Gandhi’s shocking ignorance of economics and false pride in his ignorance.

It was extremely disappointing to read this speech that Gandhi gave in 1916 at age 47. This was the fully matured man, not some baby starting his journey. So we can’t ignore his confusions since these are very similar to opinions widely held in India today. They might have spread through him, paving the way for Nehru and his godchildren like BJP.

In his speech he made some STARTLINGLY BAD ASSUMPTIONS AND FALSE STATEMENTS. The full speech is available here. These assumptions and falsehoods include:

• the minimum and the maximum wealth a man should have is ‘none’ [So this means we should aim for ZERO economic growth].
• being wealth is directly correlated to immorality [depends - how immoral are Bill Gates or Warren Buffet? There is no correlation between wealth and immorality.]
• train and steamer travel has created “a great deal of mischief” [FALSE!]
• there are fundamental differences among Western and Indian “conditions” (there are not; all humans respond to the same incentives) [FALSE!]
• wealthy societies tend to increased suicide [FALSE!]
• premature births and congenital defects have increased in wealthy societies [FALSE!]

Gandhi’s speech at Muir College Economic Society, Allahabad, December 22, 1916

When I accepted Mr. Kapildeva Malaviya’s invitation to speak to you upon the subject of this evening, I was painfully conscious of my limitations. You are an economic society. Frankly and truly, I know very little of economics. [An economist friend] found that I had not even read books on economics by such well-known authorities as Mill, Marshall, Adam Smith and a host of such other authors. In despair, he ended by advising me to read these works before experimenting in matters economic at the expense of the public. He little knew that I was a sinner past redemption.

In South Africa I observed almost invariably that the greater the possession of riches, the greater was their moral turpitude. Our rich men, to say the least, did not advance the moral struggle of passive resistance as did the poor. The rich men’s sense of self-respect was not so much injured as that of the poorest. I venture to think that the scriptures of the world are far safer and sounder treatises on laws of economics than many of the modern text-books.

Jesus saith unto them: “Children, how hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter into the kindgom of God. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God!”

I should not have laboured my point as I have done, if I did not believe that, in so far as we have made the modern materialistic craze our goal, in so far are we going downhill in the path of progress. I hold that economic progress in the sense I have put it is antagonistic to real progress. Hence the ancient ideal has been the limitation of activities promoting wealth. This does not put an end to all material ambition. We should still have, as we have always had, in our midst people who make the pursuit of wealth their aim in life. But we have always recognised that it is a fall from the ideal. [Sanjeev: This is hugely insulting] It is a beautiful thing to know that the wealthiest among us have often felt that to have remained voluntarily poor would have been a higher state for them. That you cannot serve God and Mammon is an economic truth of the highest value. We have to make our choice.

Western nations today are groaning under the heel of the monster-god of materialism. Wallace… shows how factories have risen on the corpses of men, women and children, how as the country has rapidly advanced in riches, it has gone down in morality. He shows this by dealing with insanitation, life-destroying trades, adulteration, bribery and gambling. He shows how, with the advance of wealth, justice has become immoral, deaths from alcoholism and suicide have increased, [Sanjeev: This is absurd nonsense] the average of premature births and congenital defects has increased [Sanjeev: This is absurd nonsense], and prostitution has become an institution.

==

Later, the writer of the article states:

“Mr. Gandhi in the course of his remarks … thought that the economist had a place in the economy of nature when he occupied the humble sphere for which he was created. If an economist did not investigate the laws of God and show them how to distribute wealth so that there might not be poverty, he was a most unwelcome intrusion on the Indian soil. [Sanjeev: no issue with elimination of poverty, but not distribution of wealth; that's part of social insurance]

He would utter the note of warning that Indian conditions being in some respects so essentially different from the English and American conditions, it was necessary to bring to bear on the matters that presented themselves to the economists a fresh mind. As regards intercourse with other nations, he said that he did not think that they necessarily advanced one little bit in their moral growth by bringing their masses with others into physical contact and pointed to Indians in South Africa as an instance. The rapid locomotion such as steamers, trains and others dislocated so many of their ideals and created a great deal of mischief. [Sanjeev: How ridiculous can Gandhi get?]

As regards the question what was the minimum and the maximum wealth a man should have—he would answer in the words of Jesus, Ramkrishna and others who said ‘none’.