Golwalkar's Economic Philosophy

 Golwalkar's Economic Philosophy

M.S. Golwalkar, who inherited the mantle in 1940, was an outspoken critic of both communism and capitalism, although in his Bunch of Thoughts he seems to be unable to clearly distinguish capitalism and democracy. Both communism and capitalism, Golwalkar declares, reduce man’s existence to seeking
material gains and both were in practice a means to exploit the majority by a clever minority. The Indian state should instead follow the old Indian traditions who recognize the primacy of ethics and culture above purely economic needs. This idea will be a recurrent theme in Hindu nationalism, but both in Golwalkar’s writings as well as in later sources the concept did not gain any concrete shape.
Moreover, the above declarations are in contrast to other passages from the same text. The RSS leader also claimed that ‘as a matter of fact the success of any government or any particular theory of government is to be measured in terms of its capacity to give every citizen two square meals, a place to rest in, sufficient clothing, treatment in case of illness, and education. That is the acid test’. While he castigates communism and capitalism for focusing on material needs only, he in fact claims that the bottom line of state’s existence is fulfilling exactly these needs.
Although Golwalkar agreed that Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas of trusteeship in productions were much more in tune with Indian tradition, he also considered them impractical. ‘The labourers lose the incentive for work if they feel that they are not able to get suitable recompense.’ – he claims, pointing out to the example of post-War West Germany, where, after ‘all controls were removed’ the state achieved ‘phenomenal economic growth’. In what way, then, did Golwalkar want to recreate Indian traditions in economy?

Elsewhere he stated that in the old Indian vision of the government ‘The State is not a trader or manufacturer but is entitled to regulate all vocations’. He also criticized centralization in contemporary India in the name of ‘Welfare State’ and stood for decentralization, which, interestingly, he considered a socialist idea. Despite the above mistake, the other passages quoted here would suggest that Golwalkar really favored capitalism, but he chose to hide it under the garb of some old Indian tradition of political economy which was somehow more ethical than modern capitalism. Golwalkar’s views are more blurred by passages such as this: ‘There should be some limited right to property (coupled with a ceiling on personal income) i.e., scope for fulfilling his individual’s desires for enjoyment to a limited degree’. How does such a declaration match his appraisal of removing state controls in the Federal Republic of Germany? However, the passages such as the above one appear to be in a minority in comparison to Golwalkar’s praises of free enterprise.