Show Para
Passage 3
The task which Gandhiji undertook was not only the achievement of political freedom but also the establishment of a social order based on truth and non-violence, unity and peace, equality and universal brotherhood, and maximum freedom for all. This unfinished part of his experiment was perhaps even more difficult to achieve than the achievement of political freedom. Political struggle involved fight against a foreign power and all one could do was either join it or wish it success and give it his moral support. In establishing the social order of this pattern, there was a lively possibility of a conflict arising between groups and classes of our own people. Experience shows that man values his possessions even more than his life because in the former he sees the means for perpetuation and survival of his descendants even after his body is reduced to ashes. A new order cannot be established without radically changing the mind and attitude of men towards property and, at some stage or the other, the ‘haves’ have to yield place to the ‘have- nots'. We have seen, in our time, attempts to achieve a kind of egalitarian society and the picture of it after it was achieved. But, this was done, by and large, through the use of physical force.
In the ultimate analysis, it is difficult, if not impossible, to say that the instinct to possess has been rooted out or that it will not reappear in an even worse from under a different guise. It may even be that, like a gas kept confined within containers under great pressure, or water held by a big dam, once a barrier breaks, the reaction will one day sweep back with a violence equal in extent and intensity to what was used to establish and maintain the outward egalitarian form. This enforced egalitarianism contains, in its bosom, the seed of its own destruction.
The root cause of class conflict is possessiveness or the acquisitive instinct. So long as the ideal that is to be achieved is one of securing the maximum material satisfaction, possessiveness can neither be suppressed nor eliminated but will grow on what it feeds. Nor will it cease to be such- it is possessiveness, still, whether it is confined to only a few or is shared by many.
If egalitarianism is to endure, it has to be based not on the possession of the maximum material goods by a few or by all but on voluntary, enlightened renunciation of those goods which cannot be shared by others or can be enjoyed only at the expense of others. This calls for substitution of spiritual values for purely material ones. The paradise of material satisfaction, that is sometimes equated with progress these days neither spells peace nor progress. Mahatma Gandhi has shown us how the acquisitive instinct inherent in man could be transmuted by the adoption of the ideal of trusteeship by those who ‘have' for the benefit of all those who ‘have not’ so that, instead of leading to exploitation and conflict, it would become a means and incentive for the amelioration and progress of society, respectively.
The task which Gandhiji undertook was not only the achievement of political freedom but also the establishment of a social order based on truth and non-violence, unity and peace, equality and universal brotherhood, and maximum freedom for all. This unfinished part of his experiment was perhaps even more difficult to achieve than the achievement of political freedom. Political struggle involved fight against a foreign power and all one could do was either join it or wish it success and give it his moral support. In establishing the social order of this pattern, there was a lively possibility of a conflict arising between groups and classes of our own people. Experience shows that man values his possessions even more than his life because in the former he sees the means for perpetuation and survival of his descendants even after his body is reduced to ashes. A new order cannot be established without radically changing the mind and attitude of men towards property and, at some stage or the other, the ‘haves’ have to yield place to the ‘have- nots'. We have seen, in our time, attempts to achieve a kind of egalitarian society and the picture of it after it was achieved. But, this was done, by and large, through the use of physical force.
In the ultimate analysis, it is difficult, if not impossible, to say that the instinct to possess has been rooted out or that it will not reappear in an even worse from under a different guise. It may even be that, like a gas kept confined within containers under great pressure, or water held by a big dam, once a barrier breaks, the reaction will one day sweep back with a violence equal in extent and intensity to what was used to establish and maintain the outward egalitarian form. This enforced egalitarianism contains, in its bosom, the seed of its own destruction.
The root cause of class conflict is possessiveness or the acquisitive instinct. So long as the ideal that is to be achieved is one of securing the maximum material satisfaction, possessiveness can neither be suppressed nor eliminated but will grow on what it feeds. Nor will it cease to be such- it is possessiveness, still, whether it is confined to only a few or is shared by many.
If egalitarianism is to endure, it has to be based not on the possession of the maximum material goods by a few or by all but on voluntary, enlightened renunciation of those goods which cannot be shared by others or can be enjoyed only at the expense of others. This calls for substitution of spiritual values for purely material ones. The paradise of material satisfaction, that is sometimes equated with progress these days neither spells peace nor progress. Mahatma Gandhi has shown us how the acquisitive instinct inherent in man could be transmuted by the adoption of the ideal of trusteeship by those who ‘have' for the benefit of all those who ‘have not’ so that, instead of leading to exploitation and conflict, it would become a means and incentive for the amelioration and progress of society, respectively.
© examsnet.com
Question : 12
Total: 100
Go to Question: