The Mahatma's Swaraj (Home-Rule) !!!

Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule
M.K. Gandhi
1910
Translated into English by M.K. Gandhi
Being a Translation of 'Hind Swaraj'
(Indian Home Rule), published in the
Gujarat columns of Indian Opinion.
11th and 18th Dec., 1909
Preface to the English translation
It is not the without hesitation that the translation of 'Hind
Swaraj' is submitted to the public. A European friend with whom I
discussed the contents, wanted to see a translation of it and, during
our spare moments, I hurriedly dictated and he took it down. It is not
a literal translation but it is a faithful rendering of the original.
Several English friends have read it, and whilst opinions were being
invited as to the advisability of publishing the work, news was
received that the original was seized in India. This information
hastened the decision to publish the translation without a moment's
delay. My fellow-workers at the International Printing Press shared
my view and, by working overtime – a labour of love – they have
enabled me to place the translation before the public in an
unexpectedly short time. The work is being given to the public at
what is practically cost-price. But, without the financial assistance of
the many Indians who promised to buy copies for themselves and
for distribution, it might never have seen the light of day.
I am quite aware of the many imperfections in the original. The
English rendering, besides sharing these, must naturally exaggerate
them, owing to my inability to convey the exact meaning of the
original. Some of the friends who have read the translation have
objected that the subject matter has been dealt with in the form of a
dialogue. I have no answer to offer to this objection except that the
Gujarati language readily lends itself to such treatment and that it is
considered the best method of treating difficult subjects. Had I
written for English readers in the first instance, the subject would
have been handled in a different manner. Moreover, the dialogue, as
it has been given, actually took place between several friends,
mostly readers of Indian Opinion, and myself.
Whilst the views expressed in 'Hind Swaraj' are held by me, I
have but endeavoured humbly to follow Tolstoy, Ruskin, Thoreau,
Emerson and other writers, besides the masters of Indian
philosophy. Tolstoy has been one of my teachers for a number of
years. Those who want to see a corroboration of the views submitted
in the following chapters, will find it in the works of the above
named masters. For ready reference, some of the books are
mentioned in the Appendices.
I do not know only 'Hind Swaraj' has been seized in India. To
me, the seizure constitutes further condemnation of the civilisation
represented by the British Government. There is in the book not a
trace of approval of violence in any shape or form. The methods of
the British Government are, undoubtedly, severely condemned. To
do otherwise would be for me to be a traitor to Truth, to India, and
to the Empire to which I own allegiance. My notion of loyalty does
not involve acceptance of current rule or government irrespective of
its righteousness or otherwise. Such notion is based upon the belief -
not in its present justice or morality but -in a future acceptance by
governments of that standard of morality in practice which it at
present vaguely and hypocritically believes in, in theory. But I must
frankly confess that I am not so much concerned about the stability
of the Empire as I am about that of the ancient civilisation of India,
which, in my opinion, represents the best that the world has ever
seen. The British Government in India constitutes a struggle
between the Modern Civilisation, which is the Kingdom of Satan,
and the Ancient Civilisation, which is the Kingdom of God. The one
is the God of War, the other is the God of Love. My countrymen
impute the evils of modern civilisation to the English people are bad,
and not the civilisation they represent. My countrymen, therefore,
believe that they should adopt modern civilisation and modern
methods of violence to drive out the English. 'Hind Swaraj' has been
written in order to show that they are following a suicidal policy,
and that, if they would but revert to their own glorious civilisation,
either the English would adopt the latter and become Indianised or
find their occupation in India gone.
It was at first intended to publish the translation as a part of
Indian Opinion, but the seizure of the original rendered such a
course inadvisable. Indian Opinion represents the Transvaal Passive
Resistance struggle and ventilates the grievances of British Indians
in South Africa generally. It was, therefore, thought desirable not to
publish through a representative organ, views which are held by me
personally and which may even be considered dangerous or disloyal.
I am naturally anxious not to compromise a great struggle by any
action of mine which has no connection with it.
Had I not known that there was a danger of methods of violence
becoming popular, even in South Africa, had I not been called upon
by hundreds of my countrymen, and not a few English friends, to
express my opinion on the Nationalist movement in India, I would
even have refrained, for the sake of the struggle, from reducing my
views to writing. But, occupying the position I do, it would have
been cowardice on my part to postpone publication under the
circumstances just referred to
M. K. Gandhi
Johannesburg
March 20th, 1910
Foreword
I have written some chapters on the subject of Indian Home
Rule which I venture to place before the readers of Indian Opinion. I
have written because I could not restrain myself. I have read much, I
have pondered much, during the stay, for four months in London of
the Transvaal Indian deputation. I discussed things with as many of
my countrymen as I could. I met, too, as many Englishmen as it was
possible for me to meet. I consider it my duty now to place before
the readers of Indian Opinion the conclusions, which appear to me
to be final. The Gujarati subscribers of Indian Opinion number
about 800. I am aware that, for every subscriber, there are at least
ten persons who read the paper with zest. Those who cannot read
Gujarati have the paper read to them. Such persons have often
questioned me about the condition of India. Similar questions were
addressed to me in London. I felt, therefore, that it might not be
improper for me to ventilate publicly the views expressed by me in
private.
The views are mine, and yet not mine. They are mine because I
hope to act according to them. They are almost a part of my being.
But, yet, they are not mine, because I lay no claim to originality. The
have been formed after reading several books. That which I dimly
felt received support from these books.
The views I venture to place before the readers are, needless to
say, held by many Indians not touched by what is known as
civilisation, but I ask the reader to believe me when I tell him that
they are also held by thousands of Europeans. Those who wish to
dive deep, and have time, may read certain books themselves. If
time permits me, I hope to translate portions of such books for the
benefit of the readers of Indian Opinion.
If the readers of Indian Opinion and others who may see the
following chapters will pass their criticism on to me, I shall feel
obliged to them.
The only motive is to serve my country, to find out the Truth,
and to follow it. If, therefore my views are proved to be wrong, I
shall have no hesitation in rejecting them. If they are proved to be
right, I would naturally wish, for the sake of the Motherland, that
others should adopt them.
To make it easy reading the chapters are written in the form of a
dialogue between the reader and the Editor
M. K. Gandhi
Kildonan Castle
November 22nd, 1909
CHAPTER I
THE CONGRESS AND ITS OFFICIALS
Reader: Just at present there is a Home Rule wave passing over
India. All our countrymen appear to be pining for National
Independence. A similar spirit pervades them even in South Africa.
Indians seem to be eager to acquire rights, Will you explain your
views in this matter?
Editor: You have put the question well, but the answer is not
easy. One of the objects of a newspaper is to understand popular
feeling and to give expression to it, another is to arouse among the
people certain desirable sentiments, and the third is fearlessly to
expose popular defects. The exercise of all these three functions is
involved in answering your question. To a certain extent the people's
will has to be expressed, certain sentiments will need to be fostered,
and defects will have to be brought to light. But. as you have asked
the question, it is my duty to answer it.
Reader: Do you then consider that a desire for Home Rule has
been created among us?
Editor: That desire gave rise to the National Congress. The
choice of the word "National" implies it.
Reader: That surely, is not the case. Young India seems to
ignore the Congress. It is considered to be an instrument for
perpetuating British Rule.
Editor: That opinion is not justified. Had not the Grand Old
Man of India prepared the soil, our young men could not have even
spoken about Home Rule. How can we forget what Mr. Hume has
written, how he has lashed us into action, and with what effort he
has awakened us, in order to achieve the objects of the Congress?
Sir William Wedderburn has given his body, mind and money to the
same cause. His writings are worthy of perusal to this day. Professor
Gokhale in order to prepare the nation, embraced poverty and gave
twenty years of his life. Even now, he is living in poverty. The late
Justice Budruddin Tyebji was also one of those who, through the.
Congress, sowed the seed of Home Rule. Similarly, in Bengal,
Madras. the Punjab and other places, there have been lovers of India
and members of the Congress, both Indian and English.
Reader: Stay, stay, you are going too far, you are straying away
from my question. I have asked you about Home or Self-Rule; you
are discussing foreign rule. I do not desire to bear English names,
and you are giving me such names. In these circumstances, I do not
think we can ever meet. I shall be pleased if you will confine
yourself to Home Rule. All other talk will not satisfy me.
Editor: You are impatient. I cannot afford to be likewise. If you
will bear with me for a while. I think you will find that you will
obtain what you want. Remember the old proverb that the tree does
not grow in one day. The fact that you have checked me and that
you do not want to bear about the well-wishers of India shows that,
for you at any rate, Home Rule is yet far away. If we had many like
you, we would never make any advance. This thought is worthy of
your attention.
Reader: It seems to me that you simply want to put me off by
talking round and round. Those whom you consider to be wellwishers
of India are not such in my estimation. Why, then, should I
listen to your discourse on such people'? What has he whom you
consider to he the Father of the Nation done for it? He says that the
English Governors will do justice and that we should co-operate
with them.
Editor: I must tell you, with all gentleness that it must be a
matter of shame for us that you should speak about that great man in
terms of disrespect. Just look at his work. He has dedicated his life
to the service of India. We have learned what we know from him. II
was the respects Dadabbai who taught us that the English had
sucked our lifeblood. What does it matter that, today, his trust is still
in the English nation'! Is Dadabhai less to be honored because, in the
exuberance of youth, we are prepared to go a step further? Are we,
on that account. wiser than he? it is a mark of wisdom not to kick
away the very step from which we have risen higher. The removal of
a step from a staircase brings down the whole of it. When, out of
infancy, we grow into youth, we do not despise infancy, but, on the
contrary, we recall with affection the days of our childhood. 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. He
would always command my respect. Such is the case with the Grand
Old Man of India. We must admit that he is the author of
nationalism.
Reader: You have spoken well. I can now understand that we
must look upon Mr.Dadabhai with respect. Without him and men
like him, we should probably not have the spirit that fires us. How
can the same be said of Professor Gokhale? He has constituted
himself a great friend of the English., he says that we have to learn a
great deal from them, that we have to learn their political wisdom,
before we can talk of Home Rule. I am tired of reading his speeches.
Editor: If you are tired, it only betrays your impatience. 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. We shall become useless, if
we lack respect for our elders. Only men with mature thoughts are
capable of ruling themselves and not the hasty-tempered. Moreover,
how many Indians were there like Professor Gokhale. when he gave
himself to Indian education? I verify believe that whatever Professor
Gokhale does, he does with pure motives and with a view of serving
India. His devotion to the Motherland is so great that he would give
his life for it, if necessary. Whatever he says is said not to flatter
anyone but because he believes it to be true. We are bound, therefore
to entertain the highest regard for him.
Reader: Are we, then. to follow him in every respect?
Editor: I never said any such thing. If we conscientiously
differed from him, the learned Professor himself would advise us to
follow the dictates of our conscience rather than him. Our chief
purpose is not to decry his work, but to believe that he is infinitely
greater than we are, and to feel assured that compared, with his work
for India, ours is infinitesimal. Several. newspaper,-, write
disrespectfully of him. It is our duty against such writings. We
should consider men like Professor Gokhale to be the pillars of
Home Rule. It is bad habit to say that another man's thoughts are bad
and ours only. are good and that those holding different view's from
ours are the enemies of the country.
Reader: I now begin to understand somewhat your meaning, I
shall have to think the matter over. But what you say about Mr.
Hume and Sir William Wedderburn is beyond my comprehension.
Editor: The same rule holds good for the English as for the
Indians. I can never subscribe to the, statement that all Englishmen
are bad. Many Englishmen desire Home Rule for India. That the
English people are somewhat more selfish than others is true, but
that does not prove that every Englishman is bad. We who seek
justice will have to do justice to others. Sir William does not wish ill
to India, -that should be enough for us. As we proceed, you will see
that, if we act justly India will be sooner free. You will see, too, that
if we shun every Englishman as an enemy, Home Rule will be
delayed. But if we are just to them, we shall receive their support in
our progress towards the goal.
Reader: All this seems to me at present to be simply
nonsensical. English support and the obtaining of Home Rule are
two contradictory things. How can the English people tolerate'
Home Rule for us? But I do not want you to decide this question for
me just yet. To spend time over it is useless. When you have shown
how we can have Home Rule, perhaps I shall understand your
views. You have prejudiced against you by discoursing on English
help. I, would, therefore, beseech you not to continue on this subject.
Editor: I have no desire to do so. That you are prejudiced
against me is not a matter for much anxiety. It is well that I should
say unpleasant things at the commencement. It is my duty patiently
to try to remove your prejudice.
Reader: I like that last statement. It emboldens me to say what I
like. One thing still puzzles me. I do not understand how the
Congress laid the foundation of Home Rule.
Editor: Let us see. The Congress brought together Indians from
different parts of India, and enthused us with the idea of nationality.
The government used to look upon it with disfavor. The Congress
has always insisted the nation should control revenue and
expenditure. it has always desired self-government after Canadian
model. Whether we can get it or not, whether we desire it or not, and
whether there is not something more desirable, are different
questions. All I have to show is that the Congress gave us a foretaste
of Home rule. To deprive it of the honor is not proper, and for us to
do so would not only be ungrateful, but retard the fulfillment of our
object. To treat the Congress as an institution inimical to our growth
as a nation would disable us from using that body.
CHAPTER II
THE PARTITION OF BENGAL
Reader: Considering the matter as you put it, it seems proper to
say that the foundation of Home Rule was laid by the Congress. But
you will admit that this cannot be considered a real awakening.
When and how did the real awakening take place?
Editor: The seed is never seen. It works underneath the ground.
is itself destroyed, and the tree which rises above the ground is alone
seen. Such is the case with the Congress. Yet, what you call the real
awakening took. place after the Partition of Bengal. For this we have
to be thankful to Lord Curzon. At the time of the Partition, the
people of Bengal reasoned with Lord Curzon, but in the pride of
power he disregarded all their prayers. He took it for granted that
Indians could only prattle, that they could never take any effective
steps. He used insulting language, and in the teeth of all opposition
partitioned Bengal. That day may be consider- ed to be the day of
the partition of the British Empire. The shock the British power
received through the Partition has never been equaled by any other
act. This does not mean that the other injustices done to India are
less glaring than that done by the Partition. The salt-tax is not a
small injustice. We shall see many such things later on. But the
people were ready to resist the Partition. At that time feeling ran
high. Many leading Bengalis were ready to lose their all. They knew
their power; hence the conflagration. It is now well-nigh
unquenchable; it is not necessary to quench it either. The Partition
will go, Bengal will be reunited, but the rift in the English barque
will remain; it must daily widen. India awakened is not likely to fall
asleep. The demand for the abrogation of the, Partition is tantamount
to a demand for Home Rule. Leaders in Bengal know this. British
officials realize it. That is why the Partition still remains. As time
passes, the Nation is being forged. Nations are not formed in a day;
the formation requires years.
Reader: What, in your opinion, are the results of the Partition?
Editor: Hitherto we have considered that for redress of
grievances we must approach the throne. and if we get no redress we
must sit still, except that we may still petition. After the Partition,
people saw that petitions must be backed up by force and that they
must be capable of suffering. This new spirit must be considered to
be the chief result of the Partition. That spirit was seen in the
outspoken writings in the Press. That which the people said
tremblingly and in secret began to be said and to be written publicly.
The Swadeshi movement was inaugurated. People. young and old,
used to run away at the sight of an English face. it now no longer
awes them. They do not fear even a row. or being imprisoned. Some
of the best sons of India are at present in banishment. This is
something different from mere petitioning. Thus are the people
moved. The spirit generated in Bengal has spread in the north to the
Punjab, and in the south to Cape Comorin.
Reader: Do you suggest any other striking result"
Editor: The Partition has not only made a rift in the English
ship but has made it in ours also. Great events always produce great
results. Our leaders are divided into two parties: the Moderates and
the Extremists. These may be considered as the slow party and the
impatient party. Some call the Moderates the timid party. and the
Extremists the bold party. All interpret the two words according to
their preconceptions. This much is certain that there has arisen an
enmity between the two. The one distrusts the other and imputes
motives. At the time of the Surat Congress there was almost a fight.
I think that this division is not a good thing for the country, but I
think also that such divisions will not last long. It all depends upon
the leaders how long they will last.
CHAPTER III
DISCONTENT AND UNREST
Reader: Then you consider the Partition to he a cause of the
awakening? Do you welcome the unrest which has resulted from it?
Editor: When a man rises from sleep, he twists his limbs and is
restless. It takes some time before he is entirely awakened.
Similarly, although the Partition has caused an awakening, the
comatose condition has not yet disappeared. We are still twisting our
limbs and are still restless, and just as the state between sleep and
awakening must be considered to be necessary, so may the present
unrest in India be considered a necessary and therefore, a proper
state. The knowledge that there is unrest will, it is highly probable,
enable us to outgrow it. Rising from sleep, we do not continue in a
comatose state, but according to our ability, sooner or later, we are
completely restored to our senses. So shall we be free from the
present unrest which no one likes.
Reader: What is the other form of unrest?
Editor: Unrest is, in reality, discontent. The latter is only now
described as unrest. During the Congress-period it was labeled
discontent. Mr. Hume always said that the spread of discontent in
India was necessary. This discontent is a very useful thing. As 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 he preceded by discontent. We throw away things we have,
only then we cease to like them. Such discontent has been produced
among us after reading the great works of Indians and Englishmen.
Discontent has led to unrest, and the latter has brought about many
deaths, many imprisonments, many banishments. Such a state of
things will still continue. It must be so. All these may be considered
good signs but they may also lead to bad results.
CHAPTER IV
WHAT IS SWARAJ?
Reader: I have now learnt what the Congress has done to make
India one nation, how the partition has caused an awakening, and
how discontent and unrest have spread through the land. I would
now like to know your views on Swaraj. I fear that our interpretation
is not the same as yours.
Editor: It is quite possible that we do not attach the same
meaning to the term. You and I and all Indians are impatient to
attain 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. I must ask you a question. Do you think that it is
necessary to drive away English if we get all we want?
Reader: I should ask of them only one thing, that is: "Please
leave our country." If, after they have complied with this request,
their withdrawal from India means that they are still in India. I
should have no objection. Then we would understand that, in their
language, the word "gone" is equivalent to "remained".
Editor: Well then, let us suppose that the English have retired.
What will you do then?
Reader: That question cannot be answered at this stage. The
state after withdrawal will depend largely upon the manner of it. If,
as you assume, they retire for the asking we should have an army,
etc., ready at hand. We should, therefore, have no difficulty in
carrying on the Government.
Editor: You may think so; I do not. But I will not discuss the
matter just now. I have to answer your question, and that I can do
well by asking you several questions. Why do you want to drive
away the English?
Reader: Because India has become impoverished by their
government. They take away our money from year to year. The most
important posts are reserved for themselves. We are kept in a state
of slavery. They behave insolently towards us and disregard our
feelings.
Editor: If they do not take our money away, become gentle, and
give us responsible posts, you would still consider their presence to
be harmful?
Reader: That question is useless. It is similar to the question
whether there is any harm in associating with a tiger if he changes
his nature. Such a question is sheer waste of time. When a tiger
changes his nature, Englishmen will change theirs. This is not
possible, and to believe it to be possible is contrary to human
experience.
Editor: Supposing we get Self-Government similar what the
Canadians and the South-Africans have, will it be good enough?
Reader: That question also is useless. We may get it when we
have the same powers; we shall then hoist our own fag. As is Japan,
so must India be. We must own our navy, our army, and we must
have our own splendor, and then will India's voice ring through the
world.
Editor: You have drawn the picture well. In effect it means this:
that we want English rule without the Englishman. You want the
tiger's nature, but not the tiger; that is to say, you would make India
English. And when it becomes English, it will be called not
Hindustan but Englishtan. This is not the Swaraj I want.
Reader: I have placed before you my idea of Swaraj as I think it
should be. if the education we have received be of any use, if the
works of Spencer, Mill and others be of any importance, and if the
English Parliament be the Mother of Parliaments, I certainly think
that we should copy the English people, and this is to such an extent
that, just as they do not allow others to obtain footing in their
country, so we should not allow them or others to obtain it in ours.
What they have done in their country has not been done in any other
country. It is, therefore proper for us to import their institutions. But
now I want to know your views.
Editor: There is need for patience. My views will develop of
themselves in the course of this discourse. It is as difficult for me to
understand the true nature of Swaraj as it seems to you to be easy. I
shall therefore, for the time being, content myself with endeavoring
to show that what you call Swaraj is not truly Swaraj.
CHAPTER V
THE CONDITION OF ENGLAND
Reader: Then from your statement I deduce that the
Government of England is not desirable, and not worth copying by
us.
Editor: Your deduction is justified. The condition of England at
present is pitiable. I pray to God that India may never be in that
plight. That which you consider to be the Mother of Parliaments is
like a sterile. woman and a prostitute. Both these are harsh terms.
but exactly fit the case. That Parliament has not yet, of its own
accord done a single good thing. Hence I have compared it to a
sterile woman. The natural condition of that Parliament is such that,
without outside pressure, it can do nothing. It is like a prostitute
because it as under the control of ministers who change from time to
time. Today it is under Mr. Asquith tomorrow it may be under Mr.
Balfour.
Reader: You have said this sarcastically. The term "sterile
woman" is not applicable. The Parliament being elected by the
people, must work under public pressure. This is its quality.
Editor: You are mistaken. Let us examine it a little more
closely. The best men are supposed to be elected by, the people. The
members serve without pay and therefore it must be assumed only
for the, public weal. The electors are considered to be educated and
therefore we should assume that they would not generally-make
mistakes in their choice. Such a Parliament should not need the spur
of petitions or any other pressure. Its work should be so smooth that
its effects would be more apparent day by day. But. as a matter of
fact. it is generally acknowledged that the members are hypocritical
and selfish. Each thinks of his own little interest. It is fear that is the
guiding motive. What is done today may be undone tomorrow. It is
not possible to recall a single instance in which finality can be
predicted for its work. When the greatest questions are debated. its
members have been seen to stretch themselves and to doze.
Sometimes the members talk away until the listeners are disgusted.
Carlyle has called it the "talking shop of the world" Members vote
for their party without a thought. Their so-called discipline binds
them to it. If any member. by way of exception. gives an
independent vote. he is considered a renegade. If the money and the
time wasted by Parliament were entrusted to a few good men. the
English nation would be occupying today a much higher platform.
Parliament is simply a costly toy of the nation. These views are by
no means peculiar to- me. Some great English thinkers have
expressed them. One of the members of that Parliament recently said
that a true Christian could not become a member of it. Another said
that it was a baby. And if it has remained a baby after an existence
of seven hundred years, when will it outgrow its babyhood?
Reader: You have set me thinking. You do not expect me to
accept at once all you say. You give me entirely novel views. I shall
have to digest them. Will you now explain the epithet "prostitute"?
Editor: That You cannot accept my views at once is only right.
If you will read the literature on this subject you will have some idea
of it. Parliament is without a real master. Under the Prime Minister,
its movement is not steady, but it is buffeted about like a prostitute.
The Prime Minister is more concerned about his power than about
the welfare of Parliament. His energy is concentrated upon securing
the success of his party. His care is not always that Parliament shall
do right. Prime Ministers are known to have made Parliament do
things merely for party advantage. All this is worth thinking over.
Reader: Then you are really attacking the very men whom we
have hitherto considered to be patriotic and honest?.
Editor: Yes, that is true. I can have nothing against Prime
Ministers, but what I have seen leads me to think that they cannot be
considered really patriotic. If they are to be considered honest
because they do not take what are generally known as bribes. let
them 'be so considered, but they are open to subtler influences. In
order to gain their ends, they certainly bribe people with honors. I do
not hesitate to say that they have neither real honesty nor a living
conscience.
Reader: As you express these views about Parliament" I would
like to bear you on the English people, so that I may have your view
of their Government.
Editor: To the English voters their newspaper is their Bible.
They take their cue from their newspapers which are often
dishonest. The same fact is differently interpreted by different
newspapers, according to the party in whose interests they are
edited. One newspaper would consider a great Englishman to be a
paragon of honesty, another would consider him dishonest. What
must be the condition of the people whose newspapers are of this
type?
Reader: You shall describe it.
Editor: These people change their views frequently. It is said
that they change them every seven years. These views swing like the
pendulum of a clock and are never steadfast. The people would
follow a powerful orator or a man who gives them parties.
receptions. etc. As are the people, so is their Parliament. They have
certainly, one quality very strongly developed. They will never
allow, their country, to be lost. If any person were to cast an evil eye
on it. they, would pluck out his eyes. But that does not 'mean that the
nation possesses every other virtue or that it should be imitated. If
India copies England, it is my firm conviction that she will be
ruined.
Reader: To what do you ascribe this state of England?
Editor: It is not due to any peculiar fault of the English people,
but the condition is due to modern civilization. It is a civilization
only in name. Under it the nations of Europe are becoming degraded
and ruined day by day.
CHAPTER VI
CIVILIZATION
Reader: Now you will have to explain what you mean by
civilization.
Editor: It is not a question of what I mean. Several English
writers refuse to call that civilization which passes under that name.
Many books have been written upon that subject. Societies have
been formed to cure the nation of the evils of civilization. A great
English writer has written a work called Civilization: Its Cause and
Cure. Therein he has called it a disease.
Reader: Why do we not know this generally?
Editor: The answer is very simple. We rarely find people
arguing against themselves. Those who are intoxicated by modern
civilization are not likely to write against it. Their care will be to
find out facts and arguments in support of it, and this they do
unconsciously. believing it to be true. A man whilst he is dreaming,
believes in his dream. he is undeceived only when he is awakened
from his sleep. A man laboring under the bane of civilization is like
a dreaming man. What we usually read are the works of defenders of
modern civilization, which undoubtedly claims among its votaries
very brilliant and even some very good men. Their writings
hypnotize us, And so, one by one, we are drawn into the vortex.
Reader: This seems to be very plausible. Now will you tell me
something of what you have read and thought of this civilization?
Editor: Let us first consider what state of things is described by
the word "civilization". Its true test lies in the fact that people living
in it make bodily welfare the object of life. We will take sonic
examples. The people of Europe today live in better-build houses
than they did a hundred years ago. This is considered an emblem of
civilization, and this is also a matter to promote bodily happiness.
Formerly, they wore skins, and used spears as their weapons. 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. If people of a
certain country, who have hitherto not been in the habit of wearing
much clothing, boots, etc., adopt European clothing, they are
supposed to have become civilized out of savagery. Formerly, in
Europe, people ploughed their lands mainly by manual labor. Now,
one man can plough a vast tract by means of steam engines and can
thus amass great wealth. This is called a sign of civilization.
Formerly, only a few men wrote valuable books. Now, anybody
writes and prints anything he likes and poisons people's minds.
Formerly, men traveled in wagons. Now, they fly through the air in
trains at the rate of four hundred and more miles per day. This is
considered the height of civilization. It has been stated that, as men
progress, they shall be able to travel in airship and reach any part, of
the world in a few hours. Men will not need the use of their hands
and feet. They will press a button, and they will have their clothing
by their side. They will press another button, and they will have their
newspaper. A third, and a motor-car will be in waiting for them.
They will have a variety of delicately dished up food. Everything
will be done by machinery. Formerly, when people wanted to fight
with one another, they measured between them their bodily strength;
now it is possible to take away thousands of lives by one man
working behind a gun from a hill. This is civilization. Formerly, men
worked in the open air only as much as they liked. Now thousands
of workmen meet together and for the sake of maintenance work in
factories or mines. Their condition is worse than that of beasts. They
are obliged to work, at the risk of their lives, at most dangerous
occupations, for the sake of millionaires. Formerly, men were made
slaves under physical compulsion. Now they are enslaved by
temptation of money and of the luxuries that money can buy. There
are now diseases of which people never dreamt before, and an army
of doctors is engaged in finding out their cures, and so hospitals
have increased. This is a test of civilization. Formerly, special
messengers were required and much expense was incurred in order
to send letters; today, anyone can abuse his fellow by means of a
letter for one penny. True, at the same cost, one can send one's
thanks also. Formerly, people had two or three meals consisting of
home-made bread and vegetables; now, they require something to
eat every two hours so that they have hardly leisure for anything
else. What more need I say'? All this you can ascertain from several
authoritative books. These are all true tests of civilization. And if
anyone speaks to the contrary, know that he is ignorant. This
civilization takes note neither of morality nor of religion. Its votaries
calmly state that their business is not to teach religion. Some even
consider it to be a superstitious growth. Others put on the cloak of
religion, and prate about morality. But, after twenty years'
experience, I have come to the conclusion that immorality is often
taught in the name of morality. Even a child can understand that in
all I aye described above there can be no inducement to morality.
Civilization seeks to increase bodily comforts, and it fails miserably
even in doing so.
This civilization is irreligion, and it has taken such a hold on the
people in Europe that those who are in it appear to be half mad.
They lack real physical strength or courage. They keep up their
energy by intoxication. They can hardly be happy in solitude.
Women, who should be the queens of households, wander in the
streets or they slave away in factories. For the sake of a pittance,
half a million women in England alone are laboring under trying
circumstances in factories or similar institutions. This awful act is
one of the causes of the daily growing suffragette movement.
This civilization is such that one has only to be patient and it
will be self-destroyed. According to the teaching of Mohammed this
would be considered a Satanic Civilization. Hinduism calls it a
Black Age. I cannot give you an adequate conception of it. It is
eating into the vitals of the English nation. It must be shunned.
Parliaments are really emblems of slavery. If you will sufficiently
think over this, you will entertain the same opinion and cease to to
blame the English. They rather deserve our sympathy. They are a
shrewd nation and I therefore believe that they will cast off the evil.
They are enterprising and industrious, and their mode of thought is
not inherently immoral. Neither are they bad at heart. I therefore
respect them. Civilization is not an incurable disease, but it should
never be forgotten that the English are at present afflicted by it.
CHAPTER VII
WHY WAS INDIA LOST?
Reader: You have said much about civilization-enough to make
me ponder over it. I do not now know what I should adopt and what
I should avoid from the nations of Europe, but one question comes
to my lips immediately. If civilization is a disease and if it has
attacked England, why has she been able to take India. and why is
she able to retain it?
Editor: Your question is not very difficult to answer, and we
shall presently he able to examine the true nature of Swaraj; for I am
aware that I have still to answer that question. I will, however. take
up your previous question. 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. Let us now see whether these
propositions can be sustained. They came to our country originally
for purposes of trade. Recall the Company Bahadur. Who made it
Bahadur? They had not the slightest intention at the time of
establishing a kingdom. Who assisted the Company's officers'? Who
was tempted at the sight of their silver? Who bought their goods?
History testifies that we did all this. In order to become rich all at
once we welcomed the Company's officers with open arms. We
assisted them. If I am in the habit of drinking bhang and a seller
thereof sells it to me, am I to blame him or myself'? By blaming the
seller shall I he able to avoid the habit? And, if a particular retailer is
driven Away will not another take his place? A true servant of India
will have to go to the root of the matter. If an excess of food has
caused me indigestion. I shall certainly not avoid it by blaming
water. He is a true physician who probes the cause of disease, and if
you pose as a physician for the disease of India, you will have to
find out its true cause.
Reader: You are right. Now I think you will not have to argue
much with me to drive your conclusions home. I am impatient to
know your further views. We are now on a most interesting topic. I
shall, therefore, endeavor to follow your thought, and stop you when
I am in doubt.
Editor: I am afraid that, in spite of your enthusiasm, as we
proceed further, we shall have differences of opinion. Nevertheless,
I shall argue only when you stop me. We have already seen that the
English merchants were able to get a footing in India because we
encouraged them. When our Princes fought among themselves, they
sought the assistance of Company Bahadur. That corporation was
versed alike in commerce and war. It was unhampered by questions
of morality. Its object was to increase its commerce and to make
money. It accepted our assistance, and increased the number of its
warehouses. To protect the latter it employed an army which was
utilized by us also. Is it not then useless to blame the English for
what we did at that time? The Hindus and the Mohammedans were
at daggers drawn. This, too, gave the Company its opportunity and
thus we created the circumstances that gave the Company its control
over India. Hence it is truer to say that we gave India to the English
than that India was lost.
Reader: Will you now tell me how they are able to retain India?
Editor: The causes that gave them India enable them to retain it.
Some Englishmen state that they took and they hold India by the
sword. Both these statements are wrong. The sword is entirely
useless for holding India. We alone keep them Napolean is said to
have described the English as a nation of shopkeepers. It is a fitting
description. They hold whatever dominions they have for the sake of
their commerce. Their army and their navy are intended to protect it.
When the Transvaal offered no such attractions, the late Mr.
Gladstone discovered that it was not right for the English to hold it.
When it became a paying proposition, resistance led to war. Mr.
Chamberlain soon discovered that England enjoyed a suzerainty
over the Transvaal. It is related that someone asked the late
President Kruger whether there was gold in the moon. He replied
that it was highly unlikely because, if there were, the English would
have annexed it. Many problems can be solved by remembering that
money is their God. Then it follows that we keep the English in
India for our base self-interest. We like their commerce; they please
us by their subtle methods and get what they want from us. To
blame them for this is to perpetuate their power. We further
strengthen their hold by quarrelling amongst ourselves. If you accept
the above statements, it is proved that the English entered India for
the purposes of trade. They remain in it for the same purpose and we
help them to do so. Their arms and ammunition are perfectly
useless. In this connection I remind you that it is the British flag
which is waving in Japan and not the Japanese. The English have a
treaty with Japan for the sake of their commerce, and you will see
that if they can manage it their commerce will greatly expand in that
country. They wish to convert the whole world into a vast market for
their goods. That they cannot do so is true, but the blame will not be
theirs. They will leave no stone unturned to reach the goal.
CHAPTER VIII
THE CONDITION OF INDIA
Reader: I now understand why the English hold India. I should
like to know your views about the condition of our country.
Editor: It is a sad condition. In thinking of it my eyes water and
my throat gets parched. I have grave doubts whether I shall be able
sufficiently to explain what is in my heart. It is my deliberate
opinion that India is being ground down, not under the English heel,
but under that of modern civilization. It is groaning under the
monster's terrible weight. There is yet time to escape it, but every
day makes it more and more difficult. Religion is dear to me and my
first complaint is that India is becoming irreligious. Here I am not
thinking of the Hindu or the Mohammedan or the Zoroastrian
religion but of that religion which underlies all religions. We are
turning away from God.
Reader: How so?
Editor: There is a charge laid against us that we are a lazy
people and that Europeans are industrious and enterprising. We have
accepted the charge and we therefore wish to change our condition.
Hinduism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Christianity and all other religions
teach that we should remain passive about worldly pursuits and
active about godly pursuits, that we should set a limit to our worldly
ambition and that our religious ambition should be illimitable. Our
activity should be directed into the latter channel.
Reader: You seem to be encouraging religious charlatanism.
Many a cheat has, by talking in a similar strain, led the people
astray.
Editor: You are bringing an unlawful charge against religion.
Humbug there undoubtedly is about all religions. Where there is
light, there is also shadow. I am prepared to maintain that humbugs
in worldly matters are far worse than the humbugs in religion. The
humbug of civilization that I am endeavoring to show to you is not
to be found in religion.
Reader: How can you say that? In the name of religion Hindus
and Mohammedans fought against one another. For the same cause
Christians fought Christians. Thousands of innocent men have been
murdered, thousands have been burned and tortured in its name.
Surely, this is much worse than any civilization.
Editor: I certainly submit that the above hardships are far more
bearable than those of civilization. Everybody understands that the
cruelties you have named are not part of religion although they have
been practiced in its name; therefore there is no aftermath to these
cruelties. They will always happen so long as there are to be found
ignorant and credulous people. But there is no end to the victims
destroy- ed in the fire of civilization. Its deadly effect is that people
come under its scorching flames believing it to be all good. They
become utterly irreligious and, in reality, derive little advantage
from the world. Civilization is like a mouse gnawing while it is
soothing us. When its full effect is realized, we shall see that
religious superstition is harmless compared to that of modern
civilization. I am not pleading for a continuance of religious
superstitions. We shall certainly fight them tooth and nail, but we
can never do so by disregarding religion. We can only do so by
appreciating and conserving the latter.
Reader: Then you will contend that the Pax Britannica is a
useless encumbrance?
Editor: You may see peace if you like; I see none.
Reader: You make light of the terror that the Thugs, the
Pindaris and the Shils were to the country.
Editor: If you give the matter some thought, you will see that
the terror was by no means such a mighty thing. If it had been a very
substantial thing, the other people would have died away before the
English advent. Moreover, the present peace is only nominal, for by
it we have become emasculated and cowardly. We are not to assume
that the English have changed the nature of the Pindaris and the
Bhils. It is, therefore, better to suffer the Pindari peril than that
someone else should protect us from it and thus render us
effeminate. I should prefer to be killed by the arrow of a Bhil than to
seek unmanly protection. India without such protection was an India
full of valor. Macaulay betrayed gross ignorance when he labeled
Indians as being practically cowards. They never merited the charge.
Cowards living in a country inhabited by hardy mountaineers and
infested by wolves and tigers must surely find an early grave. Have
you ever visited our fields? I assure you that our agriculturists sleep
fearlessly on their farms even today, but the English and you and I
would hesitate to sleep where they sleep. Strength lies in absence of
fear, not in the quantity of flesh and muscle we may have on our
bodies. Moreover, I must remind you who desire Home Rule that,
after all, the Bhils, the Pindaris, and the Thugs are our own
countrymen. To conquer them is your and my work. So long as we
fear our own brethren, we are unfit to reach the goal.
CHAPTER IX
THE CONDITION OF INDIA (CONTINUED):
RAILWAYS
Reader: You have deprived me of the consolation I used to
have regarding peace in India.
Editor: I have merely given you my opinion on the religious
aspect, but when I give you my views as to the poverty of India, you
will perhaps begin to dislike me because what you and I have
hitherto considered beneficial for India no longer appears to me to
be so.
Reader: What may that be?
Editor: Railways, lawyers and doctors have impoverished the
country so much so that, if we do not wake up in time. we shall be
ruined.
Reader: I do now, indeed, fear that we are not likely to agree at
all. You are attacking the very institutions which we have hitherto
considered to be good.
Editor: It is necessary to exercise patience. The true inwardness
of the evils of civilization you will understand with difficulty.
Doctors assure us that a consumptive clings to life even when he is
about to die. Consumption does not produce apparent hurt it even
produces a seductive color about a patient's face so as to induce the
belief that all is well. Civilization is such a disease and we have to
he very wary.
Reader: Very well, then. I shall bear you on the railways.
Editor: It must he manifest to you that, but for the railways, the
English could not have such a hold on India as they have. The
railways, too, have spread the bubonic plague. Without them the
masses could not move from place to place. They are the carriers of
plague germs. Formerly we had natural segregation. Railways have
also increased the frequency of famines because, owing to facility of
means of locomotion people sell out their grain and it is sent to the
dearest markets. People become careless and so the pressure of
famine increases. Railways accentuate the evil nature of man. Bad
men fulfill their evil designs with greater rapidity. The holy places
of India have become unholy. Formerly, people went to these places
with very great difficulty. Generally, therefore, only the real real
devotees visited such places. Nowadays rogues visit them in order to
practice their roguery.
Reader: You have given one-sided account. Good men can visit
these places as well as bad men. Why do they not take the fullest
advantage of the railways?
Editor: Good travels at a snail's pace-it can, therefore, have
little to do with the railways. Those who want to do good are not
selfish, they are not in a hurry, they know that to impregnate people
with good requires a long time. But evil has wings. To build a house
takes time. Its destruction takes none. So the railways can become a
distributing agency for the evil one only. It may be a debatable
matter whether railways spread famines, but it is beyond dispute that
they propagate evil.
Reader: Be that as it may, all the disadvantages of railways are
more than the counterbalanced by the fact that it is due to them that
we see in India the new spirit of nationalism.
Editor: I hold this to be a mistake. The English have taught us
that we were not one nation before and that it will require centuries
before we become one nation. This is without foundation. We were
one nation before they came to India. One thought inspired us. Our
mode of life was the same. It was because we were one nation that
they were able to establish one kingdom. Subsequently they divided
us.
Reader: This requires an explanation.
Editor: I do not wish to suggest that because we were one
nation we had no differences, but it is submitted that our leading
men traveled throughout India either on foot or in bullock-carts.
They learned one another's languages and there was no aloofness
between them. What do you think could have been the intention of
those farseeing ancestors of ours who established Setubandha
(Rameshwar) in the South, Jagannath in the East and Hardwar in the
North as places of pilgrimage? You Will admit they were no fools.
They knew that worship of God could have been performed just as
well at home. They taught us that those whose hearts were aglow
with righteousness had the Ganges in their own homes. But they saw
that India was one undivided land so made by nature. They,
therefore, argued that it must be one nation. Arguing thus, they
established holy places in various parts of India, and fired the people
with an idea of nationality in a manner unknown in other parts of the
world. And we Indians are one as no two Englishmen are. Only you
and I and others who consider ourselves civilized and superior
persons imagine that we are many nations. It was after the advent of
railways that we began to believe in distinctions, and you are at
liberty now to say that it is through the railways that we are
beginning to abolish those distinctions. An opium-cater may argue
the advantage of opium eating from the fact that he began to
understand the evil of the opium habit after having eaten it. I would
ask you to consider well what I had said on the railways.
Reader: I will gladly do so, but one question occurs to me even
now. You have described to me the India of the pre- Mohammedan
period, but now we have Mohammedans, Parsis and Christians. How
can they be one nation? Hindus and Mohammedans are old enemies.
Our very proverbs prove it. Mohammedans turn to the West for
worship, whilst Hindus turn to the East. The former look down on
the Hindus as idolaters. The Hindus worship the cow, the
Mohammedans kill her. The Hindus believe in the doctrine of nonkilling,
the Mohammedans do not. We thus meet with differences at
every step. How can India he one nation?
CHAPTER X
THE CONDITION OF INDIA (CONTINUED):
THE HINDUS AND THE MOHAMMEDANS
Editor: Your last question is a serious one and yet, on careful
consideration, it will be found to be easy of solution. The question
arises because of the presence of the railways, of the lawyers and of
the doctors. We shall presently examine the last two. We have
already considered the railways. I should, however, like to add that
man is so made by nature as to require him to restrict his movements
as far as his hands and feet will take him. If we did not rush about
from place to place by means of railways and such other maddening
conveniences, much of the confusion that arises would be obviated.
Our difficulties are of our own creation. God set a limit to a man's
locomotive ambition in the construction of his body. Man
immediately proceeded to discover means of overriding the limit.
God gifted man with intellect that he might know his Maker. Man
abused it so that he might forget his Maker. I am so constructed that
I can only serve my immediate neighbours, but in my conceit I
pretend to have discovered that I must with my body serve every
individual in the Universe. In thus attempting the impossible, man
comes in contact with different natures, different religions, and is
utterly confounded. According to this reasoning, it must be apparent
to you that railways are a most dangerous institution. Owing to
them, man has gone further away from his Maker.
Reader: But I am impatient to bear your answer to my question.
Has the introduction of Mohammedanism not unmade the nation?
Editor: India cannot cease to be one nation because people
belonging to different religions live in it. The introduction of
foreigners does not necessarily destroy the nation, they merge in it.
A country is one nation only when such a condition obtains in it.
That country must have a faculty for assimilation, India has ever
been such a country. In reality there are as many religions as there
are individuals; but those who are conscious of the spirit of
nationality do not interfere with one another's religion. If they do,
they are not fit to be considered a nation. If the Hindus believe that
India should be peopled only by Hindus, they are living in
dreamland. The Hindus, the Mohammedans, the Parsis and the
Christians who have made India their country are fellow
countrymen, and they will have to live in unity, if only for their own
interest. In no part of the world are one nationality and one religion
synonymous terms; nor has it ever been so in India.
Reader: But what about the inborn enmity between Hindus and
Mohammedans?
Editor: That phrase has been invented by our mutual enemy.
When the Hindus and Mohammedans fought against one another,
they certainly spoke in that strain. They have long since ceased to
fight. How, then, can there be any inborn enmity? Pray remember
this too, that we did not cease to fight only after British occupation.
The Hindus flourished under Moslem sovereigns and Moslems
under the Hindu. Each party recognized that mutual fighting was
suicidal, and that neither party would abandon its religion by force
of arms. Both parties, therefore, decided to live in peace. With the
English advent quarrels recommenced.
The proverbs you have quoted were coined when both were
fighting; to quote them now is obviously harmful. Should we not
remember that many Hindus and Mohammedans own the same
ancestors and the same blood runs through their veins? Do people
become enemies because they change their religion? Is the God of
the Mohammedan different from the God of the Hindu? Religions
are different roads converging to the same point. What does it matter
that we take different roads so long as we reach the same goal?
Wherein is the cause of quarreling?
Moreover, there are deadly proverbs as between the followers of
Siva and those 6f Vishnu, yet nobody suggests that these two do not
belong to the same nation. It is said that the Vedic religion is
different from Jainism, but the followers of the respective faiths are
not different nations. The fact is that we have become enslaved and,
therefore, quarrel and like to have our quarrels decided by a third
party. There are Hindu iconoclasts as there are Mohammedan. The
more we advance in true knowledge, the better we shall understand
that we need not be at war with those whose religion we may not
follow.
Reader: Now I would like to know your views about cow
protection.
Editor: I myself respect the cow, that is, I look upon her with
affectionate reverence. The cow is the protector of India because,
being an agricultural country, she is dependent on the cow. The cow
is a most useful animal in hundreds of ways. Our Mohammedan
brethren will admit this.
But, just as I respect the cow, so do I respect my fellow men. A
man is just as useful as a cow no matter whether he be a
Mohammedan or a Hindu. Am I, then, to fight with or kill a
Mohammedan in order to save a cow? In doing so, I would become
an enemy of the Mohammedan as well as of the cow. Therefore, the
only method I know of protecting the cow is that I should approach
my Mohammedan brother and urge him for the sake of the country
to join me in protecting her. If he would not listen to me I should let
the cow go for the simple reason that the matter is beyond my
ability. If I were overfull of pity for the cow, I should sacrifice my
life to save her but not take my brother's. This, I hold, is the law of
our religion.
When men become obstinate, it is a f g. If I pull one way, my
Moslem brother will pull another. If I put on a superior air, he will
return the compliment. If I bow to him gently, he will do it much
more so; and if he does not, I shall not be considered to have done
wrong in having bowed. When the Hindus became insistent, the
killing of cows increased. In my opinion, cow protection societies
may be considered cow killing societies. It is a disgrace to us that we
should need such societies. When we forgot how to protect cows, I
suppose we needed such societies.
What am I to do when a blood brother is on the point of killing a
cow? Am I to kill him, or to fall down at his feet and implore him?
If you admit that I should adopt the latter course, I must do the same
to my Moslem brother.
Who protects the cow from destruction by Hindus when they
cruelly ill treat her? Whoever reasons with the Hindus when they
mercilessly belabor the progeny of the cow with their sticks? But
this has not prevented us from remaining one nation.
Lastly, if it is he true that the Hindus believe in the doctrine of
non-killing and the Mohammedans do not, what, pray, is the duty of
the former? It is not written that a follower of the religion of Ahimsa
(non-killing) may kill a fellow-man. For him the way is straight. In
order to save one being, he may not kill another. He can only plead
therein lies his sole duty.
But does every Hindu believe in Ahimsa? Going to the root of
the matter, not one man really practices 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 Mohammedans do not.
These thoughts are put into our minds by selfish and false
religious teachers. The English put the finishing touch. They have
habit of writing history; they pretend to study the manners and
customs of all peoples. God has given us a limited mental capacity,
but they usurp the function of the Godhead and indulge in novel
experiments. They write about their own researches in most
laudatory terms and hypnotize us into believing them. We in our
ignorance then fall at their feet.
Those who do not wish to misunderstand things may read up the
Koran, and they will find therein hundreds of passages acceptable to
the Hindus, and the Bhagavad Gita contains passages to which not a
Mohammedan can take exception. Am I to dislike a Mohammedan
because there are passages in the Koran I do not understand or like?
It takes two to make a quarrel. If I do not waist to quarrel with a
Mohammedan, the latter will be powerless to foist a quarrel on me;
and, similarly, I should be powerless if a Mohammedan refuses his
assistance to quarrel with me. An arm striking the air will become
disjointed. If everyone will try to understand the core of his own
religion and adhere to it, and will not allow false teachers to dictate
to him, there will be no room left for quarrelling.
Reader: But will the English ever allow the two bodies to join
hands?
Editor: This question arises out of your timidity. It betrays our
shallowness. If two brothers want to live in peace, is it possible for a
third party to separate them? If they were to listen to evil counsels
we would consider them to be foolish. Similarly, we Hindus and
Mohammedans would have to blame our folly rather than the
English, if we allowed them to put us asunder. A clay pot would
break through impact, if not with one stone, then with another. The
way to save the pot is not to keep it away from the danger point but
to bake it so that no stone would break it. We have then to make our
hearts of perfectly baked clay. Then we shall be steeled against all
danger. This can be easily done by the Hindus. They are superior in
numbers; they pretend that they are more educated, they are,
therefore, better able to shield themselves from attack on their
amicable relations with the Mohammedans.
There is mutual distrust between the two communities. The
Mohammedans, therefore ask for certain concessions from Lord
Morley. Why should the Hindus oppose this? If the Hindus desisted,
the English would notice it, the Mohammedans would gradually
begin to trust the Hindus, and brotherliness would be the outcome.
We should be ashamed to take our quarrels to the English. Everyone
can find out for himself that the Hindus can lose nothing by
desisting. That man who has inspired confidence in another has
never lost anything in this world.
I do not suggest that the Hindus and the Mohammedans will
never fight. Two brothers living together often do so. We shall
sometimes have our heads broken. Such a thing ought not to be
necessary, but all men are not equitable. When people are in a rage,
they do many foolish things. These we have to put up with. But
when we do quarrel, we certainly do not want to engage counsel and
resort to English or any law courts. Two men fight; both have their
beads broken, or one only. How shall a third party distribute justice
amongst them? Those who fight may expect to be injured.
CHAPTER XI
THE CONDITION OF INDIA (CONTINUED): LAWYERS
Reader: You tell me that when two men quarrel they .should
not go to a law-court. This is astonishing.
Editor: Whether you call it astonishing or not, it is the truth.
And your question introduces us to the lawyers and the doctors. My
firm opinion is that the lawyers have enslaved India, have
accentuated Hindu-Mohammedan dissensions and have confirmed
English authority.
Reader: It is easy enough to bring these charges, but it will be
difficult for you to prove them. But for the lawyers, who would have
shown us the road to independence? Who would have protected the
poor? Who would have secured justice? For instance, the late Man
Mohan Ghose defended many a poor man free of charge. The
Congress, which you have praised so much is dependent for its
existence and activity upon the work of the lawyers. To denounce
such an estimable class of men is to spell injustice, and you are
abusing the liberty of the press by decrying lawyers.
Editor: At one time I used to think exactly like you. I have no
desire to convince you that they have never done a single good
thing. I honor Mr. Ghose's memory. It is quite true that he helped the
poor. That the Congress owes the lawyers something is believable.
Lawyers are also men, and there is something good in every man.
Whenever instances of lawyers having done good can be brought
forward, it will be found that the good is due to them as men rather
than as lawyers. All I am concerned with is to show you that the
profession teaches immorality; it is exposed to temptation from
which few are saved.
The Hindus and the Mohammedans have quarreled. An ordinary
man will ask them to forget all about it, he will tell them that both
must be more or less at fault, and will advise them no longer to
quarrel. But they go to lawyers. The latter's duty is to side with their
clients and to find out ways and arguments in favor of the clients to
which they (the clients) are often strangers. If they do not do so they
will be considered to have degraded their profession. The lawyers
therefore, will, as a rule, advance quarrels instead of repressing
them. Moreover, men take up that profession, not in order to help
others out of their miseries, but to enrich themselves. It is one of the
avenues of becoming wealthy and their interest exists in multiplying
disputes. 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. This is a true statement. Any
other argument is a mere pretension. It is the lawyers who have
discovered that theirs is an honorable profession. They frame laws
as they frame their own praises. They decide what fees they will
charge and they put on so much side that poor people almost
consider them to be heaven born.
Why do they want more fees than common laborers? Why are
their requirements greater? In what way are they more profitable to
the country than the laborers? Are those who do good entitled to
greater payment? And, if they have done anything for the country
for the sake of money, how shall it be counted as good?
Those who know anything of the Hindu-Mohammedan quarrels
know that they have been often due to the intervention of lawyers.
Some families have been ruined through them; they have made
brothers enemies. Principalities, having come under the lawyers'
power, have become loaded with debt. Many have been robbed of
their all. Such instances can be multiplied.
But the greatest injury they have done to the country is that they
have tightened the English grip. Do you think that it would be
possible for the English to carry on their Government without law
courts? It is wrong to consider that courts are established for the
benefit of the people. Those who want to perpetuate their power do
so through the courts. If people were to settle their own quarrels, a
third party would not be able to exercise any authority over them.
Truly, men were less unmanly when they settled their disputes either
by fighting or by asking their relatives to decide for them. They
became more unmanly and cowardly when they resorted to the
courts of law. It was certainly a sign of savagery when they settled
their disputes by fighting. 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.
The chief thing, however, to be remembered is that without
lawyers courts could not have been established or conducted and
without the latter the English could not rule. Supposing that there
were only English judges, English pleaders and English police, they
could only rule over the English. The English could not do without
Indian judges and Indian pleaders. How the pleaders were made in
the first instance and how they were favored you should understand
well. Then you will have the same abhorrence for the profession,
that I have. If pleaders were to abandon and consider it just as
degrading as prostitution, English rule would break up in a day.
They have been Instrumental in having the charge laid against us
that we love quarrels and courts as fish love water. What I have said
with reference to the pleaders necessarily applies to the judges, they
are first cousins; and the one gives strength to the other.
CHAPTER XII
THE CONDITION OF INDIA (CONTINUED): DOCTORS
Reader: I now understand the lawyers, the good they may have
done is accidental. I feet that Profession is certainly hateful. You,
however, drag in the doctors also, how is that?
Editor: The views I submit to you are those I have adopted.
They are not original. Western writers have used stronger terms
regarding both lawyers and doctors. One writer has linked the whole
modern system to the Upas tree. Its branches are represented by
parasitical professions, including those, of law and medicine, and
over the trunk has been raised the axe of true religion. Immorality is
the root of the tree. So you will see that the views do not come right
out of my mind but represent the combined experiences of many. I
was at one time a great lover of the medical profession. It was my
intention to become a doctor for the sake of the country. I no longer
bold that opinion. I now understand why the medicine men (the
vaids) among us have not occupied a very honorable status.
The English have certainly effectively used the medical
profession for holding us. English physicians are known to have
used their profession with several Asiatic potentates for political
gain.
Doctors have almost unhinged us. Sometimes I think that quacks
are better than highly qualified doctors. Let us consider the business
of a doctor is to take care of the body, or, properly speaking, not
even that. Their business is really to rid the body of diseases that
may afflict, it. How do these diseases arise? Surely by our
negligence or indulgence I overeat, I have indigestion, I go to a
doctor, he gives me medicine, I am cured. I overeat again, I take his
pills again. Had I not taken the pills in the first instance, I would
have suffered the punishment deserved by me and I would not have
overeaten again. The doctor intervened and helped me to indulge
myself. My body thereby certainly felt more at ease, but my mind
became weakened. A continuance of a course of medicine must,
therefore, result in loss of control over the mind.
I have indulged in vice, I contract a disease, a doctor cures me,
the odds are that I shall repeat the vice. Had the doctor not
intervened, nature would have done its work, and I would have
acquired mastery over myself, would have been freed from vice and
would have become happy.
Hospitals are institutions for propagating sin. Men take less care
of their bodies and immorality increases. European doctors are the
worst of all. For the sake of a mistaken care of the human body, they
kill annually thousands of animals. They practice vivisection. No
religion sanctions this. All say that it is not necessary to take so
many lives for the sake of our bodies.
These doctors violate our religious instinct. Most of their
medical preparations contain either animal fat or spirituous liquors,
both of these are tabooed by Hindus and Mohammedans. We may
pretend to be civilized, call religious prohibitions a superstition and
wantonly indulge in what we like. The fact remains that the doctors
induce us to indulge, and the result is that we have become deprived
of self-control and have become effeminate. In these circumstances,
we are unfit to serve the country. To study European medicine is to
deepen our slavery.
It is worth considering why we take up the profession of
medicine. It is certainly not taken up for the purpose of serving
humanity. We become doctors so that we may obtain honors and
riches. I have endeavored to show that there is no real service of
humanity in the profession, and that it is injurious to mankind.
Doctors make a show of their knowledge, and charge exorbitant
fees. Their preparations, which are intrinsically worth a few pence,
cost shillings. The populace, in its credulity and in the hope of
ridding itself of some disease, allows itself to be cheated. Are not
quacks then whom we know, better than the doctors who put on an
air of humaneness?
CHAPTER XIII
WHAT IS TRUE CIVILIZATION?
Reader: You have denounced railways, lawyers and doctors. I
Can see that you will discard all machinery. What then, is
civilization?
Editor: The answer to that question is not difficult. I believe,
that the civilization India has evolved is not to be beaten in the
world. Nothing can equal the seeds sown by our ancestors. Rome
went, Greece shared the same fate; the might of the Pharaohs was
broken; Japan has become Westernized; of China nothing can be
said; but India is still, somehow or, other, sound at the foundation.
The people of Europe learn their lessons from the writings of the
men of Greece or Rome, which exist no longer in their, former
glory. In trying to learn from them, the Europeans imagine that they
will avoid the mistakes of Greece and Rome. Such is their pitiable
condition. In the midst of all this India, remains immovable and that
is her glory. It is a charge against India that her, people are so
uncivilized, ignorant and stolid that it is not possible to induce them
to adopt any changes. It is a charge really against our merit. What
we have tested and found true on the anvil of experience, we dare
not change. Many thrust their advice upon India, and she remains
steady. This is her beauty: it is the sheet-anchor of our hope.
Civilization is that mode of conduct which points out to man the
path of duty. Performance of duty and observance of morality are
convertible terms. To observe morality is to attain mastery over our
mind and our passions. So doing, we know ourselves. The Gujarati
equivalent for civilization means "good conduct".
If this definition be correct, then India, as so many writers have
shown, has nothing to learn from anybody else, and this is as it
should be. We notice that the mind is a restless bird; the more it gets
the more it wants, and still remains unsatisfied. The more we
indulge our passions the more unbridled they become. Our
ancestors, therefore, set a limit to our indulgences. They saw that
happiness was largely a mental condition. A man is not necessarily
happy because he is rich, or unhappy because he is poor. The rich
are often seen to be unhappy, the poor to be happy. Millions will
always remain poor. Observing all this, our ancestors dissuaded us
from luxuries and pleasures. We have managed with the same kind
of plough as existed thousands of years ago. We have retained the
same kind of cottages that we had in former times and our
indigenous education remains the same as before. We have had no
system of life corroding competition. Each followed his own
occupation or trade and charged a regulation wage. 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 fiber. They therefore, after due deliberation
decided that we should only do what we could with our hands and
feet. They saw that our real happiness and health consisted in a
proper use of our hands and feet. They further reasoned that large
cities were a snare and a useless encumbrance and that people would
not be happy in them, that there would be gangs of thieves and
robbers, prostitution and vice flourishing in them and that poor men
would be robbed by rich men. They were, therefore, satisfied with
small villages. They saw that kings and their swords were inferior to
the sword of ethics, and they, therefore, held the sovereigns of the
earth to be inferior to the Rishis and the Fakirs. A nation with a
constitution like this is fitter to teach others than to learn from
others. This nation had courts, lawyers and doctors, but they were all
within bounds. Everybody knew that these professions were not
particularly superior. Moreover, these vakils and vaids did not rob
people, they were considered people's dependants, not their masters.
Justice was tolerably fair. The ordinary rule was to avoid courts.
There were no touts to lure people into them. This evil, too was
noticeable only in and around capitals. The common people lived
independently and followed their agricultural occupation. They
enjoyed true Home Rule.
And where this cursed modern civilization has not reached,
India remains as it was before. The inhabitants of that part of India
will very properly laugh at your newfangled notions. The English do
not rule over them, nor will you ever rule over them. Those in whose
name we speak we do not know, nor do they know us. I would
certainly advise you and those like you who love the motherland to
into the interior that has yet been not polluted by the railways and to
live there for six months; you might then be patriotic and speak of
Home Rule.
Now you see what I consider to he real civilization. Those who
want to change conditions such as I have described are enemies of
the country and are sinners.
Reader: It would be all right if India were, exactly as you have
described it, but it is also India where there are hundreds of child
widows, where two year old babies are married, where twelve year
old girls are mothers and house wives, where women practice
polyandry, where the practice of Niyoga obtains, where, in the name
of religion, girls dedicate themselves to prostitution, and in the name
of religion goats and sheep are killed. Do you consider these also as
symbols of the civilization that you have described?
Editor: You make a mistake. The defects that you have shown
are defects. Nobody mistakes them for ancient civilization. They
remain in spite of it. Attempts have always been made and will be
made to remove them. We may utilize the new spirit that is born in
us for purging ourselves of these evils. But what I have described to
you as emblems of modern civilization are accepted as such by its
votaries. The Indian civilization, as described by me, has been so
described by its votaries. In no part of the world, and under no
civilization, have all men attained perfection. The tendency of the
Indian civilization is to elevate the moral being, that of the Western
civilization is to propagate immorality. The latter is godless, the
former is based on a belief in God. So understanding and so
believing, it behooves every lover of India to cling to the Indian
civilization even as a child clings to the mother's breast.
CHAPTER XIV
HOW CAN INDIA BECOME FREE?
Reader: I appreciate your views about civilization. I will have
to think over them. I cannot take them in all at once. What, then,
holding the views you do, would you suggest for freeing India?
Editor: I do not expect my views to be accepted all of a sudden.
My duty is to place them before readers like yourself. Time can be
trusted to do the rest. We have already examined the conditions for
freeing India, but we have done so indirectly; we will now do so
directly. It is a world-known maxim that the removal of the cause of
a disease results in the removal of the disease itself. Similarly if the
cause of India's slavery be removed, India can become free.
Reader: If Indian civilization is, as you say, the best how do
you account for India's slavery?
Editor: This civilization is unquestionably the best, but it is to
be observed that all civilizations have been on their trial. That
civilization which is permanent outlives it. Because the sons of India
were found wanting, its civilization has been placed in jeopardy. But
its strength is to be seen in its ability to survive the shock. Moreover,
the whole of India is not touched. Those alone who have been
affected by Western civilization have become enslaved. We measure
the universe by our own miserable foot-rule. When we are slaves,
we think that the whole universe is enslaved. Because we are in an
abject condition, we think that the whole of India is in that
condition. As a matter of fact, it is not so, yet it is as well to impute
our slavery to the whole of India. But if we bear in mind the above
fact, we can see that if we become free, India is free. And in this
thought you have a definition of Swaraj. It is Swaraj when we learn
to rule ourselves. It is, therefore, in the palm of our hands. Do not
consider this Swaraj to be like a dream. There is no idea of sitting
still. The Swaraj that I wish to picture is such that, after we have
once realized it, we shall endeavor to the end of our life-time to
persuade others to do likewise. But such Swaraj has to be
experienced, by each one for himself. One drowning man will never
save another. Slaves ourselves, it would be a mere pretension to
think of freeing others. Now you will have seen that it is not
necessary for us to have as our goal the expulsion of the English. If
the English become Indianised, we can accommodate them. If they
wish to remain in India along with their civilization, there is no
room for them. It lies with us to bring about such a state of things.
Reader: It is impossible that Englishmen should ever become
Indianised.
Editor: To say that is equivalent to saying that the English have
no humanity in them. And it is really beside the point whether they
become so or not. If we keep our own house in order, only those
who are fit to live in it will remain. Others will leave of their own
accord. Such things occur within the experience of all of us.
Reader: But it has not occurred in history.
Editor: 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
behooves us to try what appeals to our reason. All countries are not
similarly conditioned. The condition of India is unique. Its strength
is immeasurable. We need not, therefore, refer to the history of other
countries. I have drawn attention to the fact, that, when other
civilizations have succumbed, the Indian has survived many a shock.
Reader: I cannot follow this. There seems little doubt that we
shall have to expel the English by force of arms. So long as they are
in the country we cannot rest. One of our poets says that slaves
cannot even dream of happiness. We are day by day becoming
weakened owing to the presence of the English. Our greatness is
gone, our people look like terrified men. The English are in the
country like a blight which we must remove by every means.
Editor: In your excitement, you have forgotten all we have been
considering. We brought the English, and we keep them. Why, do
you forget that our adoption of their civilization makes their
presence in India at all possible? Your hatred against them ought to
be transferred to their civilization. But let us assume that we have to
drive away the English by fighting, how is that to be done?
Reader: In the same way as Italy did it. What was possible for
Mazzini and Garibaldi is possible for us. You cannot deny that they
were very great men.
CHAPTER XV
ITALY AND INDIA
Editor: It is well that you have instanced Italy. Mazzini was a
great and good man; Garibaldi was a great warrior. Both are
adorable; from their lives we can learn much. But the condition of
Italy was different from that of India. In the first instance, the
difference between Mazzini and Garibaldi is worth noting. Mazzini
ambition was not and has not yet been realized regarding Italy.
Mazzini has shown in his writings on the duty of man that every
man must learn how to rule himself. This has not happened in Italy.
Garibaldi did not hold this view of Mazzini's. Garibaldi gave, and
every Italian took arms. Italy and Austria had the same civilization;
they were cousins in this respect. It was a matter of tit for tat.
Garibaldi simply wanted Italy to be free from the Austrian yoke. The
machinations of Minister Cavour disgrace that portion of the history
of Italy. And what has been the result? If you believe that because
Italians rule Italy the Italian nation is happy, you are grouping in
darkness. Mazzini has shown conclusively that Italy did not become
free. Victor Emanuel gave one meaning to the expression; Mazzini
gave another. According to Emanuel Cavour and even Garibaldi,
Italy meant the King of Italy and his henchmen. According to
Mazzini, it meant the whole of the Italian people, that is, its
agriculturists. Emanuel was only its servant. The Italy of Mazzini
still remains in a state of slavery. At the time of the so called
national war, it was a game of chess between two rival kings with
the people of Italy as pawns. The working classes in that land are
still unhappy. They, therefore, indulge in assassination, rise in
revolt, and rebellion or their part is always expected. What
substantial gain did Italy obtain after the withdrawal of the Austrian
troops? The gain was only nominal. The reforms for the sake of
which the war was supposed to have been undertaken have not yet
been granted. The condition of the people in general still remains the
same. I am sure you do not wish to reproduce such a condition in
India. I believe that you want the millions of India to be happy, not
that you want the reins of Government in your hands. If that be so,
we have to consider only one thing: how can the millions obtain
self-rule? You will admit that people under several Indian princes
are being ground down. The latter mercilessly crush them. Their
tyranny is greater than that of the English, and if you want such
tyranny in India, then we shall never agree. My patriotism does not
teach me that I am to allow people to be crushed under the heel of
Indian princes if only the English retire. If I have the power, I should
resist the tyranny of Indian princes just as much as that of the
English. By patriotism I mean the welfare of the whole people, and
if I could secure it at the hands of the English, I should bow down
my head to them. If any Englishman dedicated his life to securing
the freedom of India, resisting tyranny and serving the land, I should
welcome that Englishman as an Indian.
Again, India can fight like Italy only when she has arms. You
have not considered this problem at all. The English are splendidly
armed, that does not frighten me, but it is clear that, to pit ourselves
against them in arms, thousands of Indians must be armed. If such a
thing be possible, how many years will it take? Moreover, to arm
India on a large scale is to Europeanize it. Then her condition will be
just as pitiable as that of Europe. This means, in short, that India
must accept European civilization, and if that is what we want, the
best thing is that we have among us those who are so well trained in
that civilization. We will then fight for a few rights, will get what we
can and so pass our days. But the fact is that the Indian nation will
not adopt arms, and it is well that it does not.
Reader: You are over-stating the facts. All need not be armed.
At first, we shall assassinate a few Englishmen and strike terror;
then, a few men who will have been armed will fight openly. We
may have to lose a quarter of a million men, more or less, but we
shall regain our land. We shall undertake guerrilla warfare, and
defeat the English.
Editor: That is to say, you want to make the holy land of India
unholy. Do you not tremble to think of freeing India by
assassinations? What we need to do is to sacrifice ourselves. It is a
cowardly thought, that of killing others. Whom do you suppose to
free by assassination? The millions of India do not desire it. Those
who are intoxicated by the wretched modern civilization think these
things. Those who will rise to power by murder will certainly not
make the nation happy. Those who believe that India has gained by
Dhingra's act and other similar acts in India make a serious mistake.
Dhingra was a patriot, but his love was blind. He gave his body in a
wrong way; its ultimate result can only be mischievous.
Reader: But you will admit that the English have been
frightened by these murders, and that Lord Morley's reforms are due
to fear.
Editor: The English are both a timid and a brave nation,
England is, I believe, easily influenced by the use of gun-powder. 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.
CHAPTER XVI
BRUTE FORCE
Reader: This is a new doctrine, that what is gained through fear
is retained only while the fear lasts. Surely, what is given will not be
withdrawn?
Editor: Not so. The Proclamation of 1857 was given at the end
of a revolt, and for the purpose of preserving peace. When peace
was secured and people became simple minded its full effect was
toned down. If I cease stealing for fear of punishment, I would
recommence the operation as soon as the fear is withdrawn from me.
This is almost a universal experience. We have assumed that we can
get men to do things by force and, therefore, we use force.
Reader: Will you not admit that you are arguing against
yourself? You know that what the English obtained in their own
country they obtained by using brute force. I know you have argued
that what they have obtained is useless, but that does not affect my
argument. They wanted useless things and they got them. My point
is that their desire was fulfilled. What does it mean, what means they
adopted? Why should we not obtain our goal, which is good, by any
means whatsoever even by using violence? Shall I think of the
means when I have to deal with a thief in the house? My duty is to
drive him out anyhow. You seem to admit that we have received
nothing, and that we shall receive nothing by petitioning. Why, then,
may we not do so by using brute force? And, to retain what we ay
receive we shall keep up the fear by using the same force to the
extent that it may be necessary. You will not find fault with a
continuance of force to prevent a child from thrusting its foot into
fire. Somehow or other we have to gain our end.
Editor: Your reasoning is Plausible. It has deluded many. I have
used similar arguments before now. But I think I know better now,
and I shall endeavour to undeceive you. Let us first take the
argument that we are justified in gaining our end by using brute
force because the English gained theirs by using similar means. It is
perfectly true that they used brute force and that it is possible for us
to do likewise, but by using similar means we can get only the same
thing that they got. You will admit that we do not want that. Your
belief that there is no connection between the means and the end is a
great mistake. Through that mistake even men who have been
considered religious have committed grievous crimes. Your
reasoning is the same as saying that we can get a rose through
planting a noxious weed. If I want to cross the ocean, I can do so
only by means of a vessel: if I were to use a cart for that purpose,
both the cart and I would soon find the bottom. "As is the God, so is
the votary", is a maxim worth considering. Its meaning has been
distorted and men have gone astray. The means may be likened to a
seed, the end to a tree: and there is just the same inviolable
connection between the means and the end as there is between the
seed and the tree. I am not likely to obtain the result flowing from
the worship of God by laying myself prostrate before Satan. If,
therefore, anyone were to say: "I want to worship God; it does not
matter that I do so by means of Satan," it would be set down as
ignorant folly. We reap exactly as we sow. The English in I833
obtained greater voting power by violence. Did they by using brute
force better appreciate their duty? They wanted the right of voting,
which they obtained by using physical force. But real rights are a
result of performance of duty: these rights they have not obtained.
We. therefore, have before us in England the force of everybody
wanting and insisting on his rights, nobody thinking of his duty.
And, where everybody wants rights, who shall give them to whom ?
I do not wish to imply that they do no duties. They don't perform the
duties corresponding to those rights; and as they do not perform that
particular duty, namely, acquire fitness, their rights have proved a
burden to them. In other words, what they have obtained is an exact
result of the means they adopted. They used the means
corresponding to the end. If I want to deprive you of your watch, I
shall certainly have to fight for it; if l want to buy your watch, I shall
have to pay you for it; and if I want a gift, I shall have to plead for it,
and, according to the means I employ, the watch is stolen property,
my own property, or a donation. Thus we see three different results
from three different means. Will you still say that means do not
matter?
Now we shall take the example given by you of the thief to be
driven out. I do not agree with you that the thief may be driven out
by any means. If it is my father who has come to steal I shall use one
kind of means. If it is an acquaintance I shall use another, and in the
case of a perfect stranger I shall use a third. If it is a white man, you
will perhaps say you will use means different from those you will
adopt with an Indian thief. If it is a weakling, the means will be
different from those to be adopted for dealing with an equal in
physical strength, and if the thief is armed from top to toe, I shall
simply remain quiet. Thus we have a variety of means between the
father and the armed man. Again, I fancy that I should pretend to be
sleeping whether the thief was my father or that strong armed man.
The reason for this is that my father would also be armed and I
should succumb to the strength possessed by either and allow my
things to be stolen. The strength of my father would make me weep
with pity; the strength of the armed man would rouse in me anger
and we should become enemies. Such is the curious situation. From
these examples we may not be able to agree as to the means to be
adopted in each case. I myself seem clearly to see what should be
done in all these cases, but the remedy may frighten you. I therefore
hesitate to place it before you. For the time being I will leave you to
guess it, and if you cannot, it is clear you will have to adopt different
means in each case. You will also have seen that any means will not
avail to drive away the thief. You will have to adopt means to fit
each case. Hence it follows that your duty is not to drive away the
thief by any means you like.
Let us proceed a little further. That well-armed man has stolen
your property; you have harbored the thought of his act, you are
filled with anger; you argue that you want to punish that rogue, not
for your own sake, but for the good of your neighbors; you have
collected a number of armed men, you want to take his house by
assault; he is duly informed of it, he runs away, he too is incensed.
He collects his brother robbers, and sends you a defiant message that
he will commit robbery in broad daylight. You are strong, you do
not fear him, you are prepared to receive him. Meanwhile the robber
pesters your neighbors. They complain before you. You reply that
you are doing all for their sake, you do not mind that your own
goods have been stolen. Your neighbors reply that the robber never
pestered them before, and that he commenced his depredations only
after you declared hostilities against him. You are between Scylla
and Charybdis. You are full of pity for the poor men. What they say
is true. What are you to do? You will be disgraced if you now leave
the robber alone. You, therefore, tell the poor men: "Never mind.
Come, my wealth is yours, I will give you arms, I will teach you
how to use them; you should belabor the rogue; don't you leave him
alone." And so the battle grows; the robbers increase in numbers;
your neighbors have deliberately put themselves to inconvenience.
Thus the result of wanting to take revenge upon the robber is that
you have disturbed your own peace, you are in perpetual fear of
being robbed and assaulted, your courage has given place to
cowardice. If you will patiently examine the argument, you will see
that I have not overdrawn the picture. This is one of the means. Now
let us examine the other. You set this armed robber down as an
ignorant brother; you intend to reason with him at a suitable
opportunity: you argue that he is, after all, a fellow-man; you do not
know what prompted him to steal. You, therefore. decide that, when
you can, you will destroy the man's motive for stealing. Whilst you
are thus reasoning with yourself, the man comes again to steal.
Instead of being angry with him you take pity on him. You think that
this stealing habit must be a disease with him. Henceforth, you,
therefore, keep your doors and windows open. you change your
sleeping place, and you keep your things in a manner most
accessible to him. The robber comes again and is confused as all this
is new to him; nevertheless he takes away your things. But his mind
is agitated. He inquires about you in the village, he comes to learn
about your broad and loving heart, he, repents, he begs your pardon,
returns you your things, and leaves off the stealing habit. He
becomes your servant, and you find for him honorable employment.
This is the second method. Thus, you see, different means have
brought about totally different results. I do not wish to deduce from
this that robbers will act in the above manner or that all will have the
same pity and love like you. But I only wish to show that fair means
alone can produce fair results, and that, at least in the majority of
cases, if not indeed in all, the force of love and pity is infinitely
greater than the force of arms. There is harm in the exercise of brute
force, never in that of pity.
Now we will take the question of petitioning. It is a fact beyond
dispute that a petition, without the backing of force is useless.
However, the late Justice Ranade used to say that petitions served a
useful purpose because they were a means of educating people.
They give the latter an idea of their condition and warn the rulers.
From this point of view, they are not altogether useless. A petition of
an equal is a sign of courtesy, a petition from a slave is a symbol of
his slavery. A petition backed by force is a petition from an equal
and, when he transmits his demand in the form of a petition, it
testifies to his nobility. Two kinds of force can back petitions. "We
shall hurt you if you do not give this is one kind of force., it is the
force of arms, whose evil results we have already examined. The
second kind of force can thus be stated: "If you do not concede our
demand, we shall be no longer your petitioners. You can govern us
only so long as we remain the governed; we shall no longer have
any dealings with you." The force. implied in this may be described
as love-force, soul-force, or, more popularly but less accurately,
passive resistance. This force is indestructible. He who uses it
perfectly understands his position. We have an ancient proverb
which literally means: "One negative cures thirty-six diseases." The
force of arms is powerless when matched against the force of love or
the soul.
Now we shall take your last illustration, that of the child
thrusting its foot into fire. It will not avail you. What do you really
do to the child? Supposing that it can exert so much physical force
that it renders you powerless and rushes into fire, then you cannot
prevent it. There are only two remedies open to you either you must
kill it in order to prevent it from perishing in the flames, or you must
give your own life because you do not wish to see it perish before
your very eyes. You will not kill it. If your heart is not quite full of
pity. It is possible that you will not surrender yourself by preceding
the child and going into the fire yourself. You, therefore. helplessly
allow it to go into the flames. Thus, at any rate. you are not using
physical force. I hope you will not consider that it is still physical
force, though of a low order, when you would forcibly prevent the
child from rushing towards the fire if you could. That force is of a
different order and we have to understand what it is.
Remember that, in thus preventing the child, you are minding
entirely its own interest, you are exercising authority for its sole
benefit. Your example does not apply to the English. In using brute
force against the English you consult entirely your own, that is the
national, interest. There is no question here either of pity or of love.
If you say that the actions of the English, being evil, represent fire.
and that they proceed to their actions through ignorance, and that
therefore they occupy the position of a child and that you want to
protect such a child, then you will have to overtake every evil action
of that kind by whomsoever committed and, as in the case of the evil
child, you will have to sacrifice yourself. If you are capable of such
immeasurable pity, I wish you well in its exercise.
CHAPTER XVII
PASSIVE RESISTANCE
Reader: Is there any historical evidence as to the success of
what you have called soul-force or truth-force? No instance seems to
have happened of any nation having risen through soul-force. I still
think that the evil-doers will not cease doing evil without physical
punishment.
Editor: The poet Tulsidas has said: "Of religion, pity, or love, is
the root, as egotism of the body. Therefore, we should not abandon
pity so long as we are alive." This appears to me to be a scientific
truth. I believe in it as much as I believe in two and two being four.
The force of love is the same as the force of the soul or truth. We
have evidence of its working at every step. The universe would
disappear without the existence of that force. But you ask for
historical evidence. It is, therefore, necessary to know what history
means. The Gujarati equivalent means: "It so happened". If that is
the meaning of history, it is possible to give copious evidence. But,
if it means the doings of the kings and emperors, there can be no
evidence of soul-force or passive resistance in such history. You
cannot expect silver ore in a tin mine. History, as we know it, is a
record of the wars of the world, and so there is a proverb among
Englishmen that a nation which has no history, that is, no wars, is a
happy nation. How kings played, how they became enemies of one
another, how they murdered one another, is found accurately
recorded in history, and if this were all that had happened in the
world, it would have been ended long ago. If the story of the
universe had commenced with wars, not a man would have been
found alive today. Those people who have been warred against have
disappeared as, for instance, the natives of Australia of whom hardly
a man was left alive by the intruders. Mark please, that these natives
did not use soul force in self-defense, and it does not require much
foresight to know that the Australians will share the same fate as
their victims. "Those that take the sword shall perish by the sword."
With us the proverb is that professional swimmers will find a watery
grave.
The fact that there are so many men still alive in the world
shows that it is based on the force of arms but on the force of truth
or love. Therefore, the greatest and most unimpeachable evidence of
the success of this force is to be found in the fact that, in spite of the
wars in the world, it still lives on.
Thousands, indeed tens of thousands, depend for their existence
on a very active working of this force. Little quarrels of millions of
families in their lives disappear before the exercise of this force.
Hundreds of nations live in peace. History does not and cannot take
note of this fact. History is really a record of every interruption of
the even working of this force of love or of the soul. Two brothers
quarrel; one of them repents and re-awakens the love that was lying
dormant in him; and the two again began to live in peace; nobody
takes note of this. But if the two brothers, through the intervention of
solicitors or some other reason take up arms or go to law which is
another form of brute force, their doings would be immediately
noticed in the press, they would be the talk of their neighbors and
would probably go down to history. And what is true of families and
communities is true of nations. There is no reason to believe that
there is one law for families and another for nations. History, then, is
a record of an interruption of the course of nature. Soul-force, being
natural is not noted in history.
Reader: According to what you say, it is plain that instances of
this kind of passive resistance are not to be found in history. It is
necessary to understand this passive resistance more fully. It will be
better, therefore, if you enlarge upon it.
Editor: Passive resistance is a method of securing rights by
personal suffering, it is the reverse of resistance by arms. When I
refuse to do a thing that is repugnant to my conscience, I use soulforce.
For instance, the Government of the day has passed a law
which is applicable to me. I do not like it. If by using violence I,
force the Government to repeal the law, I am employing what may
be termed body force. If I do not obey the law and accept the penalty
for its breach, I use soul-force. It involves sacrifice of self.
Everybody admits that sacrifice of self is, infinitely superior to
sacrifice of others. Moreover, if this kind of force is used in a cause
that is unjust only the person using, it suffers, he does not make
others suffer for his mistakes. Men have before now done many
things which were subsequently found to have been wrong. No man
can claim that he is absolutely in the right or that particular thing is
wrong because he thinks so, but it is wrong for him so long as that is
his deliberate judgment. It is therefore meet that he should not do
that which he knows to be wrong, and suffer the consequence
whatever it may be. This is the key to the use of soul-force.
Reader: You would then disregard laws this is rank disloyalty.
We have always been considered a law abiding nation. You seem to
be going even beyond the extremists. They say that we must obey
the laws that have been pressed but that if the laws be had, we must
drive out the law givers even by force.
Editor: Whether I go beyond them or whether I do not is a
matter of no consequence to either of us. We simply want to find out
what is right and to act accordingly. The real meaning of the
statement that we are a law-abiding, nation is that we are passive
resisters. When we do not like certain laws, we do not break the
heads of lawgivers but we suffer and do not submit to the laws. That
we should obey laws whether good or bad is a newfangled notion.
There was no such thing in former days. The people disregarded
those laws they did not like and suffered the penalties for their
breach. It is contrary to our manhood if we obey laws repugnant to
our conscience. Such teaching is opposed to a religion and means
slavery. If the Government were to ask us to go about without any
clothing, should we do so? If I were a passive resister, I would say to
them that I would have nothing to do with their law. But we have so
forgotten ourselves and become so compliant that we do not mind
any degrading law.
A man who has realized his manhood, who fears. only God, will
fear no one else. Man made laws are not necessarily binding on him.
Even the Government does not expect any such things from us. They
do not say: "You must do such and such a thing," but they say: "if
you do not do it, we will punish you." We are sunk so low that we
fancy that it is our duty and our religion to do what the law lays
down. If man will only realize that it is unmanly to obey laws that
are unjust, no man's tyranny will enslave him. This is the key to selfrule
or home-rule.
It is a superstition and ungodly thing to believe that an act of a
majority binds a minority. Many examples can be given in which
acts of majorities will be found to have been wrong and those of
minorities to have been right. All reforms owe their origin to the
initiation of minorities in opposition to majorities. If among a band
of robbers a knowledge of robbing is obligatory, is a pious man to
accept the obligation? So long as the superstition that men should
obey unjust laws exists, so long will their slavery exist. And a
passive resister alone can remove such a superstition.
To use brute force, to use gunpowder, is contrary to passive
resistance, for it means that we want our opponent to do by force
that which we desire but he does not. And if such a use of force is
justifiable surely he is entitled to do likewise by us. And so we
should never come to an agreement. We may simply fancy, like the
blind horse moving in a circle round a mill, that we are making
progress. Those who believe that they are not bound to obey laws
which are repugnant to their conscience have only the remedy of
passive resistance open to them. Any other must lead to disaster.
Reader: From what you say I deduce that passive resistance is a
splendid weapon of the weak, but that when they are strong they
may take up arms.
Editor: This is gross ignorance. Passive resistance, that is, soulforce,
is matchless. It is superior to the force of arms. How, then. can
it he considered only a weapon of the weak? Physical-force men are
strangers to the courage that is requisite in a passive resister. Do you
believe that a coward can ever disobey a law that he dislikes?
Extremists are considered to be advocates of brute force. Why do
they, then, talk about obeying laws? I do not blame them. They can
say nothing else. When they succeed in driving out the English and
they themselves become governors, they will want you and me to
obey their laws. And that is a fitting thing for their constitution. But
a passive resister will say he will not obey a law that is against his
conscience, even though he may be blown to pieces at the mouth of
a cannon.
What do you think? Wherein is courage required-in blowing
others to pieces from behind a cannon, or with a smiling face to
approach a cannon and be blown to pieces? Who is the true warrior
be, who keeps death always as a bosom-friend, or he who controls
the death of others? Believe me that a man devoid of courage and
manhood can never be a passive resister.
This however, I will admit: that even a man weak in body is
capable of offering this resistance. One man can offer it just as well
as millions. Both men and women can indulge in it. It does not
require the training of an army; it needs no jiujitsu. Control over the
mind is alone necessary, and when that is attained, man is free like
the king of the forest and his very glance withers the enemy.
Passive resistance is an all-sided sword, it can be used anyhow;
it blesses him who uses it and him against whom it is used. Without
drawing a drop of blood it produces far reaching results. It never
rusts and cannot he stolen. Competition between passive resisters
does not exhaust. The sword of passive resistance does not require a
scabbard. It is strange indeed that you should consider such a
weapon to be a weapon merely of the weak.
Reader: You have said that passive resistance is a specialty of
India. Have cannons never been used in India?
Editor: Evidently, in your opinion, India means its few princes.
To me it means its teeming millions on whom depends the existence
of its princes and our own.
Kings will always use their kingly weapons. To use force is bred
in them. They want to command, but those who have to obey
commands do not want guns: and these are in a majority throughout
the world. They have to learn either body-force or soul-force. Where
they the former, both the rulers and the ruled become like so many
madmen: but where they learn soul-force, the commands of the
rulers do not go beyond the point of their swords, for true men
disregard unjust commands. Peasants have never been subdued by
the sword, and never will be. They do not know use of sword and
they are not frightened by the use of it by others. That nation is great
which rests its head upon death as its pillow. Those who defy death
are free from all fear. For those who are laboring under delusive
charms of brute-force, this picture is not over-drawn. The fact is
that, in India the nation at large has generally used passive resistance
in all departments of life. We cease to co-operate with our rulers
when they displease us. This is passive resistance.
I remember an instance when, in a small principality, the
villagers were offended by some command issued by the prince. The
former immediately began vacating the village. The prince became
nervous, apologized to his subjects and withdrew his command.
Many such instances can be found in India. Real home rule is
possible only where passive resistance is the guiding force of the
people. Any other rule is foreign rule.
Reader: Then you will say that it is not at all necessary for us to
train the body?
Editor: I will certainly not say any such thing. It is difficult to
become a passive resister unless the body is trained. As a rule the
mind, residing in a body, that has become weakened by pampering,
is also weak, and where there is no strength of mind there can be no
strength of soul. We shall have to improve our physique by getting
rid of infant marriages and luxurious living. If I were to ask a man
with a shattered body to face a cannon's mouth I should make a
laughing-stock of myself.
Reader: From what you say. then, it would appear that it is not
a small thing to become a passive resister, and, if that is so, I should
like you to explain how a man may become one.
Editor: To become a passive resister is easy enough but it is
also equally difficult. I have known a lad of fourteen years become a
passive resister: I have known also sick people do likewise; and I
have also known physically strong and other- wise happy people
unable to take up passive resistance. After a great deal of experience
it seems to me that those who want to become passive resisters for
the service of the country have to observe perfect chastity, adopt
poverty, follow truth, and cultivate fearlessness.
Chastity is one of the greatest disciplines without which the
mind cannot attain requisite firmness. A man who is unchaste loses
stamina. becomes emasculated and cowardly. He whose mind is
given over to animal passions is not capable of any great effort. This
can be proved by innumerable instances. What. then, is a married
person to do is the question that arises naturally; and yet it need not.,
When a husband and wife gratify the passions. it is no less an animal
indulgence on that account. Such an indulgence, except for
perpetuating the race. is strictly prohibited. But a passive resister has
to avoid even that very limited indulgence because he can have no
desire for progeny. A married man, therefore. can observe perfect
chastity. This subject is not capable of being treated at greater
length. Several question's arise: How is one to carry one's wife with
one, what are her rights. and other similar questions. Yet those who
wish to take part in a great work are bound to solve these puzzles.
Just as there is necessity for chastity, so is there for poverty.
pecuniary ambition and passive resistance cannot well go together.
Those who have money are not expected to throw it away. They
must be prepared to lose every penny rather than give up passive
resistance.
Passive resistance has been described in the course of our
discussion as truth-force. Truth, therefore, has necessarily to be
followed and that at any cost. In this connection, academic questions
occur only to those who wish to justify lying. Those who want to
follow truth every time are not placed in such a quandary; and if
they are, they are still saved from a small position.
Passive resistance cannot proceed a step without fearlessness.
Those alone can follow the path of passive resistance who are free
from fear, whether as to their possessions, false honor, their
relatives, the government, bodily injuries or death.
These observances are not to be abandoned in the belief that
they are difficult. Nature has implanted in the human breast ability
to cope with any difficulty or suffering that may come to man
unprovoked. These qualities are worth having, even for those who
do not wish to serve the country. Let there be no mistake, as those
who want to train themselves in the use of arms are also obliged to
have these qualities more or less. Everybody does not become a
warrior for the wish. A would-be warrior will have to observe
chastity and to be satisfied with poverty as his lot. A warrior without
fearlessness cannot be conceived of. It may be thought that he would
not need to be exactly truthful, but that quality follows real
fearlessness. When a man abandons truth he does so owing to fear in
some shape or form. The above four attributes. then, need not
frighten anyone. It may be as well here to note that a physical-force
man has to have many other useless qualities which a passive
resister never needs. And You will find that whatever extra effort a
swordsman needs is due to lack of fearlessness. If he is an
embodiment of the latter, the sword will drop from his hand that
very moment. He does not need its support. One who is free from
hatred requires no sword. A man with stick suddenly came face to
face with a lion and instinctively raised his weapon in self-defense.
The man saw that he had only prated about fearlessness when there
was none in him. That moment he dropped the stick and found
himself free from all fear.
CHAPTER XVIII
EDUCATION
Reader: In the whole of our discussion, you have not
demonstrated the necessity for education; we always complain of its
absence among us. We notice a movement for compulsory education
in our country. The Maharaja Gaekwar has introduced it in his
territories. Every eye is directed towards them. We bless the
Maharaja for it. Is all this effort then of no use?
Editor: If we consider our civilization to be the highest, I have
regretfully to say that much of the effort you have described is of no
use. The motive of the Maharaja and other great leaders who have
been working in this direction is perfectly pure. They, therefore,
undoubtedly deserve great praise. But we cannot conceal from
ourselves the result that is likely to flow from their effort.
What is the meaning of education? It simply means a knowledge
of letters. It is merely an instrument, and an instrument may be well
used or abused. The same instrument that may be used to cure a
patient may be used to take his life, and so may a knowledge of
letters. We daily observe that many men abuse it and very few make
good use of it; and if this is a correct statement, we have proved that
more harm has been done by it than good.
The ordinary meaning of education is a knowledge of letters. To
teach boys reading, writing and arithmetic is called primary
education. A peasant earns his bread honestly. He has ordinary
knowledge of the world. He knows fairly well how he should behave
towards his parents. his wife, his children and his fellow villagers.
He understands and observes the rules of morality. But he cannot
write his own name. What do you propose to do by giving him a
knowledge of letters? Will you add an inch to his happiness? Do you
wish to make him discontented with his cottage or his tot? And even
if you want to do that, he will not need such an education. Carried
away by the flood of western thought we came to the conclusion,
without weighing pros and cons, that we should give this kind of
education to the people.
Now let us take higher education. I have learned Geography,
Astronomy, Algebra, Geometry, etc. What of that? In what way
have I benefited myself or those around me? Why have I learned
these things? Professor Huxley has thus defined education: "That
man I think has had a liberal education who has been so trained in
youth that his body is the ready servant of his will and does with
case and pleasure all the work that as a mechanism it is capable of,
whose intellect is a clear, cold, logic engine with all its parts of
equal strength and in smooth working order ... whose mind is stored
with a knowledge of the fundamental truths of nature .... whose
passions are trained to conic to heel by a vigorous will, the servant
of a tender conscience ... who has learnt to hate all vileness and to
respect others as himself. Such a one and no other, I conceive, has
had a liberal education, for he is in harmony with nature. He will
make the best of her and she of him."
If this is true education, I must emphatically say that the
sciences I have enumerated above I have never been able to use for
controlling my senses. Therefore, whether you take elementary
education or higher education, it is not required for the main thing. It
does not make men of us. It does not enable us to do our duty.
Reader: If that is so. I shall have to ask you another question.
What enables you to tell all, these things to me? If you had not
received higher education, how would you have been able to explain
to me the things that you have?
Editor: You have spoken well. But my answer is simple: I do
not for one moment believe that my life would have been wasted,
had I not received higher or lower education. Nor do I consider that I
necessarily serve because I speak. But I do desire to serve and in
endeavoring to fulfill that desire, I make use of the education I have
received. And, if I am making good use of it, even then it is not for
the millions, but I can use it only for such as you, and this supports
my contention. Both you and I have come under the bane of what is
mainly false education. I claim to have become free from its ill
effect, and I am to giving you the benefit of my experience and in
doing so, I am demonstrating the rottenness of this education.
Moreover, I have not run down a knowledge of letters in all
circumstances. All I have now shown is that we must not make of it
a fetish. It is not our Kamadhuk. In its place it can be of use and it
has its place when we have brought our senses under subjection and
put our ethics on a firm foundation. And then, if we feel inclined to
receive that education, we may make good use of it. As an ornament
it is likely to sit well on us. It now follows that it is not necessary to
make this education compulsory. Our ancient school system is
enough. Character-building has the first place in it and that is
primary education. A building erected on that foundation will last.
Reader: Do I then understand that you do not consider English
education necessary for obtaining Home Rule?
Editor:, My answer is yes and no. To give millions a
knowledge of English is to enslave them. The foundation that
Macaulay laid of education has enslaved us. I do not suggest that he
has any such intention, but that his been the result. Is it not a sad
commentary that we should have to speak of Home Rule in a foreign
tongue?
And it is worthy of note that the systems which the Europeans
have discarded are the systems in vogue among us. Their learned
men continually make changes. We ignorantly adhere to their castoff
systems. They are trying each division to improve its own status.
Wales is a small portion of England. Great efforts are being made to
revive a knowledge of Welsh among Welshmen. The English
Chancellor, Mr. Lloyd George is taking a leading part in the
movement to make Welsh children speak Welsh. And what is our
condition? We write to each other in faulty English, and from this
even our M.A.s are not free; our best thoughts are expressed in
English., the proceedings of our Congress are conducted in English;
our best newspapers are printed in English. If this state of things
continues for a long time, posterity will- it is my firm opinioncondemn,
and curse us.
It is worth noting that, by receiving English education, we have
enslaved the nation. Hypocrisy, tyranny, etc., have increased;
English-knowing Indians have not hesitated to cheat and strike terror
into the people. Now, if we are doing anything for the people at all,
we are paying only a portion of the debt due to them.
Is it not a painful thing that, if I want to go to a court of justice, I
must employ the English language as a medium. that when I become
a barrister. I may not speak my mother tongue and that someone else
should have to translate to me from my own language? Is not this
absolutely absurd? Is it not a sign of slavery? Am I to blame the
English for it or myself'? It is we. the English-knowing Indians. that
have enslaved India. The curse of the nation will rest not upon the
English but upon us.
I have told you that my answer to your last question is both yes
and no. I have explained to you why it is yes. I shall now, explain
why it is no.
We are so much beset by the disease of civilization that we
cannot altogether do without English-education. Those who have
already received it may make good use of it wherever necessary. In
our dealings with the English people, in our dealings with our own
people, when we can only correspond with them through that
language, and for the purpose of knowing how disgusted they (the
English) have themselves become with their civilization, we may
use or learn English, as the case may be. Those who have studied
English will have to teach morality to their progeny through their
mother tongue and to teach them another Indian language; but when
they have grown up, they may learn English, the ultimate aim being
that we should not need it. The object of making money thereby
should be eschewed. Even in learning English to such a limited
extent we shall' have to consider what we should learn through it
and what we should not. It will be necessary to know what sciences
we should learn. A little thought should show you that immediately
we cease to care for English degrees, the rulers will prick up their
ears. Reader: Then what education shall we give?
Editor: This has been somewhat considered above, but we will
consider it a little more. I think that we have to improve all our
languages. What subjects we should learn through them need not be
elaborated here. Those English books which are valuable, we should
translate into the various Indian languages. We should abandon the
pretension of learning many sciences. Religious, that is ethical,
education will occupy the first place. Every cultured Indian will
know in addition to his own provincial language, if a Hindu,
Sanskrit: if a Mohammedan, Arabic; if a Parsee, Persian., and all,
Hindus. Some Hindus should know Arabic and Persian; some
Mohammedans and Parsees, Sanskrit. Several Northerners and
Westerners should learn Tamil. A universal language for India
should be Hindi, with the option of writing it in Persian or Nagari
characters. In order that the Hindus and the Mohammedans may
have closer relations, it is necessary to know both the characters.
And, if we can do this, we can drive the English language out of the
field in a short time. All this is necessary for us, slaves. Through our
slavery the nation has been enslaved, and it will he free with our
freedom.
Reader: The question of religious education is very difficult.
Editor: Yet we cannot do without it. India will never be
godless. Rank atheism cannot flourish in this land. The task is
indeed difficult. My head begins to turn as I think of religious
education. Our religious teachers are hypocritical and selfish; they
will have to be approached. The Mullahs the Dasturs and the
Brahmins hold the key in their hands. but if they Will not have the
good sense, the energy that we have derived from English education
will have to be devoted to religious education. This is trot very
difficult only the fringe of the ocean has been polluted and ;t is those
who are within the fringe who alone need cleansing. We who come
under this' category can even cleanse ourselves because my remarks
do not apply to the millions. lit order to restore India to its pristine
condition, we have to return to it. In our own civilization there will
naturally be progress retrogression. reforms, and reactions., but one
effort is required, and that is to drive out Western civilization. All
else will follow.
CHAPTER XIX
MACHINERY
Reader: When you speak of driving out Western civilization, I
suppose you will say that we want no machinery.
Editor: By raising this Question, you have opened the wound I
have received. When I read Mr.Dutt's Economic History of India, I
wept; as I think of it again my heart sickens. It is machinery that has
impoverished India. It is difficult to measure the harm that
Manchester has done to us. It is due to Manchester that Indian
handicraft has all but disappeared.
But I make a mistake. How can Manchester be blamed? We
wore Manchester cloth and this is why Manchester wove it. I was
delighted when I read about the bravery of Bengal. There were no
cloth mills in that presidency. They were, therefore, able to restore
the original hand-weaving occupation. It is true Bengal encourages
the mill industry of Bombay. If Bengal had proclaimed a boycott of
all machine made goods, it would have been much better.
Machinery has begun to desolate Europe. Ruination is now
knocking at the English gates. Machinery is the chief symbol of
modern civilization; it represents a great sin.
The workers in the mills of Bombay have become slaves. The
condition of the women working in the mills is shocking. When
there were no mills, these women were not starving. If the
machinery craze grows in our country, it will become an unhappy
land. It may be considered a heresy, but I am bound to say that it
were better for us to send money to Manchester and to use flimsy
Manchester cloth than to multiply mills in India. By using
Manchester cloth we only waste our money; but by reproducing
Manchester in India, we shall keep our money at the price of our
blood, because our very moral being will be sapped, and I call in
support of my statement the very mill-bands as witnesses. And those
who have amassed wealth out of factories are not likely to be better
than other rich men. It would be folly to assume that an Indian
Rockefeller would be better than the American Rockefeller.
Impoverished India can become free, but it will be hard for any
India made rich through immorality to regain its freedom. I fear we
shall have to admit that moneyed men support British rule; their
interest is bound up with its stability. Money renders a man helpless.
The other thing which is equally harmful is sexual vice. Both are
poison. A snake-bite is a lesser poison than these two, because the
former merely destroys the body but the latter destroy body, mind
and soul. We need not, therefore, be pleased with the prospect of the
growth of the mill industry.
Reader: Are the mills, then, to be closed down?
Editor: That is difficult. It is no easy task to do away with a
thing that is established. We, therefore, say that the non beginning of
a thing is supreme wisdom. We cannot condemn mill-owners; we
can but pity them. It would be too much to expect them to give up
their mills, but we may implore them not to increase them. If they
would be good they would gradually contract their business. They
can establish in thousands of households the ancient and sacred
handlooms and they can buy out the cloth that may be thus woven.
Whether the mill-owners do this or not, people can cease to use
machine made goods.
Reader: You have so far spoken about machine made cloth, but
there are innumerable machine made things. We have either to
import them or to introduce machinery into our country.
Editor: Indeed, our goods even are made in Germany. What
need, then, to speak of matches, pins and glassware? My answer can
be only one. What did India do before these articles were
introduced? Precisely the same should be done today. As long as we
cannot make pins without machinery so long will we do without
them. The tinsel splendor of glassware we will have nothing to do
with, and we will make wicks, as of old, with home-grown cotton
and use handmade earthen saucers for lamps. So doing, we shall
save our eyes and money and support Swadeshi and so shall we
attain Home Rule.
It is not to be conceived that all men will do all these things at
one time or that some men will give up all machine made things at
once. But, if the thought is sound, we shall always find out what we
can give up and gradually cease to use it. What a few may do, others
will copy; and the movement will grow like the cocoanut of the
mathematical problem. What the leaders do, the populace will gladly
do in turn. The matter is neither complicated nor difficult. You and I
need not wait until we can carry others with us. Those will be the
losers who will not do it, and those who will not do it, although they
appreciate the truth, will deserve to be called cowards.
Reader: What, then, of the tram cars and electricity?
Editor: This question is now too late. It signifies nothing. If we
are to do without the railways we shall have to do without the tramcars.
Machinery is like a snake-hole which may contain from one to
a hundred snakes. Where there is machinery there are large cities;
and where there are large cities, there are tram-cars and railways,
and there only does one see electric light. English villages do not
boast of any of these things. Honest physicians will tell you that
where means of artificial locomotion have increased, the health of
the people has suffered. I remember that when in a European town
there was a scarcity of money. the receipts of the tramway company,
of the lawyers, and of the doctors went down and people were less
unhealthy. I cannot recall a single good point in connection with
machinery. Books can be written to demonstrate its evils.
Reader: Is it a good point or a bad one that all you are saying
will be printed through machinery?
Editor: This is one of those instances which demonstrate that
sometimes poison is used to kill poison. This, then, will not be a
good point regarding machinery. As it expires, the machinery, as it
were, says to us: "Beware and avoid me. You will derive no benefits
from me and the benefit that may accrue from printing will avail
only those who are infected with the machinery craze."
Do not, therefore, forget the main thing. It is necessary to realize
that machinery is bad. We shall then be able gradually to do away
with it. Nature has not provided any way whereby we may reach a
desired goal all of a sudden. If, instead of welcoming machinery as a
boon, we should look upon it as an evil, it would ultimately go.
CHAPTER XX
CONCLUSION
Reader: From your views I gather that You would form a third
party. You are neither an extremist nor a moderate.
Editor: That is a mistake. I do not think of a third party at all.
We do not all think alike. We cannot say that all the moderates hold
identical views. And how can those who want only to serve have a
party'? I would serve both the moderates and the extremists. Where I
differ from them, I would respectfully place my position before
them and continue my service.
Reader: What, then, would you to both the parties.
Editor: I would say to the extremists: I know that you want
Home Rule for India; it is not to be had for your asking. Everyone
will have to take it for himself. What others get for me is not Home
Rule but foreign rule; therefore, it would not be proper for you to
say that you have obtained Home Rule if you have merely expelled
the English. I have already described the true nature of Home Rule.
This you would never obtain by force of arms. Brute-force is not
natural to Indian soil. You will have, therefore, to rely wholly on
soul-force. You must not consider that violence is necessary at any
stage for reaching our goal."
I would say to the moderates: "Mere petitioning is derogatory,
we thereby confess inferiority. To say that British rule is
indispensable, is almost a denial of the Godhead. We cannot say that
anybody or anything is indispensable except God. Moreover,
common sense should tell us that to state that, for the time being, the
presence of the English in India is a necessity, is to make them
conceited.
If the English vacated India, bag and baggage, it must not be
supposed that she would be widowed, it is possible that those who
are forced to observe peace under their pressure would fight after
their withdrawal. There can be no advantage in suppressing an
eruption; it must have its vent. If, therefore, before we can remain at
peace, we must fight amongst ourselves, it is better that we do so.
There is no occasion for a third party to protect the weak. It is this so
called protection which has unnerved us. Such protection can only
make the weak weaker. Unless we realize this, we cannot have
Home Rule. I would paraphrase the thought of an English divine and
say that anarchy under Home Rule were better than orderly foreign
rule. Only, the meaning that the learned divine attached to Home
Rule is different from Indian Home Rule according to my
conception. We have to learn, and to teach others, that we do not
want the tyranny of either English rule or Indian rule."
If this idea were carried out, both the extremists and the
moderates could join hands. There is no occasion to fear or distrust
one another.
Reader: What, then, would you say to the English?
Editor: To them I would respectfully say: "I admit you are my
rulers. It is not necessary to debate the question whether, you hold
India by the sword or by my consent. I have no objection to your
remaining in my country, but although you are the rulers, you will
have to remain as servants of the people. It is not we who have to do
as you wish, but it is you who have to do as we wish. You may keep
the riches that you have drained away from this land, but you may
not drain riches henceforth. Your function will be, if you so wish, to
police India; you must abandon the idea of deriving any commercial
benefit from us. We hold the civilization that you support to be the
reverse of civilization. We consider our civilization to be far
superior to yours. If you realize this truth, it will be to your
advantage and, if you do not, according to your own proverb, you
should only live in our country in the same manner as we do. You
must not do anything that is contrary to our religions. It is your duty
as rulers that for the sake of the Hindus you should eschew beef, and
for the sake of Mohammedans you should avoid bacon and ham. We
have hitherto said nothing because we have been cowed down, but
you need not consider that you have not hurt our feelings by your
conduct. We are not expressing our sentiments either through base
selfishness or fear, but because it is our duty now to speak out
boldly. We consider your schools and law courts to be useless. We
want our own ancient schools and courts to be restored. The
common language of India is not English but Hindi. You should,
therefore, learn it. We can hold communication with you only in our
national language.
"We cannot tolerate the idea of your spending money on
railways and the military. We see no occasion for either. You may
fear Russia; we do not. When she comes we shall look after her. If
you are with us, we may then receive her jointly. We do not need
any European cloth. We shall manage with articles produced and
manufactured at home. You may not keep one eye on Manchester
and the other on India. We can work together only if our interests
are identical.
"This has not been said to you in arrogance, You have great
military resources. Your naval power is matchless. If we wanted to
fight with you on your own ground, we should be unable to do so,
but if the above submissions are not acceptable to you, we cease to
play the part of the ruled. You may, if you like, cut us to pieces. You
may shatter us at the cannon's mouth. If you act contrary to our will,
we shall not help you; and without our help, we know that you
cannot move one step forward.
"It is likely that you will laugh at all this in the intoxication of
your power. We may not be able to disillusion you at once, but if
there be any manliness in us, you will see shortly that your
intoxication is suicidal and that your laugh at our expense is an
aberration of intellect. We believe that at heart you belong to a
religious nation. We are living in a land which is the source of
religions. How we came together need not be considered, but we can
make mutual good use of our relations.
"You, English, who have come to India are not good specimens
of the English nation, nor can we, almost half- Anglicized Indians,
be considered good specimens of the real Indian nation. If the
English nation were to know all you have done, it would oppose
many of your actions. The mass of the Indians have had few
dealings with you. If you will abandon your so-called civilization
and search into your own scriptures, you will find that our demands
are just. Only on condition of our demands being fully satisfied may
you remain in India; and if you remain under those conditions, we
shall learn several things from you and you will learn many from us.
So doing we shall benefit each other and the world. But that will
happen only when the root of our relationship is sunk in a religious
soil."
Reader: What will you say to the nation?
Editor: Who is the nation?
Reader: For our purposes it is the nation that you and I have
been thinking of, that is those of us who are affected by European
civilization, and who are eager to have Home Rule.
Editor: To these I would say, "it is only those Indians who are
imbued with real love who will be able to speak to the English in the
above strain without being frightened, and only those can be said to
be so imbued who conscientiously believe that Indian civilization is
the best and that the European is a nine days' wonder. Such
ephemeral civilizations have often come and gone and will continue
to do so. Those only can be considered to be so imbued who, having
experienced the force of the soul within themselves, will not cower
before brute-force, and will not, on any account, desire to use bruteforce.
Those only can be considered to have been so imbued who are
intensely dissatisfied with the present pitiable condition, having
already drunk the cup of poison.
"If there he only one such Indian, he will speak as above to the
English and the English will have to listen to him.
"These are not demands, but they show our mental state. We
shall get nothing by asking; we shall have to take what we want, and
we need the requisite strength for the effort and that strength will be
available to him only who will act thus:
1. He will only on rare occasions make use of the English
language;
2. It a lawyer, he will give up his profession, and take up a handloom,
3. If a lawyer, he will devote his knowledge to enlightening both
his people and the English;
4. If a lawyer, he will not meddle with the quarrels between
parties but will give up the courts, and from his experience induce
the people to do likewise,
5. If a lawyer, he will refuse to be a judge, as he will give up his
profession;
6. If a doctor, he will give up medicine, and understand that
rather than mending bodies, he should mend souls,
7. If a doctor, he will understand that no matter to what religion
he belongs, it is better that bodies remain diseased rather than that
they are cured through the instrumentality of the diabolical
vivisection that is practiced in European schools of medicine;
8. Although a doctor, he will take up a hand-loom, and if any
patients come to him, will tell them the cause of their diseases, and
will advise them to remove the cause rather than pamper them by
giving useless drugs; he will understand that if by not taking drugs,
perchance the patient dies, the world will not come to grief and that
he will have been really merciful to him.
9. Although a wealthy man, yet regardless of his wealth, he will
speak out his mind and fear no one;
I0. If a wealthy man, he will devote his money to establishing
hand-looms, and encourage others to use hand made goods by
wearing them himself;
11. Like every other Indian, he will know that this is a time for
repentance, expiation and mourning;
12. Like every other Indian, he will know that to blame the
English is useless, that they came because of us, and remain also for
the same reason, and that they will either go or change their nature
only when we reform ourselves;
1I3. Like others, he will understand that at a time of mourning,
there can be no indulgence, and that, whilst we are in a fallen state,
to be in goal or in banishment is much the best,
14. Like others, he will know that it is superstition to imagine it
necessary that we should guard against being imprisoned in order
that we may deal with the people;
15. Like others, he will know that action is much better than
speech; that it is our duty to say exactly what we think and face the
consequences and that it will be only then that we shall be able to
impress anybody with our speech;
16. Like others, he will understand that we shall become free
only through suffering;
17. Like others, he will understand that deportation for life to
the Andamans is not enough expiation for the sin of encouraging
European civilization;
18. Like others, he will know that no nation has risen without
suffering., that, even in physical warfare, the true test is suffering
and not the killing of others, much more so in the warfare of passive
resistance;
19. Like others, he will know that it is an idle excuse to say that
we shall do a thing when the others also do it: that we should do
what we know to he right, and that others will do it when they see
the way; that when I fancy a particular delicacy, I do not wait till
others taste it: that to make a national effort and to suffer are in the
nature of delicacies; and that to suffer under pressure is no
suffering."
Reader: This is a large order. When will all carry it out?
Editor: You make a mistake. You and I have nothing to do with
the others. Let each do his duty. If I do my duty, that is, serve
myself, I shall be able to serve others. Before I leave you, I will take
the liberty of repeating:
1. Real home-rule is self-rule or self-control.
2. The way to it is passive resistance: that is soul-force or loveforce.
3. In order to exert this force, Swadeshi in every sense is
necessary.
4. What we want to do should be done, not because we object to
the English or because or we want to retaliate but because it is our
duty to do so. Thus, supposing that the English remove the salt-tax,
restore our money, give the highest posts to Indians, withdraw the
English troops, we shall certainly not use their machine-made goods,
nor use the English language, nor many of their industries. It is
worth noting that these things are in their nature, harmful; hence we
do not want them. I bear no enmity towards the English but i do
towards their civilization.
In my opinion, we have used the tem "Swaraj" without
understanding its real significance. I have endeavored to explain it
as I understand it, and my conscience testifies that my life
henceforth is dedicated to its attainment.
GLOSSARY
ahimsa non-violence
anasakti non-attachment
artha Wealth/power, one of the four ends of human existence
atman the permanent self underlying human personality
atma Soul
bahadur courageous, honourable, an honorific title
Bania third highest caste in social hierarcy-Gandhi's caste
Bapu 'Father'
brahmacharya celibacy
brahmachari one who practices celibacy
Brahman the ultimate reality
brahmin highest caste in social hierarchy
charkha spinning-wheel
crore the sum of 10,000,000
dastur spiritual leader of Parsees
daya mercy, compassion
dehin the embodied self
dharma duty, natural moral law; religion as ethics and religion
as sect
dhurna a traditional form of 'sit-down strike'
Jain or Jaina a follower of the Jain religion
kali-yug an 'era' of corruption
kama pleasure, one of the four ends of human existence
khadi home-spun cloth, made famous by Gandhi
khaddar another name for khadi
Khuda-Ishwar God
kudharo uncivilised way of life (opposite of sudharo)
Kshatriya second highest caste in the social hierarchy
Lakh the sum of 100, 000
mullah spiritual leader of Muslims
moksha salvation or the ultimate end of life
panchayat village council
pice the basic unit of the rupee in Gandhi's time
praja Gandhi's term for 'nation' in Hind Swaraj
rishi sage
the Raj the British regime in India
shastras traditional, often considered sacred, texts
satya truth
satyagraha firmness in adhering to truth
satyagrahi one who practises satyagraha
shastri learned in Hindu scriptures
swadeshi pertaining to one's own country
swaraj self-rule, self-government
Upas tree Antiaris toxicaria, whose poisonous latex is used as
arrow poison: symbol of any life-destroying entity
vaid name for 'medical doctors' in pre-modern India
varna the ideal unit of a functionally divided Hindu society
varnashrama the four-fold hierarchical division of Hindu
society
Vaishnava a member of the sect who worships Vishnu, a Hindu
God
yagna sacrificial offering