¹ See for instance, Friedrich, C. J., “Leadership and the Problem of the Charismatic Power”, Journal of Politics, Vol. 23, No. 1 (1961), pp. 3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Emmet, Dorothy, Functions, Purpose and Powers (London, Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1958).Google Scholar

² Shils, Edward, “Charisma, Order and Status”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 30, No. 2 (1965), pp. 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Bendix, Reinhard, Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait (London, Heinemann and Co., 1960), p. 9.Google Scholar

⁴ Thomas distinguished between three personality types: creative, bohemian and Philistines. The creators are innovators and change-agents. See Thomas, W. I., Social Behaviour and Personality, Volkart, Edmund H. (ed.) (New York, Social Science Research Council, 1951)Google Scholar. Toynbee attributes creativity to a group. He speaks of the creative minority. See Toynbee, Arnold, A Study of History, abridged by Somerville, D. C., 2 vols. (London, Oxford University Press, 1946 and 1957).Google Scholar

⁵ Bhoodan means literally land-in-gift. The Bhoodan movement (land gift mission) in time widened into Gramdan (village-in-gift). Starting with the communalization of land, the Gramdan movement endeavours to bring about a society based on non-violence. The Bhoodan-Gramdan movement is based on the Sarvodaya philosophy propounded by Gandhi. Sarvodaya is the Gujarati rendering of Ruskin's title Unto this Last, implying the striving to create a society oriented to the lowliest.

⁶ See Friedrich, C. J., op. cit., p. 15Google Scholar. Arthur Schlesinger, “Democracy and Heroic Leadership in the Twentieth Century” (read at the Congress for Cultural Freedom at Berlin in June, 1966) cited in Friedrich, , op. cit., p. 16Google Scholar (fn.). Emmet, Dorothy, op. cit., pp. 206–238.Google Scholar

⁷ Friedrich, , op. cit., p. 16.Google Scholar

⁸ Quoted in Friedrich, , op. cit., p. 16.Google Scholar

⁹ Weber, Max, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, translated by Parsons, T. and Henderson, A. R. (London, William Hodge and Company Ltd., 1947), pp. 350–351.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Shils, Edward, “Charisma, Order and Status”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 30, No. 2 (1965), p. 200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ It may be noted that charismatic qualities can be attributed not only to personalities, but may also become resident in institutions, in categories or strata of the society. See Shils, , op. cit. (1965), p. 202Google Scholar. Etzioni suggests that the charismatic element is found even in complex organizations. See Etzioni, Amitai, A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations (New York, The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961), pp. 201–233.Google Scholar

¹² Shils, Edward, “Tradition and Liberty: Antimony and Interdependence”, Ethics, Vol. LXVII, No. 3 (1958), p. 156.Google Scholar

¹³ Ibid., p. 157.

¹⁴ See Yinger, Milton, “Religious Change and Social Change”, in Yinger, Milton (ed.). Religion, Society and the Individual (New York, The Macmillan Co., 1957), p. 305Google Scholar. Also, Sekhar, M. C., “Social Change in India”. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Deccan College, Poona, 1964.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Hoffman, Danniel P., India's Social Miracle (California, Naturegraph Company, 1961).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Tennyson, Hallam, Saint-on-March (London, Victor Gollancz, 1955).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Stevens, H. H., “India's Newest Saint”, foreward to Hoffman, op. cit., p. 4.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Friedland, W. H., “For a Sociological Concept of Charisma”, Social Forces, Vol. 43, No. 1 (1964), p. 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁹ Parsons, Talcot, Structure of Social Action (Illinois, The Free Press of Glencoe, 1948), pp. 668–669.Google Scholar

²⁰ Ram, Suresh, Vinoba and his Mission (Kashi, Akhil Bharat Sarva Seva Sangh, 1954), p. 39.Google Scholar

²¹ Ibid., p. 40.

²² See Vasto, Lanza Del, Gandhi to Vinoba (London, Rider and Company, 1956), p. 85.Google Scholar

²³ Bittner, Egon, “Radicalism and the Organization of Radical Movements”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 28, No. 6 (1963), pp. 936–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ See Hoffman, , op. cit., p. 46.Google Scholar

²⁵ Ibid., p. 24.

²⁶ Ram, Suresh, op. cit., p. 44.Google Scholar

²⁷ Weber, Max, op. cit., p. 332.Google Scholar

²⁸ Rambhai, Suresh, Progress of a Pilgrimage (Kashi, Akhil Bharat Sarva Seva Sangh, 1958), p. 43.Google Scholar

²⁹ In several States in India legislation has been passed to facilitate the spread of the movement. For instance, Rajasthan Gramdan Act 1960 and Rajasthan Bhoodan Yajna Act 1956 were passed in the State of Rajasthan to legalise the donations made under the Bhoodan-Gramdan movement.

³⁰ Rambhai, Suresh, op. cit. (1958), p. 5.Google Scholar

³¹ Ibid.

³² There is disapproval or very cautious approval of law as an instrument of social change, on the part of Sarvodaya leaders as antithetical to the very spirit of a charismatic movement. However, unilinear dependence on voluntaristic action without introducing reinforcement mechanisms such as law, seems to be as dangerous as the introduction of law without the creation of appropriate social climate. Though interesting this point is a diversion from our argument and hence is not pursued further.

³³ See Weber, Max, op. cit., 363–372Google Scholar, Weber's thesis in regard to the routinisation of charisma holds true to a large extent. Notwithstanding the fact that Vinoba openly denounces administrative bureaucracy, soon after the first donation of land he asked the donor to constitute a “Trust” and a committee consisting of three persons was formed. The Bhoodan Gramdan personnel to propagate (through padayatra) and administer the movement (collection and distribution of Dans) have been steadily increasing. While the activities of the movement are co-ordinated at the all-India level by a national organization (All India Sarva Seva Sangh) with its operational base at Banaras, State, district and village level administrative staff carry out the routine functions. It is interesting to recall that Weber maintained that pure charismatic authority may exist only in the process of originating and when rendered stable it becomes either traditionalized or rationalized or a mixture of the two. (See Weber, , op. cit., p. 334Google Scholar.) The bureaucratic structure under emergence in the Bhoodan-Gramdan movement is indicative of its tendency to routinize charisma and subsequent stabilization.

³⁴ Weber, Max, op. cit., p. 231.Google Scholar

³⁵ For details of Telengana peasant riots, see Overstreet, Gene. D. and Windmiller, Marshal, Communism in India (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1959), pp. 246, 266–267.Google Scholar

³⁶ Adhikari, G., Resurgent India (Bombay, People's Publishing House, 1956).Google Scholar

³⁷ For an official version issued by the Communist Party of India see On Telengana, Information Document, No. 7 (1950) (place not given) and Zamindari-police Terror in Andhra (place and date not given). For a Government version, see Communist Violence in India (New Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs, 1954).Google Scholar

³⁸ Ramachandra Reddy, the first donor of land to Vinoba, is a man of high idealism. Himself a graduate, Shri Reddy is highly influenced by the doctrines of Aurobindo, through his younger brother who teaches philosophy in the Osmania University, Andhra Pradesh. His antagonism for the Communist Party was so great that he contested against Ravi Narayan Reddy (his brother-in-law) the famous Communist leader (who was also one of the top leaders of the Telengana peasant-riot) in the Third General election. It is indeed interesting to probe into the motivation behind Shri Reddy's donating the land. Is he convinced that the problem of land can be effectively met through this non-violent approach? Or is he moved by hatred for violence and terror as it obtained in Telengana and the consequent reaction against Communists? Or is he afraid that the landlords will not be allowed to keep more than a specified area of land?

³⁹ Friedland, , op. cit., p. 22.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Daniel, and Thorner, Alice, Land and Labour in India (Bombay, Asia Publishing House, 1962), p. 63Google Scholar. Also see Dantwala, M. L., “Prospects and Problems of Land Reforms in India”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1957), pp. 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴¹ Daniel, and Thorner, Alice, op. cit., p. 5.Google Scholar

⁴² I am grateful to Dr. K. G. Krishnamurthy for making this suggestion, through personal communication, 17–3–1967.

⁴³ Vasto, Dal, op. cit., p. 91.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ For an understanding of the problems created and faced by the movement as well as its failure to translate its ideas into practice, see Oommen, T. K., “Myth and Reality in India's Communitarian Villages”, Journal of Commonwealth Political Studies, Vol. IV, No. 2 (1966), pp. 94–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also see “Problems of Gramdan: A Study in Rajasthan”, Economic Weekly, June 26, 1965, pp. 1035–40.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Tennyson, Hallam, op. cit., p. 69.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Of the several reformers who have argued for agrarian socialism and for the maxim ‘land for society’, Henry George is the most outstanding. See his Progress and Poverty (New York, The Modern Library, 1879)Google Scholar. Leo Tolstoy, John Ruskin, Thomas Paine, to mention a few, maintained that ownership in land should be communal. The Fabian Socialists in the early phase upheld, “public property in land is the basic economic condition of socialism”. See Shaw, Bernard (ed.), Fabian Essays (Jubilee edition) (London, Allen and Unwin, 1948), p. 24.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Vinoba dresses in a loin cloth – normally keeps only his waist clothed – usually lives on five cups of milk a day, when eats uses a banana leaf instead of plates, rises at 4 a.m., spins charkha regularly, prays both in the morning and evening, spends time in meditation and thus leads the most simple and disciplined life. Vinoba is a bachelor and has no “occupation”. This is in conformity with the requirements of a charismatic. “In order to do justice to their mission, the holders of charisma, … must stand outside the ties of this world, outside of the routine occupations, as well as outside the routine obligations of family life”, observed weber. See Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. Wright, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., Ltd., 1947), p. 248.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Shils, Edward, “The Concentration and Dispersion of Charisma: Their Bearing on Economic Policy in Underdeveloped Countries”, World Politics, Vol. XI, No. 1 (1958), pp. 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁹ Kahin, G. Mc T., Pauker, Guy J. and Pye, Lucion W., “Comparative Politics in non-Western countries”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 49 (1955), pp. 1022–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁰ Ratnam, K. J., “Charisma and Political Leadership”, Political Studies, Vol. 12, No. 3 (1964), pp. 341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵¹ For a detailed study of the society conceived by Gandhi see Gandhi, M. K., Hind Swaraj (Ahmedabad, Navjivan Publishers, 1939)Google Scholar, and Sarvodaya (Ahmedabad, Navjivan Publishers, 1954).Google Scholar

⁵² See Verma, V. P., The Political Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi and Sarvodaya (Agra, Lakshmi Narain Agarwal, 1959), pp. 268–269.Google Scholar

⁵³ Gandhi had basic disagreements with Nehru on the issue of industrialization and modernization of India. For details, see Nayyar, Pyarelal, New Horizons (Ahmedabad, Navjivan Publishers, 1959).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See Ram, Suresh, op. cit. (1954), p. 40.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Shils, Edward, op. cit. (1965), p. 200.Google Scholar