SELFLESS SERVICE FOR THE WELFARE OF ALL

INTRODUCTION

The Gandhi Challenge

Today’s world is in the throes of several global crises that have repercussions for us all. One billion human beings are functioning on an average income of less than $200 a year — malnutrition and starvation are taking their toll on those living on such meager resources. Swelled by growing numbers of underprivileged people who seek subsistence from day to day, world population, now at five billion, is on its way to reaching six billion by the year 2000.

Precious nonrenewable energy resources are being squandered, while we are witnessing a runaway deterioration and loss of resources essential for agriculture. All the while, we are living in the shadow and insecurity of a formidable escalation in the production of lethal weapons — a colossal waste of the world’s resources, amounting to an annual worldwide consumption of $660 billion that could be used to alleviate the basic needs of humanity.

What can Gandhi’s message contribute toward the solving of these momentous problems? Simply said, his message brings crucially relevant solutions.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948) was known to hundreds of millions of Indians and Westerners as the “Mahatma” or “great Soul” whose skillful strategy of nonviolence, combined with a simple human vision, brought about the emancipation of India in the 1940s. He was the most decisive theoretician and the most spectacular practitioner of nonviolence — a doctrine which meshed closely with specific points of his global program of social reform.

Gandhi’s most prominent disciple was the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968), a principal leader and theoretician in the nonviolent civil rights movement in the United States.

Beginning with his leadership in the Montgomery bus boycott in 1955, through eleven years of intensive civil rights action, King inspired and organized an explicitly nonviolent mass movement to challenge racial discrimination. Through his campaigns, he took the lead in exercising and extending civil rights (and with them, personal pride and dignity) that had been denied to black Americans since their arrival on this continent. Like Gandhi, King was assassinated because of his efforts to end discrimination among ethnic and cultural groups.

The aim of this booklet is to make dear the relevance of Gandhi’s and King’s strategy to today's world. For most contemporary issues, Gandhi and King came up with very specific strategies and guidelines; for the rest, it is clear which strategies should be pursued within the spirit of the Gandhian message.

We will examine seven general problems in the world, with corresponding Gandhian solutions. These seven solutions are closely related to one another. Gandhi's overall strategy for peace and justice hinged upon the practice of all seven solutions: selfless service, fair and right labor, love and nonviolence, conciliation, participation in government, education/re-education, and sharing of resources. These points of his integrated constructive program (as he termed it) reinforce one another. Together, they constitute a complete, encompassing (some might say “holistic”) philosophy of life and action.

The Gandhian strategy is a challenge to us. If we want a world that is secure and human, we have a responsibility to change our lives! We have a responsibility to make changes around us that will improve the lives of others. Each section of this little book suggests involvement in action that will make a difference around us. The appendix gives concrete hints and recommendations about specific forms of action.

RIGHT AND FAIR LABOR

Problem: The weak, the poor, and the disenfranchised are crushed under the weight of harsh living and working conditions. In areas where human labor is plentiful, there is a scarcity or unavailability of work, as a result of development which is technology intensive. Work opportunities are concentrated in urban centers where conditions are harsher for the poor; available jobs are not fulfilling. Large, technology centered, urban / industrial centers are impersonal and alienating. “Big” is impersonal and alienating.

In the Gandhian tradition, our work is the most crucial practical opportunity we have to apply our desire to bring about greater peace and social justice, (Using Gandhian terminology, we could say, “Our work is our prayer.”) How we invest our talents and energies, can potentially foster peace and justice around us. For example, so long as through our work we continue to take advantage of those who are economically weaker, there will be injustice; peace will be jeopardized. The place to start, the first concrete step we should all try to take, is to practice the right kind of work.

Gandhi’s mentor Tolstoy came to the conclusion that choosing to practice an occupation that merely “amuses the well-fed” weighs very, very low on the moral scale. For those of us who have a choice (and many of the underprivileged do not), practicing the kind of work that merely aims at titillating the overjaded senses and tastes of those who are already overprivileged receives a low rating in the Gandhian perspective.

Whereas efforts to help the masses solve their plight receive a high rating on the Gandhian scale. Morally speaking, our vocations and avocations rate very high if they help improve the quality of life for those sixty to eighty percent of humankind who are underprivileged, and rate very low if they worsen their situation. The ideal is for us to make the essence of our occupation something that will help solve the plight of the downtrodden, by supplying them with basic necessities—food, shelter, and especially a chance to work. Instead of devoting our best efforts to “lightening and embellishing the idleness” of the overprivileged few, we should seek through our occupation to improve the lives of the many human beings who are crushed by exhaustion, hunger, and unpalatable or oppressive labor.

In the Gandhian tradition, work which helps to attain this goal is characterized as “bread-labor” («хлебный труд»), i.e., “all the heavy, rough work necessary to save humans from death by hunger and cold”. For Gandhi, bread-labor is several things simultaneously: a kind of minimum physical labor which must be performed by everybody, from the philosopher the ordinary laborers; labor for the purpose of earning a living; an instrument of self-actualization; and a method of service to others.

According to the Gandhian view, anyone who tries to escape heavy, rough work in order to practice a more easygoing occupation is partaking of the unbalance which crushes the weak with overwork while the economically strong are freed from the less desirable forms of

“rough work”. While completely forsaking an easygoing job in order to practice some less desirable form of rough work may be an unrealistic goal for many, there are a number possible intermediate solutions — such as devoting only five or ten percent of our time to a “less desirable” form of work that will allow us to commune with the vast majority of the underprivileged. Far from being a token gesture, any step in that direction concretely helps to correct the unbalance. Because it promotes equality between the classes and compassion for the poor, that Gandhian doctrine of bread-labor (хлебный труд) “has the potential to affect a silent revolution in the structure of society.” (J. D. Sethi)

In fostering authenticity through work, Gandhi recommends the practice of an appropriate and suitably balanced reliance on machinery and technology — alongside the practice of handcrafts. In spite of a misconception which some have perpetuated, Gandhi did not reject technology and industrialization in themselves. He was all in favor of industrialization, so long as technology and mass production techniques do not take over and work against humankind’s best interests (this they do when they are “labor saving” to the extent of dispensing with the labor of millions of human beings and putting them out of work).

Within the Gandhian tradition, British economist E.F. Schumacher has given us an outline of Gandhian economics in his book, Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. Schumacher speaks up on behalf of the emerging post-industrial society, one “that has left behind its lethal obsession with megasystems of production and distribution.” He stresses that what we really require from science and technology are methods and equipment which are cheap enough so that they are accessible to virtually everyone, suitable for small-scale application, and compatible with the human need for creativity. (Ideally, this need for creativity in our work is usually better fulfilled through meaningful interaction with a limited number of individuals — as opposed to a large, anonymous mass.) Schumacher’s concern for an economic approach centered on regionalism is echoed by Kirkpatrick Sale in his recent and immensely stimulating book, Dwellers in the Land: The Bioregional Vision.

Because of its insistence that the right approach to labor is essential to an integrated strategy for peace, Gandhian practice has long fostered the spirit underlying today’s blueprints for Peace Conversion Economics — the process by which industries are converted from military research and production to civilian manufacturing of consumer goods.

Today we are faced with a crying need to foster such a process. Since World War II the United States has maintained a permanent war economy; our military spending now surpasses that at the height of that war, in 1945. The knowledge and skills presently being drained off by research and manufacture of war material could be utilized in civilian pursuits and in production of consumer goods essential for a healthy economy. Incessant production of war material is inflationary because it puts money into circulation without a concomitant supply of consumer goods. Workers in the so-called “defense” industry, in particular, must be made to see that their ultimate job security depends on early and comprehensive peace conversion planning. Many more jobs per dollar spent ate realized in a civilian economy than in war production; when awareness of this fact grows, there will be a greater motivation to facilitate the transition from a war to a peace economy. The peace conversion planning process must involve workers, management, the community, and local and state government. According to the analysis of the California-based Center for Economic Conversion, there are four elements in such a process: advance planning before dislocations occur; participation of the workforce, management, and the community; optimum use of existing capacity; and production of socially needed goods and services.

This challenge of the conversion of our economy to peaceful purposes has to be met — or else, through the very nature of much of the labor that supports it, our society will continue fostering the current upward spiraling of violence that can only lead to disaster.

Love for humankind won’t let us serve it by (making our work consist of) amusing the well-fed, while leaving the cold and hungry to die of want.

— Tolstoy

Gandhian bread-labor has the potential to effect a silent revolution in the structure of society.

— Economist J.D. Sethi

Solution: Foster the right approach to work. Give the right to work to all human beings. Promote self-help, autonomy, and self-sufficiency. Support cooperative approaches to work and economic problems. Practice right ecology and appropriate/intermediate technology. Small is beautiful — small preserves a human scale and more human relationships.

LOVE AND NONVIOLENCE

Problem: In a violent a violent conflict, the law of aggression is allowed to take over. We become resigned to war as a “necessary evil.” Nuclearism is the ultimate violence.

We have examined Gandhi’s thoughts on selfless service. We have purveyed his ideas relating to frugality and simplicity. We have analyzed his.concepts about work. All of these relate to has nonviolent approach to life. Now let us look at nonviolence itself, directly.

To understand it clearly, we have to focus once again on Gandhi’s overall world view. We have to grasp the initial essential fact: a fundamental basic unity exists between us all. We are all members of the same body.

If we are all members of the same family, part of the same reality, we should understand that truth is also in others, not just in ourselves alone. Truth is also in our adversary. The adversary’s truth may be a truth — or a relative truth — for him or her, if not for me; and I should respect his or her right to be guided by it. We find notations to that effect in major scripture and philosophical statements in all civilizations. “If we drop our narrow frame of reference, and give credence to what others have experienced, we come closer to understanding the true nature of our world.”

This concept should help us overcome the undue sense of righteousness and inner morality that makes us see others as entrenched enemies who are not partaking of our limited truth. We can grow by seeing others as part of our same reality; we can learn from them, respect them, and relate lovingly to them — even when we do not fully approve of their principles or behavior.

In some cases, only a very thin layer, or of a semblance of truth, may be left in an individual — along with considerable untruth, and violent and evil behavior. But we should always allow at least the theoretical possibility that the opponent may see the light, or be affected by an inner light. Besides, as Martin Luther King firmly believed, nonviolence should be directed “against forces of evil rather than against the persons who committed the evil.” The opponent is merely the symbol of a greater evil — and thus (as William Watley stated in a recent study) King “depersonalized the target of the nonviolent resister’s attack.” King viewed opponents as “human beings... to be respected and not violated.”

Gandhi used an explanation that he borrowed from Tolstoy, claiming that there are two principles at work within us. We are a battleground between these two principles. One he called the Law of Love; the other, the Law of Violence or Aggression. Gandhi acknowledges that both exist. The Law of Love is a force which is present and deeply seated and felt in all of us. It exists inside us; it is something within others that we can reach out toward. Even in the case of the most hardened criminal there is still, theoretically, always a possibility to reach out to that place. And we may be certain that in each individual there is a readiness to respond when reached out to.

The Law of Violence or Aggression is also present in us. Gandhi certainly did not deny it. It exists in human activities. It exists in the animal kingdom. We should beware, however, of those negative thinkers who tell us that “there always has been war and there always will be.” Strife and war, such persons say, are fine and good things for humans. In certain traditions, such as the militaristic circles in Bismarckian Germany, the notion existed that war was a wholesome hygiene that allowed human nature to be perked up when civilization was becoming too soft. According to that world view (still prevalent in certain quarters), aggression is healthier than non-aggression, waging war is an invigorating activity, and it is totally positive to behave aggressively. This is not Gandhi’s perspective.

We very often, and mistakenly, ascribe this attitude of aggression to the animal world. This is reflected by our language in such statements as “dog eats dog” or “man is a wolf to man.” However, this is not so. All those who haven taken the time to study the behavior of wild beasts tell us that only in the rarest of instances will wolf eat fellow wolf. But alas, it seems to be a peculiarity of our species that we should go out and annihilate others of the same species, sometimes in the most systematic and horrendous ways. We have to be clear that this is not something we can just ascribe to our animal heritage.

We should be aware, however, that there is a tendency in human nature to exert pressure, and undue pressure, on others. Aggression and aggressiveness can take different forms. Social and economic oppression, whereby the poor are left with society’s dirty work, is but one example. However, we should also be aware that there is inscribed in us that other force, the Law of Love, the practice of which will help neutralize or tone down raw aggressiveness. Incidentally, it may often be wiser not to dream of a complete elimination of the impulse toward aggression, but of its transformation or refinement. Gandhi felt that legitimate anger should be transmuted into constructive indignation.

Very often, it is not easy to perceive the sheer force of Love. During the early stages of his acquaintance with Gandhi’s strategy of nonviolent resistance, Martin Luther King experienced “skepticism concerning the power of love.” We should acknowledge that it is normal for any one of us to have such a reaction. King, however, overcame that skepticism, and came to see that the force of love and nonviolence amounts to a highly efficient and potent strategy.

Now, what we have to aim at doing is getting rid of systems based on violence. This can be achieved both on the international and the domestic planes. Martin Luther King saw that “the Christian doctrine of love, operating through the Gandhian method of nonviolence, is one of the most potent weapons available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom.”

On the international plane as well, nonviolence has its applications. In the early 1940s, at the height of World War II, a document was signed by two key leaders, insisting that, both from a moral viewpoint and from a pragmatic viewpoint, force should be abandoned as a way of solving differences between nations. Who were these two leaders? Idealists? They are not usually known as such. They were Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill — who at Yalta in 1945 proved themselves to be fully realistic. However, at the time of writing the Atlantic Charter, they asserted in black and white their belief “that all of the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons, must come to the abandonment of the use of force.”

Basically, how can we approach the everyday situations that we’re faced with under conditions of conflict and violence? Let me suggest that there are five options:

1. To run away, which is cowardly. Incidentally, Gandhi had the poorest opinion of cowardice in general, and even said that if there were only the choice of cowardice or fighting, he would be in favor of fighting. But he strongly questioned the fact that there is ever a choice between only these two.

2. To be neutral. How easy. How convenient and facile. But it is certainly not efficient from the Gandhian viewpoint, because it ignores both justice and injustice.

3. To capitulate, probably the worst option of the five.

4. To fight, of course, is another choice.

5. The last possibility, which is for the brave, is to respond nonviolently. And that involves inner courage. Toughness.

Now what does nonviolence mean? Nonviolence means not only resistance to violence in nonviolent ways, but a positive, constructive global strategy — what Gandhi referred to as his Constructive Program, encompassing a variety of sub-strategies. Gandhi has discussed nonviolence in a number of contexts, but perhaps most helpful is the formula he used to give when talking to rural audiences in India, where, instead of more complex notions and concepts, he recommended five concerted endeavors. (For each of these points we have an analogous issue in our society today.)

First. Nonviolence, for Gandhi, meant working to do away with the injustices that existed for women in India. Western society wrestles with these problems in slightly different forms today. Our society is now dealing with the Equal Rights Amendment.

Second. Solve the injustices affecting the untouchables, or pariahs, or outcasts who were and are starkly present in Indian society. But they are also present with us. There are the political refugees, the minorities, and others who are poor and homeless, in every major city. There are blacks living in ghettos while whites live in a different kind of ghetto in another part of town. By and large, Hispanics and other minorities do not intermingle with the mainstream of the population. There are other categories of vulnerable or ‘marginal’ humans whom many of us tend to overlook or reject: the terminally ill, the retarded, the advanced in age who are no longer integrated in the mainstream of society. Untouchables and outcasts are in every society.

Concerning the tendency of human nature to create outcasts, King had the following to say about the practice of racism:

“Racism is a philosophy based on a contempt for life. It is the arrogant assertion that one race is the center of value and object of devotion, before which other races must kneel in submission. It is the absurd dogma that one race is responsible for all the progress of history and along can assure the progress of the future. Racism is total estrangement. It separates not only bodies, but minds and spirits. Inevitably it descends to inflicting spiritual or physical homicide upon the out-group.”

Racism, or the proneness to create outcasts, is contrary to the ethic of love. Rejecting members of any human group is a form of violence. Love requires that we do not practice such rejection, but rather reach out to members of other cultural, social, and ethnic groups.

Third. Get involved in one particular and concrete economic activity that helps bring about greater sanity and fairness in the relationship between the poor and the rich.

As an example of such activity — for India Gandhi advocated the use of the spinning wheel so that Indian peasants could generate some income, at a time when the majority of them were deprived of a means of earning a livelihood. In a similar vein, there are various policies we could pursue in the United States in keeping with the Gandhian inspiration: we can share our resources with the most impoverished people, by purchasing their products; or we could practice the strategies implemented by the Trusteeship Institute. (The Trusteeship Institute endeavors to bring about what it calls the Third Way — a new social order beyond capitalism and socialism. It does so by helping to spread the model of the Spanish-based Mondragon Cooperatives, by postering socially responsible investments, and other forms of involvement. For more information, contact the Trusteeship Institute, Baker Road, Shutesbury, MA 01072).

Fourth. Doing away with a serious problem that plagued Indian society then, addiction to drugs. In our culture, those who are active interpreting the Gandhi tradition view the media (i.e. television and the cinema) as a source of psychic numbing that is just as bad as addiction to other drugs. (In addition, through their unabashed portrayal or exaltation of violence, films like Rambo and many television programs very effectively foster violent behavior. The positive/creative solution of this issue is for us to learn to shake the psychic numbing that comes from an addiction to media, and learn to be more alert and alive through the practice of service, of right labor, of active nonviolence, and the other strategies presented in this little book.)

Fifth. Develop feelings of brotherhod toward members of other ethnic-cultural groups. In the case of India, it has meant brotherhood between Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs.

In our land today it means cooperation and respect among ethnic and socio-economic groups, and doing away with the discrimination which oftentimes is practiced against Vietnamese refugees and others. In the Near East it means peace between Arabs and Jews.

Nonviolent resistance should appeal to love, to the law of love, to that spot inside each human being previously referred tp. Where Tolstoy and Gandhi spoke of “the Law of Love, ” King talked in terms of a love ethic which should be at the center of one’s life — the reality they all had in mind is the same. It follows from such a view that the nonviolent resister must avoid not only physical violence (e.g., shooting one’s adversary) but also internal violence of the spirit (e.g., hating the adversary).

Because if is grounded in a love ethic, nonviolent resistance may not be, should not be, punitive. Gandhi stressed again and again that Indians should not try to punish the British for doing this and that. Following Gandhi, King stressed that the goal of nonviolent resistance is always redemption and reconciliation. It has been said of King (and could equally be said of his teacher Gandhi) that for him “The goal of nonviolence is not the humiliation or defeat of the opponent, but the winning of the enemy’s friendship and understanding.'” Practicing nonviolence means trying to set things straight in a way that should be as patient, as educational, as composed, and as charitable as possible.

To be nonviolent does not mean merely not to fight. It means to muster considerable endurance and keep up the struggle: a persistent denunciation of injustice when there is injustice; a persistent disobedience to unjust laws. It means persistently, yet nonviolently and lovingly, pressuring an oppressor until the good in him or her recognizes our plight and responds to it. It also means, as Gandhi stressed, careful planning and clear strategy in order to provoke such a response. It means letting go as much as possible of our lust for control, power, and domination; it means our firm determination not to use others.

Closer to us in space and time than Gandhi, King vigorously reactivated and continued the practice of nonviolence. Some of the more striking aspects of King’s views, as recently highlighted in an essay by William Watley, are the following: (1) For King, the conviction that the universe is on the side of justice “gives the nonviolent resister faith in the future and strength to accept suffering without retaliation.” (2) The practice of nonviolence by Gandhi and King “assumes that there is social and economic power in non-cooperation and moral power in voluntary suffering for others.” It has also been pointed out that King felt “the acceptance of suffering, rather than inflicting it on others; is itself a form a power, demoralizing to those who use violence without experiencing it in return and troublesome to the consciences of those who do not have an obvious vested interest in the maintenance of the system under attack” (John Swomley, Jr.).

Ultimately, the principle of nonviolence must be extended not only to human life but to the whole ecosphere — living and non-living things alike that all partake of the organic unity of our planet. The waste of resources, the pollution of air and water, the stripping of the land — all of these are also forms of lovelessness, disruption, and violence, and must be eliminated.

To practice nonviolence (“the weapon of the strong”) requires considerable courage. At times, the conscience of the lucid and consistent nonviolent fighter leaves her or him no choice but to engage in civil disobedience actions, openly done with risk to the participant. Even such individual civil disobedience actions, however, are not adequate to the strategic needs of the extraordinary times through which our country is living. Beyond the fragmented efforts of individuals and specific groups, we are presently experiencing a crying need for a national nonviolent movement, with appropriately focused efforts.

PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNMENT

Problem: Alienation in relation to our government. And thinking, “It’s the government’s job to do the job, to decide for us.” Big government is alienating, depersonalizing.

We must train ourselves to examine the institution we have created. If a governing body, a militia, a road or highway repair service, does not achieve what our best judgment, our consciences, our moral selves, want it to achieve, we must re-evaluate why we as citizens made if possible for such a service to come into being. It is wrong to assume the judiciary or the military or government as a whole, stands for justice or peace.

All too often, government has become a convenient device for the delegation of our responsibilities, and just a convenient abstraction — insofar as it takes away from individuals certain responsibilities, privileges, and functions, claiming that it will take them over, thereby exonerating us from any need to feel concern about such responsibilities.

One important concern we should have in the area of government is to reverse the trend toward excessive centralization, to make sure that individual economic/administrative/political units or entities are manageable in size. Kirkpatrick Sale’s Dwellers in the Land: The Bioregional Vision, which has already been mentioned, contains important insights on this score. An especially valuable compact statement of the Gandhian strategy of judicious regionalism is the booklet by Gora (G. Ramachandra Rao) entitled Why Gram-Raj (a title which may be interpreted as “Regional Autonomy, Gandhian Style: A Program for Socio-Economic-Administrative Conversion”); its application of the Gandhian insights into the situation in India would need to be translated into terms applicable to the Western context.

Effectively conveying our wishes and values to our representatives and elected leaders is a complex task, considering the discrepancy between the best values we believe in and the notions or principles by which these representatives are guided (and this is true of most Western, Communist bloc, and Third World countries). Representatives and leaders, for the most part, are drawn from the ranks of the highly privileged and/or meritocracy, and are motivated by a dysfunctional philosophy of life, which operates on achievement and reward principles. Unless and until we insist that our leaders adhere to more enlightened values, we are always voting for men who are the products of a general social dysfunction. Elected representatives or leaders who are “successful” under the present system would have a difficult time accepting the need for far-reaching changes in the direction of the saner values advocated by Gandhi and a few others.

We must make sure that through representation of our opinions, through our votes and actions, government agencies achieve their original purpose — the administration of a required service in accordance with our aims and values. If they no longer do so they no longer deserve our support. The time may have come to think of another approach. The Gandhian approach.

With considerable lucidity, Gandhi cautioned us, stating, “The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. …as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence.” Unless we constantly make an effort to convey to our government the best and loftiest notions instilled in us by our conscience, the soulless violence within the machine will prevail. At the same time as he denounced the violence within the machine of the State, Gandhi firmly believed in the need for us to work for the moral and political well-being of the nation of which we are a part. (In fact, that belief was so definite in him that it led to — largely ill-conceived — reproaches on the part of both Tolstoy and Erik Erikson that Gandhi pandered unduly to the cause of Hindu patriotism.)

Gandhi invited us to develop enough boldness to speak up to our government and its leaders when necessary. This can be done through letters and calls to our legislators, through tax resistance, or in other ways that forcefully convey our concerns. In the contemporary context for us, the words we should boldly speak to our government on the basis of inspiration from Gandhi might be as follows:

“Please do not draft anyone into the military or maintain a standing army in my name. The sole purpose of a military establishment is to prepare and execute killing — this it achieves by systematically breaking and humiliating army recruits, so they will kill ruthlessly; and I want no part of such an operation. There are far better things that trained, skilled and organized people can do with their lives. Kindly refrain from threatening or bullying any other nations or peoples in my name; there is plenty of fear and pain in the world already, and I see no reason to add to it. Do not maintain any more dictatorships in my name. Please do not build or stockpile

a ridiculously exaggerated quantity of weapons in my name; I do not want such ‘protection.’ Even if some feel that the violent repression of foreigners (e.g., Nicaraguan civilians) is somehow essential to the ‘security’ of my country, I demand that it cease; I do not wish to benefit from such horror, and I do formally repudiate and reject any and all ‘protection’ such repression may afford.” (Based on a statement by Greg Johnson.)

In essence, we should take our share of responsibility in the running of our own country. Focused political effort sustained by nonviolent values can dissolve layers of apathy, and overcome the current political crisis in our country. As the need occurs, we should have the courage to work in the halls of government and courts of law to exercise our duties as participating citizens. As need be, we should also have the courage to undertake protests, boycotts, and other acts of civil disobedience such as were practiced to bring about the independence of the American colonies. As Gandhi’s foremost Indian disciple Vinoba Bhave (1895-1982) insisted, the power of the people has to be awakened, so that the people can rule more effectively (rather than entrusting this task entirely to an often alienating entity, the state). And after all, Vinoba was echoing Thomas Jefferson’s statement, “I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but the people.”

The citizen is the sovereign, who appoints the government.

— An Indian disciple of Gandhi

Solution: Participate in the democratic process. Take responsibility for our government. Think: “The state is our state; we must participate in running it.” Support the government only if it allows fair representation. De-bureaucratize life. Practice decentralization. Small is beautiful, small preserves a human scale, a human spirit. Support communication between government and citizens, based on sharing (as opposed to adversarial approaches).

SHARING OF RESOURCES

SUMMARY

Gandhi had his own vision of the future of India… That vision was of a new social order — different from the capitalist, socialist, communist orders of society. A nonviolent society, a society based on love and human values, a decentralized, self-governing, non-exploitative, cooperative society. Gandhi gave that society the name of Sarvodaya — i.e., a society in which the good of all is achieved… A total [Gandhian] revolution will bring about fundamental changes in the social, economic, political, cultural, educational, and moral spheres.

— Jayaprakash Narayan,

Indian politician, leading disciple of Gandhi

All people are members of the same family, endowed with a moral conscience. We, as members of this family, must work to bring about equality where there is inequality, justice when there is injustice, and peace when there is threat of war, by living the Law of Love.

Concrete steps can be taken daily to create more peace around us. If we are willing to give up holding antagonisms toward persons or groups, we can de-fuse aggression at every opportunity and approach closer understanding with our family, neighbors, and friends, and thus create an atmosphere of love.

We can donate our time in the form of selfless service in community work, action groups, and social work.

We must move in the direction of voluntary simplicity to put an end to the great division between the rich and poor.

An evaluation of the institutions controlling our lives must be made to ensure they represent what the best in us wants them to achieve.

Our schools must provide the education for our children to know, to create, and to love—and that aim of education must be continued in the life of adults. At the same time as we un-learn competitive and aggressive ways, we must continue educating and training ourselves and each other to practice attitudes and actions which generate peace within us and around us.

These different aspects of the overall Gandhian strategy for peace and justice are closely interrelated. Non-achievement of any one aspect is a potential hindrance to the achievement of the other aspects. Achieving one aspect of goal fosters the achievement of the other goals in Gandhi’s overall, integrated program. Achieving decentralization, restructuring society along non-exploitative and cooperative lines, practicing frugality, sharing resources, having recourse to negotiation and conciliation — all these activities and practices are an integral part of his overall, global vision of a social order based on love and nonviolence.

And these endeavors consist of intensely concrete and practical steps, which each one of us can undertake. Today.

WHAT ABOUT GETTING STARTED TODAY? Specific suggestions are provided in “What Can I Do? ” beginning on the next page.

[…]

THE AUTHOR

Guy de Mallac’s primary interests are in spreading the Gandhian message while emphasizing its relevance to today’s world, and in fostering peace education and education in nonviolence.

He was instrumental in founding The Ways of Peace and Service (a group geared to exploring Gandhian and related values) as well as the United Peace Network, an umbrella for peace groups in Southern California. He maintains contacts with those (in this country, in India, and elsewhere) concerned with the task of presenting the Gandhian strategy in terms relevant to today’s world situations. Dr. de Mallac teaches a course on nonviolence at the University of California at Irvine, where he is professor in the School of Humanities.