Environmental Thoughts of Gandhi for a Green Future

by A. S. Sasikala

Poster courtesy greenpeace.org; artist unknown

We live in a world in which science, technology and development play important roles in changing human destiny. However, the overexploitation of natural resources for the purpose of development leads to serious environmental hazards. In fact, the idea of development is itself controversial, as in the name of development we are unethically plundering natural resources. It is rather common to encounter high dam controversies, water disputes, protests against deforestation, and against pollution. Eminent Indian environmental activist Vandana Shiva argues that development is actually a continuation of colonialism. Borrowing from Gustavo Esteva she argues that, “development is a permanent war waged by its promoters and suffered by its victims.” (1)

It is true that a science that does not respect nature’s needs, and a development that does not respect people’s needs threatens human survival. The green thoughts of Gandhi give us a new vision to harmonise nature with the needs of people.

Gandhi was not an environmentalist in the modern sense. Although he did not create a green philosophy or write nature poems, he is often described as an “apostle of applied human ecology.” (2) It is a fact that environmental concerns were minimal in Gandhi’s time; but eminent environmental writers like Ramachandra Guha nevertheless consider him an early environmentalist. (3) Gandhi’s views on nature are scattered throughout his writings. His ideas relating to Satyagraha based on truth and nonviolence, simple life style, and development, reveal how sustainable development is possible without doing any harm to nature and our fellow beings. His idea that “nature has enough to satisfy everyone’s needs, but not to satisfy anybody’s greed” became a one-line ethic for modern environmentalism.

Gandhi considered the earth a living organism. His ideas were expressed in terms of two fundamental laws: Cosmic law and the Law of Species. Cosmic Law views the entire universe as a single entity. Nothing could malfunction outside the threshold limits built into the grand system that includes both living and non-living phenomena. (4) He believed that “the universe was structured and informed by the cosmic spirit, that all men, all life and indeed all creation were one”. (5) He was an advaitist who believed in the essential unity of man and nature. He wrote: “I believe in the advaita (non-duality), I believe in the essential unity of man and for that matter, of all that lives. Therefore, I believe that if one man gains spiritually, the world gains with him and if one man fails, the whole world fails to that extent.” (6) Regarding the law of species Gandhi believed that without the cooperation and sacrifice of both human and non-human beings evolution is not possible. Being rational human beings, we are the custodians of the rest of creation and should respect their rights and cherish the diversity.

It is for this reason that taking more than the required resources is seen as theft. Gandhi evolved these principles from his vast readings and understandings of religious traditions of Hinduism, Jainism, Christianity and Islam. His social, economic and political ideas were framed on the understanding of interdependence of the whole universe. This paper tries to analyse the ideas of Mahatma Gandhi to understand their relevance for the environment.

The first section of the paper presents the theoretical aspects of truth, nonviolence and Satyagraha and their environmental implications. The second section discusses the critique by Gandhi of science and modernity, while the third section considers Gandhian economics as an ecological economics. The last section analyses the conflict resolution techniques of Gandhi and their applicability to environmental conflicts. The paper argues that a new model of environmentalism put forward by Gandhi will lead us to a green future where the rights of the present and future generations are well protected.

Truth, Nonviolence and Satyagraha

Truth and nonviolence are the fundamentals of Gandhian philosophy. His life itself was a relentless search for truth. His views on truth are embedded in his religious beliefs and practices and offer “a cosmological view of our relationship with one another and a pervasive sense of duty we owe to one another.” (7) Nonviolence or Ahimsa means non-injury, but to Gandhi nonviolence was much more than the absence of violence. He used it to mean non-injury in thought, word and deed. He viewed nonviolence as the philosophy of life. Ahimsa, Satyagraha and Tapasya were the basic principles that guided his life. (8) Truth and Ahimsa are intertwined terms. To Gandhi truth is that “which determines the spirit in which one lives or the religious and ethical criteria which govern the way in which he thinks and acts.” (9) He believed that truth can be achieved only by means of nonviolence. It affords the fullest protection to one’s self respect and sense of honour. If truth is the highest law, then nonviolence is the highest duty. Gandhi claimed that truth was the most correct and fully significant term that could be used for God. To practice Ahimsa is to realise truth and to realise truth is to practice Ahimsa. The concept Satyagraha gave practical expression to the religious and ethical ideals of truth and nonviolence. Tapasya or self sacrifice is necessary to achieve the highest truth. It involves freedom from fear and a willingness to die. Gandhi believed that Satyagraha is nothing but Tapasya for the truth. The suffering that has to be undergone in Satyagraha is Tapasya in its fullest form. (10)

Gandhi explained his concept of nonviolence in the following terms:

  1. Nonviolence is the law of the human race and is infinitely greater than and superior to brute force.
  2. Nonviolence affords the fullest protection to one’s self-respect and sense of honour.
  3. Individuals and nations who practice nonviolence must be prepared to sacrifice everything for the welfare of the whole world.
  4. Nonviolence is a power which can be wielded equally by all – children, young men and women or grown up people, provided they have a living faith in the God of love and therefore have equal love for all mankind. When nonviolence is accepted as the law of life it must pervade the whole being and not merely be applied to isolated acts.
  5. It is a profound error to suppose that whilst the law is good enough for individuals it is not for masses of mankind. (11)

Satyagraha is an active form of nonviolence. Gandhi considered it as truth force or soul force. Satyagraha is based on the idea that the moral appeal to the heart or conscience is more effective than an appeal based on the threat or bodily pain or violence. Satyagraha itself originates from the belief that while violence to persons and property diverts the minds of the parties concerned from the real issues involved, non-violent action invites the parties to a dialogue about the issues themselves.

The major difference between Gandhian and non-Gandhian systems of nonviolence is a disagreement about the relations of ends and means. To Gandhi, the selection of means precedes the selection of ends in the sense that one’s original and basic commitment is to certain means or methods, and one’s ends are seen as objectives which progressively emerge as one tries to bring one’s life into conformity with this basic commitment. (12)

Satyagraha tries to unite this objective and basic commitment. In a way this gives an opportunity to understand both our opponent’s and our own mission. In the Gandhian scheme of Satyagraha one undergoes self-suffering with a belief that the opponent can be converted to seeing the truth by touching his or her conscience or that a clearer vision of truth may grow out of the dialectical process for both parties. (13)

March 12th, 1930, was a watershed in the history of India. Gandhi started the Dandi salt satyagraha on that day to protest against the salt law imposed by the British. Thousands of people including women and children joined the march. Gandhi advised the people to make salt by themselves in their own homes as a protest against the government. On April 6, 1930 he broke the British salt law by picking up a chunk of the salt crust from the Dandi beach. It was a unique method of protest and Gandhi taught the world a new lesson that the power of nonviolence supersedes the power of violence. Nonviolence has a mesmerising power to exert a pull in the minds of human beings and it appeals to the heart. After Gandhi, leaders and activists of different movements used prototypes of Satyagraha to bring their campaigns to fruition.

The ecological scope of nonviolence is unlimited. Gandhi’s faith in nonviolence and vegetarianism made him a votary of conservation of all diversity including all forms of life, societies, cultures, religions, and traditions. (14) He made manifest the internal relation between self-realisation, nonviolence and what sometimes has been called biospherical egalitarianism. (15) Arne Naess, the pioneer of deep ecology, argued that ecological preservation is non violent in nature. (16) Naess introduced and Thomas Weber systematised the relation between nonviolence, self-realisation and mutual dependence of all living beings in the following points.

  1. Self-realisation presupposes a search for truth.
  2. All living beings are one.
  3. Himsa (violence) against oneself makes self-realisation impossible.
  4. Himsa against a living being is Himsa against oneself.
  5. Himsa against a living being makes complete self-realisation impossible. (17)

Naess used these principles to evolve a broader philosophy of environmentalism i.e., deep ecology. He believed that Gandhi’s utopia is one of the few that shows ecological balance. (18) As Gandhi envisaged, nonviolence has the power to solve all our problems, including ecological crisis. Different environmental movements accept Gandhian nonviolence as a vital principle. Most of these movements lay claim to the Gandhian values of ecological prudence and frugality and to the Gandhian model of decentralised democracy and Village Swaraj. Many thinkers consider Indian environmental movements such as the Chipko movement [see the article by Mark Shepard posted here], Narmada BachaoAndolan (NBA) etc. to be the living examples of Gandhian environmentalism and they consider Gandhi as a “man with a deep ecological view of life, a view much too deep even for deep ecology.” (19) It was in the Chipko movement that Satyagraha was initially used as an effective technique to fight against environmental injustice. The Forest Satyagrahas of 1930’s were a result of the Forest Act of 1927 which denied the people access to biomass for survival while increasing biomass production for industrial and commercial growth. (20) The key agenda of the Chipko movement was carrying forward the “vision of Gandhi’s mobilisation for a new society, where neither man nor nature is exploited and destroyed, and was the civilisational response to a threat to human survival.” (21) All these together made Gandhi an exponent of Indian environmentalism.

Gandhi’s Critique of Modern Civilisation

Modern industrial civilisation has had a huge impact on humankind as well as on the environment. It made a small part of the population wealthy at the cost of exploiting the world’s natural resources. Gandhi believed that it propagates nothing other than the hunger for wealth and the greedy pursuit of worldly pleasures. His denunciation of modern civilisation and his proposal for reordering it stems from his concern for the destiny of man which modern society distorts. (22) Hind Swaraj, published in 1909, criticized the modern civilisation as “satanic.” He observed that “machinery is the chief symbol of modern civilisation; it represents a great sin. It is machinery that has impoverished India.”. (23) The distinguishing characteristic of modern civilisation is an indefinite multiplicity of wants, whereas ancient civilisations were marked by an imperative restriction upon, and a strict regulating of these wants. (24) Resources are limited and so the desire to amass wealth leads to violence both at individual and collective levels. It also creates a social order in which inequality, oppression, and deprivation prevail with disastrous implications for human dignity. Gandhi believed that the ancient civilisations were religious in nature, which would surely limit worldly ambitions.

Gandhi’s critique of modern civilisation was influenced by the Western critique of modern industrial civilisation. In the nineteenth century, the greatest critics of the industrial revolution in Europe were Carlyle, Ruskin, and Morris to whom Asia held a particular appeal. There was a perception that Western industrialism was destroying the Asian paradise. Gandhi was a great admirer of Ruskin who criticised the Victorian industrialization and urbanization. It was through his book Unto This Last that Gandhi realized the importance of manual labour. The “magic spell of the book” contributed to the Gandhian Sarvodaya [universal progress]. (25) He was also influenced by the ideas of Tolstoy who believed that agriculture is the true occupation of man. (26) Gandhi believed that true civilisational values are not present in modern civilisation. In Hind Swaraj Gandhi argued that what we think as ‘civilisation’ today is an illusion, and that any civilisation that ill treated outsiders could hardly avoid ill treating its own people. Gandhi’s critique of western civilisation and science emanates from his dissatisfaction with the divorce of science and progress from morality. (27) He was not against technology, but against the technologism which creates a hierarchical relationship among men as well as between men and nature. Gandhi believed that the greatest “achievements” of modern civilisation have been weapons of mass destruction, the awful growth of anarchism, the frightful disputes between capital and labour and cruelty inflicted on innocent, dumb, living animals in the name of science and technology. He believed a science to be science only if it afforded the fullest scope for satisfying the hunger of body, mind and soul.

Modern civilisation involved an egregious amount of violence against nature which was largely seen as man’s property. This undermined man’s unity with his environment and fellowmen and destroyed stable and long established communities. (28) Natural resources were ruthlessly exploited and their rhythm and balance disturbed while animals were killed or tortured for human needs. Gandhi believed that villages would soon disappear due to the urbanisation which is part of modern civilisation, and of which environmental degradation is a product. Gandhi had a romantic vision of the ideal village. He wrote that, “it will have cottages with sufficient light and ventilation, built of material obtainable from within a radius of five miles of it. The cottages will have courtyards enabling householders to plant vegetables for domestic use and to house their cattle. The village lanes and streets will be free of all avoidable dust. It will have wells according to its needs and accessible to all. It will have houses of worship for all, also a common meeting place, a village common for grazing its cattle, a cooperative dairy, primary and secondary schools in which industrial training or vocational education will be the central fact, and it will have panchayats for settling disputes. It will produce its own grains, vegetables, and fruits and its own khadi.” (29)

While the western environmentalists spread the message of “going back to the nature” Gandhi spread the message of “going back to the villages”. He believed that the “the blood of the village is the cement with which the edifice of the cities is built.” (30)

Ecological Economics of Gandhi

Modern economy is “propelled by a frenzy of greed and indulges in an orgy of envy.” (31) It makes man more materialistic, placing most other people, and the environment, at risk. Schumacher argued that, “Wisdom demands a new orientation of science and technology towards the organic, the gentle, the non-violent, the elegant and beautiful.” (32) He identified Gandhian economic ideas as having the power to reach that goal. Gandhi asserted that “true economics stands for social justice; it promotes the good of all equally, including the weakest and is indispensable for decent life”. (33) Dr. J. C. Kumarappa, known as the Green Gandhian, systematised Gandhian economic and developmental thoughts and integrated his economic thinking with scientific knowledge to “entail macro-ecological problems of pollution as well as depletion.” (34) He summed up Gandhian economic ideas as a constituting a philosophy that sought to create an “economy of permanence”. He observed that self-interest and preservation demand complete nonviolence, co-operation and submission to the ways of nature if we are to maintain permanency by non-interference with and by not short-circuiting the cycle of life. (35) In another way, “all nature is dovetailed together in a common cause”. Kumarappa argued that “when this interconnection works out harmoniously and violence does not break the chain, we have an economy of permanence”. (36) He identified different types of economies and realized that the highest form of economy is the economy of service, which Gandhi suggests. Gandhian economic concepts like Swadeshi [national independence], trusteeship, bread labour etc received attention and acceptance from the whole world.

Gandhi defined Swadeshi as “the spirit in us, which requires us to serve our immediate neighbours before others and to use things produced in our neighbourhood in preference to those more remote. So doing we serve humanity to the best of our capacity.” (37) The Swadeshi spirit encourages us to consume commodities made from our own villages, thus promoting small-scale industries, which help ordinary farmers and weavers to live happily. Limitation of wants is another important aspect in Gandhian economics. Gandhi urged us to minimise our wants in order to minimise the consumption and thus reduce the burden on nature by avoiding hazardous wastes. Our civilization, culture and swaraj depend on the restriction of wants. Gandhi realized that modern civilisation and market economics have a tendency to multiply the wants and needs of common people. Schumacher also identified modern economy as propelled by a frenzy of greed, which indulges in an orgy of envy. He realised that every increase of needs tends to increase one’s dependence on outside forces over which one cannot have control and therefore increases existential fear. Schumacher observed that as physical resources are limited everywhere, people satisfying their needs by means of a modest use of resources are obviously less likely to be at each other’s throats than people depending upon a high rate of use. Equally, people who live in highly self-sufficient local communities are less likely to get involved in large-scale violence than people whose existence depends on worldwide systems of trade. Bread labour is another important economic concept of Gandhi. He valued bodily labour saying, “the rains come not through intellectual feats, but through sheer bodily labour. It is a well established scientific fact that where forests are denuded of trees, rains cease, where trees are planted rains are attracted and the volume of water received increases with the increase of vegetation.” (38) It not only promotes our environment, but also increases our economic stability. The Gandhian concept of bread labour encourages the use of human hands and body instead of machines to produce essential items like vegetables, cloth etc.

The economic ideas of Gandhi differed from conventional economics and bore close resemblances to ecological economics. Ecological economics is a relatively new area that came in to existence in response to the failure of mainstream economics to bridge the gap between economics and the environment. It has an explicit concern for future generations and long term sustainability, and works with a broader range of values than the limited perceptions of the current generation of humans. (39) Ecological economics sees sustainability not only as an economic problem, but also a problem of maintaining essential, non-replaceable and non-sustainable environmental features. (40) The emphasis is on natural capital, i.e, on nonrenewable natural resources and renewable resources such as ecosystem services. In Gandhian economics environmental sustainability can be defined as sustainability of the ecological services (includes the provision of food and other raw materials) on which human beings depend. (41) Environmental sustainability ensures minimum use of natural resources. The term sustainable development was not much discussed in Gandhi’s time, but his ideal vision of the world, known as Sarvodaya, safeguards the rights of future generations, through the welfare of all.

Gandhian Conflict Resolution and the Environment

Conflict resolution is an emerging branch of social science which deals with the techniques to resolve conflicts between nations or between individuals. It can also be applied to address environmental issues. For the last forty years, India has been witnessing several conflicts between policy makers and environmental activists. This includes disputes such as the Cauvery river water dispute, the Ganga water controversy, high dam controversies like the Narmada movement, Silent Valley movement, and Tehri dam movement. There are several other environmental debates on nuclear proliferation, deforestation etc. Most of these movements use Gandhian conflict resolution techniques to deal with their adversaries. The reasons may be that (1) Gandhian techniques are non-violent in nature, which is more eco-friendly than the violent protests, or (2) the success of other Gandhian movements may have inspired them to use the Gandhian techniques.

Whenever there is a mismatch between different interests, conflicts arise. Gandhian nonviolence (Satyagraha) is accepted by many as an effective technique of conflict resolution. Here the term ‘technique’ is not used in the narrow sense, but as an effective method which contains many contradictions and strategic implications. Conflict resolution is used to denote the methods and processes of negotiation, arbitration, and institution building which promote the peaceful ending of social conflict or war. Gandhi never used the words “conflict resolution”; instead he used terms like “mediation” and “negotiation”. He never considered conflicts as problems. Rather, they were opportunities for moral growth and transformation. For Gandhi, what mattered in a non-violent struggle was “how the game was played and how the opponent felt about his antagonist after the game was over.” (42)

The contribution of Gandhi in conflict resolution was his “working hypothesis that the non-violent resolution of group conflict was a practical goal.” (43) Gandhi experimented successfully with mass, nonviolent actions. Thomas Weber argued that we should view conflict resolution as intrinsic to Gandhi‘s philosophy, rather than as distinct from it. His philosophy of truth and nonviolence contribute to the theory of conflict resolution. Gandhi believed that the truth is one and different individuals perceive it differently. Nobody can claim that their perception is correct. If we are not sure about the supreme truth there is no need of violence or conflict. In order to realise truth one should have to realise God. Self realisation is the way to realize God. Self realisation will lead us to refrain from violence against other beings.

Weber identifies the key points of Gandhian technique of conflict resolution from Arne Naess’s systematisation of Gandhian Ethics (44); these principles may be summarised as follows:

  1. Nonviolence should be observed in any situation. Violence is invited from opponents if they are humiliated or provoked.
  2. It is necessary to understand the root of conflict and our role in it.
  3. Accepting the individuality of the opponent is crucial. Appealing to greed, prejudice or hatred cannot in any circumstances be reconciled with Satyagraha.
  4. It is necessary “to put ourselves in the shoes of the opponent”, to understand his position well.
  5. Tolerance, love and sympathy are the keys of conflict resolution.
  6. Mutual trust is essential. It is easier to move from cooperation to competition than from competition to cooperation. So trust needs to be built early in the relationship, but one should not exploit the trusting behaviour of the opponent.
  7. Compromise on honourable terms is another important element in conflict resolution. The Gandhian process of conflict is one of synthesis rather than compromise.
  8. Surrender without conversion is not the ideal Gandhian way of terminating a struggle. The conversion of an opponent should be furthered by personal sincerity.
  9. Self sacrifice is the essential quality of a Satyagrahi. The best way of convincing an opponent is furthered by personal sincerity.
  10. One should be careful not to take benefit out of the opponent’s weakness.

The advice of Gandhi for those engaged in group struggle was to “make a constructive programme part of the campaign” to make it more understandable and also more open to critical examination. (45) He believed that civil disobedience itself is irrelevant if the entire nation did not take part in constructive programmes. (46) He suggested doing literacy programmes, spinning or weaving, and awareness campaigns, as a part of the campaign and he himself was involved in several of these constructive programmes. It would also help the participants to deviate their minds from violent thoughts.

So far as the Indian environmental movements are concerned, the conflict is often between different interest groups, or between the state and people, and is often led by peasant groups or tribal people. It is often in the form of struggle for the protection of livelihood, control over resources, or some form of self-determination and autonomy. Nonviolent protest has a significant role here, because violence to any living being is against the principle of environmental justice. Environmental injustice, and marginalization are considered as instances of structural violence. As Gandhi believed, violence and counter violence will never help to resolve conflicts, he considered Satyagraha as the “only force of universal application be that of Ahimsa or love” to fight violence. (47) It is entirely different from mere passive resistance, where there is no scope for mutual love. In passive resistance, Gandhi believed “there is a scope for hatred” but “Satyagraha may be offered to one’s nearest and dearest.”(48)

Environmental movements in India used Satyagraha as the moral equivalent of war. Forest Satyagraha was first used effectively in the Chipko, so called tree-hugging movement to protest against deforestation. [See Mark Shepard’s article for more details.] Gandhian techniques like padayatras were conducted to save nature. Conflict resolution techniques based on nonviolence and self sacrifice were used by environmental activists like Chandi Prasad Bhatt, Baba Amte, Sunderlal Bahuguna, Medha Patker and others.


Several decades before the rise of environmental movements, Gandhi picked up fundamental environmental issues like over-consumption, violence to man and nature and so on. Nowadays, there are several movements in different parts of the globe fighting against environmental injustice. Some of them are violent in nature, but in India environmental movements have been forged by Gandhian traditions of non-cooperation and nonviolence. The Gandhian definition of nonviolence is far more than mere passive resistance, rather “it is a way of life, which affects everything from what a person eats through to how they relate to the world around them”. (49) Gandhian Satyagraha often functions as a conflict resolution technique. Forest Satyagraha proved to be effective as seen in the Chipko movement. Gandhi wrote much about the colonial power, its impudence, and the heinous destiny it has imposed on the country. He criticised modernisation and industrialisation for its lethal effects on the society.

He believed that “the economic imperialism of a single tiny island kingdom (England) is today keeping the world in chains. If an entire nation of 300 million took to similar economic exploitation, it would strip the world bare like locusts.” (50) He observed that the Indian situation demanded a new vision on economics, which is centered on agriculture and village industries. He conceptualised a new economic order based on ecological balance. Environmental thinkers like Arne Naess considered Gandhi’s utopia as one of the few that shows ecological balance. The village romanticism of Gandhi has been considered as central to his environmental philosophy. However, going back to the thoughts of Gandhi is essential to build up a green future, where there is no place for human greed.


(1). Vandana Shiva, Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Survival in India, New Delhi: Kali for Women, 1988, p.11.

(2). T N Khoshoo, Mahatma Gandhi: An Apostle of Applied Human Ecology, New Delhi: TERI, 1995, p.9.

(3). Ramachandra Guha, “Mahatma Gandhi and Environmental Movement in India” in Arne Kalland and Gerard Persoon (ed), Environmental Movements in Asia, London: Nordic Institute of Asian Studies & Routledge, 1998, p.67.

(4). R P Mishra, “Facing Environmental Challenges; The Gandhian Way”, Anasakti Darshan, 5, 2 (July-December 2009), p.9.

(5). Bhikhu Parekh, Gandhi’s Political Philosophy; A Critical Examination, London: Macmillan, 1989, p.72.

(6). Young India, December 4, 1924.

(7). Ronald J. Terchek, “Conflict and non violence” in Judith M Brown, Anthony Parel (ed.) A Cambridge Companion to Gandhi, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011, p.118.

(8). Daniel M Mayton II, Non Violence and Peace Psychology: Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, Societal and World Peace, New York: Springer and Science & Business Media LLC, 2009, p.6.

(9). Glyn Richards, The Philosophy of Gandhi: A Study of His Basic Ideas, UK: Curzon, 1991, p.33.

(10). Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (CWMG), New Delhi: The Publication Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, and Ahmedabad: The Navajivan Trust, 1965, Vol. XVI, p.13.

(11). Harijan, September 5, 1936.

(12). H J N Horsburgh, “The Distinctiveness of Satyagraha”, Philosophy East and West, 19, 2, April 1969, pp.171-180.

(13). Thomas Weber, “Gandhian Philosophy & Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practical Approaches to Negotiation”, Journal of Peace Research, 38, 4; July 2001, pp.493-513.

(14). T N Khoshoo, op.cit. p.3.

(15). Thomas Weber, Gandhi as Disciple and Mentor, New York: Cambridge University Press: 2004, p.26.

(16). Arne Naess, “Self Realization: An Ecological Approach to Being in the World” in John Seed, Joanna Macy et.al (ed), Thinking Like a Mountain: Towards a Council of All Beings, Philadelphia: Society Publishers, 1988, p.26.

(17). Thomas Weber, Ibid, 2004, p.18.

(18). The Selected Works of Arne Naess (SWAN), Edited by Allen Drengson in cooperation with the author, Dordrecht (Netherlands): Springer Verlag, 2005, Vol.2, p.lxviii.

(19). R C Sharma, Gandhian Environmentalism, New Delhi: Global Vision, 2003, p.45.

(20). Vandana Shiva and Jayantho Bandhyopadhyay, “Chipko in India’s Civilizational Response to the Forest Crisis” in India’s Environment:Myth and Reality, Dehra Dun: Natraj, 2007, p.13.

(21). Ibid, p.21.

(22). Ramashray Roy, Self and Society; A Study in Gandhian Thought, New Delhi: Sage, 1985, pp.36-38.

(23). M K Gandhi, Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule, Ahmedabad: Navajivan Trust, 1938, p.81.

(24). Young India, June 2, 1927.

(25). M K Gandhi, An Autobiography or The Story of My Experiments with Truth (Abridged edition), New Delhi: Penguin Books, 2006, p.164.

(26). CWMG, Vol. IV, pp.399-400.

(27). Shambhu Prasad, “Towards an understanding of Gandhi’s views on science”, Economic and Political Weekly, 36, 39 (Sept 2001), pp.3721-3723.

(28). Bikhu Parekh, op.cit., p.23.

(29). Harijan, Jan. 9, 1937.

(30). CWMG, Vol. XCI, p.57.

(31). E F Schumacher, Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered, London: Vintage Books, 2011, p.18.

(32). Ibid, p.20.

(33). Harijan, Oct. 9, 1937.

(34). Mark Lindley, J C Kumarappa, Mahatma Gandhi’s Economist, Mumbai: Popular Prakashan, 2007, p.164.

(35). J C Kumarappa, Economy of Permanence: A Quest for a Social Order Based on Nonviolence, Wardha C. P : All India Village Industries Association, 1946, p.4.

(36). Ibid, p.5.

(37). Young India, Aug. 20, 1919.

(38). Young India, October 15, 1925.

(39). Robert Costanza, “Ecological Economics: Reintegrating the study of Humans and Nature” in Ecological Applications, 6, 4 (Nov. 1996), pp.978-990.

(40). John M Gowdy, “Terms and Concepts in Ecological Economics” in Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28, 1, (Spring 2000), pp.26-33.

(41). Ram Binod Singh, Gandhian Approach to Development Planning, New Delhi: Concept, 2006, p.223.

(42). Robert E. Klitgaard, “Gandhi’s Non Violence as a Tactic”, Journal of Peace Research, 8, 2 (1971) pp.143-153.

(43). SWAN, Vol V, p.5.

(44). See Arne Naess, “A Systematization of Gandhian Ethics of Conflict Resolution”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 2 (June 1958), pp.140-155, and also Thomas Weber, “Gandhian Philosophy, Conflict Resolution and Practical Approaches to Negotiation”, Journal of Peace Research, 38, 4 (July 2001), pp.493-513.

(45). SWAN, Vol.V, p.85.

(46). Ibid.

(47). CWMG, Vol. XLVIII, p.341.

(48). CWMG, Vol. XXXIV, p.97.

(49). Timothy Doyle, Environmental Movements in Minority and Majority Worlds: A Global Perspective, London: Rutgers University Press, 2005, p.18.

(50). CWMG, Vol. XLIII, p.413.

EDITOR’S NOTE: A. S. Sasikala is Research Fellow, Centre for Gandhian Studies, GITAM University, Andhra Pradesh, India. The article is courtesy the author, and Gandhi Marg April-June 2012, Vol. 34, # 1.

“When planted in the garden, the mustard seed, smallest of all the seeds, became a large tree, and birds came and made their home there.” Luke 13:19

“For me whatever is in the atoms and molecules is in the universe. I believe in the saying that what is in the microcosm of one’s self is reflected in the macrocosm.” M. Gandhi