The Constitution and its Gandhian Alternative
(By Shivakumar Jolad)
A version of this article was published in Scroll titled “Gandhi’s vision of a constitution was imperfect, but is India paying the price for neglecting it?”, Oct 2, 2023.
India’s Constitution has been criticized for its stark departure from Gandhian principles. Gandhi was an advocate for decentralized governance, a vision that contradicted the centralized, top-down structure established by the Indian Constitution. In contrast, the Constitution of India has created an asymmetric Federal Nation-State and disempowered local governments. The adoption of the Western parliamentary system with direct election to state and national-level representatives has created a gap between electors and the elected. Centralized top-down political and administrative system, created barriers between the citizens and the state. Citizens are distanced from state affairs and made victims of vested political decisions and bureaucratic apathy. Here, I will describe the Un-Gandhian roots of the current Indian constitution, and contrast it with the Gandhian with the Constitution as envisioned by Sriman Narayan Agarwal.
Un-Gandhian Constitution
India’s Constitution adopted two years after Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination, was framed without his direct involvement and did not align with his known preferences for constitutional structure and balance of powers. However, Gandhi had developed a vision for an independent Indian Constitution that centred around decentralization and non-violence.
In November 1948, as the Constituent Assembly was finalizing the Constitution, Arun Chandra Guha voiced his dissatisfaction, claiming that there was no trace of the Congress or Gandhian outlook in the draft. Gandhi’s vision was one of a pyramidal structure with village panchayats at its base. According to Dr. B R Ambedkar, the villages were “a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and communalism” (CAD, 4th Nov 1948), and the cause of the ruination of India. Ambedkar argued for a strong central government with robust limbs (states), asserting that a strong centre was essential for India.
The ideological clashes between Gandhi and Nehru in the kind of society they envisioned are also of value here. The letters exchanged between them in October 1945, show Gandhi still standing ‘the system of Government envisaged in Hind Swaraj (1909), and Nehru squarely rejecting it. Gandhi insisted on the importance of rural life, advocating for people to live in villages, in huts rather than palaces. Nehru, on the other hand, regarded villages as intellectually and culturally backward, believing that progress could not be achieved in such an environment. He saw narrow-mindedness as breeding untruthfulness and violence. Nehru also expressed his scepticism about Gandhi’s views in “Hind Swaraj,” describing the book as completely unrealistic. He emphasized that the Congress had never considered, let alone adopted, the picture of India presented in “Hind Swaraj.”
These letters mark a decisive break between Gandhi and his political successor, Nehru, regarding the vision of independent India, and how their differing ideologies led to a fundamental disagreement about the direction the country should take.
Gandhi (who also stayed away from the Constituent Assembly) realised that his message had failed. He distanced himself from the Congress and the constitution. Writing in Harijan (July 1946) “I do not know how many (Congressmen) swear by non-violence or Charka, or, believing in decentralization, regard the village as a nucleus” (Austin, pp. 50). Granville Austin notes that the Constituent Assembly’s rejection of Gandhi’s diagnosis of societal issues, as well as their doubt about his proposed remedy, played a pivotal role in shaping the direct, centralized constitution that emerged. The Assembly was concerned that indirect elections at the village level would perpetuate caste divisions and vested power in traditional upper-caste or economically dominant majorities. They believed that indirect elections would primarily focus on local issues, further strengthening the grip of local groups (Austin, pp. 59).
Gandhian vision of Self-governance
Gandhi’s idea of Gram Swaraj outlined in his Hind Swaraj, and later writings, comprised of self-governing and largely self-sufficient village republics. He conceptualized villages, (in the words of Shubhangi Rathi ) as “organically and non-hierarchically linked with the larger spatial bodies and enjoying the maximum freedom of deciding the affairs of the locality”. For Gandhi “concentration of either economic or political power would violate all the essential principles of participatory democracy”.
Gandhi’s ideas of decentralized governance had already been experimented with in the princely state of Aundh, Maharashtra. Raja Bhawanrao Pant of Aundh invited Gandhi to help formulate a Constitution that would empower the people to govern themselves. Gandhi’s proposed structure, based on panchayats, aimed to distribute power and decision-making from the bottom up. This experiment in Aundh showcased a largely positive impact of decentralised governance on education, finances, and social cohesion, but failed to sustain fiscally in the long run.
Gandhian Constitution of Shriman Naryan Agarwal
Building on the Gandhian ideas of Gram Swaraj, Gandhi’s disciple, Shriman Narayan Agarwal (who later served as Governor of Gujarat), wrote the Gandhian Constitution of Free India, in 1946 with Gandhi’s endorsement. Agarwal envisions a unique form of democratic governance, with a pyramidal, yet non-hierarchical, Democratic governance at its core. It seeks to build the nation from the grassroots, bringing the government closest to the people.
Decentralisation: Achieving non-violent democracy
Agarwal delves into the perceived incompatibility of democracy with various forms of violence, not just the physical kind, but also economic and social violence inflicted by systems like capitalism and communism. According to him, “The capitalist society is exploitation personified”. He quotes Gandhi, who believed that violence could never be the answer to addressing these issues. For Gandhi, democracy meant that the weakest members of society should have the same opportunities as the strongest (Harijan 18–5-’40). Agarwal contends that capitalism represents exploitation in its essence and argues that true change requires a society founded on economic freedom and equality. He emphasizes that economic equity is paramount, stating that without it, genuine political democracy cannot exist.
One of Agarwal’s key propositions for achieving non-violent democracy is decentralization. He aligns himself with Gandhi’s advocacy for both economic and political decentralization, emphasizing self-sufficient and self-governing village communities as the way forward. Gandhi believed that village communes embody the ideal form of decentralization and local self-government and the future Constitution should revolve around well-coordinated village communities that practice positive and direct democracy.
Agarwal reflects on the historical significance of village communes in India, emphasizing their presence since ancient times and using basic units of administration as early as the earliest Vedic age. He laments that British rule erased this system of village self-government, replacing it with a foreign, non-Indian model of local self-government. He notes that the decentralization of political power in the form of village communities in India differed significantly from Western models of devolution or decentralization.
A Sneak View into the Gandhian Constitution for Free India
Shriman Narayan Agarwal’s Gandhian Constitution critically analyzed the failures of Western parliamentary democracies and highlighted Gandhi’s concerns about democracies devolving into mobocracy in electoral party politics. In his introductory chapter, Agarwal provides an incisive analysis of several issues with party politics in assembly and parliamentary election. He foresaw its challenges such as wide gap between electors and elected, the influence of money and muscle power, a lack of independence from the party’s stance in assemblies, and party whips.
A glimpse into Agarwal’s proposed Constitution reveals a structure that includes fundamental rights similar to those found in modern constitutions (albeit without much of the riders that the modern Indian Constitution has), such as freedom of speech, equality before the law, and universal adult franchise. Additionally, it incorporates socio-economic rights like the right to basic education (Gandhi’s Nai Talim), minimum wage, rest, and medical freedom, which includes the right to refuse modern medical interventions like vaccinations. Surprisingly, it also includes the right to bear arms.
Agarwal’s proposed Constitution envisions village communities as the fundamental units of politics and administration. He proposes a system of village panchayats that would have full autonomy in various areas, including education, health, economy, and administration. These village panchayats are also vested with judicial, financial, and taxation powers. The panchayats would control village servants, and police, and even deliver justice. Village panchayats playing pivotal roles in primary education, agriculture, local industry, people’s protection, and sanitation. The structure extends to taluk and district panchayats, which operate in a pyramidal structure, performing higher-order functions like maintaining secondary schools and larger hospitals. Representatives from district panchayats and municipal councils would send representatives to provincial and central governments, with only lower-level panchayat members and ward members being directly elected by the people.
Agarwal’s vision combines the advantages of both direct and indirect elections. While direct elections are employed at the village level, which enjoys maximum local autonomy, higher-level bodies rely on indirect elections. This system is seen as practical, efficient, and less susceptible to bribery and corruption, as representatives of the upper bodies are accountable to the lower panchayats. Agarwal believes that such a system will prevent the colossal waste of national resources associated with direct elections, promote accountability, and discourage unhealthy political party growth and communalism
Missing Equity and Social Justice in Agarwal’s Constitution
Agarwal’s vision of Gandhian decentralization for India was grounded in the belief that functional and territorial decentralization would foster social harmony and spontaneous political engagement. However, his utopian view often overlooked critical realities. Agarwal failed to address economic and social exploitation within the village communes. He disregarded the hierarchical nature of village communities, characterized by caste and class divisions, and upper caste politics. While he briefly acknowledged the caste system’s hindrance to political democracy and social equity in villages, he failed to delve into its profound impact on power dynamics and exploitation. Agarwal paid little attention to issues like gender inequality, women’s empowerment, and special provisions for women in his version of Constitution. Critical aspects of social justice and equity for Indian society were notably absent from his vision.
Agarwal’s economic decentralization primarily focused on Gandhian principles of “cottage industrialization,” with limited emphasis on large-scale industries. His vision prioritized decentralization at the village level, aligning with Gandhi’s belief that the essence of India lay in its villages. However, this perspective largely ignored urban governance and the role of city municipalities. Agarwal’s preference for “open-air rural life” over congested cities did not consider the multifaceted nature of modern urban centers. Regarding urban governance, Agarwal briefly mentioned that ward panchayats and Municipal Councils would possess extensive executive and legislative powers, with their functions linked to District Panchayats. He treated District Panchayats and Municipal Councils as horizontal and interdependent entities with similar powers.
In conclusion, Agarwal’s vision for India, deeply rooted in Gandhian principles, seeks to address the country’s socio-economic challenges by promoting economic equity and political decentralization. His proposed Constitution envisions a vibrant system of self-governing village communities as the foundation for a harmonious and inclusive democracy, emphasizing local empowerment and accountability. While Agarwal’s vision of Gandhian decentralization had ideals of social harmony and local self-governance, it failed to address issues like caste-based disparities, gender inequities, and urban governance. His utopian view often overlooked the complexities of real-world dynamics. Subsequent constitutional amendments in India have sought to address some of these limitations, albeit with their own set of challenges.
About author:
Shivakumar Jolad works as an Associate Professor of Public Policy and a member of the FLAME Center for Legislative Education and Research
Acknowledgements
The author greatly acknowledges the comments and suggestions of Ms. Mehr Kalra
