Summer Treats

Men and women
dipped in hunger
old bodies
washed and cleaned
of attachments
little children fresh
like sliced mango pieces
peeled and marinated
in exhaustion
change shapes,
colour, and feel
in the April sun,
as we prepare
summer treats
drying them out in the open
on big concrete sheets
on the narrow lanes
of the footpaths
where time circles above them
like an opportunistic hunter
and steals a piece or two
half tender, half dry
crushes in its jaws
to check 
the taste, the texture.
She remembers mother
drying the oranges,
aamlas, methi, guwar,
ginger on the terrace
and hunts in vain for
her worn-out muslin sari
in the wardrobe
the one that had kept
the crows away
one to cover
the summer treats!

Covid-19 lockdown has got us thinking, “What went wrong?” It is the time to look back and reflect. It is high time that we realise how mercilessly we have exploited, tortured and misused the natural resources for our extravagant life-ways. The lockdown has provided us with the opportunity to think why the frequency and severity of natural calamities have been constantly increasing. The irony is that we call them ‘natural’ but they are actually ‘human-made’ calamities because our exaggerated life-ways are at the root of the imbalances caused in nature. Is it not our duty or compulsion to heed to this warning? This is the perfect moment to re-calibrate or to RESET our thinking and life-ways for our better future in tune with nature. Let us think of a way to start.

Imagine children between the ages of four and ten during the present lockdown. They have a dozen questions to ask their parents. What is going to happen to us now? Why we locked down? Are we going to die? Will we not get food and milk? Why can’t we go out and play? Why can’t we go to school? Why do we have to wear a mask, use so much sanitizer and soap? When the parent tries to explain by saying, ‘Nature is angry because we have behaved badly with her. We have forgotten to listen to her in our mad pursuit of material wealth and success. We all want to be rich and famous. So this is her punishment.’ The child hits back saying, ‘Why should we be made to pay for your fault?’

As Albert Einstein said, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” So, let us understand the root cause.

We live in an age of rapid and unprecedented planetary change. Indeed, many scientists believe our ever-increasing consumption, and the resulting increased demand for energy, land and water, is driving a new geological epoch: the Anthropocene. It’s the first time in the Earth’s history that a single species – Homo sapiens – has had such a powerful impact on the planet. Everything that has built modern human society is provided by nature and, increasingly, research demonstrates the natural world’s incalculable importance to our health, wealth, food and security. All economic activity ultimately depends on services provided by nature, estimated to be worth around US$125 trillion a year. As we better understand our reliance on natural systems it’s clear that nature is not just a ‘nice to have’. Business and the finance industry are starting to question how global environmental risks will affect the macroeconomic performance of countries, sectors and financial markets, and policy-makers wonder how we will meet climate and sustainable development targets with declining nature and biodiversity. (Source: LPR 2018)

The Living Planet Report of World Wildlife Fund attempts to explain the changing levels of global biodiversity and the pressure on the biosphere created by the exploitative use of natural resources by human beings. This is explained with the help of two indicators viz. the Living Planet Index and the Ecological Footprint.

The Living Planet Index (LPI) is an indicator of the state of global biodiversity and the health of our planet. The global index, calculated using available data for all species and regions, shows an overall decline of 60% in the population sizes of vertebrates between 1970 and 2014.

Ecological Footprint accounting measures the demand on and supply of nature. On the demand side, the Ecological Footprint measures the ecological assets that a given population requires to produce the natural resources it consumes (including plant-based food and fibre products, livestock and fish products, timber and other forest products, space for urban infrastructure) and to absorb its waste, especially carbon emissions. On the supply side, a city, state or nation’s biocapacity represents the productivity of its ecological assets (including cropland, grazing land, forest land, fishing grounds, and built-up land). These areas, especially if left unharvested, can also absorb much of the waste we generate, especially our carbon emissions. (Source: LPR 2018) The ability of ecosystems to renew themselves is called biocapacity or Earth’s bio-capacity. The Ecological Footprint measures the pace of human consumption keeping in view the Earth’s bio-capacity. Together biocapacity and Ecological Footprint provide an empirical basis for determining whether humanity is living within the means of our planet, and how this relationship has been altered over time. Through changes in technology and land management practices, biocapacity has increased about 27% in the past 50 years. But it has not kept pace with human consumption: humanity’s Ecological Footprint has increased about 190% over the same time period. (Source LPR 2018).

Gandhian Economic Thought: A solution

Producer behaviour and consumer desires are at the root of all socio-economic, environmental problems. The basic assumption of conventional Economics is that human wants are unlimited and means to satisfy them are limited with alternative uses. This has led mankind to have profit maximization at the cost of others which amounts to the overshoot mentioned earlier. The answer to this is the Gandhian approach towards life and economic activities. Gandhian Economic thought is very different from conventional economic thought. Gandhian economic thought is based on moral or ethical values. Gandhiji advocated thrift in using limited natural and non-natural resources. Based on the Gandhian idea of thrift, we can limit our desires and also save the environment. The Gandhian idea of thrift leads us to formulate a new economic assumption of limited desires and limited resources. Exercising this will have far-reaching effects in the long run where we shall be able to save resources for the requirements of our future generations. Moreover, we shall be able to save the environment from further degradation i.e. to eliminate the overshoot. If this is ideally followed, we can create a situation where there are limited desires and unlimited resources.

Suggesting minimization of human wants Gandhiji has written in From Yerevada Mandir: ‘We are not always aware of our real needs and most of us improperly multiply our wants and thus, unconsciously make thieves of ourselves. If we devote, some thought to the subject, we can get rid of quite a number of our wants. One who follows the observance of non-stealing will bring about a progressive reduction of his own wants.’ (Sharma, 36.)

Gandhiji suggested the doctrine of non-possession to replace the doctrine of multiplication of human wants as advocated by conventional Economics. He believed that ever increasing or multiplying needs is the root cause of all economic activities and thereby environmental problems. He believed in ‘simple living and high thinking’ not in ‘complex living and confused thinking’

Further, Gandhiji also advocated the decentralization of economic activities. According to him decentralization of economic activities can also solve major problems. His micro approach advocates self sufficiency of villages or micro groups based on cooperation. A self-sufficient village or micro group is independent with inter-dependence. In other words we can say that Gandhiji advocated SEZ (interpretation mine) i.e. Small Economic Zones not Special Economic Zones. If we look at his idea of independent micro groups or his idea of decentralization of economic activities with reference to environmental problems, we can be self-sufficient by improving and maintaining pure and eco-friendly environment at the village or micro level by producing eco-friendly goods and services. If all such micro units (villages) are capable of having their own self-cleansing, self-sufficient ecosystem then automatically all the districts will have a self-cleansing, self-sufficient eco-friendly ecosystem. Thus, as the circle expands all eco-friendly districts will constitute an eco-friendly state which in turn will lead to an eco-friendly country and this in turn will lead to a world with a sustained eco-friendly eco-system.

Gandhiji’s economic ideas have moral or ethical connotations as Gandhiji’s economic thought is based on fundamental ideas of Non-violence, Man as the supreme consideration, Philosophy of minimization of wants (Thrift), Importance of Bread Labour, Production for masses by masses, Doctrine of Trusteeship, Swadeshi, and Sarvodaya (Well-being of all).

Thus, the Gandhian way of economic life can solve present day all socio-economic, environmental problems and help us to reserve sufficient resources for the future generation because as Gandhiji held that, ‘nature believes in abundance not in scarcity’. Scarcity is manmade. He has observed in one of his earliest speeches, “I venture to suggest that it is the fundamental law of nature without exception that nature produces enough for our wants from day to day, and if only everybody took enough for himself and nothing more, there would be no pauperism in this world.” (Sharma, 135.)

Gandhiji has not given any systematic mathematical model or theory for nature exploitation or for any economic/environmental problems but he believed that the more mankind tries to overpower or exploit nature, the more they will be endangered and alienated from nature. Only his ideas of ‘wantlessness’ or voluntary reduction of wants can have far-reaching effects as suggested by the LPR to eliminate overshoot. No legal provisions or environmental laws can improve the situation without a change of heart. We must admit at this level that Gandhian Economic thought is very relevant. It is rightly observed by Shriman Narayan who established the need of Gandhian Economics and its relevance way back in 1970, but which is still as important in 2020, “I am, therefore, convinced that Gandhiji’s economic thought is basically sound and relevant to our times. I would go a step further and state without any shade of hesitation that instead of being medieval and out-of-date, Bapu’s (Gandhiji’s) ideas are even ahead of the times, and economic and political compulsions would inevitably force us to revert to them for resolving some of the paradoxes that intrigue us today.” (Shriman Narayan, 215.)

On a parting note we can say without doubt that the need of Gandhian Economic thought today and its relevance to present day all socio-economic and environmental problems is a matter to be considered seriously for it has the potential to ignite the imagination of people so that all can be instrumental for a better future by RESETTING our life-ways. What future can be ours is entirely in our own hands. We can reverse the alarming picture of our future. Let us pledge to protect mankind and environment.

References: 

Field , B. C. 1997. Environmental Economics : An Introduction . New York : The Mcgraw- Hill Companies, Inc.

Kolstad, C. D. 2003 .Environmental Economics .New York: Oxford University Press.

Narayan Shriman, 1970. Relevance of Gandhian Economics. Ahmedabad; Navjivan Publishing House.

Rao, P.K. 2000 Sustainable Development. Massachusets; Blackwell Publishers Inc.

Sharma, Rashmi. 1997. Gandhian Economics : A Humane Approach. New Delhi : Deep & Deep Publications.

WWF. 2018. Living Planet Report – 2018: Aiming Higher. Grooten, M. and Almond, R.E.A.(Eds). WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

WWF. 2006. Living Planet Report – 2006: Chris Hails, Jonathan Loh, Steven Goldfinger, (Eds). WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

This essay is from – Hind Swaraj by M.K. Gandhi, INDUS SOURCE BOOKS; First edition (2019). This edition of Hind Swaraj, with introductory essays by Dr. Usha Thakkar and Dr. Gita Dharampal, published in the 150th year of the Mahatma’s birth anniversary, contains the 1910 English translation by Gandhi himself.

Gandhi’s ideals of truth and non-violence serve as a beacon light to the human race caught in the rough winds and ferocious storms of hatred, ill-will and violence. His Hind Swaraj, the first text he wrote, contains the essence of his ideas that kept evolving as his journey continued in search of truth. This little book has attracted sky-high praises and sharp criticisms from scholars and leaders. Gerald Heard, a renowned author, finds it more significant than Rousseau’s Social Contract and Karl Marx’s Das Capital. ^1. But Eric Erickson calls it a ‘rather incendiary manifesto for a man of peace’.².

It is important to remember that the text had invited criticism from Gandhi’s political guru Gopal Kishna Gokhale and his political heir Jawaharlal Nehru. Gokhale regarded the book so crude and hastily conceived that he prophesied that Gandhi would himself destroy the book after spending a year in India. ^3. Nehru in his reply dated 4th October 1945, to Gandhi’s letter, had written,” It is many years ago since I read Hind Swaraj and I have only a vague picture in my mind. But even when I read it 20 or more years ago it seemed to me completely unreal.” ^4.

Gandhi wrote Hind Swaraj, a small book in 20 chapters, between 13 and 22 November 1909, on his way to South Africa from England, on Kildonan Castle ship on the ship’s stationary. That he wrote Gandhi wrote 38 pages of the total 271 pages of the manuscript with left hand when right hand got tired displays intensity and passion with which he wrote. The text, first published in Indian Opinion, was proscribed in March 1910 by the Government of Bombay. It hastened Gandhi’s decision to publish its English translation ‘not a literal translation’ but ‘faithful rendering of the original’. He wrote to Hermann Kallenbach that he had produced ‘an original work’ and was happy to get Tolstoy’s positive comments on his book. ^5.

Anthony Parel enumerates Gandhi’s possible reasons for writing Hind Swaraj. Firstly, an inner illumination and the consequent urge to write. According to him he had written because he was unable to restrain himself from writing the book as his heart was full. Secondly he wanted to clarify the meaning of Swaraj – by introducing a distinction between Swaraj as self-government or the quest for home rule or the good state, and Swaraj as self-rule or the quest for self-improvement. Thirdly, he felt that it was necessary to respond to the ideology of political terrorism adopted by the expatriates. He recalled in 1921 how in 1909 during his visit to London he had come in contact with ‘every known Indian anarchist’ there and how he wanted to write a book in answer to the Indian school of violence. Fourthly, he wanted to tell the Indians that the modern civilization posed a greater threat to them than did colonialism, which was a product of modern civilization. Fifthly he wanted to contribute to the reconciliation of Indians and Britons. Finally, he believed that through Hind Swaraj he would be able to give Indians a practical philosophy, an updated conception of dharma that would serve them for life in the modern world. ^6.

Gandhi uses the method of dialogue for his text, a method which attracts the ordinary readers because of its simple way and also allures the intellectuals because of the philosophical insights. Gandhi is familiar with the traditions of the method of dialogue in the Bhagawad Gita and Plato’s Dialogues. It is important that he wrote the text in Gujarati, his mother tongue, and in the form of a dialogue. According to Dipankar Gupta, in many ways Gandhi was before and ahead of Habermas.^7. Language of the text is simple, direct and that of colloquial style. According to Vinoba Bhave, just as the language of the Upanishads sounds crude to the ears, the language of Hind Swaraj also seems crude. The life and vigour that dwells in the crude language of the Upanishads is not to be found in other languages of argument and science. Gandhi’s purity of heart is reflected in Hind Swaraj. We need to understand and interpret it. ^8.

The seemingly simplistic text of Hind Swaraj, is at times confusing, outdated and loaded with ideas that demand deep exploration. Some words of the text make us uneasy, some arguments seem to be archaic, some ideas may seem utopian and some comments as idiosyncrasies; and yet there is something genuine, something truthful that draws us and motivates the reader to look beyond the present. This text, showing the dangers of violence and modern civilization, and presenting an original interpretation of Swaraj by arguments and counter-arguments, needs to be read and re-read.  We need to go beyond the words and reach the essence. Douglas Allen comments discerningly that, “We are called upon to do with Hind Swaraj what Gandhi did with the Bhagvad-Gita, the Ramayana, and other texts. Through our rereading, rethinking, reformulating, and reinterpreting, contextually influenced by new information and new developments, our hermeneutical project is to raise critical questions, purify, expand, and improve Hind Swaraj so that it can become a more developed and more adequate text for the twenty-first century.” ^9.

The book presents Gandhi’s observations on the political, economic, social and cultural issues of his times and his philosophical reflections on them that were to take firm roots as the years passed. The editor (Gandhi) brings to the centre stage the ill consequences of the modern civilization, futility of violence, and the importance of Swaraj, i.e., self-rule. The issues raised by him are of importance and his attempts to answer the reader have retained their relevance.

I

Gandhi is emphatic that modern civilization is irreligion and will be self-destroyed. It must be shunned. ^10. People living in modern civilization ‘make bodily welfare the object of life’. ^11. This civilization takes note neither of morality nor of religion. According to the teaching of Mahomed it is a Satanic civilization and Hinduism calls it the Black Age.^12. Abundance in material resources and mindless pursuit of all desires are not symbols of civilization. True civilization is in harmony with self-rule.   In Gandhi’s words, “Civilization is that mode of conduct which points out to man the path of duty. Performance of duty and observance of morality are convertible terms.” ^13.

Gandhi states that “Our difficulties are of our own creation.” ^14. The tendency of Indian civilization is to elevate the moral being, and that of the Western civilization is to propagate immorality. ^15. Gandhi offers sharp criticisms against the modern ways of living, use of railways ^16., and the professions of doctors ¹⁷. and lawyers ^18., and the condition of workers in the mills in Bombay ^19. He advocates the use of products made in our country and believes that hankering after material gains and aping the West will not lead India to her progress. He asserts that machinery is the chief symbol of modern civilization; it represents a great sin and has impoverished India. ^20. it is like a snake-hole which may contain from one to a hundred snakes. ²¹.

Gandhi’s picture of the modern civilization as being an evil and the ancient Indian civilization as glorious seems to be exaggerated. But to tell that Gandhi was totally against all progress would be too harsh a judgement. He himself had learned a lot from the West. His ideas were nurtured by writers like Ruskin, Tolstoy and Thoreau and other western sources.  Exposure to the West has helped him to mould his views on democratic norms and to imbibe elements such as discipline and dignity of labour. In fact, the long list of books at the end of Hind Swaraj contains only two books written by Indian writers. 

On 29th December 1920 Gandhi clarified in the Navjivan that “The supremacy of the brute force, worshipping money as God, spending most of one’s time in seeking worldly happiness, breath-taking risks in the pursuit of worldly enjoyment of all kinds, the expenditure of limitless mental energy on efforts to multiply the power of machinery, the expenditure of crores on the invention of means of destruction, the moral righteousness which looks down upon people outside Europe,- this civilization, in my view, deserves to be altogether rejected.” ^22.

It is interesting that John Middleton Murry, a Christian and a Socialist, argues that Gandhi forgets, “in the urgency of his vision, that the very spinning-wheel he loves is also a machine, and also unnatural. On his principles it should be abolished.” ^23. A dialogue in Delhi in 1924, in this context, is important. Gandhi was asked whether he was against all the machinery. His reply was,””How can I be when I know that even this body is a most delicate piece of machinery? The spinning wheel is a machine; a little toothpick is a machine. What I object is the craze for machinery, not machinery as such.” ^24. Gandhi is aware that the machines are capable of reducing the drudgery for human beings. So he acknowledges value of Singer sewing machine. 

G. D. G. Cole, a Fabian Socialist and an author, puts his views on Hind Swaraj succinctly. He does not consider the Western civilization ‘to be past mending’. ^25. However he (writing in 1938) candidly accepts that  Gandhi’s case against the West looks “infinitely stronger than it looked, to us Westerners, thirty years ago.” ^26.

Unbridled consumerism and relentless pursuit of materialism bothered Gandhi. Naturally he wanted to caution the Indians against the increasing expansion of the dehumanizing modern civilization.   Referring to Hind Swaraj he said,” The key to understand that incredibly simple (so simple as to be regarded foolish) booklet is to realize that it is not an attempt to go back to the so-called ignorant, dark ages. But it is an attempt to see beauty in voluntary simplicity, poverty and slowness. I have pictured that as my ideal. I shall never reach it myself and hence cannot expect the nation to do so.” ^27.

II

Gandhi’s deep faith in nonviolence is expressed effectively in Hind Swaraj. His work in South Africa, his experience as a lawyer, a journalist and an activist against injustice intensified his awareness of the inadequacy of modern civilization and the frightening magnitude of violence. Gandhi’s criticisms against violence in all forms became more logical, persuasive and powerful with his experiences over the years.

Gandhi shows in Hind Swaraj that modernization promotes violence and that the methods of violence for achieving justice and freedom had gripped the minds of many Indians, especially the youth; writings of persons like V.D. Savarkar had ignited the fury among young Indians. Gandhi intended Hind Swaraj to be a dialogue with the extremists who advocated violence to break the shackles of slavery. Madan Lal Dhingra, an Indian student, assassinated Sir William Curzon-Wyllie in London and was sentenced to death. According to Gandhi, Dhingra was a patriot, but his love was blind. ^28.

For Gandhi, the connection between the means and the end is of crucial importance. In his words, “The means may be likened to a seed, the end to a tree; and there is just the same inviolable connection between the means and the end as there is between the seed and the tree.” ^29. Violence begets more violence. This clear exposition of the relation between means and the end in Hind Swaraj stayed with Gandhi as one of his driving forces. Freedom achieved through violent means, is not real freedom. Gandhi states in unequivocal terms “the force of love and pity is infinitely greater than the force of arms. There is harm in the exercise of brute force, never in that of pity.” ^30. In his opinion, “Passive resistance, that is, soul force, is matchless. It is superior to the force of arms.” ^31. Gujarati version uses Satyagraha for passive resistance. Early in his political career, Gandhi had recognized the power of nonviolent resistance. He states that “Passive resistance is an all-sided sword; it can be used anyhow; it blesses him who uses it and him against whom it is used. Without dropping a drop of blood, it produces far-reaching results. It never rusts and cannot be stolen.” ^32.

Significantly Gandhi firmly believed that passive resistance is a method of securing rights by personal suffering; it is the reverse of resistance by arms. ^33. He also believed that rights are a result of performance of duty. Passive resistance cannot proceed a step without fearlessness. Gandhi makes it abundantly clear that it is the weapon of the strong, not the weak. Killing others is ‘a cowardly thought’.  ^34.

It is not that Gandhi’s views are endorsed by all. There have been various criticisms. W.J. Wybergh had written to Gandhi that the governments, laws, police and physical force are essential to average humanity. It is a fatal confusion to suppose that what is right for the saint is right for everyone else. ^35. Political leaders like B.G. Tilak and the extremists who were Gandhi’s contemporaries had also no faith in Gandhi’s non-violence.

However, Gandhi does not view Satyagraha as just a political strategy; it is both the means and an end. Gandhian nonviolence is not solely concerned with resistance, it also wants to create stable and lasting values to bring transformation in the existing scenario. Therefore it gives importance to constructive work and voluntary efforts for better society that will help self-rule.  Gandhi’s ideas and life have not lost their appeal for those who pursue the goals of peace and justice. Persons across various countries working for better society and movements for environment, alternative science and technology, eco-feminism, human rights, resistance to war and nuclear programme draw inspiration from Gandhi.

For Gandhi democracy is the rule of unadulterated nonviolence. ^36. He believes that non-violence cannot merely a personal virtue; rather, it must be a civic virtue. As his close associate J. B. Kriplani points out, Gandhi’s non-violence had a social content; it was not meant for the salvation of the soul directly. He made non-violence as an instrument for correcting political, social and economic wrongs. ^37.

III

The concept of Swaraj in Hind Swaraj is fascinating. According to Gandhi real Home Rule is self rule or self control and the way to it is passive resistance, that is soul force or love force. ^38. Gandhi has an innovative way to connect self with Swaraj. In his words, “It is Swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves”; and ”Swaraj has to be experienced by each one for himself. One drowning man will never save another. Slaves, ourselves, it would be a mere pretension to think of freeing others.” ^39. Swaraj as self government is the rule of the people. In his words, “If we become free, India is free. And in this thought you have a definition of Swaraj.” ^40. Gandhi’s Swaraj in not a utopia but can be achieved if the people of India decided to improve. Swaraj as the rule over the self is control over mind, impure thoughts and deeds.

Gandhi realized early in his life that mere duplication of the foreign ways of rule would not benefit India. Merely formal independence from the British rule is not Swaraj. It would mean merely the change of the rulers or personnel. Gandhi tells the reader, “You want the tiger’s nature, but not the tiger; that is to say, you would make India English, and, when it becomes English, it will be called not Hindustan but Englistan. This is not the Swaraj that I want.” ^41. It is important to note that Gandhi has no hatred for the British; he believes that if the English become Indianised, we can accommodate them. ^42.

Gandhi argues against the prevailing notion that the British have usurped India and is retaining it. His observation is: “The English have not taken India; we have given it to them. They are not in India because of their strength, but because we keep them.” ^43. He believes that political subjection of the people cannot take place without their willingness that may be due to fear and/or their weakness. The British rule has benefited the British and impoverished the Indians. Gandhi is against any authoritarian rule, it could be the British rule or the tyranny of Indian princes. ^44.

Means to attain Swaraj are as essential as the end of getting Swaraj. Gandhi’s Swaraj is against authoritarianism and imperialism. It is nonviolent and nonhierarchical and is based on the principles of decentralization. It stresses the idea and practice of Swadeshi and the duties of the citizens. Gandhi presents his critique of the representative democracy and offers his vision of transformative democracy guided by ethics. His criticisms against the British political institutions are sharp. He has no hesitation in calling the British Parliament ‘a sterile woman’ and ‘a prostitute’; ‘a prostitute’ was the only word he would alter “in accordance with a promise made to an English friend.” ^45. He opposed British imperialism because of its political, economic and moral consequences and remained an advocate of village republic that is self-contained.

Gandhi had studied writings of the scholars of the West and had also known the views of the extremists and the moderates in India. His years in England and South Africa had added dimensions to his thought process. He was conversant with the politics around him. Nationalism in India was in a nascent stage. In this context Gandhi in Hind Swaraj is much concerned about the adverse effect of the British rule in India and the damage done to the oneness and Indian-ness of the Indians. He wants the Indians to understand the reality and protest against the British rule as strong individuals and strong people.

Long back Gandhi had realized that all the communities in India have to live together and strive for a better life. He uses the word nation in the English version but uses the words like Praja (people), Ek Praja (one people), Ekdeshi and Ekmulki  (of one country) in the Gujarati original. The editor in Hind Swaraj tells the reader that the English have taught us that we were not one nation before, and that it will require centuries before we become one nation. This is without foundation. We were one nation (Ek Praja) word before they came to India. Subsequently they divided us. ^46.

According to Gandhi, “India cannot cease to be one nation (Ek Praja) because people belonging to different religions live in it. The introduction of foreigners does not necessarily destroy the nation, they merge in it. A country is one nation only when such a condition obtains in it. That country must have a faculty for assimilation. India has ever been such a country.” ^47. The Hindus, the Mahomedans, the Parsees and the Christians who have made India their country are fellow country-men, and they will have to live in unity if only for their own interest.  ^48. When the reader points out the terror practiced by the Thugs, the Pindaris and the Bhils, the editor says that it is better to suffer the Pindari peril than that someone else should protect us from it. After all, “the Bhils, the Pindaris, the Assamese and the Thugs are our own countrymen. To conquer them (to win over) is your and my work. So long as we fear our own brethren, we are unfit to reach the goal.”  ^49.

Moreover, in no part of the world are one nationality (Ek Praja) and one religion synonymous terms: nor has it ever been so in India. The Hindus and the Mahomedans flourished under each other. Both parties had decided to live in peace after some fighting, but with the advent of the English the quarrels recommenced. ^50. He visualizes different communities living peacefully in India. Naturally his views on education are also rooted in Indian ethos. For him, character building is important and to give millions knowledge of English is to enslave them. ^51.

According to the reader, the nation (Praja)  is those of us who are affected by the European civilization and who are eager to have Home Rule. But the editor corrects him and states that it is only those Indians who are imbued with love and who believe that Indian civilization is the best and who can speak to the English without being frightened. ^52. Further, Gandhi writes that he should know that no nation (Praja) has risen without suffering and that, even in physical warfare, the true test is suffering and not the killing of others, much more so in the warfare of passive resistance (Satyagraha). ^53. Gandhi exhorts the people to realize their potential and to chart their own destiny. Mere adoption of the outer form of government will not bring any qualitative change. Important issues for Gandhi are self-discipline, the rule over self and self-realization.  According to Shruti Kapila, ‘expulsion of the British’ was not the ‘essence’ of Swaraj but rather ‘self-transformation’ was. ^54.

Gandhi’s views on nationalism are to be seen in his context. They stand for ethical principles, cultural integrity, political justice and inclusiveness. Gandhi in Hind Swaraj is an anti-imperialist who wants the people of India to get rid of all the outward and inward signs/symbols of imperialism and live in harmony sharing a common bond of togetherness. According to Ashis Nandy, “Gandhi was always keen to define his nationalism as a part of his universal struggle for justice and equality, and he made it clear that the other name for armed nationalism was imperialism, which he considered a curse.” ^55. Bhikhu Parekh insightfully observes that Gandhi’s political thought more or less completely bypassed the characteristic nature and vocabulary of European nationalism, and conceptualized the Indian struggle for independence in a non-nationalist and non-national language. He rarely used the term 'nation' except when forced to do so by such antagonists as Jinnah; and then largely to refer to the fact that India was not a motley collection of groups but consisted of people sharing common aspirations and interests and a vague but nonetheless real commitment to a kind of spiritual civilization. When he occasionally used the term ‘nationalism’ he largely meant 'love of one's country'. ^56.

Gandhi had realized the dangers of interpreting and practicing religion with narrow perspective and advocated equal respect for all religions. He remained a supporter of the cause of cow protection. However he offers important comments when the issue is seen in the context of the relation between the Hindus and the Mohemadans. Protection of cows has been a sensitive issue between the Hindus and the Mahomedans, as the latter eat beef and see nothing objectionable in the practice of sacrificial killing of the cows. Talking about the relation between the two communities and the cow protection, Gandhi’s opinion the cow is “the protector of India, because it, being an agricultural country, is dependent on the cow’s progeny.” and “A man is just as useful as a cow, no matter whether he be a Mahomedan or a Hindu.”  If a situation demands saving a cow from a Mahomedan, in Gandhi’s words, “the only method I know of protecting the cow is that I should approach my Mahomedan brother and urge him for the sake of the country to join me in protecting her. If he would not listen to me, I should let the cow go for the simple reason that the matter is beyond my ability. If I were overfull of pity for the cow, I should sacrifice my life to save her, but not take my brother’s. This, I hold, is the law of our religion.” ^57. Gandhi draws attention to the cruelty of the Hindus to the cows. According to him, it is preposterous to suggest that the Hindus and the Mahomedans cannot live together amicably because the Hindus believe in Ahimsa and the Mahomedans do not. These thoughts are put into our minds by selfish and false religious teachers. The English put the finishing touch. ^58. On 25th April 1947, Gandhi said that he held the same views on cow protection as he had expressed in Hind Swaraj. He stated that if we would have maintained friendly relations with the Mahomedans, they would have given up beef eating.  If we want to protect the cow, we must know our dharma, know true compassion, and learn how to look after cattle.  ^59.

IV

Gandhi maintained that he had not altered his position from what he wrote in Hind Swaraj, with the passing of time and experience gained, though he moulded some of his views in the context of time.  He wrote in 1921 that “I am individually working for the self rule pictured therein (Hind Swaraj). But today my corporate activity is undoubtedly devoted to the attainment of parliamentary swaraj, in accordance with the wishes of the people of India.” ^60. Again in 1924 he clarified that it was not Indian Home Rule depicted in Hind Swaraj that he was placing before India. He was placing before the nation parliamentary, i.e., democratic swaraj. He did not suggest a destruction of all the machines, but he was making the spinning-wheel the master-machine. ^61. He reiterated in 1939 that “ I wrote Hind Swaraj in 1909. Its language may be crude but even today my pen is not prepared to polish it.” ^62. In his famous letter to Jawaharlal Nehru, dated 5th October 1945, Gandhi wrote that  “ I have said that I fully stand by the kind of governance which I have described in Hind Swaraj. It is not just a way of speaking. My experience has confirmed the truth of what I wrote in 1909. If I were the only one left who believed in it, I would not be sorry.” He was aware that “My ideal village still exists only in my imagination. After all every human being lives in the world of his own imagination.” ^63.

At the end of the text Gandhi writes that he has tried to explain Swaraj as he understands it, and his conscience testifies that his life henceforth is dedicated to its attainment. ^64. His life is testimony to this decision.  In his opinion, Hind Swaraj is “not a mere political book. I have used the language of politics, but I have really tried to offer a glimpse of dharma.” ^65.

Hind Swaraj has not failed to stimulate creative minds and to raise fundamental questions in contemporary contexts. Although dated in some respects, it inspires a search for alternatives. Gandhi’s emphasis on simple life, civic virtues and duties, his concepts of Swaraj, Satyagraha, and Swadeshi, his insistence of bringing ethics to politics, his eclectic vision of a good society composed of good individuals remain relevant. His philosophy in Hind Swaraj becomes relevant and insightful in the cotemporary context, as it is an anguished cry against evils of modern civilization, dehumanization of life, violence, war, exploitation, materialism and consumerism. It inspires us to ask uneasy questions about exploitation, inequality and decline in ethical and human values. Irene Rathbone, a reputed author, does not find passive resistance creed entirely convincing, but she is forced by Hind Swaraj’s “tremendous honesty to search my own honesty. I would implore people to read it. It is not dated-not in any essential way. It is suffused in light.” ^66. Hind Swaraj inspires us to enter into dialogue with Gandhi, ideas and persons around including the self, to raise questions and to seek our own answers to disturbing questions of the contemporary times.

References

Note –

(a) References of Hind Swaraj in this article are from M.K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj and Other Writings, edited by Anthony J. Parel, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997 and Hind Swaraj is cited as HS. 

(b) The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, The Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, Delhi/ New Delhi, are referred to as CWMG.

1. Gerald Heard, A Great Natural Phenomenon, The Aryan Path, IX, 9, September 1938, p. 450.

2. Eric H. Erickson, Gandhi’s Truth: On the Origins of Militant Nonviolence, Faber and Faber Limited,  London, 1970, p. 217.

3. Mahadev Desai, Preface to Hind Swaraj, p. 14, cited in footnote 2 in Gandhi’s message dated 14th July 1938  to The Aryan Path, September 1938, IX, 9, p. 423, CWMG, Vol. 67, New Delhi, 1976, pp. 169-70.

4. Jawaharlal Nehru, Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vol. 14, Orient Longman Limited, New Delhi, 1981, p. 556.

5. Editors’ Introduction, M.K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj: A Critical Edition, annotated and edited by Suresh Sharma and Tridip Suhrud, Orient BlackSwan, Bangalore, 2010, pp. xi-xxiv.

6. Editor’s Introduction, M.K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj and Other Writings, edited by Anthony J. Parel, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997,  pp. xiv- xvii.

7. Dipankar Gupta, Gandhi before Habermas: The Democratic Consequences of Ahimsa, Economic & Political Weekly, XLIV, 10. 7th March 2009, pp. 27-33.

8. Vinoba Bhave, Vinoba Sahitya (Hindi), Vol.20, Paramdham Prakashan, Pavnar, Wardha, 2001, pp.  365-366.

9. Douglas Allen,  Gandhi after 9/11: Creative Nonviolence and Sustainability, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2019, pp. 234-235.

10. HS, p. 37-38.

11. HS, p.35. According to Parel, what is meant here is the civilization produced by the industrial revolution.

12. HS, p.37.

13. HS, p. 67. The Gujarati equivalent for civilization is sudharo, i.e., ‘good conduct’.

14. HS, p. 51.

15. HS, p. 71. 

16. HS, pp. 46-50.

17. HS, pp. 62-65.

18. HS, pp. 58-61.

19. HS, p. 108.

20. HS, p.107.

21. HS, p.110.

22. Navajivan, 29-12- 1920, CWMG 19, Delhi, 1966,  p. 178.

23. John Middleton Murry, A Spiritual Classic, The Aryan Path, IX, 9, September 1938, p. 440.

24. Young India, 13-11-1924 and 20-11-1924, CWMG, 25, Delhi, 1967, pp. 250-251.

25. G.D.H. Cole, A Disturbing Book, The Aryan Path, Vol, IX, no.9, September 1938, p. 430.

26. Ibid., p. 429.

27. Harijan, 14-10-1939, CWMG 70, New Delhi, 1977, p. 242.

28. HS, p.78.

29. HS, p. 81.

30. HS, p.84.

31. HS, p. 93.

32. HS, p. 94.

33. HS, p. 90.

34. HS, p. 77.

35. W.J. Wybergh’s letter to Gandhi, 3 May 1910, Indian Opinion, 21-5-1910, CWMG, Vol. 10, Delhi, 1963, p. 510.

36. Harijan, October 13, 1940.

37. Usha Thakkar and Jayshree Mehta, Understanding Gandhi: Gandhians in Conversation with Fred J. Blum, Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2011, pp. 75-76

38. HS, p. 118.

39. HS, p. 73.

40. Ibid.

41. HS, p. 28.

42. HS, p. 73.

43. HS, p.39.

44. HS, p. 77

45. Foreword to Indian Home Rule, 28th May 1919, CWMG 15, Delhi, 1965, p. 330.

46. HS, p. 48. 

47. HS, p. 52.

48. HS, pp. 52-53. 

49. HS, p. 44-45.

50. HS, p. 53.

51. HS, pp. 100-106.

52. HS, p. 115-116.

53. HS, p.118.

54. Shruti Kapila, Self, Spencer and Swaraj: Nationalist Thought and Critiques of Liberalism, 1890-1920, Modern Intellectual History, 4, 1, 2007, p. 125.

55. Ashis Nandy, Nationalism, Genuine and Spurious: A Very Late Obituary of Two Postnationalist Strains in India, Occasion, Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, V. 3. March 1, 2012, p. 5.

56. Bhikhu Parekh, Gandhi's Political Philosophy: A Critical Examination, Delhi, Ajanta Publications, 1995, p. 194.

57. HS, p. 54.

58. HS, pp. 55- 56

59. Speech at Prayer Meeting, Gandhijike Dukhe Dilki Pukar III, pp. 40-3, CWMG 87, New Delhi, 1983, pp. 357-359.

60. Young India, 26-1-1921, CWMG vol. 19, Delhi, 1966, pp. 277-78.

61. Navajivan, 10-8-1924 and Young India, 14-8-1924, CWMG, 24, Delhi, 1967, p. 548.

62. May 3 1939, Gandhi Seva Sanghke Pancham Varshik Adhiveshan (Brindaban, Bihar) ka Vivaran, CWMG 69, New Delhi, 1977, p. 197.

63. Letter to Jawaharlal Nehru, October 5 1945, from the Hindi original: Gandhi-Nehru Papers. Courtesy: Nehru Memorial Museum and Library. CWMG 81, New Delhi, 1980, pp. 319-20.

64. HS, p. 119.

65. Bapuna Patro- Ashramni Behnone (Gujarati),  CWMG 32, New Delhi, 1969, p.  489.

66. Irene Rathbone,  What About The Children? The Aryan Path, IX, 9, September 1938, p. 455.

Reproduced with permission from Hind Swaraj: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Introductory Essays by: Usha Thakkar & Gita Dharampal, Indus Source Books, Mumbai, 2019.