The aspects of religion that were touched on in these readings stood out to me. Specifically, when Gandhi stated in “Preface”, “The British Government in India constitutes a struggle between the Modern Civilisation, which is the Kingdom of Satan, and the Ancient Civilisation, which is the Kingdom of God.” This continued on in Chapter VIII: The condition of India, in which the Editor said, “…my first complaint is that India is becoming irreligious. Here I am not thinking of the Hindu, the Mahomedan, or the Zoroastrian religion, but of that religion which underlies all religions. We are turning away from God.” With these quotes in mind, is Gandhi implying that as India “turns away from God”, they are essentially turning towards Modern Civilization, or the “Kingdom of Satan”?
The term “civilized” has long been used as a tool for describing the superiority of one nation over another or one human race over another. Some of the better-known examples include the civilization of the “savages” of North America in which the colonization of America led to the eradication of the native American way of life. This term has been utilized throughout history and often brings forth connotations of dominion and the silencing of alternate ways of life. In Gandhi’s Hind Sirwaj, he discusses this term concerning modern civilizations’ influence on India through the English, stating “Those who are influenced by modern civilization are not likely to write against it” (Ghandi 35). This sentence reminded me of the current status of society where capitalism is something rarely critiqued, or if critiqued something which often receives backlash as it is referred to in many instances as the “American way of life” Similarly at this time the English were pushing forth notions of true “civilization” in India those which wished to oppose these changes such as Gandhi were consistently critiqued. Moreover, it is explained that “their writings hypnotize us… and so one by one we are drawn into the vortex” (Ghandi 35). The usage of vortex caused me to wonder if the individuals who have succumbed to the clutches of modern-day capitalism are coherently aware of the constant cycling of consumerism that occurs each passing day or if society has become overly consumed by the vortex of Capitalism that there is no alternative opportunity for resistance? Moreover, what would Gandhi suggest is the best way to resist a capitalistic “civilized” way of life?
This dialogue reflects a profound critique of the impact of modern civilization and British rule on India. The editor’s perspective reveals a deep concern about the erosion of India’s spiritual values, which he believes are being overshadowed by the pursuit of Western ideals. He laments the growing irreligiosity, viewing modern civilization as a destructive force that, though seemingly offering progress, leads to moral decay. The editor’s thoughts on religion emphasize that true spirituality transcends organized faiths and teaches a higher purpose, while civilization, in his view, distracts from this pursuit, making people more materialistic and less connected to their divine roots. The dialogue also presents a striking contrast between colonial rule and the state of India before British intervention. The editor acknowledges the dangers posed by local groups like the Thugs and Pindaris but argues that these threats were not as catastrophic as the emasculating peace brought by the British. He challenges the perception that British rule was a civilizing force, suggesting that the fear instilled by colonialism is more damaging than the dangers of the past. For the editor, India’s strength lies in self-reliance and bravery, traits he feels are diminished under foreign protection. His remarks about the British and their perception of Indians as cowards further question the narrative of colonial superiority. Ultimately, the editor advocates for a return to India’s indigenous values and strength, which he believes are the true foundation of the country. His criticism of both British rule and Western civilization invites reflection on how foreign influence and modernity have shaped India’s identity, challenging the reader to reconsider the costs of colonialism and the nature of true progress. My question would then be, does colonialism always cause or correlate with consumerism within said society. Does this imply capitalism fueled and therefore cause consumerism which is a key reason for loss of culture and religion?
In the preface of the book, the editor talks about machinery and civilization. The editor talks about how Gandhiji condemnation of machinery. In this section of the preface, the editor talks about how the defects Gandhiji pointed out weren’t inheritance defects, but these were defects that tended to contrast with the western civilization. The goal of this book was for Ganhiji to contrast different tendencies of the Indian civilization to the western civilization. Gandhiji whole-heartedly agreed with GDH Cole that western civilization wasn’t past pending. The editor also compares the machine to the human body when it comes to its usefulness. It’s only useful to the extent that it subserves the growth of the soul. My question is how does Gamdhiji’s condemnation tie in with religion?
In the text/ebook of the “Hind Swaraj”, Gandhi is quite critical of how leaders of the Indian Nationalist Movement is seeking India’s independence from Britain using what are considered western methods as seen with the quote “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”. This leads into my question, do you think that Gandhi’s vision was correct considering the tensions between Britain and India at the time, or do you think the Nationalist movement was taking the right approach of appearing western to get Britain to leave them alone?
In the chapters, “Civilization,” “Why was India Lost?,” “The Condition of India,” “The Condition of India: Railways,” and “The Condition of India: The Hindus and The Mahomedans,” Gandhi speaks of the English’s practices of civilization. Specifically, in the chapter, “The Condition of India: The Hindus and The Mahomedans,” Gandhi states, “God set a limit to a man’s locomotive ambition in the construction of his body. Man immediately proceeded to discover means of overriding the limit.” Expressing that man has used these modern inventions to over expand and essentially, over exert in life, past what God intended for us to do. This take reminded me of Thoreau’s ideas in Walden. Critiquing the modern day ideas of labor, work, and life. Although, through reading Walden, I feel that Thoreau did not discuss much of a religious connection between his arguments. Do you think Gandhi’s statement would be something Thoreau would agree with?
In the chapter, “The Condition of India: The Hindus and the Mahomedans,” Gandhi says, “I should, however, like to add that man is so made by nature as to require him to restrict his movements as far as his hands and feet will take him. If we did not rush about from place to place by means of railways and such other maddening conveniences, much of the confusion that arises would be obviated. Our difficulties are of our own creation.” This quote left me thinking about the discussions that tend to come when I bring up my major. People often tell me that even though we have caused such destruction in this world, the conveniences we have now are necessary to our survival and that there is absolutely no going back. Gandhi discusses throughout the text how Man keeps coming up with more ways to push the limit of nature, and after all, humans are nature, so why are all of these conveniences so “necessary?” I often hear that “everything happens for a reason”, but what possible reason could there be for such development to not only cause distress in our surrounding environment, but also to ourselves? We as humans have pushed the natural limit so far that we are now facing the consequences, but will even that be enough to get us to wake up and stop?
In Chapter 4 of Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj, What is Swaraj?, Gandhi, known as the Editor, discusses with the Reader what Swaraj means and what it will look like after the end of colonial rule in India. I will admit that I was unfamiliar with the concept of Swaraj before reading this book and had to do some independent research on what it meant in a more general sense. The term describes self-governance and can be translated to “home rule.” When Gandhi is discussing with the Reader what Swaraj is, he is not looking for a general definition, but rather a more detailed description of what the governance systems of India will look like post-colonial rule and what benefits this will have for the nation. Upon hearing the Reader’s version of Swaraj, which rejects colonial rule but embraces Western systems, Gandhi replies “You have drawn the picture well. In effect, it means this: that we want English rule without the Englishman. 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.”
Gandhi defines his vision of Swaraj as not only rejecting colonial rule but also Western cultural and economic systems. How does Ghandi’s vision of self-rule differ from simply achieving political independence? Are there any current movements for autonomy that you can think of that we might be able to apply this distinction to?
The chapter on Lawyers particularly interested me. Gandhi’s articulation of his ideas about what purpose lawyers truly serve and the validity of their existence stood out to me in particular. “Moreover, men take up that profession, not in order to help others out of their miseries, but to enrich themselves.” Gandhi is not saying that lawyers have never done any good but rather pointing out the negative forces that must persist in order for lawyers to maintain consistent clientele and how this has perpetuated english oppression in India. In order for lawyers to maintain their status they are incentivized to hope for quarrel rather than to resolve quarrel through just means. “their interest exists in multiplying disputes.”
Gandhi points out the immorality of the role of lawyers. What do you think a system would look like where lawyers were incentivized to fight for justice and not just fill their pockets?
In the chapter titled Passive resistance, the following quote stuck out to me: “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.” Gandhi argues that when using passive resistance instead of violence, both the resister and the oppressor benefit from this tactic. This argument is suggesting that anyone can partake in passive resistance. Gandhi says that passive resistance “doesn’t rust” and “cannot be stolen” and that these resisters have competition inside them that does not run out. I think this means that you are never too old or too young for passive resistance, or if you are physically disabled, you can still participate in passive resistance, etc. No matter where you are in your life, you can always participate in passive resistance. As for the oppressor side of this argument, I think Gandhi means that nonviolent resistance has a strong power that exists beyond just political victories but has the possibility to reach moral elevation for the opposing party.
Unfortunately, in past and current fights, peaceful resistance does not always result in the oppressor’s moral awakening. In some cases, oppression continues despite the resister’s suffering. If the oppressor stays unaffected or even intensifies violence, does passive resistance still “bless” both parties? Is the moral supremacy of passive resistance significant if it does not result in real political or social change? How does this concept apply to modern-day movements in which nonviolent protestors deal with devastating governmental oppression?
Throughout reading the first half of Hind Swaraj, I was very intrigued about the ‘civilization’ notions and tagging it as evil. Many questions arose for me, but by the last chapter, “The Condition of India: the Hindus and the Mahomedans,” the editor brings up a point that I think tied up loose ends and gave a reasoning to why civilization taints things. Within the first paragraph, he says this: “God set a limit to a man’s locomotive ambition in the construction of his body. Man immediately proceeded to discover means of overriding the limit. God gifted man with intellect that he might know his Maker. Man abused it, so that he might forget his Maker. I am so constructed that I can only serve my immediate neighbours, but, in my conceit, I pretend to have discovered that I must with my body serve every individual in the Universe. In thus attempting the impossible, man comes in contact with different natures, different religions, and is utterly confounded.”
I interpreted this as a logic behind ‘civilized’ (English) people and their actions. At some point, these people gained an understanding of how large the world is and that they were capable of overtaking these lands and changing their perspective with nationalism. Whether that be for morally sound or conceited purposes, Englishmen went on to conquer more than what had been previously possible. I can easily recognize this as a destructive pattern, but it makes me wonder if the modern technologies and overriding ‘locomotive ambition’ is to blame here, and that it wasn’t an inherent trait of humans. So when it comes to the Englishmen and other nations that have conquered, do we think that it is by a false assumption that they must ‘serve every individual in the Universe’ (after having discovered the world beyond their community) that has led them to the belief that their values and traditions must be shared? Is this why they conquer?
I found all of the chapters to be interesting, particularly the chapter titled “Civilization” stood out to me the most. Gandhi’s perspective on civilization is thought provoking especially when he describes civilization a disease. This was eye-opening for me because it challenge the conventional understanding of progress and development. The way that he compares civilization to slavery is particularly compelling, because it highlights how modern society is bound by materialism and the pursuit of economic growth. He strongly critisizes modern “civilization” for prioritizing material progress over spiritual and moral development. He argues that real civilization lies in the adherence to moral principles and simplicity.
Gandhi emphasizes the importance of returning to traditional values and living a life of simplicity, arguing that modern civilization has led to moral decay. Could Gandhi’s ideas about simplicity and traditional vales be applied in today’s society?
For our Weekly Discussion Question #3 I want to discuss an excerpt from this week’s reading Hind Swaraj and Other Writings by M. K. Gandhi. In the Forward of Hind Swaraj Gandhi writes, “These views are mine, and yet not mine. They are mine because I hope to act according to them. They are also a part of my being. But, yet, they are not mine, because I lay no claim to originality. They have been formed after reading several books… The views I venture to place before the reader, are needless to say, held by many Indians not touched by what is known as civilization, but I ask the reader to believe me when I tell him that they are also held by thousands of Europeans” (Gandhi, 10).
I found this quote moving because it illuminates two important parts of Gandhi’s nonviolent philosophy. First it addresses the many philosophical writings Gandhi read while in prison which inspired his nonviolent mantra. Throughout most of my schooling I have been taught that the origin of many other nonviolent social movements, like the Civil Rights movement in the United States, was inspired by Gandhi’s revolutionary nonviolent approach. I assumed he was the first pioneer of this philosophy. In contrast, Gandhi himself dispels this notion, saying that he claims no originality. Secondly, I think it is important to note Gandhi’s final sentence in this excerpt where he addresses the thousands of Europeans who share his nonviolent philosophy. Gandhi encouraged the Indian people to not harm the British citizens occupying India and to even have compassion for them. In this last sentence he is showing that there is no black-and-white or right-and-wrong when it comes to individuals. His nonviolent approach taught social change through compassion.
Can Gandhi’s teachings of humility and compassion in the face of social injustice be translated to our deeply divided modern American political climate? Can his teachings of compassion for your ‘opponent’ be used in this context?
In Chapter 4 of Hind Swaraj, the reader and the editor discuss the domination of the English and terms of obtaining Swaraj. This conversation leads to the debate of using violence and non-violence. The Reader insists that for India to establish self-governance, they must act as the English. As elaborated by the Reader, “…the question whether there is any harm in associating with a tiger, if he changes his nature. Such a question is sheer waste of time. When a tiger changes his nature, Englishmen will change theirs. This is not possible, and to believe it to be possible is contrary to human experience.” However, the Editor insists that this is a mere flipping the power relations that will inevitably lead to them acting as the English. “You have well drawn the picture. In effect it means this: that we want English rule without the Englishman. 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 I want.” This clearly reflects Gandhi’s own view to self-governance and the complexities that may lead to that, particularly when it leads to one, or one’s country, adopting the behaviors and actions of such a Western country as England. Does Gandhi’s rejection of the adoption of Western practices and system within colonized countries remind you of any other academics, public figures, etc. of the time? If so, how might they differ? How do you think people would react to Gandhi’s words on Swaraj and his criticism of taking the tiger’s nature, rather than the tiger if this was written in the present day? Does this idea seem like it would be more “outlandish” today or when this was written?
I find the chapter titled, “The Condition of England” fascinating. The “Editor” compares the parliamentary government of England to that of a “sterile woman” as it is a frivolous organization that accomplishes little to nothing (not my words). The Editor also compares the English Parliament to a prostitute as it is constantly under the control of an everchanging Prime Minister who is more often concerned with their own power than the state of the parliament or country. The editor cites a lack of desire to create real change in the English parliament and an overwhelming sense of mindlessness as these seemingly free-thinking politicians strictly adhere to voting in favor of their party only. The Editor warns against India copying such a government for itself but despite their wishes, the Indian parliament has since been implemented. If you look at the modern state of the Indian parliament, one would see a notable difference in the demeanor of its politicians. The Indian parliament today is known for fiery and passionate debates which have on occasion even led to physical altercations. While these government bodies by the standards of The Editor are on opposite ends of the spectrum regarding the will to create change, both of these methods often end with none. What is it about democratically elected governments that so often misrepresent or do little for the citizens that elect them? The easy answer would be to just “elect the right people” but when realistically has that ever happened? Is there a change that can be made to improve this system, or is an alternative form of government simply a better option? I am aware this question has little to do with the actual reading, but the passages in this chapter reminded me too much of the present-day US government and it sparked my question.
In the preface of Hind Swaraj, Gandhi reminds me of the idea of “The Oriental West”. This belief shows how the east wasn’t inferior, only different and able to provide for its people in different ways. The British, Dutch, and French colonization sought to spread the idea of western dominance and many were forced to comply out of necessity. Gandhi asked for an active resistance to this and to cut ties with industrialization and materialism as it was destroying the east’s culture and web of beliefs. Although he was successful in campaigning for Indian independence, he ultimately failed to keep the west out of India’s culture and economy. Not only that but the division between hinduism and islam are as stark as ever which even led to mass deportations of muslim people still to this day. This separation, he warned, severed the very heart of India’s culture and allowed western civilization to mold them in their own image. I can relate this to not just modern day India but also the United States. The United States populous’s severance of beliefs makes the struggle feel like a culture war rather than a class war. This division however, allows those in charge, like Britain in India, to consolidate their wealth and power while the working class fights among themselves. To fix this problem, Gandhi preaches the return to traditional beliefs in value within India. But how can a country like the US, without deep traditional roots and also built on western ideals from the beginning, gain traction in resisting the power vacuum?
“we gave india to the english” shows the idea that people give their freedom to others. they also stated how religion and spirituality can be used as an escape, or to climb a ladder to some alternative state. We try to free ourselves or find survival in some capacity. so when push comes to shove would you choose freedom or guaranteed survival? What is preventing your freedom now? what is freedom anyhow??? and are you just surviving at this point or do you consider your self free? How have you trapped yourself or who have you given your freedom to? And maybe even whos freedom have you taken to survive or to be free in any capacity? I have no freedom, live shackled by myself and the thoughts of others, but at the same time I have infinite capacity for freedom in every step that i take, to spin my own clothing, to smile up at the sun in a moment holds a drop of freedom that could be taken for granted. I think freedom might be a paradox.
I really like this quote from the reading “India cannot cease to be one nation because people belonging to different religions live in it. The introduction of foreigners does not necessarily destroy the nation, they merge in it”. The definition of merge means to combine to a single entity. I think what this sentence means is that India having different types of religions and opinions is what makes India a country. It’s just like in nature you don’t often see one type of tree species growing; you have oaks, maples, hickory, pine, and elm growing together sometimes competing but often exchanging nutrients from one tree to another. When a strong wind comes through the branches, roots and trees often hold each other up. However, I think I need some understanding on the relationship between the cow and the man. Is he favoring the cow or the man depending on the situation? If a Christian were to see a cow and an Indian in need and he could only save one and he picked the human, would they be ridiculed? I think there could be some potential conflict here. What are some other ways to handle disagreements when faiths and beliefs are very different which can impact someone else?
The way Ghandi organized his book as a “reader” and “editor” was interesting and useful in understanding the time. I liked how Gandhi explained the term “swaraj” and how the Indian people claimed it but did not fully understand or want to understand what it meant. They desired British institutions and ideals without British rule, which Ghandi was in strong opposition to. Swaraj refers to “self-rule,” and Ghandi envisioned a country that was ruled by the people. During chapter five, I found his ideas on elected officials thought-provoking. “The best men are supposed to be elected by the people. The members serve without pay, and therefore it must be assumed, only for the public weal.” Politicians today are making massive amounts of money while claiming to be for the people. Gandhi advocated for voluntary poverty throughout his life, so my discussion question is:
If elected officials/politicians are paid, are they really for the people?
Hind Swaraj offers an intimate and detailed exploration of the effects of colonial rule, modern civilization, political corruption, and spiritual decay have had on the country of India. This analysis takes place in the form of a conversation between “Editor” and “Reader”, in which the editor is presumed to be Gandhi and the reader is a skeptical Indian citizen. The editor is the vessel through which Gandhi expresses his views on India’s pursuit of Swaraj, while covering the many contributing factors to their plight, as well as the best way to pursue freedom. The Reader provides challenges to the Editors (Gandhi) assertions, likely to represent the feelings of many citizens unconvinced of India’s future and the challenges it faces.
One of the central parts of their discussion comes from Chapter 6, where the editor describes his view of modern civilization as a disease that has long infected Europe and has begin to harm India as well. The editor believes civilization as it is practiced by the West to be morally and spiritually bankrupt, choosing to worship money, technology, and the luxuries provided by them. This has led to a new kind of enslavement, where workers voluntarily enslave themselves under the delusion money provides, working themselves tirelessly in terrible conditions to benefit the wealthy. “Now, thousands of workmen meet together and for the sake of maintenance work in factories or mines. Their condition is worse than that of beasts. They are obliged to work, at the risk of their lives, at most dangerous occupations, for the sake of millionaires. Formerly, men were made slaves under physical compulsion, now they are enslaved by temptation of money and of the luxuries that money can buy” (Hind Swaraj, Chapter 6, 1909). Prioritizing money in this way has eliminated morality from society, allowing anyone and anything to be bought and sold, leading to a void of personal freedom and fulfillment.
Do you agree with the Editor’s assessment of modern civilization? How do the criticisms provided apply to modern day? Is there any way to ethically participate in a technologically advanced society? What role should religion and spirituality play in society?
“What must be the condition of the people who’s newspapers are of this type?” It’s a simple, yet powerful question posed by Gandhi in his critique of British society, much of which applies to America today. Gandhi did not think the British people were inherently evil, just corrupted and blinded by the evils of modernity. I wonder, what would his message have been to the British public? Not just with regard to India’s liberation, but of their own from their material enslavement within industrial society, as he framed it. Clearly Gandhi’s model of civil disobedience could be replicated in America too, as shown by MLK Jr. with the civil rights movement, and yet our circumstances today in the struggle for environmental justice, among other interconnected issues, feel wholly unique in a way. This is definitely a question I will continue to track as we read on.
In chapter 6 of Hind Swaraj, titled “Civilisation,” Gandhi critiques modern civilization and the impact it has had on our way of life. A quote from this chapter I particularly liked, albeit a long one, was “We rarely find people arguing against themselves. Those who are intoxicated by modern civilisation are not likely to write against it. Their care will be to find out facts and arguments in support of it, and this they do unconsciously, believing it to be true. A man, whilst he is dreaming, believes in his dream; he is undeceived only when he is awakened from his sleep. A man labouring under the bane of civilisation is like a dreaming man.” This made me think back to our exploration of Thoreau and his insistence on staying awake and meeting the day wide awake. Thoreau writes, “We must learn to reawaken and keep ourselves awake, not by mechanical aids, but by an infinite expectation of the dawn, which does not forsake us even in our soundest sleep.” We accept things to be true without even thinking them through. We accept rules and norms put upon us without question. We are asleep in our everyday life. Another quote from Gandhi, “Their condition is worse than that of beasts. They are obliged to work, at the risk of their lives, at most dangerous occupations, for the sake of millionaires.” Thoreau certainly would’ve agreed with that one. We must not be blind to this civilization we have built. We must open our eyes, wake up from this dream, and question everything.
All this rambling to say, that both Gandhi and Thoreau see society and modern civilization as oppressive. We are accepting the dream world, but need to wake up. How does our modern society keep us asleep? What does it mean to be awake in our time? Can we ever be fully awake to escape the dream of civilization? What are the “dreams” of the modern world?
In chapter 4 of Hind Swaraj, Gandhi makes the claim that “the English have not taken India; we have given it to them”. In this quote, he points out how India was complicit in the British control of the country, and challenges people to think about the repercussions of that complicity. India had allowed itself to be ruled by the British, and gave up the freedom that comes with self rule for a promise of protection. In Chapter 6, Gandhi points out the stark differences in the British culture and the Indian culture; “the tendency of Indian civilization is to elevate the moral being, that of the Western civilization is to propagate immorality”. The British put the mass accumulation of wealth, industry, and power at the top of their priorities, and put little thought into the mental wellbeing of their people. Gandhi criticizes this approach, and questions whether growth and development is worth the exploitation of the human spirit. Is there a justifiable amount of immorality that can occur in pursuit of the advancement of a civilization? Does the strength and power of the economy or civilization correlate with citizens’ mental wellbeing? Is it possible to gain power as a nation without compromising any mental wellbeing of the citizens? How do these ideas apply to today?
In Hind Swaraj, specifically in the chapters which titles begin with ‘The condition of India’, M.K. Gandhi recognizes various aspects of (English) civilization that have seeped into India, whose impacts have played active roles in the ‘ruining’ of Indian culture. Gandhi asserts that those who ‘become civilized’ become utterly irreligious and, in reality, derive little advantage from the world. Along with railways, lawyers and doctors have impoverished India, so much so that, “if we do not wake up in time, we shall be ruined.” (pp. 47) While Gandhi explicitly calls out direct actors in this ‘ruining’, he also calls out the everyday Indian who is complicit with fronting as a civilized man.
In ‘The condition of India’, Gandhi says “Hinduism, Islamism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity and all other religions teach that we should remain passive about worldly pursuits and active about godly pursuits, that we should set a limit to our worldly ambition, and that our religious ambition should be illimitable. Our activity should be directed into the latter channel.” (pp. 42-43) While various religions compromised India, coming into conflict with one another, a set of unifying values is consistent throughout. By calling India a nation that is becoming irreligious, Gandhi notions that this set of values, if taken as genuine commitments, hold the power to prevent the inward creep of Western civilization in its inverse-cultural assimilation forms.
Though we know a very different society than Gandhi (and, of course, even modern India), can you think of other applications for Gandhi’s set of values? In other words, how can we apply this set of values as participants in Western society to our modern dilemmas? Should we, perhaps, adopt this set of commitments with spirituality* in place of religion to be more encompassing? Throughout history, what cultures have made similar and evident commitments? To what were they committing to?
*Google search results of what it means to be spiritual: Spiritual people need not believe in God, or ghosts, or seances, or near-death experiences, they need only commit to more objectively exploring the nature of reality by exploring their own minds.
My main takeaway from this chapter was Ghandi is warning Indians about the potential for a westernization of their society and the dangers that would accompany such a takeover. My inference was that at this time, because the British were so advanced technologically and economically, Ghandi was worried the Indian population would lose sight of what makes them unique and succumb to the institutions imposed by the British crown. I think it was pretty clear that he was also warning against the Brit’s plan to create division among the Indian peoples by separating the religions. I think Ghandi was partially concerned about losing India’s native cultures as well as becoming a willing pawn in the plot of the West. My question to the class would be this: If the British crown was unstoppable in its quest for a cultural takeover of India, is there any way they could have assimilated their “more advanced” society into India without destroying its core cultural tenets?
“You want the tiger’s nature but not the tiger”. Gandhi uses this analogy to express his discontent with the Indian Nationalist movement, and its yearning for a Western-like power. This leads into one of the biggest ideas found in Hind Swaraj, the need for a peaceful revolution to transform the Indian state into something greater than British rule. In order to reject the “tiger”, they must not use the tiger’s nature in retaliation. Hind Swaraj was published in 1909. The conditions and strategies for revolution, and suppressing a revolution have changed considerably in the last 120 years. How do Gandhi’s words hold up to scrutiny when the violence he retaliated is still so present all these years later?
In the chapter “The Condition of England” The editor discusses the disconnect between leaders, parliament and patriotism. They say, “The prime minister is more concerned about his power than about the welfare of the Parliament. His energy is concentrated upon securing the success of his party. His care is not always that Parliament shall do right.” (Gandhi 32). This implies that those in positions of authority frequently put the success of their party ahead of the general well-being and the integrity of government. Do you also think that corruption and self-interest are inevitable when a leader is in charge of a governing system? Or do you think that effective leadership is possible without sacrificing the welfare of society? What impact does our individual perception of leadership have on whether we view authority as a necessary force or problem? I think that someone’s answer to this question is dependent on their beliefs that humans can be intrinsically good or bad; as someone who may think bad would say we need leaders to govern, and the opposite for those who think good.
“To be sure, we cannot rise again till our political conditions changes for the better; but it is not true that we shall necessarily progress if our political condition undergoes a change, irrespective of the manner in which it is brought about. If the means employed are impure, the change will be not in the direction of progress but very likely the opposite.” It is interesting to that people wanted change in their sytem and can be seen in today’s politics in simlar ways. “The political system which has become odious would reform itself, India would regain the spiritual empire which, we know, it enjoyed in the days gone by, the bonds which hold India under subjection would be severed in an instant, and the ideal state which an ancient seer [the prophet Isaiah] described in his immortal words would come into being: ‘And they shall beat swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks” How could a spiritual pathway be a more successful path to change rather than the tradition means of protest and activism?
In Chapter 6 of Hind Swaraj, titled “Parliament,” Gandhi critiques the British parliamentary system, arguing that it is ineffective, hypocritical, and ultimately serves the interests of the powerful rather than the people. He describes Parliament as a “sterile woman” and a “prostitute” because outside influences easily sway it and fail to produce lasting good. Gandhi criticizes how people prioritize personal and party interests over service, changing their positions for political gain. Gandhi views this system as inherently corrupt and unsuitable as a model for India’s self-rule.
This chapter made me think about how representative governments function today. If Gandhi saw the British Parliament as ineffective and self-serving, what would he say about modern democratic institutions? Are they truly representative, or do they still serve elite interests? Can a government ever genuinely be for the people?
Comparison is the thief of joy, but ‘Hind Swaraj’ and Other Writings is a better book than Walden. From what I have learned about Gandhi, he is well-spoken and articulated in his writings, while his conversations are patient, direct, and simple for the reader to grasp. He is deeply devoted and disciplined to his religious practices and follows his values through the darkest times. He is among the wisest people in history due to his character and non-violent and passive tendencies for change. Gandhi is full of timeless and inspiring quotes that ring throughout generations and can still be attached to most challenges today.
I’ll discuss a couple of the chapters within the reading: What is Swaraj and Civilization? The tiger metaphor in the fourth chapter, which discusses oppressive English rule over India, is original and symbolic of their culture. It captured my eye because it connects the true difference between human perspectives regarding transformative political and economic structures. As you try to escape the jaws of a tiger, you fall right back into your own. India doesn’t want to be Westernized — fighting for independence like Western nations — will only create a new Western nation.
Is civilization a disease? To an extent, but that’s a pessimistic view. (Western) Humanity can always reinvent the word ‘civilization’. Civilization is a cause and a cure for humanity while degrading the spiritual soul, but supplying man with necessities to live a (questionable) fruitful life. Topics of Western greed, selfishness, balance, moral and personal ethics, etc. can be highlighted throughout the small chapter. It’s difficult to analyze and discuss these topics because I could talk about them for hours, and Gandhi emphasizes numerous quotes regarding these topics throughout the book. However, a notable quote holding contemporary weight states that the West “[keeps up their energy by intoxication]”. Too many people drift from reality to indulge in some sort of pleasurable activity; however, I’m hypocritical about this as well. Don’t be too hard on yourself… right?
I was inspired by the class discussion yesterday that compared differences in sytlistic choices made Thoreau and Ghandi. In this case, we are assuming that both writers are trying to push an agenda. Ghandi’s was one of cilvil disobedience and direct action toward the goal of Indian independence. In Walden, the agenda was a little more nuanced, Thoreau was arguing about leaving society but not because he was under anyone else’s rule. Instead, he critiques humanity’s approach to life. Ghandi’s dialogue strategy, where he utilizes a reader and an editor to pose and argue points is, to me, the best way to extrapolate and convince people of change. He does a great job of completing his thoughts and being able to articulate why it is better than the opposite argument. Thoreau uses his time in Walden to tell us about what he understands to be the best way to live life. At times this feels naive and close-minded. He never proves that he understands where his opposition may come from, or delves into empathizing with them. Between the two of these writings, Ghandi does a better job of being approachable and honestly seems smarter and kinder while doing it.
“Those who are against violence are so only for the time being. They do not disapprove of it.” This quote really stood out to me because it is true. Most people do things like peaceful protest however it goes to show that sometimes the “nonviolence” attuite is only relevant when it is inconvenience, and a person interest is not being served. “I have practically met no one who believes that India can ever become free without resort to violence”. As stated, earlier people in India are willing to do anything which is resorting to violence to save their country from Bristish Rule. If I am not mistaken, and if Gandhi is making this statement about resort to violence I often wonder if Gandhi had second thoughts about doing these activities?
Gandhi was a lawyer who also practiced medicine and healing throughout his life. This dual background has shaped his perspective on modern law and medicine. He used to see being a doctor as a noble profession but now believes that people often become doctors to get rich, not to help others. This leads them to use a treatment-led approach rather than getting to the root cause of diseases: “negligence or indulgence.” Similarly, he states that while lawyers are capable of good, it is not inherent to their career while immorality, conflict, and division are. Ultimately, Gandhi critiques doctors and lawyers because they do not have any stake in preventing problems and often profit off of cycles of oppression. These professions, usually associated with high honor, are denounced by Gandhi. Instea,d he valorizes small traditional subsistence communities– people who “decided that we should only do what we could with our hands and feet” and “saw that our real happiness and health consisted in a proper use of our hands and feet.” Perhaps this way of life appeals to Gandhi because it is inherently characteristic of the passive resistance he proposes as a solution. Gandhi responds to the reader’s critique that these past civilizations had many immoral practices by stating that those are defects that “remain in spite of ancient civilization” while Western society welcomes and “propagates immorality.” Western hegemony often allows the critique of past civilizations as backward due to child marriage and animal sacrifice, yet excuses the oppression and destruction caused by modern civilization because it is seen as the only way forward (even by moderate Indians who wanted to remove English rule yet sought to model civilization after them). Is the same rhetoric used to condescend to subsistence lifestyles, while ignoring critiques of doctors and lawyers due to perceived status and necessity of such professions?
In the reading “The Condition of India: The Hindus and the Mahomedans,” Gandhi writes, “”I should, however, like to add that man is so made by nature as to require him to restrict his movements as far as his hands and feet will take him. If we did not rush about from place to place by means of railways and such other maddening conveniences, much of the confusion that arises would be obviated. Our difficulties are of our own creation.” Having read this quote It really made me reflect on how often I discuss with family my major and what its for. Especially when talking to older family members they tend to argue that despite the harm we inflict the accessibility and features that are disposed to us now is essential for our living needs and we are too far in to try and turn to a greener option or it would be inconvenient. While reading through Gandhi discusses how humanity habitually pushes the limits of nature regardless of the fact that we are apart of nature and in turn we are hurting ourselves. So. My question would be why are the resources we have set up to be convenient so “necessary” to our daily lives? However, what reasons can we use to justify the development that not only harms and degrades the environment but also hurts us in the long term.
The most interesting section was when I read these passages. I thought that the prohibition aspect was very interesting because other people around the world found that alcohol was the root of many problems in society. The reasons for banning it would help the men and the women of the society to help them improve themselves, which would then uplift the movement to reach a large audience. The idea is quite ingenious because there will be more people who would stand for change rather than being stuck in a hole where something makes them sick and unfit to climb back out and start again. The ideas of community improvements showed that things could be taken care of by Indian people rather than an empire controlling and limiting people to such a low quality of life. Education was also a huge reason why people were starting to wake up and realize what was happening all around them, and they were ready for a change. For a leader such as Gandhi, why did so many people listen to him? Surely other people were taking actions similar to what he was doing, but why is he the one who is known today as the one who led India to its independence? Leading to new ideas can get people to think, and maybe it was just the inevitable bubble that was going to burst, or it could have been that there needed to be one figurehead to control what ideas people could follow and be a part of a cause that they truly believed in.
A part of this section of the readings that popped out to me was that there was a push for prohibition in India. The idea would be that the men would no longer be sick, and the women would have a chance to be with men and the loving services they have to offer in a home. This is one way to improve a society that is being beaten down by an empire willing to take control and influence how your quality of life should be. Having no alcohol in the towns allows there to be an environment that is a more positive and uplifting movement rather than being down in a hole wishing that life would be better. The empire uses drugs and alcohol to suppress the people is a great way to ensure that there is no retaliation because people are too numb to realize what is happening. Education was also another huge part of why this movement was so successful. People, especially women, were gaining skills that would help them out in the world, like knowing how to read and write. Having a basic education can help people understand how the world works and why it operates the way that it does. There would be less likely a chance that someone would be taken advantage of in a situation if they know what is happening to them. An improvement on life and improved quality of life, such as new sanitation in villages, brings hope to those who live in areas that are being oppressed. People started to realize that they did not need to rely on the ones controlling them, and they wanted a change. I understand that Gandhi was an important figure in history, but why was he the one whom people followed? Surely he was not the only person who had these ideas. Was his message a clear message that everyone could follow, or was he someone who could take charge and lead a group of protestors?
A part of this section of the readings that popped out to me was that there was a push for prohibition in India. The idea would be that the men would no longer be sick, and the women would have a chance to be with men and the loving services they have to offer in a home. This is one way to improve a society that is being beaten down by an empire willing to take control and influence how your quality of life should be. Having no alcohol in the towns allows there to be an environment that is a more positive and uplifting movement rather than being down in a hole wishing that life would be better. The empire uses drugs and alcohol to suppress the people is a great way to ensure that there is no retaliation because people are too numb to realize what is happening. Education was also another huge part of why this movement was so successful. People, especially women, were gaining skills that would help them out in the world, like knowing how to read and write. Having a basic education can help people understand how the world works and why it operates the way that it does. There would be less likely a chance that someone would be taken advantage of in a situation if they know what is happening to them. An improvement on life and improved quality of life, such as new sanitation in villages, brings hope to those who live in areas that are being oppressed. People started to realize that they did not need to rely on the ones controlling them, and they wanted a change. I understand that Gandhi was an important figure in history, but why was he the one whom people followed? Surely he was not the only person who had these ideas. Was his message a clear message that everyone could follow, or was he someone who could take charge and lead a group of protestors?
A part of this section of the readings that popped out to me was that there was a push for prohibition in India. The idea would be that the men would no longer be sick, and the women would have a chance to be with men and the loving services they have to offer in a home. This is one way to improve a society that is being beaten down by an empire willing to take control and influence how your quality of life should be. Having no alcohol in the towns allows there to be an environment that is a more positive and uplifting movement rather than being down in a hole wishing that life would be better. The empire uses drugs and alcohol to suppress the people is a great way to ensure that there is no retaliation because people are too numb to realize what is happening. Education was also another huge part of why this movement was so successful. People, especially women, were gaining skills that would help them out in the world, like knowing how to read and write. Having a basic education can help people understand how the world works and why it operates the way that it does. There would be less likely a chance that someone would be taken advantage of in a situation if they know what is happening to them. An improvement on life and improved quality of life, such as new sanitation in villages, brings hope to those who live in areas that are being oppressed. People started to realize that they did not need to rely on the ones controlling them, and they wanted a change. I understand that Gandhi was an important figure in history, but why was he the one whom people followed? Surely he was not the only person who had these ideas. Was his message a clear message that everyone could follow, or was he someone who could take charge and lead a group of protestors?
In the preface to the book Hind Swaraj, the author contrasts “Modern Civilization,” represented by the British Empire, which he equates with the “Kingdom of Satan,” against the “Ancient Civilization” of India, framed as the “Kingdom of God.” This reflects the authors belief that modern industrial, materialistic, and often violent systems associated with the British Rule is due to moral decline. In contrast, he sees Indian tradition as grounded in spiritual values, self restraint, nonviolence, and a harmonious way of life. His concern is of who rules India and what values will define that rule. The suggestion is that true swaraj is political independence and a return to the ethical and spiritual roots of Indian civilization.
What is also powerful is the critique of how his fellow countrymen wrongly attribute their oppression solely to the English people, rather than to the broader system of modern civilization. In doing so, he warns that adopting violent, Westernized methods to oust colonial rulers would amount to replacing one form of destruction with another, rather than achieving real liberation.
What implications does this moral contrast have for how we define true freedom or self-rule today?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
The aspects of religion that were touched on in these readings stood out to me. Specifically, when Gandhi stated in “Preface”, “The British Government in India constitutes a struggle between the Modern Civilisation, which is the Kingdom of Satan, and the Ancient Civilisation, which is the Kingdom of God.” This continued on in Chapter VIII: The condition of India, in which the Editor said, “…my first complaint is that India is becoming irreligious. Here I am not thinking of the Hindu, the Mahomedan, or the Zoroastrian religion, but of that religion which underlies all religions. We are turning away from God.” With these quotes in mind, is Gandhi implying that as India “turns away from God”, they are essentially turning towards Modern Civilization, or the “Kingdom of Satan”?
– Hadley Tavernier
The term “civilized” has long been used as a tool for describing the superiority of one nation over another or one human race over another. Some of the better-known examples include the civilization of the “savages” of North America in which the colonization of America led to the eradication of the native American way of life. This term has been utilized throughout history and often brings forth connotations of dominion and the silencing of alternate ways of life. In Gandhi’s Hind Sirwaj, he discusses this term concerning modern civilizations’ influence on India through the English, stating “Those who are influenced by modern civilization are not likely to write against it” (Ghandi 35). This sentence reminded me of the current status of society where capitalism is something rarely critiqued, or if critiqued something which often receives backlash as it is referred to in many instances as the “American way of life” Similarly at this time the English were pushing forth notions of true “civilization” in India those which wished to oppose these changes such as Gandhi were consistently critiqued. Moreover, it is explained that “their writings hypnotize us… and so one by one we are drawn into the vortex” (Ghandi 35). The usage of vortex caused me to wonder if the individuals who have succumbed to the clutches of modern-day capitalism are coherently aware of the constant cycling of consumerism that occurs each passing day or if society has become overly consumed by the vortex of Capitalism that there is no alternative opportunity for resistance? Moreover, what would Gandhi suggest is the best way to resist a capitalistic “civilized” way of life?
This dialogue reflects a profound critique of the impact of modern civilization and British rule on India. The editor’s perspective reveals a deep concern about the erosion of India’s spiritual values, which he believes are being overshadowed by the pursuit of Western ideals. He laments the growing irreligiosity, viewing modern civilization as a destructive force that, though seemingly offering progress, leads to moral decay. The editor’s thoughts on religion emphasize that true spirituality transcends organized faiths and teaches a higher purpose, while civilization, in his view, distracts from this pursuit, making people more materialistic and less connected to their divine roots. The dialogue also presents a striking contrast between colonial rule and the state of India before British intervention. The editor acknowledges the dangers posed by local groups like the Thugs and Pindaris but argues that these threats were not as catastrophic as the emasculating peace brought by the British. He challenges the perception that British rule was a civilizing force, suggesting that the fear instilled by colonialism is more damaging than the dangers of the past. For the editor, India’s strength lies in self-reliance and bravery, traits he feels are diminished under foreign protection. His remarks about the British and their perception of Indians as cowards further question the narrative of colonial superiority. Ultimately, the editor advocates for a return to India’s indigenous values and strength, which he believes are the true foundation of the country. His criticism of both British rule and Western civilization invites reflection on how foreign influence and modernity have shaped India’s identity, challenging the reader to reconsider the costs of colonialism and the nature of true progress. My question would then be, does colonialism always cause or correlate with consumerism within said society. Does this imply capitalism fueled and therefore cause consumerism which is a key reason for loss of culture and religion?
-Will Bradford
In the preface of the book, the editor talks about machinery and civilization. The editor talks about how Gandhiji condemnation of machinery. In this section of the preface, the editor talks about how the defects Gandhiji pointed out weren’t inheritance defects, but these were defects that tended to contrast with the western civilization. The goal of this book was for Ganhiji to contrast different tendencies of the Indian civilization to the western civilization. Gandhiji whole-heartedly agreed with GDH Cole that western civilization wasn’t past pending. The editor also compares the machine to the human body when it comes to its usefulness. It’s only useful to the extent that it subserves the growth of the soul. My question is how does Gamdhiji’s condemnation tie in with religion?
Ciara Gurganus
In the text/ebook of the “Hind Swaraj”, Gandhi is quite critical of how leaders of the Indian Nationalist Movement is seeking India’s independence from Britain using what are considered western methods as seen with the quote “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”. This leads into my question, do you think that Gandhi’s vision was correct considering the tensions between Britain and India at the time, or do you think the Nationalist movement was taking the right approach of appearing western to get Britain to leave them alone?
-Connor Kuharcik
In the chapters, “Civilization,” “Why was India Lost?,” “The Condition of India,” “The Condition of India: Railways,” and “The Condition of India: The Hindus and The Mahomedans,” Gandhi speaks of the English’s practices of civilization. Specifically, in the chapter, “The Condition of India: The Hindus and The Mahomedans,” Gandhi states, “God set a limit to a man’s locomotive ambition in the construction of his body. Man immediately proceeded to discover means of overriding the limit.” Expressing that man has used these modern inventions to over expand and essentially, over exert in life, past what God intended for us to do. This take reminded me of Thoreau’s ideas in Walden. Critiquing the modern day ideas of labor, work, and life. Although, through reading Walden, I feel that Thoreau did not discuss much of a religious connection between his arguments. Do you think Gandhi’s statement would be something Thoreau would agree with?
Abbey Smith
In the chapter, “The Condition of India: The Hindus and the Mahomedans,” Gandhi says, “I should, however, like to add that man is so made by nature as to require him to restrict his movements as far as his hands and feet will take him. If we did not rush about from place to place by means of railways and such other maddening conveniences, much of the confusion that arises would be obviated. Our difficulties are of our own creation.” This quote left me thinking about the discussions that tend to come when I bring up my major. People often tell me that even though we have caused such destruction in this world, the conveniences we have now are necessary to our survival and that there is absolutely no going back. Gandhi discusses throughout the text how Man keeps coming up with more ways to push the limit of nature, and after all, humans are nature, so why are all of these conveniences so “necessary?” I often hear that “everything happens for a reason”, but what possible reason could there be for such development to not only cause distress in our surrounding environment, but also to ourselves? We as humans have pushed the natural limit so far that we are now facing the consequences, but will even that be enough to get us to wake up and stop?
Parker Williamson
In Chapter 4 of Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj, What is Swaraj?, Gandhi, known as the Editor, discusses with the Reader what Swaraj means and what it will look like after the end of colonial rule in India. I will admit that I was unfamiliar with the concept of Swaraj before reading this book and had to do some independent research on what it meant in a more general sense. The term describes self-governance and can be translated to “home rule.” When Gandhi is discussing with the Reader what Swaraj is, he is not looking for a general definition, but rather a more detailed description of what the governance systems of India will look like post-colonial rule and what benefits this will have for the nation. Upon hearing the Reader’s version of Swaraj, which rejects colonial rule but embraces Western systems, Gandhi replies “You have drawn the picture well. In effect, it means this: that we want English rule without the Englishman. 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.”
Gandhi defines his vision of Swaraj as not only rejecting colonial rule but also Western cultural and economic systems. How does Ghandi’s vision of self-rule differ from simply achieving political independence? Are there any current movements for autonomy that you can think of that we might be able to apply this distinction to?
Sofie Crump
The chapter on Lawyers particularly interested me. Gandhi’s articulation of his ideas about what purpose lawyers truly serve and the validity of their existence stood out to me in particular. “Moreover, men take up that profession, not in order to help others out of their miseries, but to enrich themselves.” Gandhi is not saying that lawyers have never done any good but rather pointing out the negative forces that must persist in order for lawyers to maintain consistent clientele and how this has perpetuated english oppression in India. In order for lawyers to maintain their status they are incentivized to hope for quarrel rather than to resolve quarrel through just means. “their interest exists in multiplying disputes.”
Gandhi points out the immorality of the role of lawyers. What do you think a system would look like where lawyers were incentivized to fight for justice and not just fill their pockets?
Landon Dancy
In the chapter titled Passive resistance, the following quote stuck out to me: “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.” Gandhi argues that when using passive resistance instead of violence, both the resister and the oppressor benefit from this tactic. This argument is suggesting that anyone can partake in passive resistance. Gandhi says that passive resistance “doesn’t rust” and “cannot be stolen” and that these resisters have competition inside them that does not run out. I think this means that you are never too old or too young for passive resistance, or if you are physically disabled, you can still participate in passive resistance, etc. No matter where you are in your life, you can always participate in passive resistance. As for the oppressor side of this argument, I think Gandhi means that nonviolent resistance has a strong power that exists beyond just political victories but has the possibility to reach moral elevation for the opposing party.
Unfortunately, in past and current fights, peaceful resistance does not always result in the oppressor’s moral awakening. In some cases, oppression continues despite the resister’s suffering. If the oppressor stays unaffected or even intensifies violence, does passive resistance still “bless” both parties? Is the moral supremacy of passive resistance significant if it does not result in real political or social change? How does this concept apply to modern-day movements in which nonviolent protestors deal with devastating governmental oppression?
Margo Smith
Throughout reading the first half of Hind Swaraj, I was very intrigued about the ‘civilization’ notions and tagging it as evil. Many questions arose for me, but by the last chapter, “The Condition of India: the Hindus and the Mahomedans,” the editor brings up a point that I think tied up loose ends and gave a reasoning to why civilization taints things. Within the first paragraph, he says this: “God set a limit to a man’s locomotive ambition in the construction of his body. Man immediately proceeded to discover means of overriding the limit. God gifted man with intellect that he might know his Maker. Man abused it, so that he might forget his Maker. I am so constructed that I can only serve my immediate neighbours, but, in my conceit, I pretend to have discovered that I must with my body serve every individual in the Universe. In thus attempting the impossible, man comes in contact with different natures, different religions, and is utterly confounded.”
I interpreted this as a logic behind ‘civilized’ (English) people and their actions. At some point, these people gained an understanding of how large the world is and that they were capable of overtaking these lands and changing their perspective with nationalism. Whether that be for morally sound or conceited purposes, Englishmen went on to conquer more than what had been previously possible. I can easily recognize this as a destructive pattern, but it makes me wonder if the modern technologies and overriding ‘locomotive ambition’ is to blame here, and that it wasn’t an inherent trait of humans. So when it comes to the Englishmen and other nations that have conquered, do we think that it is by a false assumption that they must ‘serve every individual in the Universe’ (after having discovered the world beyond their community) that has led them to the belief that their values and traditions must be shared? Is this why they conquer?
Ella Holmes
I found all of the chapters to be interesting, particularly the chapter titled “Civilization” stood out to me the most. Gandhi’s perspective on civilization is thought provoking especially when he describes civilization a disease. This was eye-opening for me because it challenge the conventional understanding of progress and development. The way that he compares civilization to slavery is particularly compelling, because it highlights how modern society is bound by materialism and the pursuit of economic growth. He strongly critisizes modern “civilization” for prioritizing material progress over spiritual and moral development. He argues that real civilization lies in the adherence to moral principles and simplicity.
Gandhi emphasizes the importance of returning to traditional values and living a life of simplicity, arguing that modern civilization has led to moral decay. Could Gandhi’s ideas about simplicity and traditional vales be applied in today’s society?
For our Weekly Discussion Question #3 I want to discuss an excerpt from this week’s reading Hind Swaraj and Other Writings by M. K. Gandhi. In the Forward of Hind Swaraj Gandhi writes, “These views are mine, and yet not mine. They are mine because I hope to act according to them. They are also a part of my being. But, yet, they are not mine, because I lay no claim to originality. They have been formed after reading several books… The views I venture to place before the reader, are needless to say, held by many Indians not touched by what is known as civilization, but I ask the reader to believe me when I tell him that they are also held by thousands of Europeans” (Gandhi, 10).
I found this quote moving because it illuminates two important parts of Gandhi’s nonviolent philosophy. First it addresses the many philosophical writings Gandhi read while in prison which inspired his nonviolent mantra. Throughout most of my schooling I have been taught that the origin of many other nonviolent social movements, like the Civil Rights movement in the United States, was inspired by Gandhi’s revolutionary nonviolent approach. I assumed he was the first pioneer of this philosophy. In contrast, Gandhi himself dispels this notion, saying that he claims no originality. Secondly, I think it is important to note Gandhi’s final sentence in this excerpt where he addresses the thousands of Europeans who share his nonviolent philosophy. Gandhi encouraged the Indian people to not harm the British citizens occupying India and to even have compassion for them. In this last sentence he is showing that there is no black-and-white or right-and-wrong when it comes to individuals. His nonviolent approach taught social change through compassion.
Can Gandhi’s teachings of humility and compassion in the face of social injustice be translated to our deeply divided modern American political climate? Can his teachings of compassion for your ‘opponent’ be used in this context?
Clara NeSmith
In Chapter 4 of Hind Swaraj, the reader and the editor discuss the domination of the English and terms of obtaining Swaraj. This conversation leads to the debate of using violence and non-violence. The Reader insists that for India to establish self-governance, they must act as the English. As elaborated by the Reader, “…the question whether there is any harm in associating with a tiger, if he changes his nature. Such a question is sheer waste of time. When a tiger changes his nature, Englishmen will change theirs. This is not possible, and to believe it to be possible is contrary to human experience.” However, the Editor insists that this is a mere flipping the power relations that will inevitably lead to them acting as the English. “You have well drawn the picture. In effect it means this: that we want English rule without the Englishman. 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 I want.” This clearly reflects Gandhi’s own view to self-governance and the complexities that may lead to that, particularly when it leads to one, or one’s country, adopting the behaviors and actions of such a Western country as England. Does Gandhi’s rejection of the adoption of Western practices and system within colonized countries remind you of any other academics, public figures, etc. of the time? If so, how might they differ? How do you think people would react to Gandhi’s words on Swaraj and his criticism of taking the tiger’s nature, rather than the tiger if this was written in the present day? Does this idea seem like it would be more “outlandish” today or when this was written?
-Iona Blackburn
I find the chapter titled, “The Condition of England” fascinating. The “Editor” compares the parliamentary government of England to that of a “sterile woman” as it is a frivolous organization that accomplishes little to nothing (not my words). The Editor also compares the English Parliament to a prostitute as it is constantly under the control of an everchanging Prime Minister who is more often concerned with their own power than the state of the parliament or country. The editor cites a lack of desire to create real change in the English parliament and an overwhelming sense of mindlessness as these seemingly free-thinking politicians strictly adhere to voting in favor of their party only. The Editor warns against India copying such a government for itself but despite their wishes, the Indian parliament has since been implemented. If you look at the modern state of the Indian parliament, one would see a notable difference in the demeanor of its politicians. The Indian parliament today is known for fiery and passionate debates which have on occasion even led to physical altercations. While these government bodies by the standards of The Editor are on opposite ends of the spectrum regarding the will to create change, both of these methods often end with none. What is it about democratically elected governments that so often misrepresent or do little for the citizens that elect them? The easy answer would be to just “elect the right people” but when realistically has that ever happened? Is there a change that can be made to improve this system, or is an alternative form of government simply a better option? I am aware this question has little to do with the actual reading, but the passages in this chapter reminded me too much of the present-day US government and it sparked my question.
In the preface of Hind Swaraj, Gandhi reminds me of the idea of “The Oriental West”. This belief shows how the east wasn’t inferior, only different and able to provide for its people in different ways. The British, Dutch, and French colonization sought to spread the idea of western dominance and many were forced to comply out of necessity. Gandhi asked for an active resistance to this and to cut ties with industrialization and materialism as it was destroying the east’s culture and web of beliefs. Although he was successful in campaigning for Indian independence, he ultimately failed to keep the west out of India’s culture and economy. Not only that but the division between hinduism and islam are as stark as ever which even led to mass deportations of muslim people still to this day. This separation, he warned, severed the very heart of India’s culture and allowed western civilization to mold them in their own image. I can relate this to not just modern day India but also the United States. The United States populous’s severance of beliefs makes the struggle feel like a culture war rather than a class war. This division however, allows those in charge, like Britain in India, to consolidate their wealth and power while the working class fights among themselves. To fix this problem, Gandhi preaches the return to traditional beliefs in value within India. But how can a country like the US, without deep traditional roots and also built on western ideals from the beginning, gain traction in resisting the power vacuum?
-Tyler Nece
“we gave india to the english” shows the idea that people give their freedom to others. they also stated how religion and spirituality can be used as an escape, or to climb a ladder to some alternative state. We try to free ourselves or find survival in some capacity. so when push comes to shove would you choose freedom or guaranteed survival? What is preventing your freedom now? what is freedom anyhow??? and are you just surviving at this point or do you consider your self free? How have you trapped yourself or who have you given your freedom to? And maybe even whos freedom have you taken to survive or to be free in any capacity? I have no freedom, live shackled by myself and the thoughts of others, but at the same time I have infinite capacity for freedom in every step that i take, to spin my own clothing, to smile up at the sun in a moment holds a drop of freedom that could be taken for granted. I think freedom might be a paradox.
-have a beautiful day.. elan
I really like this quote from the reading “India cannot cease to be one nation because people belonging to different religions live in it. The introduction of foreigners does not necessarily destroy the nation, they merge in it”. The definition of merge means to combine to a single entity. I think what this sentence means is that India having different types of religions and opinions is what makes India a country. It’s just like in nature you don’t often see one type of tree species growing; you have oaks, maples, hickory, pine, and elm growing together sometimes competing but often exchanging nutrients from one tree to another. When a strong wind comes through the branches, roots and trees often hold each other up. However, I think I need some understanding on the relationship between the cow and the man. Is he favoring the cow or the man depending on the situation? If a Christian were to see a cow and an Indian in need and he could only save one and he picked the human, would they be ridiculed? I think there could be some potential conflict here. What are some other ways to handle disagreements when faiths and beliefs are very different which can impact someone else?
Kye Harris
The way Ghandi organized his book as a “reader” and “editor” was interesting and useful in understanding the time. I liked how Gandhi explained the term “swaraj” and how the Indian people claimed it but did not fully understand or want to understand what it meant. They desired British institutions and ideals without British rule, which Ghandi was in strong opposition to. Swaraj refers to “self-rule,” and Ghandi envisioned a country that was ruled by the people. During chapter five, I found his ideas on elected officials thought-provoking. “The best men are supposed to be elected by the people. The members serve without pay, and therefore it must be assumed, only for the public weal.” Politicians today are making massive amounts of money while claiming to be for the people. Gandhi advocated for voluntary poverty throughout his life, so my discussion question is:
If elected officials/politicians are paid, are they really for the people?
Aura Cochran
Hind Swaraj offers an intimate and detailed exploration of the effects of colonial rule, modern civilization, political corruption, and spiritual decay have had on the country of India. This analysis takes place in the form of a conversation between “Editor” and “Reader”, in which the editor is presumed to be Gandhi and the reader is a skeptical Indian citizen. The editor is the vessel through which Gandhi expresses his views on India’s pursuit of Swaraj, while covering the many contributing factors to their plight, as well as the best way to pursue freedom. The Reader provides challenges to the Editors (Gandhi) assertions, likely to represent the feelings of many citizens unconvinced of India’s future and the challenges it faces.
One of the central parts of their discussion comes from Chapter 6, where the editor describes his view of modern civilization as a disease that has long infected Europe and has begin to harm India as well. The editor believes civilization as it is practiced by the West to be morally and spiritually bankrupt, choosing to worship money, technology, and the luxuries provided by them. This has led to a new kind of enslavement, where workers voluntarily enslave themselves under the delusion money provides, working themselves tirelessly in terrible conditions to benefit the wealthy. “Now, thousands of workmen meet together and for the sake of maintenance work in factories or mines. Their condition is worse than that of beasts. They are obliged to work, at the risk of their lives, at most dangerous occupations, for the sake of millionaires. Formerly, men were made slaves under physical compulsion, now they are enslaved by temptation of money and of the luxuries that money can buy” (Hind Swaraj, Chapter 6, 1909). Prioritizing money in this way has eliminated morality from society, allowing anyone and anything to be bought and sold, leading to a void of personal freedom and fulfillment.
Do you agree with the Editor’s assessment of modern civilization? How do the criticisms provided apply to modern day? Is there any way to ethically participate in a technologically advanced society? What role should religion and spirituality play in society?
-Max Lawrence
“What must be the condition of the people who’s newspapers are of this type?” It’s a simple, yet powerful question posed by Gandhi in his critique of British society, much of which applies to America today. Gandhi did not think the British people were inherently evil, just corrupted and blinded by the evils of modernity. I wonder, what would his message have been to the British public? Not just with regard to India’s liberation, but of their own from their material enslavement within industrial society, as he framed it. Clearly Gandhi’s model of civil disobedience could be replicated in America too, as shown by MLK Jr. with the civil rights movement, and yet our circumstances today in the struggle for environmental justice, among other interconnected issues, feel wholly unique in a way. This is definitely a question I will continue to track as we read on.
Jack Ely
In chapter 6 of Hind Swaraj, titled “Civilisation,” Gandhi critiques modern civilization and the impact it has had on our way of life. A quote from this chapter I particularly liked, albeit a long one, was “We rarely find people arguing against themselves. Those who are intoxicated by modern civilisation are not likely to write against it. Their care will be to find out facts and arguments in support of it, and this they do unconsciously, believing it to be true. A man, whilst he is dreaming, believes in his dream; he is undeceived only when he is awakened from his sleep. A man labouring under the bane of civilisation is like a dreaming man.” This made me think back to our exploration of Thoreau and his insistence on staying awake and meeting the day wide awake. Thoreau writes, “We must learn to reawaken and keep ourselves awake, not by mechanical aids, but by an infinite expectation of the dawn, which does not forsake us even in our soundest sleep.” We accept things to be true without even thinking them through. We accept rules and norms put upon us without question. We are asleep in our everyday life. Another quote from Gandhi, “Their condition is worse than that of beasts. They are obliged to work, at the risk of their lives, at most dangerous occupations, for the sake of millionaires.” Thoreau certainly would’ve agreed with that one. We must not be blind to this civilization we have built. We must open our eyes, wake up from this dream, and question everything.
All this rambling to say, that both Gandhi and Thoreau see society and modern civilization as oppressive. We are accepting the dream world, but need to wake up. How does our modern society keep us asleep? What does it mean to be awake in our time? Can we ever be fully awake to escape the dream of civilization? What are the “dreams” of the modern world?
In chapter 4 of Hind Swaraj, Gandhi makes the claim that “the English have not taken India; we have given it to them”. In this quote, he points out how India was complicit in the British control of the country, and challenges people to think about the repercussions of that complicity. India had allowed itself to be ruled by the British, and gave up the freedom that comes with self rule for a promise of protection. In Chapter 6, Gandhi points out the stark differences in the British culture and the Indian culture; “the tendency of Indian civilization is to elevate the moral being, that of the Western civilization is to propagate immorality”. The British put the mass accumulation of wealth, industry, and power at the top of their priorities, and put little thought into the mental wellbeing of their people. Gandhi criticizes this approach, and questions whether growth and development is worth the exploitation of the human spirit. Is there a justifiable amount of immorality that can occur in pursuit of the advancement of a civilization? Does the strength and power of the economy or civilization correlate with citizens’ mental wellbeing? Is it possible to gain power as a nation without compromising any mental wellbeing of the citizens? How do these ideas apply to today?
Caroline Laschinger
In Hind Swaraj, specifically in the chapters which titles begin with ‘The condition of India’, M.K. Gandhi recognizes various aspects of (English) civilization that have seeped into India, whose impacts have played active roles in the ‘ruining’ of Indian culture. Gandhi asserts that those who ‘become civilized’ become utterly irreligious and, in reality, derive little advantage from the world. Along with railways, lawyers and doctors have impoverished India, so much so that, “if we do not wake up in time, we shall be ruined.” (pp. 47) While Gandhi explicitly calls out direct actors in this ‘ruining’, he also calls out the everyday Indian who is complicit with fronting as a civilized man.
In ‘The condition of India’, Gandhi says “Hinduism, Islamism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity and all other religions teach that we should remain passive about worldly pursuits and active about godly pursuits, that we should set a limit to our worldly ambition, and that our religious ambition should be illimitable. Our activity should be directed into the latter channel.” (pp. 42-43) While various religions compromised India, coming into conflict with one another, a set of unifying values is consistent throughout. By calling India a nation that is becoming irreligious, Gandhi notions that this set of values, if taken as genuine commitments, hold the power to prevent the inward creep of Western civilization in its inverse-cultural assimilation forms.
Though we know a very different society than Gandhi (and, of course, even modern India), can you think of other applications for Gandhi’s set of values? In other words, how can we apply this set of values as participants in Western society to our modern dilemmas? Should we, perhaps, adopt this set of commitments with spirituality* in place of religion to be more encompassing? Throughout history, what cultures have made similar and evident commitments? To what were they committing to?
*Google search results of what it means to be spiritual: Spiritual people need not believe in God, or ghosts, or seances, or near-death experiences, they need only commit to more objectively exploring the nature of reality by exploring their own minds.
-Carson Mease
My main takeaway from this chapter was Ghandi is warning Indians about the potential for a westernization of their society and the dangers that would accompany such a takeover. My inference was that at this time, because the British were so advanced technologically and economically, Ghandi was worried the Indian population would lose sight of what makes them unique and succumb to the institutions imposed by the British crown. I think it was pretty clear that he was also warning against the Brit’s plan to create division among the Indian peoples by separating the religions. I think Ghandi was partially concerned about losing India’s native cultures as well as becoming a willing pawn in the plot of the West. My question to the class would be this: If the British crown was unstoppable in its quest for a cultural takeover of India, is there any way they could have assimilated their “more advanced” society into India without destroying its core cultural tenets?
-Jameson O’Hara
“You want the tiger’s nature but not the tiger”. Gandhi uses this analogy to express his discontent with the Indian Nationalist movement, and its yearning for a Western-like power. This leads into one of the biggest ideas found in Hind Swaraj, the need for a peaceful revolution to transform the Indian state into something greater than British rule. In order to reject the “tiger”, they must not use the tiger’s nature in retaliation. Hind Swaraj was published in 1909. The conditions and strategies for revolution, and suppressing a revolution have changed considerably in the last 120 years. How do Gandhi’s words hold up to scrutiny when the violence he retaliated is still so present all these years later?
John Turner
In the chapter “The Condition of England” The editor discusses the disconnect between leaders, parliament and patriotism. They say, “The prime minister is more concerned about his power than about the welfare of the Parliament. His energy is concentrated upon securing the success of his party. His care is not always that Parliament shall do right.” (Gandhi 32). This implies that those in positions of authority frequently put the success of their party ahead of the general well-being and the integrity of government. Do you also think that corruption and self-interest are inevitable when a leader is in charge of a governing system? Or do you think that effective leadership is possible without sacrificing the welfare of society? What impact does our individual perception of leadership have on whether we view authority as a necessary force or problem? I think that someone’s answer to this question is dependent on their beliefs that humans can be intrinsically good or bad; as someone who may think bad would say we need leaders to govern, and the opposite for those who think good.
Amelia Hagen
“To be sure, we cannot rise again till our political conditions changes for the better; but it is not true that we shall necessarily progress if our political condition undergoes a change, irrespective of the manner in which it is brought about. If the means employed are impure, the change will be not in the direction of progress but very likely the opposite.” It is interesting to that people wanted change in their sytem and can be seen in today’s politics in simlar ways. “The political system which has become odious would reform itself, India would regain the spiritual empire which, we know, it enjoyed in the days gone by, the bonds which hold India under subjection would be severed in an instant, and the ideal state which an ancient seer [the prophet Isaiah] described in his immortal words would come into being: ‘And they shall beat swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks” How could a spiritual pathway be a more successful path to change rather than the tradition means of protest and activism?
In Chapter 6 of Hind Swaraj, titled “Parliament,” Gandhi critiques the British parliamentary system, arguing that it is ineffective, hypocritical, and ultimately serves the interests of the powerful rather than the people. He describes Parliament as a “sterile woman” and a “prostitute” because outside influences easily sway it and fail to produce lasting good. Gandhi criticizes how people prioritize personal and party interests over service, changing their positions for political gain. Gandhi views this system as inherently corrupt and unsuitable as a model for India’s self-rule.
This chapter made me think about how representative governments function today. If Gandhi saw the British Parliament as ineffective and self-serving, what would he say about modern democratic institutions? Are they truly representative, or do they still serve elite interests? Can a government ever genuinely be for the people?
Fia Mascari
C
Comparison is the thief of joy, but ‘Hind Swaraj’ and Other Writings is a better book than Walden. From what I have learned about Gandhi, he is well-spoken and articulated in his writings, while his conversations are patient, direct, and simple for the reader to grasp. He is deeply devoted and disciplined to his religious practices and follows his values through the darkest times. He is among the wisest people in history due to his character and non-violent and passive tendencies for change. Gandhi is full of timeless and inspiring quotes that ring throughout generations and can still be attached to most challenges today.
I’ll discuss a couple of the chapters within the reading: What is Swaraj and Civilization? The tiger metaphor in the fourth chapter, which discusses oppressive English rule over India, is original and symbolic of their culture. It captured my eye because it connects the true difference between human perspectives regarding transformative political and economic structures. As you try to escape the jaws of a tiger, you fall right back into your own. India doesn’t want to be Westernized — fighting for independence like Western nations — will only create a new Western nation.
Is civilization a disease? To an extent, but that’s a pessimistic view. (Western) Humanity can always reinvent the word ‘civilization’. Civilization is a cause and a cure for humanity while degrading the spiritual soul, but supplying man with necessities to live a (questionable) fruitful life. Topics of Western greed, selfishness, balance, moral and personal ethics, etc. can be highlighted throughout the small chapter. It’s difficult to analyze and discuss these topics because I could talk about them for hours, and Gandhi emphasizes numerous quotes regarding these topics throughout the book. However, a notable quote holding contemporary weight states that the West “[keeps up their energy by intoxication]”. Too many people drift from reality to indulge in some sort of pleasurable activity; however, I’m hypocritical about this as well. Don’t be too hard on yourself… right?
– Evan Guiney
I was inspired by the class discussion yesterday that compared differences in sytlistic choices made Thoreau and Ghandi. In this case, we are assuming that both writers are trying to push an agenda. Ghandi’s was one of cilvil disobedience and direct action toward the goal of Indian independence. In Walden, the agenda was a little more nuanced, Thoreau was arguing about leaving society but not because he was under anyone else’s rule. Instead, he critiques humanity’s approach to life. Ghandi’s dialogue strategy, where he utilizes a reader and an editor to pose and argue points is, to me, the best way to extrapolate and convince people of change. He does a great job of completing his thoughts and being able to articulate why it is better than the opposite argument. Thoreau uses his time in Walden to tell us about what he understands to be the best way to live life. At times this feels naive and close-minded. He never proves that he understands where his opposition may come from, or delves into empathizing with them. Between the two of these writings, Ghandi does a better job of being approachable and honestly seems smarter and kinder while doing it.
Posey Lester-Niles
“Those who are against violence are so only for the time being. They do not disapprove of it.” This quote really stood out to me because it is true. Most people do things like peaceful protest however it goes to show that sometimes the “nonviolence” attuite is only relevant when it is inconvenience, and a person interest is not being served. “I have practically met no one who believes that India can ever become free without resort to violence”. As stated, earlier people in India are willing to do anything which is resorting to violence to save their country from Bristish Rule. If I am not mistaken, and if Gandhi is making this statement about resort to violence I often wonder if Gandhi had second thoughts about doing these activities?
Kye Harris
Gandhi was a lawyer who also practiced medicine and healing throughout his life. This dual background has shaped his perspective on modern law and medicine. He used to see being a doctor as a noble profession but now believes that people often become doctors to get rich, not to help others. This leads them to use a treatment-led approach rather than getting to the root cause of diseases: “negligence or indulgence.” Similarly, he states that while lawyers are capable of good, it is not inherent to their career while immorality, conflict, and division are. Ultimately, Gandhi critiques doctors and lawyers because they do not have any stake in preventing problems and often profit off of cycles of oppression. These professions, usually associated with high honor, are denounced by Gandhi. Instea,d he valorizes small traditional subsistence communities– people who “decided that we should only do what we could with our hands and feet” and “saw that our real happiness and health consisted in a proper use of our hands and feet.” Perhaps this way of life appeals to Gandhi because it is inherently characteristic of the passive resistance he proposes as a solution. Gandhi responds to the reader’s critique that these past civilizations had many immoral practices by stating that those are defects that “remain in spite of ancient civilization” while Western society welcomes and “propagates immorality.” Western hegemony often allows the critique of past civilizations as backward due to child marriage and animal sacrifice, yet excuses the oppression and destruction caused by modern civilization because it is seen as the only way forward (even by moderate Indians who wanted to remove English rule yet sought to model civilization after them). Is the same rhetoric used to condescend to subsistence lifestyles, while ignoring critiques of doctors and lawyers due to perceived status and necessity of such professions?
Aaron Batty
In the reading “The Condition of India: The Hindus and the Mahomedans,” Gandhi writes, “”I should, however, like to add that man is so made by nature as to require him to restrict his movements as far as his hands and feet will take him. If we did not rush about from place to place by means of railways and such other maddening conveniences, much of the confusion that arises would be obviated. Our difficulties are of our own creation.” Having read this quote It really made me reflect on how often I discuss with family my major and what its for. Especially when talking to older family members they tend to argue that despite the harm we inflict the accessibility and features that are disposed to us now is essential for our living needs and we are too far in to try and turn to a greener option or it would be inconvenient. While reading through Gandhi discusses how humanity habitually pushes the limits of nature regardless of the fact that we are apart of nature and in turn we are hurting ourselves. So. My question would be why are the resources we have set up to be convenient so “necessary” to our daily lives? However, what reasons can we use to justify the development that not only harms and degrades the environment but also hurts us in the long term.
-Lex Blake
–
The most interesting section was when I read these passages. I thought that the prohibition aspect was very interesting because other people around the world found that alcohol was the root of many problems in society. The reasons for banning it would help the men and the women of the society to help them improve themselves, which would then uplift the movement to reach a large audience. The idea is quite ingenious because there will be more people who would stand for change rather than being stuck in a hole where something makes them sick and unfit to climb back out and start again. The ideas of community improvements showed that things could be taken care of by Indian people rather than an empire controlling and limiting people to such a low quality of life. Education was also a huge reason why people were starting to wake up and realize what was happening all around them, and they were ready for a change. For a leader such as Gandhi, why did so many people listen to him? Surely other people were taking actions similar to what he was doing, but why is he the one who is known today as the one who led India to its independence? Leading to new ideas can get people to think, and maybe it was just the inevitable bubble that was going to burst, or it could have been that there needed to be one figurehead to control what ideas people could follow and be a part of a cause that they truly believed in.
Vincent Spinelli
A part of this section of the readings that popped out to me was that there was a push for prohibition in India. The idea would be that the men would no longer be sick, and the women would have a chance to be with men and the loving services they have to offer in a home. This is one way to improve a society that is being beaten down by an empire willing to take control and influence how your quality of life should be. Having no alcohol in the towns allows there to be an environment that is a more positive and uplifting movement rather than being down in a hole wishing that life would be better. The empire uses drugs and alcohol to suppress the people is a great way to ensure that there is no retaliation because people are too numb to realize what is happening. Education was also another huge part of why this movement was so successful. People, especially women, were gaining skills that would help them out in the world, like knowing how to read and write. Having a basic education can help people understand how the world works and why it operates the way that it does. There would be less likely a chance that someone would be taken advantage of in a situation if they know what is happening to them. An improvement on life and improved quality of life, such as new sanitation in villages, brings hope to those who live in areas that are being oppressed. People started to realize that they did not need to rely on the ones controlling them, and they wanted a change. I understand that Gandhi was an important figure in history, but why was he the one whom people followed? Surely he was not the only person who had these ideas. Was his message a clear message that everyone could follow, or was he someone who could take charge and lead a group of protestors?
Vincent Spinelli
A part of this section of the readings that popped out to me was that there was a push for prohibition in India. The idea would be that the men would no longer be sick, and the women would have a chance to be with men and the loving services they have to offer in a home. This is one way to improve a society that is being beaten down by an empire willing to take control and influence how your quality of life should be. Having no alcohol in the towns allows there to be an environment that is a more positive and uplifting movement rather than being down in a hole wishing that life would be better. The empire uses drugs and alcohol to suppress the people is a great way to ensure that there is no retaliation because people are too numb to realize what is happening. Education was also another huge part of why this movement was so successful. People, especially women, were gaining skills that would help them out in the world, like knowing how to read and write. Having a basic education can help people understand how the world works and why it operates the way that it does. There would be less likely a chance that someone would be taken advantage of in a situation if they know what is happening to them. An improvement on life and improved quality of life, such as new sanitation in villages, brings hope to those who live in areas that are being oppressed. People started to realize that they did not need to rely on the ones controlling them, and they wanted a change. I understand that Gandhi was an important figure in history, but why was he the one whom people followed? Surely he was not the only person who had these ideas. Was his message a clear message that everyone could follow, or was he someone who could take charge and lead a group of protestors?
Vincent Spinelli
A part of this section of the readings that popped out to me was that there was a push for prohibition in India. The idea would be that the men would no longer be sick, and the women would have a chance to be with men and the loving services they have to offer in a home. This is one way to improve a society that is being beaten down by an empire willing to take control and influence how your quality of life should be. Having no alcohol in the towns allows there to be an environment that is a more positive and uplifting movement rather than being down in a hole wishing that life would be better. The empire uses drugs and alcohol to suppress the people is a great way to ensure that there is no retaliation because people are too numb to realize what is happening. Education was also another huge part of why this movement was so successful. People, especially women, were gaining skills that would help them out in the world, like knowing how to read and write. Having a basic education can help people understand how the world works and why it operates the way that it does. There would be less likely a chance that someone would be taken advantage of in a situation if they know what is happening to them. An improvement on life and improved quality of life, such as new sanitation in villages, brings hope to those who live in areas that are being oppressed. People started to realize that they did not need to rely on the ones controlling them, and they wanted a change. I understand that Gandhi was an important figure in history, but why was he the one whom people followed? Surely he was not the only person who had these ideas. Was his message a clear message that everyone could follow, or was he someone who could take charge and lead a group of protestors?
Vincent Spinelli
In the preface to the book Hind Swaraj, the author contrasts “Modern Civilization,” represented by the British Empire, which he equates with the “Kingdom of Satan,” against the “Ancient Civilization” of India, framed as the “Kingdom of God.” This reflects the authors belief that modern industrial, materialistic, and often violent systems associated with the British Rule is due to moral decline. In contrast, he sees Indian tradition as grounded in spiritual values, self restraint, nonviolence, and a harmonious way of life. His concern is of who rules India and what values will define that rule. The suggestion is that true swaraj is political independence and a return to the ethical and spiritual roots of Indian civilization.
What is also powerful is the critique of how his fellow countrymen wrongly attribute their oppression solely to the English people, rather than to the broader system of modern civilization. In doing so, he warns that adopting violent, Westernized methods to oust colonial rulers would amount to replacing one form of destruction with another, rather than achieving real liberation.
What implications does this moral contrast have for how we define true freedom or self-rule today?
Sasha Fuellhart