By Bismah Rahman [Edited by Jack McLean & Fatmanour Chouseinoglou]
What challenges did Gandhi see ‘swaraj’ as the solution to, and why?
In his book Hind Swaraj (1909), Gandhi outlines his views on modern civilisation and his ideal future for India, which involved 'Swaraj', or 'home-rule'. To Gandhi, Swaraj was not as simple as ousting the British but rather it was a deeper, spiritual change that every Indian had to undergo, for India to finally be 'free'. As such, Swaraj refers to home-rule but also self-rule, as is the term's traditional meaning.[1] Gandhi believed that once Indians were able to exercise self-restraint and discipline over themselves and their own lives, the problem of India’s freedom from British rule, indeed any kind of ‘rule’, would solve itself. Home-rule and self-rule were effectively two sides of the same coin, with true independence only being possible when ‘each person will become his own ruler. He will conduct himself in such a way that his behaviour will not hamper the well-being of his neighbours.’[2] As such, Gandhi saw Swaraj as the solution to three key challenges, which were interlinked and all came down to the actions of the individual: immorality (specifically, succumbing to greed and not upholding one’s duty as a citizen), dependency (which resulted in laziness and immorality) and division (internal conflicts). Modern civilisation aggravated all three of these issues, which was why it had to be rejected, but it fell to Indian citizens to reject it; they held the key to home-rule.
Gandhi saw Swaraj, both home-rule and self-rule, as the solution to the immorality which was becoming prevalent throughout India. He believed that the influence of Western civilisation on India was akin to a ‘poisoned chalice’, as it encouraged greed and materialism.[3] Self-rule was necessary to bring back the Indian way of life, which Gandhi thought was more enduring than, and superior to, any other form of civilisation that had existed before the arrival of the British, for India to attain freedom.[4] This meant a complete eradication of British institutions and forms of government which had become endemic to Indian life and administration, even those which most Indians agreed had their benefits, such as the railways, education system and the fields of law and medicine. Gandhi recognised that they had some benefits, but he felt that their negatives significantly outweighed their positives: modernity and the Western system encouraged greed and selfishness and resulted in an unstable society, which he likened to a form of slavery, in which Indians could never be content.[5] Thus, self-rule and home-rule needed to mean a rejection of all British institutions, and the creation of an India which did not merely copy and build on the ways of its colonial rulers after they had left, as this would be to have ‘English rule without the Englishman’, but one which reverted to Indian tradition.[6] Gandhi felt that independence was in the hands of Indians because ultimately they had 'given' their country to the British for purposes of trade, having been 'tempted at the sight of their silver'.[7] For this reason, permanent freedom could only be achieved through individual reform (self-rule; Swaraj), which had to involve eliminating vices such as greed. This was because even ‘if a particular retailer is driven away’ (the British), another would merely ‘take his place’; unless the ‘cause of disease’ is found and dealt with, the problem will persist.[8] Simply put, ‘it is Swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves’.[9] Gandhi went further with this argument, writing that ‘they will either go or change their nature only when we reform ourselves’.[10] By ‘change their nature’ he was referring to the fact that he was willing to let the British remain in India on the condition that they became ‘Indianised’.[11] Gandhi believed that anyone could, and thus should be allowed to, belong in India, because it had a ‘faculty for assimilation’ (the same ‘faculty’ which had allowed Hindus, Muslims and many other religions to live together for centuries).[12] His reasoning for this was that ‘if we keep our own house in order, only those who are fit to live in it will remain, others will leave of their own accord’.[13] As such, the effort had to come from Indians first; this was ‘Swaraj’, or self-rule.
To emphasise the immoral nature of Western civilisation, Gandhi gave the stereotypical example of nobleness: a doctor. He stated that doctors ‘make a show of their knowledge and charge exorbitant fees’, taking up the profession to achieve status and wealth; the modern system encouraged greed, and even professions which were supposedly ‘good’ fell victim to it.[14] Furthermore, Gandhi felt that medicine had resulted in ‘loss of control over the mind’.[15] To quote from Hind Swaraj, Gandhi explains that: "I have indulged in vice, I contract a disease, a doctor cures me […] I shall repeat the vice. Had the doctor not intervened, nature would have done its work, and I would have acquired mastery over myself, would have been freed from vice and would have become happy."[16] As such, the advent of medicine and doctoring encouraged weakness or indiscipline, and thus discouraged self-rule, taking India further from freedom.
Gandhi saw only one way out of this negative spiral of immorality: that through Swaraj, each Indian acquire mastery over themselves. True civilisation, not modern civilisation, was one which: ‘points out to man the path of duty. Performance of duty and observance of morality are convertible terms. To observe morality is to attain mastery over our mind and our passions’.[17] This idea of duty directly linked to Swaraj and the independence movement. Gandhi's idea of individual duty did not involve blindly following laws just because they were stipulated by the government; Gandhi argued ‘that it is unmanly to obey laws that are unjust’ as ‘no man’s tyranny’ should ‘enslave him […] This is the key to self-rule or home-rule.’[18] Once a citizen had achieved self-rule, they would be strong enough to do their duty and speak out against injustices ‘and face the consequences.’[19] In the short-term, this meant taking a stand against the unjust rule and, in the long-run, this involved building an India that could withstand any challenges, whether internal or external. Indeed, during his campaign for independence, which commenced in the decades succeeding the publication of Hind Swaraj, Gandhi would go on to advocate ‘satyagraha’, a non-violent form of resistance where an individual refused to follow British laws.[20] But this form of resistance would only be possible if Gandhi’s followers were ‘disciplined to accept without retaliation whatever blows might fall upon them’.[21] And this, as we have seen, is down to self-rule.
Following on from the idea of Swaraj as a solution to the immorality propagated by modern civilisation, Gandhi felt that vital to this was an end to India modelling its economy on that of the West, such as with regards to industrialisation and machinery. In the words of the Indian historian Rudrangshu Mukherjee: "Gandhi interpreted the industrial revolution as having brought about a radical transformation in people's lives and…attitudes to themselves and to the world […] Fundamental to this transformation was the premise that through Reason and Science human beings were capable of mastering nature and thus fulfilling their desires. [This] inevitably led to greed, to competition and finally to violence. Therefore, violence was embedded in modern civilisation and this made it satanic and immoral."[22]
Swaraj, then, was a solution to the challenges of dependency and laziness and involved a national economic transformation as well as an eradication of the adopted British lifestyle. This meant a return to the simplicity of Indian life before the arrival of the British: self-sufficiency, through agriculture and hand-crafted goods, otherwise known as ‘Swadeshi’.[23] As the historian Barbara Metcalf has noted, Gandhi believed that this lifestyle was the purest lifestyle, where ‘each member unselfishly looked after the others’, and would lead to a spiritual revival of India, which in turn would lead to contentment and serenity, and freedom.[24] Indeed, the ‘ideal form of the state, for Gandhi, would be a loosely linked grouping of nearly self-sufficient village republics.’[25] Gandhi believed that this ideal was within reach because many people in the rural areas remained 'untouched by modern civilisation'; the millions of Indians living in villages were 'governed by a common morality by which each member performed his duty’.[26] Hardship and strength were a core part of their lives and livelihoods, and helped foster ‘autonomy, self-reliance, and sacrifice as a collective normative and political ideal’.[27] This was the ideal of Swaraj which Gandhi hoped all Indians would come to emulate, to overcome the challenge posed by immorality.
Gandhi’s reasoning behind what many contemporaries deemed harsh condemnation of modernity can be understood by analysing two examples that he puts forward in Hind Swaraj: the railway and the lawyer. As will become apparent, both criticisms ultimately link back to Gandhi’s idea of home-rule by self-rule, or ‘Swaraj’. First, the railways: Gandhi believed that without the railways, ‘the English could not have such a hold on India as they have’ as they enabled the British to transport goods out of India with greater ease and rapidity, whilst keeping control over the masses, they were made for exploitation of India, and yet Indians praised their usefulness.[28] He also argued that because of them, people became careless; railways accentuated ‘the evil nature of man’.[29] Gandhi felt that man had been given one mode of transport by God, that of walking, and anything else went against his nature and encouraged him to turn away from God, towards immorality; the railways encouraged complacency and laziness.
Gandhi also saw Swaraj as a solution to the divisions which had become apparent throughout India. He states that ‘we were one nation before they came to India. One thought inspired us. Our mode of life was the same […] [s]ubsequently they divided us.’[30] He argues that the railways were one of the causes behind this division; India had always been one country, and ‘it was after the advent of railways that we began to believe in distinctions.’[31] As such, the railways were an embodiment of divide and rule, helping the British maintain control over the population. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the railways went against man’s nature: ‘in thus attempting the impossible, man comes in contact with different natures, different religions, and is utterly confounded.’[32] Gandhi felt that British institutions and infrastructure such as the railways had disrupted the Indian way of life, and were leading it further away from what it ought to be.
Secondly, Gandhi condemned the implementation and subsequent reverence of the British justice system and rule of law in India. He argued that the law courts 'tightened the English grip' over the country, as it would not have been 'possible for the English to carry on their government without law courts' if those courts and their laws had been rejected by the native population.[33] Crucially, Gandhi wrote that ‘if people were to settle their own quarrels, a third party would not be able to exercise any authority over them’.[34] As well as reproaching the Indian lawyers who championed the system, Gandhi criticised the pleaders to the law courts who were ‘instrumental in having the charge laid against us that we love quarrels and courts, as fish love water.’[35] In other words, Gandhi argued that it was the Indians themselves who had allowed the British to have power over them by 'divide and rule', as per classic colonial rule strategies. Indians had become dependent on the British to police their affairs, allowing for the excuse that India needed to be governed, to prevent internal conflicts, and that the British were helping India.[36] To quote from Hind Swaraj, Gandhi admonishes his Reader: "I must remind you who desire Home Rule that, after all, the Bhils, the Pindaris, the Assamese and the Thugs are our own countrymen. To conquer them is your and my work".[37]
He further states that ‘we should be ashamed to take our quarrels to the English’.[38] He argued that Indians were stronger and more dignified when they sorted out their problems themselves.[39] This links back to Gandhi's idea of self-rule, to have home-rule. Submission to or dependency upon an outside justice system would not facilitate freedom from colonial rule. Instead, internal divisions took Indians further from independence, as they succumbed to British domination: 'we further strengthen their hold by quarrelling amongst ourselves.’[40] Indians must sort out their own 'problems' and rule themselves for there to be freedom. This involved unity; for instance, in response to the controversial question of Hindus versus Muslims that was rampant at this time, Gandhi argued that there was no 'inborn enmity' between them and that this phrase was 'invented by our mutual enemy', because 'Hindus flourished under Moslem sovereigns, and Moslems under the Hindu' as they learnt to live with one another, and it was only with the arrival of the English that quarrels recommenced.[41] Gandhi maintained that Hindus and Muslims had the ‘same ancestors, and the same blood’ and ‘religions are different roads converging to the same point [...] The fact is that we have become enslaved, and, therefore, quarrel and like to have our quarrels decided by a third party’.[42] To add to why Gandhi condemned the imported British law system, he argued that Indians were more moral when they sorted out their problems without lawyers.
He gives an example: "The Hindus and the Mahomedans have quarrelled. An ordinary man will ask them to forget all about it, he will tell them that both must be more or less at fault, and will advise them no longer to quarrel. They go to lawyers. The latter’s duty is to side with their clients, and to find out ways and arguments in favour of the clients […] The lawyers therefore, will, as a rule, advance quarrels, instead of repressing them."[43] Lastly, as seen already with doctors, Gandhi argued that men who became lawyers did so ‘not in order to help others out of their miseries, but to enrich themselves’, profiting from the arguments of others, without which they would have no business.[44] Hence, in line with Swaraj, Gandhi argued that in an ideal state 'each person will become his own ruler. He will conduct himself in such a way that his behaviour will not hamper the well-being of his neighbours', and there would be no need for their behaviour to be controlled by external power (self-rule; Swaraj).[45]
To conclude, Gandhi saw Swaraj as the ultimate solution, because it had the potential to address a vast array of challenges, all of which interlinked, if it was applied correctly. Every challenge to India's freedom which it had faced since colonial rule stemmed from the fact that India, or rather Indians, had succumbed to themselves, over the greater good, as was their duty. One moment of selfishness on the part of a few individuals who had ignored their moral duty as citizens and instead acted on their desires for profit had cost India its freedom. The weakness at the core of this same mistake had allowed for the continuation of colonial rule, and India was subsequently overcome by what became a 'vicious circle' of immorality. Swaraj aimed to break this cycle, once and for all, and restore strength to the individual so that every individual would be able to control vices such as greed, laziness and the pull of conflict, all of which prevented India's independence. Gandhi felt that until each reformed and acquired mastery over themselves, self-rule, India was not ready for the fight that would be required for freedom. By achieving Swaraj once and for all, however, Gandhi believed that India's future would be secured, as it would be resilient in the face of any threats to its liberty and security. In the words of the historian Barbara Metcalf, true independence, as Gandhi envisioned in Hind Swaraj, ‘involved a wholesale transformation of society from the bottom up, as all individuals came to realize their true spiritual worth.’[46] Notes [1] Rudrangshu Mukherjee, ‘Gandhi’s Swaraj’, Economic and Political Weekly, 44/50 (2009), p. 35. [2] Rudrangshu Mukherjee (ed.), The Penguin Gandhi Reader (London: Penguin Books, 1995), p. 79. [3] Mukherjee, ‘Gandhi’s Swaraj’, p. 38. [4] Mahatma Gandhi, Hind Swaraj and Other Writings: Centenary Edition, Anthony Parel (ed.), (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 40. [5]Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 16. [6]Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 10. [7]Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 18. [8]Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 18. [9]Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 40. [10]Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 72. [11]Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 41. [12]Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 27. [13]Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 41. [14]Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 36. [15]Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 36. [16]Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 36. [17]Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 37. [18]Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 55. [19] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 72. [20] Edward A. Leonard, ‘The Political Theory of Satyagraha: An introduction and a Plea for Further Study’, The Western Political Quarterly, 22/3 (1960), p. 594. [21] Barbara D. Metcalf, A Concise History of Modern India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), p. 173. [22] Mukherjee, ‘Gandhi’s Swaraj’, Economic and Political Weekly, p. 35. [23] Gandhi and Parel, Hind Swaraj, p. 66. [24] Metcalf, A Concise History of Modern India, p. 172. [25] Metcalf, A Concise History of Modern India, p. 172. [26] Mukherjee, ‘Gandhi’s Swaraj’, p. 35. [27] Manu Goswami, “Swadeshi”, in Rachel Dwyer et al., Key Concepts in Modern Indian Studies (New York: New York University Press, 2015), p. 265. [28] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 24. [29] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 24. [30] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 25. [31] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 26. [32] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 27. [33] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 33. [34] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 33. [35] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 34. [36] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 22. [37] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 23. [38] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 31. [39] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 34. [40] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 20. [41] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 28. [42] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 28. [43] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, pp. 32-3. [44] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, p. 33. [45] Mukherjee, The Penguin Gandhi Reader, p. 79. [46] Metcalf, A Concise History of Modern India, p. 172.
Bibliography
Gandhi, M.K. Hind Swaraj and Other Writings: Centenary Edition. Anthony Parel (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011
Gandhi. Directed by Richard Attenborough. United Kingdom & India: Shepperton Studios, 1982
Goswami, Manu. “Swadeshi”, in Rachel Dwyer et al., Key Concepts in Modern Indian Studies. New York: New York University Press, 2015
Leonard, Edward A. The Political Theory of Satyagraha: An introduction and a Plea for Further Study. The Western Political Quarterly, 22/3, 1960
Metcalf, Barbara D. A Concise History of Modern India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012
Mukherjee, Rudrangshu. Gandhi’s Swaraj. Economic and Political Weekly, 44/50, 2009
Mukherjee, Rudrangshu (ed.). The Penguin Gandhi Reader. London: Penguin Books, 1995
Comentários