Reconstructing Development in Covid Affected India: Relevance of the Gandhian Model of Development

- By Sreelekha RG*

Abstract

The global impact of the COVID-19 epidemic is unparalleled, offering significant challenges to civilization. Covid’s impacts on the international economy, including India, include sudden job losses, rising food prices, reduced labour supply and productivity, enormous unemployment, and reduced consumption. India’s condition is exacerbated by its heavy reliance on agriculture and the unorganised sector, as well as a lack of attention to local empowerment and unskilled labour, all of which contribute to high unemployment. India could only develop based on its own traditions, and development methods taken from the West would be detrimental rather than beneficial. The current pandemic has taught us the ideals of the Gandhian development model, which emphasises self-reliance, decentralisation, and long-term development. This article attempts to re-emphasize the Gandhian model of development as a viable alternative development strategy for the post-Covid Indian economy.

Introduction

Covip-19 has been classified as a public health and economic threat. In many ways, the current economic crisis is exceptional. A lack of effective demand and supply causes typical downturns. Manufacturing is usually the most cyclical sector of the economy, but service sectors have been struck the worst this time. GDP decelerates quicker than consumption in common parlance, as consumers smooth their spending throughout economic cycles; but, consumption is decreasing significantly this time. Supply disruptions and panic buying may jeopardise food security; the rapid removal of service sector jobs and the rise in food costs have produced economic hardship, particularly for those in the informal sector.¹

While the global economy has been hit hard, India’s economy has also not been spared. The global GDP decrease rate for the 2020-21 financial year was 3.3 percent, with emerging markets and developing nations losing 2.2 percent. The influence of COVID-19 is highlighted by the fact that India’s growth rate of 4 percent in 2019 was higher than the global average of 2.8 percent and 3.6 percent for comparable nations.² By the end of April 2020, India’s jobless rate had reached a new high of 27. 1 percent. According to a survey by the CMIE (Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy), about 122 million workers had lost their employment by the end of April, with roughly 70 percent of them being small businesses.³ The situation is particularly deadly in India, where agriculture and the unorganised sector employ most people. Since independence, Indian economic authorities have paid little attention to village empowerment, resulting in many unemployed people. India’s illiterate education system also contributed to unemployment. Because of these factors, the less educated relocated from rural to urban areas in search of work. Unfortunately, in India, most jobs are in the private sector, and most people work as labourers. The COVID-19 epidemic has exacerbated the problem in this case.⁴

The major development paradigms of modernisation and dependency are being questioned in this context. Westernisation, urbanisation, literacy, the dissolution of joint families, free entrepreneurship, cultural secularisation, and social mobility are all considered indices of development by modernisation theorists.⁵ While the dependence paradigm, which sprang from a critique of modernisation, suggests a new application of Marxist theorising on imperialism and the development concept it represents. According to the dependency theorists, the coloniser’s home and the colony have a ‘centre — periphery’ historical relationship. The worldwide division of labour, skill, and knowledge is based on the geography of the ‘centre’ and the ‘periphery.’ Because the periphery’s poverty is a result of the center’s affluence, the periphery cannot get out of it without changing the historically defined system.⁶

Another development paradigm, known as ‘alternative development, evolved from a critique of modernisation and its effects. It focuses on development content- its methods and outcomes — and has recently entered popular debate. These alternative theories are qualitative and ‘spiritual’ approaches to development that enable ‘deprived’ individuals to participate in the process of social development in order to restore their ‘capacity,’ to use Amartya Sen’s phrase.⁷ The intellectual background of this paradigm lies in Schumacher’s concept of ‘small is beautiful’. This paradigm sees the individual as the unit of development process. What Schumacher said — man is small, and, therefore, small is beautiful’ — came exactly from this⁸ and Gandhiji’s emphasis on self-reliance and autonomy of small communities and small-scale production. Both of them argue that solutions to the problems of development can be found in structural reforms in favour of people's participation in decision-making, increased independence of communities, and physiocentric planning aimed at the development of appropriate technology.⁹ Gandhian path of development did not accept the theory of unlimited wants and had several strong reservations about giving free rein to modern science and technology. It also argued that India could grow only based on its own tradition and that borrowed models from the West, both capitalist and socialist, would do more harm than good.¹⁰

As a result, the alternative development strategy put forward numerous developmental options. While the exact combination would vary by country, key aspects in this newer paradigm include information dissemination equality, economic rewards, and other factors. The awareness that rural and urban poor should be the core audience for development initiatives and that, more broadly, eliminating socio-economic gaps by bringing up the lagging sectors was a major goal in many countries resulted from this new focus on development. People’s involvement in self-development planning and implementation is generally accompanied by the decentralisation of some of these activities to the village level. Self-reliance and independence in development with an emphasis on the potential of local resources are the major hallmark of this strategy.¹¹

Likewise, according to post-development theory, which was developed in the 1980s and 1990s through the works of scholars like A. Escobar, G. Esteva, M. Rahnema, W. Sachs, J. Ferguson, S. Latouche, G. Rist, and F. Sabel, the concept of development portrays the North as advanced and progressive while the South is portrayed as. backward, degenerate, and primitive.¹² The post-development school of thought is interested in local culture and knowledge, has a critical stance towards the established scientific discourses, and aims to promote localised and pluralistic grassroots movements for an alternative to development.¹³

Schmelzer(2022) pointed out that, as with previous capitalist crises, the coronavirus pandemic’s economic turbulence exposed how unstable and reliant on economic growth and the globalised trade modern economic systems are and how strongly the economic growth paradigm continues to influence politics globally. Ecology, socio-economic, feminist, South-North, cultural, anti-capitalist, critique of industrialisation, and reactionary growth criticism were the eight currents of growth criticism that Schmelzer examined. Since increasing GDP (Gross Domestic Product) disregards declining stocks and the economy as a subsystem of the environment, the ecological criticism of growth is founded on the premise that limitless growth is impossible in a limited world. According to the social-economic growth critique, economic expansion undervalues human lives and impedes everyone’s well-being and equality. The feminist criticism of growth contends that GDP excludes non-monetary labour, household, and subsistence tasks, all of which are mostly performed by women, and that economic growth is founded on gendered over-exploitation and devalues reproduction. The South-North critique of growth argues that growth relies on and reproduces relations of domination, extraction, and exploitation between the capitalist centre and periphery as well as inequality in power hierarchies. Here, human beings and nature were commodified, culture and knowledge devalued, and regions and people in the global South were reduced to the dependent role of raw material suppliers without large value-added contributions of their own, causing ever-deepening inequalities and unequal power relations. According to cultural critique, economic development and institutional structures have fostered alienating ways of living, working, and interacting with one another and the natural world. Capitalist exploitation and accumulation underpin and drive criticism of capitalism. Similarly, reactionary critiques of growth argue that economic growth destroys racially defined bioregions and communities, threatens traditional lifestyles through increased trade, global exchanges, and migration, and is driven by population growth, which should be stopped. Critics of industrialism also claim that it gives rise to undemocratic productive forces and techniques.¹⁴

All the above concepts point to the notion that development is dynamic. It was first associated with economic development, which was, for a while, seen as synonymous with ‘economic growth’ defined as an increase in Gross National Product (GNP) and per capita income. The phrases ‘development’ and ‘growth’ were sometimes used interchangeably.¹⁵ This overemphasis on economic expansion also meant large-scale industrialisation, which led to a higher level of modernisation, all of which resulted in an increase in poverty, unemployment, and inequality (in terms of the income distribution, regional disparities, and social inequality). The idea of distributive fairness, or redistribution with growth, was vigorously promoted due to this development fallout.¹⁶ This is a manner of looking at development as a process of expanding the freedoms of the people i.e., the removal of a person’s deprivation.¹⁷ This implies that the success of all development programmes is assessed not only in terms of their impact on incomes and outputs but also on people’s lives. As a result, progress necessitates excellent governance, which entails expanded participation in institutions, a decentralised power dynamic, freedom from discrimination, respect for human rights, and people-centred economic and social policies.¹⁸ Overall, development can be characterised as a process of improving people’s well-being.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi made major contributions to human welfare and progress. COVID-19 is a wake-up call for the entire world to reconsider Gandhi's ideas, beliefs, and practices. In the aftermath of the Pandemic, Gandhi's importance and principles have resurfaced. The Gandhian concepts of Swadeshi, Swachhata, Swaraj, and Sarvodaya can be useful for rebuilding the post-Cold War world order.¹⁹ COVID-19 has thrown the globe into chaos, disrupting all aspects of human life. It has altered our consumption patterns, jolted our sophisticated production systems, altered modalities of education and entertainment, and forced us to reconsider our ‘social animal’ identity as a race that has increasingly learned to rule this world. We are obliged to reassess Gandhi’s economic paradigm due to the pressures of circumstance. Gandhian economics, based on non-violence, honesty, and non-covetousness, is immediately antagonistic to mainstream economics, starting with the containment of demands. His ideas of labour dignity, self-sufficiency, a robust village economy, and the principle of trusteeship emerge as logical corollaries of this system of thought.²⁰ The Gandhian model of rural development is based on villagers’ freedom from exploitation, simple living and high thinking, voluntary reduction of materialistic wants, the dignity of labour, use of indigenous (swadeshi) products, and a balance between ends and means, all of which are necessary for the survival of non-violence and truth.²¹

Gandhi's concept of swaraj suggests that each individual's autonomy and freedom are constrained by their duties and obligations to other people and communities. The idea of societal boundaries, which result from contested social processes that define collectively agreed-upon thresholds that societies agree not to cross, is related to this idea. These restrictions cover issues like injustice, subordination, exploitation, consumerism, protection of the commons, and poverty and inequality. Societal borders are physical boundaries that protect the resources and energy needed to provide sufficient circumstances for a good existence for all. These boundaries are typically established by political norms within societies. There is no assurance that societies will choose to limit their own growth democratically or that this can be done through the creation of the agreement. Progressive social movements, other political actors, political education, and alternative projects might help in this situation by reinforcing and promoting sociocultural values and norms based on social justice considerations that, in turn, must be ingrained in social relationships and institutions. All cultures must broadly acknowledge the importance of such boundaries and influence the formulation of public policy to be considered socially meaningful. In particular, societal boundaries are important for individuals who live in precarious conditions and whose voices are not typically heard in decision-making spaces for coping with the ecological crisis’s worsening socio-economic effects.²²

According to Trantas (2021), the sustainable development rhetoric may have various facets that promote social and environmental welfare, but it is essentially a top-down reform project that seeks to eliminate the social and environmental externalities to economic growth. Although, in theory, it encourages stakeholder and civic engagement, public participation is limited and is carried out in a fashion that does not substantially challenge the prevailing economic paradigm. It is governed by governments that adhere to the logic of capitalism. The degrowth paradigm challenges conventional wisdom and provides alternatives to the sustainability argument.²³ Degrowth focuses on transformational change in six areas: (1) democratising the economy by bolstering the commons and solidarity economy, transferring utilities into democratic ownership, providing institutional support for cooperative workplaces, or proposing macroeconomic coordination and participatory planning; (2) redistribution and social security policies ensuring access to basic services for all; (3) democratising technology, supported by policies like assess and reinvest; and (4) democratising government by ensuring that all citizens have access to information; 5) democratisation of social metabolism, which entails the dismantling of significant portions of the production and consumption sectors and the development of new systems in their place. Examples of this include changing taxation policies to discourage harmful industrial activity or putting a moratorium on future fossil fuel infrastructure projects like mega-highways and airports; (6) international solidarity, such as by eliminating the debts of countries in the Global South and transferring resources, technology, and money as compensation for climate debt, or by reforming the international monetary system to check unequal hierarchies between nations.²⁴

As already stated, our consumption habits changed dramatically during the lockdown. Consumers are becoming more aware of the differences between essential and non-essential consumption. This is a form of ‘desire confinement yet circumstances compel it. In order to combat the threat posed by Covid, households were encouraged to adopt a healthy lifestyle, and individuals began to favour natural and herbal therapies after learning about their efficacy and long-term consequences. Ceremonies have grown more sparse as large gatherings enhance the spread of disease. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, humanity was compelled to consider Gandhiji’s simple living philosophy.²⁵

Fundamentals of Gandhian Understanding of Development

Gandhian ideas of rural development is a multidimensional process that includes Gram Swaraj self-rule), Atmanirbhar (self-reliance), Ram Rajya (the rule of law established by moral values), Panchayat Raj (decentralisation of power, economy, policies, and decisions at Panchayat), Ahimsha (politics based on non-violence), Satya (administration based on truth and honesty), Sevabhaba (service attitude), Sahyog (cooperation), and Swabhiman (self-dignity of individual). His concept stresses the upliftment of the commoner by allowing him to gain access to basic necessities like as food, clothing, shelter, health, and education through working locally and with dignity.²⁶ Gandhian development is based on a moral and ethical perspective on socio-economic and political growth. Truth and non-violence are fundamental factors in his idea that influence human activities and decisions. He emphasises complete decentralisation of economic structure, with the village controlling all economic powers and functions and acting as a self-regulating and self-sufficient development unit. Gandhi's economic development concept is based on humanity, balanced and complete development of body, mind, and soul.²⁷

Thus the Gandhian scheme of holistic development has the following core objectives: human development, particularly moral development, to increase capacity; development of the body, mind, and spirit in a balanced manner through manual and intellectual labour; social justice, rights, and freedom in development; self-sufficiency and self-reliance achieved through rural development; and increased income and jobs to help people out of poverty.²⁸

The COVID-19 issue caused a shift in production patterns. In order to spread risk, reduce vulnerability, boost resilience, and stimulate industrial development, poor countries are increasingly constructing regional value chains. The regional pacts can ensure that small businesses cooperate to lower transaction costs and benefit from economies of scale by identifying and sustaining horizontal and vertical linkages.²⁹ Instead of highly centralised organisations, decentralised production, and marketing are frequently required to promote local resilience and economic recovery.³⁰ There must be a push for more decentralisation based on the subsidiarity principle. COVID-19 has highlighted concerns about local government funding, flaws in the health mandate granted to local governments, and the extent to which they can manage health issues on their own. Even when local governments deal with pandemic management, keeping services running and protecting people’s livelihoods is more critical. The role of municipal governments is perhaps most visible when dealing with the pandemic’s humanitarian component. Because they are closest to the people, local governments will have a greater potential to influence behavioural changes among their constituents, which will be especially important during a pandemic.³¹

Gandhi's economic theory was based on local self-sufficiency, or Grama Swaraj. Every village should be self-sufficient in two basic needs: food and clothing. Everyone in the family had to ply the loom, spin yarn, and grow their own rice and vegetables. Gandhi's dream of Ramarajya was to be realised in three stages. The first goal was for India to gain independence. The second goal was to create a primarily nonviolent state through the evolution of Gram Swaraj, or Village Republic. The third step aspired to attain Ramaraj, or God’s kingdom on earth, which would be a completely nonviolent and democratic society. Thus, in Gandhiji’s vision, the perfect social order will be realised through the accomplishment of Swaraj, Gram Swaraj, and Ramraj.³² Gandhiji’s vision of village Swaraj includes concepts like as trusteeship, Swadeshi, full employment, bread labour, self-sufficiency, decentralisation, equality, and Nai Talim. The Gandhian dream’s ideal village concept was broad, covering economic, social, political, and educational aspects.³³

According to the Gandhian notion of Village Swaraj, it is a fully autonomous republic that is unreliant on its neighbours for its basic requirements. As a result, the first priority for each hamlet will be to raise its own food crops and cotton for its textiles. It should feature a cow reserve, as well as a relaxation area and a playground for both adults and children. Then, if more land becomes available, it will be used to produce beneficial money crops, excluding ganja, tobacco, opium, and other such substances. The village will maintain a community theatre, school, and public hall. It will have its own waterworks, assuring a constant supply of pure water. Controlled wells or tanks can be used to accomplish this. Every action shall be carried out cooperatively as much as feasible. There will be no castes like the ones we have now, with their different levels of untouchability. The village community will authorise non-violence and non-cooperation using the Satyagraha technique. Village guards will be required to provide a mandated service and will be selected by rotation from the village registration. The village will be governed by a Panchayat, consisting of five adults, male and female, who will be elected annually by the adult villagers who meet the necessary standards. They will have all the necessary authority and jurisdiction and serve as legislative, judicial, and executive powers. Even the current government, whose only practical relationship with the villages is the exaction of local tax, may help any village establish such a republic today without any interference. There exists a perfect democracy founded on individual liberty. Each person is the architect of his or her own government. The law of non-violence governs him and his government. He and his hamlet can stand up to the might of the world. For every villager, the law states that he must die in defence of his and his village’s honour.³⁴

Gandhi's ideas of Swadeshi and independence are two sides of the same coin that still hold true in today’s more globalised society. The concept of self-reliance is as old as humanity, and it is a dynamic movement that should be led from the bottom up rather than from the top down.³⁵ The COVID-19 pandemic situation emphasises the importance of Gandhi's ideals in reducing the rampant impacts of capitalism and globalisation. Self-reliance enables the most efficient use of local resources, promotes local inventiveness, fosters trust in one’s institutions and technologies, reduces alienation, ensures ecological balance and neighbourhood unity, and reduces exploitation. Similarly, food self-sufficiency will prevent any country or region from using food as a weapon in a crisis situation. As a result, self-reliance provides more autonomy and independence.³⁶

The Gandhian development paradigm is founded on the idea of sustainable development. Gandhi was a strong critic of modern industrial society, which significantly influenced humanity and the environment. It promotes nothing but a selfish pursuit of worldly pleasures and a craving for wealth. Modern civilisation was considered “Satanic” by Gandhiji. The unlimited plurality of wants is a key element of modem culture. As a result, Gandhi exhorted people to limit their wants and consumption, thereby decreasing the strain on the environment by eliminating harmful waste.³⁷ In his book Small is Beautiful, Schumacher says:

From an economic point of view, the central concept of wisdom is permanence. We must study the economics of permanence. Nothing makes economic sense unless its continuance for a long time can be projected without running into absurdities. There can be ‘growth’ towards a limited objective but there cannot be unlimited. Generalised growth. It is more than likely, as Gandhi said, that ‘Earth provides enough to satisfy- every man’s need, but not for every man’s greed’. Permanence is incompatible with a predatory attitude which rejoices in the fact that ‘what were luxuries for our fathers have become necessities for us’.³⁸

Gandhi is the best example of the human ecology worldview since he did not acknowledge distinct rules for various domains of human life but considered all spheres as one. Gandhi is recognised as an ecological advocate around the world for these reasons, notably by the well-known Green movement and its derivatives. Indeed, ecological concerns arose from his concentration on a basic needs model of social order, which would take just what is absolutely necessary for human subsistence from nature rather than exploiting it for short-term gains. Gandhi had to admit that life entails a certain amount of inadvertent aggression against nature. What we can do is minimise it to the greatest extent possible.³⁹

The Gandhian model recommends that bio-manures and bio-pesticide be used instead of chemical fertilisers and pesticides in sustainable agriculture; khadi and village industries are environmentally friendly because they provide jobs and help to reduce poverty. As a result, we should promote khadi and village-made products; use appropriate technologies that our villagers are able to comprehend and operate themselves; and use renewable energy sources like solar, which is limitless and inexhaustible. Water and wind energy can also be harnessed for the production of electricity.⁴⁰

Small-scale and cottage enterprises will be given a conscious role in our planned economy in order to achieve Gandhi's socio-economic goals, particularly equitable and sustainable growth. As a result, it is necessary to return to Gandhi’s economic doctrine, which always favoured Swadesi and local self-reliance. If all available land and resources were completely utilised, it would undoubtedly meet the demands of all human beings. Gandhian economic thinking is based on a strong emphasis on ‘Plain Living,’ which aids in reducing your wants and becoming self-sufficient. Consumer desire is similar to animal appetite, which will travel to the ends of the earth in quest of gratification.⁴¹ Gandhij’s concepts of self-sufficiency and Swadeshi are relevant in the context of the COVID-19 epidemic, in which all levels of government have been obliged to lock their borders and operate their economies within a confined area in order to contain the virus’s spread. Furthermore, people are willing to put their greed aside in order to meet their basic requirements. They looked to their immediate surroundings and neighbourhood to address their day-to-day requirements.

Gandhi's vision of Sarvodaya might be viewed as the epitome of long-term development based on non-violence. Sarvodaya is a Sanskrit term that refers to everyone’s upliftment and is closely related to what we call the common good, also known as common weal in Western tradition.⁴² John Ruskin’s 1862 essay ‘Unto This Last’ was a major impact on Gandhi's understanding of the common good. The contrast between political and mercantile economy is at the heart of Ruskin’s book. The former aims to preserve and promote the common good, or, as Ruskin expressed it, to increase the nation’s wealth and well-being, whereas the latter aims to increase the wealth of individuals.⁴³ As a result, it is critical to concentrate on the true purpose of all economic activity, which is to maintain the “pleasure and power of all human nature, body and soul.”⁴⁴ As Gandhi repeatedly submits, “it is when I discipline, control, and sacrifice my ego-driven self, when I identify with the needs of the suffering and unfree other, that is when the deeper, nonviolent, truthful self/Self, God, Reality, and so on, are revealed and become an essential part of my process of self-realization”.⁴⁵ The Sarvodaya plan aims to create a social structure based on non-violence, truth, love, and cooperation. The Sarvodaya Plan calls for; (a) economic equality; (b) complete consideration of cultivators and labourers; (c) the formation of independent committees by all cultivators; (d) all labourers forming their own unions; (e) all cultivators (technical or basic) education; and (f) hand-spinning in every family. Gandhi’s Sarvodaya is essentially a redevelopment programme for Indian villages. The revitalization of the village economy includes, among other things, the development of village and cottage industries, improved village sanitation, protection from robbers and wild animals, agricultural development, cooperating in all activities, creating village panchayats, being self-sufficient in necessities, abolishing the caste system, and eliminating illiteracy. A significant emphasis would be placed on local industry growth, sanitation, and cleanliness.⁴⁶

...India’s economic constitution, and, for that matter, the world’s, should be such that no one under it goes hungry or without clothing. To put it another way, everyone should be able to find an adequate job to make ends meet. And only if the means of production of the most basic necessities of existence remains in the hands of the people will this vision be universally achieved. These should be freely available to all, just as God’s air and water are or should be; they should not be turned into a mode of transportation for the profit of others. It would be unjust for any country, nation, or group of people to monopolise them. The failure to follow this fundamental principle is the source of the poverty that we see today, not only in this miserable country but also in other regions of the globe.⁴⁷

Gandhi's perspective mirrors that of John Rawls, who claimed that the government is expected to aim for the common good, that is, to preserve conditions and achieve goals that benefit everyone equally.⁴⁸ Rawls’ theory of justice is founded on the following two premises. To begin with, everyone should be entitled to the broadest range of fundamental liberties that are compatible with a commensurate set of liberties for others. Second, social and economic inequalities must be structured so that they are both fairly expected to benefit everyone and linked to open positions and offices. While wealth and income distribution are not equal, it must be to everyone’s benefit.⁴⁹

Gandhi's economy also included the concept of bread labour. He emphasised the importance of physical labour, claiming that physical labour rather than intellectual feats bring on gains. It is a well-known scientific fact that where woods are attracted, the amount of water obtained increases as the amount of vegetation increases. The Gandhian notion of bread labour advocates the use of human hands and bodies to produce vital commodities such as vegetables and clothes rather than machinery.⁵⁰

The Gandhian distribution model was based on moral values and some local institutions. Trusteeship was such a value that he explained it could bring equality of wealth in society. He believed the wealthy possessed no more rupee than their neighbours. It was their self-denial to accumulate wealth at the expense of the poor fellows.⁵¹ Gandhi remarked: The rich man will be left in possession of his wealth, of which he will use what he reasonably requires for his personal needs and will act as a trustee for the remainder to be used for the society. In this argument, honesty on the part of the trustee is assumed.⁵²

Today, the world is fighting to obtain essential goods and medical equipment, with only a few countries having sufficient supplies. Fortunately, India has a sufficient number of pharmaceutical enterprises and has progressed in manufacture and supply, but it remains reliant on other countries for raw materials. This disaster has taught us Gandhi's Self-Reliance lesson, which states that every country must have basic facilities in order to survive. Gandhi's ideals are particularly pertinent here because he emphasised local self-reliance. As a result, what is required today is a major commitment to action in order to ensure that opportunities are equal for all. And whatever action is advocated, it must be done in a Gandhian manner, as a moral force exercise. For India’s social regeneration, a place of thousands of poor labourers have been forced to return home as a result of the pandemic adherence to Gandhian concept of rural swaraj and Swadeshi is desirable because it advised the youth to stay in the countryside for the sake of their families, society, and nation. Rather than being a consumer, serve and become a producer. Gandhiji thought that villages should produce and prepare their own necessities, and that once those requirements were met, they should help the metropolis. Contribute to each other’s success in this way, in the spirit of mutual cooperation. These principles proved to be quite valuable during COVID-19 and its aftermath, as we realised and experienced the use of Swadeshi and purchasing items and everyday necessities from merchants near us.⁵³

Development will require fresh thinking that is distinct from previous thinking in that it will take poverty seriously. Because human people are the primary and ultimate source of all wealth, whatever is good for the rich must also be good for the poor. Nothing will ever bear true fruit if self-proclaimed experts and high-handed planners disregard or bully them.⁵⁴ As a part of 14th Central Finance Commission recommendation, the centrally organised People’s Plan Campaign⁵⁵, which began in 2018, has proven to be an effective tool for assuring GPDP preparation (Gram Panchayat Development Plan). The national government undertook a baseline survey of Gram Panchayats (Mission Antyodaya) as part of this programme. Mission Antyodaya was introduced in the Union Budget for 2017-18 to establish a convergence model that may integrate poverty-eradication initiatives. Mission Antyodaya is a framework for improving lives and livelihoods via responsibility and convergence. The Mission’s main goal is to improve the accountability and outcomes of a significant pool of resources invested under various schemes for the country’s rural areas’ sustainable and inclusive growth and development.⁵⁶ People, their education, organisation, and discipline are at the heart of development. All resources remain with unrealized potential without these three. No matter how damaged, every country with a high level of education, organisation, and discipline achieved an ‘economic miracle.’ In reality, these were simply miracles for those who were only interested in the tip of the iceberg. The tip had been shattered, but the foundation of education, organisation, and discipline remained intact.⁵⁷

Gandhi believed that health was more valuable than gold and silver as genuine wealth. The Key to Health is among Gandhiji’s most well-known publications. His definition of health is having an easy body. To live a healthy life, Gandhiji’s teachings emphasise the importance of understanding oneself and one’s body. He claims that the five elements—Earth, Water, Light, Air, and Vacancy or Ether—that make up the human body are those that ancient thinkers identified. He had faith in the body’s capacity for recovery as well as in nature’s capacity for healing. However, the interaction of the factors mentioned above is a must to clear the path. Gandhiji’s suggestions for enhancing health include breathing exercises for people who are unable to breathe, nose cleaning, sleeping outside, hydrotherapy, sunbathing, and mud poultices. Gandhiji opposed using intoxicants and promoted vegetarianism over a mixed or non-vegetarian diet. It’s interesting to notice that, when discussing health, he kept mental fitness level with physical fitness. The same may be seen in his daily activities, which included a morning walk, a balanced meal, prayer, fasting, and meditation. Eleven vows (Ekadash Vrata) were suggested by Gandhiji and zealously upheld as standards in daily life. Three of the vows, namely Aswada (detachment from tasty foods), Brahmacharya (which had a broader meaning than only sexual abstinence), and Sharirshrama (physical labour to earn your bread), have a direct impact on lifestyle and better living. Gandhiji’s 18-point Constructive Programme for Achieving ‘Swaraj’ emphasized health and hygiene, bringing them to the fore. His virtues, which also include cleanliness, building communities, physical activity, mental toughness, a healthy mother and child, dietetics, and assistance to the sick, are all centred on health. Even though the state of global health has significantly changed since his time, most of his viewpoints are still relevant today, especially in light of COVID-19.⁵⁸

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic forced humanity to reconsider Gandhi’s ideology of self-reliance, Swadeshi, decentralisation, and people’s engagement in the development process, as well as simple living and long-term growth. Individuals are increasingly adopting healthy lifestyles and favouring natural and herbal medicines to address the threat of Covid. Furthermore, effective governance is required to restrict the spread of pandemics, which requires increased engagement in institutions, a decentralised power dynamic, a discrimination-free environment, respect for human rights, and people-centred economic and social policies. Because local governments are closest to the people, they will have a better ability to promote behaviour changes among their citizens; the epidemic reasserts the importance of local government. The People’s Plan Campaign and Mission Antyodaya are macro-level initiatives to follow in Gandhi’s footsteps by recognising that human beings are the primary and ultimate source of all wealth and that whatever benefits the rich must equally be good for the poor.

Notes and References

1. The World Bank, The Cursed Blessing of Public Banks (South Asia Economic Focus, 2020), p.11.
2. Swati Dhingra and Maitreesh Ghatak, “India: The Economic Impact of COVID-19”, CentrePiece Spring, (2022),p.8.
3. Suchita Krishnaprasad ,” The Pandemic: Challenges and An Opportunity to Revisit the Gandhian Perspective”, Sambhasan , Vol.1, No.7 (November 2020), p. 161.
4. Amit Kumar Tiwari, “Gandhian Development Model as an Alternative Development Model in Post-COVID-19 Indian Economy”, International Journal of Science and Research, Vol.9, No.5 (May 2020), pp.352-353.
5. Krishna Kumar, “People’s Science and Development Theory”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.19, No. 28 (14 July 1984), pp. 1082-83.
6. Ibid. For a better understanding of both these approach also see Barbara Wejnert, “Diffusion, Development, and Democracy, 1800-1999”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 70, No. 1 (February 2005), pp.53-81.
7. Kazuya Ishii, “The Socio Economic Thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi: As an Origin of Alternative Development”, Review of Social Economy, Vol. 59, No. 3 (September 2001), p. 310.
8. E.F Schumacher, Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered (London: Blond and Briggs, 1973), pp. 29-30 and 143-48.
9. Kumar, op.cit., p.1083; Ishii, op.cit,, pp.297-312.
10. J.P. Naik, “Development of Gandhian Tradition in India”, The Review of Politics, Vol. 4, No. 3 (July 1983), p.352.
11. Meenu Sharma and Shika,”Exploring Gandhian Ideology of Sustainable Rural Development in India”, Journal Global Values Vol. 8, No. 1 (2016), pp.3-4.
12. Aram Ziai, “Post-Development and Alternatives to Development”, accessed on 10 April 2023.
13. Arturo Escobar, Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995).
14. Matthias Schmelzer, “From Luddites to limits? Towards a Systematization of Growth Critiques in Historical Perspective”, Globalizations, https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2022.2106044, accessed on 1.4.2023.
15. K.V. Sundharam, Decentralised Multi Level Planning, Principles and Practice, Asian and African Experiences (New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company, 1997), pp.100-01; and S.R. Mehta, Dynamics of Development A Sociological Perspective, (New Delhi: Gyan Publishing House, 1999), p.15.
16. Sundharam, op.cit.; Mehta, op.cit., p.15 and see John Kurien, “On Development and Public Action, A Reflection on the Kerala Experience’”, in Sunil Bastian and Nicola Bastian (eds.), Assessing Participation, A Debate from South Asia,( New Delhi: Konark Publishers, 1996), pp. 212-17.
17. Amartya Sen, Development As Freedom, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp.36-37.
18. UNDP, Human Development Report, Deepening Democracy in a Fragmented World (Oxford: OUP, 2002), pp.51-83 and Rebeca Eapen, “Democracy in Development An Exploration”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.39, No. 5 (31 January, 2006), p.416.
19. Jos Chathukulam, K. Gireesan and Manasi Joseph, “Novel Corona Virus 19: Looking through the Lens of Gandhi”, Mainstream (online), Vol. LVIII, No. 31, (18 July 2020).
20. Krishnaprasad op.cit, pp.159-60.
21. M. Madhumathi, “The Gandhian Approach to Rural Development”, IJCRT, Vol. 1,No. 2 (April 2011),p.61.see Sushila Gosalia (1979) : The Gandhian Model of Self-reliance in the Indian Economy, Intereconomics, Vol. 14, No.2(March/ April 1979), pp. 80-83.
22. Ulrich Brand etal. “From Planetary to Societal Boundaries: An Argument for Collectively Defined Self-limitation”, Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, Vol. 17, No. 1,(2021),pp.264-291.
23. Nikos Trantas, “Could “degrowth” Have the Same Fate as “sustainable development”? A Discussion on Passive Revolution in the Anthropocene Age”, accessed on 1.4.2023.
24. Matthias Schmelzer, The Future Is Degrowth: A Guide to a World beyond Capitalism (London: Verso,2022), p. 33.
25. Krishnaprasad, op.cit,, p. 168.
26. A.K. Singh, RN Padaria and VK Singh, “Gandhian Philosophy of Sustainable Agriculture: Path Ahead”, in Mahatma Gandhi's Vision of Agriculture: Achievements of ICAR, ed. H Pathak Suresh Pal and T Mohapatra (New Delhi: Indian Council of Agricultural Research Department of Agricultural Research and Education, 2020), p. 194.
27. Tiwari, op.cit., p.348.
28. B N Ghosh, Gandhian Political Economy: Principles, Practice and Policy, (UK: Ashgate Publishing, 2007), p. 213.
29. Piergiuseppe Fortunto, “How COVID-19 is Changing Global Value Chain” LINCTAD, (2 September 2020).
30. John S. Moolakkattu and Jos Chathukulam, “Introduction” in Challenges to Local Governance in the Pandemic Era, Perspectives from South Asia and Beyond,ed. John S. Moolakkattu and Jos Chathukulam (UK:Cambridge Scholars Publishing,2022), p.1
31. Ibid.
32. Bipasha Raha, “Gandhi and Rural Reconstruction: Issue of Village Sara”, Journal of the Asiatic Society, Vol.LXINo.3 (2019), pp.58-59.
33. Madhumathi, op. cit., p. 61.
34. M.K. Gandhi, Village Swaraj (Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1962), p.44-45.
35. John S Moolakkattu quoted in Jos Chathukulam, K. Gireesan and Manasi Joseph, op.cit.
36. Ibid.
37. K.C. Dayananda, “Gandhian Philosophy of Education and Its Relevance for Sustainability”, IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science Nol.22, No.10, (October 2017), pp. 42-43.
38. Schumacher, op.cit, p. 19.
39. John S. Moolakkattu, "Gandhi as An Ecologist", J Hum Ecol, 29(3), (2010), p. 152-153.
40. Meenu Sharma and Shika, “Exploring Gandhian Ideology of Sustainable Rural Development in India”, Journal Global Values, Vol. VU, No.1 (2016). p.8.
41. Abhijit Sahoo and Tusarkanta Pattnaik “Relevance of Gandhian Economy in Twenty First Century”, Odisha Review (October 2015), pp.23-24.
42. Wilhelm Guggenbeger, ”Gandhi and Sustainability: An Attempt to Update Time Less Ideas”, Religions, 12, 753(2021), p.9, accessed on 23rd May2022.
43. John Ruskin, “nto This Last. And Other Essays on Art and Political Economy” quoted in Guggenbeger op.cit.
44. Ibid.
45. Douglas Allen, Gandhi after 9/11. Creative Non-violence and Sustainability, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), p. 119.
46. Sharma and Shika, op.cit., p. 9.
47. Gandhi, op .cit.,p.47.
48. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, rev. ed. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971),p.205
49. Ibid, p. 53.
50. Dayananda, op. cit. p.43.
51. Ratna Mani Nepal, “Gandhi an Perspectives and Alternative Development: How Third World Influence Development Thinking” International Journal of New Technology and Research, Vol.7, No. 1, (February 2021), p.59.
52. M.K. Gandhi, Rebuilding Our Villages,(Konark: Navajivan Publishing Houses,1952), p.43.
53. Anil Prakash Shrivastava, Jyotsna Agarwal and Ajaya Kumar Ghosh, “Impact of COVID-19 and Relevance of Social Thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi”, International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 6 (November-December 2021), pp.83-84.
54. Schumacher, op. cit., p.123.
55. The very idea of centrally sponsored by People’s Planning Campaign is against the logic of decentralisation advocated by Gandhi in the sense that he visualised development from below or bottom up development. At the same time, the People’s Planning Programme implemented by the Left Democratic Front in Kerala during 1996-2001 is an initiative to bring about development from below through participatory planning. (see Jos Chathukulam and M.S. John (2002), “Five Years of Participatory Planning in Kerala, Rhetoric and Reality”, Economic and Political Weekly, December 7, pp.4917-4926) The Centrally sponsored People’s Planning Campaign, which began in 2018, was implemented in 29 states and six union territories, and it prepared financial planning at the Gram Panchayat level using available resource envelops as per FFC Grants. A total of 2.39 lakh GPDPs were generated during the first year of the campaign, with 3.35 lakh facilitators nominated to cover 2.56 lakh Gram Panchayats. Around 10.84 lakh frontline workers were hired from the line departments. In 2018, the Mission Antyodaya survey was conducted simultaneously in 2.47 lakh general practitioners. A total of 37 line departments participated at the GP level in terms of convergence, and 1, 94,764 Public Information Boards were installed. Government of India, People’s Plan Campaign for Gram Panchayat Development Plan(GPDP) 2021-22 , (Ministry of Panchayat Raj & Ministry of Rural Development, 2020), PPC Booklet.p. 21.
56. Ibid.,p.64.
57. Schumacher, op.cit.,p. 122.
58. M.K. Gandhi, Key To Health (Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1948). Also see Enna Dogra Gupta and Rajni Kant, “Gandhian Virtues and Their Relevance to Health”, accessed on 12 April 2023.

Courtesy: Gandhi Marg, Volume 45, Issue 1, April-June 2023

* Sreelekha R.G. is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at University College, Trivandrum, Kerala. Earlier, she was the Head of the Department of Political Science at Government College, Kottayam. She was awarded a Ph.D. from the University of Kerala in 2014 on the topic “Democracy and Development at the Grass Roots: People’s Planning in Vithura Panchayat a Case Study”. Email: sreelekhargnair@gmail.com.