Gandhi’s views on state. (UPSC CSE Mains 2015- Political Science and International Relations, Paper 1)
- The state, for Gandhi, represents violence in its concentrated form but is necessary since human beings are social by nature and as such morally incapable of acting in a socially responsible manner. He desires a state that would employ as little violence and coercion as possible and wanted individual actions to be regulated by voluntary efforts as far as possible. Distinguishing between state and society he opposes the notion of absolute state sovereignty in the Austinian sense. He advocates limited state sovereignty for there is an obligation higher than mere politics.
- He desires the establishment of a society in which the state exists outside the daily life of the common man. The ideal society would be a decentralised one giving ample scope for self-development. It is akin to the actual reality of British society of the nineteenth century, which he saw and admired.
- Gandhi’s belief in the primacy of the individual led him to conceptualise a truly non-violent state composed of self-governing and self-sufficient village communities based on majority rule. It would elect district representatives who, in turn, elect provincial and national representatives. Majority rule would be subject to two constraints:
- first, the majority could not run roughshod on an issue on which the minority harbours strong views.
- second, a human being should not act contrary to the dictates of his conscience since he is essentially a moral person.
- Therefore, everyone has the right to engage in acts of civil disobedience against policies that are contrary to what one considers to be morally right. Political power, for Gandhi, is “the capacity to regulate material life through national representatives. If national life becomes so perfect as to become self-regulated, no representation becomes necessary. There is then a state of enlightened anarchy. In such a state everyone is his own ruler. He rules himself in such manner that he is never a hindrance to his neighbour. In the ideal state, therefore, there is no political power because there is no state”.
- A non-violent state must aim at the welfare and upliftment of its citizens. In such a state, the police would be social workers ready to use moral persuasion and public opinion to deal with anti-social elements. Crime would be treated as a disease that required understanding and help and not punishment. It would be a state free of exploitation and conflicts between the labour and capital in industry, between the tenant and landlord in agriculture and between the city and village. These conflicts would be resolved through passive resistance and trusteeship. In such a state, property would also be regarded as evil, for excess of it encourages evils like exploitation, sensual indulgence and contempt for one’s fellowbeings. However, he does not subscribe to forcible appropriation of individual property and proposes a system of Trusteeship. He supports a greater role of the state in economic affairs, which contradicts his otherwise, minimalist views on the state. He defends limitations on the right of inheritance, state ownership of land and heavy industries, nationalisation without compensation and heavy taxes.
Next
previous
Latest News
General Studies