A Gandhian Perspective of Social Change

Abstract

A revolution is considered “a movement of dissent that succeeds in attaining power.” If so, a bloody insurrection need not be a revolution; a non-violent social movement can be a revolution. Using this criterion the Indian National Movement led by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was, indeed, revolutionary in character, as it resulted in taking the reigns of power from colonial rulers. Yet the purpose of a revolution is lost if there is only a transfer of power between different groups at the top. Only the broader objectives of attainment of power can make the definition significant. The possession of power and its utilisation in specific ways, more particularly by a minority group, can sow the seeds of dissent among the masses, which ultimately may result in the overthrow of those in power. For revolution to be beneficial to the people in general social change has to be the necessary and natural corollary of such a transfer. Mere attainment of power represents only one phase of a revolution, the positive changes generated on account of that power alone are indicators of the other phases of the revolution. Gandhi wrote as early as 1931: “To me political power is not an end but one of the means of enabling people to better their conditions in every department of life. Political power means capacity to regulate national life through national representatives — If then I want political power it is for the sake of the reforms for which the Congress stands — If we were to analyse the activities of the Congress during the past twelve years we would discover that the capacity of the Congress to take political power has increased in exact proportion to its ability to achieve success in the constructive effort. That is to me the substance of power.”