Dialogue on Trusteeship: A futuristic ideal

On January 30, 2014, Gateway House and Sabarmati Ashram jointly hosted a dialogue on Trusteeship, a Gandhian ideal, that has been given scant attention. A small group of business people, scholars, philanthropists and professionals from the non-profit sector assembled on this poignant day, which marks the death anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi, to explore if and how Trusteeship is the foundation of a creative society that enables well-being of all. A brief report:

Mahatma Gandhi’s emphasis on Trusteeship has often been wrongly equated with philanthropy. It is true that Gandhi encouraged rich people to voluntarily distribute a significant portion of their wealth through social spending. But this is not why Gandhi was confident that Trusteeship will someday provide solutions when the shortcomings of both, capitalism and socialism, are more widely acknowledged.

For much of the century since Gandhi first articulated this idea, Trusteeship has been commonly dismissed as a morally over-demanding idea with no basis in economic realities or human nature.

On the contrary, Gandhi’s firm conviction about Trusteeship was rooted in a logical line of reasoning.

The most significant outcome of the dialogue held on January 30 in Ahmedabad was a critical re-examination of this logic, and diverse ideas about how Trusteeship could be the basis for addressing both the mounting crises of income disparity and environmental distress.

Gandhi’s line of reasoning was as follows. Everyone is not endowed with the skills and temperament required for wealth generation. Since humans are fundamentally moral beings, it follows that those who have the skills for wealth generation must deploy that gift for the larger good – instead of just narrowly concentrating on money and power.

Thus, for Gandhi, Trusteeship was a key element of a society built on non-violence — both in terms of how the profits are earned, and how the wealth generated is distributed. This faith was validated by evidence that all experiments in forcible re-distribution of wealth, for example the Russian and Chinese revolutions, have led to horrendous violence.

But what about the violence inherent in much wealth generation – be it underpaid workers or environmental damage and displacement of project affected people. Gandhi’s answer to this problem was unwavering purity of means — ‘sadhan shudhi’.

What would today constitute ‘purity of means’? This was one of the areas of further exploration which emerged from the dialogue.

The premise of this dialogue was that while we seek inspiration in Gandhi’s articulation of the essential principles of Trusteeship, our quest is expansive, not limited to Gandhi’s writings, and open to diverse influences.

To some extent the bare essentials of Trusteeships are embedded in the concept of Fiduciary Duty, which lies at the heart of any viable system of commerce, for it requires that those who manage money must act as benevolent, and not self-interested, custodians or trustees.

The dialogue began with various participants sharing knowledge and insights about how various shades of Trusteeship are manifest in our times – both among businesses who are careful about the means used to earn profits, and in the everyday life of individuals and communities. It was particularly noted that many people long for changes in the business and social eco-system so that they can become better trustees, rather than participate in corrupt practices.

One reason for this, at the village level, is that when people are complicit in corruption it may benefit them in the short term, but it builds loyalties that are vertical and puts them under the power of people higher up in the hierarchy. By contrast when a community mobilizes to collectively strive for ‘purity of means’, this creates horizontal loyalties which are far more empowering for both individuals and the collective.

In particular, some young people want to be part of problem-solving but don’t know how. They are looking for clues on how to go beyond the limitations of both socialism and capitalism.

Such endeavors indicate that it is not true that every person has a price. It was pointed out that Adam Smith writes about the importance of an imaginary impartial spectator from whom we all seek admiration and approval. A parallel was drawn between this impartial spectator who becomes a moral guide, and Gandhi’s frequent references to ‘the still small voice within’.

However, it was emphasized by virtually all the participants that efforts to cultivate Trusteeship should not get trapped in the search for a perfect society – for that often leads to dogmatism. It is far more important to focus on the logic of human motivations – greed arises from fear of loss or deprivation. One possible counter to this is both, economic structures and a social mindset that fosters abundance and a celebration of ‘enough’ or sufficiency.

Then the counter to heedless consumption would not be laws that restrict what we can buy, but people voluntarily choosing positive forms of restraint. Of course this requires constant introspection and work on the self, which several participants spoke about as being a prerequisite not just to being a good trustee but having a good life.

Some participants felt that this process might be aided by assigning empirical, assignable metrics to Trusteeship in the realm of commerce. Others warned that such metrics would foster a more mechanistic definition of Trusteeship and underplay the importance of the spirit or bhava.

There was a unanimous agreement on the need for us as citizens to be actively engaged in being better trustees of the State, rather than giving up on it or acting as disinterested spectators. For instance, a rights framework is important to democracy, but if entitlements become divorced from a responsibility framework, then the net outcomes may be more dependency than empowerment.

It was agreed that Trusteeship is a complex subject requiring an intensive exploration over a sustained period. This dialogue was seen as a first step in outlining some of the key areas of this exploration – in terms of research, public debate and perhaps policy changes.

There is need for detailed case studies of businesses and other social contexts where some form of Trusteeship has been developed. However, this must be premised on opening up the idea of trusteeship itself – in ways that takes into accounts new forms of ownership and collaboration made possible by advances in technology. At the same time these energies have to contend with the reality that globally Intellectual Property Rights are veering towards greater locking up of knowledge and concentration of power. What, in this context, might be the role of some venture capitalists bringing ‘solidarity capital’ into the market place?

Creating a dynamic vocabulary of Trusteeship is thus a key task going forward.

Rajni Bakshi is the Gandhi Peace Fellow at Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations.

This blog was exclusively written for Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations. You can read more exclusive content here.

For interview requests with the author, or for permission to republish, please contact outreach@gatewayhouse.in.