82
For Gandhi, it was not enough to seek a better place in a system of economic exploitation or to
have more of the wealth of such a system fall into Indian hands. He saw poverty as an evil and,
therefore, sought to end that which this evil was based in and sustained by, and instead expand
the reach of moral beneficence. This meant placing self-reliant means in the hands of the poor
and having those in better economic situations engage in practices that supported the poor. In
this way, poverty could be reduced in route to eliminating poverty through ways that fall within
the scope of Swaraj.
I would also point out the statement in the above quote about “moneyed men” having
shared interests with the British in the oppression of India. This dynamic of privileged members
of oppressed groups supporting systems of oppression continues on today. But it is not just rich
individuals that continue this practice, many service and nonprofit organizations serve a similar
role. How many organizations receive significant amounts of money to treat this or that social
problem, a funding stream literally dependent on the existence of the problem? And as much as
some may embrace a jargon of claiming to work to put themselves out of business (i.e., an anti-
poverty organization saying it wants to end all poverty and thus end the need for the
organization), their interests are intricately bound in the continuance of social problems created
by systems of oppression. More careful analysis will show that many of these organizations
receive money, via charitable giving, from groups that create, sustain, and profit from these
problems. In economically exploitative systems, large portions of charitable giving comes from
those who can afford to give it: the elite rich, the government, and some well-to-do working
class people who usually have well-paid jobs in the oppressive structure. But many poor people
are in a difficult position to give charity and, thus, provide a limited amount to such funding.
Gandhi’s approach illustrated an effective way for organizations (that are sincerely concerned
about ending economic exploitation and problems created by such) to devise means to treat
social problems in ways that remove their interests from oppressive economic systems. Not only
did Gandhi’s approach improve the state of the poor, it enabled the poor to better support efforts
to end poverty in ways that did not bind them to the interests of those who oppressed them.
The charkha, as a symbol, also became a powerful reminder of the importance of Indian
villages. With the British basing their commerce activities in cities, there was a growing neglect
of villages: cities became bases of power (business, government, etc.) and places for jobs and
opportunities to pursue wealth. The pursuit of these required urban Indians to assimilate into
British culture, not only wearing British clothing but speaking English and adopting other British
cultural norms -- even if only outside of the home. (And remember: this is in India.) Gandhi