Here the basic framework of the trusteeship theory was shaped to stipulate that the rich manage their God-entrusted wealth for the welfare of the poor and accept only a commission for that management. The legal and religious understandings of “trust” that Gandhi acquired in South Africa then came to accompany some economic implications as well. The theory would be more enthusiastically advocated from then on as the means to eradicate “that unbridgeable gulf that today exists between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’”[63], or to bring about “equal distribution”[64] among people.

Penetration of Marxism into India

It was during the 1920s and 1930s that Marxism spread widely in India. Manabendra Nath Roy and others established the Communist Party of India in Tashkent, the former Soviet Union in October 1920[65]. The Kanpur Conspiracy Case in 1924[66] and the Meerut Conspiracy Case in 1929[67] symbolized the deep penetration of communism into India. Across the world liberal societies suffered the Great Depression between 1929 and 1933, while the former Soviet Union successfully implemented its First Five-Year Plan. That world situation might have encouraged many young radical Indians to listen to the voice of Marxism as well.

     In such a historical context, Gandhi counterposed his theory of trusteeship against the Marxist theory of class struggle. Let us here look at some debates that Gandhi held with people influenced by Marxism, in conjunction with socialists’ reactions to Gandhi who stopped the Civil Disobedience Campaign in 1934.

     Gandhi suddenly stopped the Civil Disobedience Campaign in April 1934, on the ground that there was an ashram inmate reluctant to go to jail and preferring his private studies. Gandhi’s press statement reads:

This statement owes its inspiration to a personal chat with the inmates and associates of the Satyagraha Ashram who had just come out of prison and whom at Rajendrababu’s instance I had sent to Bihar. More especially it is due to a revealing information I got in the course of conversation about a valued companion of long standing who was found reluctant to perform the full prison task and preferring his studies to the allotted task. This was undoubtedly contrary to the rules of satyagraha. More than the imperfection of the friend, whom I love more than ever, it brought home to me my own imperfection. … I was blind. Blindness in a leader is unpardonable. I saw at once that I must for the time being remain the sole representative of civil resistance in action[68].

     Having heard about the cessation of Civil Disobedience in jail, Nehru felt that “A vast distance seemed to separate him from me. With a stab of pain I felt that the chords of allegiance that had bound me to him for many years had snapped”[69]. According to D. G. Tendulkar, “This was the reaction of many Congressmen” [70]. They established the Congress Socialist Party (CSP) in Patna on May 27[71]. 

     Two days before, Gandhi had an acute debate with two socialists, M. R. Masani and N. R. Malkani, over “coercion” of socialism or state-ownership of industries along the socialist lines: “Your socialistic system is based on coercion”; “Violence is impatience and non-violence is patience”[72]. While Masani and Malkani asserted state-ownership of industries, Gandhi was eager to secure room for entrepreneurs’ business based on the trusteeship theory:

Industries like transport, insurance, exchange must be State-owned. But I would not insist that all large industries should be taken over by the State. Suppose there is an intelligent and expert individual who volunteers to run and direct an industry, without much remuneration and only for the good of society, I would keep the system elastic enough to allow such an individual to organize that industry[73].

     Nehru, still in jail, in June started writing his Autobiography, in which he severely criticized Gandhi’s ideas including the theory of trusteeship. The Autobiography was completed by February 1935, and it is not clear exactly when he gave the following account. However, the account is clear enough to express his deep distrust of Gandhi during these months:

     Imperfection or fault, if such it was, of the ‘friend’ was a very trivial affair. … But even if it was a serious matter, was a vast national movement involving scores of thousands directly and millions indirectly to be thrown out of gear because an individual had erred? This seemed to me a monstrous proposition and an immoral one. … But the reason he had given seemed to me an insult to intelligence and an amazing performance for a leader of a national movement[74].

     Gandhi would never know about the manuscript of this Autobiography that Nehru was preparing in jail. Probably without being aware of Nehru’s sentiment, he confronted socialist students in July. While they insisted that class struggle would be inevitable, Gandhi endeavoured to persuade them of the possible harmony between the capitalists and the masses, which would be brought about by the theory of trusteeship:

We must trust them [the capitalists] to the measure of their ability to surrender their gains for the service of the masses. … In India class war is not only not inevitable but it is avoidable if we have understood the message of non-violence. Those who talk about class war as being inevitable have not understood the implications of non-violence or have understood them only skin-deep[75].

     Indeed, Gandhi was eager to avoid class conflicts by means of allotting tasks of trustees to landlords and capitalists. Having sympathy with the notion of “equality” that socialists pursued, he wanted to trust and rely upon the goodness of the rich in finding the means to bring about that “equality”. At this point he drew a clear line between himself and socialists, who thought class struggle as inevitable: “It is surely wrong to presume that Western socialism or communism is the last word on the question of mass poverty”[76].

     Four days later Gandhi thus requested zamindars to behave as “trustees”, and promised to protect them decisively from the peril of class struggle: “You may be sure that I shall throw the whole weight of my influence in preventing class war. … But supposing that there is an attempt unjustly to deprive you of your property, you will find me fighting on your side”[77].

     As mentioned above, Gandhi’s theory of trusteeship functioned to defend the rich class from the threat of revolutionary thought and class struggle on the rise at that time. Such a function of the theory, accompanied by Gandhi’s fraternity with the rich, clearly induced one to view him as conservative and supporting the existing regime of Indian society.

The Influence of Socialism

However, Gandhi could not totally avoid being influenced by socialism and communism. Nehru expressed the great shock he felt upon hearing the news of the campaign’s suspension in his letter to Gandhi of August 13. On the contrary, it seems that this letter shocked Gandhi as well:

When I heard that you had called off the C. D. movement I felt unhappy. … Much later I read your statement and this gave me one of the biggest shocks I have ever had. … But the reasons you gave for doing so and the suggestions you made for future work astounded me. I had a sudden and intense feeling, that something broke inside me, a bond that I had valued very greatly had snapped[78].

     This letter must have been a turning point in Gandhi’s attitudes towards socialists. In his reply of August 17 to Nehru, one can read his ardent hope that he would never like to part with Nehru in their movements for independence and social reform:

Your passionate and touching letter deserves a much longer reply than my strength will permit. … But I am quite sure that from our common standpoint a closer study of the written word will show you that there is not enough reason for all the grief and disappointment you have felt. Let me assure you that you have not lost a comrade in me. … I have the same passion that you knew me to possess for the common goal. … But I have found them [socialists] as a body to be in hurry. Why should they not be? Only if I cannot march quite as quick, I must ask them to halt and take me along with them[79].

Gandhi could never ignore Nehru’s leadership as a socialist as well as the power of socialism in India. Gandhi commented on this as follows in his letter to Sardar Patel in September: “Then there is the growing group of socialists. Jawaharlal is their undisputed leader. … That group is bound to grow in influence and importance”[80]. In fact, Gandhi is observed to have conceded to socialists to a certain extent in his statement regarding the theory of trusteeship from then on.

     In October 1934, Gandhi preferred trusteeship to state-ownership, but admitted that, if the former was impossible, it would be unavoidable for the state to confiscate individual properties along the socialist lines:

I would be very happy indeed if the people concerned behaved as trustees; but if they fail, I believe we shall have to deprive them of their possessions through the State with the minimum exercise of violence. … What I would personally prefer would be not a centralization of power in the hands of the State, but an extension of the sense of trusteeship; as in my opinion the violence of private ownership is less injurious than the violence of the State. However, if it is unavoidable, I would support a minimum of State-ownership[81].

     Gandhi’s attitudes also changed after 1934 over the amount of “commission” that a trustee would receive, or the amount of wealth that the trustee would hand over to society. For example, in his interview with Charles Petrasch and others in 1931, he said, “I do not fix a figure for this ‘commission’, but I ask them [owners of wealth] only to demand what they consider they are entitled to”[82]. On the other hand, in his letter to Premabhen Kantak in 1935, Gandhi indicated a far bolder demand from trustees: “The owner becoming trustees means their handing over to the poor, that is, to the State or any other public welfare institution, all income in excess of a certain percentage”[83].

     Moreover, in 1939 Gandhi insisted that the Princes, millionaires and zamindars should receive the same amount of wages as everyone else, that is, “eight annas a day” and “use the rest of his wealth for the welfare of society”[84]. In 1942 he stated that “In a State built on the basis of non-violence, the commission of trustees will be regulated”[85].

     Gandhi’s concession for socialists is also found in his speech in 1947: “God who was all-powerful had no need to store. … Hence men also should in theory live from day to day and not stock things. If this was imbibed by the people generally, it would become legalized and trusteeship would become a legalized institution”[86]. Here seems to be assumed a certain form of “coercion” by the state in turning trusteeship into “a legalized institution”.

     The theory of trusteeship after 1934 thus assumed a kind of “coercion” with regard to trustees’ property ownership and wages, as well as the institution itself. This is clearly a sign that Gandhi incorporated socialist elements into his own theory, as he deeply acknowledged the significance of Nehru and his socialist followers in India.

     Now what is the meaning for Gandhi to assume “coercion” in his theory of trusteeship? Although it was not particularly clear in his statements before 1934, this theory had an intention, at least in principle, of redressing unfair economic distribution among people. After that year, Gandhi wanted to shorten the distance between himself and socialists by means of admitting “coercion” if it was inevitable, and hence to prove that the theory would actually have the same potential for social reform as theirs.

     This point escaped the notice of Marxists, who criticized Gandhi as conservative regarding social transformation. It was also ignored by those who highly evaluated in the post-Cold War period the trusteeship theory as an alternative to communism or as an ethic supportive for capitalist or mixed economies.

     Gandhi basically believed that India should not adopt the Russian-style of communism forced on people by means of “violence”. It was, therefore, a great deviation from the principle of “non-violence” that he assumed “coercion” in the theory of trusteeship. In that sense, Gandhi’s concession to socialism was not small.

     Despite such remarkable strides towards socialism, Gandhi did not intend to completely align his theory with those of socialists. The assumed “coercion” has not completely changed the nature of the trusteeship theory. That is, although he conceived of the possibility for the state to confiscate an individual’s property by means of the least violence, to him this must be the last resort only when the theory proved unrealizable. While Gandhi stipulated the commissions for trustees, he wished that any forceful measure be avoided in line with the spirit of “non-violence”. Trusteeship as a “legalized institution” also seemed to be conceived as the extreme situation where it would be universally accepted among people.

     Having received a critical impact from socialism, the theory of trusteeship maintained itself within its basic framework. While Gandhi wanted to maintain his friendship with wealthy people he considered good-willed, he thought of the abolition of capitalism by means of trusteeship in 1939:

I am not ashamed to own that many capitalists are friendly towards me and do not fear me. They know that I desire to end capitalism almost, if not quite, as much as the most advanced socialist or communist. … My theory of ‘trusteeship’ is no makeshift, certainly no camouflage. I am confident that it will survive all other theories[87].

This statement proves that any understanding, either positive or negative, of this theory as supportive for capitalism is insufficient.

     Furthermore, Gandhi indicated his unique view of “socialism” towards the end of his life. At the Delhi Provincial Political Conference in July 1947, he stated:

It has become a fashion these days to call oneself a socialist. It is a mistaken notion that one can serve only if one carries a label of some ‘ism’. … I have always considered myself a servant of the workers and peasants but I have never found it necessary to call myself a socialist. … My socialism is of a different kind. … If socialism means turning enemies into friends I should be considered a genuine socialist. … I do not believe in the kind of socialism that the Socialist Party preaches. … When I die you will all admit that Gandhi was a true socialist[88].

     As indicated above, Gandhi’s theory of trusteeship certainly received critical impact from socialism after 1934, but kept a distance from it in essence until the end. Also drawing a line with thoughts supportive for capitalism in principle, it uniquely evolved within the basic framework shaped during the 1920s and 1930s.

     Gandhi indeed preached the theory of trusteeship, in order to bring about class harmony and “equal distribution” among people. In 1944, considering the possible exploitation of peasants by landlords, he set forth that “Closest co-operation amongst the peasants is absolutely necessary. To this end, special organizing bodies or committees should be formed”[89]. The “organizing bodies or committees” here would mean panchayats. He conceived of solidarity among peasants and of strike in the form of “non-violent non-cooperation”, in order for trusteeship to function in reality[90].

     In April 1947, Gandhi persuaded peasant and labour leaders to cooperate “with zamindars not by harassing or killing them”[91]. He warned zamindars and capitalists as well: “Zamindars and capitalists will not be able to survive if they continue to suppress peasants and labourers”[92].

     Class conflict was one of the greatest issues in India during the last twenty years of Gandhi’s life. He demanded that the ruling class behave as “trustees” to tackle this issue. After all, the theory of trusteeship was different from socialism, but not purposed to maintain the existing capitalist system, when it functioned as a means of social reform in Gandhi’s unique way.

Conclusion

Now we cannot easily accept the Marxist notion that the theory of trusteeship aimed to maintain the existing capitalist regime. While the theory would legitimate the positions of capitalists and landlords as “trustees”, for that legitimacy, they had to take on a huge burden to financially assist Gandhi’s works. He conceded to socialists in order to indicate that this theory also had the same vector of social reform as their theories did. This means that the positive understanding of Gandhism in conjunction with capitalism was also one-sided.

     With capitalists and landlords on the one hand and socialists on the other, Gandhi did not take any side. Ultimately, the theory of trusteeship was an attempt to shorten its distance with socialism to avoid class struggle, and to reallocate the wealth of the rich to the poor non-violently. With this theory Gandhi dreamt of establishing – to borrow Ivan Illich’s terminology – a “convivial”[93] society by means of mobilizing all the classes towards the construction of a politically and socio-economically new India.

     Gandhi did not regard capitalists and landlords as his opponents when he advocated the theory of trusteeship. It may be questioned whether this theory was consistent with another position of his, in which he condemned their greed and avarice. Yet only by means of carrying such philosophical contradictions inside himself, could he tackle the contradictions that existed within Indian society itself.

     The theory of trusteeship might have benefited capitalists and landlords as a result of its attempt to avoid class struggle. That is, though, an inevitable consequence due to the fact that Gandhi was willing to adapt some of his own principles, and that he remained within modernity in order to renovate it from the inside. By doing so, he endeavoured to redress, instead of veiling, the internal contradictions of Indian society in a peaceful manner, and this aspect of his work should be more highly valued.

Notes and References

[1] This is a revision of a chapter in my book, Minotake no keizairon: Gandi-shiso to sono Keifu, published in Japanese by Hosei University Press, Tokyo, in 2014.

[2] Jawaharlal Nehru, An Autobiography (New Delhi: Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund, 1996), p.528.

[3] ibid.

[4] ibid., p.515.

[5] E. M. S. Namboodiripad, The Mahatma and the Ism, revised edition (Calcutta: National Book Agency (P) Ltd., 1981), p.61.

[6] ibid., pp.117-18.

[7] Marietta T. Stepaniants, Gandhi and the World Today: A Russian Perspective, Ravi M. Bakaya translated (New Delhi: Rajendra Prasad Academy, 1998), p.12.

[8] Tokumatsu Sakamoto, “Gandi no Gendaiteki Igi”, Shiso, April 1957 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten), p.6.

[9] ibid.

[10] Sakamoto (1957), p.6.

[11] Tokumatsu Sakamoto, Ganji (Tokyo: Shimizu Shoin, 1969), pp.56-57.

[12] ibid., p.169.

[13] Yoshiro Royama, Mahatoma Ganji (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1950), p.92.

[14] Masao Naito, “Nihon niokeru Gandi Kenkyu no Kosatsu”, Indo Bunka, no.9, (Tokyo: Nichi-In Bunka Kyokai, 1969), p.30.

[15] Royama (1950), p.212.

[16] Naito (1969), p.31.

[17] Naito (1987), p.114.

[18] ibid., p.36.

[19] ibid.

[20] Surineni Indira, Gandhian Doctrine of Trusteeship (New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House, 1991), p.155.

[21] ibid., pp.7-8.

[22] Ajit K. Dasgupta, Gandhi’s Economic Thought (London: Routledge, 1996), p.131.

[23] Madhuri Wadhwa, Gandhi between Tradition and Modernity (New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications, 1997), pp.68-70.

[24] Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, An Autobiography or the Story of My Experiments with Truth (Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1997), pp.68, 221.

[25] Edmund, H. T. Snell, The Principles of Equity: Intended for the Use of Students and of Practitioners, 13^th edition (London: Stevens and Haynes, Law Publishers, 1901), p.125.

[26] ibid. pp.126-27.

[27] Gandhi (1997), p.221.

[28] John Ruskin, Unto This Last, Four Essays on the First Principles on Political Economy (New York: John Wiley & Son, 1866), p.40.

[29] Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (CWMG), 100 vols. (New Delhi: The Publication Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, The Government of India, 1958-94), v.8, pp.475-76.

[30] Gandhi (1997), p.332.

[31] See, for example, M. V. Kamath and V. B. Ker, The Story of Militant but Non-Violent Trade Unionism: A Bibliographical and Historical Study (Ahmadabad: Navajivan Mudranalaya, 1993), p.71.

[32] Gandhi (1997), p.356.

[33] ibid., pp.359-61.

[34] CWMG, v.14, p.286.

[35] Chamanlal Revri, The Indian Trade Union Movement: An Outline History 1880-1947 (New Delhi: Orient Longman, 1972), p.76.

[36] Kamath and Kher (1993), p.196.

[37] M. M. Juneja, The Mahatma & the Millionaire (a study in Gandhi-Birla relations) (Hisar: Modern Publishers, 1993), p.115.

[38] Ghanshyamdas Birla, In the Shadow of the Mahatma: A Personal Memoir (Bombay: Vakils, Feffer and Simons Private Ltd., 1968), pp.3-18.

[39] Louis Fischer, The Life of Mahatma Gandhi, 6^th edition (Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1995), p.479.

[40] ibid., p.480.

[41] Juneja (1993), pp.70-71.

[42] Ghani is a traditional way to manufacture oil. See K. T. Acharya, “Ghani: A Traditional method of oil processing in India”, FAO Corporate Document Repository (undated) (http://www.fao.org/docrep/T4660T/4660t0b.htm).

[43] Birla (1968), p.xv.

[44] Ghanshyamdas Birla, Towards Swadeshi: Wide-ranging Correspondence with Gandhiji (Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1980), p.3.

[45] Juneja (1993), pp.74-75.

[46] ibid., p.247.

[47] CWMG, v.76, pp.9-10.

[48] Bal Ram Nanda, In Gandhi’s Footsteps: The Life and Times of Jamnalal Bajaj (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1990), p.34.

[49] ibid., p.65.

[50] ibid., pp.51, 56, 120.

[51] ibid., p.146.

[52] ibid., pp.203-04.

[53] ibid., pp.353-54.

[54] CWMG, v.59, p.85.

[55] CWMG, v.68, p.249.

[56] Juneja (1993), p.79.

[57] CWMG, v.75, p.306. For Bajaj, see V. Kulkarni, A Family of Patriots (The Bajaj Family) (Bombay: Hind Kitab LTD.Kulkarni, 1951).

[58] Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Constructive Programme: Its Meaning and Place (Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1945), p.5.

[59] Vincent Sheean recorded that Gandhi uttered the following to one of Tagore’s disciples: “At present, the machine is helping a small minority to live on the exploitation of the masses.  The motive force of this minority is not humanity and love of their kind but greed and avarice”. See Vincent Sheean, Lead, Kindly Light (New York: Random House, 1949), p.158.

[60] CWMG, v.35, p.80.

[61] ibid., v.36, p.289.

[62] ibid., v.46, pp.234-35.

[63] ibid., v. 58, p.219.

[64] ibid., v. 72, p.399.

[65] There is another view that the Communist Party of India (CPI) was established in December 1925, when they held the Kanpur Conference with the resolution that its