Every local community must be a nation in miniature, and its government should have
the same activities as the national government today. The nation has a health ministry and
departments of industry, agriculture, education and justice; the local community must
have them too. The national government has relationships with foreign countries;
the local community has relations with other communities.
*
What would have become of the world if the creator-god had not shared out any of His intelligence among His creatures but kept it all to Himself in heaven — so that anyone who needed a bit would have had to wire to heaven to get some? Nowadays our ministers seem to have to spend all their time rushing about in planes, but how much more running about God would have had to do! His own plan is very much more beautiful. He has given a measure of understanding to all — to man and woman, to the horse and ass, to the snake and the scorpion, to the insect and the worm. Intelligence is not stored up in a warehouse in one place:
If the people of a local community want to see conditions improved they will have to gird up their loins and get to work themselves. If anyone has no home, they themselves must see that he is given his or her share in the housing. When we are hungry it is we who must eat; no one else can eat on our behalf. In the same way if we want everyone in our community to be happy we ourselves must share; no one can do it for us.
In such a society there is no need for a central government to give orders to the local community government: Instead we may need coordinating bodies to keep the communities in touch with one another. The direct authority, the material power, will be exercised by the local community. The centre will co-ordinate and maintain contact, but will have no direct authority.
The usual opinion nowadays, however, is that material power should be vested in the centre. Even the advocates of One World want all such powers to be concentrated in the United Nations or a similar government. I on the other hand want this material power to be in the grassroot communities.
The centre would only offer advice which the local community would be free to accept or not. In such a set-up, even if a few men were to fail to do their duty only a few communities would have to suffer. As things are now, the whole country suffers when something goes wrong. When we make our bread at home we may perhaps spoil a bit of it, but the rest is all right. On the other hand, if anything goes wrong at the bakery, the whole batch is ruined. It is possible today for governments to ruin everything. Though the government can be replaced in the elections, the new government finds itself obliged to carry on what the old one began and is bound by the undertakings of its predecessors. If the government of today makes a trade pact with a foreign country the government of tomorrow has to abide by it. It would need a bloody revolution to release it from these obligations.
*
The army is indispensable to the central government
The distribution or dispersal of the functions of government is an instrument for creating strength among the people. These activities and the authority deriving from them should not all be concentrated in one place, but should, on the contrary, be widely distributed among the people. If we do not distribute the powers and functions of central government, we shall be obliged to submit to military authority. We shall never be able to dispense with the army in the future any more than we can today. We must make up our minds once and for all to submit to an army and to keep it ready. We shall not be able to look forward to any future date when we shall be able to do away with it. But if, on the other hand, we want to get rid of the army some day, then we must bring about decentralisation of power.
Any central government will never be able to give its intelligent attention, like
some four-faced Brahman, to every point of the compass at once. However intelligent it might be, it could not control and plan all the affairs of every community so as to promote the welfare of all.
This is the kind of structure we have to build up: every community a state in essence, then larger states brought into being by a union of community states, and a world state brought into being by a union of regional states. In such a structure the local community would have full autonomy. Only then can we establish the real and qualitative democracy, instead of present-day formal and authoritative democracy.
The Indian experience of community state
The village Panchayats, which we once had in India, showed how a community state can work. The food production of the village, its education, its defense, and all other important affairs were handled by the panchayat. In the panchayat all the five castes united to manage their affairs; it was a common organisation for all. All the land belonged to the panchayat and a portion was given to every farmer for cultivation. In the same way the washerman, the barber etc. all had their share. Thus the whole village community lived like a family and the panchayat managed its affairs.
The idea of a village panchayat holds a special place among the political ideas of the world. It included the principle that the live members of the panchayat must reach a common mind, and then only the decision was made. It was a kind of security council of the village. But now we ‘pass’ a decision by a majority of four to one or three to two. In my opinion only that proposal deserves to ‘pass’ which recommends itself to all. We must revive this ancient tradition, for a people’s democracy can only be built on mutual trust and co-operation.
Let their be unity in action
The habit of thinking in terms of majorities and minorities is a product of modern democracy. The way out is decentralisation of power and the practice of making unanimous decisions. Some may object that this would be all right for the local level but that at the national level their representatives would have to decide by majority. This would be so for the interim period. But these representatives would have been so chosen that they would cultivate the habit of taking all important decisions unanimously. Matters of primary importance would in any case be controlled at the local level. In matters of secondary importance majority decisions would not hurt so much. They would not be the kind of subjects about which a minority would care deeply. But where difference of opinion arises on matters of primary importance, a majority decision leaves the minority with a feeling of grievance, and serious conflict may arise.
Society must form the habit of coming to unanimous decisions, and to see the whole of society as one unit and not to divide it into groups of minorities or majorities.
Even today in important matters the central cabinet aims at unanimity, and if there is difference of opinion, decision is postponed and discussions are continued.
Another consideration which is fundamental to our welfare is that with so many different parties the only way to make any progress is to evolve a programme of action upon which all parties can agree. There may be divergence of thought, but let there be unity in action. If all can agree on one programme, progress will be assured.
Every person must enjoy the fullest liberty for the propagation of his ideas. The churning of ideas will give rise to the nine gems of thought. Nowadays however it is the programme that gets churned up, so the people lose hope and have no incentive to action. It does not matter how small is the piece of action we take up, provided that people agree about it. Otherwise when different groups come into power they will start different programmes and these programmes will conflict with one another so that the society makes no progress at all.
The value of work should be equal
In a non-violent community state the services of a scavenger, a mother, a professor, and numerous others of that type cannot be determined in terms of money. Therefore the understanding should be: a person who wholeheartedly serves the community should be held entitled to a living wage. I have served the society in various capacities, as professor, judge, peasant, writer, editor etc. but I have never experienced the feeling that one type of work was of a higher type than that of another. I derived the same satisfaction in every one of them. When anybody desires to give me more than my needs I get perplexed. I cannot accept it. Why should I take more bread than what I need? And I am at a loss to know why I should accept it, simply because somebody offers to do so. The right principle is: everyone must have his bread for the day. And the economic, social and spiritual value of every work should be equal. I do not want arithmetical equality, but I do want equity, or such equality as, for instance, the five fingers of the hand have. These five fingers are not equal in dimensions, but they all work in full co-operation and together perform innumerable tasks. Again, their inequality is not as disproportionate as it would be if, say, the smallest finger were an inch in length, while the largest one was a foot. The moral is that even if there cannot be absolute equality, there should also not be disproportionate inequality, but there should be equity. The five fingers possess different powers. Similarly each person possesses a different capacity. All these inherent capacities of each person should be developed.
Kingdom of kindness
Creating such a community state means a complete change in the present style of government. Unless we are able to work towards this kind of total revolution we shall never build the kingdom of kindness on this earth. Working for social change without total vision will lead us nowhere. Rather such act will confuse the real issue.
Suppose there is a war going on. There will be some who will undertake to nurse the wounded soldiers. These people are full of love and sympathy and compassion for living beings. They do not make the distinction of friends and foes and volunteer to go to the front at mortal risk to their lives. They serve the sick and the wounded with the devotion of a mother to her child. There is no doubt that they are kind and their services are valuable. Nevertheless it should be clearly recognised that their service cannot contribute to the abolition of the evil of war. Their kindness is only an aspect of a society which believes in war. Just as the wheels in the machine working apparently in different and even contrary directions are nonetheless parts of that machine contributing in different ways to the total working, so the killing of living soldiers and nursing of the wounded soldiers are both parts of the war-machine. They are only different in appearance. Evidently one is a cruel job and the other is kind. However both the cruelty of the cruel and the kindness of the kind go to make up the war-machine. To be scientifically true and frank, so long as we recognise war as legitimate, both the doctor who undertakes to treat the wounded and the soldier who kills are on the same footing. Both are guilty of war. This means that by mere acts of kindness we cannot hope to create the kingdom of kindness, that is, the kingdom where kindness will rule. We do not aim at doing acts of kindness but at creating a kingdom of kindness. Kindness can and does exist even in the kingdom of wickedness, but only as a pinch of salt does in food — kind acts only add to the taste of that with which they are mixed. Such kindness brings a sort of flavour to the violence of war, it cannot end war. So if we merely indulge in such acts of kindness, as will make of it a handmaid to wickedness, acting in obedience to the latter, we will not have done our real work. We must therefore develop a longer view and desist from undertaking any activity merely because it appears to be a constructive act of service.
The authority of the government is incapable of bringing about the decentralisation of power and the creation of community states. If such a popular revolution were attainable through governmental authority, why did the Lord Buddha give up his royal power? The decline of the Buddhist faith in India dates from the day when it received the backing of governmental power. When the Christian faith was backed by the imperial power of Constantine, it became Christian only in name. The pure religion practised by the first disciples of Christ was seen no more, and hypocrisy entered the life of the church. When the religious movements won royal favour they were joined by thousands who were not real religious devotees, but merely loyal devotees of the ruling king.
We are the well and the government is the bucket
What strength is there in the central government that is not also in us? It can get some things done by the use of money – but whose money does it use? It is our money, which we hand over in the form of taxes. The government is not in business on its own account, it possesses only what we give it. We may be poor, but our government is even poorer than we are, for all that it has is only a fraction of our wealth. We are the well and the government is the bucket. The wealth produced by the combined labour of people is a great deal more than the amount we let the government have. The government appears to be wealthy only because what it has is concentrated. Our own wealth is not so conspicuous because it is dispersed among our many homes.
In India today there are six million central government ‘servants’, and the number is likely to increase. It is said to be a method of curing unemployment. But it really means that the rest of the population has got to support these millions of officials; it works out that every thirteen families have to support one family, for not only the official, but his family also becomes dependent on others. We thus create a bureaucratic ‘middle class’ which takes no part in productive work, and at the same time has a high standard of living. Not only are these people excused from any productive or physical labour, they also possess, if they are so minded, the power to oppress others. Moreover people are clamouring for still more jobs to be provided for the ‘educated unemployed’.
The central government has also the power of the law. Do you imagine that the reason why there are so few thefts is that there is a government law against theft? — that society is shaped by edicts and by punishment? Society does not derive its ethical traditions and its general high standards of conduct from legal enactments, but from the teachings of the good and wise who have given mankind its scriptures. No one ever reads the government’s laws. They read the Vedas or Gita. The people themselves have more power than the government to spur themselves to action. Is it right, then, for us to think that the central government ought to do everything? Progress will come when every individual is prepared to act for the sake of the community.
Freedom from government
Our ultimate goal is freedom from government. Notice that I use the words freedom from government, and not absence of government. Absence of government can be seen in a society, where no order is maintained, and where anti-social elements do as they please. That kind of absence of government is not our ideal. Absence of government must be replaced by good government, and good government must be replaced by freedom from government. A society free from government does not mean a society without order. It means an orderly society, but one in which administrative authority rests at the grass roots, in the hands of people themselves. The establishment of such a self-directing society calls for a network of self-sufficient units. Production, distribution, defence, education – everything should be localised. The centre should have the least possible authority. We shall thus achieve decentralisation through regional self-sufficiency.
We need to be self-reliant
The need for centralised organisation in the economic sense will gradually diminish and ultimately disappear altogether. We must therefore start at once to introduce decentralisation, and this will be the basis of all our planning. It is not that every community should immediately produce all its own needs. The unit for self-sufficiency may be a group of communities. In short all our planning will be directed towards a progressive abolition of government control by means of regional self-reliance.
Our goal should be that every individual should become as self-reliant as possible. That is God’s plan, after all: He has not only given each man feeling and intelligence and other inner qualities. He has also given each a number of external organs; eyes, ears, nose etc. He has not made us specialists, giving one ten eyes and another ten ears or hands; we do not need to run to one another for help in order to see or hear. God has gone in for such thorough decentralisation that He need exercise no control. But our centralised arrangements will never bring us nearer to a stateless society. So long as one place specialises in sugar, a second in food-grains and a third in oil, there will always be the worry of arranging for transport and distribution; and if disputes arise, some people are going to get only sugar, while others get only oil. Just as today the central government considers what things the country should import and export, so the community state would decide what things they should get from outside, and what things they can sell. Nowadays, anyone can buy from outside whatever he fancies. But this point should be decided after full discussion by the whole community.
Some people ask me why I do not enter politics. Being in the government, I should no longer feel the inner spiritual strength which I experience now. I could no longer roar like a lion, I should be obliged to run tamely along a railway line, like a wagon chained to its engine, or an engine chained to its train! I should no longer be able to talk with everyone as man to man, and live a life that is fresh every morning.
We do not need government grants
Those who think that our position will be weakened if we receive no government grants do not understand in the least what is the real source of strength. We must realise that to accept government grants will weaken our vigour, understanding strength.
Supposing I were to run a school, and make it really attractive, parents would certainly send their children to it rather than to the government school. Consequently the government school would be closed, for what else could the government do if people did not send their children? It could only close its own school and think up some trick for capturing mine. I may then receive a letter from the government saying that as my school is running so well they are happy to offer me ten thousand rupees as grant. If I accept the money, I am finished. I therefore write to the government somewhat as follows: “I am very grateful to the government for it kindness, but the work that I am doing is independent of the government, and a government grant would injure it rather than help. I therefore cannot accept your offer, but I shall certainly seek your advice whenever needful.” In that way we should increase the people’s real strength.
People go on complaining that the central government has not done this has not done that. I say to them: “Are you free men or slaves? If you are free, why should you expect the government to arrange for education, and the sanitation of your village, and everything else too? After all what is a government? Is it more powerful than God Almighty? God gives us rain, but rain alone does not guarantee a harvest. It might grow nothing but weeds. The peasant must work and sweat to get the crops. If God himself cannot give the harvest, will the central government be able to do it?”
In America all the power is in the hands of the President and a few of his associates. If they should make an error of judgment they might set the whole world on fire. It is a terrible thing that such power should be entrusted to any ‘representatives’. We have no control over any part of our lives. There are marriage laws, education laws, land laws, trade laws — nothing in life is safe from the government’s lawmaking. This is a very dangerous state of affairs and it exists throughout the world. We ought to leave in the hands of our representatives only what is of secondary importance; the things that really matter ought to be done by the people themselves, in their own strength.