. Bigger fish prey on smaller ones, rats swallow insects and wolves devour even human beings. That for them is the law [of Nature]; they know no better. But God has endowed man with understanding, with a sense of justice. He must follow these and not think of growing rich by devouring others by cheating others and reducing them to beggary. Let us examine what then the laws of justice regarding payment of labour are. As we stated earlier, a just wage for a worker will be that which will secure him the same labour, when he needs it, as he has put in fours today. If we give him a lower wage, he will be underpaid, and if more, overpaid. Suppose a man wants to engage a worker. Two persons offer their services. If the man who offers to accept a lower wage is engaged, he will be underpaid. If there is a large number of employers and only one worker, he will get his own terms and will very likely be overpaid. The just wage lies between these two points. If someone lends me money which I have to repay after a time, I shall pay him interest. Similarly, if someone gives me his labour today, I must return him an identical quantity of labour and something more by way of interest. If someone gives me an hour of labour today, I should promise to give him an hour and five minutes or more. This is true of every kind of worker. If, now, of two men who offer me their services, I engage the one who accepts the lower wage, the result will be that he will be half starved while the other man will remain unemployed. Even otherwise, if I pay full wages to the workman whom I employ, the other man will be unemployed. But the former will not starve, and I shall have made just use of my money. Starvation really occurs only when the due wages are not paid. If I pay due wages, surplus wealth will not accumulate in my hands. I shall not waste money on luxuries and add to the poverty. The workman whom I pay justly will in turn learn to pay others justly. Thus the stream of justice will not dry up; instead it will gather speed as it flows. And the nation which has such a sense of justice will grow happy and prosper in the right direction.

According to this line of reasoning, economists are found to be wrong. They argue that increased competition means growing prosperity for a nation. This is not true in fact. Competition is desired because it reduces the rate of wages. The rich become richer thereby and the poor poorer. Such competition is likely to ruin a nation in the long run. The right law of demand and supply should ensure the payment of a just wage to a workman according to his worth. This, too, will mean competition, but the result will be that people will be happy and skilful, for, instead of being obliged to underbid one another, they will have to acquire [new] skills to secure employment. It is for this reason that men are drawn to government service. There, salaries are fixed according to the gradation of posts. The competition is only with regard to ability. A candidate does not offer to accept a lower salary but claims that he is abler than others. The same is the case with the Army and the Navy, and that is why there is much less corruption in these services. But only in trade and commerce is there unhealthy competition, as a result of which corrupt practices, such as fraud, chicanery, theft, have increased. Furthermore, goods of poor quality are manufactured. The manufacturer wants a lion’s share [of the price] for himself, the workman to throw dust in the eyes of others and the consumer to exploit the situation to his own advantage. This poisons all human intercourse, there is starvation all round, strikes multiply, and manufacturers become rogues and consumers disregard ethical considerations. One injustice leads to numerous others, and in the end the employer, the operative and the customer are all unhappy and meet with ruin. A people among whom these corrupt practices prevail come to grief in the end. Its very wealth acts like a poison. This is why men of wisdom have held that where Mammon is God, no one worships the true God. Wealth cannot be reconciled with God. God lives only in the homes of the poor. This is what the British profess, but in practice they place wealth above everything else, estimate the prosperity of the nation by the number of its rich, and their economists formulate precepts for everyone to get rich quickly. True economics is the economics of justice. That people alone will be happy which learns how to do justice and be righteous under all conditions of life. All else is vain, a kind of moral perversity that presages doom. To teach the people to get rich at any cost is to teach them an evil lesson.”8

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “We saw in the three preceding chapters that the generally accepted principles of economics are invalid. If acted upon, they will make individuals and nations unhappy. The poor will become poorer and the rich richer; neither will be any the happier for it. Economists do not take men’s conduct into account but estimate prosperity from the amount of wealth accumulated and so conclude that the happiness of nations depends upon their wealth alone. Hence they advocate greater accumulation of wealth through more and more work in factories. In England and elsewhere factories have multiplied because of the spread of these ideas. Large numbers of men leave their farms and concentrate in cities. They give up the pure and fresh air of the countryside and feel happy breathing the foul air of factories. As a result, the nation grows weaker, and avarice and immorality increase, and if someone suggests measures for eradicating vice, the so-called wise men argue that vice cannot be eliminated, that the ignorant cannot be educated all at once and that it is best to let things alone. While advancing this argument, they forget that it is the rich who are responsible for the immorality of the poor.

The wretched workers slave for them day and night so that they may be kept supplied with their luxuries. They have not a moment to themselves for self-improvement. Thinking about the rich, they also want to be rich. When they fail in this, they become angry and resentful. They then forget themselves [in their anger], and having failed to gather wealth by honest means, turn in desperation to fraud. Both wealth and labour are thus wasted; else they are utilized for promoting fraud. Labour, in the real sense of the term, is that which produces useful articles. Useful articles are those which support human life. Supporting human life means provision of food, clothing, etc., so as to enable men to live a moral life and to do good while they live. For this purpose, large-scale industrial undertakings would appear to be useless. To seek to acquire wealth by establishing big factories is likely to lead to sin. Many people amass wealth but few make good use of it. If the making of money is likely to lead a nation to its destruction, that money is useless. On the contrary, present-day capitalists are responsible for widespread and unjust wars. Most of the wars of our times spring from greed for money. We hear people say that it is impossible to educate others so as to improve them, and the best course would be to live as well as one could and accumulate wealth.

Those he holds these views show little concern for ethical principles. For the person who values ethical principles and does not yield to avarice has a disciplined mind; he does not tray from the right path, and influences others merely by his example. If the individuals who constitute a nation do not observe moral principles of conduct how can the nation become moral? If we behave as we choose and then point the accusing finger at an errant neighbour, how can the result of our actions be good? We thus see that money no more than a means which may make for happiness or misery. In the hands of a good man, it can be used for cultivating land and raising crops. Cultivators will find contentment in innocent labour and the nation will be happy. In the hands of bad men, it is used for the production, say, of gun-powder and bringing utter ruin on the people. Both those who manufacture gunpowder and those who fall victims to it suffer in consequence. We thus see that there is no wealth besides life. That nation is wealthy which is moral. This not the time for self-indulgence. Everyone must work according to his ability. As we saw in the illustrations earlier, if one man remains idle another has to labour twice as hard. This is at the root of the starvation prevalent in England. There are men who do little useful work themselves because of the wealth that has accumulated in their hands, and so force others to labour for them. This kind of labour, being unproductive, is not beneficial to the worker. In consequence, the income suffers diminution.

Though all men appear to be employed, we find on closer scrutiny that a large number are idle perforce. Moreover, envy is aroused, discontent takes root and, in the end, the rich and the poor, the employer and the workman violate the bounds of decency in their mutual relations. As the cat and the mouse are always at variance with each other, so the rich and the poor, the employer and the workman become hostile to one another, and man, ceasing to be man, is reduced to the level of beasts. Our summary of the great Ruskin’s book is now concluded. Though some may have been bored by it, we advise those who have read the articles once to read them again. It will be too much to expect that all the readers of Indian Opinion will ponder over them and act on them. But even if law readers make a careful study of the summary and grasp the central idea, we shall deem our labour to have been amply rewarded. Even if that does not happen, the reward of labour, as Ruskin says in the last chapter, consists in having done one’s duty and that should satisfy one. What Ruskin wrote for his countrymen, the British, is a thousand times more applicable to Indians? New ideas are spreading in India. The advent of a new spirit among the young who have received western education is of course to be welcomed. But the outcome will be beneficial only if that spirit is canalized properly; if it is not, it is bound to be harmful. From one side we hear the cry for swarajya; from another, for the quick accumulation of wealth by setting up factories like those in Britain. Our people hardly understand what swarajya means. Natal enjoys swarajya, but we would say that, if we were to imitate Natal, swarajya would be no better than hell. The Natal whites tyrannize over the Kaffirs, hound out the Indians, and in their blindness give free rein to selfishness.

If, by chance, Kaffirs and Indians were to leave Natal, they would destroy themselves in a civil war. Shall we, then, hanker after the kind of swarajya which obtains in the Transvaal? General Smuts is one of their leading figures. He does not keep any promise, oral or written. He says one thing, does another? The British are disgusted with him. Under the guise of effecting economy, he has deprived British soldiers of livelihood and has been replacing them with Dutchmen. We do not believe that in the long run this will make even the Dutch happy. Those who serve only their own interests will be ready to rob their own-people after they have done with robbing others. If we observe happenings all over the world, we shall be able to see that what people call swarajya is not enough to secure the nation’s prosperity and happiness. We can perceive this by means of a simple example. All of us can visualize what would happen if a band of robbers were to enjoy swarajya. In the long run they would be happy only if they were placed under the control of men who were not themselves robbers. America, France and England are all great States. But there is no reason to think that they are really happy. Real swarajya consists in restraint. He alone is capable of this that leads a moral life, does not cheat anyone, does not forsake truth and does his duty to his parents, his wife, his children, his servant and his neighbour. Such a man will enjoy swarajya wherever he may happen to live. A nation that has many such men always enjoys swarajya. It is wrong normally for one nation to rule over another. British rule in India is an evil but we need not believe that any very great advantage would accrue to the Indians if the British were to leave India. The reason why they rule over us is to be found in ourselves; that reason is our disunity, our immorality and our ignorance. If these three things were to disappear, not only would the British leave India without the rustling of a leaf, but it would be real swarajya that we would enjoy. Many people exult at the explosion of bombs. This only shows ignorance and lack of understanding. If all the British were to be killed, those who kill them would become the masters of India, and as a result India would continue in a state of slavery.

The bombs with which the British will have been killed will fall on India after the British leave. The man who killed the President of the French Republic was himself a Frenchman and the assassin of President Cleveland of America was an American. We ought to be careful, therefore, not to be hasty and thoughtlessly to imitate the people of the West. Just as we cannot achieve real swarajya, by following the path of evil that is by killing the British so also will it not be possible for us to achieve it by establishing big factories in India. Accumulation of gold and silver will not bring swarajya. This has been convincingly proved by Ruskin. Let it be remembered that western civilization is only a hundred years old, or to be more precise, fifty. Within this short span the western people appear to have been reduced to a state of cultural anarchy. We pray that India may never be reduced to the same state as Europe. The western nations are impatient to fall upon one another, and are restrained only by the accumulation of armaments all round. When the situation flares up, we will witness a veritable hell let loose in Europe. All white nations look upon the black races as their legitimate prey. This is inevitable when money is the only thing that matters. Wherever they find any territory, they swoop down on it like crows upon carrion. There are reasons to suggest that this is the outcome of their large industrial undertakings. To conclude, the demand of swarajya is the demand of every Indian, and it is a just demand. But swarajya is to be achieved by righteous means.

It must be real swarajya. It cannot be achieved by violent methods or by setting up factories. We must have industry, but of the right kind. India was once looked upon as a golden land, because Indians then were people of sterling worth. The land is still the same but the people have changed and that is why it has become arid. To transform it into a golden land again we must transmute ourselves into gold by leading a life of virtue. The philosophers’ stone which can bring this about consists of two syllables: satya. If, therefore, every Indian makes it a point to follow truth always, India will achieve swarajya as a matter of course. This is the substance of Ruskin’s book.”9

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “Sarvodaya is impossible without Satyagraha. The word Satyagraha should be understood here in its etymological sense. There can be no insistence on truth where there is no non-violence. Hence the attainment of Sarvodaya depends upon the attainment of nonviolence. The attainment of non-violence in its turn depends upon tapascharya. Tapascharya, again, should be pure. Ceaseless effort, discretion, etc., should form part of it. Pure tapascharya leads to pure knowledge. Experience shows that although people talk of nonviolence, many are mentally so lazy that they do not even take the trouble of familiarizing themselves with the facts. Take an example. India is a poor country. We wish to do away with poverty. But how many people have made a study of how this poverty came about, what its implications are, how it can be removed, etc.?

A devotee of nonviolence should be full of such knowledge. It is the duty of Sarvodaya to create such means and not to enter into controversies. Editors of Sarvodaya should forget Gandhism. There is no such thing as Gandhism. I have not put anything new before India; I have only presented an ancient thing in a new way. I have tried to utilize it in a new field. Hence my ideas cannot be appropriately called Gandhism. We shall adopt truth wherever we find it, praise it wherever we see it, and pursue it. In other words, in every sentence of Sarvodaya, we should catch a glimpse of non-violence and knowledge.”10

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “Lovers of Hindi already know that the Sarvodaya is a monthly published from Wardha. Kaka Kalelkar and Dada Dharmadhikari are its editors. In fact there are three editors because Kishorelal generally contributes to every issue. The aim of this monthly is to conduct a theoretical discussion of the science of Satyagraha and to propagate it in its purest form, so that the whole world may be uplifted. This monthly is being published for the last four years but every year there has been a loss of about two to three thousand rupees. The question therefore is whether it should be continued in spite of so much loss. Many friends are of the opinion that Sarvodaya should be continued even at a loss. While others ask if it is any use continuing it when it is not worth the cost of its production. Both these views can be defended to some extent. But the middle course would be to consult the subscribers. They do not have a clear picture of the loss. If they think that the publication of Sarvodaya is necessary, and then each one of them should enroll at least one new subscriber, then alone can we make up the loss? At present there are about nine hundred subscribers. The loss can be covered if there are two thousand of them. Those who are unable to enroll new subscribers but are rich can themselves pay for one or two subscribers. There are always some people who are curious but would want a free copy.

In fact they cannot afford to pay the subscription. So if we have someone to pay their subscription, Sarvodaya can be sent to them regularly. The main reason for publishing this in Harijan Sevak is that those other than the subscribers of Sarvodaya may also know about the loss. The policy of Sarvodaya is exactly the same as that of Harijan. But in Sarvodaya the policy advocated in Harijan is discussed theoretically and objectively. However, it is not obligatory on the part of the editors of Sarvodaya to follow the policy of Harijan. They propagate it as far as they agree with it. There is another temptation in continuing Sarvodaya, i. e., since its editors try to keep it away from so-called politics it will remain safe in case Harijan is in danger and people will get at least something through it.”11 So we can say that given system will be the best for public distribution system in India.

References: