Read The Essential Gandhi Online
Authors: Mahatma Gandhi
The Essential Gandhi (20 page)
FACING THE BRITISH IN INDIA
[While Gandhi sought the support—moral and material—of Indians in India for his fight for Indians in South Africa, his interest in the beloved homeland did not dim.]
… More and more, as years go by, a feeling of unrest is growing in India. More and more … is a spirit of discontent pervading its three hundred millions.… And more and more, as they realize that amid the differences of creed and caste is one basic nationality, does agitation spread and take the form of definite demands for the fulfillment of the solemn assurance of the British Government that they should be given the ordinary rights of British subjects. It is impossible that national aspirations can be forever repressed, and equally impossible for India to remain a “dependency” in an Empire to which it contributes more than half the population. How often have South Africans kicked against the pricks from the Home [colonial government in London] authorities, and felt with indignation that local affairs were not properly understood.… Is it then surprising that the teeming millions of India should be dissatisfied with being ruled by a number of too-often self-sufficient and unsympathetic aliens ignorant of the genius of the people? Not even the “mild” Hindu can bear this forever. Is it possible for the patriotic spirits of a people with the glorious traditions of India to be content with serfdom?…
… The root of the trouble seems to be that, although there is a very great sentimental interest taken in India by the people [in Great Britain], there is, unfortunately, an equally small
practical
interest taken. Insofar as Indians are “heathens” they are interesting, insofar as they are fellow-subjects—well, the Government can look after them. But the members of the Government are too busy seeking the bubble reputation to trouble much with what will not bring place and position.…
It seems, then, that the hope of India lies in the British people, rather than in the British Government.…
1
[No] people exists that would not think itself happier even under its own bad government than it might really be under the good governance of an alien power.
The spirit of political and international liberty is universal and, it may even be said, instinctive. No race appreciates a condition of servitude or subjection to a conquering or an alien race. If we turn our minds to the conditions which anteceded the American War of Independence, it is not difficult to understand how even the suspicion of an assumed superiority will antagonize its prospective victim to the degree of rendering coöperation almost an impossibility.
Yet it is curious how unimaginative so many Britishers are. What they recognize as a virtue in themselves is an appalling vice in others, else should we never hear of alleged sedition in Ireland, Egypt, or India. It is normal for a man to desire to be free, even if, actually, he does not merit freedom. But it is the desire itself that, in … time, will bring the now impossible aspiration to realization.
It cannot for one moment be alleged that a strange ruler is capable of entering into the intimate thought and feeling, the inmost life, of the ruled in the manner that is possible for those of the same or a similar nationality and tradition.
2
The Royal Tour has given India the opportunity of shewing her loyalty to the Throne, and she has not been lacking in her demonstration. The Prince and Princess [the future King George V and Queen Mary] have seen how gay she can be, and, no doubt, imagine the land through which they passed is fairly prosperous. How much more profitable this visit would have been if, instead of merely passing through a continuous round of festivities, some of the time had been devoted to finding out the needs of India. A touch of sadness would have inevitably been added, but, perchance, there would have been awakened a bond of sympathy which would last longer and produce more good than all the glamour of the present show.
3
[Gandhi had commenced to connect himself with the problem of India’s independence during his London sojourn, July to November, 1909. He went to lobby for the “Home” Government’s influence to block further anti-Indian legislation in South Africa. He won the active support of Lord Ampthill, acting Viceroy of India in 1904, to whom he wrote, setting forth some of the tenets later to become the Mahatma’s creed.]
An awakening of the National Consciousness is unmistakable. But among the majority it is in a crude shape, and there is not a corresponding spirit of self-sacrifice. Everywhere I have noticed impatience of British Rule. In some cases, the hatred of the race is virulent. In almost all cases, distrust of British statesmen is writ large on their minds. They [the statesmen] are supposed to do nothing unselfishly. Those who are against violence are so only for the time being. They do not disapprove of it, but they are too cowardly or selfish to avow their opinions publicly. Some consider that the time for violence is not yet. I have met practically no one who believes that India can ever become free without resort to violence.
I believe repression will be unavailing. At the same time, I feel that the British Rulers will not give liberally, and in time. The British people appear to be obsessed by the demon of commercial selfishness. The fault is not of men, but of the system.… The true remedy lies, in my humble opinion, in England’s discarding modern civilization, which is ensouled by this spirit of selfishness and materialism, which is purposeless, vain, and … a negation of the spirit of Christianity. But this is a large order. It may then be just possible that the British Rulers in India may at least do as the Indians do, and not impose upon them … modern civilization. The railways, machineries and the corresponding increase of indulgent habits are the true badges of slavery of the Indian people, as they are of Europeans. I therefore have no quarrel with the rulers. I have every quarrel with their methods.… To me, the rise of cities like Calcutta and Bombay is a matter of sorrow rather than congratulations. India has lost in having broken up a part of her village system. Holding these views, I share the national spirit, but I totally dissent from the methods, whether of the extremists or of the moderates, for either party relies on violence ultimately. Violent
method must mean acceptance of modern civilization, and therefore of the same ruinous composition we notice here.… I should be uninterested in the fact as to who rules. I should expect rulers to rule according to my wish, otherwise I cease to help them to rule me.…
4
[On the trip back to South Africa, Gandhi wrote of his hopes for the future in his first book,
Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule
. The brief volume was written in Gujarati and published in installments in
Indian Opinion
. Later it was published as a book in Gujarati and English. He allowed it to be republished in India in 1921 without change, and in his introduction to still another edition in 1938 said, “After the stormy thirty years through which I have since passed, I have seen nothing to make me alter the views expounded in it.”
5
]
[
Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule
] has had a chequered career.… I felt that violence was no remedy for India’s ills, and that her civilization required the use of a different and higher weapon for self-protection.… What I wrote was so much appreciated that it was published as a booklet. It attracted some attention in India. The Bombay Government prohibited its circulation. I replied by publishing its [English] translation. I thought that … my English friends should know its contents.
In my opinion, it is a book which can be put into the hands of a child. It teaches the gospel of love in place of that of hate. It replaces violence with self-sacrifice. It pits soul-force against brute-force.…
… If India adopted the doctrine of love as an active part of her religion and introduced it in her politics, Swaraj [Home Rule or Self-Rule] would descend upon India from heaven.…
6
… My countrymen impute the evils of modern civilization to the English people and, therefore, believe that the English people are bad, and not the civilization they represent. My countrymen, therefore, believe that they should adopt modern civilization 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.…
7
[
Indian Home Rule
records discussions Gandhi had with Indians in London, one of them an anarchist, some of them terrorists. These interlocutors are grouped as “Reader.”]
EDITOR:
… 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, would you 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.…
EDITOR:
Supposing we get Self-Government similar to 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 flag. 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 well drawn the picture. In effect it means this: that we want English rule without the Englishman. You want the tiger’s nature, but not the tiger; that is to say, you would make India English. And when it becomes English, it will be called not Hindustan but
Englistan
. This is not the Swaraj that I want.
8
READER:
… Now will you tell me something of what you have read and thought of modern civilization?
EDITOR:
Let us first consider what state of things is described in the word “civilization.” Its true test lies in the fact that people living in it make bodily welfare the object of life.… The people of Europe today live in better-built houses than they did a hundred years ago. This is considered an emblem of civilization.… Formerly, they wore skins and used spears as their weapons. Now they wear long trousers, and … instead of spears, they carry with them revolvers containing five or more chambers. If the people of a certain country … 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.… Formerly, the fewest men wrote books that were most valuable. Now anybody writes and prints anything he likes and poisons people’s minds.… 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.… Formerly, men worked in the open air only so much as they liked. Now thousands of workmen meet together and … 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 the temptation of money and of the luxuries that money can buy.… What more need I say? All this you can ascertain.… This civilization takes note neither of morality nor of religion.… Civilization seeks to increase bodily comforts and it fails miserably even in doing so.
9
READER:
… How can [Mohammedans, Parsis and Christians in India] be one nation?… Hindus and Mahometans are old enemies.… We … meet with differences at every step.…
10
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.… 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.… The Hindus, the Mahometans, 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.
Should we not remember that many Hindus and Mahometans 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 Mahometan 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 for quarreling?
11
READER:
… 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.… 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.… What we have tested and found true on the anvil of experience we dare not change.…
Civilization is that mode of conduct which points out to man the path of duty.… To observe morality is to attain mastery over our mind and our passions.… The Gujarati [Gandhi’s native language] equivalent for civilization means “good conduct.”
… 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.… 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.… This [ancient] nation had courts, lawyers and doctors but they were all within bounds. Everybody knew that these professions were not particularly superior; moreover, [they] did not rob people, they were considered people’s dependents, not their masters. Justice was tolerably fair. The ordinary rule was to avoid courts.… The common people lived independently and followed their agricultural occupation. They enjoyed true Home Rule.
… The tendency of Indian civilization is to elevate the moral being, that of the Western civilization is to propagate immorality.…
12
