Upon reading “Hind Swaraj,” I found a multitude of questionable statements made by the Editor (Ghandi). More specifically, in the chapter called “The Condition of India: Doctors.” I don’t know if I wholeheartedly agree with the statement, “It is worth considering why we take up the profession of medicine. It is certainly not taken up for the purpose of serving humanity. We become doctors so that we may obtain honors and riches.” Although there may be some doctors out there who chase that career with the intent of becoming rich, I don’t think it applies to all doctors. There are many healthcare professionals who earned this title through years of studying, learning, and observing. They have a real passion for helping people, “for the purpose of serving humanity.” Despite my generic stance, I do not know what healthcare is like in most countries, only those that are considered “strong,” or “modernized.” However, this being said, I do somewhat agree with the point made, “The fact remains that the doctors induce us to indulge, and the result is that we have become deprived of self-control and have become effeminate.” This being said, what is your stance on healthcare? Do you think healthcare (in the United States, or anywhere) is available for “the purpose of serving humanity?” Or do you think it is a way to oppress, control and restrict those who are in need of it?
To a certain extent, I believe that healthcare is continued and reinforced by itself, kind of like capitalism. Gandhi is saying that with the adoption of healthcare and modern medicine, we have degraded our own natural abilities to heal, and have become so dependent that our bodies are evolving to have minimal resilience or immunity to illnesses. While many believe healthcare strengthens us as humans, it really weakens us. As Gandhi states in this same chapter, “Had the doctor not intervened, nature would have done its work, and I would have acquired mastery over myself, would have been freed from vice, and would have become happy.” Modern medicine discourages self-control and discipline and encourages dependence and retreat (from self problems). It allows people to take the easy way out in a sense. However, of course modern medicine has been beneficial and has saved many lives. But the way Gandhi sees it is as a hindrance to self-sufficiency and self-strength.
I don’t really know what to believe about healthcare these days in the United States. Just like everything else here, it is a money-making scheme. In a way, I do believe it is meant to oppress and control those who need it, because if it didn’t, it wouldn’t succeed. Just like how Gandhi spoke about the lawyers and how they allow the English to rule India. However, this isn’t to say that people who become doctors are evil; I would say many of them are just passionate about helping others (and for some it probably is the money).
Gandhi also has said, “when we go to court of law, some of us are only concerned how to win the case at any cost, and not how truth may prevail.” I believe this pertains to healthcare too, and how some (many) doctors are only concerned about diagnosing and treating patients rather than educating them and actually preventing illness. We are deceived by the healthcare system, we are made to believe that natural cures are not as good or don’t even exist–many of us don’t even consider natural “alternatives” (though wouldn’t modern medicine be the alternative?). Of course, it depends on the type and severity of the illness, and a lot of good has come from healthcare, too. I am not saying I don’t believe in it. Just some things to think about!
Although I don’t think all doctors are evil and greedy and only become doctors for their own benefit, I do believe the healthcare system is meant to use us for a profit and oppress us. So it is not the doctors who are at fault but the system, rather. The pharmaceutical industry is one of the largest industries in the U.S. If its aim was actually to help us, it would be a charity organization rather than a money-making machine. The more reliance on the medical industry that we have, the more control they have over us. Gandhi states in doctors,” I over-eat, I have indigestion, I go to a doctor, he gives me medicine, I am cured, I over-eat again, and I take his pills again.” This shows the toxic cycle of depending on medicine for problems that we could easily fix ourselves by changing our lifestyle choices, but rather choose to look for an easy fix. If medicine were here to help us, then doctors would be guides and counselors to heal us rather than prescribing us quick-fix meds. I understand there are people who need certain medications to survive who can not be healed just by change of lifestyle, but they are the greatest example of how this system uses oppression to make a profit. Many a time, these people can not get their medications unless their insurance covers it (which they also pay for), and if not, they have no option but to suffer because they don’t have the dollars to trade for their lives. This is why the pharmaceutical industry only exists to make a profit and depends upon our dependence on it.
In chapter twelve of “Hind Swaraj”, the Editor speaks strongly on the view of modern medicine. The Editor states, “I have indulged in vice, I contract disease, a doctor cures me, the odds are that I shall repeat the vice”. What I believe the Editor is referring to the Western practice of treating the symptoms, rather than the root and cause. The text strongly suggests a disappointment, even an injustice of doctors in India at the time of publication. An abandonment of Eastern medicine and an adoption of Western, just as everything else surrounding the Editor has attempted to mirror Western practices. The Editor (Gandhi) claims European doctors to be the worst and hospitals as “institutions of sin”. What reasons do you believe Gandhi has for resistance to modern medicine? What other institutions would Gandhi deem corrupted by English and in what ways? Can doctors both serve humanity and the other interests of medical institutions simultaneously, or is it truly one or the other?
As I read “Hind Swaraj”, I found a notable quote in chapter 12 on Gandhi’s views on doctors. The quote says “The English have certainly effectively used the medical profession for holding us”. Does Gandhi think that the English are using the medical field to have more control over them?. As Gandhi says doctors violate their religion, I think some of these doctors genuinely wanted to help .I also found 1 more quote that stuck out to me. the quote states “The fact remains that the doctors induce us to indulge, and the result is that we have become deprived of self-control and have become effeminate.” Do you think this about all doctors or do you think that this is actually for the well being of the people of India?
In chapter 9 of Hind Swaraj, Gandhi talks about railways and the connection between good and bad, and fast and slow pace. He says, “Good travels at a snail’s pace – it can, therefore, have little to do with the railways. Those who want to do good are not selfish, they are not in a hurry, they know that to impregnate people with good requires a long time. But evil has wings. To build a house takes time. Its destruction takes none. So the railways can become a distributing agency for the evil one only. It may be a debatable matter whether railways spread famines, but it is beyond dispute that they propagate evil.” Gandhi then goes on to talk about “opium-eating” and how it would be difficult for someone to recognize the harms of opium-eating without having eaten opium. He then asks us to consider the same way of thought towards railways, saying that we couldn’t know the harm of railways until after having utilized one. I am wondering if Gandhi thought this way towards medicine also, which was discussed in later chapters, or if he thought medicine and doctors were purely looking for a monetary profit. Did he see the railways and medicine as ‘cheating’ in a way? Are the two connected at all for Gandhi or is one strictly about time and the other about money? Do you think there is anything that travels at a snail’s pace that isn’t good, according to Gandhi?
In the chapter titled “What is True Civilization?”, the Editor asserts that “[t]o observe morality is to attain mastery over our mind and our passions,” and that “[c]ivilisation is that mode of conduct which points out to man the path of duty.” Gandhi here is stating that achieving morality can be an instrument of “civilisation” and through this sense of morality, duties will be performed in “observance.” Gandhi’s version of civilization intrinsically reproduces a moral society in a way similar to how capitalism reproduces itself and its sentiments in the western world. Gandhi’s view of civilization is scaled down and non-alienated by machinery and technology. Thoreau’s ideology of self-fulfillment was also based in an absence of advanced technology and working with your hands. Gandhi’s works seem to advance Thoreau’s thinking. What would Thoreau think about Gandhi’s denouncement of doctors and lawyers throughout the world?
I have some questions and concerns for Gandhi and his views in these chapters. He seems to be very harshly judging the development of Lawyers and Doctors. In the chapter on Lawyers Gandhi discusses that lawyers don’t care about their clients and only want to “enrich themselves” and they try to “multiply disputes” to better themselves. Gandhi states a similar argument for doctors and claims that they only pursue the profession “so that they may obtain honours and riches”. I will be the first to admit that I am not blind to the corruption that exists in these professions, but we must admit that the analysis of these professions are awfully harsh. I can see where Gandhi is coming from, although I think it is dangerous to say such drastic things about modernity. Doctors provide modern medicine so that diseases, injuries and ailments can be cured and people can be healthy; lawyers can be a helpful service in court for people who may not know exactly how court systems work. Ghandi does not see these things as helpful though; so how should these things look to him? If these modern advancements are corrupted and flawed how do we think he wants things to be? Is there a realistic way to bring Gandhi’s ideas and modern ideas together into a functioning system? Also was Gandhi’s following big during this time? My reason for this last question is because while he is speaking a lot of truth he is still presenting some extreme thoughts, like rejecting modern doctors, how lawyers are only out to get your money, and how railway systems are essentially the bane of our existence.
In “The Condition of India: railways”, the editor proclaims “Railways, lawyers and doctors have impoverished the country, so much so that if we do not wake up in time, we shall be ruined.” The editor blames the railways for the hold that England has on India. The railways spread the plague, as they spread people from place to place. Additionally, the increase in locomotion increased the number of famines. Farmers sold out their grain to the most important markets, or communities of people and there weren’t grains for other communities. The most striking quote to me said by the editor was “Bad men fulfil their evil designs with greater rapidity.” I interpreted this as meaning that modernization and advancements in technology have allowed bad people to achieve their goals at a faster rate. The editor goes on to explain how good men go about things, “Those who want to do good are not selfish, they are not in a hurry, they know that to impregnate people with good requires a long time. But evil has wings.” I think this exclamation of bad vs good is almost saying that bad will always win over good, which I entirely disagree with. Aside from the fact that I believe most people are inherently good, even as certain circumstances have changed how they behave and act, I’m also in a major that is often very discouraging. SD majors learn alot about how badly people treat the world and other people. However, what would I (or anyone else for that manner) be doing in this major if I don’t believe that good will eventually “win” over bad? Returning to what Gandhi says, are there any other interpretations of these quotes that I missed? Are there any other examples of how advancement of technology and modernization have spread bad ideas? Are there any examples of good being spread by the same drivers?
In “Civilization”, The Editor begins to describe what is typically thought of when the word civilization is used. He goes on to describe how houses are better built in Europe now than they were a hundred years ago, clothing has transitioned from skins to long pants, and machinery is now present so that humans will not need to use their hands and feet anymore. The editor then goes on to state that this condition of civilization enslaved men. He states, “Formerly, men were made slaves under physical compulsion, now they are enslaved by temptation of money and of the luxuries that money can buy” (35). The editor believes that western civilization makes us want more material things. In the later chapter, “Passive Resistance”, the editor explains what passive resistance is and what stuck out to me was this quote: “After a great deal of experience, it seems to me that those who want to become passive resisters for the service of the country have to observe perfect chastity, adopt poverty, follow truth, and cultivate fearlessness” (94). This quote made me think about Thoreau’s view on voluntary poverty and if the two thinkers parallel in that idea. Does the Editor agree with Thoreau that people should try to practice voluntary poverty? Does materialism and money prevent individuals from achieving Swaraj and passive resistance?
So the more I read these chapters, the more I realized I really didn’t know what Gandhi was trying to represent and what his life was really like. I highlighted many quotes that stood out to me and I, as well as a few others, (that I have read thus far) find his view of Doctors and Lawyers rather strange. At first I immediately disagreed with his reasoning for his “views” but then I thought about what he was trying to get across. Do I think Doctors are a Ponzi scheme? NO, Do I think Doctors purposely prescribe medicines or treatments just to prolong an ailment in the hopes the patient will return for more medicine and treatment. NO, but that’s my opinion. I do think Doctors can and do get complacent with chronic ailments of people though. But in relation to what Gandhi said, “I over-eat, I have indigestion, I go to a doctor, he gives me medicine, I am cured, I over-eat again, and I take his pills again. Had I not taken the pills in the first instance, I would have suffered the punishment deserved by me, and I would not have over-eaten again.” This sounds all well and good, but this is the simple explanation – with medicine, everything isn’t this cut and dry. If Gandhi had a true emergency or life threatening ailment, I wonder if his views would change. I also thought his view on lawyers was odd considering he practiced law himself. I sort of agree with him on his reasoning when he said, “The lawyers, therefore, will as a rule, advance quarrels, instead of repressing them. Moreover, men take up that profession, not in order to help others out of their miseries, but to enrich themselves.” In my opinion, most lawyers are out to make money, as is most people, if they didn’t stay in the business to make money, there would be a lot more pro-bono work. I don’t however feel that every single lawyer is only out to ‘rob’ us with our legal strifes. Maybe I missed it, but since Gandhi was a lawyer himself, how did and when did he get out of the business and did he repent for his sins so to speak? I think lastly, this quote really stood out to me, “If man will only realise that it is unmanly to obey laws that are unjust, no man’s tyranny will enslave him. This is the key to self-rule or home-rule.” Obviously we all have our own views. Laws are put in place to protect people, property, rights and safety. If the 7 billion plus people on this earth didn’t follow laws and felt the way Gandhi did, that the rules were unjust, what type of society would we be living in?
The chapter talking about doctors seems to be the most controversial and discussed, but another chapter I found to be very controversial was chapter 18 titled “Education.” There were points that I agreed with and points that I disagreed with in this chapter. One of the ideas that I with was when he said, “To give millions a knowledge of English is to enslave them.” This is representative of a bigger concept that we still see today where First World countries go into Third World countries and make it seem necessary that they get an English education. This education may not be as applicable to them, and it detracts from the education that may be more important to them and brings them away from their culture. Do you believe that the English language and education do more harm than good in countries where English is not the first language, or do you think it is necessary with the way the world functions today? One of the points that I disagreed with was when Gandhi said, “I do not for one moment believe that my life would have been wasted, had I not received higher or lower education.” I don’t think it is fair for him to say this because there is really no way of knowing what would have happened to him and if he would have been the same as he was had he not received primary and advanced education. How do you think your life would have been different if you did not receive all the education leading up to and including college? Were there certain parts of it that did not seem necessary?
You make a valid critique about how ghandi could have really never had known about how his English education effecting his life and overall outcome. However i more so interpreted it in that, ghandi who stated he’d received an education in “Geography, Astronomy, Algebra, Geometry” doesn’t believe that its a true extension towards bettering himself. Nor his community. thus is just not a necessity towards fulling one’s dharma. So him saying that his life would not have been wasted is more equitable to saying that he could have fulfilled similar good with in himself and others.
And to answer your questions: I know my life would be very different. Following the lines of any ‘modern / English’ education i could only see myself either in an apprentice ship to learn a skill, or doing manual labor.
If i where brave, i would not have perused any formal education at all, but instead learned firsthand by my own curiosity. Specially in the means to better one’s self. That part resonated with in me.
as far as the parts that don’t seem necessary… Yes.
While reading this text and hearing about passive resistance from Gandhi I began to wonder what he would say to an audience today. Would he still continue in his approval of swadeshi as he referenced, or would he take a different stance? Furthermore, what laws would he say we should resist or take the charge for in today’s societies here in the West, how would we go about it? How would he say that the disease inflicted upon us by civilization has changed (or grown)? Following this latter idea, in the footnotes states, “According to Madeleine Slade, one of Gandhi’s devoted disciples, he saw no inconsistency between his notion of non-violence and the violence involved in shooting mad dogs and the mercy-killing of badly wounded animals” (86). Are the means in today’s societies different, requiring a different result?
Hi Emma, I like your final question regarding the means of societies differing, thus requiring different needs of the people. I think we as a society want similar results, but we may need to shift our means. I think the model of peaceful protest that Gandhi founded worked for its time period. However, as the surveillance state has grown and militarized force against citizens has become normalized, tactics for achieving justice need to shift. I think politicians have, quite frankly, become desensitized to peaceful protests. There are no stakes anymore for protests of that nature from which they can bear fruit. I wonder if Gandhi would agree if he saw the current state of global politics today? I also wonder if he would agree with escalated practices of civil disobedience?
In Chapter 10, the Editor says “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. A country is one nation only when such a condition obtains in it. That country must have a faculty for assimilation”. He is speaking to mere difference of views can create enemies in people. He then goes on to explain to us “But, just as I respect the cow, so do I respect my fellow-men. A man is just as useful as a cow, no matter whether he be a Mahomedan or a Hindu. Am I, then, to fight with or kill a Mahomedan in order to save a cow? In doing so, I would become an enemy as well of the cow as of the Mahomedan. Therefore, the only method I know of protecting the cow is that I should approach my Mahomedan brother and urge him for the sake of the country to join me in protecting her. If he would not listen to me, I should let the cow go for the simple reason that the matter is beyond my ability. If I were overfull of pity for the cow, I should sacrifice my life to save her, but not take my brother’s. This, I hold, is the law of our religion”. The tell us again later in the chapter that this simple choice is no reason to have war. This is something I wholeheartedly believe. Acts of violence are seen all over the world. Especially in the United States discrimination continues to remain a problem regardless of our nationality.
In Chapter 10, The Condition of India: The Hindus and the Mahomedans, Gandhi argues that in order for a country to be a nation (which as Gandhi specifies a nation ideally is one of home rule/self rule), the people within it must be united. Gandhi states that although India is composed of people of varying religions, India has been united as “those who are conscious of the spirit of nationality do not interfere with one another’s religion” (50). Gandhi illustrates that England played a large role in the conflict between people of the two religions, preventing unity and thus, as Gandhi argues, nationalism. In the next chapter, Gandhi also blames Lawyers for the Hindu-Mahomedan conflict, saying the duty of lawyers is to “side with their clients, and find out ways and arguments in favor of the clients to which they (the clients) are often strangers” (57). Therefore, Gandhi argues lawyers advance quarrels. While Gandhi acknowledges the role of the legal system in the conflict, as well as British rule in India, his ultimate blame is directed at lawyers as “without lawyers, courts could not have been established or conducted”. Good things lawyers have achieved Gandhi attributes to the person rather than their profession, as Gandhi views the profession to be “immoral”.
Are lawyers more responsible than the larger legal system as they have chosen the profession? Gandhi argues that lawyers choose their profession due to money, yet there are some that join the profession to make positive change. Is it fair to scrutinize all lawyers, including those using the law to make a positive change, due to how the law is used in some contexts?
It is apparent through Gandhi’s blunt opinions on the progressions of healthcare and railroad systems that he is in objection to the spread of modernity. In fact, he even states that the strength that India had maintained throughout colonial rule can be attributed to the country’s ability to reject the introduction of technological developments, which in turn has kept pure the morality of people who live in India. This sentiment is exemplified in the following passages, “Observing all this, our ancestors dissuaded us from luxuries and pleasures. We have managed with the same kind of plough as it existed thousands of years ago. We have retained the same kind of cottages that we had in former times, and our indigenous education remains the same as before” (Chapter XIII), and ” Nothing can equal the seeds sown by our ancestors. Rome went, Greece shared the same fate, the might of the Pharaohs was broken, Japan has become westernised, of China nothing can be said, but India is still, somehow or other, sound at the foundation.” (Chapter XIII) . The fact that Ghandi recognizes that Indian ways of life have been kept intact throughout the many injustices that the country has faced may have encouraged a heightened sense of identity. However, rejecting the positive impacts of important advancements in society (most notably, modern medicine) arguably neglects the millions of people who have experienced an increased quality of life as a result of such advancements. Is it possible to promote the positive impacts of modern technology while simultaneously fighting for justice against imperialist powers?
After reading the chapters of “Hind Swaraj” this week I was challenged in the way I think about modern services and infrastructure that indispensable to me. The doctors, lawyers, railroads, and a lack of focus on god discussed by the editor in “The Condition of India” are described as the very thing that brought destruction to the nation of India and society. At first, these claims were shocking as modern medicine, transportation, and justice seem to be the building blocks of a healthy functioning society, but his argument was that these are in fact the things that make us weaker and more dependent.
In regards to the railway system, the editor draws his views from a place of enduring famine. The railways built by the English colonizers did not grow and produce food and was only a way to transport it. After the construction of railways, farmers were more likely to sell their grain to the highest bidder and send it away on the train. This left smaller groups of people without the food they depended on from these farmers and perpetuated the famine. He says, “Railways have also increased the frequency of famines, because, owing to facility of means of locomotion, people sell out their grain, and it is sent to the dearest markets. People become careless, and so the pressure of famine increases” (76). How do you think an investment in agriculture instead of flashy railroads would have changed the trajectory of India’s prosperity? Can this idea of community independence be applied to modern America’s unsustainable and globalized food system?
In Chapter 7, Why was India Lost?, Gandhi talks about the relationship that India and the English nation and speaks on whether or not the English took India or it was given to them. Gandhi argues that it was given to them by way through the greed of trade. He says, “History testifies that we did all this. In order to become rich all at once, we welcomed the Company’s officers with open arms. We assisted them. If I am in the habit of drinking Bhang, and a seller thereof sells it to me, am I to blame him or myself?” (Chapter 7). Is Gandhi’s statement and reasoning fair to say in blaming the people of India?He further argues this idea later in the chapter when he says, “Then it follows that we keep the English in India for our base self-interest. We like their commerce, they please us by their subtle methods, and get what they want from us.” All of this is centered around commerce and shows only the perspective of a group people welcoming the commerce with no opposition. How strong do you think this perspective is? and how might other thinkers respond to the blame that Gandhi places on the Indian people?
Reading “Hind Swaraj”, I see others critique or question counter-acting or confusing quotes that are far more thought provoking than mine will be. However, a discussion had early in the book still leaves me stumped. In the subsection, “The Attack on Machinery and Civilization” Ghandi and the reader are having a discussion about sewing machines. Ghandi says that he has no issues with sewing machines, because they have an important purpose and that ” It is one of the few useful things ever invented…”. When the reader questions that if a Singer sewing machine is allowed, why aren’t other ‘helpful’ devices, like a bicycle or car for example. Ghandi responds as such: “…because they do not satisfy any of the primary wants of
man; for it is not the primary need of man to traverse distances with the rapidity
of a motor car. The needle on the contrary happens to be an essential thing in
life, a primary need.”
Like I previously stated, my analysis and question is not deep nor savvy, I am genuinely just stumped at how this statement is justified? How is a sewing machine critical and vital, when one can hand sew or crotchet pieces? Why are bicycles ruled out?
One consistency throughout Gandhi’s “Hind Swaraj” is his distaste for civilization. Calling it a ‘disease’ multiple times in the text, it is clear that he believes the transition to modernity does not always constitute progression. In the sixth chapter titled, “Civilization,” it is said that, “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.” Mankind falls into patterns of comfortability. Gandhi, in his critiques, demonstrates his belief that the conditions faced in India are due to the weight of a modern civilization. Similarly, Thoreau shares his fear of the conditions around him due to the inability of men to question their influence. Do you think that Gandhi would believe it possible to break the “laws of humanity” that Thoreau mentions in his writing? How would doing so influence Gandhi’s image of civilization? Do you genuinely think there is a version of civilization that would allow for the unity and morality that Gandhi seeks?
Gandhi describes the idea of civilization from a European view point. He explains how “people living in it make bodily welfare the object of life” meaning that having what Europeans call nicer and more things makes you civilized. If you do not have what the Europeans have then you are what is called a “savage”. “The people of Europe today live in better built houses than they did a hundred years ago. This is considered an emblem of civilization, and this is also a matter to promote bodily happiness.” Having something to show for (money) is what places you in civilization. Gandhi argues that money has enslaved humans with the temptation of the luxuries it gets you. Ultimately Gandhi says that “This civilization is such that one has only to be patient and it will be self-destroyed”. Do you agree or disagree with Gandhi’s view of civilization? Is this true for every so-called civilization? How do you think it got to be like that?
In chapter 18 titled “Education” the editor asks “what is the meaning of education” and then goes on to answer their own question, but the response is more harsh than many people want to hear. Ghandi is the editor and he says that education is a tool, a tool that can be used for good or evil, same as a medicinal cure. By saying education is a tool he is establishing that it is something to be utilized or used. It is not just knowledge stored in our brains, though he does say education in its basic form is the knowledge of letters, but rather education can be the mobilizer of thoughts or actions. Ghandi in my opinion has interesting point of view that I don’t always agree with, but I do agree with a small part of his analysis on education. Education and knowledge can be used as a tool for bad things. He doesn’t exactly say that in the wrong hands it is bad, but that is what I understand him to be saying. Some of the worst people in the world are smart, you have to be to plan and operate how many of them do, and having the knowledge to manipulate people is part of that. Ghandi also states he does not like the teaching of English to the people of India he says it enslaves them. I understand where Ghandi is coming from being taught English could mean losing culture and your mother language. Ghandi describes third world situation compared to first world situations as, “We ignorantly adhere to their cast-off systems”, I see this in terms of being taught English that, third world countries are trying to keep up with first world places by adopting aspects of them, that they don’t realize aren’t even part of the first world culture anymore. English is heavily ingrained in first world nations so much so that just learning the language doesn’t really earn browning point in their minds, all it does is make the third world peoples more competent to take orders, rather than being an equal. So my understanding of Ghandi’s hatred for learning English is that by learning English his people are just setting themselves up to become favorites and helpers of the native English speakers, even if they might get better jobs that way they could be more connected to their people just knowing their own language and studying higher education through their systems.
If Ghandis views on english education would have been different, how might Indias education system look today? Would there be a push for english professors, an influx of native english speaking students to their schools, or maybe the loss of native languages such as Hindi?
In Chapter 6 “Civilisation”, Gandhi critiques civilization under a western definition. One of bodily welfare, comforts and happiness. Gandhi points out how this idea of civilization feeds into a vicious cycle of more and mass consumption. At the end of the chapter Gandhi pulls in this critique of modern civilization to religion by claiming “This civilisation is irreligion, and it has taken such a hold on the people in Europe that those who are in it appear to be half mad. They lack real physical strength or courage. They keep up their energy by intoxication. They can hardly be happy in solitude.”. Later on in Chapter 8 “The condition of India” Gandhi brings up religion again but this time in terms of a technique for combating the irreligion or civilization. “[R]eligions 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.”. What do you think Gandhi means through his discussion about religion? Would he support structural/ institutionalized religion or do you think he means in a more abstract spiritual reconnection as a solution?
While most of our assigned sections of the “Hind Swaraj” covered Ghandi’s disdain for modernization and it’s associated social ills, some details stood out to me in particular. In the section titled “The Condition of India: Doctors,” Ghandi mentions how indulging “effeminates” men. This comment, combined with his noted indiscretions towards women in his later life, made me think about how we separate the good and bad in a figure. How does a society synthesize so much good but still leave toxic elements from a popular figure behind. Can that even be done?
Gandhi explains the how economic development clashes with real progress by stating that materialistic goals lead to the unhappiness and moral loss. “With them material gain has not necessarily meant moral gain.” (Economic Development and Moral Development (1916) He explains this meaning in this passage by including and referring to many Bible versus and quotes from Jesus. My initial question was why include these versus when Gandhi himself was not a Christian? He later says “I have not taken the trouble of copying similar passages from the other non-Hindu scriptures and I will not insult you by quoting in support of the law stated by Jesus passages from the writings and sayings of our own sages, passages even stronger if possible than the Biblical extracts I have drawn your attention to. Perhaps the strongest of all the testimonies in favour of the affirmative answer to the question before us are the lives of the greatest teachers of the world. Jesus, Mahomed, Buddha, Nanak, Kabir, Chaitanya, Shankara, Dayanand, Ramkrishna were men who exercised an immense influence over and moulded the character of thousands of men.” I think he includes so many passages from the Bible to speak to the audience of the people who had be prioritizing materialistic goals rather than moral goals, being the British or other colonizers. These were the people who Gandhi was trying to convince that materialistic goals were pointless. “Western nations today are groaning under the heel of the monster-god of materialism.” He refers to the land that were once the Gods, and says that this land was once holy, and now contains rushing engines, numerous cars crowded with men who have no goals, and mill chimneys. This is ultamatly due to the modern goals of economic development. Economists prescribed laws for the rich and if one were to hoard money for the millions of money, it would be for the trustees of millions of Indians, and therefore would have all the riches in the world.
Something prevalent in this book is the colonialism of India by the British and the historical events that took place within its time frame. In chapter 8, Ghandi, the editor, says, “It is my deliberate opinion that India is being ground down not under the English heel but under that of modern civilization.” This to me reflects Ghandi’s deeper insights into humanity and his frustration at the events of the partition. Ghandi goes on to criticize that India is becoming religionless and that the people are turning away from god. He says on page 43 that “Its deadly effect is that people come under its scorching flames believing it to be all good. They become utterly irreligious and, in reality, derive little advantage from the world. Civilization is like a mouse gnawing while it is soothing us.” I can feel Ghandi’s pain and frustration trhough this quote. My interpretation from this is that he is suffering emotionally from the chaos and destruction of the effects of the partition. I say this because while I know that the modern civilizations imposed themselves upon India and hurt the country, that was the system and injustice proposed by those in power, not civilizations in itself. Ghandi is a brilliant man and understands the benefits of modern agriculture, science, and education. This chapter is a great look into his humanity and mortality and that is just a regular person like the rest of us.
Oops, kind of forgot to form the question I was leading up to. I wanted to ask if you think Ghandi is biased in this chapter because of his emotions? Either way, is modern society detrimental to human faith or sense of right and wrong?
My weekly question is a little different than usual because instead of asking about the reading material, I have a question about the format that Ghandi writes in. In the readings we read this past weekend, the format throughout different chapters in the Hind Swaraj is written like a reader and editor conversation. Why is Ghandi writing this way? Maybe I missed something in a different discussion about Ghandi as to why he writes like this, or is it because he is trying to portray the information in a more personal way by presenting it as a conversation rather than just information?
After reading the excerpts and looking more into Gandhi’s life I agree with a lot of his points. When looking deeper into his writings, these professions come back to be based on profit and greed of money. The point he made about the pills and the indigestion thus proves the point more. However, I do believe there are many people in these professions that genuinely do their job with highest morals and care about others in both the legal and medical fields. Based on what Gandhi was writing about, did he see these professions from a more systematical perspective including the majority? Or was the environment he was surrounded by influence his thought and reasoning to write on a more personal level?
Reading the chapters of Hind Swaraj made me conceptualize the plight in current US politics. As Americans, we are faced with multiple issues like gender/race/ethnic inequality & injustice, climate change, housing crisis, food insecurity, water & air pollution, etc. All of these compounding issues have not been solved by politicians we vote for or the government we uphold. While the Reader and Editor argue over the meaning of Swaraj; I can’t help but think this has been a reflection of current academic and political discourse in the US. Should we reform under the current system as the Reader advocates or invent a new system as the Editor advocates? I believe the issue with people’s view of the current system lies with what the Editor in Chapter 3 quotes: “This discontent is a very useful thing. So long as a man is contented with his present lot, so long is it difficult to persuade him to come out of it. Therefore it is that every reform must be preceded by discontent. We throw away things we have, only when we cease to like them. Such discontent has been produced among us after reading the great works of Indians and Englishmen.32 Discontent has led to unrest, and the latter has brought about many deaths, many imprisonments, and many banishments. Such a state of things will still continue. It must be so. All these may be considered good signs, but they may also lead to bad results.” Maybe I have an ignorant point of view? Is there a breaking point where discontent turns to unrest? And further, the violence that did occur due to the Partition, was it necessary to achieve some form of independence from British rule?
While Gandhi has different opinions and perspectives about some issues there are also a number of issues that strike parallels or similarities to issues seen today. Some of these issues come in the form of laws that can become harmful to people, the environment, or other factors. While most of the time laws benefit people and society sometimes they can be harmful or become harmful as times change, however even if people disagree with these laws they may not even mention their displeasure with it or fight to change it. “We are sunk so low, that we fancy that it is our duty and our religion to do what the law lays down. If man will only realize that it is unmanly to obey laws that are unjust, no man’s tyranny will enslave him. This is the key to self-rule or home-rule.” (pg 92) If people disagree with a law how much does it matter if they do nothing to stop it? Many fear the damage that is being done to the environment but they will not necessarily fight for laws to change it. Many people are upset about gun violence and school shootings yet at the moment no real law has been passed to make major changes to effectively stop it. In some states children who identify as trans are forcibly outed to their parents or stories that include the lgbtq or sensitive topics such as those written in Maus have been banned. Is it really just that we enforce these rules? Especially those on children who have no way to defend their opinions since they cannot vote. Or for the children that may have to live their lives in fear because their own parents may throw them out of their homes because of who they identify as? While these are sensitive topics it is important to remember why they are sensitive, why we care about them, and why they bring up such controversy when they are brought up.
I have not read Gandhi before, and I consider myself well-read. It is brilliant writing, an excursion in memory, thought and creation. This is accomplished by creating an amalgamation of techniques implemented, from using opposing character script, borrowing from film, in what could have paved the way for Bollywood. However, the book is attuned to politics, a subject he is obviously immersed in, the tone ranges from Sun Tzu in the prose of “The Art of War,” to Kahil Gibran’s deep reflection on life in his masterpiece, “The Prophet.” I always like to wonder what happened to India, how such a powerful country at one time devolved into this mess of pollution, wrought by disease and famine, and lacking sufficient water. I like to ponder Gandhi’s role in this. This seems to be for me a final plea, in acknowledgement of problems, followed by the clarity of which they stem so far from. As if his understanding of the situation had come and passed already without salvation, what was left was a document pronouncing each piece of the puzzle, unraveling their demise as a country in an inevitable twist of fate. I noticed this in his writing; the apparent cycles occurring, almost as if in relation to the water cycle, how each piece led into the other, with the tying factors omnipresent. That allegory precedes a topic of discussion, that in previous pages a subject talked about in metaphor, then following directly, as if what evaporated to rain down again. Chapter 17-18 for example, I noticed this in Passive Resistance speaking of Education. Ultimately, this process took so much grace onto the pages of his book, that renounced any duplication for many years to come. I also wonder why these few beacons tend to stand out, what makes them different and why. Raising the alarm again and again, only provoking those in further advancement of the violence problem, far away from his intention of sharing a similar consciousness of peace. It appears Gandhi to be quite accurate in his assessment of the issues at hand pertaining to morality of longevity in the power of governance, although unable to sway the populace in seeing through his eyes until it being too late. Only leaving an abstracted record of his conclusions. Certainly he was right, as we are studying him today, what I would like to know is do you think this pattern has continued elsewhere, that the same mistakes have been made, equally similar insights?
After reading the assigned chapters of Hind Swaraj, what stood out to me was the chapter called ‘discontent and unrest’ which gave light into what discontent and unrest means to the globe, but especially the Partition. The partition came about because of India wanting independence from Britain, but also the movement of Hinduism in India and the moving of Islam to Pakistan. He talks about how discontent and unrest are important for reforming. In one quote he uses a comparison for the country of India to a man, “when a man rises from his sleep, he twists his limbs and is restless. it takes some time before he is entirely awakened. Similarly, although the partition has caused an awakening, the comatose state has not yet disappeared. We are still twisting our limbs and still restless, and just as the state between sleep and awakening must be considered to be necessary, so may the present unrest in India be considered a necessary and therefore a proper state.” He says discontent is a useful thing and that every reform must be preceded by discontent. Do you agree with Gandhi that discontent is an important factor to reforming governments, laws, etc? How can discontent turn into action that leads to producing content and reform? Should our citizens always be at a point of ‘unrest’ to constantly be reforming societal and other issues?
After reading more into Ghandis work I was originally questioning why he wrote in the way he did. Throughout his writing you see he wrote in the perspective of editor and reader. Was this because he did not want us to know his true perspective unlike Thoreau where he spoke in terms of “I”? Something else i found interesting was the way he talked about laws and issues we as a society go through today that run hand in hand. While laws can benefits us it can also hold us back from preventing issues. Many of these cause controversy between human kind so why and who should we allow these laws and issues to influence.
As I was reading this, I couldn’t help but notice how what Gandhi is saying over 100 years ago applies to today. You could literally substitute “parliament” with “congress” and “prime minister” with “president” and it would ring just as true. There is a meme that floats around the socials that says, “Politicians should have to wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers so we know who their sponsors are.” Replace “doctors” with “big pharma”. Lawyers still haven’t changed, and many are politicians. At this point, I can’t help but wonder if he is part anarchist though. Not the movie version where we live in a dystopian world, but the type where there is no government(s) and the people just sort things out for themselves.
Gandhi starts off by getting questioned on what civilization is; he answers that there is a cause in a cure but does not necessarily see what that is. Although he does refer to civilization as a disease. He says that the world is basically consumed by their possessions and civilization is what people strive to be like with large houses and other materialistic things Just like Thoreau said as well. There are similarities in how they view the world. Gandhi, the editor, also states that the Europeans are the one that this “civilization” is modeled after and infers that the only way out of it would be to acquire swaraj. Therefore the cause is the Europeans and the cure is swaraj. But my question is if he seen the world today would he still refer to civilization as a disease or a pandemic since now most of the world is has grown to materialism and its so self automated and some people’s outlook is to find a job to get paid not to work essentially regarding to how he views civilization.
Reading about Gandhi’s ideas about passive resistance was very interesting and thought-provoking. He emphasized the importance of nonviolent resistance and said “after a great deal of experience, it seems to me that those who want to become passive resisters for the service of the country have to observe perfect chastity, adopt poverty, follow truth, and cultivate fearlessness” (94). This draws on the importance of putting those in power in the positions of those in lower-class communities. Do you think this is something that Gandhi would still encourage today or do you believe that he would have different methods for resistance?
I find it very interesting how many of the issues Gandhi discusses are still present in our world today. “In South Africa he discovered that ‘when we go to court of law, some of us are only concerned how to win the case at any cost, and not how truth may prevail.” This is an issue that is maybe even worse today. Lawyers only goal is to win the case, whether their defendant is guiltily or not. Do you see this quality ever changing? Or will our murals worsen over time?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
Upon reading “Hind Swaraj,” I found a multitude of questionable statements made by the Editor (Ghandi). More specifically, in the chapter called “The Condition of India: Doctors.” I don’t know if I wholeheartedly agree with the statement, “It is worth considering why we take up the profession of medicine. It is certainly not taken up for the purpose of serving humanity. We become doctors so that we may obtain honors and riches.” Although there may be some doctors out there who chase that career with the intent of becoming rich, I don’t think it applies to all doctors. There are many healthcare professionals who earned this title through years of studying, learning, and observing. They have a real passion for helping people, “for the purpose of serving humanity.” Despite my generic stance, I do not know what healthcare is like in most countries, only those that are considered “strong,” or “modernized.” However, this being said, I do somewhat agree with the point made, “The fact remains that the doctors induce us to indulge, and the result is that we have become deprived of self-control and have become effeminate.” This being said, what is your stance on healthcare? Do you think healthcare (in the United States, or anywhere) is available for “the purpose of serving humanity?” Or do you think it is a way to oppress, control and restrict those who are in need of it?
To a certain extent, I believe that healthcare is continued and reinforced by itself, kind of like capitalism. Gandhi is saying that with the adoption of healthcare and modern medicine, we have degraded our own natural abilities to heal, and have become so dependent that our bodies are evolving to have minimal resilience or immunity to illnesses. While many believe healthcare strengthens us as humans, it really weakens us. As Gandhi states in this same chapter, “Had the doctor not intervened, nature would have done its work, and I would have acquired mastery over myself, would have been freed from vice, and would have become happy.” Modern medicine discourages self-control and discipline and encourages dependence and retreat (from self problems). It allows people to take the easy way out in a sense. However, of course modern medicine has been beneficial and has saved many lives. But the way Gandhi sees it is as a hindrance to self-sufficiency and self-strength.
I don’t really know what to believe about healthcare these days in the United States. Just like everything else here, it is a money-making scheme. In a way, I do believe it is meant to oppress and control those who need it, because if it didn’t, it wouldn’t succeed. Just like how Gandhi spoke about the lawyers and how they allow the English to rule India. However, this isn’t to say that people who become doctors are evil; I would say many of them are just passionate about helping others (and for some it probably is the money).
Gandhi also has said, “when we go to court of law, some of us are only concerned how to win the case at any cost, and not how truth may prevail.” I believe this pertains to healthcare too, and how some (many) doctors are only concerned about diagnosing and treating patients rather than educating them and actually preventing illness. We are deceived by the healthcare system, we are made to believe that natural cures are not as good or don’t even exist–many of us don’t even consider natural “alternatives” (though wouldn’t modern medicine be the alternative?). Of course, it depends on the type and severity of the illness, and a lot of good has come from healthcare, too. I am not saying I don’t believe in it. Just some things to think about!
Although I don’t think all doctors are evil and greedy and only become doctors for their own benefit, I do believe the healthcare system is meant to use us for a profit and oppress us. So it is not the doctors who are at fault but the system, rather. The pharmaceutical industry is one of the largest industries in the U.S. If its aim was actually to help us, it would be a charity organization rather than a money-making machine. The more reliance on the medical industry that we have, the more control they have over us. Gandhi states in doctors,” I over-eat, I have indigestion, I go to a doctor, he gives me medicine, I am cured, I over-eat again, and I take his pills again.” This shows the toxic cycle of depending on medicine for problems that we could easily fix ourselves by changing our lifestyle choices, but rather choose to look for an easy fix. If medicine were here to help us, then doctors would be guides and counselors to heal us rather than prescribing us quick-fix meds. I understand there are people who need certain medications to survive who can not be healed just by change of lifestyle, but they are the greatest example of how this system uses oppression to make a profit. Many a time, these people can not get their medications unless their insurance covers it (which they also pay for), and if not, they have no option but to suffer because they don’t have the dollars to trade for their lives. This is why the pharmaceutical industry only exists to make a profit and depends upon our dependence on it.
In chapter twelve of “Hind Swaraj”, the Editor speaks strongly on the view of modern medicine. The Editor states, “I have indulged in vice, I contract disease, a doctor cures me, the odds are that I shall repeat the vice”. What I believe the Editor is referring to the Western practice of treating the symptoms, rather than the root and cause. The text strongly suggests a disappointment, even an injustice of doctors in India at the time of publication. An abandonment of Eastern medicine and an adoption of Western, just as everything else surrounding the Editor has attempted to mirror Western practices. The Editor (Gandhi) claims European doctors to be the worst and hospitals as “institutions of sin”. What reasons do you believe Gandhi has for resistance to modern medicine? What other institutions would Gandhi deem corrupted by English and in what ways? Can doctors both serve humanity and the other interests of medical institutions simultaneously, or is it truly one or the other?
As I read “Hind Swaraj”, I found a notable quote in chapter 12 on Gandhi’s views on doctors. The quote says “The English have certainly effectively used the medical profession for holding us”. Does Gandhi think that the English are using the medical field to have more control over them?. As Gandhi says doctors violate their religion, I think some of these doctors genuinely wanted to help .I also found 1 more quote that stuck out to me. the quote states “The fact remains that the doctors induce us to indulge, and the result is that we have become deprived of self-control and have become effeminate.” Do you think this about all doctors or do you think that this is actually for the well being of the people of India?
In chapter 9 of Hind Swaraj, Gandhi talks about railways and the connection between good and bad, and fast and slow pace. He says, “Good travels at a snail’s pace – it can, therefore, have little to do with the railways. Those who want to do good are not selfish, they are not in a hurry, they know that to impregnate people with good requires a long time. But evil has wings. To build a house takes time. Its destruction takes none. So the railways can become a distributing agency for the evil one only. It may be a debatable matter whether railways spread famines, but it is beyond dispute that they propagate evil.” Gandhi then goes on to talk about “opium-eating” and how it would be difficult for someone to recognize the harms of opium-eating without having eaten opium. He then asks us to consider the same way of thought towards railways, saying that we couldn’t know the harm of railways until after having utilized one. I am wondering if Gandhi thought this way towards medicine also, which was discussed in later chapters, or if he thought medicine and doctors were purely looking for a monetary profit. Did he see the railways and medicine as ‘cheating’ in a way? Are the two connected at all for Gandhi or is one strictly about time and the other about money? Do you think there is anything that travels at a snail’s pace that isn’t good, according to Gandhi?
.
In the chapter titled “What is True Civilization?”, the Editor asserts that “[t]o observe morality is to attain mastery over our mind and our passions,” and that “[c]ivilisation is that mode of conduct which points out to man the path of duty.” Gandhi here is stating that achieving morality can be an instrument of “civilisation” and through this sense of morality, duties will be performed in “observance.” Gandhi’s version of civilization intrinsically reproduces a moral society in a way similar to how capitalism reproduces itself and its sentiments in the western world. Gandhi’s view of civilization is scaled down and non-alienated by machinery and technology. Thoreau’s ideology of self-fulfillment was also based in an absence of advanced technology and working with your hands. Gandhi’s works seem to advance Thoreau’s thinking. What would Thoreau think about Gandhi’s denouncement of doctors and lawyers throughout the world?
I have some questions and concerns for Gandhi and his views in these chapters. He seems to be very harshly judging the development of Lawyers and Doctors. In the chapter on Lawyers Gandhi discusses that lawyers don’t care about their clients and only want to “enrich themselves” and they try to “multiply disputes” to better themselves. Gandhi states a similar argument for doctors and claims that they only pursue the profession “so that they may obtain honours and riches”. I will be the first to admit that I am not blind to the corruption that exists in these professions, but we must admit that the analysis of these professions are awfully harsh. I can see where Gandhi is coming from, although I think it is dangerous to say such drastic things about modernity. Doctors provide modern medicine so that diseases, injuries and ailments can be cured and people can be healthy; lawyers can be a helpful service in court for people who may not know exactly how court systems work. Ghandi does not see these things as helpful though; so how should these things look to him? If these modern advancements are corrupted and flawed how do we think he wants things to be? Is there a realistic way to bring Gandhi’s ideas and modern ideas together into a functioning system? Also was Gandhi’s following big during this time? My reason for this last question is because while he is speaking a lot of truth he is still presenting some extreme thoughts, like rejecting modern doctors, how lawyers are only out to get your money, and how railway systems are essentially the bane of our existence.
In “The Condition of India: railways”, the editor proclaims “Railways, lawyers and doctors have impoverished the country, so much so that if we do not wake up in time, we shall be ruined.” The editor blames the railways for the hold that England has on India. The railways spread the plague, as they spread people from place to place. Additionally, the increase in locomotion increased the number of famines. Farmers sold out their grain to the most important markets, or communities of people and there weren’t grains for other communities. The most striking quote to me said by the editor was “Bad men fulfil their evil designs with greater rapidity.” I interpreted this as meaning that modernization and advancements in technology have allowed bad people to achieve their goals at a faster rate. The editor goes on to explain how good men go about things, “Those who want to do good are not selfish, they are not in a hurry, they know that to impregnate people with good requires a long time. But evil has wings.” I think this exclamation of bad vs good is almost saying that bad will always win over good, which I entirely disagree with. Aside from the fact that I believe most people are inherently good, even as certain circumstances have changed how they behave and act, I’m also in a major that is often very discouraging. SD majors learn alot about how badly people treat the world and other people. However, what would I (or anyone else for that manner) be doing in this major if I don’t believe that good will eventually “win” over bad? Returning to what Gandhi says, are there any other interpretations of these quotes that I missed? Are there any other examples of how advancement of technology and modernization have spread bad ideas? Are there any examples of good being spread by the same drivers?
In “Civilization”, The Editor begins to describe what is typically thought of when the word civilization is used. He goes on to describe how houses are better built in Europe now than they were a hundred years ago, clothing has transitioned from skins to long pants, and machinery is now present so that humans will not need to use their hands and feet anymore. The editor then goes on to state that this condition of civilization enslaved men. He states, “Formerly, men were made slaves under physical compulsion, now they are enslaved by temptation of money and of the luxuries that money can buy” (35). The editor believes that western civilization makes us want more material things. In the later chapter, “Passive Resistance”, the editor explains what passive resistance is and what stuck out to me was this quote: “After a great deal of experience, it seems to me that those who want to become passive resisters for the service of the country have to observe perfect chastity, adopt poverty, follow truth, and cultivate fearlessness” (94). This quote made me think about Thoreau’s view on voluntary poverty and if the two thinkers parallel in that idea. Does the Editor agree with Thoreau that people should try to practice voluntary poverty? Does materialism and money prevent individuals from achieving Swaraj and passive resistance?
So the more I read these chapters, the more I realized I really didn’t know what Gandhi was trying to represent and what his life was really like. I highlighted many quotes that stood out to me and I, as well as a few others, (that I have read thus far) find his view of Doctors and Lawyers rather strange. At first I immediately disagreed with his reasoning for his “views” but then I thought about what he was trying to get across. Do I think Doctors are a Ponzi scheme? NO, Do I think Doctors purposely prescribe medicines or treatments just to prolong an ailment in the hopes the patient will return for more medicine and treatment. NO, but that’s my opinion. I do think Doctors can and do get complacent with chronic ailments of people though. But in relation to what Gandhi said, “I over-eat, I have indigestion, I go to a doctor, he gives me medicine, I am cured, I over-eat again, and I take his pills again. Had I not taken the pills in the first instance, I would have suffered the punishment deserved by me, and I would not have over-eaten again.” This sounds all well and good, but this is the simple explanation – with medicine, everything isn’t this cut and dry. If Gandhi had a true emergency or life threatening ailment, I wonder if his views would change. I also thought his view on lawyers was odd considering he practiced law himself. I sort of agree with him on his reasoning when he said, “The lawyers, therefore, will as a rule, advance quarrels, instead of repressing them. Moreover, men take up that profession, not in order to help others out of their miseries, but to enrich themselves.” In my opinion, most lawyers are out to make money, as is most people, if they didn’t stay in the business to make money, there would be a lot more pro-bono work. I don’t however feel that every single lawyer is only out to ‘rob’ us with our legal strifes. Maybe I missed it, but since Gandhi was a lawyer himself, how did and when did he get out of the business and did he repent for his sins so to speak? I think lastly, this quote really stood out to me, “If man will only realise that it is unmanly to obey laws that are unjust, no man’s tyranny will enslave him. This is the key to self-rule or home-rule.” Obviously we all have our own views. Laws are put in place to protect people, property, rights and safety. If the 7 billion plus people on this earth didn’t follow laws and felt the way Gandhi did, that the rules were unjust, what type of society would we be living in?
The chapter talking about doctors seems to be the most controversial and discussed, but another chapter I found to be very controversial was chapter 18 titled “Education.” There were points that I agreed with and points that I disagreed with in this chapter. One of the ideas that I with was when he said, “To give millions a knowledge of English is to enslave them.” This is representative of a bigger concept that we still see today where First World countries go into Third World countries and make it seem necessary that they get an English education. This education may not be as applicable to them, and it detracts from the education that may be more important to them and brings them away from their culture. Do you believe that the English language and education do more harm than good in countries where English is not the first language, or do you think it is necessary with the way the world functions today? One of the points that I disagreed with was when Gandhi said, “I do not for one moment believe that my life would have been wasted, had I not received higher or lower education.” I don’t think it is fair for him to say this because there is really no way of knowing what would have happened to him and if he would have been the same as he was had he not received primary and advanced education. How do you think your life would have been different if you did not receive all the education leading up to and including college? Were there certain parts of it that did not seem necessary?
You make a valid critique about how ghandi could have really never had known about how his English education effecting his life and overall outcome. However i more so interpreted it in that, ghandi who stated he’d received an education in “Geography, Astronomy, Algebra, Geometry” doesn’t believe that its a true extension towards bettering himself. Nor his community. thus is just not a necessity towards fulling one’s dharma. So him saying that his life would not have been wasted is more equitable to saying that he could have fulfilled similar good with in himself and others.
And to answer your questions: I know my life would be very different. Following the lines of any ‘modern / English’ education i could only see myself either in an apprentice ship to learn a skill, or doing manual labor.
If i where brave, i would not have perused any formal education at all, but instead learned firsthand by my own curiosity. Specially in the means to better one’s self. That part resonated with in me.
as far as the parts that don’t seem necessary… Yes.
While reading this text and hearing about passive resistance from Gandhi I began to wonder what he would say to an audience today. Would he still continue in his approval of swadeshi as he referenced, or would he take a different stance? Furthermore, what laws would he say we should resist or take the charge for in today’s societies here in the West, how would we go about it? How would he say that the disease inflicted upon us by civilization has changed (or grown)? Following this latter idea, in the footnotes states, “According to Madeleine Slade, one of Gandhi’s devoted disciples, he saw no inconsistency between his notion of non-violence and the violence involved in shooting mad dogs and the mercy-killing of badly wounded animals” (86). Are the means in today’s societies different, requiring a different result?
Hi Emma, I like your final question regarding the means of societies differing, thus requiring different needs of the people. I think we as a society want similar results, but we may need to shift our means. I think the model of peaceful protest that Gandhi founded worked for its time period. However, as the surveillance state has grown and militarized force against citizens has become normalized, tactics for achieving justice need to shift. I think politicians have, quite frankly, become desensitized to peaceful protests. There are no stakes anymore for protests of that nature from which they can bear fruit. I wonder if Gandhi would agree if he saw the current state of global politics today? I also wonder if he would agree with escalated practices of civil disobedience?
In Chapter 10, the Editor says “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. A country is one nation only when such a condition obtains in it. That country must have a faculty for assimilation”. He is speaking to mere difference of views can create enemies in people. He then goes on to explain to us “But, just as I respect the cow, so do I respect my fellow-men. A man is just as useful as a cow, no matter whether he be a Mahomedan or a Hindu. Am I, then, to fight with or kill a Mahomedan in order to save a cow? In doing so, I would become an enemy as well of the cow as of the Mahomedan. Therefore, the only method I know of protecting the cow is that I should approach my Mahomedan brother and urge him for the sake of the country to join me in protecting her. If he would not listen to me, I should let the cow go for the simple reason that the matter is beyond my ability. If I were overfull of pity for the cow, I should sacrifice my life to save her, but not take my brother’s. This, I hold, is the law of our religion”. The tell us again later in the chapter that this simple choice is no reason to have war. This is something I wholeheartedly believe. Acts of violence are seen all over the world. Especially in the United States discrimination continues to remain a problem regardless of our nationality.
In Chapter 10, The Condition of India: The Hindus and the Mahomedans, Gandhi argues that in order for a country to be a nation (which as Gandhi specifies a nation ideally is one of home rule/self rule), the people within it must be united. Gandhi states that although India is composed of people of varying religions, India has been united as “those who are conscious of the spirit of nationality do not interfere with one another’s religion” (50). Gandhi illustrates that England played a large role in the conflict between people of the two religions, preventing unity and thus, as Gandhi argues, nationalism. In the next chapter, Gandhi also blames Lawyers for the Hindu-Mahomedan conflict, saying the duty of lawyers is to “side with their clients, and find out ways and arguments in favor of the clients to which they (the clients) are often strangers” (57). Therefore, Gandhi argues lawyers advance quarrels. While Gandhi acknowledges the role of the legal system in the conflict, as well as British rule in India, his ultimate blame is directed at lawyers as “without lawyers, courts could not have been established or conducted”. Good things lawyers have achieved Gandhi attributes to the person rather than their profession, as Gandhi views the profession to be “immoral”.
Are lawyers more responsible than the larger legal system as they have chosen the profession? Gandhi argues that lawyers choose their profession due to money, yet there are some that join the profession to make positive change. Is it fair to scrutinize all lawyers, including those using the law to make a positive change, due to how the law is used in some contexts?
It is apparent through Gandhi’s blunt opinions on the progressions of healthcare and railroad systems that he is in objection to the spread of modernity. In fact, he even states that the strength that India had maintained throughout colonial rule can be attributed to the country’s ability to reject the introduction of technological developments, which in turn has kept pure the morality of people who live in India. This sentiment is exemplified in the following passages, “Observing all this, our ancestors dissuaded us from luxuries and pleasures. We have managed with the same kind of plough as it existed thousands of years ago. We have retained the same kind of cottages that we had in former times, and our indigenous education remains the same as before” (Chapter XIII), and ” Nothing can equal the seeds sown by our ancestors. Rome went, Greece shared the same fate, the might of the Pharaohs was broken, Japan has become westernised, of China nothing can be said, but India is still, somehow or other, sound at the foundation.” (Chapter XIII) . The fact that Ghandi recognizes that Indian ways of life have been kept intact throughout the many injustices that the country has faced may have encouraged a heightened sense of identity. However, rejecting the positive impacts of important advancements in society (most notably, modern medicine) arguably neglects the millions of people who have experienced an increased quality of life as a result of such advancements. Is it possible to promote the positive impacts of modern technology while simultaneously fighting for justice against imperialist powers?
After reading the chapters of “Hind Swaraj” this week I was challenged in the way I think about modern services and infrastructure that indispensable to me. The doctors, lawyers, railroads, and a lack of focus on god discussed by the editor in “The Condition of India” are described as the very thing that brought destruction to the nation of India and society. At first, these claims were shocking as modern medicine, transportation, and justice seem to be the building blocks of a healthy functioning society, but his argument was that these are in fact the things that make us weaker and more dependent.
In regards to the railway system, the editor draws his views from a place of enduring famine. The railways built by the English colonizers did not grow and produce food and was only a way to transport it. After the construction of railways, farmers were more likely to sell their grain to the highest bidder and send it away on the train. This left smaller groups of people without the food they depended on from these farmers and perpetuated the famine. He says, “Railways have also increased the frequency of famines, because, owing to facility of means of locomotion, people sell out their grain, and it is sent to the dearest markets. People become careless, and so the pressure of famine increases” (76). How do you think an investment in agriculture instead of flashy railroads would have changed the trajectory of India’s prosperity? Can this idea of community independence be applied to modern America’s unsustainable and globalized food system?
In Chapter 7, Why was India Lost?, Gandhi talks about the relationship that India and the English nation and speaks on whether or not the English took India or it was given to them. Gandhi argues that it was given to them by way through the greed of trade. He says, “History testifies that we did all this. In order to become rich all at once, we welcomed the Company’s officers with open arms. We assisted them. If I am in the habit of drinking Bhang, and a seller thereof sells it to me, am I to blame him or myself?” (Chapter 7). Is Gandhi’s statement and reasoning fair to say in blaming the people of India?He further argues this idea later in the chapter when he says, “Then it follows that we keep the English in India for our base self-interest. We like their commerce, they please us by their subtle methods, and get what they want from us.” All of this is centered around commerce and shows only the perspective of a group people welcoming the commerce with no opposition. How strong do you think this perspective is? and how might other thinkers respond to the blame that Gandhi places on the Indian people?
Reading “Hind Swaraj”, I see others critique or question counter-acting or confusing quotes that are far more thought provoking than mine will be. However, a discussion had early in the book still leaves me stumped. In the subsection, “The Attack on Machinery and Civilization” Ghandi and the reader are having a discussion about sewing machines. Ghandi says that he has no issues with sewing machines, because they have an important purpose and that ” It is one of the few useful things ever invented…”. When the reader questions that if a Singer sewing machine is allowed, why aren’t other ‘helpful’ devices, like a bicycle or car for example. Ghandi responds as such: “…because they do not satisfy any of the primary wants of
man; for it is not the primary need of man to traverse distances with the rapidity
of a motor car. The needle on the contrary happens to be an essential thing in
life, a primary need.”
Like I previously stated, my analysis and question is not deep nor savvy, I am genuinely just stumped at how this statement is justified? How is a sewing machine critical and vital, when one can hand sew or crotchet pieces? Why are bicycles ruled out?
One consistency throughout Gandhi’s “Hind Swaraj” is his distaste for civilization. Calling it a ‘disease’ multiple times in the text, it is clear that he believes the transition to modernity does not always constitute progression. In the sixth chapter titled, “Civilization,” it is said that, “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.” Mankind falls into patterns of comfortability. Gandhi, in his critiques, demonstrates his belief that the conditions faced in India are due to the weight of a modern civilization. Similarly, Thoreau shares his fear of the conditions around him due to the inability of men to question their influence. Do you think that Gandhi would believe it possible to break the “laws of humanity” that Thoreau mentions in his writing? How would doing so influence Gandhi’s image of civilization? Do you genuinely think there is a version of civilization that would allow for the unity and morality that Gandhi seeks?
Gandhi describes the idea of civilization from a European view point. He explains how “people living in it make bodily welfare the object of life” meaning that having what Europeans call nicer and more things makes you civilized. If you do not have what the Europeans have then you are what is called a “savage”. “The people of Europe today live in better built houses than they did a hundred years ago. This is considered an emblem of civilization, and this is also a matter to promote bodily happiness.” Having something to show for (money) is what places you in civilization. Gandhi argues that money has enslaved humans with the temptation of the luxuries it gets you. Ultimately Gandhi says that “This civilization is such that one has only to be patient and it will be self-destroyed”. Do you agree or disagree with Gandhi’s view of civilization? Is this true for every so-called civilization? How do you think it got to be like that?
In chapter 18 titled “Education” the editor asks “what is the meaning of education” and then goes on to answer their own question, but the response is more harsh than many people want to hear. Ghandi is the editor and he says that education is a tool, a tool that can be used for good or evil, same as a medicinal cure. By saying education is a tool he is establishing that it is something to be utilized or used. It is not just knowledge stored in our brains, though he does say education in its basic form is the knowledge of letters, but rather education can be the mobilizer of thoughts or actions. Ghandi in my opinion has interesting point of view that I don’t always agree with, but I do agree with a small part of his analysis on education. Education and knowledge can be used as a tool for bad things. He doesn’t exactly say that in the wrong hands it is bad, but that is what I understand him to be saying. Some of the worst people in the world are smart, you have to be to plan and operate how many of them do, and having the knowledge to manipulate people is part of that. Ghandi also states he does not like the teaching of English to the people of India he says it enslaves them. I understand where Ghandi is coming from being taught English could mean losing culture and your mother language. Ghandi describes third world situation compared to first world situations as, “We ignorantly adhere to their cast-off systems”, I see this in terms of being taught English that, third world countries are trying to keep up with first world places by adopting aspects of them, that they don’t realize aren’t even part of the first world culture anymore. English is heavily ingrained in first world nations so much so that just learning the language doesn’t really earn browning point in their minds, all it does is make the third world peoples more competent to take orders, rather than being an equal. So my understanding of Ghandi’s hatred for learning English is that by learning English his people are just setting themselves up to become favorites and helpers of the native English speakers, even if they might get better jobs that way they could be more connected to their people just knowing their own language and studying higher education through their systems.
If Ghandis views on english education would have been different, how might Indias education system look today? Would there be a push for english professors, an influx of native english speaking students to their schools, or maybe the loss of native languages such as Hindi?
In Chapter 6 “Civilisation”, Gandhi critiques civilization under a western definition. One of bodily welfare, comforts and happiness. Gandhi points out how this idea of civilization feeds into a vicious cycle of more and mass consumption. At the end of the chapter Gandhi pulls in this critique of modern civilization to religion by claiming “This civilisation is irreligion, and it has taken such a hold on the people in Europe that those who are in it appear to be half mad. They lack real physical strength or courage. They keep up their energy by intoxication. They can hardly be happy in solitude.”. Later on in Chapter 8 “The condition of India” Gandhi brings up religion again but this time in terms of a technique for combating the irreligion or civilization. “[R]eligions 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.”. What do you think Gandhi means through his discussion about religion? Would he support structural/ institutionalized religion or do you think he means in a more abstract spiritual reconnection as a solution?
While most of our assigned sections of the “Hind Swaraj” covered Ghandi’s disdain for modernization and it’s associated social ills, some details stood out to me in particular. In the section titled “The Condition of India: Doctors,” Ghandi mentions how indulging “effeminates” men. This comment, combined with his noted indiscretions towards women in his later life, made me think about how we separate the good and bad in a figure. How does a society synthesize so much good but still leave toxic elements from a popular figure behind. Can that even be done?
Gandhi explains the how economic development clashes with real progress by stating that materialistic goals lead to the unhappiness and moral loss. “With them material gain has not necessarily meant moral gain.” (Economic Development and Moral Development (1916) He explains this meaning in this passage by including and referring to many Bible versus and quotes from Jesus. My initial question was why include these versus when Gandhi himself was not a Christian? He later says “I have not taken the trouble of copying similar passages from the other non-Hindu scriptures and I will not insult you by quoting in support of the law stated by Jesus passages from the writings and sayings of our own sages, passages even stronger if possible than the Biblical extracts I have drawn your attention to. Perhaps the strongest of all the testimonies in favour of the affirmative answer to the question before us are the lives of the greatest teachers of the world. Jesus, Mahomed, Buddha, Nanak, Kabir, Chaitanya, Shankara, Dayanand, Ramkrishna were men who exercised an immense influence over and moulded the character of thousands of men.” I think he includes so many passages from the Bible to speak to the audience of the people who had be prioritizing materialistic goals rather than moral goals, being the British or other colonizers. These were the people who Gandhi was trying to convince that materialistic goals were pointless. “Western nations today are groaning under the heel of the monster-god of materialism.” He refers to the land that were once the Gods, and says that this land was once holy, and now contains rushing engines, numerous cars crowded with men who have no goals, and mill chimneys. This is ultamatly due to the modern goals of economic development. Economists prescribed laws for the rich and if one were to hoard money for the millions of money, it would be for the trustees of millions of Indians, and therefore would have all the riches in the world.
Something prevalent in this book is the colonialism of India by the British and the historical events that took place within its time frame. In chapter 8, Ghandi, the editor, says, “It is my deliberate opinion that India is being ground down not under the English heel but under that of modern civilization.” This to me reflects Ghandi’s deeper insights into humanity and his frustration at the events of the partition. Ghandi goes on to criticize that India is becoming religionless and that the people are turning away from god. He says on page 43 that “Its deadly effect is that people come under its scorching flames believing it to be all good. They become utterly irreligious and, in reality, derive little advantage from the world. Civilization is like a mouse gnawing while it is soothing us.” I can feel Ghandi’s pain and frustration trhough this quote. My interpretation from this is that he is suffering emotionally from the chaos and destruction of the effects of the partition. I say this because while I know that the modern civilizations imposed themselves upon India and hurt the country, that was the system and injustice proposed by those in power, not civilizations in itself. Ghandi is a brilliant man and understands the benefits of modern agriculture, science, and education. This chapter is a great look into his humanity and mortality and that is just a regular person like the rest of us.
Oops, kind of forgot to form the question I was leading up to. I wanted to ask if you think Ghandi is biased in this chapter because of his emotions? Either way, is modern society detrimental to human faith or sense of right and wrong?
My weekly question is a little different than usual because instead of asking about the reading material, I have a question about the format that Ghandi writes in. In the readings we read this past weekend, the format throughout different chapters in the Hind Swaraj is written like a reader and editor conversation. Why is Ghandi writing this way? Maybe I missed something in a different discussion about Ghandi as to why he writes like this, or is it because he is trying to portray the information in a more personal way by presenting it as a conversation rather than just information?
After reading the excerpts and looking more into Gandhi’s life I agree with a lot of his points. When looking deeper into his writings, these professions come back to be based on profit and greed of money. The point he made about the pills and the indigestion thus proves the point more. However, I do believe there are many people in these professions that genuinely do their job with highest morals and care about others in both the legal and medical fields. Based on what Gandhi was writing about, did he see these professions from a more systematical perspective including the majority? Or was the environment he was surrounded by influence his thought and reasoning to write on a more personal level?
Reading the chapters of Hind Swaraj made me conceptualize the plight in current US politics. As Americans, we are faced with multiple issues like gender/race/ethnic inequality & injustice, climate change, housing crisis, food insecurity, water & air pollution, etc. All of these compounding issues have not been solved by politicians we vote for or the government we uphold. While the Reader and Editor argue over the meaning of Swaraj; I can’t help but think this has been a reflection of current academic and political discourse in the US. Should we reform under the current system as the Reader advocates or invent a new system as the Editor advocates? I believe the issue with people’s view of the current system lies with what the Editor in Chapter 3 quotes: “This discontent is a very useful thing. So long as a man is contented with his present lot, so long is it difficult to persuade him to come out of it. Therefore it is that every reform must be preceded by discontent. We throw away things we have, only when we cease to like them. Such discontent has been produced among us after reading the great works of Indians and Englishmen.32 Discontent has led to unrest, and the latter has brought about many deaths, many imprisonments, and many banishments. Such a state of things will still continue. It must be so. All these may be considered good signs, but they may also lead to bad results.” Maybe I have an ignorant point of view? Is there a breaking point where discontent turns to unrest? And further, the violence that did occur due to the Partition, was it necessary to achieve some form of independence from British rule?
While Gandhi has different opinions and perspectives about some issues there are also a number of issues that strike parallels or similarities to issues seen today. Some of these issues come in the form of laws that can become harmful to people, the environment, or other factors. While most of the time laws benefit people and society sometimes they can be harmful or become harmful as times change, however even if people disagree with these laws they may not even mention their displeasure with it or fight to change it. “We are sunk so low, that we fancy that it is our duty and our religion to do what the law lays down. If man will only realize that it is unmanly to obey laws that are unjust, no man’s tyranny will enslave him. This is the key to self-rule or home-rule.” (pg 92) If people disagree with a law how much does it matter if they do nothing to stop it? Many fear the damage that is being done to the environment but they will not necessarily fight for laws to change it. Many people are upset about gun violence and school shootings yet at the moment no real law has been passed to make major changes to effectively stop it. In some states children who identify as trans are forcibly outed to their parents or stories that include the lgbtq or sensitive topics such as those written in Maus have been banned. Is it really just that we enforce these rules? Especially those on children who have no way to defend their opinions since they cannot vote. Or for the children that may have to live their lives in fear because their own parents may throw them out of their homes because of who they identify as? While these are sensitive topics it is important to remember why they are sensitive, why we care about them, and why they bring up such controversy when they are brought up.
I have not read Gandhi before, and I consider myself well-read. It is brilliant writing, an excursion in memory, thought and creation. This is accomplished by creating an amalgamation of techniques implemented, from using opposing character script, borrowing from film, in what could have paved the way for Bollywood. However, the book is attuned to politics, a subject he is obviously immersed in, the tone ranges from Sun Tzu in the prose of “The Art of War,” to Kahil Gibran’s deep reflection on life in his masterpiece, “The Prophet.” I always like to wonder what happened to India, how such a powerful country at one time devolved into this mess of pollution, wrought by disease and famine, and lacking sufficient water. I like to ponder Gandhi’s role in this. This seems to be for me a final plea, in acknowledgement of problems, followed by the clarity of which they stem so far from. As if his understanding of the situation had come and passed already without salvation, what was left was a document pronouncing each piece of the puzzle, unraveling their demise as a country in an inevitable twist of fate. I noticed this in his writing; the apparent cycles occurring, almost as if in relation to the water cycle, how each piece led into the other, with the tying factors omnipresent. That allegory precedes a topic of discussion, that in previous pages a subject talked about in metaphor, then following directly, as if what evaporated to rain down again. Chapter 17-18 for example, I noticed this in Passive Resistance speaking of Education. Ultimately, this process took so much grace onto the pages of his book, that renounced any duplication for many years to come. I also wonder why these few beacons tend to stand out, what makes them different and why. Raising the alarm again and again, only provoking those in further advancement of the violence problem, far away from his intention of sharing a similar consciousness of peace. It appears Gandhi to be quite accurate in his assessment of the issues at hand pertaining to morality of longevity in the power of governance, although unable to sway the populace in seeing through his eyes until it being too late. Only leaving an abstracted record of his conclusions. Certainly he was right, as we are studying him today, what I would like to know is do you think this pattern has continued elsewhere, that the same mistakes have been made, equally similar insights?
After reading the assigned chapters of Hind Swaraj, what stood out to me was the chapter called ‘discontent and unrest’ which gave light into what discontent and unrest means to the globe, but especially the Partition. The partition came about because of India wanting independence from Britain, but also the movement of Hinduism in India and the moving of Islam to Pakistan. He talks about how discontent and unrest are important for reforming. In one quote he uses a comparison for the country of India to a man, “when a man rises from his sleep, he twists his limbs and is restless. it takes some time before he is entirely awakened. Similarly, although the partition has caused an awakening, the comatose state has not yet disappeared. We are still twisting our limbs and still restless, and just as the state between sleep and awakening must be considered to be necessary, so may the present unrest in India be considered a necessary and therefore a proper state.” He says discontent is a useful thing and that every reform must be preceded by discontent. Do you agree with Gandhi that discontent is an important factor to reforming governments, laws, etc? How can discontent turn into action that leads to producing content and reform? Should our citizens always be at a point of ‘unrest’ to constantly be reforming societal and other issues?
After reading more into Ghandis work I was originally questioning why he wrote in the way he did. Throughout his writing you see he wrote in the perspective of editor and reader. Was this because he did not want us to know his true perspective unlike Thoreau where he spoke in terms of “I”? Something else i found interesting was the way he talked about laws and issues we as a society go through today that run hand in hand. While laws can benefits us it can also hold us back from preventing issues. Many of these cause controversy between human kind so why and who should we allow these laws and issues to influence.
As I was reading this, I couldn’t help but notice how what Gandhi is saying over 100 years ago applies to today. You could literally substitute “parliament” with “congress” and “prime minister” with “president” and it would ring just as true. There is a meme that floats around the socials that says, “Politicians should have to wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers so we know who their sponsors are.” Replace “doctors” with “big pharma”. Lawyers still haven’t changed, and many are politicians. At this point, I can’t help but wonder if he is part anarchist though. Not the movie version where we live in a dystopian world, but the type where there is no government(s) and the people just sort things out for themselves.
Gandhi starts off by getting questioned on what civilization is; he answers that there is a cause in a cure but does not necessarily see what that is. Although he does refer to civilization as a disease. He says that the world is basically consumed by their possessions and civilization is what people strive to be like with large houses and other materialistic things Just like Thoreau said as well. There are similarities in how they view the world. Gandhi, the editor, also states that the Europeans are the one that this “civilization” is modeled after and infers that the only way out of it would be to acquire swaraj. Therefore the cause is the Europeans and the cure is swaraj. But my question is if he seen the world today would he still refer to civilization as a disease or a pandemic since now most of the world is has grown to materialism and its so self automated and some people’s outlook is to find a job to get paid not to work essentially regarding to how he views civilization.
Reading about Gandhi’s ideas about passive resistance was very interesting and thought-provoking. He emphasized the importance of nonviolent resistance and said “after a great deal of experience, it seems to me that those who want to become passive resisters for the service of the country have to observe perfect chastity, adopt poverty, follow truth, and cultivate fearlessness” (94). This draws on the importance of putting those in power in the positions of those in lower-class communities. Do you think this is something that Gandhi would still encourage today or do you believe that he would have different methods for resistance?
I find it very interesting how many of the issues Gandhi discusses are still present in our world today. “In South Africa he discovered that ‘when we go to court of law, some of us are only concerned how to win the case at any cost, and not how truth may prevail.” This is an issue that is maybe even worse today. Lawyers only goal is to win the case, whether their defendant is guiltily or not. Do you see this quality ever changing? Or will our murals worsen over time?