¹ See, e.g., Schweitzer, Albert, Indian Thought and Its Development, Boston, 1957, pp. 45, 209, 241, 250ff.Google Scholar; and Siegfried, André, “L'Occident et le Monde,” La Revue de Paris, October 1958, p. 11.Google Scholar The view is also indirectly evident in the tone of those Britishers who, in describing their undertaking of the white man's burden, insinuate that the burden of Indian poverty would not have been undertaken by the Indians themselves.

² Ancient Hindu scriptures (such as “Santiparvan,” Mahabharata, VII, Roy, Pratap Chandra, ed., Calcutta, Datta Bose, p. 131Google Scholar; and The Laws of Manu, Sacred Books of the East, XXV, Max Muller, F., ed., Oxford, Clarendon, 1886, pp. 70–71Google Scholar) considered artha, kama (desire, emotional pursuits), and dharma (morality) the “triple aggregate,” the three chief aims of life on earth. A fourth, moksha (release from the birth cycle) was considered the ultimate goal of an individual.

³ “Santiparvan,” pp. 306–7. The practice of charity and the role of the king were emphasized also in Buddhist works. See, e.g., Zoysa, A. P. de, Indian Culture in the Days of the Buddha, Colombo, M. D. Gunasena, 1955, p. 98.Google Scholar

⁴ The ideal Hindu life is divided into four successive stages: brahmacharia, grihastya (householder), vanaprastha (when there is partial retirement from worldly pursuits), and the sanyasi stage (when there is complete retirement).

⁵ With regard to brahmachari's, for instance, Kane, P. V. in History of Dharmasastra (11, Pt. 1, Poona, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1941, p. 311)Google Scholar observes that “even in modern times many brahmana students (not only those who study the Veda from orthodox teachers but even those learning English) begged for their daily food.” He also refers to the injunction in the Laws of Manu directing that if for seven days continuously a brahmachari who was not ill did not beg for food, he had to undergo the same penance as though he had had sexual relations.

⁶ lbid., pp. 116, 120.

⁷ Laws of Manu, p. 89. This statement is particularly interesting inasmuch as it is usually believed that asceticism, not worldly pursuits, is most valued in Hindu philosophy. For revealing commentary on this, see Dumont, Louis, “World Renunciation in Indian Religions,” Contributions to Indian Sociology (The Hague), IV (April 1960), pp. 33–62.Google Scholar

⁸ One well-defined form of charity was nitya, referring to gifts that were to be made ”daily.” A specific duty of householders was observance of vaisvadeva, the daily “offering of cooked foods to all gods,” described in detail in Kane, , op.cit., 11, Pt. 2, pp. 741ff.Google Scholar For this rite, the Laws of Manu instructs householders to give food to all types of gods and spirits, as well as to “dogs, outcasts, kandalas (Svapak), those afflicted with diseases that are punishments of former sins, crows, and insects” (op.cit., p. 92).

⁹ Furthermore, although castes were arranged in a vertical social hierarchy, they were considered equal insofar as each performed an essential function in the organic society. In Kalidas' famous play of about the 3rd or 4th century, Sakoontala (Monier-Williams, tr., London, Routledge, 1898, p. 136), a poor fisherman tells the police:

The father's occupation, though despised

By others, casts no shame upon the son,

And he should not forsake it. Is the priest

Who kills the animal for sacrifice

Therefore deemed cruel? Sure a low-born man

May, though a fisherman, be tender-hearted.

¹⁰ West Bengal, Madras, Maharashtra, Gujerat, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Mysore, and Kerala (Hindustan, July 7, 1961, p. 8). Over half of all Indian states have decided, in theory, to establish institutions to house beggars: Andhra, Bihar, Maharashtra, Jummu and Kashmir, Kerala, Madya Pradesh, Mysore, Madras, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Note that West Bengal and Gujerat prohibit begging but have agreed to no provisions for institutionalizing beggars.

¹¹ The Beggar Problem in Metropolitan Delhi, Delhi, Delhi School of Social Work, 1959.

¹² Ibid., p. 86.

¹³ Ibid., pp. 88–89. See also Hindustan, July 8, 1961, p. 3: touring poorhouses where former Delhi beggars were institutionalized, reporters were besieged by the complaints of inmates who wanted to go back to begging.

¹⁴ Beggar Problem in Metropolitan Delhi, p. 90. Also note that only 3 per cent of the religious beggars gave no reply to this question, compared with 21 per cent of the able-bodied, non-religious beggars.

¹⁵ See, e.g., Mahtab's, Hari Krishan novel on the Gandhian movement, Azadi ke Sipahi (in Hindi), Delhi, Ajanta Pocket Books, 1960, pp. 48–49.Google Scholar One of the central characters, a landlord's son, on his first day at Gandhi's ashram feels a bit “shy going out, sack on shoulders, to beg for alms.” But when he reflects that in such a poor country nobody could feel very happy earning a livelihood, “then even his shyness went away.” (This and all other references to Hindi-language sources in this article have been translated by the writer.)

¹⁶ The preference of most Delhi beggars for shopping areas, and the fact that 56 per cent of those surveyed begged between 8 a.m. and noon, are interpreted in Beggar Problem in Metropolitan Delhi to mean that the beggars “count on the possibility that the shopkeepers would give alms during these hours in order to start their day with a prayer or blessing to their credit. Another possibility seemed to be that there are usually more temple-goers in the morning who would give alms with a view to do good” (p. 55).

¹⁷ Ibid., p. 152: “Most of the givers, barring those few who give a coin to a beggar just to avoid a momentary nuisance, disregard the fact that the idolisation of giving for its own sake has the consequence of making the recipient work-shy.” Several times the writer witnessed able-bothed beggars come to the gate of an enlightened, middle-class Indian woman, who would ask them to do some work for her—dishes or clothes-washing—for which she would give money. The beggars invariably replied that it was in their stars to beg, not to work; the alms would then be given anyway.

¹⁸ Such a suggestion has actually been formulated for Delhi in ibid., pp. 151–52.

¹⁹ Interview with the writer, March 1960.

²⁰ See the regularly featured column, “Satra-tatra-savatra,” Hindustan, March 14, 1961, pp. 4–5. The law, passed early in 1961 in Delhi, is based on the Bombay law making begging in the municipality a punishable offense.

²¹ Prasad is an offering of food, often sweets, brought to a temple for the deity by a worshiper. It is often distributed by a priest among the worshipers, who then eat some of it and give the rest to mendicants, children, relatives, servants and, in some house-holds, even to animals. By this action both giver and receiver are blessed, and to refuse to accept prasad—even to refuse to eat it—is an act highly insulting to the one who offers it.

²² See, e.g., a speech by the Forest Minister before the Uttar Pradesh Safai Mazdoor Sangh Conference (an organization of sweepers—untouchables whose functions still include sweeping streets, collecting cow dung, cleaning latrines), National Herald, May 12, 1961, p. 2. It was the humility of the sweepers to which the Minister paid flowery tribute, and he thanked them for serving society as a mother serves.

²³ Sampurnanand, , Samajvad (in Hindi), Benares, Kashi Vidyapith, 2004, pp. 25, 36–37Google Scholar; this book was published in the early 1940's.

²⁴ For an example of efforts made in this direction by a league of young untouchables in Aligarh (Uttar Pradesh), to the distress of the older members of their community, see National Herald, May 22, 1961, p. 7.

²⁵ Gandhi, M. K., Towards Non-violent Socialism, Ahmedabad, Navajivan Publishing House, 1957, p. 140.Google Scholar

²⁶ There are innumerable pamphlets containing selections from Gandhi's writings, each devoted to a specific topic. It is interesting that in the several pamphlets devoted to Gandhi as a Socialist, his trusteeship concept receives a prominent place. See, e.g., Gandhi, op.cit.; Gandhi, M. K., Socialism of My Conception, Bombay, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1957Google Scholar; Mashruwala, K. G., Gandhi and Marx, Ahmedabad, Navajivan Publishing House, 1956.Google Scholar

²⁷ Gandhi, , Towards Non-violent Socialism, p. 159.Google Scholar

²⁸ Quoted in Nehru, Jawaharlal, Toward Freedom, Boston, 1958, p. 325.Google Scholar

²⁹ This interpretation of the Marxist ideology is reiterated throughout Ulam, Adam, The unfinished Revolution, New York, 1960.Google Scholar

³⁰ Similarly, he called the untouchables harijan's (“children of God”).

³¹ This was Gandhi's main emphasis, although he did state that the poor could attempt, through non-violent methods, to persuade the rich to act as trustees for them. But the poor were not to take things into their own hands. He stated categorically, for instance, that sweepers were not to go on strike, no matter how bad their situation was. Instead, “it is up to all citizens to raise their voice on behalf of them.” Gandhi, , Towards Non-violent Socialism, pp. 107–12Google Scholarpassim (italics added).

³² E.g., Birla, G. D., In the Shadow of the Mahatma: A Personal Memoir, Bombay, Orient Longmans, 1953.Google Scholar According to Unnithan, T. K. N. (Gandhi in Free India: A Socio-economic Study, Groningen, Netherlands, J. B. Wolters, 1956, p. 87n)Google Scholar, Jamnalal Bajaj was the person whom Gandhi regarded as closest to his ideal of a “trustee.” Referred to by Gandhi as his adopted son, Bajaj saw no conflict in being a leader of the machine-run textile industry and first president of Gandhi's All India [hand] Spinners Association.

³³ See, e.g., Nehru, , op.cit., pp. 320–23Google Scholarpassim and p. 143.

³⁴ Sampurnanand, , “Why I Am Not a Congress Socialist,” Congress Socialist, December 26, 1936, p. 23.Google Scholar Even after he had left the Congress Socialists and had become prominent in Congress politics, Sampurnanand wrote in Samajvad that despite all the “sweet words” of assent to Gandhi, the most that happened under trusteeship was that a few more crumbs of bread and a little more sympathy were given to the poor; wealth still remained the property of the rich, as it had mrough the ages (op.cit., pp. 41ff.).

Jayaprakash Narayan was particularly strong in his criticism of trusteeship; see esp. Why Socialism? Benares, , All India Congress Socialist Party, 1936, pp. 79ff.Google Scholar Even as late as 1939, M. R. Masani, then a leading member of the Congress Socialist Party, posed the question of whether Gandhi really advocated collective ownership—which would justify his claim to being a Socialist—or still held to his theory of trusteeship—which would mean he thereby rationalized the right to private property. See Masani's, “Gandhiji and Collective Ownership,” Congress Socialist, January 8, 1939, p. 1.Google Scholar

³⁵ Upadhyaya, Deenanath (General Secretary of All India Jan Sangh since 1953), “Another Path,” Seminar, No. 17 (January 1961), p. 41.Google Scholar

³⁶ Despite its claim to being a revolutionary movement, the Sarvodaya group actually has made little dent in the traditional socio-economic structure. Because, however, this is the group that wears Gandhi's mantle most conspicuously, government officials and leaders of the major political parties (including the Communists) pay it at least verbal respect and often attend the annual Sarvodaya conferences. Rajendra Prasad, President of India, has announced that after his approaching retirement he will devote the rest of his life to the movement.

³⁷ Darmadikhari, Dada, Sarvodaya-Darshan (in Hindi), Benares, Akhil Bharat Sarva Seva Sangh, 1958, pp. 269ff.Google Scholar This book appears to this writer the most scholarly exposition of Sarvodaya philosophy available.

³⁸ One may recall from Rajendra Prasad's autobiography that his first idealistic desire to join a voluntary social-work organization was vetoed by his family, who required that he earn money for their support; in that instance, the young Prasad responded to his family's need.

³⁹ Jayaprakash Narayan endorsed this view in conversations with the writer in April 1960. He did mention, however, that some of these returnees had been discussing the feasibility of themselves banding together and forming a collective.

⁴⁰ For a factual report on the operation of specific gramdan villages in Bihar, see Bihar-me Gramdan Andolan (in Hindi), Patna, Bihar Sarvodaya Mandal Prakashan, 1959.

⁴¹ Even these leaders have admitted, however, in regard to sampattidan, that “un-fortunately its true import has been missed, and it has been identified with the ordinary Chanda (contribution).” (Proceedings of the Seminars held at Rajghat and Bombay to discuss Gandhian Approach to Industry, Trade and Labour, Wardha, Akhil Bharat Sarva Seva Sangh, n.d., p. 5.) When villagers were asked why they contributed land as bhoodan, many told this writer that they did so because Bhave was a religious or holy man. A Muslim landlord typified anomer common response: he observed in what direction the wind was blowing, and then followed in that direction.

⁴² Ibid., p. 12. Masani, R. P. (an industrialist and writer who also lends support to the Sarvodaya movement), in The Role of Wealth in Society (Bombay, Popular Book Depot, 1956)Google Scholar, enthusiastically endorses Andrew Carnegie's philosophy of wealth, and suggests that the best example of application of that theory is the work of Bhave's Sarvodaya movement.

⁴³ This party, founded only after the second general elections, displayed spectacular success in the general elections held in February 1962. The Swatantra Party is now the third-ranking party in the Lok Sabha, coming very close to the second-ranking Communist Party of India, with respect to both number of seats won and percentage of votes polled. (See Times of India, March 8, 1962, p. 9.) It also has emerged as the official opposition in four states: Rajasthan, Gujerat, Bihar, and Orissa. Its national leader ship, whose former affiliations and ideological stands vary tremendously, includes such comparatively well-known names as C. R. Rajagopachari, K. M. Munshi, N. G. Ranga, and M. R. Masani.

⁴⁴ Munshi, K. M., in Reconstruction of Society Through Trusteeship (Bombay, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1960, p. 17)Google Scholar, even draws attention to what he considers the inspiring relationship of the late Maharana of Udaipur with his hundreds of retainers, whom he looked upon as members of his own family.

⁴⁵ Ibid., pp. 10–11.

⁴⁶ “The Programme of the Swatantra Party,” reproduced in Maral, HA (May 1960), p. 80.

⁴⁷ Munshi, , op.cit., pp. 37–39Google Scholarpassim. He states that the aim of a taxation policy should be not “to raise money for officially conducted ‘welfare’ schemes, but to recreate conditions in which money would be diverted by individual volition to trusts for the welfare of the community.” And in a country where tax-evasion is rampant, Munshi derides the government's “evader-hunting” as “idiotic self-righteousness.”

⁴⁸ If this appears a vague explanation of a quite radical shift of viewpoint, it is just as vague as Nehru's entire taped answer to a question on his view of trusteeship. The only clear point is that, whereas at one stage of his life he criticized the concept, he now endorses it. See Karanjia, R. K., The Mind of Mr. Nehru, London, George Allen & Unwin, 1960, pp. 76–80.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Sampurnanand, , Indian Socialism, Bombay, Asia Publishing House, 1961, p. 16.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Dinkar, R. D. Sinha, “No! No! Gandhi is no Watchman of the Capitalist,” Socialist Congressman, 1 (May 15, 1961), p. 10.Google Scholar Note also the indignant outburst of this journal (May 1, 1961, p. 3) in regard to a recent criticism of Gandhi by G. D. Birla.

⁵¹ Actually, as early as 1944 Masani was having second thoughts on trusteeship. See the ambiguity of his views in Socialism Reconsidered, Bombay, Padma Publications, 1944, pp. 64–67. In this book he at one point criticizes the concept, and then a paragraph later notes its value as a “transition technique.”

⁵² E.g., Narayan, Jayaprakash, From Socialism to Sarvodaya, Benares, Akhil Bharat Sarva Seva Sangh, 1959, p. 45.Google Scholar Even at the time of the merger of the Socialist Party and the Gandhian-oriented Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party (1952), Narayan, still a member of the former, justified Gandhi's idea of trusteeship. His views are quoted in Fatmi, Ahmed, Praja Socialist Party: Ek Vishleshan (in Hindi), Patna, Bihar Praja Socialist Party, 1953, pp. 87–88.Google Scholar This book sheds interesting light on ideological problems involved in the merger, and on the Gandhian content of Socialist ideology.

⁵³ Dantwala, M. L., Gandhism Reconsidered, Bombay, Padma Publications, rev. ed., 1945. pp. 46ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Beharilal, Mukut, “Planned Economy & Socialism, II,” Janata, June 11, 1961, p. 3.Google Scholar He suggests that Gandhi's concept “involves transformation of ownership into a trust in favour of the community in general and workers of the industry in particular. Gandhiji believed in the economy of welfare based on the principle of mutuality and equality and wished to foster cooperation instead of competition with a view to promoting ethical transformation of the economic life and moral elevation of man.” For similar criticism of what he calls “capitalists' trusteeship” and a defense of “Gandhian trusteeship,” see his Sarvodaya and Democratic Socialism, Benares, Praja Socialist Publications, n.d., pp. 12–17.

⁵⁵ Jain, Ajit Prasad, “Indian Socialism,” Seminar, No. 17 (January 1961), p. 38.Google Scholar See also a review of the findings of the follow-up study of the All India Survey, Rural Credit, Economic Weekly, June 24, 1961, pp. 931–33.Google Scholar The follow-up survey (sponsored by the government) found that the first 30 per cent of families arranged in descending order of holdings held from 50 to 72 per cent of the cultivated area of the districts; the 30 per cent at the other end of the scale held no more than 14 per cent and in some districts 4 per cent of the cultivated land. It was also found that the debt per acre was heavier among the last 30 per cent, and that it was the first 30 per cent who made the most use of credit co-operatives. Economic Weekly (which claims no label, Socialist or otherwise), concludes that “As long as the extreme inequalities in land holdings persist, nothing very revolutionary can be brought about by cooperatives.” For similar evidence, see the case study of “successful” co-operatives in Government of India, Planning Commission, Programme Evaluation Organisation, Seventh Evaluation Report on Community Development and Some Allied Fields, Delhi, 1960, pp. 128–35.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ May it suffice here to note what the Congress ideology is. To discuss the fact that this may be an economically unsound argument, that the level of food production may be suffering from this policy, resulting in the expenditure of foreign exchange for food instead of machinery, unfortunately lies outside the scope of this article.

⁵⁷ The newspapers also appear to be serving this purpose. For example, if one compares Hindi- and English-language newspapers, one finds the former tend to reinforce the traditional religious outlook and values; English-language newspapers, on the other hand, even those emanating from the same office as a Hindi-language counter-part, play down religious holidays and practices, and play up more modern (and often this is synonymous with Western) interests, attitudes, and political ideas.

⁵⁸ A rare satirization of Gandhi's version of utopia has recently been written by Krishan Chander—“Azadi ke Pachas Sal Bad” (“Fifty Years After Freedom”), published in his collection of satirical essays, Ghunghat-me Gori Jale (in Hindi), Delhi, Hind Pocket Books, n.d. It is significant that Chander is one of India's most popular vernacular writers, whose works are read not only by the elite but by the newly literate and tradition-oriented public as well.