Indian Political Science Association

PROBLEM OF SOVEREIGNTY IN GANDHIAN THOUGHT

Author(s): Kaushal Kishore Mishra
Source: The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 66, No. 3 (July-Sept., 2005), pp. 515-
530
Published by: Indian Political Science Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41856146
Accessed: 20-09-2016 05:58 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Indian Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Indian Journal of Political Science

This content downloaded from 117.239.21.82 on Tue, 20 Sep 2016 05:58:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Indian Journal of Political Science

Vol. LXVI, No. 3, July-Sept., 2005

PROBLEM OF SOVEREIGNTY IN
GANDHIAN THOUGHT

Kaut hal Kishore Mishra

Distinctive school of thoughts have hod developed on

Anarchism. While the extreme form of individualism flourished
by Max Stirner in Germany and carried by Josiah Warren and
Bej amin Tucker in America, yet in contrast, Michael Bakunin,
Peter Kropotkin and Proudhonian principles of mutual aid for
collective or group anarchism is observed in Russia and was
carried in France by Elisee, Reclus and Jean Grave. Yet another
departure was with count Leo Tolstoy with his ideal of informal
co-operation. In opposition to Bakunin who considered direct
violent action necessary to abolish state. Gandhi asserted 'a
society based on complete non-violence will be the purest
anarchy'. Advocating individual freedom as opposed i o absolute
sovereignty to state, his compromise to state machinery was to
the extent it advanced welfare to people. This formed the basis
of Gandhi's 'Sarvodaya' and 'Swaraj'. Ultimately thus on
political sovereignty, Gandhi laid emphasis on 'Loka-sakti' and
not on 'Raja-sakti'. While the former is the non-violent self-
reliant civil power, the latter is negation of it. Unfortunately,
the problem of present day society is that instead of'Loka-niti',
the State is based on 'Raja-niti'.

Mahatma Gandhi's contribution to Indian politics has been

immense. His political thought depends on his premise about absolute
truth and Satyagraha. and fundamental conceptions about man, society
and the state. Unlike the Western political thinkers, Gandhi was reluctant

to worry himself to propound a systematic theory of the state.

A seeker after Truth, Gandhi had implicit faith in a good deed

producing a good result. He lived and acted in the present dealing with
problems as they arose, concentrated on the immediate duties without any

attachment to the fruits thereof. This is the central téaching of Gita. He

believed in the universality of God, hence he accepted the theory of equality

of all. Again from his conception of truth followed his theory of satyagraha

or resistance to untruth, injustice and tyranny. Sarvodaya epitomises the

entire political thought of Gandhi.

Throughout his life, Gandhi experimented with non-violence, trying

to apply it to all spheres of life and studying its possibilities. The non-

This content downloaded from 117.239.21.82 on Tue, 20 Sep 2016 05:58:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Indian Journal of Political Science 516

violent state which he envisaged was in accordance with

satyagraha. Gandhi, felt that to try to determine in detai

form of the future non-violent state was premature and

he wrote, "I have purposely refrained from dealing with

of government in a society based wholly on non-violenc

The well-known 'one-enough-for-me' principle of G

to be understood in the context of his views on the relati

means and the end. If the means are tainted with viol
non-physical, the resulting state will be neither n
democratic, for the strong will seize power and exploit th

to non-violent democracy lies through the adoption of n

creed and not as a mere policy. Hence the reason, why

problem of the technique of non-violence included in i
of the institutional form of 'swaraj'. 'For me' he repeate
comes before swaraj'.

What is the place of the state in the general framewor

thought. How far, and in what manner, do we nee

organization to attain the ultimate end of Gandhi's tho
greatest good of all? To Gandhi, good means not the m
of the individual and the society, but the realization of
state contribute to that end? Is the state a natural ph
postulated by T.H. Green or the Greek thinker's? It is
satisfactory explanation demands a survey of Gandhi's r
nature of the state.

It is obvious to us that Gandhi was opposed to the idea of

stood for the stateless society. State implies force and vio
conceive of the state without the element of force, as an e

The use of force as the sanction behind the laws of the state,

in setting international disputes leads one to think of force a

of the state. Besides Gandhi, other thinkers, especially libe

the non-violent character of the State as the ultimate ideal.

This content downloaded from 117.239.21.82 on Tue, 20 Sep 2016 05:58:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Problem of Sovereignty in Gandhian Thought 517
The faith of liberalism in individual liberty, whether on utilitarian

grounds or on moral grounds, demands that human personality be free

from coercion. The predominance given to reason both in individual and
social life by J.S. Mill throws the element of force into the background.

T.H. Green gives explicit recognition to what is implicit in J.S. Mill when
he says: Will, not force, is the basis of the state'.

Gandhi is more explicit in adopting the ideal of non-violence which

follows from his metaphysics. But if force does not play any part in the
ideal, it does not follow that it can be eliminated from the actual conditions

of life. Hence according to Green and Gandhi, and ideal ceases to be an

ideal if it is fully realized. Both Green and Gandhi recognise the necessity

of the use of force in practical politics and refer to it as unavoidable or

inevitable because of human imperfections. Gandhi writes: "So long as he
(man) continues to be a social being, he cannot but participate in the Tiinsa'

(violence) that the very existence of society involves."2 As far as the state

is concerned, it represents for Gandhi, 'Violence in a concentrated and

organised form.' As such the state can never attain the status of his ideal.
When Gandhi speaks of a non-violent society, it would really mean the
negation of the state because the state depends on coercion which is the
negation of non-violence. We could, therefore, only speak of this as a
stateless society, and this remains Gandhi's ideal. What is possible is the
gradual progression of the actual state towards the idea. fA government',
says Gandhi, 'cannot succeed in becoming entirely non-violent, because it
represents all the people. I do not today conceive of such a golden age.
But I do believe in the possibility of a predominately non-violent society.
And I am working for it,3 the ideal non-violent society only represents for
the actual state the direction, not the consummation. The actual state is a

process rather than a static stage.

Thus Gandhi did not have fixed idea of the state, but a progressive
one. He believes 'in the possibility of the development of human personality

to a higher level of moral experience, and, consequently, of the emergence

This content downloaded from 117.239.21.82 on Tue, 20 Sep 2016 05:58:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Indian Journal of Political Science 518

of a different political pattern. The higher the individual

order, the less the necessity of the use of force in the St

the subordination of political and social consider

considerations. An individual can realize his moral na

real nature, only by pursuing the path of ahimsa, satya a

The ethical process-men's continuous effort to translat

personal life- is fulfilled in the individual by the releas

That is the way in which the cosmic order is transcribed

of human conduct. If this law or Moral Causation which is universal and

ineluctable, is worked with a will, man and his environment in this life

and the future will be changed so as to secure 'Sarvodaya', the highest

good for all.

The political philosophy of Sarvodaya which is the ideal state

according to Gandhi, is an intellectual attempt to build a plan of political
and social reconstruction's on the basis of metaphysical idealism.
Sarvodaya is an attempt to develop Gandhian ideas regarding
decentralization and villagism.

Gandhi's structure of the state is based on the fundamental ethical

principles. Non-violence is the governing principle of political life. The

state is justified is so far as it helps the realization of the ethical ideal. But

the state through legal enforcement cannot directly promote morality, it

can only create conditions necessary for making morality possible. The
primary requirement for a moral life, is individual initiative and freedom.

In Gandhi we find a comprehensive concept of freedom. He claimed

that his conception of freedom signified 'the freedom of man in all his
majesty'.4 To him freedom is a process of growth in quest of coherent
moral purpose and actions.

Gandhi's devotion to individual rights made him a fighter for

democratic freedom. He stressed communal unity and the absolute
elimination of untouchability among the foundations of political freedom.

'Only a community constituted by persons imbued with a sense of deep

This content downloaded from 117.239.21.82 on Tue, 20 Sep 2016 05:58:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Problem of Sovereignty in Gandhian Thought 519
social cohesiveness can attain the benefit of Swaraj.' Hence it is essential
to combine the quest for political individuality with the voluntary
acceptance of social and political discipline which is the basis of social
solidarity and cohesiveness. Gandhi's scheme of Freedom as elucidated
in the Hind Swaraj can be thus represented:

I. True Swaraj Kingdom of the soul. (Spiritual and Moral Freedom)

II. Satyagraha as the key to it (Political Freedom) (Satyagraha=

dayabala or atmabala)

III. Swadeshi (Economic Freedom) (Necessary for putting Satyagraha

in practice)

According to Gandhi, moral and spiritual freedom depend on the

effective cultivation of the two ancient virtues of truth and non-violence.

He never accepted the view of freedom as arbitrariness or licence. Genuine

Swaraj is a function of the development of inner sources of power.

As the prophet of Satyagraha, Gandhi stood for the inalienable,

natural and moral right of man to stand against untruth, injustice and wrong

in any form. He stressed the correlation between rights and obligations.

Hence he repudiated the divine right of Kings of rule. Gandhi had 'an
axiological or valuational conception of right and he affirmed that without

the acceptance of a system of altruistic aims and goals and moral values
and without the effective ordering of life and its conduct by them, a man's

existence would become empty, and devoid of meaning and spiritual

orientation.' Gandhi pleaded for the adjustment of individualism based on
rights to the criteria and requirements of performance of duties for social

progress.

Gandhi had a comprehensive conception of the rights and duties

of man. His philosophy of rights represents a synthesis of the individualistic

and teleological conceptions of rights. He does not teach social compliance

and acquiescence or complete political subordination as Hegel and

This content downloaded from 117.239.21.82 on Tue, 20 Sep 2016 05:58:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Indian Journal of Political Science 520

Bosanquet do. Gandhi's conception of political swa

individualistic theory of inalienable rights because h
resistance to unjustified social and political authority

The structure of a non-violent state should be such

individual's initiative and voluntary organization. Th

repudiation of the state in any form whatsoever. Indee

violent state could hardly be called a state. It could o

violent society. It is a sort of enlightened anarchy.

'In such a state every one is his own ruler. He rules

a manner that he is never a hindrance to his neighbou

therefore, there is no political power because there is no

requirement of such a society, according to Gandhi, i

political life.

'Centralization as a system', says Gandhi, 'is inconsistent with the

non-violent structure of society.' 'It cannot be sustained and defended
without adequate force.' He looks upon 'Centralization, with the greatest
fear as it results in the concentration of power in a few hands and consequent

likelihood of its misuse. Above all, is his fear that centralization would

curb the individual initiative- and individuality, for Gandhi, lies at the
root of all progress. It is only through individual initiative and freedom
that moral values can be realised and, consequently, the ideal of self-
realization achieved.

The nearest approach to his ideal of decentralised society, Gandhi

finds in the autonomous village communities of India. 'Society based on
non-violence can only consist of groups settled in village in which voluntary

co-operations is the condition of dignified and peaceful existence',5 he

says: 'The nearest approach to civilization based on non-violence is the
erstwhile village republic or India. I admit that it was very crude, I know

that there was in it on non-violence of my definition and conception. But

the germ was there. 'He said in 1916: 'Following out 'Swadeshi' spirit I

This content downloaded from 117.239.21.82 on Tue, 20 Sep 2016 05:58:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Problem of Sovereignty in Gandhian Thought 521
observe the indigenous institutions and the village 'panchyats' Hold me.
India is really a republican country, and it is because it is that, that it has
survived every shock hitherto delivered'6. The ideal society of Gandhi's
conception will consist of more or less self-sufficing autonomous village
communities. This 'Panchayat Raj' is in accord with the ancient traditions
of India.

Gandhi1 as is well-known, is considered as 'a political and

philosophical anarchist who, ideally speaking, repudiates the state as such,
whatever its forms.1 It has frequently been said that Gandhi was con-
servative. As we examine these assertions, we shall judge whether or not
he was an anarchist.

There were several aspects of conservatism at work among the

influences which shaped Gandhi's development. Conservatism, we take
to be an attitude toward political institutions and thought of social
relationships which includes: (1) a respect for the wisdom of established
institutions, especially those concerned with religion and property (2) a
strong sense of continuity in the historical changes of the social system:
(3) belief in the relative importance of individual will and reason to reflect

societal change from its course, and (4) a keen moral satisfactions in the
loyalty that attaches the members of a society to their stations in its various

ranks. Bondurant observes: 'From a quick reading of some of Gandhi's

writings, one might conclude that such references as those to 'Panchayat
Raj' and 'Ram Raj' suggest political reaction. His nostalgic recollections
of India's past, coupled with his comments urging the rejection of aspects
of modern Technology, have led some observers of label Gandhi a
traditionalist and a reactionary.'7 She adds: 'Had he not undertaken his
'experiments with truth' the answer might have been 'yes'. Early in his life

Gandhi discarded the belief in the relative importance of individual will

and reason to deflect the course of historical change. Once he had
abandoned this criterion of conservatism, his experiments began. From
these experiments emerged a philosophy and a technique which were to

This content downloaded from 117.239.21.82 on Tue, 20 Sep 2016 05:58:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Indian Journal of Political Science 522

transform the conservative and to fashion a radical in th

striking at the root' 8.

Was Gandhi an anarchist? Agreement or disagreem

above statement should proceed with an analysis of the
of anarchism in the West. Anarchism in an extreme form

Etymologically anarchism means no rule and its exponents

in many other respects, are all opposed to the state and

general idea behind anarchist theories its that human

attained within the state. The state, or government whic

means of oppression and exploitation, must be abolishe

taken by some sort of co-operative social organization i
the maximum of organized control. Human nature in ess

pure, but the state has corrupted it. When the state has be

its place taken by voluntary association, the human spir

reassert its natural tendency of reason and justice. Most an

while assuming the purity of natural motives, admit th

time, some sort of coercive power will be necessary to pre
and invasion. Ultimately, they think that human nature
and free, so that every one will be a law to himself and
communal restraint.

Anarchists are, broadly of two types: those that place the individual

or philosophical anarchists and those that stress collective life more then
the individual, the Communist-anarchists. Individualistic anarchism
flourished chiefly in Germany. The best known representative was Max
Stirner. He set up as an ideal, the complete freedom of the human spirit.
The theory or individualistic anarchism was also put forward in America
by Josiah Warren and Bejamin Tucker.

The leader of the anarchist movement was the Russian, Michael

Bakunin (1814-1876) who favoured a free federation of individuals into
groups and of groups into a federation of the world.9 His ideas were adopted

by another Russian, Peter Kropotkin (1842-1919) who believed that the

This content downloaded from 117.239.21.82 on Tue, 20 Sep 2016 05:58:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Problem of Sovereignty in Gandhian Thought 523
biological principle of mutual aid would hold society together. In France,
Elisee, Reclus and Jean Grave reproduced Kropotkin's ideas of Proudjion
and Bakunin. A mingling of anarchism and Christian socialism appeared
in the work of Count Leo Tolstoy. His ideal was informal co-operation in
place of an organized society. Unlike Bakunin who glorified in violence
as method of attaining his end, and Kropotkin who accepted its probable
necessity, Tolstoy condemned its practice in forcible terms. Tolstoy's
message is, therefore, one for the individual soul.

We shall see how Gandhian thought stands in opposition to that of

Bakunin who considered direct violent action necessary to abolish the
state, and the dissimilarity between Gandhian association thought and the
Proudhonian theory of mutalite'.

Gandhi asserted that 'a society organized and run on the basis of
complete non-violence would be the purest anarchy.1 When asked by
Mahadev Deasi, if he considered this a realizable ideal, he replied: 'yes'. It
is realizable to the extent non-violence is realizable. The state is perfect
and non- violent where people are governed the least. The nearest approach

to purest anarchy would be a democracy abased on non-violence. The

European democracies, are to my mind, a negation of democracy."10

Thus Gandhi advocates 'democracy based on non-violence'. 'Society

based on non-violence', he said, 'can only consist of group settled in village

in which voluntary co-operation is the condition of dignified and peaceful

existence.'11

Gandhi agreed with the anarchist emphasis upon individual

freedom. It is in Gandhi's approach vis-a-vis society and his interpretations
of individualism that we find a distinct difference between Gandhi and

that school of anarchism which follows Proudhon in his concept of

'mutualité'. Proudhan would have society become a 'vast network of
organized exchanges.' Proudhon recognized, as did Gandhi, the 'Social
bond' as the underlying principle of the 'political' order.

This content downloaded from 117.239.21.82 on Tue, 20 Sep 2016 05:58:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Indian Journal of Political Science 524

William Godwin, in his Enquiry Concerning Political Jus

upon the priority of individual 'Private judgment' and his

reason as the dynamic operating force in society is remark
in thought. In his Political Justice, Godwin emphasizes the
gradual and non-violent elimination of political institutions

For Godwin, as for Tolstoy and Gandhi, the problem b

how and to what extent government can be eliminated. W

anarchists failed in supplying a positive alternative progra

organization-Gandhi's constructive programme is a significan
for the promotion of the welfare of all.

The followers of Proudhon and Kroportkin were attrac

type of small community organization represented in the old

The Indian village with a functioning Poanchayat is similar

Russian system. The Panchayat of the Gandhian system w
representing a self-sufficient village community- self-suffic
the basic necessities of life. Economic reconstruction would

bottom upwards' and the village unit would constitute the '
our planning.' The departure from the anarchist tradition is m

hierarchical pattern to be established through linking the vill

with the taluka, district, division, province, and nation fo
common policy and interests' and by a system of indirect el
at he village level. The necessity for government and for an a

hierarchy, then although characterized by revolutionary

devolutionary power channels is recognized in the Gandhia

Gandhi's conception of sovereignty may be exami

anarchists, Gandhi was opposed to the absolute sovereignty
However, he could not accept the over-all philosophical anar
Despite Gandhi's distrust of the state machinery, he wou
welcome state action where it is likely to advance the wel
people.12

This content downloaded from 117.239.21.82 on Tue, 20 Sep 2016 05:58:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Problem of Sovereignty in Gandhian Thought 525
The Political ideal of 'Sarvodaya' is mildly anarchist. It regards the

emergence of the state as a form of social organization, an improvement

over the earlier condition of violent anarchy. It marks a stage in the
evolution of society from the condition of the violence to that of non-
violence. But it is no more than an intermediary stage, and the social
fulfillment lies in rising to the higher condition when men would need no

coercive authority at all to regulate their conduct.'13 'Swaraj1 connotes a

condition when none would exercise authority over anybody else.

The Sarvodaya thinkers are critical of the state for three reasons:

First, it demands loyalty to itself in preference to loyalty towards conscience

and humanity; secondly, its ultimate sanction lies in its coercive power
and this militias against the very principle of non-violence' and lastly, it
maintains a big administrative apparatus and army at the expense of the
toilers and producers and thus serves as an agency for exploitation of the
people. 14 In short, the state does not stand the test of truth and non-violence.

Therefore, what is advocate is a form of spiritual anarchism', a coersion-

free social order in which the people are developed and enlightened enough

to keep themselves on the right path. In this order the government would

not be totally absent but would continue to exist like the alarm chain of a

railway compartment to be used whenever emergency arises. 13

The political ideal of Sarvodaya, therefore, is an anarchism of its

own type. It concedes that a fully stateless society is beyond the reach of
man, and the goal, of human endeavor can only be to reduce the power
and sphere of the state to the minimum.16 He believed that government to

be the best which governs least, and yet he held that 'there are certain
things which cannot be done without political power', even though there
are 'numerous other things which do not at all depend upon political power:

A nation is truly democratic, he said, when it 'runs its affairs smoothly and

effectively without much state intervention.'17 There is also no question of

the abolition of the state all at once. Its authority is only to be achieved
through the development of Jana Sakti or the non-violent power of the

This content downloaded from 117.239.21.82 on Tue, 20 Sep 2016 05:58:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Indian Journal of Political Science 526

masses. 1 8 Thus Gandhi opposed absolute sovereignty of t

of the political sovereign power of the masses.

Hence the problem of political sovereignty in Gand

rests only with the people. The emphasis is not on 'Ra
loka-sakti, not on the government and governmental a
people and people's action. Rajya-Sakti is but the reflect
and those who run after rajya-sakti neglecting loka-sak
chimera. This again is the utter reality of the politics of

Loka-Sakti, civil power means the non-violent self-

of the people. It is a power which is opposed to 'Himsa-sakt

power and different from 'Danda-Sakti' or the legal po

The difference between civil power and state power is illu

thus: "A Zero in combination with unity yields ten. The

utility but without unity it is of no use. So unity represen

power of the people, while zero represents the power o

circular. The students of mathematics know that vast researches are

conducted to investigate the qualities of the zero. Yet it cannot be gainsaid

that it has no independent strength of its own. Likewise, the state power
can be effective only if it is based on the people's initiative or loka-sakti," 1 9

Gandhi contend that state legislation cannot create loka-sakti. That

power has to be created by suffering and satyagraha. The more the civil
power, the less the state power. And the less the state power, the happier
the people and the better that state. Thus there will the sovereignty of pure

moral authority.

Even in the socialist or Communist countries which believe in the

'withering away of the state' state power is continuously mounting up.

Jayaprakash Narayan observes: 'Democratic socialists, Communists, as well

as welfarists (not to speak of the fascists) are all statists. They all hope to bring

about their won variety of the millennium by first mastering and then adding

to the powers and functions or the state

This content downloaded from 117.239.21.82 on Tue, 20 Sep 2016 05:58:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Problem of Sovereignty in Gandhian Thought 527
of political power. The socialist state threatens to add to that the monopoly

of economic power. Such a great concentration of power would require

equal, if no greater power, to control and keep it in check. There would be

no such power at hand in a socialist society. Paper constitutions could

hardly be expected to guarantee freedom and sovereignty to the citizen.
Economic and political bureaucracy would be so strong and in occupation
of such vantage points that liberties and the rights of the people, as well as

their bread, would be entirely at its mercy

socialists are conscious of these dangers and are trying to d

and balances

figured of late in socialist thinking. But after all

democratic socialist state remains a Leviathan that w

freedom of the people.20

Thus the generation of loka-sakti is permanen

With the help of loka-sakti people will try to solv
themselves. Government's interference would be n
illustration, we note that Bhudan envisages the for
structure on the family basis of trust, love and co
distrust, hatred and what is called as 'survival of th

governed by loka-sakti, the law of majority rule would

Only the unanimous voice of the people would direc

as in a family. There would be no place for power or p

built on the basis of loka-sakti and loka-niti would

from present disparities and disabilities. The state a
not as a binding but shasan-mukta (administra
(homogenous) and paksatita (partyless) society that
build up. It would be a society honoring values and
from those rampant today. In Vinoba's words: 'The
want to raise is called constructive force or the for

reliance on military or legal sanction. It requires th

stands on their own legs more and more and rely on g

less. Thus, the only way to real and lasting peace is t

This content downloaded from 117.239.21.82 on Tue, 20 Sep 2016 05:58:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Indian Journal of Political Science 528

solve their problems themselves, i.e., by means of loka

The defect with the present-day society is that in

based on loka-niti, the politics of the people, it is base
politics of power. These two can well be contrasted with

rajaniti leads of the strengthening of the hold of the

instrument of social welfare, lokaniti encourages self-eff

on the part of the people and wants them to promote

through voluntary and autonomous institutions. Natu
rajaniti results in the extension and intensification of admin

develop self-control and self-discipline in the people. I

compete for the acquisition of power, whereas in lokaniti

to develop the civil character of society through servic

The former results in an performance of duties'22 How
be reconciled. The aim of the politics of democratic sta
to evolve in to lokaniti and thus it can be made to co-o
if.23

Any idea of reshaping the face of the country or society without

reshaping man is futile even as that of building a 'pucca' house with old
and raw bricks. In this respect, Gandhi went further and in his last public
document- know as his last will and testament to the nation-he advised the

Indian National Congress-the oldest national political organization and

one which had, after may battles, fought her non-violent way to India's
freedom-to 'disband' itself and 'flower into a Lok-seva-sangh', whose
members would 'derive their authority or power from service ungrudgingly

and wisely done to their master, the whole of India.

We agree with Jayaprakash Narayan, that Gandhi never had

anything to do with politics in the sense generally know. He observes:
'The movement for freedom that Gandhi led was 'political' in the sense
that its goal was the national independence of India, it was not 'politics ' in

the sense that is was struggle for power for any particular party

was not a party leader fighting and manouvering for power for

This content downloaded from 117.239.21.82 on Tue, 20 Sep 2016 05:58:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Problem of Sovereignty in Gandhian Thought 529
Had it been so, it could never have occured to him to ask the Congress to

quit the field of power politics. He was a national leader fighting for the
freedom of this country; nay, he was a would leader of humanity working

to free his fellowmen was a peoples movement par excellence. It was not

raja-niti (Politics of the State) but loka-niti (Politics of the people).'24

Such was the politics Gandhi taught us. But what followed after
swaraj and Gandhi's departure warped our course and politics became
associated with devotion to party and adoration of power.

It is lokaniti which can form the basis of a true democracy. Gandhi

accept that democracy is the best form of polity so far conceived by human

ingenuity, but they assert that the existing democracies are defective.

REFERENCES :

1. Harijan, Feb. 11, 1939, p. 8.

2. M.K. Gandhi, My Experiments with Truth, N.P.H., Ahmedabad,

p. 292.

3. Harijan, March 9, 1940

4. Harijan, June 7, 1942

5. M.K. Gandhi, Harijan, Jan. 13, 1940.

6. Speeches, p. 276.

7. Bondurant, op.cit., p. 149.

8. Ibid, p. 172.

9. Bakunin's works include : The Catechism of the Revolution, and

the Principles of the Revolutions.

10. M.K. Gandhi, Harijan, Jan. 13, 1940.

11. N.K. Bose, Selection from Gandhi, op.cit., p. 69.

This content downloaded from 117.239.21.82 on Tue, 20 Sep 2016 05:58:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Indian Journal of Political Science 530

12. LOC, cit.

13. Vinobha, from Bhudan to Gramdan, S.S.S.P. Benares, p. 22.

14. Vinobha, Lokaniti, p. 176.

15. V inobha, Pravachan.

16. Jaya Prakash Narayan, From Socialism to Sarvodaya, S.S.S.P.

Benaras, 1959, p. 37.

17. M.K. Gandhi, Harijan, Jan. 1 1, 1936.

18. Vinobha, from Bhudan to Grandan, S.P. Tanjove, 1957, Ch. IV,
pp. 20-28.

19. Quoted by Suresh Ram, Vinobha and his mission, S.S.S.P.,

Varanasi, 1961.

20. Quoted by Suresh Ram, op.cit., p. 4 1 1 .

21. Bhudan Yojna

22. Dada Dharamadhikari : Introduction to Vinobha's Lokaniti, pp.

10-11.

23. Jay Prakash Narayan, A Picture of Sarvodya Social order, S.P.

Tanjore, 1961, p.53.

24. Suresh Ram, op.cit., p. 435.

This content downloaded from 117.239.21.82 on Tue, 20 Sep 2016 05:58:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms