The utter generosity of the poor humbles us. They give rice to every mendicant even when their rice is getting over. That is what needs to be understood - their greatnes and their richness. That is what they are defined by. That they are impoverished is what defines us.
We are the cause of that poverty - and the onus is on us to share deeply and completely. (email@example.com)
From another thread, "Gandhi compromised on his anarchism and was a pawn in the hands of the capitalists who funded him." Am trying to understand what this could mean - the details.
Kannan Thandapani Gandhi did use the industrialists - Birla, Tata, Bajaj have all hosted him or funded his initiatives at some point of time. But that certainly is no indicator that the industrialists used him. He had no qualms about taking money from the poorest to the richest...he has probably taken more from the poor than the rich. I think his genuine belief in Trusteeship allowed him to be at peace with the capitalists (or anyone for that matter).
"I am not ashamed to own that many capitalists are friendly towards me and do not fear me. They know that I desire to end capitalism, almost, if not quite, as much as the most advanced Socialist or even Communist. But our methods differ, our languages differ. My theory of trusteeship is no make-shift, certainly no camouflage. I am confident that it will survive all other theories. It has the sanction of philosophy and religion behind it. . . .No other theory is compatible with non-violence.