I had a chance to attend the Gandhi Colloquium at IIM Bangalore. The theme of the colloquium was “Gandhi, Governance and the Corporation”. I was impressed by some of the thoughts that the eminent speakers (Prof Dwijendra Tripati, Prof N Balasubramanian, Prof Peter DeSouza, Prof Pratap Bhany Mehta) put forth as a part of the introductory session in the morning.
Key takeaways from the lectures:
- Gandhian philosophies have not had a widespread acceptance in the corporate world
- The philosophy of trusteeship is focal point for corporate embracement of Gandhian thought
- Trusteeship involves a sense of debt to society; an organization exists to serve the society and the context of the society in which it exists
- Gandhi believed that an individual or a corporation had to earn just as much as was “reasonably” required and any amount earned in excess of this was expected to be returned to the society, since it was “excess” wealth that was accumulated unduly and it belonged to the society and not the corporation or the individual (Contrast this with socialism, looks like Gandhi’s philosophy was geared towards voluntary actions for equitable distribution of wealth unlike the “socialist” thought of Government enabled distribution of wealth!)
- Gandhi was perhaps the only political figure who was aware of the communal tinderbox that India could evolve into at the time of independence
- Gandhi placed a great emphasis on the aspect of friendship, friendship across groups to which an individual belonged
I find myself resonating with a lot of the thoughts that were put forth. I believe that socialism, an excellent concept, can never be imposed. Voluntary socialism as espoused by the “trusteeship” philosophy is perhaps sustainable. It is perhaps necessary that this philosophy is inculcated as a way of life in Indian society. Is it going to be successful? Gandhi was convinced that it would succeed, yet today 50 years after his death there is still no clear answer. Even I am not fully convinced of the efficacy of “trusteeship”.
To get a wider perspective on trusteeship:
http://www.gandhi-manibhavan.org/gandhiphilosophy/philosophy_trusteeship.htm
Summed up in one paragraph:
“Supposing I have come by a fair amount of wealth—either by way of legacy, or by means of trade and industry—I must know that all that wealth does not belong to me; what belongs to me is the right to an honorable livelihood, no better than that enjoyed by millions of others. The rest of my wealth belongs to the community and must be used for the welfare of the community.”
2 comments:
Somehow I do not agree with this
view of Mahatma Gandhi. Each individual reserves the right to enjoy the fruits of his/her hardwork. Same would apply to organizations.
CSR has to manifest itself as
"teach the man to fish", and not
as "feed him some fish".
CSR should start with free/ subsidized education for the needy.
Period.
The point is how much of money you require. If you are larry elison and you spend 250 million dollars on yacht and then you say that you are enjoying fruits of your hardwork, I am sorry that is nothing but vulgarity.
This is your perception that if a person redistributes his wealth, he has to necessarily do it by feeding him some fish. It can be very well done by providing opportunities to teach the man to fish.
I agree completely with Gandhi. It requires strong moral fibre to bring about change. A simple thing about Gandhi changed my mind for ever. in 1947, multiple regiments of armed police and forces could not prevent massacre of 1 million people in Punjab, but a single man did not allow a single death by the strength of his moral fabric in Bengal. This is what the power of morals do.
It is on these moral lines, what Gandhi said is pretty relevant on CSR. I believe organisation practicing CSR not only help society directly/indirectly but also promote virtues of moral tenacity
Post a Comment