Excerpts From Gandhi's Constructive Program [1945]
The constructive programme may otherwise and more fittingly be called construction of Poorna Swaraj or complete Independence by truthful and non-violent means.Introduction
Effort for construction of Independence so called through violent and, therefore, necessarily untruthful means we know only too painfully. Look at the daily destruction of property, life and truth in the present war.
Complete Independence through truth and non-violence means the independence of every unit, be it the humblest of the nation, without distinction of race, colour or creed. This independence is never exclusive. It is, therefore, wholly compatible with interdependence within or without. Practice will always fall short of the theory, even as the drawn line falls short of the theoretical line of Euclid. Therefore, complete Independence will be complete only to the extent of our approach in practice to truth and non-violence.
Let the reader mentally plan out the whole of the, constructive programme, and he will agree with me that, if it could be successfully worked out, the end of it would be the Independence we want.
But for my purpose, which is to convince the reader of the necessity of following out the constructive programme in the non-violent effort, the acceptance of my argument about the ineffectiveness of violence for the attainment of independence is not required. The reader is welcome to the belief that Independence of the humblest unit is possible under a scheme of violence, if this effort enables him also to admit that it is a certainty through the complete execution of the programme by the nation.
Let us now examine the items.
Khadi [home-spun cloth]
This needs a revolutionary change in the mentality and tastes of many. Easy though the non-violent way is in many respects, it is very difficult in many others. It vitally touches the life of every single Indian, makes him feel aglow with the possession of a power that has lain hidden within himself, and makes him proud of his identity with every drop of the ocean of Indian humanity.
Moreover, Khadi mentality means decentralization of the production and distribution of the necessaries of life. Therefore, the formula so far evolved is, every village to produce all its necessaries and a certain percentage in addition for the requirements of the cities.
Heavy industries will needs be centralized and nationalized. But they will occupy the least part of the vast national activity which will mainly be in the villages...
Only a few broad rules can be laid down here:
1. Every family with a plot of ground can grow cotton at least for family use. Cotton growing is an easy process. In Bihar the cultivators were by law compelled to grow indigo on 3/20 of their cultivable land. This was in the interest of the foreign indigo planter. Why cannot we grow cotton voluntarily for the nation on a certain portion of our land? The reader will note that decentralization commences from the beginning of the Khadi processes.
2. Every spinner would buy — if he has not his own enough cotton for ginning, which he can easily do without the hand-ginning roller frame. He can gin his own portion with a board and an iron rolling pin. Where this is considered impracticable, hand-ginned cotton should be bought and carded. Carding for self can be done well on a tiny bow without much effort. The greater the decentralization of labour, the simpler and cheaper the tools.
If Congressmen will put their heart into the work, they will make improvements in the tools and make many discoveries. In our country there has been a divorce between labour and intelligence, The result has been stagnation. If there is an indissoluble marriage between the two, and that in the manner here suggested, the resultant good will be inestimable.
In this scheme of nation-wide spinning as a sacrifice, I do not expect the average man or woman to give more than one hour daily to this work.
Women
This revolution is easy, if the mind is made up. Let Congressmen begin with their own homes. Wives should not be dolls and objects of indulgence, but should be treated as honoured comrades in common service. To this end those who have not received a liberal education should receive such instruction as is possible from their husbands. The same observation applies, with the necessary changes, to mothers and daughters.
It is hardly necessary to point out that I have given a one-sided picture of the helpless state of India's women. I am quite conscious of the fact that in the villages generally' they hold their own with their men folk and in some respects even rule them. But to the impartial outsider the legal and customary status of woman is bad enough throughout and demands radical alteration.
Education in Health and Hygiene
The fundamental laws of health and hygiene are simple and easily learnt. The difficulty is about their observance. Here are some:
Breathe the freshest air day and night.
Establish a balance between bodily and mental work.
Stand erect, sit erect, and be neat and clean in every one of your acts, and let these be an expression of your inner condition. Eat to live for service of fellow-men. Do not live for indulging yourselves. Hence your food must be just enough to keep your mind and body in good order. Man becomes what he eats.
Your water, food and air must be clean, and you will not be satisfied with mere personal cleanliness, but you will infect your surroundings with the same threefold cleanliness that you will desire for yourselves.
Civil Disobedience
It has three definite functions:
1. It can be effectively offered for the redress of a local wrong.
2. It can be offered without regard to effect, though aimed at a particular wrong or evil, by way of self-immolation in order to rouse local consciousness or conscience. Such was the case in Champaran when I offered Civil Disobedience without any regard to the effect and well knowing that even the people might remain apathetic. That it proved otherwise may be taken, according to taste, as God's grace or a stroke of good luck,
3. In the place of full response to constructive effort, it can be offered as it was in 1941. Though it was a contribution to and part of the battle for freedom, it was purposely centered round a particular issue, i.e. free speech. Civil Disobedience can never be directed fur a general cause such as for Independence. The issue must be definite and capable of being clearly understood and within the power of the opponent to yield. This method properly applied must lead to the final goal.
I have not examined here the full scope and possibilities of Civil Disobedience. I have touched enough of it to enable the reader to understand the connection between the constructive programme and Civil Disobedience. In the first two cases, no elaborate constructive programme was or could be necessary. But when Civil Disobedience is itself devised for the attainment of Independence, previous preparation is necessary, and it has to be backed by the visible and conscious effort of those who are engaged in the battle. Civil Disobedience is thus a stimulation for the fighters and a challenge to the opponent. It should be clear to the reader that Civil Disobedience in terms of Independence without the co-operation of the millions by way of constructive effort is mere bravado and worse than useless.
This historical document was written in pre-independence India. I think it's objective is to provide a comprehensive plan for India's independence through non-violent means. This piece is likely directed at the Indian people and perhaps to Indian's working for the British government (perhaps the "Congressman" he addresses?). In the "Women" section I think Gandhi makes it clear that it is not directed just at men, but that women will have an equal part in India gaining it's independence. A lot of Gandhi's objectives are focused on Indian people being self-sufficient- and I think this relates to the historic context of the time because India was relying on imported British goods which prevented them from being able to sever ties with Britain. I think a lot of what this article is "not saying" is because a large part of it is missing, these are only excerpts. Gandhi himself also states in the "Khadi" section that he is omitting some reasoning and aspects of the self-made cloth because much of that debate has already been explained numerous times. This piece can be used as a historical document to help better understand the objectives and means by which India gained its independence from Britain. It can also be used to better understand and extrapolate the facets of Gandhi's philosophy.
ReplyDeleteWhat does this document tell us about Gandhi and this period in Indian history? I think this document tells us more about Gandhi than about the other Indian people at this time, most obviously because it is Gandhi speaking in the form of an essay, not a dialogue. We don't know what kind of response this essay provoked from the public, but I find it interesting that Gandhi seems to be on the defensive in this piece of writing. It feels to me that he was expecting heavy criticism, therefore filling his writing with disclaimers and explanations that attempt to neutralize the writing, at least to an extent. This leads me to speculate that the general public, although badly wanting their independence, were skeptical of this non-violent solution. To a nation so used to war and violence, this new idea might very well seem weak or ineffective. Also, I can't help but to think that the Indian male population might not have taken Gandhi's advice on spousal treatment very seriously. In my experience, men who think themselves superior to women and/or other men do not welcome the idea of women as equals, even in the face of more serious issues.
ReplyDeleteI admit to not fully understanding the part about cotton and spinning. I'm sure it must be a more full-scale idea, but I don't see how one man ginning his own cotton for one hour a day is so very vital to the success of India's war for independence. I know Gandhi had a sort of vendetta against outsourced materials, but surely he doesn't expect every villager and citizen to be entirely self-sufficient? I feel like the lack of trade would further isolate villages and outlying communities, not unite them.
I'm pretty sure that all the gritty details that come with being under British rule are dividing the Indian nation by taking their attention away from the issues that are really important to them. The immediate necessity to rebel against the British has taken precedent over relationships and community. I think, in an effort to bring the Indian nation together, Gandhi is trying to remind everyone to focus and think locally with long term goals. Just because the British managed to put your head up your ass, it doesn't mean it has to stay there. Also, I totally want to ditto what Skotowich said about the public being skeptical of Gandhi's non-violent plans.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Ghandi realized how difficult the idea of gaining independence, through non-violent means, was for his people. With all of the violence and even violent rumors being spread in India's past, it is understandable that people would feel skeptical towards his plan. He emphasized the fact that, while it was an ideal method of gaining freedom, it was only an idea unless the people fully heartedly believed in the program. I think Ghandi had a very good idea of how people would react to his ideas because he was stating criticisms that people might have already had in his writing. I feel like this method forced critics to see that Ghandi was aware of their concerns but had his own reasoning for dealing with these issues.
ReplyDeleteI, myself, am a bit skeptical of Indian men taking the role of women seriously. I agree with Skotowich that men who think themselves as superiors to females don't easily change their minds (Though I am sure it probably gained women more attention).
Reading this i was reminded of when i first learned about socialism. Socialism being a form of government advocating shared public ownership, cooperative management of production, and equal power amongst all citizens. It is the government that sounds great on paper or in theory, but once established in reality it begs to be taken advantage of and filled with holes.
ReplyDeleteGandhis writing is surprisingly similar to this "too good to be true" ideology. true he brings up points of opposing views, but never quite gets to the harsher truths. people are not going to just give up their normal customs for drastic change. it is unfortunately illogical to believe citizens will voluntarily agree to making their own clothes from their now home grown garden. Husbands will not receive an epiphany and realize they should treat their wives better.
regardless of the fact that this simple article could not change a nations actions successfully, it is still a forward step. With this Gandhi has implanted the idea of possibility, and that is the best start.
What does this document tell us about Gandhi and this period in Indian history?
ReplyDeleteHe's got a good theory of living, In each category I was judging it having seen other ideal livings fail after a few generations down the line. I was mainly concerned about how non violent he was going to specify in his plans and how he would go about teaching peace. What do they do when they come to things like punishment of a citizen or when war comes to them. It seemed he basically wanted people to just be the ultimate standard of human beings as we were intended to become in most religions and cultures at that time. Having seen the such traumatic things at the educated level he was at I could understand how he could only strive for ultimate peace and nothing else. I think total non violence for him was the only logical way to live, I agree with him but at the same time I know total non violence wont work, violence is just a part of nature, even God was violent when it came to punishment and war.
All around he is extremely focused on being together. He stresses several times that what he's asking is not easy, but doable if everyone gets in on it together. This is also undercut to an extant though by his extreme pessimism. It makes me wonder how divided the people were, that he'd basically say that in the end it's up to luck. You'd think independence/ a national identity would appeal to everyone enough that he wouldn't need a disclaimer.
ReplyDeletetest
ReplyDelete