Gandhi’s ‘Hind Swaraj’ is a fascinating book that offers numerous perspectives that shocked me while reading. The Editor, who represents Gandhi, denounces aspects of civilizations such as railways, lawyers, and doctors. (64) The editor argued that “hospitals are institutions for the propagation of sin.” (61) The edition of ‘Hind Swiraj’ that I am reading has a note for this specific quote, adding that Gandhi regretted the language of this quote but not his views, adding that “the views in question concerned the tendency of modern medicine to neglect the soul, i.e the spiritual and moral foundations of bodily health.”
In 2021 during an ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, these quotes make Gandhi sound more like an anti-vaxxer than a non-violent leader nominated for five Nobel Peace prizes in his lifetime. As of today, Gandhi’s home country of India has the second-highest total number of covid-19 cases and the third-highest total of deaths from covid-19.
After all the suffering that covid-19 has caused in our society, do you think Gandhi would change his views on doctors and hospitals if he were alive today?
One of the parts of “Hind Swaraj” that I found most shocking was Gandhi’s views on doctors. Gandhi rejects “modern” Western medicine on the basis that it is damaging to the soul, condemning medicine as a “parasitical profession” (62). He believes that illness is the “the punishment deserved” for indulgences and that medicine eases the body while weakening the mind, allowing people to escape the consequences of their actions (63). As a result, Gandhi condemns hospitals as “institutions for propagating sin” and calls for doctors to “give up medicine, and understand that, rather than meaning bodies, [they] should mend souls” (63, 117). While I agree with Gandhi’s call for holistic medicine with long-term solutions, I was surprised and troubled by a majority of his viewpoints on this topic. His opinions seem to reflect a view of suffering as a necessary consequence of indulgence and other wrongs, which I think erases the nuance of many people’s experiences of illness and is insensitive to many people’s suffering. I also think that this view contradicts Gandhi’s advocacy for nonviolence. If he is unwilling to use violence and the suffering it brings as a means to a revolutionary end, why does he believe that suffering is not only a justified but desirable means for people to learn how to interact with their bodies? How can suffering be explained as a learning experience and consequence of action when it seems like many people needlessly suffer?
The readings for this week discuss civilization and how westerns portray this as a good thing. However, the reader and the editor in this reading feel differently about England trying to Civil India, “it is not necessarily any particular fault of the English people, but the condition is due to modern civilization. It is a civilization only in name. Under it the nation of Europe is becoming degraded and ruined day by day” (33). How do you think that No Impact Man would react to this description of civilization? Do you believe that he would agree that “formerly, men were made slaves under physical compulsion, they are enslaved by temptation of money and the luxuries that money can buy” (36)?
This was my first time reading any of Gandhi’s work. There were multiple instances where I was very surprised by his views, the first being his misogynistic comments. To Gandhi, English Parliament is like a sterile woman because it has not “done a single good thing.” In addition, it can be likened to a prostitute because it does nothing “without outside pressure.” While these metaphors can and should be deeply problematized, based on my book notes Gandhi later regretted them.
The second metaphor I found shocking was Gandhi’s statement that doctors and lawyers are like branches of a tree, whose roots are immoral. Doctors, he believes, enable “immoral” behavior. For instance, if someone overeats the doctor simply can prescribe a pill and they will feel better. This enables the behavior and reproduces it as the person faces no “consequences.” According to Gandhi, doctors, and hospitals are “institutions for propagating sin.” What is particularly off-putting to me about Gandhi’s framing of this, is the underlying idea he is pushing that health is a moral obligation, and it is a personal failure to be unhealthy. I am specifically interested in how his framing of health and immorality would be in conversation with feminist writers, particularly those involved in fat liberation and body neutrality movements. My question is, why is it beneficial to Gandhi’s argument against English rule, to frame health as a moral obligation?
As someone else stated, this was my first time reading Gandhi and was intrigued by his views and thoughts on colonization. Specifically his thoughts on religion and that the west views India as a ” lazy people and that Europeans are industrious and enterprising”. However, he argues that every religion (Hinduism, Islam, Christianity) is meant to “teach us to 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.” (38). This mindset reminds me and seems extremely similar to Thoreau’s idea of how to achieve happiness. While Thoreau used nature and the environment to detach himself from worldly possessions and needs, Gandhi uses religion. I also found his opinions on lawyers, doctors, and railways interesting even going as far as to say “have impoverished the country so much so that, if we do not wake up in time, we shall be ruined.” (41). His argument against these people again is similar to Thoreau’s idea of civilizations and the reliance we have on institutions. Gandhi explains that civilization is a disease and has brought about countless hardships to India. This brings up an interesting thought to me, even with native peoples who live in small tribes, while they may not be considered a large civilization, they still maintain social institutions to keep order. While these groups do not have traditional doctors or lawyers, they have medicine men and chiefs. These people rely on the medicine men to keep them healthy and trust what they say without hesitation as we do with doctors. They also rely on the chiefs to make large decisions that impact all their lives and settle arguments similar to lawyers and politicians. This brings me to my question if Gandhi does not think we can or should rely on people like this, what would his ideal version of a cohesive people look like?
When reading Gahndi’s conclusion I found the mentioning of the hand-loom interesting. “If a lawyer, he will give up his profession, and take up a hand-loom.” (87) “If a wealthy man, he will devote his money to establishing hand-looms, and encourage others to use hand-made goods by wearing them himself.” (88) I did not know what it was so I decided to look it up. The Handloom plays a very important role in the country’s economy. This sector contributes nearly 19 percent of the total cloth produced in India and also adds substantially to export earnings. Handloom is unparalleled in its flexibility and versatility, permitting experimentation and encouraging innovations. What would you say the symbolism of the hand-loom is? How could India benefit from everyone giving up their jobs as lawyers and doctors and taking up the hand-loom?
Hind Swaraj was a very interesting read. Repeated many times in the book, the editor reassures the reader that he does not expect all of his views to be accepted all of the sudden (53) but in time the truthfulness will become more obvient. I especially took part in this delay of understanding when the editor discussed his opinions on medicine. It made sense to me when he spoke about how supplying a cure to indigestion for example, only made the person unaware of reality and instead one that allows the patient to indulge in what would only become a vice. On a scale of this little magnitude, to deny someone something that would only satisfy them temporarily but rather better them in the long run is sensible, but when it comes to the extent of legitimate cures to diseases and even so deluters of illness, depriving someone of medicine that could save their life seems to me as nothing less than wrong. Choosing not to give someone medical help because of their economic insecurities, to me is morally wrong especially when the resource is available and effective. This to me might as well equal not giving someone medicine, when the resource is available and effective, because of the thought that they should have full control over their mind and body and hopefully rid themselves of the illness alone. I feel that this controversy of mine goes hand in hand with the editor’s discussion of means (a robber comes into one’s home and the reader believes that any means to rid his property of the thief is viable) and must be relevant to each situation differently. Although, in the conclusion the editor goes on to say that by not giving medicinal help to someone is not wrong of the doctor, but even merciful because he was just in ‘saving’ the patient from only pampering him with useless drugs (97).
In “The Condition of India: lawyers,” it is the opinion of the Editor that “the lawyers have enslaved, India, and they have accentuated the Hindu-Mahomedan dissensions, and have confirmed English authority” (58). However, they statement is contested with questions such as “who would have protect the poor?” (58). Though lawyers do do good, the profession teaches immorality. In the example of the the Hindus and the Mahomedans fighting, a lawyer would have to pick a side and, in turn, would advance quarrels, instead of squash them. So, in hindsight, “men take up that profession, not in order to help others out of their miseries, but to enrich themselves” (59). Furthermore, without lawyers, the English would not have been able to tighten their grip as much as they did. Gandhi then goes on to denounce other forms of society, such as doctors. So this leads to my question, what would Gandhi say to the use of a doctor for an ailment that was inflicted on us by someone else, unrelated to anything we had done? The injury/disease wasn’t brought on by our own foolish behavior, so what wrong with that? Must nature must always do its work?
Throughout this reading, I found myself agreeing with a lot of what Gandhi was saying. Especially in chapter three, which was based around discontent and how it fuels a capitalistic society. The editor states in this chapter, “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.” If someone is content with life and what they have, then they are less likely to work for more or something better. Discontent is one of the largest driving forces in capitalism to get people to constantly upgrade their items or buy the next new product to fuel our economy. Towards the end of the paragraph, they state, “All these things may be considered good signs, but they may also lead to bad results.” This is said after mentioning how people will die and be outcasted for the system to work. Is it truly a good sign to have to watch others suffer for economic gain and power? While capitalism revolves around discontent in many ways, don’t other forms of government have the same issue?
Hind Swaraj is a perplexing text, from which many of its stances can be both criticized and found enlightening. As others have noted in their own reflections, the stance taken by Gandhi on western medicine and institutions such as hospitals and the role of the doctor in society, is extremely odd. I disagree wholeheartedly the notion that hospitals have a negative effect on society (62), and even more so disagree with the notion that western medicine as a body of knowledge and practice is inherently misguided. However, I see a potential point which could be made in support of Gandhi’s stance: While western medicine as a body of knowledge and an institution has had an incredibly positive effect on the world, its use has become somewhat of a “temporary” solution. Health problems which have as their origin systemically external factors cannot be temporarily dealt with by technical means (i.e. medicine). This might be what Gandhi was trying to communicate, however, he overreached in his critique to encompass the extremely positive qualities of western medicine as an historical institution. Another interesting and contradictory passage that piqued my interest was section 8 The Condition of India. Specifically, Gandhi makes the claim that India was becoming more and more secular, and through this secularization, being more and more negatively affected by “modern civilization”. While I can definitely see the merits of this claim, as colonialism in India subverted the decisions and needs of Indian citizens for those of the British ruling class, his view of religion, or at least piety before “god” (of the Spinoza variety) as the solution does not accurately show the influence of religion or of civilization. Organized religion has had a significant hand in shaping the material conditions of individuals, groups, and nations across history, just like the increasingly secular, post-enlightenment western society. Creating this dichotomy to me at least seems to obfuscates the relationship between any kind of institution and the conditions of groups which they shape. Overall this was an enlightening read, and one that has many notable insights and points of constructive critique.
Is Gandhi’s critique of western civilization well founded, or is it skewed by an unrealistic and at times blatantly false perspective of the benefits and reality of Western civilization?
In chapter 5 “The condition of England” Gandhi caught my attention when he compared the government/parliament of England to a sterile woman as well as a prostitute. He made this comparison because “parliament has not yet of its own accord done a single good thing, hence I have compared it to a sterile woman. The natural condition of that Parliament is such that, without outside pressure, it can do nothing. It is like a prostitute because it is under the control of ministers who change from time to time (p.29).” This statement leads me to believe that Gandhi finds women to be useless if they cannot reproduce, meaning that reproduction is their only purpose in life? Due to criticism from a friend, Gandhi explains that he does regret using the term “prostitute” but it seems that he never regretted using the term “sterile women” which in my opinion makes his statement even worse. He owned up to one thing but failed to address the other. There could be some underlying meaning/explanation that I am failing to interpret but I am curious if this has been addressed or if it will be. In our society especially today I have a hard time believing that this book would have been published if it had still included analogies like this. Since this book is from 1909 and Gandhi has passed on will these issues just casually be dismissed? When the book was originally published did readers bring these issues to attention?
I thought the same thing, I reread this part afew times to see if I was missing something. The idea that Gandhi may only attribute a woman’s worth with reproduction is extremely concerning, especially considering I’ve always thought he and I shared linear views of most things, a super uncomfortable rude awakening.
I also found this part to be extremely interesting and worthy of criticism. I think that it could be helpful to understand these statements through the lens of Western colonialism and the social norms that are also imposed though colonialism. At the time of writing this, India had already been colonized for roughly 100 years, and Gandhi was raised and socialized within a colonized society. I believe that colonialism does not only include economic extraction of colonies, but also an importation of the colonists world views and societal norms that are embodied in their way of governance. In this way, colonization can be understood as a relationship, and we can begin to understand how patriarchal norms could have been imported and normalized in India (this happened in TONS of other colonies too), and then realized and brought to life in the mind of individual actors. Similarly, and also of interest to me is how colonial rule influences the conception and reality of the caste system in India, here’s a short read on that which I found really interesting:
I want to make it clear that in no way am I excusing sexists sentiments, but I think it’s really interesting to think about it in socio-historical contexts that can help us understand how this way of thinking came to be.
In Gandhi’s chapter regarding doctors, I found his argument to be very interesting. Gandhi makes a point to say that being a doctor is a “profit-driven occupation” (62) and that “hospitals are institutions for propagating sin” (61). What confused me after reading this chapter was Gandhi’s inability to demonstrate a realistic example of his argument. His example of eating too much and having indigestion, which resulted in going to the doctor for medicine, is barely considered an example to his criticism of doctors and hospitals as an institution. I do understand that Gandhi was trying to relate to the reader by putting the example in simpler terms, but I disagree with his view of “indulgence” (62). Since Covid-19 has become such a present issue in our lives, I could only think of what his thoughts might be regarding the vaccine. Since we are all living in a pandemic and understand the devastation it has made on our population, being that so many lives were taken to Covid, how might Gandhi view medicine today? Gandhi’s views of holistic health are valid, but with a virus that is spread so easily, indulging in medicine is necessary in order to live. Would Gandhi support the Covid-19 vaccine, or would he still believe that this illness, if treated with medicine by doctors, is considered a “vice” (61).
I found the chapter “What is Swaraj?” in Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj, interesting as it introduced a discourse in the perception of reality and power. Gandhi writes through a dialogue with the reader and expresses his fear that they perceive ‘Swaraj’ differently.
The Sanskrit translation of ‘Swaraj’ is self or one’s own. I find this concept for multiple reasons, firstly the discourse between the reader and the editor about the meaning of this world in the context of India illustrates that there is not a set reality of what this word would mean if applied.
Gandhi illustrates the reader’s opinion back to them, writing that they “have well drawn the picture. In effect it means this: that we want English rule without the Englishman. You want the tiger’s nature, but not the tiger; what is to say, you would make India English, and, when it becomes English…This is not the Swaraj that I want”(28). I find this theme of discourse of reality and understanding to be interesting because it illustrates how perception can weaken communities. It is in the benefit of the English, for instance, for this type of disagreement to remain and divide those who are suffering from uniting.
How does the idea of one’s self or self-reliance influence the power of the collective?
On page 56, Gandhi discusses Swaraj and the freedom of India from its colonial ties to England. He mentions that modern civilization enslaves the population, and that Swaraj is the freedom of everyone from this slavery. Gandhi mentions that the influence of western civilization specifically is the reason that people are enslaved and that those in this condition may see the universe as also enslaved due to “abject condition” Would Gandhi agree that Americans living in high consumption capitalism are also enslaved? Giving examples of the 40 hour work week, inflation, and hierarchies of income could it be predicted that Gandhi would agree the United States never “left slavery”, or is this the “abject condition” that he mentions?
This was my first time actually reading Gandhi and I found it to be very different than what I was expecting. In his chapter “Passive Resistance”, he talks about how passive resistance is soul-force which is superior to body-force. Which I’ve never heard passive resistance being described as soul-force. “Passive resistance, that is, soul-force, is matchless. It is superior to the force of arms. How, then, can it be considered only a weapon of the weak? Physical-force men are strangers to the courage that is requisite in a passive resister. Do you believe that a coward can ever disobey a law that he dislikes? Extremists are considered to be advocates of brute force. Why do they, then, talk about obeying laws? I do not blame them. They can say nothing else. When they succeed in driving out the English and they themselves become governors, they will want you and me to obey their laws. And that is a fitting thing for their constitution. But a passive resister will say he will not obey a law that is against his conscience, even though he may be blown to pieces at the mouth of cannon”. It’s a long quote but I think it really shows how he views passive resistance as the more effective form of resistance. He believes that the passive resister makes a greater point because he’s not creating violence because he disagrees, but shows that he’s choosing not to do something and will take the punishment. He talks later about examples in India where passive resistance occurred, but it makes me wonder what he would think about modern protests. Especially what he would think about Greta Thunberg being the leader and face of school strike for climate. How would he view protests online of purposefully not watching something because it goes against your beliefs? or avoiding shopping somewhere as a form of passive resistance? Would he think that the internet and social media have a place in passive resistance or would he consider it a hinderance?
In Walden, Thoreau discusses a distaste for the railroad in that it doesn’t work in harmony with nature and humans are now too busy to enjoy life’s simpler moments that make an individual whole. The railway, through Thoreaus lens, has expedited what was already a lifestyle too consumed by time, factory bells, schedules etc. Not to mention the environmental harm that comes with such a system, “it seems as if the earth had got a race now worthy to inhabit it. If all were as it seems and men made the elements their servants for noble ends!” -emphasizing humans affinity for treating natural resources as infinite for our own advantage and enjoyment without any concerns for the repercussions of exhaustion. Gandhi makes linear assessments about the railway, modernized transportation, and what seems to be a confusion for the desire to live a life of hustle-bustle and accumulation. He states, “Man is so made by nature as to require him to restrict his movements as far as his hands and feet will take him. If we did not rush about from place to place by means of railways and such other maddening conveniences, much of the confusion that arises would be obviated. Our difficulties are of our own creation. God set a limit to a man’s locomotive ambition in the construction of his body. Men immediately proceeded to discover means of overriding the limit” (51). Both of these observations are interesting to me given that I am someone who loves to travel, however, I can see the perspective that living a day to day life that depends on frequent travel is not only stressful to humans as living beings but to the planet as well. Modern humans are impaired without access to frequent transportation. Without it, one cannot work -in turn they’re rendered unable to provide for themself sustenance and shelter. To reiterate, this is not an argument against occasional travel and exploration, it is an evaluation and analysis of everyday transportation and if it’s necessary or unnatural. Do you agree that the constant dependence on modern transportation stunts the growth of humans and what is their Devine design to cohabitate and live harmoniously with nature? Do you think living a life where you must always be elsewhere to provide for your livelihood is unsustainable?
In the chapter “Why was India lost,” Gandhi addresses the English economic control over India and asserts that “The English have not taken India; we have given it to them. They are not in India because of their strength, but because we keep them… Who assisted the companies officers? Who was tempted at the sight of their silver? Who bought their goods? History testifies that we did all of this. In order to become rich all at once, we welcomed the Company’s officers with open arms. We assisted them.” (39-40) I have conflicting thoughts about this statement. Firstly, I feel as though this might be failing to address the power relations associated with the English colonization of India, and the subsequent shift in societal norms due to the power relations embodied in the colonial process. Further, I think that the consequences of that colonization are not given ample thought in this analysis, namely the colonization of the mind that results from such endeavors that has the power to shift social dynamics and allow for the “welcoming” of colonial actors. I also think that naming the particular socioeconomic class of Indians that welcomed English rule would provide valuable insight and nuance to this analysis. I am not super familiar with these relations, but I would infer that the upper class of Indian society would have been the ones who welcomed India’s colonizations and were “tempted at the sight of their silver,” given that they would profit off of the colonization as well. However, I do think that taking a certain amount of accountability in allowing for colonization to occur does provide a valuable framework in terms of mapping the process of decolonization in that it provides easily identifiable ways to change the things that colonial subjects have the power to change peacefully: their own decisions. Do you think that there should be more emphasis placed on the power imbalances associated with English rule in this discourse? Could the rhetoric of taking personal accountability for injustices that one is subjected to possibly be a harmful narrative?
I found the discussion of soul-force in “Passive Resistance” to be very intriguing. The following quote especially caught my attention: “Everybody admits that sacrifice of self is infinitely superior to sacrifice of others. Moreover, if this kind of force is used in a case that is unjust, only the person using it suffers. He does not make others suffer for his mistakes. Men have before now done many things which were subsequently found to have been wrong. No man can claim that he is absolutely in the right or that a particular thing is wrong because he thinks so, but it is wrong for him so long as that is his deliberate judgement. It is therefore meet that he should not do that which he knows to be wrong, and suffer the consequence whatever it may be. This is the key to the use of soul-force.”
Gandhi is challenging us through this quote to stand up for what we believe is right and stand against what we believe is wrong but in a way that untimely does not negatively affect others. This concept to me is very eye-opening as it introduces the idea that we have the opportunity to make change within the world without risking negative effects of our actions for others if we do happen to be in the wrong. How would our society today differ if more of the world’s population employed soul-force rather than other forms of force? Would any effective action take place or would those who use other forms of force simply dominate those who employ soul-force?
In Civilisation, Gandhi’s views of progress throughout the industrial revolution are explored. “Formerly, men were made slaves under physical compulsion, now they are enslaved by the temptation of money and of the luxuries that money can buy,” (36). Gandhi refers to such “progress” as a miserable failure regarding the pursuit to increase bodily comforts. Much later, Gandhi makes a very interesting point about personal rights, and what rights even are in his discussion of passive resistance. Gandhi defines passive resistance as “a method of securing rights by personal suffering; it is the reverse of resistance by arms,” (90). I thought of no-impact man, as a personal attempt to resist the progression of climate change. Collective passive resistance is clearly a route of securing rights that have been denied throughout society, but given the extent of societal problems today, how can we ask of those suffering already from “progress” to suffer further? No impact man had the means to deny himself and his family of simple luxuries, but how can others who are systematically denied those luxuries, deny themselves further in order to secure access to their right to those luxuries or others? Or, is it the duty of those with such access, to resist the ways in which the system secures there rights while simultaneously denying others? I think Gandhi points to subjects we have touched upon in SD, specifically in that the majority of people in the world are non-elites, and that there is immense power in our numbers. He earlier uses a metaphor to emphasize the need to strongly unite, and I think there is much to say on collective passive resistance of non-elites throughout the world, bypassing the reliance on elites to take matters in their own hands. Take for example: food aid and access to food, a topic we are fairly familiar with. I ask, how might those who are systematically denied access to food, participate in passive resistance of the global food system in order to secure their access to their right to food? Or, is it the duty of those with such access, to passively resist the ways in which the system secures there rights while simultaneously denying others?
As someone else mentioned, this too was my first time reading any of Gandhi’s work. There were instances when I agreed with him wholeheartedly, but there were other times where his ideology would give me pause to think. Sometimes I was honestly just shocked by his ideals. At first, I was shocked with Gandhi’s stance on western medicine (62), my logic being: how could hospitals and western medicine be a bad thing when it has saved countless lives and improved the lives of many others? But then I began to think on the subject a bit more and this saying came to mind: “Doctors are to black women, what cops are to black men.” There is an implicit bias in modern medicine that black women are impervious to pain because of their race and overly dramatic about pain because of their gender. This has led to a lot of black women being dismissed and not getting the treatment that they need and deserve at hospitals and doctors’ offices. These are issues rooted in western medicine to this day. However, I do not agree with Gandhi’s logic behind why he opposes western medicine, but I can understand his hesitance when shown in a different context. I wonder how Gandhi would feel now about western medicine now given the current global circumstances.
In Ghandi’s Hind Swaraj, In “The Condition of England”, Ghandi states “It is said that they change
them every seven years. These views swing like the pendulum of a clock and are never steadfast. The people would follow a powerful orator or a man who gives them parties, receptions, etc. As are the people, so is their Parliament. They have certainly one quality very strongly developed. They will never allow their country to be lost. If any person were to cast an evil eye on it, they would pluck
out his eyes. But that does not mean that the nation possesses every other virtue or that it should be imitated. If India copies England, it is my firm conviction that she will be ruined.”
Ghandi is stating the different values of India and England. England in his eyes doesn’t have a steadfast value system and just goes with the seasons based on popularity. Do many countries have this view of the colonialists who take over their land? I wonder what other nations or tribes believe about their colonialist’s value system.
Gandhi talks about the civil unrest occurring within his home country of India due to the current British occupation of the country. He goes on to talk about how to successfully overthrow British rule and unless you are familiar with Gandhi, his answer is vastly different than you would expect compared to how similar circumstances have gone throughout history. When America was colonized by the British we took up arms and fought a bloody war to end their tyranny and establish our own country. In Gandhi’s opinion, taking arms to fight an oppressor is an ignorant way to achieve what you want by sacrificing others. Instead, Gandhi would rather sacrifice himself through civil disobedience. This “sacrifice of self” is through disobeying laws in a peaceful manner to get the oppressors to change their views. Do you think that civil disobedience is the way to go about change and is it more effective than violence? Can you think of any other examples of civil disobedience inspiring change throughout history?
Before this class I had never really read any of Gandhi’s work. It was different than I thought it would be and sometimes difficult to tie in all together. In one chapter Gandhi was talking about the meaning of true civilization. He talks about India’s civilization as above all else and “sound at the foundation” (49). Europe learns from Greece and Rome, and Gandhi says this is their downfall because they are living by trying to avoid the past countries mistakes. He then goes on to say that India has nothing to learn from anyone else. I think this mindset is rather destructive. It is one thing to have pride in the past and look down upon modernization, but having the mindset that nothing needs to be learned from others can be detrimental. He claims civilization eventually translates to mastery over our minds and passions, through pointing out the path of duty for man (49). I think my main question is does this translate to the way we think now about our civilization? Would his mindset be changed if he lived in the world we live in today? I am confused by this concept but hope this makes some sense.
In Hind Swaraj, Ghandi writes about his perspective on what a home-rule would look like for India. In this writing, he takes the role of the ‘editor’. When responding to the reader, who states that India should have its own military, own splendor, and “then will India’s voice ring through the world” (Ghandi 27). The editor responds, “In effect it means this: that we want English rule without the Englishman. You want the tiger’s nature, but not the tiger; that is to say, you would make India English. And when it becomes English, it will be called not Hindustan but Englistan. This is not the Swaraj that I want” (Ghandi 27).
Another example is the railways. The reader proclaims that the editor is against so many of the things he understands to be ‘good’, while the editor explains that the railways are being used to force Indians into servitude for the British, and also spreading disease.
The flaw in the reader’s thinking here is that to simply remove English presence would be to remove English rule. The government structures are formed in a fashion similar to the British, and so is the society. I think we see this occurring in many places that were former English colonies, but now have their own rule. This is especially true concerning the idea that British rule encouraged a false narrative of divisiveness in order to place themselves as the ones who unite this area. In what ways do we see English influence continuing to govern over facets of our lives in America, but also in other former colonies? Would Ghandi anticipate this?
Ghandi mentions how the work of Western doctors is sinful and that there’s like a loop of infecting to infect and the ill person getting sicker from this thus depending on said doctor and furthering dependency on hospitals and the pharmaceutical industry.
This mental slavery he mentions furthers the dependency one has on entities instead of self governance,
How does Ghandi define productivity when he also rejects the idea of dependency?
Marx and Ghandi have similar ideas when it comes to mental and physical slavery of those that hold power. What does Ghandi believe to be productive and fufilling work while also supporting communities?
On page 52, Gandhi 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. India has never been such a country.” I wanted to discuss more on what Gandhi meant by this and the significance of this exchange between the reader and the editor. In this conversation Gandhi is cautioning the reader against cultivating differences between religion. This excerpt is impressive because Gandhi’s opinions from over a hundred years ago are still relevant today. How did you interpret this exchange? Does this excerpt still hold significance today?
In the 9th chapter of Hind Swaraj, Gandhi says “you and I and others who consider ourselves civilised and superior persons imagine that we are one nation” (48) which got me thinking does he feel like he is superior to the Englishmen, or does he feel like he is superior to everyone because he is more knowledgable about these things? When speaking about civilisation and how India was one nation before the English came in and divided them Gandhi talks about how the railways played a part in the separation of India. I feel as though the railways could be used as a way to connect the whole country not as a way to divide it. Gandhi speaks about how they “spread the bubonic plague”, move the masses from place to place, and how they increase famines. (46) Does he feel like the railways helped lead to the separation because they separate the classes, or because they are moving away from how India was before the English?
Ghandi has some very interesting gripes with western modernity and the society it has brought along with it. Specifically intriguing are his views on western medicine in which he believes is rather useless. His big issue seems to be that modern day medicine relieves you from the suffering you’ve brought upon yourself, which Ghandi seems to believe we are better off learning from and enduring rather than dismissing. This idea that sickness is a result of your own wrongdoing excludes many instances of unavoidable illness and is especially pertinent in the midst of today’s global pandemic. What would Ghandi’s response be to someone who is taking all precautions in regards to Covid safety and has always treated their body like a temple yet still contracts the virus by being unvaccinated in the wrong place at the wrong time? Vaccination as a whole would be an interesting counter to Ghandi as these are things we are almost required to receive to do things like enroll in school or travel across countries i.e. participate in society. Vaccines are not a cure though but instead a prevention, and Ghandi particularly has an issue with treating a sickness, so I wonder what his stance on preventive medicine would be considering there are illnesses that are unavoidable even when practicing good health and morals. That is simply the facts; there are instances where people contract viruses or diseases through others irresponsibility, so is one supposed to just withstand the misfortune that’s brought upon them?
I found the machinery chapter particularly interesting, as technology has advanced significantly since this was written. What would Gandhi think of this now? The goal of machinery and technology is to make things easier for us, but does it actually make things harder? The editor notes why would you need to purchase glassware and lamps, when you can create your own with homegrown cotton, and clay pottery. Technology like this can erase culture, and cause us to lose knowledge throughout time. My question is, what forms of technology/machinery have erased artisanal and culturally traditional practices wether it be in the arts, or basic means of survival? Would this technology cause loss of knowledge that could be essential to know without technology and machinery?
Similar to Thoreau, Gandhi had a particularly negative perspective on the innovation of railways and locomotives. Thoreau emphasizes the disconnection it brings between man and nature. Both individuals see it as a way to pull society away from the much simpler, ‘good life’. While Thoreau also includes the negative impacts this start to industrialization had on our surrounding environments, Gandhi views the issue as one that is pulling each of us away from our higher power. He states that “man is so made by nature as to require him to restrict his movements as far as his hands and feet will take him” (49). Gandhi feels that in pushing these limits God gifted man with, we are abusing and in pushing our Maker further away. I find both of these perspectives extremely eye-opening, and quite easy to agree with. With each new innovation and piece of technology we are widening the gaps and increasing disconnect not only between our individual selves, but between the relationships of man and nature, and man and God. Do you think there could be a future where through our newfound technologies we have the ability to strengthen these relationships we are currently destroying? If so, what would it look like and how can we begin on this path?
A belated post, but one of the more intriguing points of discussion I found in this weeks reading was in Chapter V, The Condition of England. Gandhi’s criticism of English Parliament is bold and he makes very concrete statements. Some of them being that the members of Parliament are hypocritical and selfish, there is no finality in their work, everything done today can be undone tomorrow, and members vote their party without a thought. I find these claims quite parallel to many claims made of United States government and politics today, and would say Gandhi would likely uphold these assertions unto us. I’m curious as to what Gandhi would view as the perfect government, does government hold a place in his world? Does Hind Swaraj allude to self governance in as an extreme of a form as possibly anarchy?
In the chapter titled “What is Swaraj”, the reader and the editor engage in discourse about what would happen if they drove away the English in their government. They talk about how they want to drive the English away, but they would still keep their constitution and carry on the government the way it has been. This quote inspired my next questions: “Because India has become impoverished by their government. They take away our money from year to year. The most important posts are reserved for themselves. We are kept in a state of slavery. They behave insolently towards us and disregard our feelings.”
Do you think that keeping the same governing style of their former controllers would create problems in the future regarding nationalism, or do you think that India would be able to move on from this rule even with the same constitution still in place? Think about it in terms of the United States, if hypothetically, black people became the majority of the country after slavery ended, would it work out for them to use the same constitution as the white people that enslaved them once did?
In the chapter “Ghandi On Machinery”, he shares his view on industrialization and machinery. In 1922, he states that “India does not need to be industrialised in the modern sense of the term.” He also mentions that it is ot his intention to oppose machinery and mills, but that his point is what is best for their country. The ‘craze’ of ‘labour saving machinery’ is something he is strongly opposed to and wishes for people to continue to use machinery for help instead of a hindrance. One of the discussions dominating the modern day has been centered around technology, is it doing more harm than good? Or vice versa? If he were alive today, how do you think Ghandi would react to the reliance humans seem to have on ‘labour saving machinery’. Had more people agreed with and/or followed Ghandi’s views on machinery at the time, how different would the world be and what might that look like?
After reading this “What is Swaraj” chapter I have realized that Ghandi lead his party of followers not to abolish but to change the government control that was oppressing them. These two things are very different and changing a government is a-lot easier than trying to abolish one. He goes on later in the chapter to talk about how changing the government too much could also cause problems because this system of government that India had was efficient, it just did not support the Indian population in anyway. Ghandi see’s ways for this economic system to change for the better, and support the surrounding communities and all of India. He states in his conclusion, “If a lawyer, he will give up his profession, and take up a hand-loom.” (87) “If a wealthy man, he will devote his money to establishing hand-looms, and encourage others to use hand-made goods by wearing them himself.” (88) This quote embodies the efforts he saw most help-full for stimulating community growth as well as community wealth. Making their own clothes and selling them locally is a great to start a connection between community members, and disconnection from the hierarchal European system.
I found Ghandi’s view on modern medicine and doctors to be very interesting. Ghandi takes a strong position against the modern doctors and medicine, claiming that these aspects of modern civilization encourage excessive consumption. According to Ghandi, modern doctors exploit people for their hard earned money by charging them to fix problems that do not need to be fixed. In Chapter XII, the editor says, “Let us consider: the business of a doctor is to take care of the body, or, properly speaking, not even that. Their business is really to rid the body of diseases that may afflict it. How do these diseases arise? Surely by our own negligence or indulgence” (61). I believe that Ghandi is saying that if we all were to live more intentionally and adopt simpler, more natural lifestyles, then there would be no need for modern doctors and medicine. According to Ghandi, what are some indicators of good health?
What role does nature play in Ghandi’s contempt with modern doctors?
Gandhi’s view of what a perfect society looks like is very interesting in my opinion. He believes that village society is the best way of approaching development, each person having their own responsibilities and working within a village network to ensure everyone’s needs are met. In some of his letters, his counterpart actually disagrees with Gandhi on the fact that there can still be modern development without all of the corruption that India has faced. The counterpart saying that it is still possible to have all of the qualities Gandhi is looking for without having the get rid of many modern technologies that we see today, being that these technologies are essential in today’s environment. How would Gandhi’s vision of development, in his words, be implemented today? What challenges would we face adopting a village society?
In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi makes many points about civilization that I found very intriguing and true. In chapter 8, Gandhi replies to the reader’s question of “how did the British take India?” by elaborating on how they did not lose India, but gave it to the British (39). Gandhi later explains that the British are under the spell of civilization, unaware of their wrongdoing. They are unaware of their wrongdoings to themselves and to India because they are blinded by advancement and capital, which Gandhi says are irreligious. Of course, in a capitalist society, imperialism underlies all behaviors. When talking about the blight of the British, Gandhi states, “We rarely find people arguing against themselves. Those who are intoxicated by modern civilization 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” (35). This quote really stood out to me because this is something I notice in American society every day. People are so lost in the luxuries that capitalism creates, they do not realize the negative effects their materialistic behavior is causing. People do not want to believe in climate change because we are so comfortable in the system that perpetuates it, and if they did accept this, would they care to change from a system they are comfortable in? I do believe that people would change if they understood and accepted the negative effects their behaviors had. In a way, this next quote by Gandhi describes how people do escape this cycle. “When a man rises from sleep, he twists his limbs and is restless. It takes some time before he is entirely awakened… Rising from sleep, we do not continue in a comatose state, but, according to our ability, sooner or later, we are completely restored to our senses. So shall we be free from the present unrest which no one likes” (24). Gandhi was, of course, talking about India in this instance rising out of oppression by the British, but this could very well apply to many different cases. I feel like America (and perhaps the rest of the Global North) has been asleep way too long (maybe even sleep walking, destroying all that oppose them) and we are finally awakening, realizing how our imperialistic actions and behaviors have damaged the world and its people. I think we are still in a comatose-like state, not quite fully awakened, but moving toward it. This full awakening will happen once Americans realize the detriment that they are actually causing to themselves, as capitalist society creates some selfish people.
In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi discusses his views on Western medicine, describing how he sees it as a means in which to indulge in one’s vices without having to suffer the consequences, as nature intended. In the chapter on doctors, Gandhi addresses the editor’s question on why Gandhi is critical of western doctors by answering, “Their business is really to rid the body of diseases that may afflict it. How do these diseases arise? Surely by our negligence or indulgence.” He continues by providing examples of these “indulgences” by saying, “I have indulged in vice, I contract a disease, a doctor cures me, the odds are that I shall repeat the vice. Had the doctor not intervened, Nature would have done its work, and I would have acquired mastery over myself, would have been freed from vice and would have become happy.”
We have already raised the question of how Gandhi would feel about the COVID-19 vaccines amidst the current pandemic, but I follow this by wondering how the world’s views of Gandhi would shift if he lived today and actively fought or preached against the COVID vaccines. Already there are people criticizing Gandhi’s racism and sexism (which is evident throughout this book), included with his highly questionable sexual practices regarding his philosophy on celibacy, but how would the world see Gandhi if he was anti-vaxx today? Would he still be the man with multiple Nobel Peace prize nominations and an award named after him? Would right-wing populations in the West claim Gandhi as one of their own? Would some people who identify as being liberal question the ethics on the vaccine and therefore refuse to get it? Today, who would be considered the Gandhi of the anti-vaxx movement?
I found Gandhi’s take on education in chapter 18, “Education” to be very interesting, especially his view that education overall does more harm than good because more people abuse education as an instrument. While I agree that education can often be used in unhealthy or harmful ways, I don’t believe that education does more harm than good. On the other hand, I think that at least a minimal form of education is essential for Gandhi to be able to spread his views and gain followers. If no one in India ever received any education, Gandhi’s attempts at nonviolent resistance wouldn’t mean much, because no one would understand the need for nonviolent resistance, much less what it is. I appreciated the reader’s question in chapter 18 that asks Gandhi, “ If you had not received higher education, how would you have been able to explain to me the things that you have?” While I understood Gandhi’s response later on about the negative aspects of forcing English into India, I think that the overall point of the need for some education went untouched. If Gandhi did not get the opportunity to receive higher education, would he still be advocating against education and learning English?
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 2:39 PM SD 3800 Classics in Sustainable Development wrote:
> Cameron Stuart commented: “I found Gandhi’s take on education in chapter > 18, “Education” to be very interesting, especially his view that education > overall does more harm than good because more people abuse education as an > instrument. While I agree that education can often be used ” >
In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi writes “In trying to learn from them, the Europeans imagine that they will avoid the mistakes of Greece and Rome. Such is their pitiable condition. In the midst of all this, India remains immovable, and that is her glory. It is a charge against India that her people are so uncivilized, ignorant and stolid, that it is not possible to induce them to adopt any changes…What we have tested and found true on the anvil of experience, we dare not change. Many thrust their advice upon India, and she remains steady,” (p.67) The question I have about this is how Gandhi might address tension between local traditions in India, as I’m sure there are multiple cultures which make up the national culture of India which he refers to as the steady and glorious. How would he address local conflicts outside of the English invaders? Were these traditions he speaks of the result of the practicing of different traditions, how were the ones he refers to determined to be good and true? Are they only considered ideal in Gandhi’s opinion?
Throughout these readings, I found the chapter, “Gandhi on Machinery” the most interesting. In this chapter, Gandhi expresses his opinions on industrialization and technology. He states, “India does not need to be industrialized in the modern sense of the term.” Although he is not completely opposed to new machinery, he does not think it is best for the community. He believes that machinery should only be used for help. He also discusses his opinions on labor-saving machinery. In our current world, labor-saving machinery has increased our productivity as humans. In a way, this labor-saving machinery has reinforced the expectation that humans need to be productive all of the time. If you’re not being productive, then you’re not contributing to your own well-being. Do you think that Gandhi would agree that modern technology and machinery have reinforced the productivity of humans? What would he think that our modern technologies are being used for better or for worse?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
Gandhi’s ‘Hind Swaraj’ is a fascinating book that offers numerous perspectives that shocked me while reading. The Editor, who represents Gandhi, denounces aspects of civilizations such as railways, lawyers, and doctors. (64) The editor argued that “hospitals are institutions for the propagation of sin.” (61) The edition of ‘Hind Swiraj’ that I am reading has a note for this specific quote, adding that Gandhi regretted the language of this quote but not his views, adding that “the views in question concerned the tendency of modern medicine to neglect the soul, i.e the spiritual and moral foundations of bodily health.”
In 2021 during an ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, these quotes make Gandhi sound more like an anti-vaxxer than a non-violent leader nominated for five Nobel Peace prizes in his lifetime. As of today, Gandhi’s home country of India has the second-highest total number of covid-19 cases and the third-highest total of deaths from covid-19.
After all the suffering that covid-19 has caused in our society, do you think Gandhi would change his views on doctors and hospitals if he were alive today?
One of the parts of “Hind Swaraj” that I found most shocking was Gandhi’s views on doctors. Gandhi rejects “modern” Western medicine on the basis that it is damaging to the soul, condemning medicine as a “parasitical profession” (62). He believes that illness is the “the punishment deserved” for indulgences and that medicine eases the body while weakening the mind, allowing people to escape the consequences of their actions (63). As a result, Gandhi condemns hospitals as “institutions for propagating sin” and calls for doctors to “give up medicine, and understand that, rather than meaning bodies, [they] should mend souls” (63, 117). While I agree with Gandhi’s call for holistic medicine with long-term solutions, I was surprised and troubled by a majority of his viewpoints on this topic. His opinions seem to reflect a view of suffering as a necessary consequence of indulgence and other wrongs, which I think erases the nuance of many people’s experiences of illness and is insensitive to many people’s suffering. I also think that this view contradicts Gandhi’s advocacy for nonviolence. If he is unwilling to use violence and the suffering it brings as a means to a revolutionary end, why does he believe that suffering is not only a justified but desirable means for people to learn how to interact with their bodies? How can suffering be explained as a learning experience and consequence of action when it seems like many people needlessly suffer?
The readings for this week discuss civilization and how westerns portray this as a good thing. However, the reader and the editor in this reading feel differently about England trying to Civil India, “it is not necessarily any particular fault of the English people, but the condition is due to modern civilization. It is a civilization only in name. Under it the nation of Europe is becoming degraded and ruined day by day” (33). How do you think that No Impact Man would react to this description of civilization? Do you believe that he would agree that “formerly, men were made slaves under physical compulsion, they are enslaved by temptation of money and the luxuries that money can buy” (36)?
This was my first time reading any of Gandhi’s work. There were multiple instances where I was very surprised by his views, the first being his misogynistic comments. To Gandhi, English Parliament is like a sterile woman because it has not “done a single good thing.” In addition, it can be likened to a prostitute because it does nothing “without outside pressure.” While these metaphors can and should be deeply problematized, based on my book notes Gandhi later regretted them.
The second metaphor I found shocking was Gandhi’s statement that doctors and lawyers are like branches of a tree, whose roots are immoral. Doctors, he believes, enable “immoral” behavior. For instance, if someone overeats the doctor simply can prescribe a pill and they will feel better. This enables the behavior and reproduces it as the person faces no “consequences.” According to Gandhi, doctors, and hospitals are “institutions for propagating sin.” What is particularly off-putting to me about Gandhi’s framing of this, is the underlying idea he is pushing that health is a moral obligation, and it is a personal failure to be unhealthy. I am specifically interested in how his framing of health and immorality would be in conversation with feminist writers, particularly those involved in fat liberation and body neutrality movements. My question is, why is it beneficial to Gandhi’s argument against English rule, to frame health as a moral obligation?
As someone else stated, this was my first time reading Gandhi and was intrigued by his views and thoughts on colonization. Specifically his thoughts on religion and that the west views India as a ” lazy people and that Europeans are industrious and enterprising”. However, he argues that every religion (Hinduism, Islam, Christianity) is meant to “teach us to 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.” (38). This mindset reminds me and seems extremely similar to Thoreau’s idea of how to achieve happiness. While Thoreau used nature and the environment to detach himself from worldly possessions and needs, Gandhi uses religion. I also found his opinions on lawyers, doctors, and railways interesting even going as far as to say “have impoverished the country so much so that, if we do not wake up in time, we shall be ruined.” (41). His argument against these people again is similar to Thoreau’s idea of civilizations and the reliance we have on institutions. Gandhi explains that civilization is a disease and has brought about countless hardships to India. This brings up an interesting thought to me, even with native peoples who live in small tribes, while they may not be considered a large civilization, they still maintain social institutions to keep order. While these groups do not have traditional doctors or lawyers, they have medicine men and chiefs. These people rely on the medicine men to keep them healthy and trust what they say without hesitation as we do with doctors. They also rely on the chiefs to make large decisions that impact all their lives and settle arguments similar to lawyers and politicians. This brings me to my question if Gandhi does not think we can or should rely on people like this, what would his ideal version of a cohesive people look like?
When reading Gahndi’s conclusion I found the mentioning of the hand-loom interesting. “If a lawyer, he will give up his profession, and take up a hand-loom.” (87) “If a wealthy man, he will devote his money to establishing hand-looms, and encourage others to use hand-made goods by wearing them himself.” (88) I did not know what it was so I decided to look it up. The Handloom plays a very important role in the country’s economy. This sector contributes nearly 19 percent of the total cloth produced in India and also adds substantially to export earnings. Handloom is unparalleled in its flexibility and versatility, permitting experimentation and encouraging innovations. What would you say the symbolism of the hand-loom is? How could India benefit from everyone giving up their jobs as lawyers and doctors and taking up the hand-loom?
Hind Swaraj was a very interesting read. Repeated many times in the book, the editor reassures the reader that he does not expect all of his views to be accepted all of the sudden (53) but in time the truthfulness will become more obvient. I especially took part in this delay of understanding when the editor discussed his opinions on medicine. It made sense to me when he spoke about how supplying a cure to indigestion for example, only made the person unaware of reality and instead one that allows the patient to indulge in what would only become a vice. On a scale of this little magnitude, to deny someone something that would only satisfy them temporarily but rather better them in the long run is sensible, but when it comes to the extent of legitimate cures to diseases and even so deluters of illness, depriving someone of medicine that could save their life seems to me as nothing less than wrong. Choosing not to give someone medical help because of their economic insecurities, to me is morally wrong especially when the resource is available and effective. This to me might as well equal not giving someone medicine, when the resource is available and effective, because of the thought that they should have full control over their mind and body and hopefully rid themselves of the illness alone. I feel that this controversy of mine goes hand in hand with the editor’s discussion of means (a robber comes into one’s home and the reader believes that any means to rid his property of the thief is viable) and must be relevant to each situation differently. Although, in the conclusion the editor goes on to say that by not giving medicinal help to someone is not wrong of the doctor, but even merciful because he was just in ‘saving’ the patient from only pampering him with useless drugs (97).
In “The Condition of India: lawyers,” it is the opinion of the Editor that “the lawyers have enslaved, India, and they have accentuated the Hindu-Mahomedan dissensions, and have confirmed English authority” (58). However, they statement is contested with questions such as “who would have protect the poor?” (58). Though lawyers do do good, the profession teaches immorality. In the example of the the Hindus and the Mahomedans fighting, a lawyer would have to pick a side and, in turn, would advance quarrels, instead of squash them. So, in hindsight, “men take up that profession, not in order to help others out of their miseries, but to enrich themselves” (59). Furthermore, without lawyers, the English would not have been able to tighten their grip as much as they did. Gandhi then goes on to denounce other forms of society, such as doctors. So this leads to my question, what would Gandhi say to the use of a doctor for an ailment that was inflicted on us by someone else, unrelated to anything we had done? The injury/disease wasn’t brought on by our own foolish behavior, so what wrong with that? Must nature must always do its work?
Throughout this reading, I found myself agreeing with a lot of what Gandhi was saying. Especially in chapter three, which was based around discontent and how it fuels a capitalistic society. The editor states in this chapter, “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.” If someone is content with life and what they have, then they are less likely to work for more or something better. Discontent is one of the largest driving forces in capitalism to get people to constantly upgrade their items or buy the next new product to fuel our economy. Towards the end of the paragraph, they state, “All these things may be considered good signs, but they may also lead to bad results.” This is said after mentioning how people will die and be outcasted for the system to work. Is it truly a good sign to have to watch others suffer for economic gain and power? While capitalism revolves around discontent in many ways, don’t other forms of government have the same issue?
Hind Swaraj is a perplexing text, from which many of its stances can be both criticized and found enlightening. As others have noted in their own reflections, the stance taken by Gandhi on western medicine and institutions such as hospitals and the role of the doctor in society, is extremely odd. I disagree wholeheartedly the notion that hospitals have a negative effect on society (62), and even more so disagree with the notion that western medicine as a body of knowledge and practice is inherently misguided. However, I see a potential point which could be made in support of Gandhi’s stance: While western medicine as a body of knowledge and an institution has had an incredibly positive effect on the world, its use has become somewhat of a “temporary” solution. Health problems which have as their origin systemically external factors cannot be temporarily dealt with by technical means (i.e. medicine). This might be what Gandhi was trying to communicate, however, he overreached in his critique to encompass the extremely positive qualities of western medicine as an historical institution. Another interesting and contradictory passage that piqued my interest was section 8 The Condition of India. Specifically, Gandhi makes the claim that India was becoming more and more secular, and through this secularization, being more and more negatively affected by “modern civilization”. While I can definitely see the merits of this claim, as colonialism in India subverted the decisions and needs of Indian citizens for those of the British ruling class, his view of religion, or at least piety before “god” (of the Spinoza variety) as the solution does not accurately show the influence of religion or of civilization. Organized religion has had a significant hand in shaping the material conditions of individuals, groups, and nations across history, just like the increasingly secular, post-enlightenment western society. Creating this dichotomy to me at least seems to obfuscates the relationship between any kind of institution and the conditions of groups which they shape. Overall this was an enlightening read, and one that has many notable insights and points of constructive critique.
Is Gandhi’s critique of western civilization well founded, or is it skewed by an unrealistic and at times blatantly false perspective of the benefits and reality of Western civilization?
In chapter 5 “The condition of England” Gandhi caught my attention when he compared the government/parliament of England to a sterile woman as well as a prostitute. He made this comparison because “parliament has not yet of its own accord done a single good thing, hence I have compared it to a sterile woman. The natural condition of that Parliament is such that, without outside pressure, it can do nothing. It is like a prostitute because it is under the control of ministers who change from time to time (p.29).” This statement leads me to believe that Gandhi finds women to be useless if they cannot reproduce, meaning that reproduction is their only purpose in life? Due to criticism from a friend, Gandhi explains that he does regret using the term “prostitute” but it seems that he never regretted using the term “sterile women” which in my opinion makes his statement even worse. He owned up to one thing but failed to address the other. There could be some underlying meaning/explanation that I am failing to interpret but I am curious if this has been addressed or if it will be. In our society especially today I have a hard time believing that this book would have been published if it had still included analogies like this. Since this book is from 1909 and Gandhi has passed on will these issues just casually be dismissed? When the book was originally published did readers bring these issues to attention?
I thought the same thing, I reread this part afew times to see if I was missing something. The idea that Gandhi may only attribute a woman’s worth with reproduction is extremely concerning, especially considering I’ve always thought he and I shared linear views of most things, a super uncomfortable rude awakening.
I also found this part to be extremely interesting and worthy of criticism. I think that it could be helpful to understand these statements through the lens of Western colonialism and the social norms that are also imposed though colonialism. At the time of writing this, India had already been colonized for roughly 100 years, and Gandhi was raised and socialized within a colonized society. I believe that colonialism does not only include economic extraction of colonies, but also an importation of the colonists world views and societal norms that are embodied in their way of governance. In this way, colonization can be understood as a relationship, and we can begin to understand how patriarchal norms could have been imported and normalized in India (this happened in TONS of other colonies too), and then realized and brought to life in the mind of individual actors. Similarly, and also of interest to me is how colonial rule influences the conception and reality of the caste system in India, here’s a short read on that which I found really interesting:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-48619734
I want to make it clear that in no way am I excusing sexists sentiments, but I think it’s really interesting to think about it in socio-historical contexts that can help us understand how this way of thinking came to be.
In Gandhi’s chapter regarding doctors, I found his argument to be very interesting. Gandhi makes a point to say that being a doctor is a “profit-driven occupation” (62) and that “hospitals are institutions for propagating sin” (61). What confused me after reading this chapter was Gandhi’s inability to demonstrate a realistic example of his argument. His example of eating too much and having indigestion, which resulted in going to the doctor for medicine, is barely considered an example to his criticism of doctors and hospitals as an institution. I do understand that Gandhi was trying to relate to the reader by putting the example in simpler terms, but I disagree with his view of “indulgence” (62). Since Covid-19 has become such a present issue in our lives, I could only think of what his thoughts might be regarding the vaccine. Since we are all living in a pandemic and understand the devastation it has made on our population, being that so many lives were taken to Covid, how might Gandhi view medicine today? Gandhi’s views of holistic health are valid, but with a virus that is spread so easily, indulging in medicine is necessary in order to live. Would Gandhi support the Covid-19 vaccine, or would he still believe that this illness, if treated with medicine by doctors, is considered a “vice” (61).
I found the chapter “What is Swaraj?” in Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj, interesting as it introduced a discourse in the perception of reality and power. Gandhi writes through a dialogue with the reader and expresses his fear that they perceive ‘Swaraj’ differently.
The Sanskrit translation of ‘Swaraj’ is self or one’s own. I find this concept for multiple reasons, firstly the discourse between the reader and the editor about the meaning of this world in the context of India illustrates that there is not a set reality of what this word would mean if applied.
Gandhi illustrates the reader’s opinion back to them, writing that they “have well drawn the picture. In effect it means this: that we want English rule without the Englishman. You want the tiger’s nature, but not the tiger; what is to say, you would make India English, and, when it becomes English…This is not the Swaraj that I want”(28). I find this theme of discourse of reality and understanding to be interesting because it illustrates how perception can weaken communities. It is in the benefit of the English, for instance, for this type of disagreement to remain and divide those who are suffering from uniting.
How does the idea of one’s self or self-reliance influence the power of the collective?
On page 56, Gandhi discusses Swaraj and the freedom of India from its colonial ties to England. He mentions that modern civilization enslaves the population, and that Swaraj is the freedom of everyone from this slavery. Gandhi mentions that the influence of western civilization specifically is the reason that people are enslaved and that those in this condition may see the universe as also enslaved due to “abject condition” Would Gandhi agree that Americans living in high consumption capitalism are also enslaved? Giving examples of the 40 hour work week, inflation, and hierarchies of income could it be predicted that Gandhi would agree the United States never “left slavery”, or is this the “abject condition” that he mentions?
This was my first time actually reading Gandhi and I found it to be very different than what I was expecting. In his chapter “Passive Resistance”, he talks about how passive resistance is soul-force which is superior to body-force. Which I’ve never heard passive resistance being described as soul-force. “Passive resistance, that is, soul-force, is matchless. It is superior to the force of arms. How, then, can it be considered only a weapon of the weak? Physical-force men are strangers to the courage that is requisite in a passive resister. Do you believe that a coward can ever disobey a law that he dislikes? Extremists are considered to be advocates of brute force. Why do they, then, talk about obeying laws? I do not blame them. They can say nothing else. When they succeed in driving out the English and they themselves become governors, they will want you and me to obey their laws. And that is a fitting thing for their constitution. But a passive resister will say he will not obey a law that is against his conscience, even though he may be blown to pieces at the mouth of cannon”. It’s a long quote but I think it really shows how he views passive resistance as the more effective form of resistance. He believes that the passive resister makes a greater point because he’s not creating violence because he disagrees, but shows that he’s choosing not to do something and will take the punishment. He talks later about examples in India where passive resistance occurred, but it makes me wonder what he would think about modern protests. Especially what he would think about Greta Thunberg being the leader and face of school strike for climate. How would he view protests online of purposefully not watching something because it goes against your beliefs? or avoiding shopping somewhere as a form of passive resistance? Would he think that the internet and social media have a place in passive resistance or would he consider it a hinderance?
In Walden, Thoreau discusses a distaste for the railroad in that it doesn’t work in harmony with nature and humans are now too busy to enjoy life’s simpler moments that make an individual whole. The railway, through Thoreaus lens, has expedited what was already a lifestyle too consumed by time, factory bells, schedules etc. Not to mention the environmental harm that comes with such a system, “it seems as if the earth had got a race now worthy to inhabit it. If all were as it seems and men made the elements their servants for noble ends!” -emphasizing humans affinity for treating natural resources as infinite for our own advantage and enjoyment without any concerns for the repercussions of exhaustion. Gandhi makes linear assessments about the railway, modernized transportation, and what seems to be a confusion for the desire to live a life of hustle-bustle and accumulation. He states, “Man is so made by nature as to require him to restrict his movements as far as his hands and feet will take him. If we did not rush about from place to place by means of railways and such other maddening conveniences, much of the confusion that arises would be obviated. Our difficulties are of our own creation. God set a limit to a man’s locomotive ambition in the construction of his body. Men immediately proceeded to discover means of overriding the limit” (51). Both of these observations are interesting to me given that I am someone who loves to travel, however, I can see the perspective that living a day to day life that depends on frequent travel is not only stressful to humans as living beings but to the planet as well. Modern humans are impaired without access to frequent transportation. Without it, one cannot work -in turn they’re rendered unable to provide for themself sustenance and shelter. To reiterate, this is not an argument against occasional travel and exploration, it is an evaluation and analysis of everyday transportation and if it’s necessary or unnatural. Do you agree that the constant dependence on modern transportation stunts the growth of humans and what is their Devine design to cohabitate and live harmoniously with nature? Do you think living a life where you must always be elsewhere to provide for your livelihood is unsustainable?
In the chapter “Why was India lost,” Gandhi addresses the English economic control over India and asserts that “The English have not taken India; we have given it to them. They are not in India because of their strength, but because we keep them… Who assisted the companies officers? Who was tempted at the sight of their silver? Who bought their goods? History testifies that we did all of this. In order to become rich all at once, we welcomed the Company’s officers with open arms. We assisted them.” (39-40) I have conflicting thoughts about this statement. Firstly, I feel as though this might be failing to address the power relations associated with the English colonization of India, and the subsequent shift in societal norms due to the power relations embodied in the colonial process. Further, I think that the consequences of that colonization are not given ample thought in this analysis, namely the colonization of the mind that results from such endeavors that has the power to shift social dynamics and allow for the “welcoming” of colonial actors. I also think that naming the particular socioeconomic class of Indians that welcomed English rule would provide valuable insight and nuance to this analysis. I am not super familiar with these relations, but I would infer that the upper class of Indian society would have been the ones who welcomed India’s colonizations and were “tempted at the sight of their silver,” given that they would profit off of the colonization as well. However, I do think that taking a certain amount of accountability in allowing for colonization to occur does provide a valuable framework in terms of mapping the process of decolonization in that it provides easily identifiable ways to change the things that colonial subjects have the power to change peacefully: their own decisions. Do you think that there should be more emphasis placed on the power imbalances associated with English rule in this discourse? Could the rhetoric of taking personal accountability for injustices that one is subjected to possibly be a harmful narrative?
I found the discussion of soul-force in “Passive Resistance” to be very intriguing. The following quote especially caught my attention: “Everybody admits that sacrifice of self is infinitely superior to sacrifice of others. Moreover, if this kind of force is used in a case that is unjust, only the person using it suffers. He does not make others suffer for his mistakes. Men have before now done many things which were subsequently found to have been wrong. No man can claim that he is absolutely in the right or that a particular thing is wrong because he thinks so, but it is wrong for him so long as that is his deliberate judgement. It is therefore meet that he should not do that which he knows to be wrong, and suffer the consequence whatever it may be. This is the key to the use of soul-force.”
Gandhi is challenging us through this quote to stand up for what we believe is right and stand against what we believe is wrong but in a way that untimely does not negatively affect others. This concept to me is very eye-opening as it introduces the idea that we have the opportunity to make change within the world without risking negative effects of our actions for others if we do happen to be in the wrong. How would our society today differ if more of the world’s population employed soul-force rather than other forms of force? Would any effective action take place or would those who use other forms of force simply dominate those who employ soul-force?
In Civilisation, Gandhi’s views of progress throughout the industrial revolution are explored. “Formerly, men were made slaves under physical compulsion, now they are enslaved by the temptation of money and of the luxuries that money can buy,” (36). Gandhi refers to such “progress” as a miserable failure regarding the pursuit to increase bodily comforts. Much later, Gandhi makes a very interesting point about personal rights, and what rights even are in his discussion of passive resistance. Gandhi defines passive resistance as “a method of securing rights by personal suffering; it is the reverse of resistance by arms,” (90). I thought of no-impact man, as a personal attempt to resist the progression of climate change. Collective passive resistance is clearly a route of securing rights that have been denied throughout society, but given the extent of societal problems today, how can we ask of those suffering already from “progress” to suffer further? No impact man had the means to deny himself and his family of simple luxuries, but how can others who are systematically denied those luxuries, deny themselves further in order to secure access to their right to those luxuries or others? Or, is it the duty of those with such access, to resist the ways in which the system secures there rights while simultaneously denying others? I think Gandhi points to subjects we have touched upon in SD, specifically in that the majority of people in the world are non-elites, and that there is immense power in our numbers. He earlier uses a metaphor to emphasize the need to strongly unite, and I think there is much to say on collective passive resistance of non-elites throughout the world, bypassing the reliance on elites to take matters in their own hands. Take for example: food aid and access to food, a topic we are fairly familiar with. I ask, how might those who are systematically denied access to food, participate in passive resistance of the global food system in order to secure their access to their right to food? Or, is it the duty of those with such access, to passively resist the ways in which the system secures there rights while simultaneously denying others?
As someone else mentioned, this too was my first time reading any of Gandhi’s work. There were instances when I agreed with him wholeheartedly, but there were other times where his ideology would give me pause to think. Sometimes I was honestly just shocked by his ideals. At first, I was shocked with Gandhi’s stance on western medicine (62), my logic being: how could hospitals and western medicine be a bad thing when it has saved countless lives and improved the lives of many others? But then I began to think on the subject a bit more and this saying came to mind: “Doctors are to black women, what cops are to black men.” There is an implicit bias in modern medicine that black women are impervious to pain because of their race and overly dramatic about pain because of their gender. This has led to a lot of black women being dismissed and not getting the treatment that they need and deserve at hospitals and doctors’ offices. These are issues rooted in western medicine to this day. However, I do not agree with Gandhi’s logic behind why he opposes western medicine, but I can understand his hesitance when shown in a different context. I wonder how Gandhi would feel now about western medicine now given the current global circumstances.
In Ghandi’s Hind Swaraj, In “The Condition of England”, Ghandi states “It is said that they change
them every seven years. These views swing like the pendulum of a clock and are never steadfast. The people would follow a powerful orator or a man who gives them parties, receptions, etc. As are the people, so is their Parliament. They have certainly one quality very strongly developed. They will never allow their country to be lost. If any person were to cast an evil eye on it, they would pluck
out his eyes. But that does not mean that the nation possesses every other virtue or that it should be imitated. If India copies England, it is my firm conviction that she will be ruined.”
Ghandi is stating the different values of India and England. England in his eyes doesn’t have a steadfast value system and just goes with the seasons based on popularity. Do many countries have this view of the colonialists who take over their land? I wonder what other nations or tribes believe about their colonialist’s value system.
Gandhi talks about the civil unrest occurring within his home country of India due to the current British occupation of the country. He goes on to talk about how to successfully overthrow British rule and unless you are familiar with Gandhi, his answer is vastly different than you would expect compared to how similar circumstances have gone throughout history. When America was colonized by the British we took up arms and fought a bloody war to end their tyranny and establish our own country. In Gandhi’s opinion, taking arms to fight an oppressor is an ignorant way to achieve what you want by sacrificing others. Instead, Gandhi would rather sacrifice himself through civil disobedience. This “sacrifice of self” is through disobeying laws in a peaceful manner to get the oppressors to change their views. Do you think that civil disobedience is the way to go about change and is it more effective than violence? Can you think of any other examples of civil disobedience inspiring change throughout history?
Before this class I had never really read any of Gandhi’s work. It was different than I thought it would be and sometimes difficult to tie in all together. In one chapter Gandhi was talking about the meaning of true civilization. He talks about India’s civilization as above all else and “sound at the foundation” (49). Europe learns from Greece and Rome, and Gandhi says this is their downfall because they are living by trying to avoid the past countries mistakes. He then goes on to say that India has nothing to learn from anyone else. I think this mindset is rather destructive. It is one thing to have pride in the past and look down upon modernization, but having the mindset that nothing needs to be learned from others can be detrimental. He claims civilization eventually translates to mastery over our minds and passions, through pointing out the path of duty for man (49). I think my main question is does this translate to the way we think now about our civilization? Would his mindset be changed if he lived in the world we live in today? I am confused by this concept but hope this makes some sense.
In Hind Swaraj, Ghandi writes about his perspective on what a home-rule would look like for India. In this writing, he takes the role of the ‘editor’. When responding to the reader, who states that India should have its own military, own splendor, and “then will India’s voice ring through the world” (Ghandi 27). The editor responds, “In effect it means this: that we want English rule without the Englishman. You want the tiger’s nature, but not the tiger; that is to say, you would make India English. And when it becomes English, it will be called not Hindustan but Englistan. This is not the Swaraj that I want” (Ghandi 27).
Another example is the railways. The reader proclaims that the editor is against so many of the things he understands to be ‘good’, while the editor explains that the railways are being used to force Indians into servitude for the British, and also spreading disease.
The flaw in the reader’s thinking here is that to simply remove English presence would be to remove English rule. The government structures are formed in a fashion similar to the British, and so is the society. I think we see this occurring in many places that were former English colonies, but now have their own rule. This is especially true concerning the idea that British rule encouraged a false narrative of divisiveness in order to place themselves as the ones who unite this area. In what ways do we see English influence continuing to govern over facets of our lives in America, but also in other former colonies? Would Ghandi anticipate this?
Ghandi mentions how the work of Western doctors is sinful and that there’s like a loop of infecting to infect and the ill person getting sicker from this thus depending on said doctor and furthering dependency on hospitals and the pharmaceutical industry.
This mental slavery he mentions furthers the dependency one has on entities instead of self governance,
How does Ghandi define productivity when he also rejects the idea of dependency?
Marx and Ghandi have similar ideas when it comes to mental and physical slavery of those that hold power. What does Ghandi believe to be productive and fufilling work while also supporting communities?
On page 52, Gandhi 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. India has never been such a country.” I wanted to discuss more on what Gandhi meant by this and the significance of this exchange between the reader and the editor. In this conversation Gandhi is cautioning the reader against cultivating differences between religion. This excerpt is impressive because Gandhi’s opinions from over a hundred years ago are still relevant today. How did you interpret this exchange? Does this excerpt still hold significance today?
In the 9th chapter of Hind Swaraj, Gandhi says “you and I and others who consider ourselves civilised and superior persons imagine that we are one nation” (48) which got me thinking does he feel like he is superior to the Englishmen, or does he feel like he is superior to everyone because he is more knowledgable about these things? When speaking about civilisation and how India was one nation before the English came in and divided them Gandhi talks about how the railways played a part in the separation of India. I feel as though the railways could be used as a way to connect the whole country not as a way to divide it. Gandhi speaks about how they “spread the bubonic plague”, move the masses from place to place, and how they increase famines. (46) Does he feel like the railways helped lead to the separation because they separate the classes, or because they are moving away from how India was before the English?
Ghandi has some very interesting gripes with western modernity and the society it has brought along with it. Specifically intriguing are his views on western medicine in which he believes is rather useless. His big issue seems to be that modern day medicine relieves you from the suffering you’ve brought upon yourself, which Ghandi seems to believe we are better off learning from and enduring rather than dismissing. This idea that sickness is a result of your own wrongdoing excludes many instances of unavoidable illness and is especially pertinent in the midst of today’s global pandemic. What would Ghandi’s response be to someone who is taking all precautions in regards to Covid safety and has always treated their body like a temple yet still contracts the virus by being unvaccinated in the wrong place at the wrong time? Vaccination as a whole would be an interesting counter to Ghandi as these are things we are almost required to receive to do things like enroll in school or travel across countries i.e. participate in society. Vaccines are not a cure though but instead a prevention, and Ghandi particularly has an issue with treating a sickness, so I wonder what his stance on preventive medicine would be considering there are illnesses that are unavoidable even when practicing good health and morals. That is simply the facts; there are instances where people contract viruses or diseases through others irresponsibility, so is one supposed to just withstand the misfortune that’s brought upon them?
I found the machinery chapter particularly interesting, as technology has advanced significantly since this was written. What would Gandhi think of this now? The goal of machinery and technology is to make things easier for us, but does it actually make things harder? The editor notes why would you need to purchase glassware and lamps, when you can create your own with homegrown cotton, and clay pottery. Technology like this can erase culture, and cause us to lose knowledge throughout time. My question is, what forms of technology/machinery have erased artisanal and culturally traditional practices wether it be in the arts, or basic means of survival? Would this technology cause loss of knowledge that could be essential to know without technology and machinery?
Similar to Thoreau, Gandhi had a particularly negative perspective on the innovation of railways and locomotives. Thoreau emphasizes the disconnection it brings between man and nature. Both individuals see it as a way to pull society away from the much simpler, ‘good life’. While Thoreau also includes the negative impacts this start to industrialization had on our surrounding environments, Gandhi views the issue as one that is pulling each of us away from our higher power. He states that “man is so made by nature as to require him to restrict his movements as far as his hands and feet will take him” (49). Gandhi feels that in pushing these limits God gifted man with, we are abusing and in pushing our Maker further away. I find both of these perspectives extremely eye-opening, and quite easy to agree with. With each new innovation and piece of technology we are widening the gaps and increasing disconnect not only between our individual selves, but between the relationships of man and nature, and man and God. Do you think there could be a future where through our newfound technologies we have the ability to strengthen these relationships we are currently destroying? If so, what would it look like and how can we begin on this path?
A belated post, but one of the more intriguing points of discussion I found in this weeks reading was in Chapter V, The Condition of England. Gandhi’s criticism of English Parliament is bold and he makes very concrete statements. Some of them being that the members of Parliament are hypocritical and selfish, there is no finality in their work, everything done today can be undone tomorrow, and members vote their party without a thought. I find these claims quite parallel to many claims made of United States government and politics today, and would say Gandhi would likely uphold these assertions unto us. I’m curious as to what Gandhi would view as the perfect government, does government hold a place in his world? Does Hind Swaraj allude to self governance in as an extreme of a form as possibly anarchy?
In the chapter titled “What is Swaraj”, the reader and the editor engage in discourse about what would happen if they drove away the English in their government. They talk about how they want to drive the English away, but they would still keep their constitution and carry on the government the way it has been. This quote inspired my next questions: “Because India has become impoverished by their government. They take away our money from year to year. The most important posts are reserved for themselves. We are kept in a state of slavery. They behave insolently towards us and disregard our feelings.”
Do you think that keeping the same governing style of their former controllers would create problems in the future regarding nationalism, or do you think that India would be able to move on from this rule even with the same constitution still in place? Think about it in terms of the United States, if hypothetically, black people became the majority of the country after slavery ended, would it work out for them to use the same constitution as the white people that enslaved them once did?
In the chapter “Ghandi On Machinery”, he shares his view on industrialization and machinery. In 1922, he states that “India does not need to be industrialised in the modern sense of the term.” He also mentions that it is ot his intention to oppose machinery and mills, but that his point is what is best for their country. The ‘craze’ of ‘labour saving machinery’ is something he is strongly opposed to and wishes for people to continue to use machinery for help instead of a hindrance. One of the discussions dominating the modern day has been centered around technology, is it doing more harm than good? Or vice versa? If he were alive today, how do you think Ghandi would react to the reliance humans seem to have on ‘labour saving machinery’. Had more people agreed with and/or followed Ghandi’s views on machinery at the time, how different would the world be and what might that look like?
After reading this “What is Swaraj” chapter I have realized that Ghandi lead his party of followers not to abolish but to change the government control that was oppressing them. These two things are very different and changing a government is a-lot easier than trying to abolish one. He goes on later in the chapter to talk about how changing the government too much could also cause problems because this system of government that India had was efficient, it just did not support the Indian population in anyway. Ghandi see’s ways for this economic system to change for the better, and support the surrounding communities and all of India. He states in his conclusion, “If a lawyer, he will give up his profession, and take up a hand-loom.” (87) “If a wealthy man, he will devote his money to establishing hand-looms, and encourage others to use hand-made goods by wearing them himself.” (88) This quote embodies the efforts he saw most help-full for stimulating community growth as well as community wealth. Making their own clothes and selling them locally is a great to start a connection between community members, and disconnection from the hierarchal European system.
I found Ghandi’s view on modern medicine and doctors to be very interesting. Ghandi takes a strong position against the modern doctors and medicine, claiming that these aspects of modern civilization encourage excessive consumption. According to Ghandi, modern doctors exploit people for their hard earned money by charging them to fix problems that do not need to be fixed. In Chapter XII, the editor says, “Let us consider: the business of a doctor is to take care of the body, or, properly speaking, not even that. Their business is really to rid the body of diseases that may afflict it. How do these diseases arise? Surely by our own negligence or indulgence” (61). I believe that Ghandi is saying that if we all were to live more intentionally and adopt simpler, more natural lifestyles, then there would be no need for modern doctors and medicine. According to Ghandi, what are some indicators of good health?
What role does nature play in Ghandi’s contempt with modern doctors?
Gandhi’s view of what a perfect society looks like is very interesting in my opinion. He believes that village society is the best way of approaching development, each person having their own responsibilities and working within a village network to ensure everyone’s needs are met. In some of his letters, his counterpart actually disagrees with Gandhi on the fact that there can still be modern development without all of the corruption that India has faced. The counterpart saying that it is still possible to have all of the qualities Gandhi is looking for without having the get rid of many modern technologies that we see today, being that these technologies are essential in today’s environment. How would Gandhi’s vision of development, in his words, be implemented today? What challenges would we face adopting a village society?
In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi makes many points about civilization that I found very intriguing and true. In chapter 8, Gandhi replies to the reader’s question of “how did the British take India?” by elaborating on how they did not lose India, but gave it to the British (39). Gandhi later explains that the British are under the spell of civilization, unaware of their wrongdoing. They are unaware of their wrongdoings to themselves and to India because they are blinded by advancement and capital, which Gandhi says are irreligious. Of course, in a capitalist society, imperialism underlies all behaviors. When talking about the blight of the British, Gandhi states, “We rarely find people arguing against themselves. Those who are intoxicated by modern civilization 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” (35). This quote really stood out to me because this is something I notice in American society every day. People are so lost in the luxuries that capitalism creates, they do not realize the negative effects their materialistic behavior is causing. People do not want to believe in climate change because we are so comfortable in the system that perpetuates it, and if they did accept this, would they care to change from a system they are comfortable in? I do believe that people would change if they understood and accepted the negative effects their behaviors had. In a way, this next quote by Gandhi describes how people do escape this cycle. “When a man rises from sleep, he twists his limbs and is restless. It takes some time before he is entirely awakened… Rising from sleep, we do not continue in a comatose state, but, according to our ability, sooner or later, we are completely restored to our senses. So shall we be free from the present unrest which no one likes” (24). Gandhi was, of course, talking about India in this instance rising out of oppression by the British, but this could very well apply to many different cases. I feel like America (and perhaps the rest of the Global North) has been asleep way too long (maybe even sleep walking, destroying all that oppose them) and we are finally awakening, realizing how our imperialistic actions and behaviors have damaged the world and its people. I think we are still in a comatose-like state, not quite fully awakened, but moving toward it. This full awakening will happen once Americans realize the detriment that they are actually causing to themselves, as capitalist society creates some selfish people.
My question is: is peaceful protest the only way for America to awaken and realize its immorality?
In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi discusses his views on Western medicine, describing how he sees it as a means in which to indulge in one’s vices without having to suffer the consequences, as nature intended. In the chapter on doctors, Gandhi addresses the editor’s question on why Gandhi is critical of western doctors by answering, “Their business is really to rid the body of diseases that may afflict it. How do these diseases arise? Surely by our negligence or indulgence.” He continues by providing examples of these “indulgences” by saying, “I have indulged in vice, I contract a disease, a doctor cures me, the odds are that I shall repeat the vice. Had the doctor not intervened, Nature would have done its work, and I would have acquired mastery over myself, would have been freed from vice and would have become happy.”
We have already raised the question of how Gandhi would feel about the COVID-19 vaccines amidst the current pandemic, but I follow this by wondering how the world’s views of Gandhi would shift if he lived today and actively fought or preached against the COVID vaccines. Already there are people criticizing Gandhi’s racism and sexism (which is evident throughout this book), included with his highly questionable sexual practices regarding his philosophy on celibacy, but how would the world see Gandhi if he was anti-vaxx today? Would he still be the man with multiple Nobel Peace prize nominations and an award named after him? Would right-wing populations in the West claim Gandhi as one of their own? Would some people who identify as being liberal question the ethics on the vaccine and therefore refuse to get it? Today, who would be considered the Gandhi of the anti-vaxx movement?
I found Gandhi’s take on education in chapter 18, “Education” to be very interesting, especially his view that education overall does more harm than good because more people abuse education as an instrument. While I agree that education can often be used in unhealthy or harmful ways, I don’t believe that education does more harm than good. On the other hand, I think that at least a minimal form of education is essential for Gandhi to be able to spread his views and gain followers. If no one in India ever received any education, Gandhi’s attempts at nonviolent resistance wouldn’t mean much, because no one would understand the need for nonviolent resistance, much less what it is. I appreciated the reader’s question in chapter 18 that asks Gandhi, “ If you had not received higher education, how would you have been able to explain to me the things that you have?” While I understood Gandhi’s response later on about the negative aspects of forcing English into India, I think that the overall point of the need for some education went untouched. If Gandhi did not get the opportunity to receive higher education, would he still be advocating against education and learning English?
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 2:39 PM SD 3800 Classics in Sustainable Development wrote:
> Cameron Stuart commented: “I found Gandhi’s take on education in chapter > 18, “Education” to be very interesting, especially his view that education > overall does more harm than good because more people abuse education as an > instrument. While I agree that education can often be used ” >
In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi writes “In trying to learn from them, the Europeans imagine that they will avoid the mistakes of Greece and Rome. Such is their pitiable condition. In the midst of all this, India remains immovable, and that is her glory. It is a charge against India that her people are so uncivilized, ignorant and stolid, that it is not possible to induce them to adopt any changes…What we have tested and found true on the anvil of experience, we dare not change. Many thrust their advice upon India, and she remains steady,” (p.67) The question I have about this is how Gandhi might address tension between local traditions in India, as I’m sure there are multiple cultures which make up the national culture of India which he refers to as the steady and glorious. How would he address local conflicts outside of the English invaders? Were these traditions he speaks of the result of the practicing of different traditions, how were the ones he refers to determined to be good and true? Are they only considered ideal in Gandhi’s opinion?
Throughout these readings, I found the chapter, “Gandhi on Machinery” the most interesting. In this chapter, Gandhi expresses his opinions on industrialization and technology. He states, “India does not need to be industrialized in the modern sense of the term.” Although he is not completely opposed to new machinery, he does not think it is best for the community. He believes that machinery should only be used for help. He also discusses his opinions on labor-saving machinery. In our current world, labor-saving machinery has increased our productivity as humans. In a way, this labor-saving machinery has reinforced the expectation that humans need to be productive all of the time. If you’re not being productive, then you’re not contributing to your own well-being. Do you think that Gandhi would agree that modern technology and machinery have reinforced the productivity of humans? What would he think that our modern technologies are being used for better or for worse?