In ‘Hind Swaraj’ by Gandhi, he examines the British occupation of India and the unrest occurring within the country as a result. Gandhi believes that it is India’s fault for the state that the country is in. He says that they invited the British in and continue to keep them there. Gandhi refers to how the “temptation of money” and ‘civilization’ and development have inticied India’s leaders and in return keep the British in the country (35). It seems as if the desire to civilize translates to westernization. Therefore, is civilization actually civilised? Or is it a social construct of sorts utilized by the west to be able to move into countries and spread their own agendas to promote western uniformity?
Additionally, Gandhi talks about how to eventually expel the British troops and revert India back to its previous condition. He regards the use of arms and brute force as an ignorant way to go about accomplishing their goal of self governance, as well as states it is a method that will not yield true self governance. Therefore, he coins the term “soul force,” which describes a passive resistance strategy (88). Basically, this implies that instead of directly fighting the British with arms and ammunition, the best way to fight back is to not obey laws and accept the penalty for it. Gandhi calls it a “sacrifice of self” instead of a sacrifice of others like an outright revolution would be (89). What do you think about the brute force vs passive resistance arguments seen throughout pages 77-97? Do you agree with the notion of passive resistance and soul force as being more effective then brute force? What would make the British care if thousands of Indians began to use this tactic against them rather than brute force?
In the novel “Hind Swaraj” Gandhi explains the many layers pertaining to the Home Rule wave that passed through India, or the desire for national independence from Great Britain. Home Rule, or Swaraj, had become the main focus of the Indian National Congress political party. The nation of India was working towards self governance as well as control over revenue and expenditures. Gandhi disagreed with the meaning of Swaraj by the extremists in India because it would expel the British while maintaining their political, military, and economic institutions. This would maintain British influence from colonial impact. Gandhi heavily criticized the British parliament in the chapter “The Conditions of England” by stating that the Prime Minister is more concerned about his power than the welfare of his parliament. Gandhi believed that if India copied England it would be ruined due to the influence of modern civilization which has corrupted good people. Gandhi expressed that “India is being ground down not under the English heel but under that of modern civilisation” (42). How does forced development inhibit areas in certain manners, such as the placement of railroads rather than clean water irrigation systems, which in Gandhi’s opinion express the desire for profit over the well being of Indians? In what ways has forced development overpowered or erased cultural aspects of various groups?
It is clear that Ghandi had his doubts about the meaning of Swaraj. More specifically, it goes beyond just the people, but represents India as a whole. It is a representation of the control that Britain had over India and how this control increased the overall power that they had over India. Because of this Ghandi explained the need to be separated and take back the control of the country, without allowing others to benefit and increase their own power off of India. Nevertheless, in Chapter IV, “What is Swaraj?”, the question of whether or not it is necessary to drive the English is asked, “You and I and all Indians are impatient to obtain Swaraj, but we are certainly not decided as to what it is. To drive the English out of India is a thought heard from many mouths, but it does not seem that many have properly considered why it should be so.” This further shows that there is more than one understanding to what Swaraj might entail, yet Ghandi makes it clear that India’s power must no longer influence India. Because of this, my question is whether or not you think it is reasonable to allow British influence, as long as India still gets power? Or, if India should wipe all British influence from the country, even if it limits their own economic and political power? While trying to understand Britain’s influence on India, I couldn’t help but think about how one might compare this to epistemic injustice. It is clear that Britain is effecting more than just, economics, politics, but also culture and community.
“If, after many years of study, a teacher were to teach me something, and if I were to build a little more on the foundation laid by that teacher, I would not, on that account, be considered wiser than the teacher.” pg. 15
After I read this line I started to think about what is being said. In the context of the book Gandhi is saying how “The Grand Old Man of India,” Dadabhai Naoroji deserves the respect of the people because of the foundations he laid for Nationalism. But, I started thinking about it and applying it in terms of just any society in a more general sense. If we are never allowed to be considered wiser than the people who teach us stuff, how does a society grow and advance? If according to this logic we are in some way, indebted to our teachers, how can anyone ever be labeled as an innovator, genius, or influential figure? Because there were people who taught Einstein things, Martin Luther King Jr. had teachers, Gandhi as well. I also thought of another read on this quote. With this logic could a statement be made about how societies don’t actually advance? Do all of these great innovations and so called “advancements” within society all mean nothing? Perhaps since they are not the essentials of life, and in turn kind of diminish the things that are essential they can be labeled as meaningless. Maybe I am misinterpreting the quote, and if anyone else has a different read on this section of the text, please chime in.
In “Hind Swaraj”, Gandhi speaks about the unrest in India, and how important it is in the movement to break away from English rule and move towards self-government “…so may the present unrest in India be considered a necessary and, therefore, a proper state” (23). He states that “So long as a man is contented with his present lot, so long is it difficult to persuade him to come out of it” (23). Essentially, Gandhi believes that the people of India must feel discontent and unhappy with the state of things in order to truly realize that change needs to happen and to be on board with it. This unrest is really important to spark necessary shifts and mobilize people to resist against the British. Gandhi also claims that unrest is positive in this context because “India awakened is not likely to fall asleep” (20). How does this type of unrest relate to the current climate of our country (black lives matter and protests, political unrest)? Do you think that there is truth to Gandhi’s belief that widespread unrest pushes people and groups to take real action?
In “Hind Swaraj”, Gandhi speaks about the unrest in India due to the British occupation. Gandhi believes that for India it would be best to have a government that is not a direct translation of an English style of government. A quote from the book supporting this is “You want the tiger’s nature, but not the tiger; that is to say, you would make India English” (28). What Gandhi actually wants is an Indian style of government. In order for India to become free of the British rule, Gandhi believes there needs to be a nonviolent approach and he goes on to say “It is a cowardly thought, that of killing others” (77). A popular Gandhi quote is “Where there is love, there is life.” How does this relate to his overall philosphy regarding nonviolence?
In Chapter 10: “The Condition of India: The Hindus and Mohamedans,” Gandhi discusses the feud between religions, races, and political parties. He claims that violence is not necessary but that “all men are not equi-minded” (94) and that when people act on this “rage, they do many foolish things” (94); According to Gandhi, those actions then have to be dealt with through peace and virtue not mirroring. With extensive social and racial injustice, corrupt politics, political divide, power struggles, wildfires, a pandemic and the wrong responses to it, people are justifiably outraged. In what ways are fear, rage, and distrust influencing our actions and politics? How can we reach a less divisive and corrupt political system? What perpetuates rage and fear in society?
In “The condition of the India (cont.) : the Hindus and the Mahomedans.” Gandhi states “Our difficulties are of our own creation (pg 49).” By this statement Gandhi is saying that difficulties between people exist because humans, ourselves created them (difficulties). He uses the differences between Hindus and the Mahomedans, as a way to exemplify this quote. Gandhi goes into a discussion about how Hindus and Mahmedans are two different religions, but even so the people within each religion should be able to live or exist in the same space.
Going back to Gandhi’s quote on page 49, another interpretation is that yes differences exist between people, which does not have to be religion specifically, but that does not mean these differences make living with people who don’t share the same religion (or similar characteristic) impossible. People see them as different from one another because their “religion” is different from their own or different from the majority, which causes the difficulties. Therefore, the only reason difficulties exist between people is because someone bring attention to it.
Another quote in the same chapter that is similar to the quote on page 49 is found on page 55 in which Gandhi states, “…but all men are not created equi-minded.” By this Gandhi is re-enforcing his point that difficulties exist because everyone does not see people as equal to one another.
I think that these two quotes on page 49 and 55 are significant, especially with the current events of Black Lives Matter and COVID-19. Not only do these quotes that Gandhi says prevalent in today’s current events, but also in everyday interactions between people.
How can difficulties between people be reduced, but ultimately how can people become more equi-minded? What does that look like in person?
In reading “Hind Swaraj,” I was able to draw multiple parallels to the current disunity within the United States from the following quotes:
– “Is Dadabhai less to be honoured because, in the exuberance of youth, we are prepared to go a step further? … It is a mark of wisdom not to kick against the very step from which we have risen higher. The removal of a step from a staircase brings down the whole of it.” (15) – While the younger generations are calling for things that older generations might deem ‘radical,’ we are still obligated to acknowledge the steps that they took in the past
– “The knowledge that there is unrest will, it is highly probable, enable us to outgrow it.” (24) – There is only one way that civil unrest is resolved (change/compromise)
– “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.” (24-25)
– “To believe that what has not occurred in history will not occur at all is to argue disbelief in the dignity of man. At any rate, it behoves us to try what appeals to our reason.” (74) – Relates to when people say that change can’t happen because certain demands are ‘unprecedented’
– “History, then, is a record of an interruption of the course of nature. Soul-force, being natural is not noted in history.” (90) – Can be seen in the lack of media attention that the continued protests receive unless they are violent
– “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?” (93) – @@@the bootlickers
– “When a man abandons truth, he does so owing to fear in some shape or form.” (98) – @people like Sheri who are afraid of acknowledging their shortcomings because of the possible repercussions
– “One who is free from hatred requires no sword.” (99) – Peaceful protesters v. gun-toting neo-Nazis
Given this selection of quotes, do you think that we should be drawing more from Gandhi’s tactics in our approach to human rights violations in our country, or do you think that his perspective can no longer be fully applicable given the difference in circumstances which have arisen in the past century? Are we separating the “art from the artist” when we say we are trying to emulate his activism and demeanor but nitpick his methods (using passive resistance but not heeding his calls to “observe perfect chastity” and “adopt poverty”)? Am I getting too specific? Maybe.
In Chapter 6, “Civilization”, Gandhi talks about civilization, particularly for the Europeans compared to India. He states, “Men will not need the use of their hands and feet”. And now everything has changed, battles used to be fought one on one, “now it is possible to take away thousands of lives by one man working behind a gun from a hill.” He always talks about unfair working conditions ” they are obliged to work, at the risk of their lives, at most dangerous occupations, for the sake of millionaires.” I think this is a great quote from the chapter because it is still very relevant in our society now. Women “slave away in factories […] this awful fact is one of the causes of the daily growing suffragette movement” Gandhi believes that civilization will be “self-destroyed” and that the English “will cast off the evil” what do you think he means by this?
In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi speaks of India with a confidence full of doubt. He believes India has its flaws in the people and the way it is run, but with hope. The editor says, “it is my deliberate opinion that India is being ground down not under the English heel but under that of modern civilization” (42). By this, he means that the English are not the reason for India’s change but modernization. Modernization has become similar to capitalism, with the misconception that the newer and bigger something is, the better; however, many times this does not end in the desirable result. Gandhi says, “civilization is such a disease, and we have to be very wary” (47), referring to the modern technologies being introduced to countries and its citizens must be careful as to not lose sight of the end goal. Capitalism has become more prominent as the years go by and most people make their decisions based on the profit. Every country has continued to progress in their technology, so what would Gandhi think of the condition of India today? What would he think of the world and countries outside of India? Would he change some of the ideas he presents in Hind Swaraj?
In the beginning of chapter five Gandhi says ”Then from your statement I deduce that the Government of England is not desirable and not worth copying by us” (30). This quote really strikes me because Gandhi is recognizing the flaws in western society and in their governments. Long ago Gandhi was able to recognize that western way of doing things is not always the best way to do things, there are other options even though it seems like there is only one way to run a country successfully. He goes on to talk about how the governments only work if they are forced to due to pressure from people in the nation. I interpret this as governments not working for the people but instead the governments working only when they need to, for example when Gandhi talks about the salt marches earlier in the book the government would have never been pressured to lower the tax on salt if he would have never lead the marches, this is an example of how there has to be pressure for the government to change what is going on and do the right thing. I imagine that Gandhi wants a government that works for the people without there needing to be pressure for things to be fixed. Is this what Gandhi’s idea of a government would look like? Governments should always serve the people even though in today’s time they only seem to serve the white people here in America’s, would Gandhi have problems with how our government works today how might he try and reform it? My main question is what the ideal government would look like, how would it differ from our government today?
In Civilisation Gandhi states that “the people of Europe today live in better built houses than they did a hundred years ago. This is an emblem of civilization, and this is also a matter to promote bodily happiness. Formerly, they wore skins, and used their weapons spears. Now, they wear long trousers, and, for embellishing their bodies, they wear a variety of clothing, and, instead of spears, they carry with them revolvers containing five or more chambers” (Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, 34). In this section, he criticizes modernity and what Europeans consider civilization, why does he have these critiques, and how else does he see or define civilizations? How do these ideas relate to or compare to Thoreau’s ideas of civilization? What is considered “true civilization” to Gandhi?
Throughout Hind Swaraj, it is argued that the reason the English continue to occupy India is that the people allow them to. “I could never subscribe to the statement that all Englishmen are bad. Many Englishmen desire Home Rule for India” (17). Gandhi argues that the feud within India is to blame for the continued presence of the English. Gandhi further asserts that English cannot be driven out by using physical force, but rather passive resistance which he also refers to as soul force “The force of arms is powerless when matched against the force of love or the soul” (85). Is it fair to say that the English occupancy is solely the result of India’s internal conflict as opposed to the dominating force of the English? Additionally, is the use of passive resistance more effective in this situation than physical force? Could this same logic be applied to the United State’s current political and social climate?
In ‘Hind Swaraj’ by Gandhi, he takes a peculiar stance on education that you would not expect from such an educated man. He views it as certainly not necessary to become a moral upstanding man but instead sees education as almost a way to control, and it is up to the individual not the education. These views of Education have certainly been warped by English influence, how would Thoreau’s view on education differ or be similar? Why is it that such influential and educated men would feel this way?
In ‘The condition of England’ Gandhi proclaims that English Parliament is both like a sterile woman and a prostitute. He explains that Parliament is like a sterile woman because it “has not yet of its own accord done a single good thing” (29). I found this analogy to be quite offensive and off-putting. It seems odd to me that in his writing about decolonizing India and attempting to open up space for his fellow Indian citizens he found the time to further ostracize infertile women. Are women not of value to Gandhi if they cannot reproduce? This statement feels eerily similar to capitalist (re)production and it’s treatments of humans and nature. Is the reproduction of race and capital the only function a woman has in a society? While in a footnote below it mentions how Gandhi regretting using the metaphor of ‘prostitute’ after being criticized by friend, there is no mention of him regretting the use of the ‘sterile woman’ metaphor. His statement reminded me of how heterocentric and reprocentric sustainable development discourse can be.
In Hind Swaraj Gandhi compares the government/parliment of England to a sterile women and a prostitute. He says, “That parliment has not yet of its own accord done a single good thing, hence I have compared it to a sterile women. The natural condiiton of that Parliment is such that, without outside pressure, it can do nothing. It is like a prostitute because it is under the control of ministers who chagne from time to time (p.29).” Have sterile women not done anyting good on their own accord because they haven’t had children? Are all sex workers agency-less pawns? I may be missing some context and deeper meaning here, but I think it still leads me to the question — how do we read authors with complicated/problematic pasts? What about Gandhi specifically? Is it different if the author/thinker is still alive? Is there some type of balance between accountability, forgiveness, and justice? I don’t know the answer, but I think this is an issue that’s been brought to attention more and more recently (especially in politics).
In chapter XI, “The condition of India (cont.): lawyers,” Gandhi says that the lawyers have accentuated, rather than eased, the Hindu-Mahomedan discord. Lawyers, who to The Reader are supposed to secure justice, have actually enslaved India according to Gandhi. The lawyers prolong disputes because they do not actually fight for the truth and defend their client based on their degree of innocence or guilt, but defend their client based on how much money they can give them no matter their innocence or guilt. Gandhi believes that if there is a disagreement between two parties he should “advise them no longer to quarrel” because “both must be more or less at fault” (57). Lawyers feed off of these disputes for financial gain rather than the fight for justice. The Reader then criticizes Gandhi for his antipathy toward lawyers and expresses that lawyers are necessary for justice. The Reader basically says that not all lawyers are bad. Gandhi then says that “lawyers are also men, and there is something good in every man,” but that “the profession teaches immorality” (57). In light of the BLM movement, there have been continuous efforts towards defunding the police because of police brutality. People use the counter-argument that “not all cops are bad,” which is similar to what The Reader in “Hind Swaraj” argues about the lawyers. Not all people who are cops are bad but the system of policing is inherently racist (just as the lawyer profession teaches immorality), therefore any cop who is part of a police force is working within a corrupt system and no cop working in that system can be a “good cop.” Given his past with racism towards Black people, and based on his argument about lawyers, if Gandhi were to be living in the United States in 2020 would Gandhi support defunding the police? Could his philosophy, applied to the oppression of the Indian people by the British, also be applied to the oppression of Black people by the police?
Hind Swaraj is a dialect with Ghandi (the editor) and his presumed readers. Gandhi cultivates ideas of nonviolence, and Indian nationalism throughout the dialogue, and heavily critiques modern civilization. To critique modern civilization, he first defines it as the imperialist and colonizing civilization of the West, or the English people. Ultimately, the reader is supposed to represent a person within India who wants radical change, but believes the way to achieve this change is through violence. Ghandi, however, argues that by resorting to violence, there is a loss of values that the Indian civilization holds, and by doing so, would only send India further in the direction of modern civilization. In the end of the chapter Italy and India, Gandhi states; “It is possible that Lord Morley has granted the reforms through fear, but what is granted under fear can be retained only so long as the fear lasts” (Ghandi, 76). Within “Brute Force”, the next chapter, Gandhi discusses this doctrine further, citing the proclamation of 1857, which was given at the end of a revolt and introduced a principle of political equality between Britons and Indians. He criticizes this proclamation as an example of how the people achieved it through violence and revolt, but the political equity did not last after this achievement.
With this doctrine, I cannot help but wonder whether or not it is contradicting within itself, given that there have been many achievements throughout history that involve the use of violence, such as the end of slavery, workers rights revolts and strikes, etc. Although nonviolence surely does lead to lasting changes, is it more appropriate for nonviolent resistance to be ongoing, as a part of making sure changes stay in place? Maybe nonviolence has a place after violence, such as the case of the Zapatista movement in Chiapas. Is nonviolent resistance more of a means of achieving the long term goals of a movement, rather than short term and then giving up, as many violent resistances have historically done? Is Ghandi talking more about government use of violence and fear upon its people and subjects or mainly about people’s use of fear and violence to achieve movement goals? If he is talking more about government, what are some examples within US history in which the government has used fear and that fear has been overcome? Does overcoming this fear inherently require violence at some points?
Gandhi has some very strong opinions of doctors in the chapter The condition of India continued: Doctors. He makes some very bold statements in this chapter including, “Hospitals are institutions for propagating sin” (61); “doctor induce us to indulge” (62); “there is no real service of humanity in the profession” (63). Although it may have been a prominent view in his day, I find it hard to agree with the opinion or morality which Gandhi is expressing in this chapter. There are two main issue that are produced from this chapter. The first is in application to the World Health Organization (WHO). On the WHO website, their vision is “of a world in which all peoples attain the highest possible level of health, and our mission to promote health, keep the world safe and serve the vulnerable, with measurable impact for people at country level. We are individually and collectively committed to put these values into practice” (Our Values). WHO has also help treat several disease, such as Ebola, Cholera, yellow fever, zika virus, malaria, and many more which are not caused by “Vices” which Gandhi refers to several times. Does Gandhi still have the moral ground with organizations like WHO?
Secondly, with Gandhi’s influence on human rights still being felt all over the world, what are some of the moral implications with Gandhi writing in this chapter in Hind Swaraj or Indian Home rule? Even as applicable as it may have been to the time, does this chapters moral lessons cause future issues with development and improving quality of life? Could expressing this view at such a foundational time severely limits India’s quality of life in the future?
I also struggled with Gandhi’s view of doctors. Specifically, on page 53 where Ghandi presents the argument that, “quacks are better than highly qualified doctors” and “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.” This seems like an incredibly ableist view to me. There are many diseases that are not a result of taking “less care of their bodies” (51) that you mentioned and I think disregarding the treatment of such diseases as “propagating sin” (51) is extremely harmful and does not advance India’s quality of life. However, I think there may be a middle ground, which I am interested to find. Where is the balance in rejecting ableism while also considering “that the doctors induce us to indulge” (52) and depriving us of self-control?
In “Hind Swaraj,” Gandhi contrasts British culture and society against Indian culture. He paints the British as being obsessed with economic success, doing whatever it took to increase profits and exploiting whoever they needed to in order to achieve this goal. On the other hand, in Gandhi’s opinion, Indian society was just as advanced as Britain’s, but just in a different way with more traditional cultural values. When the British came in and colonized India, Gandhi recounts that some of Indian society became obsessed with economic success because of British influence, but that this was not really how things should be. The question I would like to ask is how does this concept apply to indigenous populations all over the world who were colonized? And how does “development” now do the same thing as colonization, just under a different name? How does “development” push values of economic success onto cultures who previously did not hold this value? What are examples of this and how do we remedy it?
In “Hind Swaraj,” Gandhi contrasts British culture and society against Indian culture. He paints the British as being obsessed with economic success, doing whatever it took to increase profits and exploiting whoever they needed to in order to achieve this goal. On the other hand, in Gandhi’s opinion, Indian society was just as advanced as Britain’s, but just in a different way with more traditional cultural values. When the British came in and colonized India, Gandhi recounts that some of Indian society became obsessed with economic success because of British influence, but that this was not really how things should be. The question I would like to ask is how does this concept apply to indigenous populations all over the world who were colonized? And how does “development” now do the same thing as colonization, just under a different name? How does “development” push values of economic success onto cultures who previously did not hold this value? What are examples of this and how do we remedy it?
On page 68, Gandhi states “mind is a restless bird; the more it gets the more it wants, and still remains unsatisfied.” He is discussing the idea of civilization, particularly, the idea that civilization equates machinery and an excess of goods. His statement displays some parallels with what Thoreau wrote about. He places no value on material things, or city life, but praises life in villages, where individuals work with their hands.
Also on page 68, Gandhi states that “millions will always remain poor.” This statement seems to be in contrast with what the Sustainable Development department envisions. The first goal of the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals is “no more poverty.” Will there always be millions who are considered “poor?” Is Gandhi’s statement simply a fact in a capitalistic and colonial society? Or is it representative of the future as well?
It seems to me that one area in which Gandhi and Thoreau are very far apart ideologically is on the concept of ancestors and reverence for elders in general. Both speak quite directly on the subject, but from directly opposing view points. Thoreau states in Economy, “Old deeds for old people, and new deeds for new. … Practically, the old have no very important advice to give the young, their own experience has been so partial, and their lives have been such miserable failures.” Thoreau adds a few paragraphs later that, “One generation abandons the enterprise of another like stranded vessels.” This last statement is no lament, either.
Gandhi on the other hand, thinks very differently on the subject. In The Congress and Its Officials, he writes, “We believe that those, who are discontented with the slowness of their parents and are angry because the parents would not run with their children, are considered disrespectful to their parents. Professor Gokhale occupies the place of a parent. What does it matter if he cannot run with us? A nation that is desirous of securing Home Rule cannot afford to despise its ancestors.” Ghandi concludes that, “We shall become useless, if we lack respect for our elders.”
Which attitude is more helpful today? Since time immemorial, each generations has found friction with the generations preceding and following their own. However, it is also true that change happens ever faster in modernity, and the ways of one generation may be truly ill-fitting to the life and times of the next. On the other hand, are there immutable truths that are in danger of being lost if a younger generation casts off the teachings and customs of its elders?
In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi speaks about cow-killing and relates it to killing those of another religion. “Going to the root of the matter, not one man really practises such a religion because we do destroy life. We are said to follow that religion because we want to obtain freedom from liability to kill any kind of life. Generally speaking, we may observe that many Hindus partake of meat and are not, therefore, followers of Ahimsa. It is, therefore, preposterous to suggest that the two cannot live together amicably because the Hindus believe in Ahimsa and the Mahomedans do not” (47). He believes that meat-eating is form of killing, and that in turn Hindus that do can not fully practice Ahimsa. Likewise, he raises questions about the value of a cow in relation to a human life and if a person would lay down their life for a cow in turn. Overall, his point is one of peace and non-violence to both humans and cows; we must find things that we can relate over or else be set to destroy one another. That being said, we know that he did not believe all people to be equal. What then, is the line that he has on who is worthy of equality and who is not?
In Chapter XVIII “Education”, Gandhi criticizes the scientific focus of the education system. He says, “…whether you take elementary education or higher education, it is not required for the main thing. It does not make us men. It does not enable us to do our duty.” (102). Gandhi says that character-building should be the main focus of primary education. To achieve this he says, “We should abandon the pretension of learning many sciences. Religious, that is ethical, education will occupy the first place.” (105). Do you agree or disagree with Gandhi’s vision of the ideal education? What are the limits to his views on education? What are the benefits? Could primary education in religion also result in mental enslavement? How could ethical education be taught in different ways?
As a western society, we are on a fast track to a mass extinction of ourselves, this is known widely and yet change seems unreachable. This seems to be a condition of humanity, self-destruction, as Gandhi says on page 1694, “When a tiger changes his nature, Englishmen will change theirs. This is not possible, and to believe it to be possible is contrary to the human experience.” Do you agree? As a society are we far gone in our self-destructive tendencies to reverse our fate on this planet? Is this the human condition? In addition, over the decades we have advanced significantly in our technology and knowledge, does this give us any sort of chance of overcoming our “condition”?
Gandhi is someone who has left a significant mark on history and I genuinely respect his ideas on self-rule, passive resistance, and non-violence. However, being a queer woman and reading some of Gandhi’s beliefs is very upsetting. In “The condition of England,” Gandhi compares Parliaments to a “sterile woman and a prostitute” (30). He states “That Parliament has not yet of its own accord done a single good thing, hence I have compared it to a sterile woman… It is like a prostitute because it is under the control of ministers who change from time to time” (30). Later, in “The condition of India (cont.): lawyers,” Gandhi again refers to prostitution as “degrading” (61). I find it puzzling and almost hypocritical for Gandhi to speak of decolonizing India, but also speak of women and prostitutes in this way. I do not understand how he can still respect the Englishmen, but not respect a sterile woman and prostitutes. I guess my question is how can he free people from oppression and mistreatment, but also degrade and oppress others? Are women only valued in Gandhi’s mind if they can reproduce and if they are sexually enslaved to only one person?
I use the term sexually enslaved meaning that the view Gandhi has on women seems to be that women should belong to only one man that they reproduce with.
While reading through Gandhi’s “Conditions of India”, it is to my understanding of the chapters is the comparative between multiple religions within the particular region of the world and its justification towards their ability to come together as one nation instead of working against each other. Something else I picked up on towards the beginning of the chapter is about how the cruelties among one civilization does not mainly come from religious differences but that of ignorant and credulous people who practice cruelties in the name of religion. These two passages consider with the idea of growth and unity and so my first question would be, if corruption is practiced under the titles of religion and if “as long as we fear our own brethren”, how would Gandhi work to equalize the relation of men within different religions while continuously contradicting the continuous development that is said to have caused Indian poverty? While continuing on the path of growth, Gandhi’s views on doctors and lawyers are opposing the ideals they are originally intended for. If it is believed that these two groups only cause destruction, does a man disregard his own religion or community to believe in the power of medical or governmental institutions?
In Chapter IX: The conditions of India (cont): railways, Gandhi is discussing the impact of the introduction and spread of railways in India, and in a lot of ways the impact of the English and their impositions on India as a whole. Colonization and the introduction of “better” ways of life and technology are a guise for control. But in the earlier chapter VII: Why was India lost?, Gandhi makes the point “The English have not taken India; we have given in to them. They are not in India because of their strength, but because we keep them.” (page 1916). He then dives into a discussion finding “the root” of the problem, essentially saying that India had played a role in being taken and kept by the English. This seems extreme and contrary to much of what we are taught about Colonization, would you agree with Gandhi here? If you disagree, explain, and do you think this is a harsh stance for Gandhi to take? If you do agree, do you think this is a commonality among nations that have been colonized by the English in the past?
In the chapter “What is True Civilization?” Gandhi makes arguments against the dominant Western view of “progress” and “civilization”. He states that in Gujarati, the word for civilization translates to good conduct, which is greatly different from the connotations that surround the word civilization within the dominant Western epistemology that the British were imposing on India. He continues to argue that the Indian understanding of civilization prompted a deliberate choice to avoid industrialization and the adoption of western, liberal conceptions of property and commerce. That is to say that the Indian way of life prior to colonization was in direct opposition to the ideals of the West. I believe that it was because of this extreme difference in the understanding of civilization that allowed the British to feel justified in their colonization of India (I’m thinking of the idea of the White man’s burden). Throughout the chapter, Gandhi is very critical of development, stating “It was not that we did not know how to invent machinery, but our forefathers knew that if we set our hearts after such things, we would become slaves and lose our moral fibre” (sorry, I don’t have page numbers on my text). Following this logic, if Gandhi were alive today, how do you think he would react to the development that took place after his death? Although it is true that India was able to become independent, could it not be argued that international financial institutions and transnational corporations have taken Britain’s place?
Gandhi is critical of “civilization” in chapter/essay 6. He says that those who are intoxicated by themselves are not likely to argue against themselves (32). He goes on: “Their condition is worse than that of beasts. They are obliged to work, at the risk of their lives, at most dangerous occupations, for the sake of millionaires. Formerly, men were made slaves under physical compulsion. Now they are enslaved by temptation of money and of the luxuries that money can buy” (33). He also says that civilization is taught to increase “bodily comforts but fails miserably in doing so” (34). It is obvious that Gandhi is critical of an economy that seeks to do nothing but accumulate wealth. What form of economy would Gandhi see fitting that would not promote regression in the name of progression? The economy is synonymous with a nation’s political structure and although Gandhi is critical of the capitalist ideologies he encourages Indians to adopt their “congress” because it brought Indians together and “enthused us with nationality” (22). Is this outlook in itself counterproductive? To adopt the governance strategies of a colonizing nation that is reinforced by capitalism.
In chapter XIV (How Can India Become Free?) Gandhi defines swaraj as India would be free if India as individuals become free. Gandhi notes, “it is swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves”. Furthermore, Gandhi explains swaraj would have to be experienced by everyone for full achievement. Gandhi’s use for swaraj is also for home rule or self government. However, Gandhi makes it clear that there is a symbiotic relationship. Indian home rule would be achieved to the extent of self ruling individuals.
In chapter XV (Italy and India), examines that the real challenge is not embedded in government but to free millions of people. A way in which Gandhi argues through no use of arms or violence. Lastly in chapter XVII (passive resistance), he explains the achievement of passive resistance through person suffering. He insisted passive resistance is not for weak but for the strong, and concluded that home rule is possible only through passive resistance.
To what extent is Swaraj relevant and applicable to the Black Lives Matter movement? Which concepts are applicable? Are there ones that are not?
In Chapter Five, The Condition of England, Gandhi explains why the English system of government is not suitable for India. He compares the British Parliament to a “sterile woman” in the sense that it does not produce anything useful, and he refers to it as a “prostitute” because control is constantly changing hands. Gandhi does go on to say that these statement are harsh, and he even received backlash from a female friend who took issue with the comparison to a prostitute.
Later in the chapter, Gandhi talks about how Parliament is run and the members who run it, he says: “…it is generally acknowledged that its member are hypocritical and selfish. … It is fear that is the guiding motive. What is done today may be undone tomorrow. … When the greatest questions are debated , its member have been seen to stretch themselves and to doze” (30). Gandhi goes on to discuss how there is a seemingly blind devotion of party members to their party when it comes times for them to vote on issues.
I found this to be extremely interesting given that this book is 110 years old. I know that this section of the book was in regards to the British Parliament in London, but I was abele to draw a lot of parallels between what Gandhi wrote then to how the American government functions now. I would be extremely curious to see what Gandhi has to say about the current state of affairs, especially in the U.S., and I wonder if he were alive know if his views on things would be different (i.e. referring to the govt as a prostitute).
In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi refers to western civilization as diseased, and the people who live in it are “enslaved by the temptation of money and of the luxuries that money can buy”. He then explains his views on railways, lawyers and doctors. The Railways only helped create more famine, spread germs, and divide Indian people more than it connected them. The Lawyers only advanced arguments rather than effectively solve disputes, and “Moreover, men take up that profession, not in order to help others out of their miseries, but to enrich themselves”.(59). The doctors of western medicine neglect the soul, the spiritual and moral foundations of health. Studying European medicine would only enslave India even more, in that “Hospitals are institutions for propagating sin”(63). How does Gandhi’s view of modern civilization differ from Thoreau? Are there any similarities?
In “Hind Swaraj” Gandhi writes about how it is important to move away from English rule, which is the reason for unrest in India, and shift towards a more self-governed, or independent society to which involves nonviolence. He goes on to also argue how Indians should fight against accepting English customs over their own. He goes on to say “”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.” I chose this quote because I feel that it encompasses what he is trying to say by covering that Indian culture and customs are important and that although the English rule, the only reason they are able to do so is because India allows them. I feel he said this to show the power in being independent; showing to the people that it is important to own who you are, let all have a say so, and rule together is what needs to be done. He also points out to do this, it takes nonviolence and patience. So, my question for this week is, if India has allowed this control and is so unhappy, why wait so long to stand together and take back what they as Gandhi puts it, “owe allegiance” to?
In Chapter 5 of Hind Swaraj, Gandhi criticizes the the top-down form of government in England and argues that it is corrupt, inconsistent, and largely ineffective. He even compares the English government to a “sterile woman,” in that it doesn’t produce anything. Gandhi instead envisions a bottom-up form of democracy for India in which the people actually have the majority of power. Gandhi also points out that parliamentarians generally only act out of self-interest rather than listening to the public, and they also do not fulfill the promises they make. Is the English government as Gandhi describes it reminiscent of the modern US government, or any other modern day governments for that matter? Is the type of top-down style of government still seen today and do government officials still appear to act on self-interest rather than public opinion?
In Hind Swaraj Gandhi regularly contrasts English society and law to Indian. He focuses on English society and economics as one that is built to produce ever increasing levels of accumulation and wealth and claims India, while still capable of producing wealth, should moderate and focus on itself in a traditional/nationalistic form. Would the United States be better off abandoning our strive to be the best in the world, instead focusing on ourselves and making our own country better off from within?
Ghandi talks about how the arguments between the Mohomedans and Hindus. He talks about how the arguments are handled between the two by an average person and by a lawyer. He says that lawyers make money through these arguments. They are paid to side with their own clients. He also mentions that lawyers get paid very well to do their jobs and because of that very fact instead of working through the issue like ‘ordinary people’ lawyers will naturally want the argument to progress so they could make more money off of the initial issue no matter how small. Some even go as far as starting arguments and watching them grow because of the economic benefits of the quarrels. “It is within my knowledge that they are glad when men have disputes. Petty pleaders actually manufacture them. Their touts, like so many leeches, suck the blood of the poor people. Lawyers are men who have little to do. Lazy people, in order to indulge in luxuries, take up such professions.” (page 49) If the lawyers represent the British State and their ‘clients’ are the people of India this makes so much sense. Why ask the British State to decide who wins and loses in an argument that has nothing to do with them in the first place? “Is it any the less so, if I ask a third party to decide between you and me? Surely, the decision of a third party is not always right. The parties alone know who is right. We, in our simplicity and ignorance, imagine that a stranger, by taking our money, gives us justice.” (page 50) What can be done to ensure that issues within India are handled by the civilians? How can India work with the British for their own benefit without worry for the British meddling and making situations worse for their own motives? Are all third party deciders corrupt?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
In ‘Hind Swaraj’ by Gandhi, he examines the British occupation of India and the unrest occurring within the country as a result. Gandhi believes that it is India’s fault for the state that the country is in. He says that they invited the British in and continue to keep them there. Gandhi refers to how the “temptation of money” and ‘civilization’ and development have inticied India’s leaders and in return keep the British in the country (35). It seems as if the desire to civilize translates to westernization. Therefore, is civilization actually civilised? Or is it a social construct of sorts utilized by the west to be able to move into countries and spread their own agendas to promote western uniformity?
Additionally, Gandhi talks about how to eventually expel the British troops and revert India back to its previous condition. He regards the use of arms and brute force as an ignorant way to go about accomplishing their goal of self governance, as well as states it is a method that will not yield true self governance. Therefore, he coins the term “soul force,” which describes a passive resistance strategy (88). Basically, this implies that instead of directly fighting the British with arms and ammunition, the best way to fight back is to not obey laws and accept the penalty for it. Gandhi calls it a “sacrifice of self” instead of a sacrifice of others like an outright revolution would be (89). What do you think about the brute force vs passive resistance arguments seen throughout pages 77-97? Do you agree with the notion of passive resistance and soul force as being more effective then brute force? What would make the British care if thousands of Indians began to use this tactic against them rather than brute force?
In the novel “Hind Swaraj” Gandhi explains the many layers pertaining to the Home Rule wave that passed through India, or the desire for national independence from Great Britain. Home Rule, or Swaraj, had become the main focus of the Indian National Congress political party. The nation of India was working towards self governance as well as control over revenue and expenditures. Gandhi disagreed with the meaning of Swaraj by the extremists in India because it would expel the British while maintaining their political, military, and economic institutions. This would maintain British influence from colonial impact. Gandhi heavily criticized the British parliament in the chapter “The Conditions of England” by stating that the Prime Minister is more concerned about his power than the welfare of his parliament. Gandhi believed that if India copied England it would be ruined due to the influence of modern civilization which has corrupted good people. Gandhi expressed that “India is being ground down not under the English heel but under that of modern civilisation” (42). How does forced development inhibit areas in certain manners, such as the placement of railroads rather than clean water irrigation systems, which in Gandhi’s opinion express the desire for profit over the well being of Indians? In what ways has forced development overpowered or erased cultural aspects of various groups?
It is clear that Ghandi had his doubts about the meaning of Swaraj. More specifically, it goes beyond just the people, but represents India as a whole. It is a representation of the control that Britain had over India and how this control increased the overall power that they had over India. Because of this Ghandi explained the need to be separated and take back the control of the country, without allowing others to benefit and increase their own power off of India. Nevertheless, in Chapter IV, “What is Swaraj?”, the question of whether or not it is necessary to drive the English is asked, “You and I and all Indians are impatient to obtain Swaraj, but we are certainly not decided as to what it is. To drive the English out of India is a thought heard from many mouths, but it does not seem that many have properly considered why it should be so.” This further shows that there is more than one understanding to what Swaraj might entail, yet Ghandi makes it clear that India’s power must no longer influence India. Because of this, my question is whether or not you think it is reasonable to allow British influence, as long as India still gets power? Or, if India should wipe all British influence from the country, even if it limits their own economic and political power? While trying to understand Britain’s influence on India, I couldn’t help but think about how one might compare this to epistemic injustice. It is clear that Britain is effecting more than just, economics, politics, but also culture and community.
“If, after many years of study, a teacher were to teach me something, and if I were to build a little more on the foundation laid by that teacher, I would not, on that account, be considered wiser than the teacher.” pg. 15
After I read this line I started to think about what is being said. In the context of the book Gandhi is saying how “The Grand Old Man of India,” Dadabhai Naoroji deserves the respect of the people because of the foundations he laid for Nationalism. But, I started thinking about it and applying it in terms of just any society in a more general sense. If we are never allowed to be considered wiser than the people who teach us stuff, how does a society grow and advance? If according to this logic we are in some way, indebted to our teachers, how can anyone ever be labeled as an innovator, genius, or influential figure? Because there were people who taught Einstein things, Martin Luther King Jr. had teachers, Gandhi as well. I also thought of another read on this quote. With this logic could a statement be made about how societies don’t actually advance? Do all of these great innovations and so called “advancements” within society all mean nothing? Perhaps since they are not the essentials of life, and in turn kind of diminish the things that are essential they can be labeled as meaningless. Maybe I am misinterpreting the quote, and if anyone else has a different read on this section of the text, please chime in.
In “Hind Swaraj”, Gandhi speaks about the unrest in India, and how important it is in the movement to break away from English rule and move towards self-government “…so may the present unrest in India be considered a necessary and, therefore, a proper state” (23). He states that “So long as a man is contented with his present lot, so long is it difficult to persuade him to come out of it” (23). Essentially, Gandhi believes that the people of India must feel discontent and unhappy with the state of things in order to truly realize that change needs to happen and to be on board with it. This unrest is really important to spark necessary shifts and mobilize people to resist against the British. Gandhi also claims that unrest is positive in this context because “India awakened is not likely to fall asleep” (20). How does this type of unrest relate to the current climate of our country (black lives matter and protests, political unrest)? Do you think that there is truth to Gandhi’s belief that widespread unrest pushes people and groups to take real action?
In “Hind Swaraj”, Gandhi speaks about the unrest in India due to the British occupation. Gandhi believes that for India it would be best to have a government that is not a direct translation of an English style of government. A quote from the book supporting this is “You want the tiger’s nature, but not the tiger; that is to say, you would make India English” (28). What Gandhi actually wants is an Indian style of government. In order for India to become free of the British rule, Gandhi believes there needs to be a nonviolent approach and he goes on to say “It is a cowardly thought, that of killing others” (77). A popular Gandhi quote is “Where there is love, there is life.” How does this relate to his overall philosphy regarding nonviolence?
In Chapter 10: “The Condition of India: The Hindus and Mohamedans,” Gandhi discusses the feud between religions, races, and political parties. He claims that violence is not necessary but that “all men are not equi-minded” (94) and that when people act on this “rage, they do many foolish things” (94); According to Gandhi, those actions then have to be dealt with through peace and virtue not mirroring. With extensive social and racial injustice, corrupt politics, political divide, power struggles, wildfires, a pandemic and the wrong responses to it, people are justifiably outraged. In what ways are fear, rage, and distrust influencing our actions and politics? How can we reach a less divisive and corrupt political system? What perpetuates rage and fear in society?
In “The condition of the India (cont.) : the Hindus and the Mahomedans.” Gandhi states “Our difficulties are of our own creation (pg 49).” By this statement Gandhi is saying that difficulties between people exist because humans, ourselves created them (difficulties). He uses the differences between Hindus and the Mahomedans, as a way to exemplify this quote. Gandhi goes into a discussion about how Hindus and Mahmedans are two different religions, but even so the people within each religion should be able to live or exist in the same space.
Going back to Gandhi’s quote on page 49, another interpretation is that yes differences exist between people, which does not have to be religion specifically, but that does not mean these differences make living with people who don’t share the same religion (or similar characteristic) impossible. People see them as different from one another because their “religion” is different from their own or different from the majority, which causes the difficulties. Therefore, the only reason difficulties exist between people is because someone bring attention to it.
Another quote in the same chapter that is similar to the quote on page 49 is found on page 55 in which Gandhi states, “…but all men are not created equi-minded.” By this Gandhi is re-enforcing his point that difficulties exist because everyone does not see people as equal to one another.
I think that these two quotes on page 49 and 55 are significant, especially with the current events of Black Lives Matter and COVID-19. Not only do these quotes that Gandhi says prevalent in today’s current events, but also in everyday interactions between people.
How can difficulties between people be reduced, but ultimately how can people become more equi-minded? What does that look like in person?
In reading “Hind Swaraj,” I was able to draw multiple parallels to the current disunity within the United States from the following quotes:
– “Is Dadabhai less to be honoured because, in the exuberance of youth, we are prepared to go a step further? … It is a mark of wisdom not to kick against the very step from which we have risen higher. The removal of a step from a staircase brings down the whole of it.” (15) – While the younger generations are calling for things that older generations might deem ‘radical,’ we are still obligated to acknowledge the steps that they took in the past
– “The knowledge that there is unrest will, it is highly probable, enable us to outgrow it.” (24) – There is only one way that civil unrest is resolved (change/compromise)
– “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.” (24-25)
– “To believe that what has not occurred in history will not occur at all is to argue disbelief in the dignity of man. At any rate, it behoves us to try what appeals to our reason.” (74) – Relates to when people say that change can’t happen because certain demands are ‘unprecedented’
– “History, then, is a record of an interruption of the course of nature. Soul-force, being natural is not noted in history.” (90) – Can be seen in the lack of media attention that the continued protests receive unless they are violent
– “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?” (93) – @@@the bootlickers
– “When a man abandons truth, he does so owing to fear in some shape or form.” (98) – @people like Sheri who are afraid of acknowledging their shortcomings because of the possible repercussions
– “One who is free from hatred requires no sword.” (99) – Peaceful protesters v. gun-toting neo-Nazis
Given this selection of quotes, do you think that we should be drawing more from Gandhi’s tactics in our approach to human rights violations in our country, or do you think that his perspective can no longer be fully applicable given the difference in circumstances which have arisen in the past century? Are we separating the “art from the artist” when we say we are trying to emulate his activism and demeanor but nitpick his methods (using passive resistance but not heeding his calls to “observe perfect chastity” and “adopt poverty”)? Am I getting too specific? Maybe.
In Chapter 6, “Civilization”, Gandhi talks about civilization, particularly for the Europeans compared to India. He states, “Men will not need the use of their hands and feet”. And now everything has changed, battles used to be fought one on one, “now it is possible to take away thousands of lives by one man working behind a gun from a hill.” He always talks about unfair working conditions ” they are obliged to work, at the risk of their lives, at most dangerous occupations, for the sake of millionaires.” I think this is a great quote from the chapter because it is still very relevant in our society now. Women “slave away in factories […] this awful fact is one of the causes of the daily growing suffragette movement” Gandhi believes that civilization will be “self-destroyed” and that the English “will cast off the evil” what do you think he means by this?
In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi speaks of India with a confidence full of doubt. He believes India has its flaws in the people and the way it is run, but with hope. The editor says, “it is my deliberate opinion that India is being ground down not under the English heel but under that of modern civilization” (42). By this, he means that the English are not the reason for India’s change but modernization. Modernization has become similar to capitalism, with the misconception that the newer and bigger something is, the better; however, many times this does not end in the desirable result. Gandhi says, “civilization is such a disease, and we have to be very wary” (47), referring to the modern technologies being introduced to countries and its citizens must be careful as to not lose sight of the end goal. Capitalism has become more prominent as the years go by and most people make their decisions based on the profit. Every country has continued to progress in their technology, so what would Gandhi think of the condition of India today? What would he think of the world and countries outside of India? Would he change some of the ideas he presents in Hind Swaraj?
In the beginning of chapter five Gandhi says ”Then from your statement I deduce that the Government of England is not desirable and not worth copying by us” (30). This quote really strikes me because Gandhi is recognizing the flaws in western society and in their governments. Long ago Gandhi was able to recognize that western way of doing things is not always the best way to do things, there are other options even though it seems like there is only one way to run a country successfully. He goes on to talk about how the governments only work if they are forced to due to pressure from people in the nation. I interpret this as governments not working for the people but instead the governments working only when they need to, for example when Gandhi talks about the salt marches earlier in the book the government would have never been pressured to lower the tax on salt if he would have never lead the marches, this is an example of how there has to be pressure for the government to change what is going on and do the right thing. I imagine that Gandhi wants a government that works for the people without there needing to be pressure for things to be fixed. Is this what Gandhi’s idea of a government would look like? Governments should always serve the people even though in today’s time they only seem to serve the white people here in America’s, would Gandhi have problems with how our government works today how might he try and reform it? My main question is what the ideal government would look like, how would it differ from our government today?
In Civilisation Gandhi states that “the people of Europe today live in better built houses than they did a hundred years ago. This is an emblem of civilization, and this is also a matter to promote bodily happiness. Formerly, they wore skins, and used their weapons spears. Now, they wear long trousers, and, for embellishing their bodies, they wear a variety of clothing, and, instead of spears, they carry with them revolvers containing five or more chambers” (Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, 34). In this section, he criticizes modernity and what Europeans consider civilization, why does he have these critiques, and how else does he see or define civilizations? How do these ideas relate to or compare to Thoreau’s ideas of civilization? What is considered “true civilization” to Gandhi?
Throughout Hind Swaraj, it is argued that the reason the English continue to occupy India is that the people allow them to. “I could never subscribe to the statement that all Englishmen are bad. Many Englishmen desire Home Rule for India” (17). Gandhi argues that the feud within India is to blame for the continued presence of the English. Gandhi further asserts that English cannot be driven out by using physical force, but rather passive resistance which he also refers to as soul force “The force of arms is powerless when matched against the force of love or the soul” (85). Is it fair to say that the English occupancy is solely the result of India’s internal conflict as opposed to the dominating force of the English? Additionally, is the use of passive resistance more effective in this situation than physical force? Could this same logic be applied to the United State’s current political and social climate?
In ‘Hind Swaraj’ by Gandhi, he takes a peculiar stance on education that you would not expect from such an educated man. He views it as certainly not necessary to become a moral upstanding man but instead sees education as almost a way to control, and it is up to the individual not the education. These views of Education have certainly been warped by English influence, how would Thoreau’s view on education differ or be similar? Why is it that such influential and educated men would feel this way?
In ‘The condition of England’ Gandhi proclaims that English Parliament is both like a sterile woman and a prostitute. He explains that Parliament is like a sterile woman because it “has not yet of its own accord done a single good thing” (29). I found this analogy to be quite offensive and off-putting. It seems odd to me that in his writing about decolonizing India and attempting to open up space for his fellow Indian citizens he found the time to further ostracize infertile women. Are women not of value to Gandhi if they cannot reproduce? This statement feels eerily similar to capitalist (re)production and it’s treatments of humans and nature. Is the reproduction of race and capital the only function a woman has in a society? While in a footnote below it mentions how Gandhi regretting using the metaphor of ‘prostitute’ after being criticized by friend, there is no mention of him regretting the use of the ‘sterile woman’ metaphor. His statement reminded me of how heterocentric and reprocentric sustainable development discourse can be.
In Hind Swaraj Gandhi compares the government/parliment of England to a sterile women and a prostitute. He says, “That parliment has not yet of its own accord done a single good thing, hence I have compared it to a sterile women. The natural condiiton of that Parliment is such that, without outside pressure, it can do nothing. It is like a prostitute because it is under the control of ministers who chagne from time to time (p.29).” Have sterile women not done anyting good on their own accord because they haven’t had children? Are all sex workers agency-less pawns? I may be missing some context and deeper meaning here, but I think it still leads me to the question — how do we read authors with complicated/problematic pasts? What about Gandhi specifically? Is it different if the author/thinker is still alive? Is there some type of balance between accountability, forgiveness, and justice? I don’t know the answer, but I think this is an issue that’s been brought to attention more and more recently (especially in politics).
In chapter XI, “The condition of India (cont.): lawyers,” Gandhi says that the lawyers have accentuated, rather than eased, the Hindu-Mahomedan discord. Lawyers, who to The Reader are supposed to secure justice, have actually enslaved India according to Gandhi. The lawyers prolong disputes because they do not actually fight for the truth and defend their client based on their degree of innocence or guilt, but defend their client based on how much money they can give them no matter their innocence or guilt. Gandhi believes that if there is a disagreement between two parties he should “advise them no longer to quarrel” because “both must be more or less at fault” (57). Lawyers feed off of these disputes for financial gain rather than the fight for justice. The Reader then criticizes Gandhi for his antipathy toward lawyers and expresses that lawyers are necessary for justice. The Reader basically says that not all lawyers are bad. Gandhi then says that “lawyers are also men, and there is something good in every man,” but that “the profession teaches immorality” (57). In light of the BLM movement, there have been continuous efforts towards defunding the police because of police brutality. People use the counter-argument that “not all cops are bad,” which is similar to what The Reader in “Hind Swaraj” argues about the lawyers. Not all people who are cops are bad but the system of policing is inherently racist (just as the lawyer profession teaches immorality), therefore any cop who is part of a police force is working within a corrupt system and no cop working in that system can be a “good cop.” Given his past with racism towards Black people, and based on his argument about lawyers, if Gandhi were to be living in the United States in 2020 would Gandhi support defunding the police? Could his philosophy, applied to the oppression of the Indian people by the British, also be applied to the oppression of Black people by the police?
Hind Swaraj is a dialect with Ghandi (the editor) and his presumed readers. Gandhi cultivates ideas of nonviolence, and Indian nationalism throughout the dialogue, and heavily critiques modern civilization. To critique modern civilization, he first defines it as the imperialist and colonizing civilization of the West, or the English people. Ultimately, the reader is supposed to represent a person within India who wants radical change, but believes the way to achieve this change is through violence. Ghandi, however, argues that by resorting to violence, there is a loss of values that the Indian civilization holds, and by doing so, would only send India further in the direction of modern civilization. In the end of the chapter Italy and India, Gandhi states; “It is possible that Lord Morley has granted the reforms through fear, but what is granted under fear can be retained only so long as the fear lasts” (Ghandi, 76). Within “Brute Force”, the next chapter, Gandhi discusses this doctrine further, citing the proclamation of 1857, which was given at the end of a revolt and introduced a principle of political equality between Britons and Indians. He criticizes this proclamation as an example of how the people achieved it through violence and revolt, but the political equity did not last after this achievement.
With this doctrine, I cannot help but wonder whether or not it is contradicting within itself, given that there have been many achievements throughout history that involve the use of violence, such as the end of slavery, workers rights revolts and strikes, etc. Although nonviolence surely does lead to lasting changes, is it more appropriate for nonviolent resistance to be ongoing, as a part of making sure changes stay in place? Maybe nonviolence has a place after violence, such as the case of the Zapatista movement in Chiapas. Is nonviolent resistance more of a means of achieving the long term goals of a movement, rather than short term and then giving up, as many violent resistances have historically done? Is Ghandi talking more about government use of violence and fear upon its people and subjects or mainly about people’s use of fear and violence to achieve movement goals? If he is talking more about government, what are some examples within US history in which the government has used fear and that fear has been overcome? Does overcoming this fear inherently require violence at some points?
Gandhi has some very strong opinions of doctors in the chapter The condition of India continued: Doctors. He makes some very bold statements in this chapter including, “Hospitals are institutions for propagating sin” (61); “doctor induce us to indulge” (62); “there is no real service of humanity in the profession” (63). Although it may have been a prominent view in his day, I find it hard to agree with the opinion or morality which Gandhi is expressing in this chapter. There are two main issue that are produced from this chapter. The first is in application to the World Health Organization (WHO). On the WHO website, their vision is “of a world in which all peoples attain the highest possible level of health, and our mission to promote health, keep the world safe and serve the vulnerable, with measurable impact for people at country level. We are individually and collectively committed to put these values into practice” (Our Values). WHO has also help treat several disease, such as Ebola, Cholera, yellow fever, zika virus, malaria, and many more which are not caused by “Vices” which Gandhi refers to several times. Does Gandhi still have the moral ground with organizations like WHO?
Secondly, with Gandhi’s influence on human rights still being felt all over the world, what are some of the moral implications with Gandhi writing in this chapter in Hind Swaraj or Indian Home rule? Even as applicable as it may have been to the time, does this chapters moral lessons cause future issues with development and improving quality of life? Could expressing this view at such a foundational time severely limits India’s quality of life in the future?
I also struggled with Gandhi’s view of doctors. Specifically, on page 53 where Ghandi presents the argument that, “quacks are better than highly qualified doctors” and “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.” This seems like an incredibly ableist view to me. There are many diseases that are not a result of taking “less care of their bodies” (51) that you mentioned and I think disregarding the treatment of such diseases as “propagating sin” (51) is extremely harmful and does not advance India’s quality of life. However, I think there may be a middle ground, which I am interested to find. Where is the balance in rejecting ableism while also considering “that the doctors induce us to indulge” (52) and depriving us of self-control?
In “Hind Swaraj,” Gandhi contrasts British culture and society against Indian culture. He paints the British as being obsessed with economic success, doing whatever it took to increase profits and exploiting whoever they needed to in order to achieve this goal. On the other hand, in Gandhi’s opinion, Indian society was just as advanced as Britain’s, but just in a different way with more traditional cultural values. When the British came in and colonized India, Gandhi recounts that some of Indian society became obsessed with economic success because of British influence, but that this was not really how things should be. The question I would like to ask is how does this concept apply to indigenous populations all over the world who were colonized? And how does “development” now do the same thing as colonization, just under a different name? How does “development” push values of economic success onto cultures who previously did not hold this value? What are examples of this and how do we remedy it?
In “Hind Swaraj,” Gandhi contrasts British culture and society against Indian culture. He paints the British as being obsessed with economic success, doing whatever it took to increase profits and exploiting whoever they needed to in order to achieve this goal. On the other hand, in Gandhi’s opinion, Indian society was just as advanced as Britain’s, but just in a different way with more traditional cultural values. When the British came in and colonized India, Gandhi recounts that some of Indian society became obsessed with economic success because of British influence, but that this was not really how things should be. The question I would like to ask is how does this concept apply to indigenous populations all over the world who were colonized? And how does “development” now do the same thing as colonization, just under a different name? How does “development” push values of economic success onto cultures who previously did not hold this value? What are examples of this and how do we remedy it?
Bailey Law
On page 68, Gandhi states “mind is a restless bird; the more it gets the more it wants, and still remains unsatisfied.” He is discussing the idea of civilization, particularly, the idea that civilization equates machinery and an excess of goods. His statement displays some parallels with what Thoreau wrote about. He places no value on material things, or city life, but praises life in villages, where individuals work with their hands.
Also on page 68, Gandhi states that “millions will always remain poor.” This statement seems to be in contrast with what the Sustainable Development department envisions. The first goal of the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals is “no more poverty.” Will there always be millions who are considered “poor?” Is Gandhi’s statement simply a fact in a capitalistic and colonial society? Or is it representative of the future as well?
It seems to me that one area in which Gandhi and Thoreau are very far apart ideologically is on the concept of ancestors and reverence for elders in general. Both speak quite directly on the subject, but from directly opposing view points. Thoreau states in Economy, “Old deeds for old people, and new deeds for new. … Practically, the old have no very important advice to give the young, their own experience has been so partial, and their lives have been such miserable failures.” Thoreau adds a few paragraphs later that, “One generation abandons the enterprise of another like stranded vessels.” This last statement is no lament, either.
Gandhi on the other hand, thinks very differently on the subject. In The Congress and Its Officials, he writes, “We believe that those, who are discontented with the slowness of their parents and are angry because the parents would not run with their children, are considered disrespectful to their parents. Professor Gokhale occupies the place of a parent. What does it matter if he cannot run with us? A nation that is desirous of securing Home Rule cannot afford to despise its ancestors.” Ghandi concludes that, “We shall become useless, if we lack respect for our elders.”
Which attitude is more helpful today? Since time immemorial, each generations has found friction with the generations preceding and following their own. However, it is also true that change happens ever faster in modernity, and the ways of one generation may be truly ill-fitting to the life and times of the next. On the other hand, are there immutable truths that are in danger of being lost if a younger generation casts off the teachings and customs of its elders?
In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi speaks about cow-killing and relates it to killing those of another religion. “Going to the root of the matter, not one man really practises such a religion because we do destroy life. We are said to follow that religion because we want to obtain freedom from liability to kill any kind of life. Generally speaking, we may observe that many Hindus partake of meat and are not, therefore, followers of Ahimsa. It is, therefore, preposterous to suggest that the two cannot live together amicably because the Hindus believe in Ahimsa and the Mahomedans do not” (47). He believes that meat-eating is form of killing, and that in turn Hindus that do can not fully practice Ahimsa. Likewise, he raises questions about the value of a cow in relation to a human life and if a person would lay down their life for a cow in turn. Overall, his point is one of peace and non-violence to both humans and cows; we must find things that we can relate over or else be set to destroy one another. That being said, we know that he did not believe all people to be equal. What then, is the line that he has on who is worthy of equality and who is not?
In Chapter XVIII “Education”, Gandhi criticizes the scientific focus of the education system. He says, “…whether you take elementary education or higher education, it is not required for the main thing. It does not make us men. It does not enable us to do our duty.” (102). Gandhi says that character-building should be the main focus of primary education. To achieve this he says, “We should abandon the pretension of learning many sciences. Religious, that is ethical, education will occupy the first place.” (105). Do you agree or disagree with Gandhi’s vision of the ideal education? What are the limits to his views on education? What are the benefits? Could primary education in religion also result in mental enslavement? How could ethical education be taught in different ways?
As a western society, we are on a fast track to a mass extinction of ourselves, this is known widely and yet change seems unreachable. This seems to be a condition of humanity, self-destruction, as Gandhi says on page 1694, “When a tiger changes his nature, Englishmen will change theirs. This is not possible, and to believe it to be possible is contrary to the human experience.” Do you agree? As a society are we far gone in our self-destructive tendencies to reverse our fate on this planet? Is this the human condition? In addition, over the decades we have advanced significantly in our technology and knowledge, does this give us any sort of chance of overcoming our “condition”?
Gandhi is someone who has left a significant mark on history and I genuinely respect his ideas on self-rule, passive resistance, and non-violence. However, being a queer woman and reading some of Gandhi’s beliefs is very upsetting. In “The condition of England,” Gandhi compares Parliaments to a “sterile woman and a prostitute” (30). He states “That Parliament has not yet of its own accord done a single good thing, hence I have compared it to a sterile woman… It is like a prostitute because it is under the control of ministers who change from time to time” (30). Later, in “The condition of India (cont.): lawyers,” Gandhi again refers to prostitution as “degrading” (61). I find it puzzling and almost hypocritical for Gandhi to speak of decolonizing India, but also speak of women and prostitutes in this way. I do not understand how he can still respect the Englishmen, but not respect a sterile woman and prostitutes. I guess my question is how can he free people from oppression and mistreatment, but also degrade and oppress others? Are women only valued in Gandhi’s mind if they can reproduce and if they are sexually enslaved to only one person?
I use the term sexually enslaved meaning that the view Gandhi has on women seems to be that women should belong to only one man that they reproduce with.
While reading through Gandhi’s “Conditions of India”, it is to my understanding of the chapters is the comparative between multiple religions within the particular region of the world and its justification towards their ability to come together as one nation instead of working against each other. Something else I picked up on towards the beginning of the chapter is about how the cruelties among one civilization does not mainly come from religious differences but that of ignorant and credulous people who practice cruelties in the name of religion. These two passages consider with the idea of growth and unity and so my first question would be, if corruption is practiced under the titles of religion and if “as long as we fear our own brethren”, how would Gandhi work to equalize the relation of men within different religions while continuously contradicting the continuous development that is said to have caused Indian poverty? While continuing on the path of growth, Gandhi’s views on doctors and lawyers are opposing the ideals they are originally intended for. If it is believed that these two groups only cause destruction, does a man disregard his own religion or community to believe in the power of medical or governmental institutions?
In Chapter IX: The conditions of India (cont): railways, Gandhi is discussing the impact of the introduction and spread of railways in India, and in a lot of ways the impact of the English and their impositions on India as a whole. Colonization and the introduction of “better” ways of life and technology are a guise for control. But in the earlier chapter VII: Why was India lost?, Gandhi makes the point “The English have not taken India; we have given in to them. They are not in India because of their strength, but because we keep them.” (page 1916). He then dives into a discussion finding “the root” of the problem, essentially saying that India had played a role in being taken and kept by the English. This seems extreme and contrary to much of what we are taught about Colonization, would you agree with Gandhi here? If you disagree, explain, and do you think this is a harsh stance for Gandhi to take? If you do agree, do you think this is a commonality among nations that have been colonized by the English in the past?
In the chapter “What is True Civilization?” Gandhi makes arguments against the dominant Western view of “progress” and “civilization”. He states that in Gujarati, the word for civilization translates to good conduct, which is greatly different from the connotations that surround the word civilization within the dominant Western epistemology that the British were imposing on India. He continues to argue that the Indian understanding of civilization prompted a deliberate choice to avoid industrialization and the adoption of western, liberal conceptions of property and commerce. That is to say that the Indian way of life prior to colonization was in direct opposition to the ideals of the West. I believe that it was because of this extreme difference in the understanding of civilization that allowed the British to feel justified in their colonization of India (I’m thinking of the idea of the White man’s burden). Throughout the chapter, Gandhi is very critical of development, stating “It was not that we did not know how to invent machinery, but our forefathers knew that if we set our hearts after such things, we would become slaves and lose our moral fibre” (sorry, I don’t have page numbers on my text). Following this logic, if Gandhi were alive today, how do you think he would react to the development that took place after his death? Although it is true that India was able to become independent, could it not be argued that international financial institutions and transnational corporations have taken Britain’s place?
Gandhi is critical of “civilization” in chapter/essay 6. He says that those who are intoxicated by themselves are not likely to argue against themselves (32). He goes on: “Their condition is worse than that of beasts. They are obliged to work, at the risk of their lives, at most dangerous occupations, for the sake of millionaires. Formerly, men were made slaves under physical compulsion. Now they are enslaved by temptation of money and of the luxuries that money can buy” (33). He also says that civilization is taught to increase “bodily comforts but fails miserably in doing so” (34). It is obvious that Gandhi is critical of an economy that seeks to do nothing but accumulate wealth. What form of economy would Gandhi see fitting that would not promote regression in the name of progression? The economy is synonymous with a nation’s political structure and although Gandhi is critical of the capitalist ideologies he encourages Indians to adopt their “congress” because it brought Indians together and “enthused us with nationality” (22). Is this outlook in itself counterproductive? To adopt the governance strategies of a colonizing nation that is reinforced by capitalism.
In chapter XIV (How Can India Become Free?) Gandhi defines swaraj as India would be free if India as individuals become free. Gandhi notes, “it is swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves”. Furthermore, Gandhi explains swaraj would have to be experienced by everyone for full achievement. Gandhi’s use for swaraj is also for home rule or self government. However, Gandhi makes it clear that there is a symbiotic relationship. Indian home rule would be achieved to the extent of self ruling individuals.
In chapter XV (Italy and India), examines that the real challenge is not embedded in government but to free millions of people. A way in which Gandhi argues through no use of arms or violence. Lastly in chapter XVII (passive resistance), he explains the achievement of passive resistance through person suffering. He insisted passive resistance is not for weak but for the strong, and concluded that home rule is possible only through passive resistance.
To what extent is Swaraj relevant and applicable to the Black Lives Matter movement? Which concepts are applicable? Are there ones that are not?
In Chapter Five, The Condition of England, Gandhi explains why the English system of government is not suitable for India. He compares the British Parliament to a “sterile woman” in the sense that it does not produce anything useful, and he refers to it as a “prostitute” because control is constantly changing hands. Gandhi does go on to say that these statement are harsh, and he even received backlash from a female friend who took issue with the comparison to a prostitute.
Later in the chapter, Gandhi talks about how Parliament is run and the members who run it, he says: “…it is generally acknowledged that its member are hypocritical and selfish. … It is fear that is the guiding motive. What is done today may be undone tomorrow. … When the greatest questions are debated , its member have been seen to stretch themselves and to doze” (30). Gandhi goes on to discuss how there is a seemingly blind devotion of party members to their party when it comes times for them to vote on issues.
I found this to be extremely interesting given that this book is 110 years old. I know that this section of the book was in regards to the British Parliament in London, but I was abele to draw a lot of parallels between what Gandhi wrote then to how the American government functions now. I would be extremely curious to see what Gandhi has to say about the current state of affairs, especially in the U.S., and I wonder if he were alive know if his views on things would be different (i.e. referring to the govt as a prostitute).
In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi refers to western civilization as diseased, and the people who live in it are “enslaved by the temptation of money and of the luxuries that money can buy”. He then explains his views on railways, lawyers and doctors. The Railways only helped create more famine, spread germs, and divide Indian people more than it connected them. The Lawyers only advanced arguments rather than effectively solve disputes, and “Moreover, men take up that profession, not in order to help others out of their miseries, but to enrich themselves”.(59). The doctors of western medicine neglect the soul, the spiritual and moral foundations of health. Studying European medicine would only enslave India even more, in that “Hospitals are institutions for propagating sin”(63). How does Gandhi’s view of modern civilization differ from Thoreau? Are there any similarities?
In “Hind Swaraj” Gandhi writes about how it is important to move away from English rule, which is the reason for unrest in India, and shift towards a more self-governed, or independent society to which involves nonviolence. He goes on to also argue how Indians should fight against accepting English customs over their own. He goes on to say “”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.” I chose this quote because I feel that it encompasses what he is trying to say by covering that Indian culture and customs are important and that although the English rule, the only reason they are able to do so is because India allows them. I feel he said this to show the power in being independent; showing to the people that it is important to own who you are, let all have a say so, and rule together is what needs to be done. He also points out to do this, it takes nonviolence and patience. So, my question for this week is, if India has allowed this control and is so unhappy, why wait so long to stand together and take back what they as Gandhi puts it, “owe allegiance” to?
In Chapter 5 of Hind Swaraj, Gandhi criticizes the the top-down form of government in England and argues that it is corrupt, inconsistent, and largely ineffective. He even compares the English government to a “sterile woman,” in that it doesn’t produce anything. Gandhi instead envisions a bottom-up form of democracy for India in which the people actually have the majority of power. Gandhi also points out that parliamentarians generally only act out of self-interest rather than listening to the public, and they also do not fulfill the promises they make. Is the English government as Gandhi describes it reminiscent of the modern US government, or any other modern day governments for that matter? Is the type of top-down style of government still seen today and do government officials still appear to act on self-interest rather than public opinion?
In Hind Swaraj Gandhi regularly contrasts English society and law to Indian. He focuses on English society and economics as one that is built to produce ever increasing levels of accumulation and wealth and claims India, while still capable of producing wealth, should moderate and focus on itself in a traditional/nationalistic form. Would the United States be better off abandoning our strive to be the best in the world, instead focusing on ourselves and making our own country better off from within?
Ghandi talks about how the arguments between the Mohomedans and Hindus. He talks about how the arguments are handled between the two by an average person and by a lawyer. He says that lawyers make money through these arguments. They are paid to side with their own clients. He also mentions that lawyers get paid very well to do their jobs and because of that very fact instead of working through the issue like ‘ordinary people’ lawyers will naturally want the argument to progress so they could make more money off of the initial issue no matter how small. Some even go as far as starting arguments and watching them grow because of the economic benefits of the quarrels. “It is within my knowledge that they are glad when men have disputes. Petty pleaders actually manufacture them. Their touts, like so many leeches, suck the blood of the poor people. Lawyers are men who have little to do. Lazy people, in order to indulge in luxuries, take up such professions.” (page 49) If the lawyers represent the British State and their ‘clients’ are the people of India this makes so much sense. Why ask the British State to decide who wins and loses in an argument that has nothing to do with them in the first place? “Is it any the less so, if I ask a third party to decide between you and me? Surely, the decision of a third party is not always right. The parties alone know who is right. We, in our simplicity and ignorance, imagine that a stranger, by taking our money, gives us justice.” (page 50) What can be done to ensure that issues within India are handled by the civilians? How can India work with the British for their own benefit without worry for the British meddling and making situations worse for their own motives? Are all third party deciders corrupt?