PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS
Revisiting Bhoodan: Synthesizing Vinoba’s Moral Persuasion and Gandhian Pragmatism
Dr. Siby K. Joseph
I consider it a profound honour and privilege to preside over this august National Webinar on Revisiting the Bhoodan Movement. We gather on a truly historic occasion. On 18 April 2026, we observed the 75th anniversary of the Bhoodan Movement. To mark that milestone, and at the request of Shri Ram Dutt Tripathi, former BBC correspondent, I penned an article for Media Swaraj. Following its publication, it was suggested that we organize a national-level discussion on this theme, specifically tailored to engage the younger generation.
Responding to this call, a collaborative initiative was taken by:
- Sevagram Ashram Pratishthan, Wardha
- Probhodha Trust, Kochi
- Institute of Social Sciences, MGM University, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
- Department of Economics, St. Xavier's College for Women (Autonomous), Aluva
- Department of History, St. Joseph's College (Autonomous), Irinjalakuda
As the title of our webinar suggests, our purpose today is not merely to look backward, but to look forward—drawing vital lessons from a monumental, non-violent revolutionary movement to address contemporary challenges.
Moved by Love: The Philosophy of Vinoba Bhave
There is a beautiful book titled Moved by Love, which is the English translation of Vinoba Bhave’s memoirs by Marjorie Sykes, compiled by Kalindiben. That title was not just a poetic phrase; it was Vinoba’s operational roadmap. He firmly believed that pure, active love (prem) and deep compassion (karuna) could achieve what legislative mandates often fail to secure: true social justice.
The Bhoodan Movement perfectly embodied this philosophy—it was an entire campaign moved by love. Sparked by a single, historic event in Pochampally, it evolved into a bloodless revolution. Landowners voluntarily surrendered approximately 4.7 million acres of land, writing an unprecedented and awe-inspiring chapter in human history. Today, we draw inspiration from his legacy to examine the significance of this movement in our contemporary world.
Vinoba’s movement was built entirely on a "heart-to-heart conversion." He demonstrated that when you approach people with genuine love rather than anger or hostility, you awaken their dormant conscience. This was his simple yet profound formula: individuals begin to act generously and spontaneously, without a single weapon being drawn or a single law being enforced.
The Tension Between Idealism and Structure
Yet, looking back 75 years later, history also compels us to be honest. While love and compassion are incredible tools for lighting the fire of a movement, they cannot secure lasting social and economic justice in isolation. We require a concrete structural blueprint to translate that lofty vision into daily, sustainable reality. This critical point was rightly emphasized by Shri Naveen Kumar, Secretary of the Probhodha Trust, in his introductory remarks. Love provides the dream of an egalitarian society, but structure builds the actual road to reach it.
This brings us to a fascinating tension in our history. Mahatma Gandhi was deeply conscious of the power of the modern state, and deeply suspicious of it. In an interview with N. K. Bose, published in the Modern Review of October 1935, Gandhi famously called the State a "soulless machine" and the "symbol of violence in a concentrated form." He felt that forcing people to be good through state power left the reform morally hollow. For Gandhi, real change had to grow organically from inside the individual and the community, allowing people to purify themselves and choose the right path.
Yet, Gandhi was also a pragmatist. He did not completely reject the role of statutory laws or regulations. In that same 1935 interview, he justified the use of minimum violence by the State against individuals who failed to behave as trustees of their wealth.
Revolutionary Realism and the Path Forward
Furthermore, in his famous interview with the American journalist and author Louis Fischer in June 1942, Gandhi asserted that in the course of the impending civil disobedience movement, peasants would stop paying taxes. He remarked, “They will make salt despite official prohibition—their next step will be to seize the land.” When probed by Fischer regarding potential violence, Gandhi candidly admitted, “There may be fifteen days' chaos.” Regarding the confiscation of land, he averred that it would have to be done without compensation, noting that "it would be financially impossible for anybody to compensate the landlords."
This highlights a core area for our deliberation today: What can land reforms contribute to this process through legislative means? Can we synthesize Vinoba Bhave’s gentle persuasion with Gandhi’s pragmatic realism?
This is not a mere academic debate. It is a matter of survival in a contemporary world where giant corporations are aggressively consolidating land and resources for profit, often leaving vulnerable communities behind. We are here to figure out how to resolve systemic inequalities before they erupt into bloody conflict, finding a path where love, justice, and practical structure can meet.
Thank you, and I look forward to our deliberations.
Note: This is the text of the Presidential Address delivered by Dr. Siby K. Joseph, Director, Sri Jamnalal Bajaj Memorial Library and Research Centre for Gandhian Studies, Sevagram Ashram Pratishthan, Sevagram, Wardha - 442102, Maharashtra (INDIA), during the National Webinar on "Revisiting the Bhoodan Movement" held on July 22, 2026. He can be contacted via email at directorjbmlrc@gmail.com.
Revisiting the Bhoodan Movement: Character, Action, and the Vision of Vinoba Bhave
Prof. D. John Chelladurai
Introduction: The Character and Personality
First of all, the personality behind Vinoba was a classical character. He was a classic. We can delve into his life and learn a great deal about how to lead a perfect life. His ashram experiments are another classic. We can talk endlessly about them.
The Bhoodan movement, his ashram experiments, and his personality—these three classics coming together are a wonder for any casual reader. Unlike many others, Vinoba was a man of steadfast holistic action, whereas, as a person he had a very light heart and a lot of sense of humour for anyone to associate with.
To give an illustration: Vinoba joined Mahatma Gandhi by chance. Vinoba was actually on his way to the Himalayas at a young age to initiate himself into Sannyasa (asceticism). As he was crossing Banaras (Varanasi), the got to know that a new University by name Banaras Hindu University was being established (Feb 06, 1916). And he heard Gandhi speaking at the inauguration. Gandhi spoke on Indian Poverty, Apathy of rulers who wallow on riches, need for mother tongue (he said, ‘Indians should speak to people in their tongue, not in English), Criticism on High Security cover for Rulers (it’s a shame, he said), our indifference toward public cleanliness and hygiene and swaraj thru’ self-purification. His emphatic message:
"Our salvation can only come through the farmer. Neither the lawyers, nor the doctors, nor the rich landlords are going to secure it"
Gandhi's rejuvenating speech was quite appealing. Vinoba thought, “Here is a man with whom I can associate and get what is aspire to in the Himalayas.” He wrote to Gandhi, came straight to the Sabarmati Ashram, and joined him in mid-1916.
Logician Rooted in Mathematics
Vinoba was basically a mathematician; he would operate by logic coupled with pragmatism. Logic was his true love. He once said, "I am loyal to mathematics."
After about a year of stay, he thought he would take a break to recoup himself both physically and spiritually. He asked for a one-year break, and Gandhi agreed. He went to Wai, Maharashtra, studied Sanskrit and all the Vedas at a rapid pace under a Pandit, and came back to the Ashram exactly on the 366th day. That is the kind of logician he was.
Gandhi: "It shows your fidelity to truth."
Vinoba: "Rather, it is my loyalty to mathematics."
Just after five years, Gandhi found that Vinoba had great potential that he shouldn't remain under Gandhi's roof. He sent him to wardha to head the ashram that Gandhi instituted in 1921. Over time, Vinoba got his own campus in Paunar, where he conducted a great number of experiments. He was more confined to the Ashram experimented ‘swalamban’ to the core’ His pragmatism coupled with intellectual genius and spiritual flare, attracted a lot many young intellectuals and those wanted to pursue spirituality.
The First Individual Satyagrahi
In 1942, when Gandhi launched the Quit India Movement preceded by the Individual Satyagraha, he declared Vinoba as the first Individual Satyagrahi. At this point, I should mention something very important to understand his character.
Gandhi’s slogan was "Do or Die." This meant we must either get independence or give up our lives; until we die, we will strive for independence with no more compromises. When Gandhi announced Vinoba as the first Satyagrahi, Vinoba said, “Yes, I am ready.” He told his colleagues, “Now I am going to do or die. I will get independence or I will die.”
This message was sent to Gandhi, who had to hurriedly send a rejoinder to Vinoba: “But when I said 'Do or Die,' I did not mean that you should hold on to your life until we get independence. It is not 'to die.' You will not take any serious step like a fast unto death to get independence. You will not do that.” That was the kind of person Vinoba was.
Post-Independence and the Crisis in Andhra
When India gained independence, all the founding fathers put their hearts and souls into building this nation. The challenge was mountainous – our incredibly diverse India. Eighty-five percent of the people lived in 7.5 lac villages stricken with poverty. They faced the challenge of building a nation that guaranteed equality, justice, and true freedom for its people.
Vinoba said, ‘the era of struggle and Satyagraha was gone. We must now put our hands together to construct this nation as a land of justice and equality, just as Mahatma Gandhi envisaged.’
At that time, in Andhra Pradesh, there was a violent revolt for land rights orchestrated by the Communist Party (CPI) and the Andra Mahasabha. Vinoba Bhave was invited because the violence was spreading everywhere, making it too difficult for the newly established governments to run the administration. People feared it would quickly spread across the entire country.
The Birth of the Bhoodan Movement
Vinoba went there and spoke to the people in a village called Pochampally (now in Yadadri Bhuvanagiri district of Telangana State). Forty poor people attended the meeting of Vinoba. They said, “If only we had a piece of land, we would conduct our normal lives. Why should we back the violent revolutionaries engage in expressions of violence?”
Vinoba asked, “If that is the case, don't we have one or a few landlords in this village who can volunteer to give them land?” The people asked for just two acres each, saying, “If we get just two acres, we will survive. We don't want violence.”
Then, Vedre Ramachandra Reddy from Bhoodan Pochampally came forward. He said, “I will give not just 80, but 100 acres.”
That was a surprising turn of events, even for Vinoba. He did not think it would happen, but it gave him an idea: we can appeal directly to the people. There are people even now who are ready to relinquish their prized possessions for the sake of collective welfare and the "welfare of all" (Sarvodaya).
The 24,000-Kilometer Journey
He extended this appeal to the next village, and it went on for about 7 to 8 months. In every village, there was a tremendous, overwhelming response. Growing in confidence, Vinoba declared that they would change the face of the country by enabling people with land and removing poverty.
Around that time, Jawaharlal Nehru constituted the first Planning Commission and wanted Vinoba to attend. The invitation came two months before the planning meeting. The very next day after receiving it, Vinoba said yes.
He began his journey to the Planning Commission meeting from Wardha, walking all the way to Delhi. He said, “I will not come by car.” It was such a sustainable idea. He invested those two months on the road collecting land for the Bhoodan movement. He collected a vast amount of land and distributed it—a fabulous integration of multiple goals in a single action.
After Andhra, he went to Odisha, Bihar, Bengal, and the northeastern state of Assam. He covered all the northern states, then came to Maharashtra, followed by Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala. He travelled almost 24,000 kilometers, walking from village to village. He visited nearly 58,000 villages and spoke to the people.
Government Cooperation and Outcomes
After a period of time, the government recognized this as a wonderful methodology for land reform, poverty eradication, and people's empowerment. They sent the Tehsildar (revenue officer) of the respective villages to accompany Vinoba on his route. As Vinoba received land donations, the Tehsildar registered them on the spot. This was a massive, instantaneous response from the government, that gave a new hope and belief to the masses over the Independent India that cares for each of them.
In total, he collected about 4.7 million (47 lakh) acres of land, out of which about 1.5 million (15 lakh) acres were fertile and worth cultivating.
When we receive land as a donation (Dan), we cannot dictate conditions or demand only fertile land. About two third of the land collected were less fertile. This became a bone of contention for researchers evaluating whether Bhoodan was a success or a failure. The movement must have been backed up with proper follow-up action once land was obtained.
The Follow-Up inadequacy and Civil Society's Role
Vinoba ensured that land the essential instrument of development or sustainability was given to the poor. The movement, in order to bear fruit, required a concerted follow-up action (turning land into cultivable; procuring tilling equipments…). It required a well minded local civil society organization. When we have got the land, it could have been converted. Absence of such civil society organization was key reason for the movement’s inability to convert every piece of land acquired a promise of liberation from poverty. It’s indeed the rest of the country failed; the movement itself did not.
Leaders and Intellects of Sarvodaya
People joined en masse along his way. Prominent leaders like Jayaprakash Narayan (JP), Shankarrao Deo, Ravi Shankar Maharaj, Siddharaj Dhadda, and Dada Dharmadhikari , R K Patil (ICS), Thakurdas Bang, Narayan Desai gave their lifetimes to make Bhoodan happen.
A lot of other intellectuals also joined, like Kaka Kalelkar, J.C. Kumarappa. They intellectually supported the cause and continued to write and speak about Sarvodaya through Bhoodan.
The Evolution into Gramdan
The most appealing response came from Bihar, which was incredibly enthusiastic. This was partially because of the backing given by Jayaprakash Narayan. JP brought the practical knowledge of how to convert Bhoodan into an economically sustainable action. That is why the Bihar experiment was so successful. Bihar initiated the third level of events in Bhoodan by introducing Gramdan (village gift).
Under Gramdan, it was no longer just about a few people donating a few pieces of land. The entire land of the village was given so that there would be no private ownership. The village community became the owner. We would all work on that land and share the benefits, joys, and sorrows of tilling.
That idea was so novel that it quickly caught on. Thousands of villages declared themselves Gramdan villages. The enthusiasm was so high that they eventually announced Zilladan (district gift)—proposing that an entire district should be converted into a common property to work for and enjoy welfare of each and every one. No one in the district would be a private owner; the whole district would transition into Sarvodaya common property. Yes, it was a grand idea! Then they even started talking about Statedan (state gift) as well.
Vinoba’s Unique Formula for Land Donation
In the nascent state of independent India, leaders discovered that there was a massive reservoir of emotional and spiritual energy. If only we could bridge that energy, it could lead to an equitable social order. That emotion and methodology were recognized.
The methodology was simple: let us appeal. Vinoba had a specific technique. He would go to a village, invite the people, and ask any landowner: “How many children do you have?” If they replied, “I have two children,” Vinoba would say, “Then consider me as your third child and give me one-third of your land.” If one had four children, he would say, “Consider me as the fifth child and give me one-fifth.”
People were ready to give, partially because Vinoba was such a towering personality with an immense spiritual aura and oratory appeal. He quickly learnt the language of the enroute masses and spoke to them in their tongue, a rare sense of belonging he forged between him and the haves and more importantly the have-nots. Second, India was fresh with the fervour of Liberation, sacrifice for nation was a great honor for any individual. In this new nation, the emotion of nation-building was foremost in everyone's minds, which made a great impact.
Moving Mountains Through Truth
Together, they sent a message to the world: if you appeal to people in the right sense and in the right manner, it works. This is Satyagraha—the insistence on truth. This is the truth: you and I are one family, yet I have land and you don’t have land. I will share it with you. It is as simple as that.
When that truth was insisted upon by sterling characters like Vinoba, it could truly move mountains. That fact was firmly established to the world. There was no historical precedent to Bhoodan. It was a unique experience, that gave a clue to the world that we can change the face of the earth and the fate of humanity by bringing people together, appealing to them, and enabling them to respond to situations nobly, without resorting to violence or enforcement.
About Speaker
Prof. D. John Chelladurai is Dean, Interdisciplinary Studies, MGM University, Chh. Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra. He can be contacted via email : djohnchelladurai@gmail.com; deaninterdisciplinary@mgmu.ac.in
Reframing Feudalism: The Legacy of the Bhoodan Movement
Prof. Vinodkumar Kaloilickal
In this presentation, I explore how the Bhoodan movement served as a powerful, overlooked tool for national integration that challenged deeply rooted feudal structures without resorting to violence. Drawing on historical frameworks and my observations of the unique socio-cultural dynamics in Kerala, I invite us to rethink our understanding of land reform and recognize Vinoba Bhave's lasting legacy of peaceful coexistence.
The Bhoodan Movement as a Tool for Integration
Of course, the Bhoodan movement is not a failure. It faced the tough situation of its time, particularly a very strong, armed resistance, while India was navigating a critical process of national integration. The movement enriched the integration of the land and directly addressed its deeply rooted feudal character. As my friend Dr. Siby Joseph very clearly expressed, nearly 4.7 million acres of land were collected by Acharya Vinoba Bhave. Prof. John Chelladurai also explained the inception of the movement—how the very first piece of land was bestowed by Vedre Ramachandra Reddy in Andhra Pradesh in April 1951. It is time to properly mark the Bhoodan movement so that it does not remain unnoticed; it deserves far more attention from students and scholars alike.
Rethinking Feudalism and "De-feudalization"
One reality we must accept is that feudalism cannot be driven out simply by using the state machinery. We have many historical theories regarding feudalism. Prof. Chelladurai stated that Acharya Vinoba Bhave was a mathematician. Interestingly, the mathematician-turned-historian Professor Damodar Dharmananda Kosambi designed a thesis in 1956 that was followed by great Marxist historians like Ram Sharan Sharma and many scholars from different streams to explain natural feudalism.
However, the decline or the "de-feudalization" process has not been properly evaluated. The word de-feudalization was, I believe, first coined by Max Weber. Today, we are actually seeing a time of "re-feudalization" in certain political aspects and economic structures.
Before rushing to the conclusion that Bhoodan was a failure, we must evaluate the "Kolkata Thesis" passed by the Communist Party of India (CPI). The CPI convened its Second Party Congress to adopt this radical shift in strategy just 28 days after the tragic assassination of the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi. While violent, armed peasant uprisings subsequently flared up across parts of India to target the bourgeois state and traditional land structures, these insurrections were eventually suppressed by state forces. Recognizing the limitations of this armed path, the party officially withdrew the Calcutta Thesis by its Third Party Congress held in Madurai.
Gandhi, the Feudal Lords, and National Strategy
When examining the nature of feudal laws across India, we can see that Gandhi successfully rallied most of the feudal lords under the banner raised by the Indian National Congress. Gandhi once warned his own close followers that we cannot agitate against ourselves. When Gandhi travelled in Kerala , great industrialists like Samuel Aaron funded his journeys. He was welcomed by Vengayil Nayanar, the biggest landlord of North Malabar, as well as the Rajas of Travancore.
Gandhi knew history well. We lost the Revolt of 1857 precisely because most of the feudal lords in India supported the British. Learning from this, the Bhoodan movement under Acharya Vinoba developed a socio-ecological framework—akin to Karl Marx's concept of the "metabolic rift"—which in Malayalam we refer to as Jaiva Shastra. This meant the movement chose to consider the wishes and emotions of the feudal lords rather than alienating them.
Interestingly, a work translated by Patrick Camiller highlights how Karl Marx clarified his materialist conception of history in his final years, replacing a strict, linear progression of historical stages with a more flexible, multilinear approach. Instead, we see theories like those developed by Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom regarding "the commons," a concept highly visible in the Bhoodan movement.
The Kerala Context: Harmony Over Rift
Let us look specifically at the Kerala context. The landlords of Kerala—particularly the Nambudiris and the Nair Taravads—directly or otherwise supported the national movement. Even during the heated days of the Kolkata Thesis, the Karshaka Sangham (peasant union) of Kerala never led aggressive, bloodthirsty movements against these landlords.
Look at the strikes of April 12 and April 22, 1948. In those situations, the Karshaka Sangham and Communist Party leaders followed a passive position, much like the stance of K.A. Keraleeyan. Feudal lords were not slaughtered, and leaders refrained from purely demonizing them.
This social dynamic is evident in the writings of figures like Mayyanad Sanku, in the widely read and debated autobiography of K.A. Keraleeyan, in the records of the Jenmi families, in recently published works by environmentalists, and in the literature of U.R. Ananthamurthy. You see that there was no absolute rift between the landlords and the peasantry. Of course, their economic interests were contradictory and clashes happened, but in most cases, the local landlords were deeply sympathetic to the cultivators.
Ritual Feudalism and the Concept of Justice
Often, we try to analyze Indian feudalism using standard European tools. But in India, and particularly in Kerala, we must look at the concept of "ritual feudalism." A deeply rooted belief in our society was that the land ultimately belongs to God.
To illustrate this mindset, I like to quote the historic spirit of the statement made by Veerapandiya Kattabomman from Tamil Nadu. When famously confronting the East India Company's land tax collector regarding the traditional tribute system, he demanded: “Why should I pay tax? The earth bursts with grain, and the heavens pour rain!”
To understand development from this lens, I invite your attention to the books written by Amartya Sen, such as The Idea of Justice, Development as Freedom, and his works on ethics and economics. The concept of development has to be reframed. Too often, we borrow outdated economic tools from Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo.
As Dr. Siby Joseph noted, brute force cannot be used to fix these societal imbalances. We defeated the British Empire by using the power of passive resistance (Satyagraha). Because we developed a sophisticated philosophy of anti-colonial movement, the feudal system had to be addressed in a completely different direction. All armed, bloody movements against feudal lords were suppressed by the nascent state and eventually withdrawn by their own orchestrators. Today, the very people who proposed the Kolkata Thesis are hesitant to discuss or analyze what happened in places like Alappuzha. The violent approach was totally abandoned.
Vinoba's Padayatra and the Path Forward
In Kerala, the Bhoodan movement was effectively embraced by leaders like Ikkanda Warrier (former Prime Minister of Kochi). Elite families, such as the Nilambur Kovilakam, voluntarily joined this movement.
When Vinoba Bhave visited Kerala, he led a massive Padayatra (foot march) from Kasaragod to Thiruvananthapuram, which remains a well-marked milestone in the long history of Kerala.
I thank Dr. Siby Joseph for organizing this session. The Bhoodan movement must be thoroughly discussed and properly documented. I urge Dr. Joseph to take the initiative to document exactly the land was given by the feudal lords in Kerala and elsewhere. Thank you to all the participants.
About the Speaker
Dr. Vinodkumar Kalolickal is Professor, Department of History at Maharaja's College, Ernakulam.
Reflections on Bhoodan and Gramdan Movements
Dr. Michael W. Sonnleitner
A Young Man's Perspective on Rural India
First, let us be very honest: I am no expert on Vinoba Bhave, Sarvodaya, or the Bhoodan movement. I have some experience simply because as a young man of 22—just 20 years after Vinoba began the Bhoodan movement—I was a bit like Marco Polo. I was in India.
I travelled for six months meeting people who had known Gandhi. That journey included visiting four different ashrams in rural areas and spending a good deal of time living with Sarvodaya workers who were primarily engaged in Gramdan. This was around 1971–1972.
Based on my brief experience, I especially appreciate the comments of Prof. John for his historical overview and also appreciate Prof.Vinodkumar's insights on addressing feudalism.
That is exactly how I saw it 55 years ago. It was a feudal society in many rural areas—perhaps a little less so in Kerala due to that region's unique history. But in Bihar, my goodness, it was extremely dominated by landlords and in crying need of social change and land redistribution.
Gandhi’s Pragmatism vs. Vinoba’s Intellect
I agree with Dr. Siby Joseph that this was a revolutionary movement on Vinoba's part. It had its shortcomings, which we haven't fully explored yet. Vinoba was a brilliant man. There is no way I am going to start trying to learn Arabic at my age, but he did because he wanted to read the Quran in the original text. He was in a completely different intellectual league.
However, as Siby mentioned, Gandhi himself was an extremely pragmatic person. He may not have been as intellectually brilliant as Vinoba, but he kept his feet firmly on the ground. While Vinoba and others were reacting with an alternative to the Communist Party of India’s (CPI) more revolutionary response to land reform, Gandhi would have supported the goal but might not have been as completely critical of the CPI.
Vinoba was a purist; Gandhi was a pragmatist. Gandhi’s philosophy was that if we cannot provide a viable alternative to take care of the needs of the landless and the poor, then it is not our place to actively oppose those who might be using more violent means.
Where the Rubber Meets the Road
The Gramdan movement, which was a wave in the early 1970s, possessed great potential. However, many Sarvodaya workers were simply not well-prepared to organize the necessary follow-up.
When people make a pledge to give their land to the village, the pragmatic issues involved with making the Gram Sabhas functional are where the rubber meets the road. Oftentimes, the tires were not well-prepared for that road. That was my observation.
During my six-month stay, there were very few inspiring examples of Gramdan in actual operation. One notable exception was Radhakrishna Menon at Navodaya, just outside of Kochi. When I stayed with him, I was amazed by the difference. Despite having 100 acres of really poor land on a hillside, he succeeded because he planted himself there. He lived with the villagers as a matter of life and lifestyle. He was not an outsider or a mere "helper" to them; he was one of them. That made that experiment extremely successful, at least during his lifetime.
The Cost of Nonviolent Revolution
I think we underestimate the sacrifice necessary for nonviolent revolutionary change. One month before Gandhi was killed, he drafted what later became known as his "Last Will and Testament"—which is a bit silly, as it wasn't notarized by a lawyer. In it, he suggested that the Indian National Congress party should disband and transform into a service organization devoted entirely to village uplift.
Obviously, the Congress party did not follow that advice, making their own political choices instead. When I interviewed Morarji Desai as part of my travels in 1971–1972, he was the Chancellor at Gujarat Vidyapith. When I mentioned Gandhi’s Last Will and Testament observation, Morarji became extremely angry with me because he was deeply invested in the Congress party (and years later, he would become Prime Minister).
It is perfectly okay to disagree with Gandhi or Vinoba. We need to seek our own truths and use our own minds.
Lessons for the Future
My mind tells me that if there had been more Sarvodaya workers like Radhakrishna Menon, the positive results of the Bhoodan and Gramdan movements would be far more substantial today. Because that deep commitment to living with the villagers and being one of them was largely missing, the two-thirds of collected land that was uncultivable never truly became cultivable.
We can learn critical lessons not only from the idealism of these movements, but also from the stark need for pragmatism to make them truly successful now and in the future. Those are my simple comments from a simple mind who is not an expert in these matters.
About the Speaker
Dr. Michael W. Sonnleitner is a Gandhi and King scholar and formerly instructor of Political Science and Member of Board of Directors of Portland Community College, Oregon, USA
