S.L. Kirloskar on Mahatma Gandhi

Last night, as I was reading some of the blogs I follow, I found this fascinating account of India's history by one of first few entrepreneurs, S. L. Kirloskar. One incident in his life in particular caught my attention – his meeting with Mahatma Gandhi.

Today, October the 2^nd is Mahatma Gandhi's birthday and his birthday is being celebrated all over the country – especially in Gujarat which has kept the prohibition on liquor based on Gandhi's ideas, I thought it would be instructive to understand Kirloskar's evaluation of Gandhian philosophy and the reasons for his judgment.

Some background: During the Indian independence movement, Gandhi had popularized a small wooden spinning-wheel known as the Charkha which spun Khaddar cloth. His purpose in doing so was to discourage the use of foreign goods among Indians and promote local, Indian made goods. The Charkha in the early 1920's in India was a real patriotic symbol. Gandhi then introduced a competition in April 1931 to improve the charkha and laid down the rules of competition that the desired charkha "could be run by one person and which would produce 15,000 yards of 40-count yarn within 8 hours of working." An engineer working under Kirloskar's father had though of an ingenious simple machine doing exactly what was required by the competition. However, the engineer later received a letter informing him that Mahatma Gandhi "did not approve of the charkha". Kirloskar, his father, the engineer and an entourage went to meet Gandhi to find out why he had not approved of the Charkha in spite of the fact that it fulfilled all the requirement as laid down in the competition.

The following is the conversation that they had according to Kirloskar:

Gandhi: "Your charkha is good but I felt it is more like a modern machine than a simple device. I did not want a machine."

Mr. X: "You had stipulated how much output you expected from the new charkha, but you never laid down a condition that it should not look like a machine."

Gandhi: "I agree with you. But we must consider that it is the uneducated villager who is going to use this charkha. You know how scared villagers are of anything that looks like a machine."

Kirloskar's dad: "I know how scared the farmers get of new machines. But they also get used to them; and if their experience convinces them of their benefits they enthusiastically use machines. Farmer's now-a-days use bicycles, sewing machines and even pumping sets. So, in my opinion, once they know the benefits of this new charkha they will accept it."

Gandhi: "And supposing, your charkha breaks down?"

Mr. Y: "We guarantee immediate attention for its repairs and will also make the spare parts available"

Gandhi: "I know you would but what I had visualized was a Charkha of my dreams, so simple in construction and operation that even a village carpenter should be able to make one. I don't think your charkha is according to my dream."

Kirloskar: "Then the best way for you was to give us a blue-print of your Dream-charkha."

Kirloskar expands on the conversation elsewhere in his book saying:

"And here lay the heart of my difference of opinion with Mahatma Gandhi and his followers. Like Papa before me, I am, have always been and shall always be, a "machine man". I see the machine as the friend and helper of man, not as a demon devised for man's economic and spiritual destruction, which is the way Gandhians regard it. Our own experience had conclusively proved the benefits which thousands of farmers derived from our ploughs, our pumps, our crushers and shellers and other labour-saving devices. Were we now to scrap all these benefits and revert to the traditional reliance on human and animal muscle-power, with all its slowness and inefficiency? No. a hundred time No! On the contrary I was convinced that India needed machines and prime movers in thousands. And what applied to agriculture, I would equally apply to textiles. If pumps and cane-crushers and groundnut-shellers were good for our economy could spinning-frames and power-looms be bad? I could find no virtue in the slow and tedious spinning of yarn by human finger-power."

Personally, Gandhi has never had any influence on my thinking whatsoever. Call it blasphemy, but I really do think his philosophy is pretty nasty. I do not think that one should offer another cheek when one is slapped right across the face. I think evil should be labeled as evil and fought every step along the way. Imagine the absurdity of telling the Jews during WWII to surrender to Hitler, have their lives wrecked on the hope that Hitler the monster would feel any remorse and based on that remorse would stop the war and leave the Jews alone. Would anybody make such an insane claim? Well, the answer to that question is a resounding "Yes" and the man who offered that advice was unsurprisingly -- Gandhi himself. He said:

"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."

Here is what Ayn Rand had to say about dealing with force and tyranny:

"When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have an ounce of self-esteem, you answer with force, never mind who he is or who's standing behind him. If he's out to destroy you, you owe it to your own life to defend yourself."

If Indians view the occasion of Gandhi Jayanthi with respect and hope – if it represents everything good Indians would like to see their country achieve, one should not only take the time to really get to know the facts about Gandhi but also take the time to understand and put in place a philosophy for living one's own life. My recommendation in the marketplace for a philosophy is definitely Ayn Rand. Pick up Atlas Shrugged and see what you think about it. (For sources on introduction to Ayn Rand's philosophy, go here.)

Without an understanding of the framework of moral principles grounded in reality, there is no way on earth to determine what is good or bad for you, let alone the whole nation. It is philosophy that we need the most today because if we default on that critical issue, there will be a million more Gandhi's on the way offering the same kind of advice they did the last time around. So, on Gandhi Jayanti, as ironic it may seem, do take the time to think who is right – Gandhi or Kirloskar. Do take the time to think as to what makes a thing or an ideology good or bad because in the long run – human life depends on it.

The Argument from Self-Interest.

Lately, I've noticed that each time I have a discussion with someone with no idea about Objectivism, I center most of my arguments around the "non initiation of force principle". For instance, if the issue in question is about taxation or anti-trust laws then argument boils down to this: "If you were deserted on an island with ten other people and suppose X proves to efficacious and successful amongst the people you live and Y proves to be the worst at survival. At what point, would you advocate appropriating X's wealth forcefully and giving it to Y even when X disapproves of it? If you think that such an act is morally condemnable, what makes you think it would be right to do it here, in a civilized [?] society? Simply because it makes sacrifices easier given the prosperity and sheer number of people, it wouldn't make it right!" In other words, the relationship of a man with reality and other men remains the same -- in a desert island or in a society. Science, for instance, is still advanced by observation and primacy of existence viewpoint, not by consensus or whatnot. One should grant principles the same status.

However, this video by Yaron Brook completely changed the way I will handle such discusions from now on. Apparently, starting with non-initiation of force principle is the libertarian argument. Dr. Brook correctly points out that this line of argumentation misses the point.



If it is generally accepted that one has the duty to live for others, then there it is completely consistent for the government to tax away a rich persons money to give it to a poorer person. If the rich man has a duty to live for others, then why the heck not? This is the essence of altruism, and why Ayn Rand went such distances to oppose it. If one accepts altruism, it entails a long list of implications.

Here's what Ayn Rand said about altruism:

What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”

I think this should be the essence of an argument any Objectivist takes on with a new comer. Can I live my life anyway i choose only by upholding my highest judgement or do i justify my existence on the basis of service to other people? The challenge is firstly to understand the thory of altruism and then explain it as best as possible giving examples along the way. Craig Biddle, the editor of The Objectivist Standard, nails it by exposing the true nature of altruism when he said the following in his talk, "Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand's Morality of Egosim":

"Altruism does not call merely for “serving others”; it calls for self-sacrificially serving others. Otherwise, Michael Dell would have to be considered more altruistic than Mother Teresa. Why? Because Michael Dell serves millions more people than Mother Teresa ever did.

There is a difference, of course, in the way he serves people. Whereas Mother Teresa “served” people by exchanging her time and effort for nothing, Michael Dell serves people by trading with them—by exchanging value for value to mutual advantage—an exchange in which both sides gain."

It is crucial to understand this issue and nail it down whether one is talking about the current economic crisis or individual rights or any other position due the fundamental nature of the issue of self-interest and altruism. If one is ethically bound to live for other people then what can be immoral about redistributing the money of the citizens by the government? Any political argument presupposes that one can and should properly live for oneself and it is this that one must understand and explain. Starting with the non-initiation of force principle will not comprehensively win the argument because it bases the whole argument on politics instead of ethics and all the fundamentals that underlie it. I think the conversation will end up being a lot more smoother and clearer if one justified from the perspective of ethics of sefishness instead of politics of non-initiation of force.

Thank you, Dr. Brook!

Is The World Going Nuts!!?

Is the world going nuts!!?

I think its a very pertinent question to ask given the global warming -- animal rights agenda, government intervention and the refusal to look Islamic totalitarianism in eye.

The civilized world has blamed Israel time and again for the atrocities that Palestine should be held responsible for.

Here is a news report that caught my eyes a few days ago --

GAZA (Reuters) - Hamas vowed Monday to rearm in defiance of any Israeli and international efforts to prevent the Islamist militant group from replenishing its arsenal of rockets and other weapons after the Gaza war.

"Do whatever you want. Manufacturing the holy weapons is our mission and we know how to acquire weapons," Abu Ubaida, a spokesman for Hamas's armed wing, told a news conference.

Calls to rearm to use ceasefires only to rearm are not new to the Hamas. It's not in vogue anymore -- blaming Israel. Really. Israel should attack Palestine and mop up the totalitarian culture with full moral certainty and rectitude. No doubt about it.

Oh, and coming back to the world going nuts -- its just another testament that ideas can change the world -- for the better or worse.

The Power cut Affair.

We were experiencing a power cut since the morning. Its 5:30pm now. I was just so tired of doing absolutely nothing. I had read The Virtue Of Selfishness for over 2 hours and the laptop had also discharged. The guy who fixes it just arrived and told us some switches had tripped and all we had to do (from the morning) was to push up the lever. The following was the only thing ringing in my head : dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb!

The power is back on now and you wouldn't believe how delighted I am. I simply can't fathom people celebrating an Earth Hour. It's completely insane. Imagine living like this – without the motor to pump water into your overhead tank, charging a cell phone would be out of question I guess (Phones obviously wont be manufactured in a total Earth Hour respecting culture). I suppose people end up taking it as a fashion. The perfect answer to them came from Keith Lockitch in his recent op–ed, "Earth Hour Sends A Deceptive Message"

"Forget one measly hour with just the lights off. How about "Earth Month," without any form of fossil fuel energy? Let those who claim that we need to stop emitting carbon dioxide try spending a month shivering in the dark without heating, electricity, refrigeration; without power plants or factories, grocery stores or hospitals; without any of the labor-saving, time-saving, and therefore life-saving products that industrial energy makes possible."

I simply love the line. Makes an awesome reply to people who have forgotten the virtue of independence a long time ago.

I LOVE ELECTRICITY and would be willing to switch places with any Westerner wanting more Earth Hours. Any day!

Exposing Altruism.

The distortions in the word “selfishness” have become necessary to provide for a philosophy guided by altruism and unreason.

Altruism as such denotes a package-deal and a deadly one at that. Any philosophy is required to answer two questions in the realm of ethics–

1. 1. What are values?

2. 2. Who should be the beneficiary of those values?

In other words, value to what and value to whome? The altruist morality defaults on the first answer by answering the second. It only defines the second by answering the beneficiary can be anybody but your ownself. You dare not go to college to learn the law or how to build and then proclaim you are moral. Instead, if you did give up your ambition, how so ever big or small to serve your parents unconditionally, then you are surely moral. The problem with such a morality is apparent. Every act of morality (every act of self – sacrifice) one commits, the more bitter he is bound to get. Imagine giving up everything you cherish to attain any moral significance within you or to show off your values, the worse it is for your well – being.

This explains people’s indifference to morality. Indifference would not be the appropriate word. The correct attitude of people towards morality is a combination of cynicism and guilt. Cynicism because people knowingly don’t practice it even though they are under obligation to do so. Guilt because they don’t explicitly or implicitly reject it. In both cases, they attempt to evade the issue of morality and thus the disastrous results.

However, the altruist morality has its own solution from sleeping under a rock. If a person takes altruism seriously and consistently starts sacrificing, they reply, “Oh, come now, be practical.” They themselves don’t endorse that altruism should be practiced consistently. The moment somebody starts taking their morality seriously, the fact that its anti – life is apparent and thus their claims asking people to relax and think practically. But this is fully inconsistent with how a morality should be practiced. Any reasoning person would say, “I take morality seriously and thus I am a good person.” The glaring contradictions between the consistent application of altruism and the requirement for survival are apparent for them to take morality seriously.

Now lets consider the effects of altruism if any thinking man with respect to all other areas of life but defaults on morality and partially chooses the altruist morality. However, he chooses it not by an active, thinking mind but chooses it by defaulting on thought by taking into popular culture. The effect would be any person walking by on the street can scowl at him for acting in his self – interest for any act, any time in his life. He has neither a defense for such an attack and is inevitably guilt ridden, guilt ridden for going to college, for being productive or even saving up money ( He definitely should have given it to the poor.)

Altruism, in simple words, is best described as the sole basis for my rights is my duty to sacrifice it to my neighbor. Such is the nature of fraud involved. Altruism is thought to be in consonance with benevolence today, but the consistent application of altruism is what would make benevolence impossible. Imagine Russia when under the rule of Communism where self – interest was evil but sacrifice to the society was considered as the greatest good. In such a situation, when everybody is poverty – stricken and guilt ridden, imagine a call for charity. I guess one would say, “Be practical, cant you see, everybody is suffering. I don’t know why you should be special to get any money while we don’t.” But consider the same call for charity on the streets of New York, where each productive person acts in his own self – interest. The stark contrast of suffering and prosperity would be so great that people with the ability to help will do so. This is the greatness of an ethic of rational self – interest.

Instead of turning to the ethic of rational – self interest when men are rebelling the ethic of altruism they are also rebelling against every rational standard too. In the Fountainhead, they were depicted by people such as Lois Cook, Gordon L. Prescott, Gus Webb and the other avant-garde artists. These people, the supposed “non – conformists” are the distilled form of altruism and should not be confused with the real rebels (the rational ones). They merely represent the other side of the altruist coin.

To quote Ayn Rand, “This is said as warning against the kind of “Nietzchean egoists” who, in fact, are a product of the altruist morality and represent the other side of the altruist coin : the men who believe that any action, regardless of its nature, is good if its intended for ones own benefit. Just as the satisfaction of the irrational desires of others is not a criterion of moral value, neither is the satisfaction of ones own irrational desires. Morality is not a contest of whims”

In other words, the Nietzchean egoists like the altruists go by the beneficiary criterion of a value only. They too, like the altruists, default on answering what is a value by answering who should be the beneficiary.

Environmentalism (based on unadulterated altruism) and altruism are an attack on self – esteem. They question you, intimidating, “How dare you assert that your life is yours to live and selfishly produce values require for your survival and then proceed to call it moral.”

To fight such an evil one has to question its basis and fundamentals and the only way of doing it is by equipping oneself with the right philosophy.