Edited
Excerpts from Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj
It is certainly my good fortune that this booklet of mine is receiving wide attention. It was written in 1908 during my return voyage from London to South-Africa in answer to the Indian school of violence and its prototype in South-Africa. I came in contact with every known Indian anarchist in London. Their bravery impressed me, but 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. The Satyagraha of South-Africa was still an infant hardly two years old. But it had developed sufficiently to permit me to write of it with some degree of confidence. What I wrote was so much appreciated that it was published as a booklet.
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. It has gone through
several editions and I commend it to those who would care to read it. I
withdraw nothing except one word of it, and that in deference to a lady friend.
The booklet is a severe condemnation of “modern civilization”. It was written
in 1908. My conviction is deeper today than ever. I feel that if India will
discard “modern civilization”, she can only gain by doing so.
But I would warn the reader against thinking that I am today aiming at
the Swaraj described therein. I know that India is not ripe for it. It
may seem an impertinence to say so. But such is my conviction. I am
individually working for the self-rule pictured therein. But today my
corporate activity is undoubtedly devoted to the attainment of Parliamentary
Swaraj, in accordance with the wishes of the people of India. I am not
aiming at destroying railways or hospitals, though I would certainly welcome
their natural destruction. Neither railways nor hospitals are a test of a high
and pure civilization. At best they are a necessary evil. Neither adds one inch
to the moral stature of a nation. Nor I am aiming at a permanent summation
devoutly to be wished. Still less am I trying to destroy all machinery and
mills. It requires a higher simplicity and renunciation than the people are
today prepared for.
The only part of the programme which is now being carried out is that of
non-violence. But I regret to have to confess that even that is not being
carried out in the spirit of the book. If it were, India would establish Swaraj
in a day. If India adopted the doctrine of love as an active part of her
religion and introduced it in her politics, Swaraj would descend upon India
from heaven. But I am painfully aware that that event is
far off as yet. I offer these comments because I observe that much is being
quoted from the booklet to discredit the present movement. I have even seen
writings suggesting that I am playing a deep game, that I am using the present
turmoil to foist my fads on India, and am making religious experiments at
India’s expense. I can only answer that Satyagraha is made of sterner stuff.
There is nothing reserved and nothing secret in it. A portion of the whole
theory of life described in Hind Swaraj is undoubtedly being carried
into practice. There is no danger attendant upon the whole of it being
practised. But it is not right to scare away people by reproducing from my
writings passages that are irrelevant to the issue before the country.
Mohandas K. Gandhi
Young India,
January, 1921.
[In what
follows, Gandhi adopts a dialectical or dialogue-form in his writing, where a
“Reader” asks him (the “Editor”) questions about his doctrine of non-violence.]
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 matter 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 do not so by using brute
force? And, to retain what we may 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. ...
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. ...
[Y]our 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 harboured 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 neighbours; 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 neighbours. 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 neighbours 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 belabour the rogue;
don’t you leave him alone.” And so the battle grows; the robbers increase in
numbers; your neighbours 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 honourable 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. ... 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. ... The force of arms is powerless when matched
against the force of love or the soul.
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 that take the sword shall
perish by the sword.”...
The fact that there are so many men still alive in the world shows that
it is based not 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 of
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 daily 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 the 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; the two
again begin 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 the exhibition of brute force, their
doings would be immediately noticed in the press, they would be the talk of
their neighbours 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 soul-force. 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 a
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 passed, but that if the laws be bad,
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
law-givers but we suffer and do not submit to the laws. That we should
obey laws whether good or bad is a newfangled nation. 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. ...
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. ... If man will only realize that it is unmanly to obey laws that
are unjust, no man’s tyranny will enslave him. This is the key to
self-rule or home-rule.
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. ... 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, soul-force, is matchless. It
is superior to the force of arms. How, then, can it be considered only a
weapon of the weak? Physical-force men are strangers to the courage that is
requisite in a passive resister. ... 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 ? he
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 be stolen. ...
READER: You have said that
passive resistance is a speciality 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 learn 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 the use of the sword, and they are not frightened by
the use of it by others. ... 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. ...
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. ...
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 otherwise 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. ...
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, but they are expected to be
indifferent about it. 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. ... 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
honour, 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 a stick suddenly came face to face with a lion and
instinctively raised his weapon in self-defence. 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.