Gandhi, Ambedkar and Other Modern Indian Thinkers

Gandhi's trusteeship doctrine

Trusteeship is Gandhi's proposal for regulating the normative relationship between labour and capital without resorting to conflict. Under this doctrine, those who hold surplus wealth do not hold it as absolute owners but as trustees who must use it for the welfare of society. The aim is economic equality and social solidarity, to be achieved through voluntary cooperation and a change of heart among the wealthy, not through class struggle. Trusteeship therefore rejects the Marxist method of class conflict and expropriation. A capitalist who accepts this doctrine recognizes that his wealth is in substance the fruit of the workers' labour and accepts a duty to hold that surplus in trust for the poor and the working class. Gandhi's point is that the wealthy man is less the owner of his wealth than the labourer, whose real possession is his power to work. The labourer owns that capacity, while the rich man's property is held on behalf of others. Students should remember that trusteeship is a moral and non-violent arrangement, not a theory of charity from a position of right, and not a call to abolish the propertied classes.

Iqbal's theory of intuition

For Muhammad Iqbal, intuition is a direct, non-discursive apprehension of Reality, which he identifies with God. It is immediate knowledge, not a conclusion reached through inference or analysis. Iqbal locates this faculty in the heart (dil), the seat of direct knowing, and contrasts it with the analytic intellect (aql), which works through concepts and discursive reasoning. Intuition is therefore not a property of the mind and intellect in Iqbal's scheme. Although an intuitive experience occurs in an individual and is personal in its occurrence, Iqbal holds that it has an objective reference to reality and is not merely subjective. In The Secrets of the Self, Iqbal extends this outlook to his account of the self. Existence is derived from the activity of the self (khudi), so existence is an effect of the self. Time is tied to the life of the ego and would not cease merely because the sun were destroyed. Iqbal also insists that life is purposive, since the self grows through striving toward higher ends, and he denies that science yields purely detached objective knowledge.

Cultural domination and colonial mentality

K. C. Bhattacharyya distinguishes political subjection from a subtler domination in the sphere of ideas, in which one culture controls the mind of another. Such cultural subjection is dangerous because it is usually unconscious and is not felt as a loss. Bhattacharyya observes that slavery begins when one ceases to feel the evil and deepens when the evil is accepted as a good. The essential mark of cultural subjection is that a traditional cast of ideas and sentiments is replaced without comparison or competition by an alien set of ideas. Subjection therefore consists in an uncritical assimilation of foreign culture together with an uncritical discarding of one's own tradition, and it is marked by an inability to distinguish good from evil. Assimilation as such is not an evil. Bhattacharyya admits that taking in an alien culture may be necessary for healthy progress and does not mean a loss of freedom, so a complete rejection of foreign ideas is not what defines subjection. The colonial mentality is the inner condition that results when this uncritical replacement is accepted.

K. C. Bhattacharyya's concept of the Absolute

In his account of the Absolute, K. C. Bhattacharyya begins from the analysis of consciousness into three modes: knowing, feeling and willing. Each mode has its own corresponding absolute, which is the ideal that the mode seeks in its fullest form. The absolute of knowing is Truth, the cognitive ideal toward which knowledge aspires. The feeling side is associated with Beauty, and in some formulations with Bliss, while the willing side is associated with Goodness. Students should note that the three absolutes correspond to the three modes of consciousness, so the absolute of knowing is not Beauty, Goodness or Bliss. A useful way to remember the scheme is to match each mode with its ideal: knowing with Truth, feeling with Beauty or Bliss, and willing with Goodness.

Ambedkar's conception of democracy

B. R. Ambedkar's conception of democracy rests on the view that formal political rights are necessary but not sufficient. Adult suffrage and frequent elections do not by themselves prevent a governing class from reaching and keeping positions of power and authority. Where servile classes are concerned, universal suffrage may fail to remove the governing class from authority, and such societies may need further safeguards beyond adult suffrage. For Ambedkar, the existence of a governing class is inconsistent with genuine democracy and self-government. Servile classes electing members of the governing class as their rulers is therefore a sign of a defective democracy, not a thriving one. Students should keep in mind that Ambedkar's democracy is judged by the actual distribution of power and the freedom of the weak, not merely by the procedure of voting.

Gandhi's concept of Truth (satya)

For Gandhi, Truth (satya) is the ultimate reality, and he identifies it with God, so that there is no other God than Truth. Devotion to Truth is the basis of his public activity, and it drew him into politics. Gandhi holds that religion cannot be separated from politics, and those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not understand what religion means. Gandhi also links Truth with Ahimsa. Identification with all that lives is impossible without self-purification, and without self-purification the observance of Ahimsa remains an empty ideal. God, understood as Truth, can be realized only by one who is pure of heart. Hence, a statement that religion and politics should be separated, or that Ahimsa has no bearing on politics, runs against Gandhi's position, because his politics is derived from his religious commitment to Truth and Ahimsa.