Plato mentions in his Laws (174-f) and also in Utopia that in an ideal state the range of economic disparities should be within 1:16. If the range of disparity increases marginally, the state is less ideal. However, if it increases considerably, the state is either a Democracy or an Oligarchy. The rulers in both tend to be tyrannical, corrupt, and hypocritical. In his metaphysics, Plato says that the soul of virtuous people becomes lighter and goes toward heaven by moving upward after death and that of the non-virtuous, being heavier, stays near the earth and is the cause of rebirth.  On rebirth, people may be born in families professing different faiths, religions, as well as in the different regions of the earth. Plato thus becomes one of the few ancient philosophers who gave a perfect philosophical theory on secularism and universal brotherhood.
In an ideal state, which he described as Republic, divine guidance is the maximum and in Tyranny it reaches its minimum and world dissolution comes when that divine guidance is totally withdrawn. Plato’s observation of 1:16 immediately connected my thought process with the philosophical views of Mahatma Gandhi who used to say that in an ideal state i.e. Ramrajya, the income disparities between the rich and the poor should be between 1:10. The actual disparities in India are now much beyond 1:1000 and still going up. If this trend continues in India, his Ramrajya will remain a utopia. Aristotle did not suggest any such ratios but like many other Greek philosophers recommended the concept of “ golden mean ”. Buddha had already advised the  “ middle path “. The Vedas and Bhagavad-Gita strongly advise moderation for an ideal way of life to achieve perfection.

Gandhi was a great Hindu, a true Indian, and real citizen of the world. He was greatly influenced by the central character of Ramayana and considered him an ideal model for mankind. Above all, Rama’s system of administration was, from his point of view, the true democracy. Gandhi’s heart was a permanent abode of Rama, who was endowed with the attributes of Brahman, and who was an ideal king, self-disciplined, obedient, dutiful, patient, dignified, a man of word, law-abiding and coordinator. Thinking about Rama and his system of administration, he was many a time lost in a world of dreams. Later, when he came back from that world of imagination to the world of reality, his inner feelings were: “Whether Rama of my imagination ever lived or not on this earth, the ancient ideal of Ramarajya is undoubtedly one of true democracy…” Indeed, Ramarajya as has been described in Ramayana had all the characteristics of democracy. In spite of the fact that there was no electoral procedure in those days like the one in the present day democratic system, the public opinion was taken into account and was given due importance. Notwithstanding, there was no written constitution of Ramarajya, the citizens enjoyed the right of equality and avenues of development were open to all. In the eyes of law, all, whether rich or poor, a royal or a beggar, were the same. Everyone enjoyed the socio-religious freedom. Ramarajya, as Gandhi has also said, was not a Hindu rule, it was the kingdom of God. Although Rama was the ruler, every person had a right to speak his or her mind. What we expect of a democratic state-liberty, equality, rights, duties etc.? They are indispensable to democracy. Besides, more important is that the progress of all is assured; law protects everyone; and above all, people realize that they are an integral part of government. No one should feel that his/her say has no importance and that he/she is ignored. A person must be accorded justice if his/her right of equality is at risk, his/her entitlement or liberty is suppressed, his/her path of progress is obstructed or one has failed to do the duty to him/her.
The main characteristic of Ramarajya was that it covered all aspects of democracy as mentioned above. It set a high standard of an ethical and moral conduct. There was all likelihood of getting justice. That is why, Mahatma Gandhi acknowledged Ramarajya as true democracy. In his own words: “In the Ramarajya the meanest citizen could be sure of swift justice without an elaborate and costly procedure. Even the dog is described by the poet to have received justice under Ramarajya.”
It is now apparent that Gandhi considered Ramarajya truly democratic, as there was no possibility of injustice therein. Where justice is available even to a common man, there will be no occasion for exploitation. Non-violence would exercise an overbearing influence and peace would be rife among all. Under these circumstances, one and all would be able to pursue undeterred the goal of their life. In short, justice was the yardstick of democracy from Gandhi’s point of view. According to his philosophy founded on non-violence, the concept of democracy can only be realized if justice is made ubiquitous.
Broadly speaking, justice supplements non-violence or it can be said that it is an essentially appended value of non-violence. In context of the concept of justice, if we analyze the views of scholars, especially those from the West, we can arrive at the truth of the above statement. The subject-specialists already know that for Aristotle justice was, ‘equal things to equal persons’. According to Benthom, the formula of justice is: “Everyone to count for one and nobody for more than one”. Likewise, in the opinion of Rashdall, the concept of justice is, ‘bestowing equal good on equal capacity’. Justice for Sidgwick means, ‘behaving towards all in a fitting manner’. Urban associating it with moral self-realizing says: “Justice consists in giving to everyone the indispensable conditions of the moral life, or of self-realization”.
Therefore, it is clear that the above-mentioned thinkers consider equality to all, without prejudice, as the criterion for justice. Green and some other thinkers associate ‘non-interference with the existence of any living being’ or to be positive ‘interference for promotion of existence’ with justice. All these views come within the domain of Gandhi’s ‘positive non-violence’. It is worth giving a thought; if equality, non-interference with the existence of other beings or interference for promotion of existence or moral self-realization is made the criterion for non-violence and the daily practices are conducted accordingly, will they not deepen the roots of non-violence and eventually strengthen it? They certainly will. For this very reason Gandhi’s non-violence would evolve into a more matured form and would be more effective in a state like Ramarajya where none would be above law. It is needless to remind that Rama is the persona magnum of Ramayana, and everyone knows it. It is also not doubtful that he is revered by the many. Rama’s life reflects many facets of an ideal life. They excel one and the other. Those who have faith in Rama have a great regard for all of them, but some, of their own free will, treat any of them as the best. For example, one may look upon him as the paragon of dutifulness, whereas, the other as a unique example of friendship. Similarly, one may acknowledge him as the model of self-disciplined and self-restrained life, the other as symbol of love, and such thoughts have no end. Rama has set a perfect example of an ideal son, brother, husband or a son-in-law. Gandhi, as I think, had a great regard for all his personal traits and relationships as a man. He had faith in Rama’s all pervading form. However, the extent and intent of Gandhi’s thoughts on Ramarajya and the swift justice assured then cannot be appraised in a few words. To all democracies prevailing in various countries, his thoughts on Ramarajya are of great significance. It is, now, high time that we put our heads together and carry on intensive research work or analysis of Gandhian thoughts to ascertain unaberrant and better governance.