Small is Beautiful

The title of this article is clearly antithetical to the mantra of modern times, “too big to fail”. I have borrowed this from a best seller of the early 70s by British economist E. F. Schumacher, who had then critiqued the emergence of globalization by championing small appropriate technologies.

The current global decline is the worst since the Great Depression 70 years ago. It has struck the last nail on to the coffin of globalization. There is an increasing acknowledgment that there will be no returning to a world centrally dependent on the free-spending American consumers, since many are bankrupt and nobody has taken their place. However, conservative mindsets everywhere continue to uphold the ideology of ‘neo-liberalism’, which gained momentum during the era of Reagan and Thatcher, with its emphasis on free trade, the primacy of private enterprise, and a minimalist role for the state.

Globalization is popularly described by its critics as the New Colonialism that has spread its tentacles tenaciously through the world; following the end of Cold-war. The erstwhile Soviet states became sources of cheap labour for the US Multinationals. It is more difficult to be confronted than the British were, because Globalization is not directed by any one or group of countries. It is reflected in Multinational Corporations whose power is often beyond the control of even those nations where they are based. This New Colonialism also has profit as its purpose and exploitation of resources and people as its major outcomes. The executives and stockholders of the Multinational Corporations, which are its representatives, are not necessarily conscious of the colonial roles they play.

This article attempts to review the relevance of the Gandhian approach at this point of human history. Does Gandhi’s famous precepts like ‘swadeshi’ (i.e. local self-reliance and use of local knowledge and abilities), ‘swaraj’ (i.e. independent development that leads to equity and justice) and ‘ahimsa’ (non-violent relationship with nature, the animal world, other human beings, communities/societies/countries) still hold meaning for the globalized humanity?

Gandhi in his famous writing ‘Hind Swaraj’ (1909) had attempted to spell out his grand vision for India. Gandhi did not envision for India to be a mighty nation like the established mega-Empire of his times where “the sun never sets”, viz., Great Britain, or the then-emerging superpower, the United States of America. Gandhi dreamt for the Independent India to be unique by embracing neither communism, nor capitalism. He never wished India to follow the Western pattern of industrialization, urbanization and its ultimate ideal of individualism.

Gandhi had also not wished that India should become a powerful nation with intimidating military prowess and great political-diplomatic strength, in order to reshape the world in its own image. India was not to impose its will upon the rest of the world.

Gandhi’s India was never expected to initiate mega-development projects and large-scale industry and mining that are typical of market-led growth under capitalism. Instead he wanted India to pursue need-based, human-scale, balanced development while conserving nature and livelihoods. Gandhi had clearly acknowledged ecological concerns when he stated, the Earth has enough for everybody’s need, but not for a single person’s greed.

Gandhi advocated khadi and the spinning-wheel basically to defend the artisanal skills and livelihoods of the poor. He had then promoted the idea of making the village economy self-reliant by ridding it of its over-dependence on agriculture. Gandhi did not envisage India to experience the universal push-and-pull factors that causes urbanization, viz., the push caused by declining agriculture and village economy on one hand, and the pull of industry and services in the cities on the other hand. Such an India would be neither poor nor would be an affluent society of plenty. It would be a society free of deprivation, where everybody’s basic wants are fulfilled, but which would still practice frugality and austerity. Gandhi believed that cooperation would replace competition as a major driving force of economic and social progress.

Ideas of justice, equity and harmony that is central to Gandhi’s vision negates the crass notions of self-interest and greed that is the driving force of growth, prosperity and progress in the neoliberal perspective of Globalization. The ecological significance of Gandhian vision is indeed unique and relevant today, when the climate crisis threatens the Planet’s very existence. At no other time have Gandhi’s ideas of simplicity, responsible consumption of natural resources and sustainability been truly justified.

Last but not least, Gandhi has taught the world the spirituality of non-violence; through the most powerful form of registering protest and offering resistance to the rulers in his strategy of ‘Satyagraha’. Civil disobedience and peaceful campaigning around demands can be still powerful tools to defend the rights and interests of the underprivileged and poor, whom neo-liberalism systematically dispossesses.

Allow me to digress a bit from the theme to cite an important historical criticism of Gandhi. His approach towards untouchables was staunchly opposed by Dr. Ambedkar, the most dynamic leader of the untouchable community both during the independence struggle and in the immediate post independence period. The principle objection to Gandhi was his insistence on viewing untouchables as an integral part of the Hindu community, rather than as a self contained minority oppressed by the Hindu community. Unlike Gandhi, Ambedkar believed that, in order for untouchables to achieve their full political and social rights, they had to be liberated from their position within existing Hinduism, since it was precisely Hinduism which had for centuries oppressed untouchables by institutionalizing their "lower than low" status in Indian society. While Gandhi maintained that the issue of treating untouchables fairly was a moral one that turned on the good faith of Hindus willing to purify Hinduism of caste bigotry, Ambedkar maintained that what untouchables needed wasn't Hindus' good faith but rather legal guarantees that in a free India untouchables would be subject to no "invidious discrimination against" them.

Living in a consumerist society constantly bombarded by its enticing commercials, internalising Gandhi’s teachings means for us and our children, learning to draw the fine distinction between our ‘needs and wants’. It also means overcoming our core human emotions of fear and anger, and being assertive and open in our relationships. From a Christian perspective, Gandhi’s life and teachings is best summed up by the beatitude, “The meek shall inherit the earth”.