साहित्यिकांचे चुकते कोठे?

(धोंडीराम माने विकास प्रबोधिनीतर्फे भानुदास चव्हाण सभागृहात १३ वे गुणिजन साहित्य संमेलन घेण्यात आले. या वेळी अध्यक्षस्थानावरून बोलतांना मी. आमदार लहुजी कानडे, ज्येष्ठ साहित्यिक रा. रं. बोराडे, आर. के. गायकवाड, फ. मु. शिंदे, साहित्यिक रेखा बैजल, स्वागताध्यक्ष डॉ. राखी सलगर, सुनीता माने, आयोजक सुभाष माने यांची प्रमुख उपस्थिती होती. )

साहित्य संमेलन म्हणजे आपल्या जीवन विषयकच्या धारणांचा जागर असतो. समग्र मानवी जगण्याचे चित्रण करत मनुष्याला त्याचा आरसा दाखवत भविष्याचे दिशादिग्दर्शन करणे हा साहित्याचा मुख्य हेतू असतो. हेतुशिवाय लिहिले गेलेले साहित्यही अप्रत्यक्षरित्या हेच हेतुबद्ध कार्य करत असते. त्यामुळे साहित्याचे प्रयोजन काय हा प्रश्न तसा निरर्थकच ठरतो. प्रत्येक लेखकाचे साहित्य हे त्या लेखकाचे समाजविषयकचे, स्वत:बद्दलचे आकलन याचा कलात्मक आविष्कार स्वरुपात असल्याने त्यातच त्याचे साहित्य विषयकचे प्रयोजन स्वयंसिद्ध असते. त्याचा दर्जा काय हे वाचक आणि समीक्षक ठरवतील, पण प्रत्येक साहित्यकृतीचे व साहित्त्यिकाचे लेखनकार्य सूप्त अथवा जागृत स्वरुपात काही ना काही प्रयोजन घेऊनच होत असते असे मला वाटते. असे असले तरी आज मराठी साहित्याचे प्रयोजन आजच्या सहित्यातून काय दिसते हे पाहिले तर एकुणच साहित्यिकांच्या आकलन-मर्यादांची प्रकर्षाने जाणीव होते हे मान्य करावेच लागेल.

उदाहणार्थ आज मराठी जागतिकीकरणाच्या वेढ्यात सापडलेली आहे. १९९१ नंतर जगण्याचे संदर्भ एवढ्या झपाट्याने बदलले आहेत की त्यापुर्वीचे जीवन अनोळखी वाटावे. नातेसंबंधातही झपाट्याने बदल होत गेले. समाजाच्या अशा-आकांक्षा आणि जीवनस्वप्नांतही झपाट्याने बदल होत गेला. तंत्रज्ञानाने माणसाला अत्याधुनिक केले. जगण्याच्या अनेक गोष्टी सोप्या केल्या. शेतकरीही बदलला. त्याची मानसिकता बदलली. त्याचीही स्वप्ने बदलली. मध्यमवर्ग तर नव्या लाटेवर हिरीरीने आरुढ झाला. नवश्रीमंतांची लाट आली. पण मानसशास्त्रज्ञ सांगतात की भारतात मनोरोगांचीही मोठी लाट आली. मानसोपचार तज्ञांच्या दारात रांगा लागू लागल्या. जीवनात एक तुटले-पण आले. भारतात आज मितीला फक्त पाच हजार मनोरोगतज्ञ आहेत पण आज त्यंची गरज दहा लाखांपेक्षा अधिक आहे असे सरकारच सांगू लागले. शालेय वयापासुनच कोणत्या ना कोणत्या मनोरोगाची लागण आता नित्याची बाब झाली आहे. स्वप्ने आणि वास्तव यात पडत चाललेली दरी यामागचे खरे कारण आहे असे मनोरोग तज्ञ म्हणतात. ही मानसिक आजारांची लाट आली त्याला आधुनिक जीवनशैली पचवता न येणे हे जसे कारण आहे तसेच बदलत्या काळाला जुळवुन घेण्यासाठी जे नवे समाजिक तत्वज्ञान तयार व्हायला हवे होते ते न बनल्यामुळे हे भरकटलेपण आले आहे असे आपल्याला दिसेल. आणि हे तत्वज्ञान देण्याची जबाबदारी तत्वज्ञ, विचारवंत आणि साहित्यिकांची होती. ते यात अपयशी ठरल्याचे चित्र आहे. म्हणजे साहित्याचे प्रयोजनच येथे निरर्थक ठरले आहे की काय असा प्रश्न निर्माण होणे स्वाभाविक आहे.

खरे म्हणजे जगण्याला तात्विक आणि भावनात्मक आधार दिला जाणे आवश्यक होते. एकुणातील जगण्याच्या बदलत्या प्रयोजनाची नव्याने व्याख्या व्हायला हवी होती. बदलत्या नितीनियमांतील योग्य काय अयोग्य काय यावर कलात्मक दृष्ट्या व्यापक चर्चा व्हायला हवी होती. बदलत्या राजकीय संदर्भांचीही तेवढ्याच ताकदीने मिमांसा व्हायला हवी होती. आपले अर्थजीवन आणि आर्थिक धोरणे याचेही सशक्त प्रतिबिंब आपल्या साहित्यात पडणे आवश्यक होते. वस्तुस्थिती अशी आहे की आजच्या समाजाला आपले प्रतिबिंब दिसेल असे साहित्य मराठीत अभावानेच आले. कंपुशाही करुन अनेक कादंब-या गाजवण्यात आल्या हे तर सत्यच आहे. पण गाजणे म्हणजे जीवनार्थ देता येणे असा अर्थ मात्र घेता येत नाही. समाज मन घडण्यासाठी, त्याचे प्रतिबिंब बनण्यासाठी आणि समाजाची मानसिक कुंठा मोकळी होण्यासाठी साहित्यात काहीच नसेल तर ते साहित्य म्हणजे निव्वळ कागदांची नासाडी करणारा धंदा झाला आहे असे खुशाल समजून चालले पाहिजे.जे ताटात वाढले गेलेय त्यालाच साहित्य समजणे आणि कोणीतरी ते श्रेष्ठ आहे असे ठरवते ते गोड मानून घेणे ही आपल्याकडॆ एक विघातक साहित्य-प्रथा बनत चालली आहे. हे काही साहित्यासाठी चांगले घडते आहे असे म्हणता येणार नाही.

याला कारण आहे ते आपल्या साहित्यिकांची जीवनाला निर्वस्त्र भिडण्यातील साहसाचा अभाव. मर्यादित आणि आपल्या महाविद्यायीन काळातील अनुभवांच्या बाहेर पडण्याची आणि नवे अनुभव घेण्यातील उत्कट्तेची कमतरता. अभ्यासाचा अभाव. रुढीशरण होण्याची आत्मघातकी सवय. आणि यातून जीवनाला स्पर्श करणारे साहित्य घडत नाही. चाकोरीबद्ध पण वेगवेगळ्या आणि त्याही अनुकरणात्मक शैलींतून लिहिले गेलेले साहित्य भाषिक चमत्कार म्हणून श्रेष्ठही ठरतील पण त्यातील जीवनदर्शन पोकळ असले तर त्याचा काय उपयोग? बरे हे अनुकरण बहुदाकरुण पाश्यात्यांच्या शैलींचे तर असतेच पण त्यांच्या अनुकरणांचेही भ्रष्ट अनुकरण केले जात असेल तर "साहित्यिकांची जात चोरट्यांची" असा आरोप कोणी केला तर त्याला कोणी दोष द्यायचा? चोरी ही कथावस्तुंचीच नसते तर शैलीचीही असते. पण कंपुबद्ध साहित्यिक आणि समीक्षक त्यांची चर्चा करायला सहसा धजावत नाहीत हे आपल्या साहित्य विश्वाचे एक अव्यवच्छेदक लक्षण बनलेले आहे आणि त्यावर तातडीने सर्वांनी गंभीरपणे विचार केला पाहिजे. नाहीतर नवे साहित्यिकही याच ढाच्यात घडतील आणि साहित्याच्या प्रयोजनाचा समूळ पराभव करतील हे पक्के समजून चालायला हवे.

खरे तर साहित्यिक हा साहसी असला पाहिजे. त्याने आपल्या अभिव्यक्तीआड राजकारण, समाजकारण, धर्मकारण येऊ देता कामा नये. पण काय लिहिले तर कोणत्या घटकाची काय प्रतिक्रिया असेल हे आगाऊ ठरवून मग लिहिणे अथवा वाटते ते न दर्शवता वाचकानुकूल बदल करणे हा एक मोठाच दोष वर्तमानकाळात उत्पन्न हाला आहे. किंबहुना प्रकाशक मिळेल की नाही किंवा समीक्षा-लोकमान्यता मिळणार की नाही हेही यावरुनच ठरणार असल्याने असले प्रकार होऊ लागले आहेत. वाद होऊ नयेत या भितीने नायक-नायिकांची आणि खलनायक-खलनायिकांची आडनांवेही काय ठेवावीत असा प्रश्न लेखकासमोर उभा ठाकू लागला असेल तर तो समाजाचा घोर अपराध तर आहेच पण लेखकाचा अधिक आहे कारण तो मुळात आपल्या साहित्य प्रेरणांची हत्या करत असतो. आणि त्याच वेळीस मुद्दामहून एखादा समाज दुष्ट/धर्मांध ठरवून त्यांनाच खलनायकत्व बहाल करण्याचेही पाप करणे हा आज काही साहित्यिकांचा जातीय धंदा बनू लागला आहे आणि त्याचीही चिंता आम्ही करायला हवी. असे केले तर ते वास्तव चित्रण कसे होईल? ते साहित्य कसे असेल?

साहित्य राजकारणची दिशा ठरवण्यात मदत करु शकते पण ते राजकारणाचे हत्यार बनू शकत नाही. ते अभिप्रेतही नाह्वी. पण आजकाल तेही घडत आहे. ते प्रमाण वाढत आहे. मग समाजाचे काय? सामाजिक मानसिकतेचे काय? समाज साहित्यातून कोणत्या जीवनप्रेरणा घेईल? ते घेऊ शकत नाही म्हणून पुस्तकांचा खप वाढत जाण्याऐवजी घटत चालला आहे. दोन-तीन कोटींची विक्री एखाद्या संम्मेलनात झाली अशा चौकटी वृत्तपत्रात येतात. पण कोणत्या प्रकारच्या पुस्तकांची विकी झाली हे मात्र सांगितले जात नाही. पाककला, मोटिवेशन, धार्मिक, माहितीपर...ज्ञानपुर्वक नव्हे अशाच पुस्तकांच्या विक्रीचे प्रमाण साठ-सत्तर टक्के असेल तर साहित्यिकांनाच मिरवून घेण्यापेक्षा फुटपाथवर येत किंवा राना-वनात हिंडणा-या भटक्यांच्या पावलांशी बसून जीवनप्रेरणांचा शोध नव्याने घेतला पाहिजे. हे करता येत नसेल तर लेखनाला रामराम अथवा खुदा हाफिज म्हणत जमेल तसे चाकोरीतील जीवन जगले पाहिजे.

मराठी भाषा दोनेक हजार वर्ष प्रगल्भ साहित्याची भाषा राहिली आहे. हालाची गाथासप्तशती जीवनाची मोहक रुपे आपल्यासमोर ठेवते. अंगविज्जासारखा एका जैनाने लिहिलेला ग्रंथ आपल्याला तत्कालीन समाज जीवनाचे धर्मनिरपेक्ष रूप दाखवतो. संतांनी मराठीला मानवी जीवनाचे भावूक रुप दिले. पण आपण एकविसाव्या शतकात येऊनही त्यांना मागे टाकू शकू असला काही पराक्रम केलेला नाही. मराठी भाषेला अभिजात भाषेचा दर्जाही अद्याप मिळू शकलेला नाही, त्यासाठी आम्ही कोणतीही व्यापक बांधणीही केली नाही यातच आमची भाषेबाबतची आस्था दिसून येते. ही आस्था सरकारी पदे मिळवण्यासाठी मात्र एवढ्या तीव्रपणे उफाळून येते की शरमही शरमेने मान खाली घालते.

शेवटचे पण महत्वाचे. जातीवाद आणि धर्मवाद आज साहित्यिकांचा मुलमंत्र झाला आहे. एका जातीचा साहित्यिक शक्यतो खालच्या अथवा अन्य जातींना दुय्यम तर ठेवतोच पण त्यांचे चित्रणही लौकीक फायदा दिसत नसेल तर उपहासाने करतो. त्या-त्या जाती-जमातीमधील लेखक नसला तर मग त्या जातीचे चित्रणच येत नाही. बरे, जे जातीतल्या साहित्यिकाकडून येते त्याला सहसा इतर साहित्यिक-समीक्षक अदखलपात्र मानतात. असले तर ते लेखकही आपापल्या जातीतच लोकप्रिय असतात, इतर जातींतले त्याला हिंग लावून विचारत नाहीत. याला काही एकमय साहित्यविश्व म्हणत नाहीत. यातून काही समग्र समाजाला मिळू शकत नाही. असले साहित्य-विश्व मग अरबी किंवा कोणत्याही समुद्रात बुडाले तरी समाजाचे काय बिघडणार आहे? समाज हा आपापल्या पद्धतीने पुढे जाणारच आहे. जातोही आहे. पण साहित्यविश्वाचा त्याच्या या पुढे जाण्याच्या प्रक्रियेत हातभार लावणार नसेल तर ते निरर्थकच आहे असे खुशाल समजून चालावे.

कोणतेही साहित्य संम्मेलन हे व्यापक विचारमंथनासाठी असले पाहिजे. मला हा मंच उपलब्ध करून दिला याबद्दल मी गुणीजन साहित्य संमेलनाच्या सर्व आयोजकांचे आणि ते यशस्वी करण्यासाठी झटलेल्या कार्यकर्त्यांचा आणि उपस्थितांचा मन:पुर्वक आभारी आहे. माझ्या म्हणण्यावर आपण गांभिर्याने विचार अराल, माझ्या कथनातील त्रुटीही विचारपुर्वक दाखवाल अशी आशा आहे.

धन्यवाद.

Let us not let this happen!

The liberalism is not just about making a society monetarily better off. It is just not about the ideology that wants to lead to a free and just society. It is not just about the minimizing government controls so that the individuals can make their own decisions about the self and the society. It is all about making the whole society capable of governing itself. Other things are just sane output of the whole exercise.

Every individual must be free that makes the whole society free. They need not any Big Brother watching and herding them to the destination he feels better. A bunch of the people in governments cannot govern the aspirations of every individual. They want to make whole society a tailored garment that will not agitate and earn the means of the living in the given limited scope of their choice.

It is the wrong assumption of the critiques that the individuals are not capable of taking their own political, economic or social decisions. They think that the free markets inevitably bring exploitation. “Public sorting public problems” seems impossible to them. Rather the critiques forward a bold question, if people are so capable of making their own economic decisions, then why are they so incapable of making political or social ones?

The answer to the last question is easy. The people are not incapable of making social or political decisions but it is the system that the governance create does not allow people to make their independent decisions and to act upon it! There is no freedom in the present all governance systems that value the inherent capabilities of the individuals. So this is a worthless argument. Social history does not support this claim. When we look back at the history of India we find that the people were better off when the Kings did not interfere much in social and economic life. We find many roads and public places were built by the people after collecting the donations. The guilds led in the construction of most of the public works. It is not correct that the individuals are incapable of taking social decisions and acting on them. The kings too financially contributed to such works but it too was not mandatory. 

Lands were not forcibly acquired by the rulers but were bought at market price. We have many copper plate inscriptions those records such transactions. The right to property was acknowledged by the government. In short, the people were capable enough to make their own economic decisions. Though we have scattered information on the economic and social affairs of the pre-medieval era, they are enough to indicate the economic and social freedom people enjoyed. It reflects in the literature right from Hal Satvahana’s Gatha Saptashati to various plays and poetry till post-Gupta era. The literature mirrors the social conditions and aspirations of the individuals that were far better than medieval era when the political and religious tyranny begun to plague social fabric of India. Rather the decision making on behalf of the people by the new creed of feudal lords made people hapless. The rulers and religious bosses added to the difficulties by withdrawing their right to decide on economic and social conduct. The contrast is significant if looked at carefully.

So, it is incorrect assumption that the individuals are incapable of making social and economic decisions. The every individual knows to differentiate between good and bad. In his primordial nomadic past also he knew his social obligations without someone forcing upon him. The foundation of the criticism is the lack of confidence in the human being. Just because there are few bad elements in the society, under the pretext of controlling them, the socialists and others want to control the entire society thus depriving the individuals of using their own wisdom in taking the decisions related to his and societies well-being.

This makes no society better. It obstructs free thinking, expressions, and efforts to achieve economic goals. If free, individual becomes more responsible. In the society loaded with restrictions, individuals and so the society tends to become corrupt, lazy and irresponsible to social obligations. The public property always is attacked first in any agitation. The sense of collective ownership, when governed by few, is impossible to occur. Human tendency is the people do not like paying indirectly to any public work. There cannot be a sense of emotional attachment towards such activities that might have been introduced by the government for public good and their interest. The free society can take far better care of it.

It is not about capitalism. It is about making the human being free from the external political forces that force the human being to roam in an artificial restrictive campus. That restricts human capability to explore not only knowledge but the life of his choice. Economic gains are just outcome of the freedom, but considering them the foremost objective of the liberals is an imagined accusation of the leftist wing. Liberals are far more humanists than others. The every individual is a liberal by nature but the system makes him the slave and forces him to jump in a bottomless crevasse of tyrant system.

Let us not let this happen!

History of Classical Liberalism in India

It may be a mistake to credit the western world as inventors of classical liberalism. Liberalism is not unknown to India in politics, economics, and social life if we carefully study the socio-economic history of the country. Though Western Liberalism evolved systematically in Europe in the 18^th century, we find it was not just a thought but was already practically applied in India far back from the 6^th century BC onwards till the tenth century AD. Not that the journey of liberal thought was easier. We find that Indian history is full of conflicts between liberalism and anti-liberal ideas, not only on philosophical grounds but on political, economic, and social grounds. However, we find liberal thought survived for a period of over one and a half millennia! 

Western historians mostly have used Sanskrit literature and that is too limited to the Vedic stream to look back at Indian social and political history which has marred their overall understanding of the classical liberal thought of India. They heavily neglected ancient Prakrit literature, treaties of the Tantras, and thoughts of the Charvakas. However, both thoughts though existed parallelly, liberalism was thrown on the backfoot during the medieval era to survive in very limited aspects. Rather, the decline of Indian economics can be directly related to the slackened liberal ideas that were thriving in the earlier epoch.

Philosophically, the Tantra sources, are not just religious books of the Non-Vedic masses but they also deal with agriculture, chemistry, metallurgy, agriculture, medicine, physical science, etc. Tantra means "Technique". The scholars like Dr. Sudhakar Deshmukh admit that the tantras not only advocated social equality and freedom but the science of behavior also. The Tantras less talk about the yonder world after death but explain how the techniques can be utilized to make practical worldly affairs happier. The materialistic philosophy of the Tantras is associated with occultism and hence it was most popular among the Indian masses. The Tantras propagated absolute freedom not only in their rituals but in daily social life as well. It embraced all paths of life and offered social liberalism as an ultimate source of happiness, which was reflected in its economic practices. Literature like Kamashastra and temples like Khajuraho exhibits the degree of freedom of expression enjoyed by the people of those times. Most of the kings were followers and patrons of the Tantra tradition. The liberal socioeconomic life is well reflected in Hala Satvahana's "Gatha Saptashati" and  "Angavijja", the Prakrit texts belonging to the first century AD and many works of the later times. 

Apart from Tantra sources, we have Charvaka, a pioneering liberal of the pre-Buddhist era who turned his thought into a massive movement that gained so much so popularity that his sect was later known as “Lokayata”, i.e. the Sect of the People. He was defamed by the Vedic scholars so much so that they called him evil and destroyed the literature belonging to his sect when they became prominent. We have remains of his thought in the form of excerpts wherever his (or his sect's) thoughts were felt necessary to condemn and deny by his opponents. His thoughts are not only liberal because he denied Vedas and their ritualistic nature but he proposed first the liberty of human beings while earning a livelihood and gave importance to pleasures. Unlike other philosophers, he gave prominence to the desire and personal economics of the individual to live life happily and he called it true “Liberation.” He denied any kind of restrictions imposed by other forces and proclaimed that “liberty is salvation”.

While choosing the pleasures, Charvaka warned, that they should not bring pain as a consequence to any. Choice of morality Charvaka left on the individuals. Liberty to him was a total absence of exploitation of any. He also denied the artificial divisions of society. He disproved the concept of chastity forced upon the women and allowed the same freedom that was afforded to the males. He accepted the importance of the king because he was one who held the power and was a real entity, unlike imaginary Gods.

Charvakas above and other thoughts on religion were felt dangerous by the Vedic scholars and even Buddhists. Lord Buddha in the Vinayapitaka had forbidden the Buddhist monks to occupy with Lokayat doctrine.  (India's Past:A survey of Her Literatures, languages, and Antiquities By Arthur Anthony Macdonell, page 158) 

However, during Buddha's time, the economy was already functioning on the basis of materialistic thought that was propagated by the tantras and Charvaka. We do not find any adverse impact of Buddhist thought on trade and commerce. Rather, if we read Jataka stories, we find that manufacturing and trade were flourishing during the Buddhist era too!   

Since this doctrine was so popular in all probabilities the political powers too possibly would have been influenced by it. We find many kings of ancient times patronized some or other branches of the Tantras and Lokayata. Arthashastra of Kautilya has given importance to the Lokayata and Tantra doctrine while enumerating the sciences that should be known to the King in the beginning chapter of the Arthashstra. This will reveal that the Charvaka doctrine was considered by the political powers important to learn before the Vedas. Kautilya implies that the base of the state should be materialistic philosophy and he found it in Lokayata and Sankhya School.

Since, to Kautilya, the basis of the State was materialistic philosophy as proposed by Charvaka doctrine, we find he did not make it applicable to society. Though we are not sure of the time of Kautilya as looking at the small hypothetical kingdom that he kept in his mind while writing his book. We are not sure whether he really knew the empires. However, he has covered almost all the economic activities of his time. Contrary to the Charvaka thought Kautiliyan state works on strict controls and state monopolies. For example, mining, salt, weaving, and prostitution were supposed to be controlled by the state. His tax policy is filled up with discriminatory elements.  We can say that Kautilya while respecting Charvaka and Sankhya's materialistic doctrine for the benefit of the state, did not offer the same liberty to the benefit of the citizens.

However, we are not sure whether his hypothetical policies were adopted by the kings. The socio-economic history of India reveals otherwise. For example, we come across the guild system that managed the overall economy of the states without much interference from the State over a long period. Though we do get scattered information from ancient literature, copper-plate inscriptions, and numismatics it is enough to show how liberal was the economy then.

Guild System

All the students of Indian history are aware of the caste (occupational) guilds, called “Shreni” or “Nigam” those used to operate like the present Chamber of Commerce or trade/manufacturers associations. These guilds would manufacture the specialty articles, conduct internal, interstate, and foreign trade. Nigams were allowed to issue coins too, which are found in excavations from Gandhar to south India. Rather in Janpada era till Gupta era, the issuing authority of the coins were the guilds. Every guild had its own unique trademark associated with the symbol of their kingdom (janpada) or Gana’s. (Republics) Rather Shrenis were an economic, a socio-political dominant segment of ancient India that survived till the 12^th century AD.

Let us first understand what Shrenis were. Every Shreni was an association of artisans, merchants, or traders. The traders and artisans engaged in the trade or manufacturing of the specific articles or goods would form their Shreni. People residing in the same area and engaged in the same occupation naturally cooperated with one another to achieve common goals. The Shreni of artisans existed for a particular group of persons engaged in the same vocation. There is mention in various scriptures and various epigraphs that there were Shrenis of the artisans like blacksmiths, goldsmiths, weavers, carpenters, bamboo-craftsmen, cobblers, makers of ivory articles, metal workers, miners, Jaggary producers, potters, and so many other professions. The Shreni system secured the rights of the producers and traders thus offering them the freedom to produce without any interference from the Royal Houses.

The merchants and craftsmen needed allied services like transportation also. Goods used to be transported by bullock carts, loaded on the backs of the oxen or donkeys or ships. The destinations could be far off. For example, Al Masudi informs us how goods were brought to Cheul harbor loaded on thousands of oxen. Some transporters were transporting specialty goods, such as salt, food grains, wood, etc. Other services included security providers to the inland caravans. The variety of service-based occupations too emerged during this vast span of time to meet the needs of the craftsmen and merchants. Such service providers too formed their own guilds.

Romila Thapar informs us that "The ancient sources frequently refer to the system of guilds which began in the early Buddhist period and continued through the Mauryan period. ….Topography aided their development, in as much as particular areas of a city were generally inhabited by all tradesmen of a certain craft. Tradesmen's villages were also known, where one particular craft manufacturing was centred, largely due to the easy availability of raw material.”

It appears that the State just facilitated the economic activities instead of controlling them. We can see that the principle of Classical Liberalism was very much in practice that demands lesser or negligible government controls. It was the guilds  (Shreni) who regulated the manufacturing standards, trade, ethical codes for the member artisans, prices of the crafts, quantity, and quality, training to the artisans etc. which could ensure smooth and timely production. The major duty of the Guild President (Adhayksha, Shreshthi, or Jyetthaka ) was to represent the guild in the Royal Courts for any grievances about taxation or any other matter relating to the supplies. The Guild would work as an assembly where specific problems related to their member artisans or businesses could be discussed and solved. If any criminal/unethical elements regarding the service or manufacture are detected, the Guild could fine or banish the member artisan from the guild. The verdicts of the Shreni could not be challenged even in the Royal courts. Every Shreni had a respectable status in society and in the Royal houses and normally no decision in connection with the production or trade of the crafts would be taken without consulting Shreni’s.

Unlike the later “Independent Village System”, till the tenth century AD manufacturing was almost centralized. This was an ideal system to make mass production of articles or metals. From Jataka, we know about the villages of bamboo Craftsmen (Burud) and other such 36 villages dedicated to mass manufacturing of specific goods. In Maharashtra, from copper plates and rock inscriptions, we know about the villages of the Cobblers, Jaggary makers, Weavers etc. The artisans, who specialized in certain crafts,  together would form Shreni, elect their President and other office bearers to represent them to protect their professional interests and account keeping as Craft guilds would provide loans or accept deposits from the member craftsmen and the public.

Merchant guilds would distribute the goods in local markets as well as export to other regions or foreign countries without much hindrance. Craftsmen could sell their goods individually as well through the guild. Especially Merchant Guilds had the authority to mint the coins and issue them. All the coins we have from the 6^th Century BC onward were issued by the merchant Guilds and not the king. Mauryan kings too didn't issue their coins. In a way, Merchant and craft guilds were the backbone of Indian economic stability and prosperity. There are instances where we find that the Guilds even lent the King in a time of distress.

The post of the President (Shreshthi or Jyetthaka) of the guild was not hereditary. There are instances where the Shreshthi’s have been removed by the member artisans or merchants. Moreover, it seems that mobility from one profession to another was frequent. It was because the vocational training was made available by the Guilds to meet the needs of the additional workforce. The people who wanted to raise their economic status by entering into more flourishing businesses could get easy training and thus entry. Even local artisans would travel far afar in search of better opportunities. Depending on the demand, supplies of the raw material, or political unrest, there could be a rise and fall in all of the selective occupations. The craftsmen either would acquire other vocational training and change their profession by joining another guild or try to sustain in wait of the better days.

Guilds would donate to temples or Buddhist or Jain sanctuaries. Mathura inscription (2nd century AD) refers to the two permanent endowments of 550 silver coins each with two guilds to feed Brahmins and the poor from the interest money. 

A Nashik Inscriptions (2nd century AD) records the endowment of 2000 karshapanas at the rate of one percent (per month) with a weavers' guild for providing cloth to bhikshus and 1000 karshapanas at the rate of 0.75 percent (per month) with another weavers' guild for serving light meals to them. Apart from these more epigraphs and inscriptions are mentioned as evidence in this regard. In addition to this the guilds engaged in works of Charity as well. Guilds worked to alleviate distress and undertook works of piety and charity as a matter of duty. They were expected to use part of their profits for the preservation and maintenance of assembly halls, watersheds, shrines, tanks, and gardens, as also for helping widows, the poor, and the destitute. We have epigraphical proofs from Maharashtra that show the craftsmen, like cobblers, Potter, Ploughmen (Halik), etc. have donated in an individual capacity to build arches or water tanks for the Buddhist caves. This would mean that the artisans were in prosperous financial conditions.

So much so was the power of the craft and merchant guilds that Kautilya advises the King that he should ensure that the heads of the guilds are not united. However, there is no evidence that the guilds ever tried to capture political power, but they maintained their dominant position in politics.

The position of the guild can be explained in different five stages of doweling from 600 B.C. to 1200 A.D. from the perspective of the socio-economic environment of ancient India.

I.                   Pre-Mouryan Period (Indus era to – 320 B.C.)

II.                Mouryan Period (320 -200 B.C.)

III.             Post-Mouryan Period (200 B.C. -300 A.D.)

IV.            Gupta Period (300 - 600 A.D.)

V.                Early Medieval Period (600 – 1200 A.D.)

In these eras Guilds transformed, prospered, declined, and vanished from the socio-economic scene. The roots of the Guild or Shreni system can be traced back to the Indus era, for it was a manufacturing and trading community. From the Indus seals, we can guess that the seals were meant to inform the origin and name of the goods and the price. The later coins of Mahajanpada era too were incorporated certain information in symbolic forms, such as the name of the mint, issuing guild, etc. As Indus civilization declined, the guild structure of those times too must have disintegrated, becoming less powerful and local. Later we come across the Mahajanpada era or the pre-Mauryan period when Guilds seem to have come into prominence and continued to be dominant till the end of the Gupta period.

However, Post-Mauryan Period (200 B.C. -300 A.D.) saw a stiff rise in the Guild system in the Indian economic scenario. Santanu Mahapatra in his essay states that-

“ In this period north-western and western part of India controlled by the Indo-Greeks, Sakas, Kushanas, and Parthians. The Mourya Empire disintegrated into a number of kingdoms and tribal republics. This led to the slackening of state control over administration and economy and the guilds assumed more power and influence that developed closer commercial contact with the Roman Empire. The discovery of the northeastern monsoon, ascribed to Hippalus, in C. 46 A.D. gave impetus to the mid-sea voyage, reducing the time of journey, minimizing the danger of piracy and also obviating the need of the service of middlemen in Indo-Roman trade. Then Indian mercantile activity also extended to central Asia and China. India was the main exporter of luxury items to the Roman Empire and earned huge profits. A large number of coins of this period those of the Indo-Greeks, Sakas, Parthians, Kushanas, indigenous rulers and tribal republics, cities and guilds have been found, some in hoards. It indicates a greater circulation of money-economy and fairly advancement of trade and commerce, in which guilds must have played a significant role. ‘Milindapanho’ (ed. Trenckner, 1880) refers to a number of occupational guilds, their number being much greater than the early period.” 

In the Gupta era too, guilds, whether merchant or craft, remained prominent, but it seems that the authority to issue coins was withdrawn. We do not find coins issued by the guilds during the Gupta era. Rather than banking activities, accepting deposits, and advancing loans, of the guilds gradually shifted towards select temples. Though the artisans and merchants, along with farmers were prosperous in this era too, the foundation of the guilds started weakening. The post-Gupta era saw the rise of feudal lords and various independent powers, thereby disturbing the political stability that India had enjoyed even under foreign rule. Constant conflicts between regional rulers made it difficult to smoothly operate the trade. 

Later, we find a series of Islamic invasions in North-west India causing further political instability and disturbance in trade and commerce. “As a consequence, people’s confidence in these institutions must have waned. Their prosperity and affluence an account of which they commanded social status must also have diminished. Thus political upheaval exercised its worst effect on the guild organization.” thus states P. C. Jain.  In a way, Samantas or feudal lords gradually became more dominant for the need of the time to fight out aggression. It diminished the earlier social status of the Guilds and their economy. Also, the taxation structure was changed putting a heavy burden on the craftsmen, merchants and so the guilds. 

“Arthuna inscription of Parmara Camundaraja, dated 1079 A.D, also gives a list of taxes levied on different trade and crafts. On the account of these taxes, the guilds of merchants and traders were losing prosperity in the preceding centuries. This prevailed from their donations which clearly give the impression that they were poorer. To keep up their old reputation of donations and defraying there expenses views of a region federated themselves and pooled their resources” so informs Mr. Mahapatra. 

By the tenth century AD, the guild system witnessed a tremendous decline in trade, which naturally hampered the production of all the crafts. In a way, it was like a situation of the great recession. Craftsmen soon started deserting their centralized workplaces. This was the exact situation that had caused the decline of the Indus Civilization. But political instability, constant wars among local rulers, and Islamic aggressors were not the only reason behind the disintegration of the Guild system. Another series of natural calamities began in 11^th Century AD…and that was famines. We will discuss the circumstances that led India to destitution.  

We can see from the above that the economy in practice was liberal with the least control of the State. The traders and craftsmen enjoyed enough freedom to get engaged in the production and trading activity of their choice. They fulfilled their social obligations by applying their own mind. During this era, they were taxed minimally as compared to taxation which overburdened the economic activities and caused a heavy decline under Islamic rule. The rise of anti-liberal ideas coincided with the political upheaval causing further damage to the economy and social structure. Social mobility, unlike what is thought, was quite high. The professions (castes) could be changed easily if an individual sensed a prospectus in other activities. Unlike the stratified Varna system of the Vedics, Gatha Saptashati or Angavijja does mention the various occupations but does not mention at all the stratified caste (Jati) system among non-Vedic masses!  

To sum up:-

1.     The roots of Indian socio-economic doctrine were based on the foundation of the liberal philosophy of tantras and Charvaka.

2.     The artisans, traders, and farmers enjoyed the freedom and hence they could prosper and in turn made India a “Golden Sparrow”.

3.     Banking and minting were not owned or controlled by the State but by the Guilds, a private sector! A classical liberal would have desired the same in modern times.

4.     The explosion of art and literature in India belongs to this era only which suggests that the liberal economy opens many ways to human creativity.

5.     Indian dark age that begins in the early medieval era directly coincides with the fall of the liberal economy.

6.     India needs a revival of classical liberalism in a modern sense which again shall make India prosperous to unbounded levels!

  

-Sanjay Sonawani

 (To be contd.) 

Our Judiciary...a critique..!

Interpretation of the same proofs varies with judge to judge which influences the verdict. We have seen in the Salman case how the verdict of the lower court was refuted by the High Court denying the reliability of the same proofs those were sufficient enough for the lower court to convict him. It has been debated on public forums and in private whether the changed verdict was an outcome of the “proofs and their interpretation” or extra-judicial forces influenced the interpretation and hence the judgment. Prima facie this issue may look ordinary practice of our judicial system but in depth, it raises a vital question mark on the authenticity of our judicial system.

Interpretation of the proofs in the legal framework is essential to deliver equitable justice. Judicial interpretation of the laws is another issue in which many aspects are involved. We have seen in the case of “Right to privacy”, many judgments were issued considering this was a fundamental right of the Indian citizens as outlined in the constitution. However few judgments went contrary to this ‘assumption’ contemplating that right to privacy is not at all fundamental right of the citizens as there is no such clear cut directive in the constitution. This is a matter of judicial interpretation and the controversies help us to amend, alter or replace the laws or make corrections in the constitution. This is the way how the judicial machinery is improved and justice is delivered. However, interpretation of the evidence is solely dependent on the judge or bench of the judges within the framework of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Still, there are no certain criteria that can define unanimously the interpretation of the proofs.

Judge too is human beings. Being human there always is every possibility of error of judgment and this can easily be forgiven, though not expected from the justice. But when there are cases of sheer negligence, deliberate interpretations or misinterpretations we should be alarmed and caution the overall judicial system of its implications. With such cases faith on justice will not prevail. There are enough grounds to suspect the honesty of the judges which makes our judiciary vulnerable.

The fact is there are no enough courts in India. Millions of cases are pending for decades. It is said that justice delayed is justice denied and on this ground we the Indians are denied justice. Judges are overloaded with the work getting far less time to study every case in depth. The work environments too are far from good in the court rooms. Subordinate staff too is limited. Lot much have been written on these issues but we find not much improvement so far. The constraints posed by the overwork and work environment before the sitting judges really are pitiable.

But this cannot justify the injustice delivered by the judges for whatsoever reasons. The main problems, apart from above, those are noted, experienced and privately agreed by many lawyers with our judicial system are:

1)    Judiciary no longer is aloof from the corruptions, either financial or moral.

2)    Political influences play many a time major role in justice delivery system.

3)    Casteism too has plagued the judicial system to some extent.

4)    The court staff is also corrupt, many a time act as an agent between petitioners/criminals and judges. Some lawyers specialize in such unethical (but effective) practices.

5)    Many judges have been accused of unlawful beneficiaries of lands in related cases.

6)    There was demand from some NGO’s, like ‘Center for Investigation & Prosecution of Corrupt Judges of India’ that the judiciary must be brought under the perview of the Jan Lokpal.  However, there is no heed to this demand.

Former Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble V. N. Khare, in an interview with “Outlook” had conceded that the bribes are rampant with lower courts. His statement had come on the backdrop of the bail granted by a special judge who had allegedly taken Rs. 5 crore bribe to grant bail to former Karnataka minister, in July 2012. He also had agreed that the work over load, the pendency of cases because of the shortage of manpower is a major factor that indulges to the corruption among judges.

The recent survey conducted by "Transparency International" speaks that the 77% Indians believe that the judiciary is corrupt. The amount paid as bribes, as estimated by TI is, Rs. 2630 crore in the year 2005 alone. The chapter titled as 'Indolence in India Judiciary” states that 61% of the bribe amount goes to the lawyers, 29% to the court officials and 5% to the middlemen. There is no way to verify this claim. Rather the figures could have been projected based on some real data gathered from inside sources. But it shows in what alarming situation our judiciary has fallen in!

Recently, in September 2015, in Vapi (Gujarat) two judges were arrested by the vigilance Cell of Gujarat High Court and were sent to judicial custody. The charge on them was they had accepted bribes to pass favorable orders. There are many cases though very few come in the light.

Thus the interpretation of the proofs changes, sometimes because of the judge's personal sentiments, his way of thinking, prejudices, ideology or caste or religion he belongs to or simply because he is sold to the bribe! The Outrage of the public sentiments too sometimes dictates how the justice should be delivered and often judges fall to those pressures. Political influences too play a role in certain types of cases.

Our judiciary, same as our military, is a holy cow, hence seldom and that too with reservation, is criticized. Fear of the possible charges leveled under “Contempt of Court” and the possibility of the punishment of imprisonment or penalty withholds citizens from openly talking/writing about it! Justice in India comes long after suffering to the innocents.

Another thing that I would like to beg your attention at that most of the HC and SC judges strongly desire for the suitable postings after retirement, on some commission or committees. It always better for such judges to be in good books of the powerful political parties. Such affiliations yield far better rewards, they are aware of it. With such long-term planning to restore self-esteem and power, even after retirement, the decisions of such judges while on the seat, concerning the people belonging to such parties would become obviously questionable, but there are seldom or no questioners. The corridors of the power are so brutal where the plight of the common man is always an end result.

Unfortunately, the judiciary also is no exception!

When the interpretation of the laws and the evidence are marred with some or other selfish intents of the judges is indeed assassination of the justice! There can be academic disputes over how to interpret law/constitutional provisions or the evidence and testimonies of the witnesses. The verdicts given with some genuine understanding of individual judge is pardonable.

But certainly not, when caste, religion, economic and future power gains influence the court orders! This is not good justice. The faith of common citizen in the judiciary, as statistics shows, already has been declined. This is not at all a good sign of our democracy.

Judiciary must and at once should come out of this fallacy or people won’t approach courts for justice. The police will keep on taking disadvantage of the judiciary at the cost of freedom of the people which is guaranteed by our constitution. The guarantee will remain in the book and law of jungle will come to be applicable in the country.

I am afraid of this possibility!

Restrictions on liberty or Protection to the liberty?

Liberty not always is violated by the authorities, no matter whether they are political, religious or economic. There exist many other elements in the overall body of the society that too attempts endlessly to rob you from your individual liberty. Attempts of the parents to make their child “cultured” of their own estimate, force their ideas upon him which they have accumulated from the society and so-called heritage. In schools too kid is bombarded with the values those are thought to be superior over other societies, to make him nationalist, culturist and if possible religious citizen of best kind. The out sided forces are so much so that they in some or other way try to control your thinking process, politically or religiously which means restriction of the freedom of the individuals to think and act independently. If the process of enslaving the kid to make a good citizen out of him begins so early, what liberty would mean to him?

Just talking of political liberty or tyranny of majority may not be enough when we dream for real liberty. Conditioning of human mind from childhood by the parents and society is equally dangerous to the concept of liberty. If mind is conditioned notions of the liberty too will be conditioned and hence the liberty will always be tainted with the slavish sentiments. Talk on Liberty thus becomes just a fashion to enchant the intellectuals which rather prefers limited liberty, accepting some restrictions for the harmonious co-existence.

However, if closely investigated, we will find that our definitions of the liberty are problematic because they are made by the people those have grown up in the problematic conditions. Solutions to the problems they have faced or facing may seem liberty to them but it may not cover all the aspects of the liberty.

People are ultimately grown up in the environment where purposely their mind is conditioned right from childhood. Freedom from X or Y is felt when they counter them and decide X or Y are the obstructive to their freedom. To remove X or Y from their way they think leads them to the freedom. Freedom to them thus becomes political, economic or religious in nature. The institutions they think are hindrance in their way to their “free” action they think are tyrant. Any institution for that matter is always tyrant to some or other extent. The gravity of the felt tyranny changes with what the people feel about the institution. In a way concept of liberty becomes secondary because it does not come into existence in absence of tyranny, real or false.

Coming back to the starting point, why parents desire to make their child “cultured”? Culture in a way is collective subconscious activity of the people that reflects in people’s actions. The culture varies with time and geography. The cultural ethics and practices too vary, significantly, with people to people and region to region. Making a person “cultured” would mean making him able enough to cope up with the accepted social norms while aspiring for well being of his self, family and the society he lives in. He should not create any nuisance, treason or any harmful act that will cause disturbance in the smooth functioning of his society. The liberty too is set within the circle of such norms.  Liberty thus has the guidelines, many a times tending to go in contrast with the very concept of liberty.

This way liberty would mean one thing at front door and other, may be opposite, when at back door. Norms may change with society to society and time to time. There is nothing like absolute liberty in the world because no matter how the definition of the liberty is widened it always will be restricted by some guidelines, laws and institutional rules. Liberty to an American and Indian, that too depending on to which class, caste, sect or religion he belongs, would not mean the same, no matter how carefully it has defined. The words convey differently to the different people belonging to the different sections and the different environments they have grown up with. The conditioning of the mind, deliberate or not, decides what one may take the liberty as! The fact is the society is the first factor that begins encroachment on the liberty of its newcomer citizens. It begins with the restrictions. The restrictions of the law are secondary about which we mostly always are sensitive, but what our approach is towards the society?

Would this mean the liberty always be shadowed by some kind of self sanctioned slavery? Wouldn’t it mean that the liberty our thinkers are seeking is the liberty restricted by, whether less or more, laws? Why absolute liberty would be impossible, because absolute liberty may mean anarchy…lawlessness? Would it mean to have a society without any social obligations?

Politically liberty may mean anything depending upon the philosophies and understandings of the liberty they have under their arms. Leftist or rightists or socialists may claim how they desire to protect the liberty of the individuals, but indirectly it becomes enforcement of restrictions on the liberty. The government is not only law maker but a machinery to enforce them. Most of the time people feel that the laws no more protect their liberty; instead they restrict their freedom to think and act rationally. Direct and indirect restrictions even in libertarian social systems are so much so that the meaning of liberty has become more and more ambiguous and obscure. Liberty has become, in a way, dream song for a person who is governed by many forces against his will.

The questions will arise here that whether man is afraid of liberty, whether by nature he likes to be governed, does by nature he likes to govern others while being governed? Forces governing to the government could be abstract in nature, but they still do exist and even topple the governments at times. When people desire for the government of some nature that does only mean that they inherently need a government that can enforce power upon them to maintain law and order. And at other end people, individually, strive for the liberty! It is a kind of paradox, with which our society is shrouded.

We have to go to the roots of the human nature. Is liberty mere a hypothetical concept that everybody dreams for but do not want it in practice? Is liberty thought to be just for individual without his caring for the equal liberty of the other individuals? Is liberty a force that is applied to restrict others liberty and not protecting it?

Parents are at liberty as to how to nurture their kid. They are at liberty to mend their kid with teaching the values they feel best to their understanding. They may even plant their unfulfilled dreams in their kids mind, inspiring him to walk in that direction to achieve them. Parents have that liberty. But as far as kid is concerned, wont it be restriction on his liberty by imposed values and dreams? Would he be at his own liberty to make his own choice of the values and dreams? May be that he manages somehow to obtain his freedom, when grown up, but to what extent? The values taught at home and in school and in colleges keep on haunting the individuals for their life forcing him to define liberty in restricted sense.

However, liberty just is not a hypothetical concept, it has the practical implications. Hence it has to be dealt with utmost care. Also we will have to think whether restricted liberty is needed or protection to the individual liberty is expected from the governments. And the last and main question will be whether at all government is needed that somehow restricts the liberty or we need just an institution (not government) that will perform the role of protector of the liberty and nothing else?

(To be contd.)