Acharya Mahaprajna
It is very well known that Lord Mahavira propounded the principle of nonviolence extensively. It is a truth but only a half-truth. It is not full truth. Mahavir propounded nonviolence and non-possessiveness, and violence and possessiveness together. We take only one aspect, because violence and possessiveness go together. They cannot be separated. Mahavir maintained that a person who is ignorant of both violence and possessiveness couldn’t be called religious. Only that man can be religious who views nonviolence and non-possessiveness together.
We fixed two objectives of our Ahimsa Yatra (walk for inner and outer peace): first, the development of ethical awareness and the second, awakening the nonviolent awareness. It means that without morality nonviolence has no meaning. Both will go together. For those working in the field of nonviolence it is necessary that simultaneously they should work in the areas of economic purity and morality, because the problem we face today, viz. violence, has its origin in the problem of wealth. No one can stop the tide of violence unless he has a correct economic outlook.
Acharya Tulsi presented a code of conduct as part of the Anuvrat Movement, which is a very good code of moral conduct. The German philosopher Kant has also thought about morality as have many others. There are five basic principles: unity of the mankind, sensitivity, compassion, moral conduct and purity of means. On the basis of Anuvrat or Jain philosophy the above five principles constitute morality. If these are not developed, any talk of nonviolence becomes meaningless. Therefore, we will have to view violence and wealth, nonviolence and nonpossessiveness together. They can’t be separated. Lord Mahavir’s words are quite clear: view violence and possessiveness together. Likewise, view nonviolence and non- possessiveness together. A person, who does not consider nonviolence and non-possessiveness together, cannot reduce violence, nor can he develop nonviolence.
Wealth (money) has its own utility; therefore economic development cannot be overlooked. But today with economic development, problems related to money are being ignored while undertaking economic development. In our Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha economic development is much talked about, but no or almost no discussions take place about the purity of means. Because it is felt that money is all there, it is everything. If the proposition that wealth is everything is accepted, it is bound to result in the neglect of human life, human values and what is going on in the name of human development. While discussing economic development we should also discuss the problems related to it. Today we face the problems of hunger and poverty. According to me the basic problem begetting those problems is rarely discussed and it is related to money or wealth.
The first problem connected with wealth is immorality and the second one is corruption. Today wherever one goes, be it a village, town, an institution or a conference, one encounters corruption. There is no place in the world where corruption is not talked about. Both small men and rich men engage in corruption. Both those who perpetrate and those who are free from it talk about it. Sometimes one wonders whether God is as pervasive as corruption is. Two years ago we went to Delhi. The then President, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam was sitting next to me. At the very beginning of our talk he asked me to suggest a way out of all pervasive corruption. I said that the problem cannot be solved until the economic system is reformed. The members of the family of a person who is free from corruption ask the latter, “You have been an officer for such a long time and yet what have you done for us? You did not avail yourself of the fruitful situation existing at present. Even when wealth came running to your home you did not accept it. What will you then do for us?” The problem gets complex because no succumbing to corruption is looked down upon both by the family and the neighbour.
The problem of corruption can’t be solved unless we change our economic viewpoint. And sometimes I think in the reverse manner. If an officer, peon and minister remain merely social beings, how would they pay dowry, even though a big man how would he behave as a big man, how would he throw big feasts, how would he be able to invite one hundred thousand people to the feast? It is impossible. Thanks to corruption, he can do all these things. So why should he give up corruption? If put in today’s phraseology or in language used in public discourse, not engaging in corruption is foolishness whereas engaging in it is sensible. This is the established language of today.
We deliberated upon the problem and gave a lot of attention to economics. One might ask, “How can an Acharya of a religion pay attention to economics when his main field is nonviolence?” But I felt that without studying economics the problems of today couldn’t be solved. That is why I gave attention to economics and coined a new concept: “Relativistic Economics”. This should be our subject. Economic development should not be confined to wealthy people and to increase the number of billionaires in India, but it should reach millions of people who are dying of poverty and hunger. Economic development should not be meant only for setting up huge industries with big machines. It should address the small people and the villages too.
We held a conference in Delhi. The second took place recently in Udaipur and the advisor of the Prime Minister; Mr. Ashish Bose also attended it. He felt happy to have attended it. While he was returning to Delhi, I asked him to tell the Prime Minister to engage in relativistic development. What is done should not be confined to wealthy few alone, but equally we must pay attention to the poor as well. It is the need of the day.
I mentioned two problems in connection with economic development. The third problem is crime. Crimes are increasing and very big people are turning into criminals. When I hear judicial verdicts of punishment to ministers and the like, it passes my imagination. The person who is a minister has to be sent to prison; big people have to be sent to prison. What will we then think of smaller people? All this is happening because only the economic outlook prevails, nothing else matters. What happens as a result of an exclusive economic viewpoint? Let me relate a small story:
Dacoits entered a house. The rich merchant was owner of the house at home, and three or four armed men with weapons entered. They addressed the merchant and asked him who they were. The latter said he understood that they were dacoits. They put two alternatives before the merchant: either hand over the keys to them or be prepared to die. The merchant soberly said that the wealth had been kept for the old age and that if they wanted to kill him they could do so. This shows what a futuristic viewpoint can be formed. A viewpoint of wealth is formed which defies even truth. The merchant did not understand that the question of old age did not arise once he was dead. Crimes are also connected with the economic problem.
The fourth problem is that of exploitation. It too is pervasive. All big men, be they officers, the rich, industrialists, and traders - all exploit people with great efficiency and cleverness. They steal in a manner that no one comes to know of it. That is why it is believed that the number of thieves in India and the world is small, not high. It is said that there might be a few thousands of them among a billion; but those who steal cleverly number millions. This is the problem of exploitation.
I have mentioned four problems connected with wealth: immorality, corruption, crime and exploitation. One more may be mentioned - temptation. In fact the root cause is temptation. Man is so greedy that he wants to acquire and accumulate everything. So I want that those working in the field of nonviolence should also take up economic problems, because without understanding these they cannot work. We have to give as much importance to training in nonviolence as to economic problems. Because training in limiting possessiveness is a part of training in nonviolence. Many years ago I told Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, who was very much in contact with us, that he was doing a lot for the people and asked him whether he could also limit individual possession. He said that his purpose had been to limit it but he could not succeed till then. A millionaire or billionaire simply feeds his ego at the cost of millions of hungry people who wail and weep for want of food. Therefore limiting the possessions of an individual is also a part of our training in nonviolence.
