Page 104 - Acharya Vinoba Bhave in 21st Century ISBN

21oha “krkCnh esa vkpk;Z fouksck Hkkos dh izklafxdrk

not conceptual thought. I would try to bring out their features by placing them in their historical context
and showing how they developed before they were swamped by the bhoodan movement. I guessed I

would not find much current interest in the concepts—I had heard of none myself and I presumed
abolishing money and farming-by-hand could have little relevance for life today. I expected to be able

to conclude that the brochure for this seminar was mistaken in suggesting the concepts could still have
relevance for today and help revive interest in Vinoba.

As I point out above, the sudden appearance of kânchan-mukti as a way of identifying with the
poor and preparing the way for non-violence seems to spring from nowhere. This makes historians

uncomfortable. Perhaps more research will erase the mystery, but for now, kânchan-mukti seems like
an idea run wild. It may be rooted in the asceticism of the bhikshu, but such asceticism was limited—

it never applied to most people and the bhikshu did not labor for his alms. Vinoba recognized no limits.
First he extended the idea to his ashram, as an experiment; then, before there was time for a real test,

he was recommending it to other Gandhian institutions; and then to society at large. This is not careful
experimentation or a scientific attitude. One wonders if he really expected many to follow.

There were two reasons, I think, why kânchan-mukti was bound to fail. The first is that it
departed too radically from Gandhi. While others might admire Vinoba’s spiritual effort, they saw no

reason to follow his practice when it meant hard physical work, greater privation, and leaving aside the
good work they were already doing. If Gandhi was satisfied with spinning and some household chores

as bread labor, they were too. And Gandhi had no real issues with money: he collected it in huge
amounts and spent it creatively and responsibly without regrets. To counter the criticism that his position

on money was not Gandhi’s position, Vinoba would invoke swaraj, saying now that we had swaraj, the
situation was different and demanded that we do more to demonstrate our faith. Exactly what difference

swaraj made was never clear.
The second reason kânchan-mukti was bound to fail is that it was bad economics and quite out

of step with the times. This is not the place to go into the limitations of “Gandhian economics,” but
Vinoba shared these and added more of his own. For him money was intrinsically dirty, something to

be avoided. It was also artificial, fake, a shyster, unrelated to real value and a mechanism for cheating
people. Despite the best efforts of modern economists, Vinoba could not see money as a convenient

medium of exchange that brought incredible benefits along with its potential for abuse. To believe that
the world would be better off without it, one has to accept a simple and very local agrarian life where

people are content with basic shelter, food, and clothing. Vinoba seemed willing to accept that; the
great majority of people were not.

I sometimes wonder what might have happened had someone successfully explained to Vinoba
what a marvel of cooperation and trust among people money really is. If he could have seen that aspect

104