In his article “Anticolonial Movements and Postcolonial Futures”, Sandipto Dasgupta explores the complexities of decolonization and the emergence of postcolonial India. A major debate during this time was whether the newly independent India should adopt a centralized or decentralized form of government. The Nehruvian and Ambedkarite positions favoured a centralized state, while the Gandhian position favoured a decentralized “village” form of government. The former later won out as India gained independence from the British. Dasgupta contends that Gandhi’s emphasis on moral persuasion and nonviolent protest did not sufficiently challenge the underlying power dynamics of colonialism, nor did it address the hierarchies entrenched in Indian society. Instead, Gandhi’s vision for a postcolonial India was focused on rejecting the modernization imposed by the colonizers, rather than considering the historical possibilities of a new, postcolonial future. This essay seeks to illustrate the merits of centralization over decentralization of government. We will, however, counter this view by referencing Ghandi’s critique of the centralized state and its institutions: Its inherent monopolization of violence to achieve political ends despite the means. Through this analysis, we hope to gain a deeper understanding of the complex and ongoing struggle for political and social autonomy in postcolonial societies.
Gandhi was concerned with what values a newly independent India should have and how said values would be implemented. His solution was to opt for a decentralized village to administer and implement social reform as opposed to a centralized state mechanism. In his view, Gandhi felt that a constructive program based on the concepts of kinship and trusteeship amongst community members would be a better way to administer citizens as opposed to the coercive means of law which were solely concerned with achieving desirable ends despite the means. The means, he argued, was the violence inherent to a modern centralized government whose enforcement created and reinforced cycles of violence and resentment amongst the governed (Dasgupta, 2017, p.648). Gandhi questioned whether a centralized state was the inevitable and best-suited vehicle to effect social change in India (Dasgupta, 2017, p.650). Current-day discussions on the failures of national liberation to live up to the promises of decolonization echo this sentiment by Ghandi.
The Ambedkarite position argued that there was an inverse relationship between the centralization of power and the prevalence of local dynamics in politics. Their argument for centralization stemmed from the lower Indian castes who believed that Ghandi’s village model upheld the hierarchies present within the caste system. This position derives its name from Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, one of the architects of India’s constitution and a Dalit or Untouchable. He was a fierce opponent of Gandhi due to the latter being seemingly (or intentionally) oblivious to the inequities already present inside pre-colonial Indian society. To Ambedkar, the village (Gandhi’s spatial site for the constructive program), as opposed to the state was a site where caste inequality, which he referred to as tyranny, was most prevalent (Dasgupta, 2017, p.652). To avoid a situation of absolute anarchy inside the village, Ambedkar believed that Gandhi relied on this tyranny which required the “lower” castes to accept their inferiority within the caste system to maintain collective order (Dasgupta, 2017, p.652). The tension between the Gandhian and Ambedkaraite positions could be observed through the lens of the former rejecting modernity in favour of the non-colonial and the latter embracing the hopes presented by a then-emerging postcolonial global future. Ambedkar’s disagreement with Gandhi stemmed from this position. Despite being aware of the limitations of the state and its laws, the Ambedkarite position grounds its rejection of the Gandhian village by arguing that a centralized state provides a platform for marginalized groups to fight for their rights and postcolonial future (Dasgupta, 2017, p.653).
The Nehruvian position against Gandhi’s village model stemmed from concerns about maintaining an already fragile national unity and delivering effective socio-economic transformation. These can be broken down into two sub-arguments, namely: The Democratic and The Managerial. The former argued that in a newly independent nation with total suffrage, the primary demand of the masses to their elected representatives was the elimination of poverty and the development of the economy. Nehru (and the ruling class), believed such a mandate could only be achieved through the focused energies and structures of a centralized state (Dasgupta, 2017, p.656). The Managerial view was that the ability of a state to deliver such an economic mandate was dependent on its capacity to maintain order and stability. Given that tensions were high due to the questionable representativeness (legitimacy) of the current leaders, Nehru believed that the mechanisms of a centralized state were better suited to managing the masses and carrying out the technocratic planning required to deliver on the electoral mandate (Dasgupta, 2017, p.656). This is because a centralized state would have a monopoly over the use of violence whilst claiming to be representative of the collective will of Indian citizens.
Knowing what we know now about the aftermath of India’s independence, one can not look at both the Ambedkarite and Nehruvian arguments for centralization without scepticism. The partition of India, the failure of the state to alleviate poverty, the continuation of the caste system, and the situation in Kashmir inspire us to question the validity of the modern-day state (the means) to deliver the promised post-colonial future (the end) (Sharma, 2021, pg. 212). Gandhi’s scepticism of the centralized state due to its monopolization of violence to justify its ends can be seen as foresight on how state mechanisms would create cycles of violence that created resentment and deepened divisions already present within society (Dasgupta, 2017, p.650). The Managerial Nehruvian view implicitly subscribes to this premise as it uses the mechanisms of the state to safeguard the interests of the rulers who were overwhelmingly members of the upper castes (Dasgupta, 2017, p.657).
Similarly, Sharma would argue that the Ambedkarite defence of centralization ignored the fact that modern-day states encourage a politics of autochthony. She does so by highlighting the role Hindu nationalism played in determining who would and wouldn’t be classified as an Indian citizen, with many nationalists arguing that a citizen would be an indigenous product of the “primordial and authentic ethnic and religious traditions of India” (Sharma, 2021, pg. 213). Like the Ghandian village, the Ambedkarite view of centralized statehood both explicitly and implicitly relied on the pre-existing Hindu structures to define both itself and who would take part in this nation-building process.
In conclusion, though I agree with the merits of a centralized state, the post-colonial future it imagined was imperfect. Gandhi’s village model, though flawed, allows us to better critique the role of the state in governing and creating the conditions under which people are governed. I somewhat agree with Gandhi, the state as a mode of national liberation was self-defeating and has been disappointing. But his emphasis on the means as opposed to the ends can provide us with a framework under which to imagine other political futures.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dasgupta, S. (2017). Gandhi’s Failure: Anticolonial Movements and Postcolonial Futures. Perspectives on Politics, 15(3), 647-662. doi:10.1017/S1537592717000883
Sharma, N. (2020). NATIONAL AUTOCHTHONIES AND THE MAKING OF POSTCOLONIAL NATIONAL-NATIVES. In Home Rule: National Sovereignty and the Separation of Natives and Migrants (pp. 205–267). Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11smzfs.11