CHAPTER VIII: PHILOSOPHY OF SYNTHESIS
Q. All that you have said about our heritage and development suggests an overall philosophy of synthesis as against the doctrine of antithesis. Am I correct, sir?
A. Yes, synthesis. Gandhiji always sought to build bridges and forge links between conflicting elements.
Q. Synthesis is all right as a practical philosophy, but it becomes somewhat odd in its application to fundamental contradictions of the class nature. For example, Gandhiji sought to bridge the class difference between the Haves and the Have-nots with the astounding theory of trusteeship and trust. Why, he almost handed over the trusting lamb to the trusteeship of the tiger! The question is: have you come round to accept the Gandhian solution of class synthesis in preference to Marxist approach of class struggle?
A. Class struggle is there always. One cannot deny it or put it aside. But the solution need no longer be one of violence or struggle or hatred: and that’s where Gandhiji’s peaceful approach, friendly and constructive approach, comes in. As I have already explained to you, Marx was conditioned by his times where there was no democracy or franchise, no working class movement and — well, simply no means of resolving inequalities and equalizing society other than struggle, don’t you see? So while not denying or repudiating class contradictions, we want to deal with the problem in a peaceful and co-operative way by lessening rather than increasing these conflicts and trying to win over people instead of threatening to fight them or destroy them. Gandhiji perhaps wasn’t conscious of this class struggle aspect in the way you or I are. But his solutions are more applicable to our time and, particularly, our land. Our history and traditions show this way—that is, the advantage of the peaceful, friendly and co-operative solutions. There is one more factor which comes into this picture of class struggles and wars and all that. It is the atom bomb and, of course, its positive aspect in nuclear energy. Now while nuclear energy holds out tremendous hopes for human advancement, the atom bomb threatens to blow up civilization with one or two or three bangs — thus this emergence of such a destructive weapon makes conflict or war, be it in the form of class struggle or capitalist-socialist conflict, simply so disastrous that it is impossible to think of solutions in terms of violence at all. Hence, from any point of view, the concept of class struggles or wars has been out-dated as too dangerous at a time when not only nations but groups or even individuals can be put in possession of weapons of enormous destructive potentiality. So we have to appreciate and follow the Gandhian solution of synthesis, co-operation, co-existence and progressive equalization.
Q. I believe, Mr Nehru, there you have stated the genesis of the doctrine of Panch Sheel, or the Five Foundations of Peaceful Co-existence, whereby you have sought to resolve international conflicts and reorganize world relations in the spirit of Gandhism. Now what I would like to know from you is, how you came to be such a faithful convert to the Gandhian outlook? There appears to have been some change in your attitude from one of a critical follower to that of a passionate convert in the Forties. Since you have mentioned the atom bomb, is it possible that the emergence of this appalling weapon of destruction brought about a radical change in your pre-1940 thinking? Or was it perhaps the crucifixion of Gandhiji that transformed you into his most loyal disciple?
A. I don’t know. It is difficult to analyse oneself. The atom bomb, of course, affected my mental outlook a great deal, but not in the particular aspect you mentioned. The transformation has been a gradual one. This atom bomb necessarily represents a very powerful influence not only in its painful consequences but by way of the advent of a new power, enormous energy which could be used or misused, and which does affect one’s thinking and outlook. It changes anyone’s thinking about the future and what can happen in the future. Take this issue of class struggle we were discussing. Now there are classes, and obviously those classes are in conflict. Their interests are in conflict. Therefore, a struggle comes about. That cannot be denied. The point is, whether in order to put an end to class struggle, you should intensify it and resolve it, or liquidate it, through conflict and violence. Well, that comes in the way, first of all, of my basic approach that as far as possible conflict should be resolved and violence avoided. This is not a denial of class struggle, but the removal of class struggle through other means than conflict and violence. And that has always been part of our approach: not due to the atom bomb or Gandhiji’s murder, but something basic and fundamental. I think that to some extent we have succeeded in using this solution effectively, whether it be in the cases of princes or landlords. I don’t imagine we have converted all the princes, but they are bound down to certain conditions and pressures which are rising all the time, pressures from the people, pressures from the Government, so that it becomes relatively easy to come to terms with them. In that sense, we have abolished Zamindari, the big landlord system. We gave them compensation, but that was no compensation for the standards they had been used to. They did not like it and there was conflict, but it was resolved without anything like a big struggle. Now there is conflict between the Private Sector and the growing Public Sector, but I’m sure that too will be resolved peacefully and co-operatively.
So it can all be done in the Gandhian way. Sometimes conflict may come. That is a different matter. But that is not a big-scale conflict, but rather a local conflict. So while recognizing the fact that there is a class, a privileged class, a class dominating other classes, like the working people and the peasantry and the middle-classes, and having a genuine desire to put an end to all such inequalities and disparities, I do not think the right way to do it is by accentuating the differences and solving them by struggle. Even if apparently we succeed in doing so, you leave a bad train behind. It really comes back to the means and ends business.
Q. So this conversion of yours to the Gandhian solution was there before the atom bomb destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and changed the course of History?
A. My outlook has always been against conflict, particularly conflict with violence. But I do think that the atom bomb — or rather atomic energy, which represents such vast power coming to the world, has changed the whole context of life — the prospect of future life and so all our theories of the past, whether economic or any other, have to be reviewed in this new context. First of all, of course, one has to think in the context of the possibility of war which can now put an end to almost everything.
Q. Hence comes your insistence on Co-existence?
A. Well, Co-existence was there all the time.
Q. Even before the Forties.
A. Naturally, it was there all the time and, in fact, it dates back to the days of Ashoka and Buddha. Gandhiji made it a part of the ends and means business. It is a part, if I may say so, of the basic process of Indian thought the basis of which is to live and let live. I don’t say Indians are angels, but anyhow. Indian thought is good. So this philosophy of Co-existence flows from our history, though it receives powerful support from present day developments when war might mean the total destruction of humankind.