A Review of Gandhian Economics: Gandhi and Kumarappa

Aryaman Kakkar

A Review of Gandhian Economics: Gandhi and Kumarappa

The Gandhi campaign for the development of the home-made cloth industry is no mere fad of a romantic eager to revive the past, but a practical attempt to relieve the poverty and uplift the standard of the village. However, we run into many issues when we try to see this system of economy practically implemented. How would Gandhian economics, as explored by by J.C. Kumarappa affect the livelihood of people upon implementation?

J. C. Kumarappa (1892–1960), an Indian economist. Image Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Gandhian economics as delineated by J.C. Kumarappa speaks of the evils of imperialism and centralised production. Kumarappa would encourage the peoples of India to engage in self-discipline and in establishing localised self-sustaining systems which would focus not on the fulfillment of desires but by living only through necessary means and not indulging in extravagance. There are however multiple oversights committed by Kumarappa that would yield devastating results for society.

Kumarappa writes about the violence imposed in the setting where everyone’s material desires are fulfilled in order to achieve imperialistic conditions of production. However, he does not realise that wanting everyone to behave and act according to the same moral standards is violence in itself

However, it must be noted that Gandhi did not attempt to force his moral vision upon the world.

With that clarity in mind, If the prosperity of humankind is the goal, it cannot be established through a different kind of empire. It must be the people’s choice. Through the imposition and practice of Gandhian economics, all peoples would be subjected to the same method of functioning with varying levels of success depending on a variety of demographic factors like culture, religion, geography, and others which Kumarappa and Gandhi have failed to take into considerations (14; Kumarappa). They say it will not be subject to foreign domination (12). Will it then be subject to localised systems of dominance? Where those who do not discipline themselves using the Daily spinning hour will face punitive action from those who do in the name of establishing a peaceful and equitive society*?*

While their [Gandhi’s and Kumarappa’s] moral vision while strict, it was not one of imposition. The preceding paragraphs then serve to critique not just their ideologies, but all universalist moral codes in general.

“If we ignore these limitations and use money as though it represented absolute values we are in danger of bringing about inequity and afford chances of exploitation” (21). What Kumarappa again fails to acknowledge is the mercurial value of each commodity that would then be bartered. How can you say that a calf and a radio would be of equal value without also considering a third object that is of equal value to both? This is how currency operates, by leveling the playing field and establishing set rules which propagate peace and equity where otherwise barter would sow seeds of dissent due to fluctuating prices everywhere, limiting exchange to a singular, perishable commodity instead of a currency that may be exchanged for commodities of equal value monetary value instead of material value - which may fluctuate based from region to region. Money may still be exchanged and changed based on currency values based on markets, but there is no certainty that a commodity will retain its value in a different localised system.

Instead of getting rid of currency altogether, if the issue is the accumulation of wealth under the rich, tax the rich greater than others and distribute wealth equitably in the form of development of public education, healthcare, and other services so that the nation may prosper. This way the poor have the means to alleviate themselves from the socio-economic bracket they would be pigeon-holed into under Gandhian Economy. I say pigeon-holed because Kumarappa would see that farmers remain farmers by relieving the drudgery associated with the work rather than present options and opportunities into different professions because Kumarappa disregards human drive. People would continue doing the things they love and are passionate about even if it does not bring them monetary benefits. The elaborate and extravagant worldbuilding within Minecraft and novel-length fanfictions written by authors and creators who receive no monetary compensation for their creative efforts is proof enough of the human drive that is the impetus behind a sustaining society.

In conclusion, I would not recommend Kumarappa’s essays as they consist of glaringly obvious oversights which would lead to the immediate failure of the Gandhian economy and the society they would try to construct.

“Foreign trade should be strictly limited to surplus articles that we do not need, and for obtaining surplus articles from other countries which they do not need”. What Kumarappa fails to consider is that these items would then be considered luxuries in the countries they are being imported into, and does that not necessitate a fulfillment of desires rather than needs? If an economic good is in limited supply with great demand due to its limited supply, does that not establish a reality where some privileged peoples would have access and others will not simply by virtue of not living within close proximity to import/export centres or other factors?

“It needs co-operation and our willing submission to the conditions which will ultimately lead us to realise this economy”. Just as the foreign traders were invited to establish dominance, so must we invite this ideology to colonise social systems for the possibility of a Gandhian utopia, which is in and of itself contradictory. Kumarappa would have the Indian peoples to be submissive to Gandhian ideology while speaking of freedom in the same breath. While both Gandhian ideology and freedom are ideologies which can never be truly realised as their ideal selves, exchanging one system demanding submission for another makes no difference to the status quo. The only change will occur in the faces of our oppressors: from white faces, we shall look upon the masks of our own country peoples and call them colonisers.

“Centralised method of production is the parent of Imperialism”. What Kumarappa fails to recognize is that if a product is made and sold within a local, self-sustaining system, there will be a point where no one will need the product until it has been efficiently used. Are the craftsmen and producers of these products to just starve and live off of the scraps during the months where no one in the localised system may require their products to the extent that it provides a livable wage? Furthermore, in the case of a surplus of products that then need to be exported, how would that be possible? Even if you exported from one localised system to another within the same geographical region, there would still be no way to determine the moral standards of production, as it has not been supervised by one’s neighbours. Should one then just remain in one’s village on achieving market saturation and starve or sell their wares in another localised system where their modes of production are not trusted, and thus not sell a single unit of product?