|
Back
Gandhi's Philosophy On
Trusteeship
Leveling Up, Down
Economic equality is the master key
to nonviolent independence. Working for economic equality means abolishing the
eternal conflict between capital and labour. It means the leveling down of the
few rich in whose hands is concentrated the bulk of the nation’s wealth on the
one hand, and the leveling up of the semi-starved naked millions on the other.
A nonviolent system of government is
clearly an impossibility, so long as the wide gulf between the rich and the
hungry millions persists. The contrast between the palaces of New Delhi and the
miserable hovels of the poor, labouring class nearby cannot last one day in a
free India in which the poor will enjoy the same power as the richest in the
land.
A violent and bloody revolution is a certainty one day unless there is a
voluntary abdication of riches and the power that riches give and sharing them
for the common good.
I adhere to my doctrine of
trusteeship in spite of the ridicule that has been poured upon it. It is true
that it is difficult to reach. So is non-violence. But we made up our minds in
1920 to negotiate that steep ascent. We have found it worth the effort.
Non-violent Way
By the non-violent method, we seek
not to destroy the capitalist, we seek to destroy capitalism. We invite the
capitalist to regard himself as a trustee for those on whom he depends for the
making, the retention and the increase of his capital. Nor need the worker wait
for his conversion. If capital is power, so is work. Either is dependent on the
other. Immediately the worker realizes his strength, he is din a position to
become a co-sharer with the capitalist instead of remaining his slave.
If he aims at becoming the sole
owner, he will most likely be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Not need I be afraid of some one else taking my place when I have
non-co-operated. For I expect to influence my co-workers so as not to help the
wrong-doing of my employer. This kind of education of the mass of workers is no
doubt a slow process, but as it is also the surest, it is necessarily the
quickest. It can be easily demonstrated in the end of the worker and as no human
being is so bad as to be beyond redemption, no human being is so perfect as to
warrant his destroying him whom he wrongly considers to be wholly evil.
Community Welfare
I am inviting those people who
consider themselves as owners today to act as trustees, i.e., owners, not in
their own right, but owners in the right of those whom they have exploited.
It has become the fashion these days
to say that society cannot be organized or run on non-violent lines. I join
issue on that point. In a family, when the father slaps his delinquent child,
the latter does not think of retaliating. He obeys his father not because of the
deterrent effect of the slap but because of the offended love which he senses
behind it. That, in my opinion, is an epitome of the way in which society is or
should be governed. What is true of the family must be true of society which is
but a larger family.
Supposing I have come by a fair
amount of wealth—either by way of legacy, or by means of trade and industry—I
must know that all that wealth does not belong to me; what belongs to me is the
right to an honourable livelihood, no better than that enjoyed by millions of
others. The rest of my wealth belongs to the community and must be used for the
welfare of the community.
I enunciated this theory when the socialist theory was placed before the country
in respect to the possessions held by zamindars and ruling chiefs. They would do
away with these privileged classes. I want them to outgrow their greed and sense
of possession, and to come down in spite of their wealth to the level of those
who earn their bread by labour. The labourer has to realize that the wealthy man
is less owner of his wealth than the labourer is owner of his own, viz., the
power to work.
In Practice
The question how many can be real
trustees according to this definition is beside the point. If the theory is
true, it is immaterial whether many live up to it or only one man lives up to
it. The question is of conviction. If you accept the principle of ahimsa, you
have to strive to live up to it, no matter whether you succeed or fail. There is
nothing in this theory which can be said to be beyond the grasp of intellect,
though you may say it is difficult of practice. (H, 3-6-1939, p. 145)
I am not ashamed to own that many
capitalists are friendly towards me and do not fear me. They know that I desire
to end capitalism, almost, if not quite, as much as the most advanced Socialist
or even Communist. But our methods differ, our languages differ.
No Make-shift
My theory of
‘trusteeship’ is no make-shift, certainly no camouflage. I am confident that it
will survive all other theories. It has the sanction of philosophy and religion
behind it. That possessors of wealth have not acted up to the theory does not
prove its falsity; it proves the weakness of the wealthy. No other theory is
compatible with non-violence. In the non-violent method wrong-doer compasses his
own end, if he does not undo the wrong. For, either through non-violent
non-co-operation he is made to see the error, or he finds himself completely
isolated.
Acquisition of Health
Those who own money now, are asked
to behave like trustees holding their riches on behalf of the poor. You may say
that trusteeship is a legal fiction. But if people meditate over it constantly
and try to act up to it, then life on earth would be governed far more by love
than it is at present. Absolute trusteeship is an abstraction like Euclid’s
definition of a point, and is equally unattainable. But if we strive for it, we
shall be able to go further in realizing state of equality on earth than by any
other method.
It is my conviction that it is
possible to acquire riches without consciously doing wrong. For example I may
light on a gold mine in my one acre of land. But I accept the proposition that
it is better not to desire wealth than to acquire it, and become its trustee. I
gave up my own long ago, which should be proof enough of what I would like
others to do. But what am I to advise those who are already wealthy or who would
not shed the desire for wealth? I can only say to them that they should use
their wealth for service.
It is true that generally the rich spend more on themselves than they need. But
this can be avoided. Jamnalalji spent far less on himself than men of his own
economic status and even than many middle-class men. I have come across
innumerable rich persons who are stingy on themselves. For some it is a part of
their nature to spend next to nothing on themselves, and they do not think that
they acquire merit in so doing.
The same applies to the sons of the wealthy. Personally, I do not believe in
inherited riches. The well-to-do should educate and bring up their children so
that they may learn how to be independent. The tragedy is that they do not do
so. Their children do get some education, they even recite verses in praise of
poverty, but they have no compunction about helping themselves to parental
wealth. That being so, I exercise my common sense and advise what is
practicable.
Those of us, however, who consider it a duty to adopt poverty and believe in and
desire economic equality may not be jealous of the rich, but should exhibit real
happiness in our poverty which others may emulate. The sad fact is that those
who are thus happy are few and far between.
A trustee has no heir but the
public. In a State built on the basis of non-violence, the commission of
trustees will be regulated. Princes and zamindars will be on a par with the
other men of wealth.
The Choice
As for the present owners
of wealth, they will have to make their choice between class war and voluntarily
converting themselves into trustees of their wealth. They will be allowed to
retain the stewardship of their possessions and to use their talent, to increase
the wealth, not for their own sakes, but for the sake of the nation and,
therefore, without exploitation.
The State will regulate the rate of commission, which they will get commensurate
with the service rendered, and its value to society. Their children will inherit
the stewardship only if they prove their fitness for it.
Supposing India becomes a free country tomorrow, all the capitalists will have
an opportunity of becoming statutory trustees. But such a statute will not be
imposed from above. It will have to come from below.
When the people understand the implications of trusteeship and the atmosphere is
ripe for it, the people themselves, beginning with gram panchayats, will begin
to introduce such statutes. Such a thing coming from below is easy to swallow.
Coming from above it is liable to prove a dead weight.
Zamindars,Kisans
I am quite prepared to say for the
sake of argument that the Zamindars are guilty of many crimes and of omissions
and commissions. But that is no reason for the peasant and the labourer who are
the salt of the earth to copy crime. If salt loses its savour, wherewith can it
be salted?…
To the landlords I say that, if what is said against you is true, I will warn
you that your days are numbered. You can no longer continue as lords and
masters. You have a bright future if you become trustees of the poor Kisans. I
have in mind not trustees in name but in reality. Such trustees will take
nothing for themselves that their labour and care do not entitle them to. They
then will find that no law will be able to reach them. The Kisans will be their
friends. (H, 4-5-1947, p. 134)
If the Zamindars really become the
trustees of their Zamindari for the sake of the ryots, there never could be an
unholy league [between the two]. There is the difficult Zamindari question
awaiting solution…. What one would love to see is proper, impartial and
satisfactory understanding between the Zamindars, big and small, the ryots and
the Governments, so that when the law is passed, it may not be a dead letter nor
need force be used against the Zamindars or the ryots. Would that all changes,
some of which must be radical, take place throughout India without bloodshed and
without force!
Practical Trusteeship Formula
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 a chance of reforming itself. It is based on the faith that human nature
is never beyond redemption.
It does not recognize any right of private ownership of property except so far
as it may be permitted by society for its own welfare.
It does not exclude legislative regulation of the ownership and use of wealth.
Thus 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.
Under the Gandhian economic order the character of production will be determined
by social necessity and not by personal whim or greed.
|
