{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_40461/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_40461","id":"gutenberg_40461","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40461","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","India -- Politics and government -- 1919-1947","Nationalism -- India"],"text":"INDIAN HOME RULE\n\n  BY\n  M. K. GANDHI\n\n  FIFTH EDITION\n  AS. 6\n\n  GANESH & Co., MADRAS\n\n\n\n\nBooks by C. F. Andrews\n\n\nThe Claim for Independence\n\n    Within or without the British Empire      =Price As. 8.=\n\n\nNon-Co-operation\n\n    The Whys and Wherefores      =Price As. 8.=\n\n\nIndians in South Africa\n\n    Helots within the British Empire      =Price As. 8.=\n\n\nThe Drink and Opium Evil\n\n    _Miss La Molte says_: \"A nation that can subjugate 300,000,000\n    helpless Indian people, and then turn them into drug addicts, for\n    the sake of revenue, is a nation, which commits a cold-blooded\n    atrocity unparalleled by any atrocity committed in the rage and heat\n    of war.\"\n\n    =Price As. 4.=\n\n\nHow India can be Free\n\n    \"India has no need to take the sword in order to be free: She has a\n    much more powerful weapon ready to her hand. If once her people\n    unitedly decide to be free they can be free.\"\n\n    =Price As. 4.=\n\n\nIndian Independence:\n\nThe immediate need\n\n    To be in subjection to a band of foreign rulers, if Seeley's\n    historical maxim is true, cannot but lead to national deterioration.\n    This is why the need for independence is so immediate. This is why\n    it cannot be postponed. The verdict of the most sober English\n    Historians is this, that India, without a single hand being lifted\n    to strike a single blow, can determine her own destiny. The sheer\n    weight of numbers,--three hundred and twenty millions against a few\n    thousands,--is so great, that if these numbers could once speak with\n    one mind, their will must be carried out.\n\n    =Price As. 8.=\n\n\nGANESH & Co., Publishers, Madras.\n\n\n\n\n  INDIAN HOME RULE\n\n  BY\n  M. K. GANDHI\n\n  Reprinted with a new foreword by the author\n\n  FIFTH EDITION\n\n  GANESH & Co., MADRAS\n  1922\n\n\n  MADRAS:\n  THE MODERN PRINTING WORKS, MOUNT ROAD.\n\n\n\n\nNOTE\n\n\nThe doctrine of violence is more widely believed in than is generally\nrealised. The votaries of violence can be divided into two classes.\nSome, a small and dwindling class, believe in it and are prepared to act\naccording to their faith. Others, a very large class always, and now,\nafter bitter experiences of the failure of constitutional agitation,\nlarger than ever, believe in violence, but that belief does not lead\nthem to action. It disables them from work on any basis other than\nforce. The belief in violence serves to dissuade them from all other\nkinds of work or sacrifice. In both cases the evil is great.\n\nThere can be no reconstruction or hope for this land of ours, unless we\neradicate the worship of force in all its forms, and establish work on a\nbasis other than violence. A refutation of the doctrine of violence is,\nin the present situation of the affairs of our country, more necessary\nthan ever.\n\nTo this end, nothing better can be conceived than the publication and\nwide distribution of Mr. Gandhi's famous book.\n\nIt was extremely patriotic of Messrs. Ganesh and Company to have readily\nagreed to undertake the work when they were approached with the request.\n\n  Satyagrah Sabha, }\n    Madras,        } C. RAJAGOPALACHAR.\n    6-6-19.        }\n\n\n\n\nFOREWORD\n\n\nI have re-read this booklet more than once. The value at the present\nmoment lies in re-printing it as it is. But if I had to revise it, there\nis only one word I would alter in accordance with a promise made to an\nEnglish friend. She took exception to my use of the word 'prostitute' in\nspeaking of the Parliament. Her fine taste recoiled from the indelicacy\nof the expression. I remind the reader that the booklet purports to be a\nfree translation of the original which is in Gujarati.\n\nAfter years of endeavour to put into practice the views expressed in the\nfollowing pages, I feel that the way shown therein is the only true way\nto Swaraj. Satyagrah--the law of love is the Law of life. Departure from\nit leads to disintegration. A firm adherence to it leads to\nregeneration.\n\nBOMBAY,           }\n_28th May, 1919_. } M. K. GANDHI.\n\n\n\n\nHIND SWARAJ\n\nOR\n\nTHE INDIAN HOME RULE\n\n_Reply to Critics_\n\n\nIt is certainly my good fortune that this booklet of mine is receiving\nwide attention. The original is in Gujarati. It had a chequered career.\nIt was first published in the columns of the 'Indian Opinion' of South\nAfrica. It was written in 1908 during my return voyage from London to\nSouth Africa in answer to the Indian school of violence, and its\nprototype in South Africa. I came in contact with every known Indian\nanarchist in London. Their bravery impressed me, but I feel that their\nzeal was misguided. I felt that violence was no remedy for India's ills,\nand that her civilization required the use of a different and higher\nweapon for self-protection. The _Satyagrah_ of South Africa was still an\ninfant hardly two years old. But it had developed sufficiently to permit\nme to write of it with some degree of confidence. It was so much\nappreciated that it was published as a booklet. It attracted some\nattention in India. The Bombay Government prohibited its circulation. I\nreplied by publishing its translation. I thought that it was due to my\nEnglish friends that they should know its contents. In my opinion it is\na book which can be put into the hands of a child. It teaches the gospel\nof love in the place of that of hate. It replaces violence with\nself-sacrifice. It pits soul force against brute force. It has gone\nthrough several editions and I commend it to those who would care to\nread it. I withdraw nothing except one word of it, and that in deference\nto a lady friend. I have given the reason for the alteration in the\npreface to the Indian edition.\n\nThe booklet is a severe condemnation of 'modern civilization.' It was\nwritten in 1908. My conviction is deeper to-day than ever. I feel that\nif India would discard 'modern civilization' she can only gain by doing\nso.\n\nBut I would warn the reader against thinking that I am to-day aiming at\nthe Swaraj described therein. I know that India is not ripe for it. It\nmay seem an impertinence to say so. But such is my conviction. I am\nindividually working for the self-rule pictured therein. But to-day my\ncorporate activity is undoubtedly devoted to the attainment of\nParliamentary Swaraj in accordance with the wishes of the people of\nIndia. I am not aiming at destroying railways or hospitals, though I\nwould certainly welcome their natural destruction. Neither railways nor\nhospitals are a test of a high and pure civilization. At best they are a\nnecessary evil. Neither adds one inch to the moral stature of a nation.\nNor am I aiming at a permanent destruction of law courts, much as I\nregard it as a 'consummation devoutly to be wished for.' Still less am I\ntrying to destroy all machinery and mills. It requires a higher\nsimplicity and renunciation than the people are to-day prepared for.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe only part of the programme which is now being carried out in its\nentirety is that of non-violence. But I regret to have to confess that\neven that is not being carried out in the spirit of the book. If it\nwere, India would establish Swaraj in a day. If India adopted the\ndoctrine of love as an active part of her religion and introduced it in\nher politics, Swaraj would descend upon India from heaven. But I am\npainfully aware that that event is far off as yet.\n\nI offer these comments because I observe that much is being quoted from\nthe booklet to discredit the present movement. I have even seen writings\nsuggesting that I am playing a deep game, that I am using the present\nturmoil to foist my fads on India, and am making religious experiments\nat India's expense. I can only answer that _Satyagrah_ is made of\nsterner stuff. There is nothing reserved and nothing secret in it. A\nportion of the whole theory of life described in 'Hind Swaraj' is\nundoubtedly being carried into practice. There is no danger attendant\nupon the whole of it being practised. But it is not right to scare away\npeople by reproducing from my writings passages that are irrelevant to\nthe issue before the country.\n\nM. K. GANDHI,\n_Young India, 26th January, 1921_.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n   CHAP.                           PAGE\n\n      I The Congress and Its Officials      11\n\n     II The Partition of Bengal      18\n\n    III The Discontent and Unrest      21\n\n     IV What is Swaraj?      22\n\n      V The Condition of England      26\n\n     VI Civilization      30\n\n    VII Why was India Lost?      35\n\n   VIII The condition of India      39\n\n     IX Do. Railways      43\n\n      X Do. Hindus and Mahomedans      47\n\n     XI Do. Lawyers      55\n\n    XII Do. Doctors      60\n\n   XIII What is True Civilization?      63\n\n    XIV How can India become Free?      67\n\n     XV Italy and India      71\n\n    XVI Brute Force      75\n\n   XVII Passive Resistance      84\n\n  XVIII Education      97\n\n    XIX Machinery      105\n\n     XX Conclusion      110\n\n        Appendices      123\n\n\n\n\nINDIAN HOME RULE\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE CONGRESS AND ITS OFFICIALS\n\n\nREADER: Just at present there is a Home Rule wave passing over India.\nAll our countrymen appear to be pining for National Independence. A\nsimilar spirit pervades them even in South Africa. Indians seem to be\neager after acquiring rights. Will you explain your views in this\nmatter?\n\nEDITOR: You have well put the question, but the answer is not easy. One\nof the objects of a newspaper is to understand the popular feeling and\nto give expression to it; another is to arouse among the people certain\ndesirable sentiments; and the third is fearlessly to expose popular\ndefects. The exercise of all these three functions is involved in\nanswering your question. To a certain extent the people's will has to be\nexpressed; certain sentiments will need to be fostered, and defects will\nhave to be brought to light. But, as you have asked the question, it is\nmy duty to answer it.\n\n\nREADER: Do you then consider that a desire for Home Rule has been\ncreated among us?\n\nEDITOR: That desire gave rise to the National Congress. The choice of\nthe word \"National\" implies it.\n\n\nREADER: That, surely, is not the case. Young India seems to ignore the\nCongress. It is considered to be an instrument for perpetuating British\nRule.\n\nEDITOR: That opinion is not justified. Had not the Grand Old Man of\nIndia prepared the soil, our young men could not have even spoken about\nHome Rule. How can we forget what Mr. Hume has written, how he has\nlashed us into action, and with what effort he has awakened us, in order\nto achieve the objects of the Congress? Sir William Wedderburn has given\nhis body, mind and money to the same cause. His writings are worthy of\nperusal to this day. Professor Gokhale, in order to prepare the Nation,\nembraced poverty and gave twenty years of his life. Even now, he is\nliving in poverty. The late Justice Buddrudin Tyebji was also one of\nthose who, through the Congress, sowed the seed of Home Rule. Similarly\nin Bengal, Madras, the Punjab and other places, there have been lovers\nof India and members of the Congress, both Indian and English.\n\n\nREADER: Stay, stay, you are going too far, you are straying away from my\nquestion. I have asked you about Home or Self-Rule; you are discussing\nforeign rule. I do not desire to hear English names, and you are giving\nme such names. In these circumstances, I do not think we can ever meet.\nI shall be pleased if you will confine yourself to Home Rule. All other\nwise talk will not satisfy me.\n\nEDITOR: You are impatient. I cannot afford to be likewise. If you will\nbear with me for a while, I think you will find that you will obtain\nwhat you want. Remember the old proverb that the tree does not grow in\none day. The fact that you have checked me, and that you do not want to\nhear about the well-wishers of India, shows that, for you at any rate,\nHome Rule is yet far away. If we had many like you, we would never make\nany advance. This thought is worthy of your attention.\n\n\nREADER: It seems to me that you simply want to put me off by talking\nround and round. Those whom you consider to be well-wishers of India are\nnot such in my estimation. Why, then, should I listen to your discourse\non such people? What has he whom you consider to be the father of the\nnation done for it? He says that the English Governors will do justice,\nand that we should co-operate with them.\n\nEDITOR: I must tell you with all gentleness that it must be a matter of\nshame for us that you should speak about that great man, in terms of\ndisrespect. Just look at his work. He has dedicated his life to the\nservice of India. We have learned what we know from him. It was the\nrespected Dadabhai who taught us that the English had sucked our\nlife-blood. What does it matter that, to-day, his trust is still in the\nEnglish nation? Is Dadabhai less to be honoured because, in the\nexuberance of youth, we are prepared to go a step further? Are we, on\nthat account, wiser than he? It is a mark of wisdom not to kick against\nthe very step from which we have risen higher. The removal of a step\nfrom a staircase brings down the whole of it. When, out of infancy we\ngrow into youth, we do not despise infancy, but, on the contrary, we\nrecall with affection the days of our childhood. If, after many years of\nstudy, a teacher were to teach me something, and if I were to build a\nlittle more on the foundation laid by that teacher, I would not, on that\naccount, be considered wiser than the teacher. He would always command\nmy respect. Such is the case with the Grand Old Man of India. We must\nadmit that he is the author of Nationalism.\n\n\nREADER: You have spoken well. I can now understand that we must look\nupon Mr. Dadabhai with respect. Without him and men like him, we would\nprobably not have the spirit that fires us. How can the same be said of\nProfessor Gokhale? He has constituted himself a great friend of the\nEnglish; he says that we have to learn a great deal from them, that we\nhave to learn their political wisdom, before we can talk of Home Rule.\nI am tired of reading his speeches.\n\nEDITOR: If you are tired, it only betrays your impatience. We believe\nthat those who are discontented with the slowness of their parents, and\nare angry because the parents would not run with their children, are\nconsidered disrespectful to their parents. Professor Gokhale occupies\nthe place of a parent. What does it matter if he cannot run with us? A\nnation that is desirous of securing Home Rule cannot afford to despise\nits ancestors. We shall become useless if we lack respect for our\nelders. Only men with mature thoughts are capable of ruling themselves\nand not the hasty-tempered. Moreover, how many Indians were there like\nProfessor Gokhale, when he gave himself to Indian education? I verily\nbelieve that whatever Professor Gokhale does he does with pure motives\nand with a view to serving India. His devotion to the Motherland is so\ngreat, that he would give his life for it if necessary. Whatever he says\nis said not to flatter anyone but because he believes it to be true. We\nare bound, therefore, to entertain the highest regard for him.\n\n\nREADER: Are we, then, to follow him in every respect?\n\nEDITOR: I never said any such thing. If we conscientiously differed from\nhim, the learned Professor himself would advise us to follow the\ndictates of our conscience rather than him. Our chief purpose is not to\ncry down his work, but to believe that he is infinitely greater than we,\nand to feel assured that compared with his work for India, ours is\ninfinitesimal. Several newspapers write disrespectfully of him. It is\nour duty to protest against such writings. We should consider men like\nProfessor Gokhale to be the pillars of Home Rule. It is a bad habit to\nsay that another man's thoughts are bad and ours only are good, and that\nthose holding different views from ours are the enemies of the country.\n\n\nREADER: I now begin to understand somewhat your meaning. I shall have to\nthink the matter over, but what you say about Mr. Hume and Sir William\nWedderburn is beyond comprehension.\n\nEDITOR: The same rule holds good for the English as for the Indians. I\ncan never subscribe to the statement that all Englishmen are bad. Many\nEnglishmen desire Home Rule for India. That the English people are\nsomewhat more selfish than others is true, but that does not prove that\nevery Englishman is bad. We who seek justice will have to do justice to\nothers. Sir William does not wish ill to India--that should be enough\nfor us. As we proceed, you will see that, if we act justly, India will\nbe sooner free. You will see, too, that, if we shun every Englishman as\nan enemy, Home Rule will be delayed. But if we are just to them, we\nshall receive their support in our progress towards the goal.\n\n\nREADER: All this seems to me at present to be simply nonsensical.\nEnglish support and the obtaining of Home Rule are two contradictory\nthings. How can the English people tolerate Home Rule for us? But I do\nnot want you to decide this question for me just yet. To pass time over\nit is useless. When you have shown how we can have Home Rule, perhaps I\nshall understand your views. You have prejudiced me against you by\ndiscoursing on English help. I would, therefore, beseech you not to\ncontinue this subject.\n\nEDITOR: I have no desire to do so. That you are prejudiced against me is\nnot a matter for much anxiety. It is well that I should say unpleasant\nthings at the commencement, it is my duty patiently to try to remove\nyour prejudice.\n\n\nREADER: I like that last statement. It emboldens me to say what I like.\nOne thing still puzzles me. I do not understand how the Congress laid\nthe foundation of Home Rule.\n\nEDITOR: Let us see. The Congress brought together Indians from different\nparts of India, and enthused us with the idea of Nationality. The\nGovernment used to look upon it with disfavour. The Congress has always\ninsisted that the Nation should control revenue and expenditure. It has\nalways desired self-government after the Canadian model. Whether we can\nget it or not, whether we desire it or not, and whether there is not\nsomething more desirable, are different questions. All I have to show is\nthat the Congress gave us a foretaste of Home Rule. To deprive it of the\nhonour is not proper, and for us to do so would not only be ungrateful,\nbut retard the fulfilment of our object. To treat the Congress as an\ninstitution inimical to our growth as a Nation would disable us from\nusing that body.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE PARTITION OF BENGAL\n\n\nREADER: Considering the matter as you put it, it seems proper to say\nthat the foundation of Home Rule was laid by the Congress. But you will\nadmit that it cannot be considered a real awakening. When and how did\nthe awakening take place?\n\nEDITOR: The seed is never seen. It works underneath the ground, is\nitself destroyed, and the tree which rises above the ground is alone\nseen. Such is the case with the Congress. Yet, what you call the real\nawakening took place after the Partition of Bengal. For this we have to\nbe thankful to Lord Curzon. At the time of the Partition, the people of\nBengal reasoned with Lord Curzon, but, in the pride of power, he\ndisregarded all their prayers--he took it for granted that Indians could\nonly prattle, that they could never take any effective steps. He used\ninsulting language, and, in the teeth of all opposition, partitioned\nBengal. That day may be considered to be the day of the partition of the\nBritish Empire. The shock that the British power received through the\nPartition has never been equalled by any other act. This does not mean\nthat the other injustices done to India are less glaring than that done\nby the Partition. The salt-tax is not a small injustice. We shall see\nmany such things later on. But the people were ready to resist the\nPartition. At that time, the feeling ran high. Many leading Bengalis\nwere ready to lose their all. They knew their power; hence the\nconflagration. It is now well nigh unquenchable; it is not necessary to\nquench it either. Partition will go, Bengal will be re-united, but the\nrift in the English barque will remain: it must daily widen. India\nawakened is not likely to fall asleep. Demand for abrogation of\nPartition is tantamount to demand for Home Rule. Leaders in Bengal know\nthis, British officials realise it. That is why Partition still remains.\nAs time passes, the Nation is being forged. Nations are not formed in a\nday; the formation requires years.\n\n\nREADER: What, in your opinion, are the results of Partition?\n\nEDITOR: Hitherto we have considered that for redress of grievances, we\nmust approach the Throne and, if we get no redress, we must sit still,\nexcept that we may still petition. After the Partition, people saw that\npetitions must be backed up by force, and that they must be capable of\nsuffering. This new spirit must be considered to be the chief result of\nPartition. That spirit was seen in the outspoken writings in the press.\nThat which the people said tremblingly and in secret began to be said\nand to be written publicly. The Swadeshi movement was inaugurated.\nPeople, young and old, used to run away at the sight of an English face;\nit now no longer awed them. They did not fear even a row, or being\nimprisoned. Some of the best sons of India are at present in banishment.\nThis is something different from mere petitioning. Thus are the people\nmoved. The spirit generated in Bengal has spread in the North to the\nPunjab, and in the South to Cape Comorin.\n\n\nREADER: Do you suggest any other striking result?\n\nEDITOR: The Partition has not only made a rift in the English ship, but\nhas made it in ours also. Great events always produce great results. Our\nleaders are divided into two parties: the Moderates and the Extremists.\nThese may be considered as the slow party and the impatient party. Some\ncall the Moderates the timid party, and the Extremists the bold party.\nAll interpret the two words according to their pre-conceptions. This\nmuch is certain--that there has arisen an enmity between the two. The\none distrusts the other, and imputes motives. At the time of the Surat\nCongress, there was almost a fight. I think that this division is not a\ngood thing for the country, but I think also that such divisions will\nnot last long. It all depends upon the leaders how long they will last.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nDISCONTENT AND UNREST\n\n\nREADER: Then you consider Partition to be a cause of the awakening? Do\nyou welcome the unrest which has resulted from it?\n\nEDITOR: When a man rises from sleep, he twists his limbs and is\nrestless. It takes some time before he is entirely awakened. Similarly,\nalthough the Partition has caused an awakening, the comatose has not yet\ndisappeared. We are still twisting our limbs and still restless, and\njust as the state between sleep and awakening must be considered to be\nnecessary, so may the present unrest in India be considered a necessary\nand, therefore, a proper state. The knowledge that there is unrest will,\nit is highly probable, enable us to outgrow it. Rising from sleep, we do\nnot continue in a comatose state, but, according to our ability, sooner\nor later, we are completely restored to our senses. So shall we be free\nfrom the present unrest which no one likes.\n\n\nREADER: What is the other form of unrest?\n\nEDITOR: Unrest is, in reality, discontent. The latter is only now\ndescribed as unrest. During the Congress-period it was labelled\ndiscontent; Mr. Hume always said that the spread of discontent in India\nwas necessary. This discontent is a very useful thing. So long as a man\nis contented with his present lot, so long is it difficult to persuade\nhim to come out of it. Therefore it is that every reform must be\npreceded by discontent. We throw away things we have only when we cease\nto like them. Such discontent has been produced among us after reading\nthe great works of Indians and Englishmen. Discontent has led to unrest,\nand the latter has brought about many deaths, many imprisonments, many\nbanishments. Such a state of things will still continue. It must be so.\nAll these may be considered good signs, but they may also lead to bad\nresults.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nWHAT IS SWARAJ?\n\n\nREADER: I have now learnt what the Congress has done to make India one\nnation, how the Partition has caused an awakening, and how discontent\nand unrest have spread through the land. I would now like to know your\nviews on Swaraj. I fear that our interpretation is not the same.\n\nEDITOR: It is quite possible that we do not attach the same meaning to\nthe term. You and I and all Indians are impatient to obtain Swaraj, but\nwe are certainly not decided as to what it is. To drive the English out\nof India is a thought heard from many mouths, but it does not seem that\nmany have properly considered why it should be so. I must ask you a\nquestion. Do you think that it is necessary to drive away the English,\nif we get all we want?\n\n\nREADER: I should ask of them only one thing that is: \"Please leave our\ncountry.\" If after they have complied with this request, their\nwithdrawal from India means that they are still in India, I should have\nno objection. Then we would understand that, in our language, the word\n\"gone\" is equivalent to \"remained.\"\n\nEDITOR: Well then, let us suppose that the English have retired. What\nwill you do then?\n\n\nREADER: That question cannot be answered at this stage. The state after\nwithdrawal will depend largely upon the manner of it. If, as you assume,\nthey retire, it seems to me we shall still keep their constitution, and\nshall carry on the government. If they simply retire for the asking, we\nshould have an army, etc. ready at hand. We should, therefore, have no\ndifficulty in carrying on the government.\n\nEDITOR: You may think so: I do not. But I will not discuss the matter\njust now. I have to answer your question, and that I can do well by\nasking you several questions. Why do you want to drive away the English?\n\n\nREADER: Because India has become impoverished by their government. They\ntake away our money from year to year. The most important posts are\nreserved for themselves. We are kept in a state of slavery. They behave\ninsolently towards us, and disregard our feelings.\n\nEDITOR: If they do not take our money away, become gentle, and give us\nresponsible posts, would you still consider their presence to be\nharmful?\n\n\nREADER: That question is useless. It is similar to the question whether\nthere is any harm in associating with a tiger, if he changes his nature.\nSuch a question is sheer waste of time. When a tiger changes his nature,\nEnglishmen will change theirs. This is not possible, and to believe it\nto be possible is contrary to human experience.\n\nEDITOR: Supposing we get self-government similar to what the Canadians\nand the South Africans have, will it be good enough?\n\n\nREADER: That question also is useless. We may get it when we have the\nsame powers; we shall then hoist our own flag. As is Japan, so must\nIndia be. We must own our navy, our army, and we must have our own\nsplendour, and then will India's voice ring through the world.\n\nEDITOR: You have well drawn the picture. In effect it means this: that\nwe want English rule without the Englishman. You want the tiger's\nnature, but not the tiger; that is to say, you would make India English,\nand when it becomes English, it will be called not Hindustan but\nEnglistan. This is not the Swaraj that I want.\n\n\nREADER: I have placed before you my idea of Swaraj as I think it should\nbe. If the education we have received be of any use, if the works of\nSpencer, Mill and others be of any importance and if the English\nParliament be the mother of Parliaments, I certainly think that we\nshould copy the English people and this to such an extent that, just as\nthey do not allow others to obtain a footing in their country, so we\nshould not allow them or others to obtain it in ours. What they have\ndone in their own country has not been done in any other country. It is,\ntherefore, proper for us to import their institutions. But now I want to\nknow your views.\n\nEDITOR: There is need for patience. My views will develop of themselves\nin the course of this discourse. It is as difficult for me to understand\nthe true nature of Swaraj as it seems to you to be easy. I shall,\ntherefore, for the time being, content myself with endeavouring to show\nthat what you call Swaraj is not truly Swaraj.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE CONDITION OF ENGLAND\n\n\nREADER: Then from your statement, I deduce the Government of England is\nnot desirable and not worth copying by us.\n\nEDITOR: Your deduction is justified. The condition of England at present\nis pitiable. I pray to God that India may never be in that plight. That\nwhich you consider to be the Mother of Parliaments is like a sterile\nwoman and a prostitute. Both these are harsh terms, but exactly fit the\ncase. That Parliament has not yet of its own accord done a single good\nthing, hence I have compared it to a sterile woman. The natural\ncondition of that Parliament is such that, without outside pressure, it\ncan do nothing. It is like a prostitute because it is under the control\nof ministers who change from time to time. To-day it is under Mr.\nAsquith, to-morrow it may be under Mr. Balfour.\n\n\nREADER: You have said this sarcastically. The term \"sterile woman\" is\nnot applicable. The Parliament, being elected by the people, must work\nunder public pressure. This is its quality.\n\nEDITOR: You are mistaken. Let us examine it a little more closely. The\nbest men are supposed to be elected by the people. The members serve\nwithout pay and, therefore, it must be assumed only for the public weal.\nThe electors are considered to be educated and, therefore, we should\nassume that they would not generally make mistakes in their choice. Such\na Parliament should not need the spur of petitions or any other\npressure. Its work should be so smooth that its effect would be more\napparent day by day. But, as a matter of fact, it is generally\nacknowledged that the members are hypocritical and selfish. Each thinks\nof his own little interest. It is fear that is the guiding motive. What\nis done to-day may be undone to-morrow. It is not possible to recall a\nsingle instance in which the finality can be predicted for its work.\nWhen the greatest questions are debated its members have been seen to\nstretch themselves and to dose. Sometimes the members talk away until\nthe listeners are disgusted. Carlyle has called it the \"talking shop of\nthe world.\" Members vote for their party without a thought. Their\nso-called discipline binds them to it. If any member, by way of\nexception, gives an independent vote, he is considered a renegade. If\nthe money and the time wasted by the Parliament were entrusted to a few\ngood men, the English nation would be occupying to-day a much higher\nplatform. The Parliament is simply a costly toy of the nation. These\nviews are, by no means, peculiar to me. Some great English thinkers\nhave expressed them. One of the members of the Parliament recently said\nthat a true Christian could not become a member of it. Another said that\nit was a baby. And, if it has remained a baby after an existence of\nseven hundred years, when will it outgrow its babyhood?\n\n\nREADER: You have set me thinking; you do not expect me to accept at once\nall you say. You give me entirely novel views. I shall have to digest\nthem. Will you now explain the epithet \"prostitute\"?\n\nEDITOR: That you cannot accept my views at once is only right. If you\nwill read the literature on this subject, you will have some idea of it.\nThe Parliament is without a real master. Under the Prime Minister, its\nmovement is not steady, but it is buffeted about like a prostitute. The\nPrime Minister is more concerned about his power than about the welfare\nof the Parliament. His energy is concentrated upon securing the success\nof his party. His care is not always that the Parliament shall do right.\nPrime Ministers are known to have made the Parliament do things merely\nfor party advantage. All this is worth thinking over.\n\n\nREADER: Then you are really attacking the very men whom we have hitherto\nconsidered to be patriotic and honest?\n\nEDITOR: Yes, that is true; I can have nothing against Prime Ministers,\nbut what I have seen leads me to think that they cannot be considered\nreally patriotic. If they are to be considered honest because they do\nnot take what is generally known as bribery, let them be so considered,\nbut they are open to subtler influences. In order to gain their ends,\nthey certainly bribe people with honours. I do not hesitate to say that\nthey have neither real honesty nor a living conscience.\n\n\nREADER: As you express these views about the Parliament, I would like to\nhear you on the English people, so that I may have your views of their\nGovernment.\n\nEDITOR: To the English voters their newspaper is their Bible. They take\ncue from their newspapers, which latter are often dishonest. The same\nfact is differently interpreted by different newspapers, according to\nthe party in whose interests they are edited. One newspaper would\nconsider a great Englishman to be a paragon of honesty, another would\nconsider him dishonest. What must be the condition of the people whose\nnewspapers are of this type?\n\n\nREADER: You shall describe it.\n\nEDITOR: These people change their views frequently. It is said that they\nchange them every seven years. These views swing like the pendulum of a\nclock and are never steadfast. The people would follow a powerful orator\nor a man who gives them parties, receptions, etc. As are the people, so\nis their Parliament. They have certainly one quality very strongly\ndeveloped. They will never allow their country to be lost. If any person\nwere to cast an evil eye on it, they would pluck out his eyes. But that\ndoes not mean that the nation possesses every other virtue or that it\nshould be imitated. If India copies England, it is my firm conviction\nthat she will be ruined.\n\n\nREADER: To what do you ascribe this state of England?\n\nEDITOR: It is not due to any peculiar fault of the English people, but\nthe condition is due to modern civilization. It is a civilization only\nin name. Under it the nations of Europe are becoming degraded and ruined\nday by day.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nCIVILIZATION\n\n\nREADER: Now you will have to explain what you mean by civilization.\n\nEDITOR: It is not a question of what I mean. Several English writers\nrefuse to call that, civilization which passes under that name. Many\nbooks have been written upon that subject. Societies have been formed to\ncure the nation of the evils of civilization. A great English writer has\nwritten a work called \"Civilization: Its Cause and Cure.\" Therein he has\ncalled it a disease.\n\n\nREADER: Why do we not know this generally?\n\nEDITOR: The answer is very simple. We rarely find people arguing against\nthemselves. Those who are intoxicated by modern civilization are not\nlikely to write against it. Their care will be to find out facts and\narguments in support of it, and this they do unconsciously, believing it\nto be true. A man, whilst he is dreaming, believes in his dream; he is\nundeceived only when he is awakened from his sleep. A man labouring\nunder the bane of civilization is like a dreaming man. What we usually\nread are the work of defenders of modern civilization, which undoubtedly\nclaims among its votaries very brilliant and even some very good men.\nTheir writings hypnotise us. And so, one by one, we are drawn into the\nvortex.\n\n\nREADER: This seems to be very plausible. Now will you tell me something\nof what you have read and thought of this civilization.\n\nEDITOR: Let us first consider what state of things is described by the\nword \"civilization.\" Its true test lies in the fact that people living\nin it make bodily welfare the object of life. We will take some\nexamples. The people of Europe to-day live in better-built houses than\nthey did a hundred years ago. This is considered an emblem of\ncivilization, and this is also a matter to promote bodily happiness.\nFormerly, they wore skins, and used as their weapons spears. Now, they\nwear long trousers, and for embellishing their bodies they wear a\nvariety of clothing, and, instead of spears, they carry with them\nrevolvers containing five or more chambers. If people of a certain\ncountry, who have hitherto not been in the habit of wearing much\nclothing, boots, etc., adopt European clothing, they are supposed to\nhave become civilised out of savagery. Formerly, in Europe, people\nploughed their lands mainly by manual labour. Now, one man can plough a\nvast tract by means of steam-engines, and can thus amass great wealth.\nThis is called a sign of civilization. Formerly, the fewest men wrote\nbooks, that were most valuable. Now, anybody writes and prints anything\nhe likes and poisons people's minds. Formerly, men travelled in waggons;\nnow they fly through the air, in trains at the rate of four hundred and\nmore miles per day. This is considered the height of civilization. It\nhas been stated that, as men progress, they shall be able to travel in\nairships and reach any part of the world in a few hours. Men will not\nneed the use of their hands and feet. They will press a button, and they\nwill have their clothing by their side. They will press another button,\nand they will have their newspaper. A third, and a motor-car will be in\nwaiting for them. They will have a variety of delicately dished up food.\nEverything will be done by machinery. Formerly, when people wanted to\nfight with one another, they measured between them their bodily\nstrength; now it is possible to take away thousands of lives by one man\nworking behind a gun from a hill. This is civilization. Formerly, men\nworked in the open air only so much as they liked. Now, thousands of\nworkmen meet together and for the sake of maintenance work in factories\nor mines. Their condition is worse than that of beasts. They are obliged\nto work, at the risk of their lives, at most dangerous occupations, for\nthe sake of millionaires. Formerly, men were made slaves under physical\ncompulsion, now they are enslaved by temptation of money and of the\nluxuries that money can buy. There are now diseases of which people\nnever dreamt before, and an army of doctors is engaged in finding out\ntheir cures, and so hospitals have increased. This is a test of\ncivilization. Formerly, special messengers were required and much\nexpense was incurred in order to send letters; to-day, anyone can abuse\nhis fellow by means of a letter for one penny. True, at the same cost,\none can send one's thanks also. Formerly, people had two or three meals\nconsisting of homemade bread and vegetables; now, they require something\nto eat every two hours, so that they have hardly leisure for anything\nelse. What more need I say? All this you can ascertain from several\nauthoritative books. These are all true tests of civilization. And, if\nany one speaks to the contrary, know that he is ignorant. This\ncivilization takes note neither of morality nor of religion. Its\nvotaries calmly state that their business is not to teach religion. Some\neven consider it to be a superstitious growth. Others put on the cloak\nof religion, and prate about morality. But, after twenty years'\nexperience, I have come to the conclusion that immorality is often\ntaught in the name of morality. Even a child can understand that in all\nI have described above there can be no inducement to morality.\nCivilization seeks to increase bodily comforts, and it fails miserably\neven in doing so.\n\nThis civilization is irreligion, and it has taken such a hold on the\npeople in Europe that those who are in it appear to be half mad. They\nlack real physical strength or courage. They keep up their energy by\nintoxication. They can hardly be happy in solitude. Women, who should be\nthe queens of households, wander in the streets, or they slave away in\nfactories. For the sake of a pittance, half a million women in England\nalone are labouring under trying circumstances in factories or similar\ninstitutions. This awful fact is one of the causes of the daily growing\nsuffragette movement.\n\nThis civilization is such that one has only to be patient and it will be\nself-destroyed. According to the teaching of Mahomed this would be\nconsidered a Satanic civilization. Hinduism calls it the Black Age. I\ncannot give you an adequate conception of it. It is eating into the\nvitals of the English nation. It must be shunned. Parliament are really\nemblems of slavery. If you will sufficiently think over this, you will\nentertain the same opinion, and cease to blame the English. They rather\ndeserve our sympathy. They are a shrewd nation and I therefore believe\nthat they will cast off the evil. They are enterprising and industrious\nand their mode of thought is not inherently immoral. Neither are they\nbad at heart. I, therefore, respect them. Civilization is not an\nincurable disease, but it should never be forgotten that the English\npeople are at present afflicted by it.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nWHY WAS INDIA LOST?\n\n\nREADER: You have said much about civilization--enough to make me ponder\nover it. I do not now know what I should adopt and what I should avoid\nfrom the nations of Europe, but one question comes to my lips\nimmediately. If civilization is a disease, and if it has attacked\nEngland why has she been able to take India, and why is she able to\nretain it?\n\nEDITOR: Your question is not very difficult to answer, and we shall\npresently be able to examine the true nature of Swaraj; for I am aware\nthat I have still to answer that question. I will, however, take up\nyour previous question. The English have not taken India; we have given\nit to them. They are not in India because of their strength, but because\nwe keep them. Let us now see whether these propositions can be\nsustained. They came to our country originally for purposes of trade.\nRecall the Company Bahadur. Who made it Bahadur? They had not the\nslightest intention at the time of establishing a kingdom. Who assisted\nthe Company's officers? Who was tempted at the sight of their silver?\nWho bought their goods? History testifies that we did all this. In order\nto become rich all at once, we welcomed the Company's officers with open\narms. We assisted them. If I am in the habit of drinking Bhang and a\nseller thereof sells it to me, am I to blame him or myself? By blaming\nthe seller shall I be able to avoid the habit? And, if a particular\nretailer is driven away, will not another take his place? A true servant\nof India will have to go to the root of the matter. If an excess of food\nhas caused me indigestion, I will certainly not avoid it by blaming\nwater. He is a true physician who probes the cause of disease and, if\nyou pose as a physician for the disease of India, you will have to find\nout its true cause.\n\n\nREADER: You are right. Now, I think you will not have to argue much with\nme to drive your conclusions home. I am impatient to know your further\nviews. We are now on a most interesting topic. I shall, therefore,\nendeavour to follow your thought, and stop you when I am in doubt.\n\nEDITOR: I am afraid that, in spite of your enthusiasm, as we proceed\nfurther we shall have differences of opinion. Nevertheless, I shall\nargue only when you will stop me. We have already seen that the English\nmerchants were able to get a footing in India because we encouraged\nthem. When our princes fought among themselves, they sought the\nassistance of Company Bahadur. That corporation was versed alike in\ncommerce and war. It was unhampered by questions of morality. Its object\nwas to increase its commerce, and to make money. It accepted our\nassistance, and increased the number of its warehouses. To protect the\nlatter it employed an army which was utilised by us also. Is it not then\nuseless to blame the English for what we did at that time? The Hindus\nand the Mahomedans were at daggers drawn. This, too, gave the Company\nits opportunity; and thus we created the circumstances that gave the\nCompany its control over India. Hence it is truer to say that we gave\nIndia to the English than that India was lost.\n\n\nREADER: Will you now tell me how they are able to retain India?\n\nEDITOR: The causes that gave them India enable them to retain it. Some\nEnglishmen state that they took, and they hold, India by the sword.\nBoth these statements are wrong. The sword is entirely useless for\nholding India. We alone keep them. Napoleon is said to have described\nthe English as a nation of shop-keepers. It is a fitting description.\nThey hold whatever dominions they have for the sake of their commerce.\nTheir army and their navy are intended to protect it. When the Transvaal\noffered no such attractions, the late Mr. Gladstone discovered that it\nwas not right for the English to hold it. When it became a paying\nproposition, resistance led to war. Mr. Chamberlain soon discovered that\nEngland enjoyed a suzerainty over the Transvaal. It is related that some\none asked the late President Kruger whether there was gold in the moon.\nHe replied that it was highly unlikely, because, if there were, the\nEnglish would have annexed it. Many problems can be solved by\nremembering that money is their God. Then it follows that we keep the\nEnglish in India for our base self-interest. We like their commerce,\nthey please us by their subtle methods, and get what they want from us.\nTo blame them for this is to perpetuate their power. We further\nstrengthen their hold by quarrelling amongst ourselves. If you accept\nthe above statements, it is proved that the English entered India for\nthe purposes of trade. They remain in it for the same purpose, and we\nhelp them to do so. Their arms and ammunition are perfectly useless. In\nthis connection, I remind you that it is the British flag which is\nwaving in Japan, and not the Japanese. The English have a treaty with\nJapan for the sake of their commerce, and you will see that, if they can\nmanage it, their commerce will greatly expand in that country. They wish\nto convert the whole world into a vast market for their goods. That they\ncannot do so is true, but the blame will not be theirs. They will leave\nno stone unturned to reach the goal.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nTHE CONDITION OF INDIA\n\n\nREADER: I now understand why the English hold India. I should like to\nknow your views about the condition of our country.\n\nEDITOR: It is a sad condition. In thinking of it, my eyes water and my\nthroat get parched. I have grave doubts whether I shall be able\nsufficiently to explain what is in my heart. It is my deliberate opinion\nthat India is being ground down not under the English heel but under\nthat of modern civilization. It is groaning under the monster's terrible\nweight. There is yet time to escape it, but every day makes it more and\nmore difficult. Religion is dear to me, and my first complaint is that\nIndia is becoming irreligious. Here I am not thinking of the Hindu and\nMahomedan or the Zoroastrian religion, but of the religion which\nunderlies all religions. We are turning away from God.\n\n\nREADER: How so?\n\nEDITOR: There is a charge laid against us that we are a lazy people, and\nthat the Europeans are industrious and enterprising. We have accepted\nthe charge and we, therefore, wish to change our condition. Hinduism,\nIslamism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity and all other religions teach\nthat we should remain passive about worldly pursuits and active about\ngodly pursuits, that we should set a limit to our worldly ambition, and\nthat our religious ambition should be illimitable. Our activity should\nbe directed into the latter channel.\n\n\nREADER: You seem to be encouraging religious charlatanism. Many a cheat\nhas by talking in a similar strain led the people astray.\n\nEDITOR: You are bringing an unlawful charge against religion. Humbug\nthere undoubtedly is about all religions. Where there is light, there is\nalso shadow. I am prepared to maintain that humbugs in worldly matters\nare far worse than the humbugs in religion. The humbug of civilization\nthat I endeavour to show to you is not to be found in religion.\n\n\nREADER: How can you say that? In the name of religion Hindus and\nMahomedans fought against one another. For the same cause Christians\nfought Christians. Thousands of innocent men have been murdered,\nthousands have been burned and tortured in its name. Surely, this is\nmuch worse than any civilization.\n\nEDITOR: I certainly submit that the above hardships are far more\nbearable than those of civilization. Everybody understands that the\ncruelties you have named are not part of religion, although they have\nbeen practised in its name: therefore there is no aftermath to these\ncruelties. They will always happen so long as there are to be found\nignorant and credulous people. But there is no end to the victims\ndestroyed in the fire of civilization. Its deadly effect is that people\ncame under its scorching flames believing it to be all good. They become\nutterly irreligious and, in reality, derive little advantage from the\nworld. Civilization is like a mouse gnawing, while it is soothing us.\nWhen its full effect is realised, we will see that religious\nsuperstition is harmless compared to that of modern civilization. I am\nnot pleading for a continuance of religious superstitions. We will\ncertainly fight them tooth and nail, but we can never do so by\ndisregarding religion. We can only do so by appreciating and conserving\nthe latter.\n\n\nREADER: Then you will contend that the Pax Britannica is a useless\nencumbrance?\n\nEDITOR: You may see peace if you like; I see none.\n\n\nREADER: You make light of the terror that Thugs, the Pindaris, the Bhils\nwere to the country.\n\nEDITOR: If you will give the matter some thought, you will see that the\nterror was by no means such a mighty thing. If it had been a very\nsubstantial thing, the other people would have died away before the\nEnglish advent. Moreover, the present peace is only nominal, for by it\nwe have become emasculated and cowardly. We are not to assume that the\nEnglish have changed the nature of the Pindaris and the Bhils. It is,\ntherefore, better to suffer the Pindari peril than that some one else\nshould protect us from it, and thus render us effeminate. I should\nprefer to be killed by the arrow of a Bhil than to seek unmanly\nprotection. India without such protection was an India full of valour.\nMacaulay betrayed gross ignorance when he libelled Indians as being\npractically cowards. They never merited the charge. Cowards living in a\ncountry inhabited by hardy mountaineers, infested by wolves and tigers\nmust surely find an early grave. Have you ever visited our fields? I\nassure you that our agriculturists sleep fearlessly on their farms even\nto-day, and the English, you and I would hesitate to sleep where they\nsleep. Strength lies in absence of fear, not in the quantity of flesh\nand muscle we may have on our bodies. Moreover, I must remind you who\ndesire Home Rule that, after all, the Bhils, the Pindaris, the Assamese\nand the Thugs are our own countrymen. To conquer them is your and my\nwork. So long as we fear our own brethren, we are unfit to reach the\ngoal.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nTHE CONDITION OF INDIA (_Continued_)\n\nRAILWAYS\n\n\nREADER: You have deprived me of the consolation I used to have regarding\npeace in India.\n\nEDITOR: I have merely given you my opinion on the religious aspect, but\nwhen I give you my views as to the poverty of India you will perhaps\nbegin to dislike me, because what you and I have hitherto considered\nbeneficial for India no longer appears to me to be so.\n\n\nREADER: What may that be?\n\nEDITOR: Railways, lawyers and doctors have impoverished the country, so\nmuch so that, if we do not wake up in time, we shall be ruined.\n\n\nREADER: I do now indeed fear that we are not likely to agree at all. You\nare attacking the very institutions which we have hitherto considered to\nbe good.\n\nEDITOR: It is necessary to exercise patience. The true inwardness of the\nevils of civilization you will understand with difficulty. Doctors\nassure us that a consumptive clings to life even when he is about to\ndie. Consumption does not produce apparent hurt--it even produces a\nseductive colour about a patient's face, so as to induce the belief that\nall is well. Civilization is such a disease, and we have to be very\nwary.\n\n\nREADER: Very well, then, I shall hear you on the railways.\n\nEDITOR: It must be manifest to you that, but for the railways, the\nEnglish could not have such a hold on India as they have. The railways,\ntoo, have spread the bubonic plague. Without them, masses could not move\nfrom place to place. They are the carriers of plague germs. Formerly we\nhad natural segregation. Railways have also increased the frequency of\nfamines, because, owing to facility of means of locomotion, people sell\nout their grain, and it is sent to the dearest markets. People become\ncareless, and so the pressure of famine increases. They accentuate the\nevil nature of man. Bad men fulfil their evil designs with greater\nrapidity. The holy places of India have become unholy. Formerly people\nwent to these places with very great difficulty. Generally, therefore,\nonly the real devotees visited such places. Now-a-days, rogues visit\nthem in order to practise their roguery.\n\n\nREADER: You have given an one-sided account. Good men can visit these\nplaces as well as bad men. Why do they not take the fullest advantage of\nthe railways?\n\nEDITOR: Good travels at a snail's pace--it can, therefore, have little\nto do with the railways. Those who want to do good are not selfish, they\nare not in a hurry, they know that to impregnate people with good\nrequires a long time. But evil has wings. To build a house takes time.\nIts destruction takes none. So the railways can become a distributing\nagency for the evil one only. It may be a debatable matter whether\nrailways spread famines, but it is beyond dispute that they propagate\nevil.\n\n\nREADER: Be that as it may, all the disadvantages of railways are more\nthan counter-balanced by the fact that it is due to them that we see in\nIndia the new spirit of nationalism.\n\nEDITOR: I hold this to be a mistake. The English have taught us that we\nwere not one nation before, and that it will require centuries before we\nbecome one nation. This is without foundation. We were one nation before\nthey came to India. One thought inspired us. Our mode of life was the\nsame. It was because we were one nation that they were able to establish\none kingdom. Subsequently they divided us.\n\n\nREADER: This requires an explanation.\n\nEDITOR: I do not wish to suggest that because we were one nation we had\nno differences, but it is submitted that our leading men travelled\nthroughout India either on foot or in bullock-carts. They learned one\nanother's languages, and there was no aloofness between them. What do\nyou think could have been the intention of those far-seeing ancestors of\nours who established Shethubindu-Rameshwar in the South, Juggernaut in\nthe South-East and Hardwar in the North as places of pilgrimage? You\nwill admit they were no fools. They knew that worship of God could have\nbeen performed just as well at home. They taught us that those whose\nhearts were aglow with righteousness had the Ganges in their own homes.\nBut they saw that India was one undivided land so made by nature. They,\ntherefore, argued that it must be one nation. Arguing thus, they\nestablished holy places in various parts of India, and fired the people\nwith an idea of nationality in a manner unknown in other parts of the\nworld. Any two Indians are one as no two Englishmen are. Only you and I\nand others who consider ourselves civilised and superior persons imagine\nthat we are many nations. It was after the advent of railways that we\nbegan to believe in distinctions, and you are at liberty now to say that\nit is through the railways that we are beginning to abolish those\ndistinctions. An opium-eater may argue the advantage of opium-eating\nfrom the fact that he began to understand the evil of the opium habit\nafter having eaten it. I would ask you to consider well what I have said\non the railways.\n\n\nREADER: I will gladly do so, but one question occurs to me even now. You\nhave described to me the India of the pre-Mahomedan period, but now we\nhave Mahomedans, Parsees and Christians. How can they be one nation?\nHindus and Mahomedans are old enemies. Our very proverbs prove it.\nMahomedans turn to the West for worship whilst Hindus turn to the East.\nThe former look down on the Hindus as idolators. The Hindus worship the\ncow, the Mahomedans kill her. The Hindus believe in the doctrine of\nnon-killing, the Mahomedans do not. We thus meet with differences at\nevery step. How can India be one nation?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nTHE CONDITION OF INDIA (_Continued_)\n\nTHE HINDUS AND THE MAHOMEDANS\n\n\nEDITOR: Your last question is a serious one; and yet, on careful\nconsideration, it will be found to be easy of solution. The question\narises because of the presence of the railways, of the lawyers and of\nthe doctors. We shall presently examine the last two. We have already\nconsidered the railways. I should, however, like to add that man is so\nmade by nature as to require him to restrict his movements as far as his\nhands and feet will take him. If we did not rush about from place to\nplace by means of railways and such other maddening conveniences, much\nof the confusion that arises would be obviated. Our difficulties are of\nour own creation. God set a limit to a man's locomotive ambition in the\nconstruction of his body. Man immediately proceeded to discover means of\noverriding the limit. God gifted man with intellect that he might know\nhis Maker. Man abused it, so that he might forget his Maker. I am so\nconstructed that I can only serve my immediate neighbours, but in my\nconceit, I pretend to have discovered that I must with my body serve\nevery individual in the Universe. In thus attempting the impossible, man\ncomes in contact with different natures, different religions and is\nutterly confounded. According to this reasoning, it must be apparent to\nyou that railways are a most dangerous institution. Man has there\nthrough gone further away from his Maker.\n\n\nREADER: But I am impatient to hear your answer to my question. Has the\nintroduction of Mahomedanism not unmade the nation?\n\nEDITOR: India cannot cease to be one nation because people belonging to\ndifferent religions live in it. The introduction of foreigners does not\nnecessarily destroy the nation, they merge in it. A country is one\nnation only when such a condition obtains in it. That country must have\na faculty for assimilation. India has ever been such a country. In\nreality, there are as many religions as there are individuals, but those\nwho are conscious of the spirit of nationality do not interfere with\none another's religion. If they do, they are not fit to be considered a\nnation. If the Hindus believe that India should be peopled only by\nHindus, they are living in dreamland. The Hindus, the Mahomedans, the\nParsees and the Christians who have made India their country are\nfellow-countrymen, and they will have to live in unity if only for their\nown interest. In no part of the world are one nationality and one\nreligion synonymous terms; nor has it ever been so in India.\n\n\nREADER: But what about the inborn enmity between Hindus and Mahomedans?\n\nEDITOR: That phrase has been invented by our mutual enemy. When the\nHindus and Mahomedans fought against one another, they certainly spoke\nin that strain. They have long since ceased to fight. How, then, can\nthere be any inborn enmity? Pray remember this too, that we did not\ncease to fight only after British occupation. The Hindus flourished\nunder Moslem sovereigns and Moslems under the Hindu. Each party\nrecognised that mutual fighting was suicidal, and that neither party\nwould abandon its religion by force of arms. Both parties, therefore,\ndecided to live in peace. With the English advent the quarrels\nre-commenced.\n\nThe proverbs you have quoted were coined when both were fighting; to\nquote them now is obviously harmful. Should we not remember that many\nHindus and Mahomedans own the same ancestors, and the same blood runs\nthrough their veins? Do people become enemies because they change their\nreligion? Is the God of the Mahomedan different from the God of the\nHindu? Religions are different roads converging to the same point. What\ndoes it matter that we take different roads, so long as we reach the\nsame goal? Wherein is the cause for quarrelling?\n\nMoreover, there are deadly proverbs as between the followers of Shiva\nand those of Vishnu, yet nobody suggests that these two do not belong to\nthe same nation. It is said that the Vedic religion is different from\nJainism, but the followers of the respective faiths are not different\nnations. The fact is that we have become enslaved, and, therefore,\nquarrel and like to have our quarrels decided by a third party. There\nare Hindu iconoclasts as there are Mahomedan. The more we advance in\ntrue knowledge, the better we shall understand that we need not be at\nwar with those whose religion we may not follow.\n\n\nREADER: Now I would like to know your views about cow protection.\n\nEDITOR: I myself respect the cow, that is I look upon her with\naffectionate reverence. The cow is the protector of India, because, it\nbeing an agricultural country, is dependant on the cow's progeny. She\nis a most useful animal in hundreds of ways. Our Mahomedan brethren will\nadmit this.\n\nBut, just as I respect the cow so do I respect my fellow-men. A man is\njust as useful as a cow, no matter whether he be a Mahomedan or a Hindu.\nAm I, then, to fight with or kill a Mahomedan in order to save a cow? In\ndoing so, I would become an enemy as well of the cow as of the\nMahomedan. Therefore, the only method I know of protecting the cow is\nthat I should approach my Mahomedan brother and urge him for the sake of\nthe country to join me in protecting her. If he would not listen to me,\nI should let the cow go for the simple reason that the matter is beyond\nmy ability. If I were over full of pity for the cow, I should sacrifice\nmy life to save her, but not take my brother's. This, I hold, is the law\nof our religion.\n\nWhen men become obstinate, it is a difficult thing. If I pull one way,\nmy Moslem brother will pull another. If I put on a superior air, he will\nreturn the compliment. If I bow to him gently, he will do it much more\nso, and if he does not, I shall not be considered to have done wrong in\nhaving bowed. When the Hindus became insistent, the killing of cows\nincreased. In my opinion, cow protection societies may be considered\ncow-killing societies. It is a disgrace to us that we should need such\nsocieties. When we forgot how to protect cows, I suppose we needed such\nsocieties.\n\nWhat am I to do when a blood-brother is on the point of killing a cow?\nAm I to kill him, or to fall down at his feet and implore him? If you\nadmit that I should adopt the latter course, I must do the same to my\nMoslem brother.\n\nWho protects the cow from destruction by Hindus when they cruelly\nill-treat her? Whoever reasons with the Hindus when they mercilessly\nbelabour the progeny of the cow with their sticks? But this has not\nprevented us from remaining one nation.\n\nLastly, if it be true that the Hindus believe in the doctrine of\nnon-killing and the Mahomedans do not, what, I pray, is the duty of the\nformer? It is not written that a follower of the religion of Ahimsa\n(non-killing) may kill a fellow-man. For him the way is straight. In\norder to save one being, he may not kill another. He can only\nplead--therein lies his sole duty.\n\nBut does every Hindu believe in Ahimsa? Going to the root of the matter,\nnot one man really practises such a religion, because we do destroy\nlife. We are said to follow that religion because we want to obtain\nfreedom from liability to kill any kind of life. Generally speaking, we\nmay observe that many Hindus partake of meat and are not, therefore,\nfollowers of Ahimsa. It is, therefore, preposterous to suggest that the\ntwo cannot live together amicably because the Hindus believe in Ahimsa\nand the Mahomedans do not.\n\nThese thoughts are put into our minds by selfish and false religious\nteachers. The English put the finishing touch. They have a habit of\nwriting history; they pretend to study the manners and customs of all\npeoples. God has given us a limited mental capacity, but they usurp the\nfunction of the God-head and indulge in novel experiments. They write\nabout their own researches in most laudatory terms and hypnotise us into\nbelieving them. We, in our ignorance, then fall at their feet.\n\nThose who do not wish to misunderstand things may read up the Koran, and\nwill find therein hundreds of passages acceptable to the Hindus; and the\nBhagavad-Gita contains passages to which not a Mahomedan can take\nexception. Am I to dislike a Mahomedan because there are passages in the\nKoran I do not understand or like? It takes two to make a quarrel. If I\ndo not want to quarrel with a Mahomedan, the latter will be powerless to\nfoist a quarrel on me, and, similarly, I should be powerless if a\nMahomedan refuses his assistance to quarrel with me. An arm striking the\nair will become disjointed. If every one will try to understand the core\nof his own religion and adhere to it, and will not allow false teachers\nto dictate to him, there will be no room left for quarrelling.\n\n\nREADER: But will the English ever allow the two bodies to join hands?\n\nEDITOR: This question arises out of your timidity. It betrays our\nshallowness. If two brothers want to live in peace is it possible for a\nthird party to separate them? If they were to listen to evil counsels,\nwe would consider them to be foolish. Similarly, we Hindus and\nMahomedans would have to blame our folly rather than the English, if we\nallowed them to put us asunder. A claypot would break through impact; if\nnot with one stone, then with another. The way to save the pot is not to\nkeep it away from the danger point, but to bake it so that no stone\nwould break it. We have then to make our hearts of perfectly baked clay.\nThen we shall be steeled against all danger. This can be easily done by\nthe Hindus. They are superior in numbers, they pretend that they are\nmore educated, they are, therefore, better able to shield themselves\nfrom attack on their amicable relations with the Mahomedans.\n\nThere is mutual distrust between the two communities. The Mahomedans,\ntherefore, ask for certain concessions from Lord Morley. Why should the\nHindus oppose this? If the Hindus desisted, the English would notice it,\nthe Mahomedans would gradually begin to trust the Hindus, and\nbrotherliness would be the outcome. We should be ashamed to take our\nquarrels to the English. Everyone can find out for himself that the\nHindus can lose nothing by desisting. That man who has inspired\nconfidence in another has never lost anything in this world.\n\nI do not suggest that the Hindus and the Mahomedans will never fight.\nTwo brothers living together often do so. We shall sometimes have our\nheads broken. Such a thing ought not to be necessary, but all men are\nnot equiminded. When people are in a rage, they do many foolish things.\nThese we have to put up with. But, when we do quarrel, we certainly do\nnot want to engage counsel and to resort to English or any law-courts.\nTwo men fight; both have their heads broken, or one only. How shall a\nthird party distribute justice amongst them? Those who fight may expect\nto be injured.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nTHE CONDITION OF INDIA (_Continued_)\n\nLAWYERS\n\n\nREADER: You tell me that, when two men quarrel, they should not go to a\nlaw-court. This is astonishing.\n\nEDITOR: Whether you call it astonishing or not, it is the truth. And\nyour question introduces us to the lawyers and the doctors. My firm\nopinion is that the lawyers have enslaved India and they have\naccentuated the Hindu-Mahomedan dissensions, and have confirmed English\nauthority.\n\n\nREADER: It is easy enough to bring these charges, but it will be\ndifficult for you to prove them. But for the lawyers, who would have\nshown us the road to independence? Who would have protected the poor?\nWho would have secured justice? For instance, the late Mr. Manomohan\nGhose defended many a poor man free of charge. The Congress, which you\nhave praised so much, is dependent for its existence and activity upon\nthe work of the lawyers. To denounce such an estimable class of men is\nto spell justice injustice, and you are abusing the liberty of the press\nby decrying lawyers.\n\nEDITOR: At one time I used to think exactly like you. I have no desire\nto convince you that they have never done a single good thing. I honour\nMr. Ghose's memory. It is quite true that he helped the poor. That the\nCongress owes the lawyers something is believable. Lawyers are also men,\nand there is something good in every man. Whenever instances of lawyers\nhaving done good can be brought forward, it will be found that the good\nis due to them as men rather than as lawyers. All I am concerned with is\nto show you that the profession teaches immorality; it is exposed to\ntemptations from which few are saved.\n\nThe Hindus and the Mahomedans have quarrelled. An ordinary man will ask\nthem to forget all about it, he will tell them that both must be more\nor less at fault, and will advise them no longer to quarrel. They go to\nlawyers. The latter's duty is to side with their clients, and to find\nout ways and arguments in favour of the clients to which they (the\nclients) are often strangers. If they do not do so, they will be\nconsidered to have degraded their profession. The lawyers, therefore,\nwill, as a rule advance quarrels, instead of repressing them. Moreover,\nmen take up that profession, not in order to help others out of their\nmiseries, but to enrich themselves. It is one of the avenues of becoming\nwealthy and their interest exists in multiplying disputes. It is within\nmy knowledge that they are glad when men have disputes. Petty pleaders\nactually manufacture them. Their touts, like so many leeches, suck the\nblood of the poor people. Lawyers are men who have little to do. Lazy\npeople, in order to indulge in luxuries, take up such professions. This\nis a true statement. Any other argument is a mere pretension. It is the\nlawyers who have discovered that theirs is an honourable profession.\nThey frame laws as they frame their own praises. They decide what fees\nthey will charge, and they put on so much side that poor people almost\nconsider them to be heaven-born. Why do they want more fees than common\nlabourers? Why are their requirements greater? In what way are they more\nprofitable to the country than the labourers? Are those who do good\nentitled to greater payment? And, if they have done anything for the\ncountry for the sake of money, how shall it be counted as good?\n\nThose who know anything of the Hindu-Mahomedan quarrels know that they\nhave been often due to the intervention of lawyers. Some families have\nbeen ruined through them; they have made brothers enemies.\nPrincipalities, having come under lawyer's power, have become loaded\nwith debt. Many have been robbed of their all. Such instances can be\nmultiplied.\n\nBut the greatest injury they have done to the country is that they have\ntightened the English grip. Do you think that it would be possible for\nthe English to carry on their government without law-courts? It is wrong\nto consider that courts are established for the benefit of the people.\nThose who want to perpetuate their power do so through the courts. If\npeople were to settle their own quarrels, a third party would not be\nable to exercise any authority over them. Truly, men were less unmanly\nwhen they settled their disputes either by fighting or by asking their\nrelatives to decide upon them. They became more unmanly and cowardly\nwhen they resorted to the courts of law. It was certainly a sign of\nsavagery when they settled their disputes by fighting. Is it any the\nless so if I ask a third party to decide between you and me? Surely,\nthe decision of a third party is not always right. The parties alone\nknow who is right. We, in our simplicity and ignorance, imagine that a\nstranger, by taking our money, gives us justice.\n\nThe chief thing, however, to be remembered is that, without lawyers,\ncourts could not have been established or conducted, and without the\nlatter the English could not rule. Supposing that there were only\nEnglish Judges, English Pleaders and English Police, they could only\nrule over the English. The English could not do without Indian Judges\nand Indian pleaders. How the pleaders were made in the first instance\nand how they were favoured you should understand well. Then you will\nhave the same abhorrence for the profession that I have. If pleaders\nwere to abandon their profession, and consider it just as degrading as\nprostitution, English rule would break up in a day. They have been\ninstrumental in having the charge laid against us that we love quarrels\nand courts, as fish love water. What I have said with reference to the\npleaders necessarily applies to the judges; they are first cousins, and\nthe one gives strength to the other.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nTHE CONDITION OF INDIA (_Continued_)\n\nDOCTORS\n\n\nREADER: I now understand the lawyers; the good they may have done is\naccidental. I feel that the profession is certainly hateful. You,\nhowever, drag in these doctors also, how is that?\n\nEDITOR: The views I submit to you are those I have adopted. They are not\noriginal. Western writers have used stronger terms regarding both\nlawyers and doctors. One writer has likened the whole modern system to\nthe Upas tree. Its branches are represented by parasitical professions,\nincluding those of law and medicine, and over the trunk has been raised\nthe axe of true religion. Immorality is the root of the tree. So you\nwill see that the views do not come right out of my mind, but they\nrepresent the combined experiences of many. I was at one time a great\nlover of the medical profession. It was my intention to become a doctor\nfor the sake of the country. I no longer hold that opinion. I now\nunderstand why the medicine men (the vaids) among us have not occupied a\nvery honourable status.\n\nThe English have certainly effectively used the medical profession for\nholding us. English physicians are known to have used the profession\nwith several Asiatic potentates for political gain.\n\nDoctors have almost unhinged us. Sometimes I think that quacks are\nbetter than highly qualified doctors. Let us consider: the business of a\ndoctor is to take care of the body, or, properly speaking, not even\nthat. Their business is really to rid the body of diseases that may\nafflict it. How do these diseases arise? Surely by our negligence or\nindulgence. I overeat, I have indigestion, I go to a doctor, he gives me\nmedicine. I am cured, I overeat again, and I take his pills again. Had I\nnot taken the pills in the first instance, I would have suffered the\npunishment deserved by me, and I would not have overeaten again. The\ndoctor intervened and helped me to indulge myself. My body thereby\ncertainly felt more at ease, but my mind became weakened. A continuance\nof a course of a medicine must, therefore, result in loss of control\nover the mind.\n\nI have indulged in vice, I contract a disease, a doctor cures me, the\nodds are that I shall repeat the vice. Had the doctor not intervened,\nnature would have done its work, and I would have acquired mastery over\nmyself, would have been freed from vice, and would have become happy.\n\nHospitals are institutions for propagating sin. Men take less care of\ntheir bodies, and immorality increases. European doctors are the worst\nof all. For the sake of a mistaken care of the human body, they kill\nannually thousands of animals. They practise vivisection. No religion\nsanctions this. All say that it is not necessary to take so many lives\nfor the sake of our bodies.\n\nThese doctors violate our religious instinct. Most of their medical\npreparations contain either animal fat or spirituous liquors; both of\nthese are tabooed by Hindus and Mahomedans. We may pretend to be\ncivilised, call religious prohibitions a superstition and wantonly\nindulge in what we like. The fact remains that the doctors induce us to\nindulge, and the result is that we have become deprived of self-control\nand have become effeminate. In these circumstances, we are unfit to\nserve the country. To study European medicine is to deepen our slavery.\n\nIt is worth considering why we take up the profession of medicine. It is\ncertainly not taken up for the purpose of serving humanity. We become\ndoctors so that we may obtain honours and riches. I have endeavoured to\nshow that there is no real service of humanity in the profession, and\nthat it is injurious to mankind. Doctors make a show of their knowledge,\nand charge exorbitant fees. Their preparations, which are intrinsically\nworth a few pennies, cost shillings. The populace in its credulity and\nin the hope of ridding itself of some disease, allows itself to be\ncheated. Are not quacks then, whom we know, better than the doctors who\nput on an air of humaneness?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\nWHAT IS TRUE CIVILIZATION?\n\n\nREADER: You have denounced railways, lawyers and doctors. I can see that\nyou will discard all machinery. What, then, is civilization?\n\nEDITOR: The answer to that question is not difficult. I believe that the\ncivilization India has evolved is not to be beaten in the world. Nothing\ncan equal the seeds sown by our ancestors. Rome went, Greece shared the\nsame fate, the might of the Pharaohs was broken, Japan has become\nwesternised, of China nothing can be said, but India is still, somehow\nor other, sound at the foundation. The people of Europe learn their\nlessons from the writings of the men of Greece or Rome, which exist no\nlonger in their former glory. In trying to learn from them, the\nEuropeans imagine that they will avoid the mistakes of Greece and Rome.\nSuch is their pitiable condition. In the midst of all this, India\nremains immovable, and that is her glory. It is a charge against India\nthat her people are so uncivilised, ignorant and stolid, that it is not\npossible to induce them to adopt any changes. It is a charge really\nagainst our merit. What we have tested and found true on the anvil of\nexperience, we dare not change. Many thrust their advice upon India, and\nshe remains steady. This is her beauty; it is the sheet-anchor of our\nhope.\n\nCivilization is that mode of conduct which points out to man the path of\nduty. Performance of duty and observance of morality are convertible\nterms. To observe morality is to attain mastery over our mind and our\npassions. So doing, we know ourselves. The Gujarati equivalent for\ncivilization means \"good conduct.\"\n\nIf this definition be correct, then India, as so many writers have\nshown, has nothing to learn from anybody else, and this is as it should\nbe. We notice that mind is a restless bird; the more it gets the more it\nwants, and still remains unsatisfied. The more we indulge our passions,\nthe more unbridled they become. Our ancestors, therefore, set a limit to\nour indulgences. They saw that happiness was largely a mental condition.\nA man is not necessarily happy because he is rich, or unhappy because he\nis poor. The rich are often seem to be unhappy, the poor to be happy.\nMillions will always remain poor. Observing all this, our ancestors\ndissuaded us from luxuries and pleasures. We have managed with the same\nkind of plough as it existed thousands of years ago. We have retained\nthe same kind of cottages that we had in former times, and our\nindigenous education remains the same as before. We have had no system\nof life-corroding competition. Each followed his own occupation or\ntrade, and charged a regulation wage. It was not that we did not know\nhow to invent machinery, but our forefathers knew that, if we set our\nhearts after such things, we would become slaves and lose our moral\nfibre. They, therefore, after due deliberation, decided that we should\nonly do what we could with our hands and feet. They saw that our real\nhappiness and health consisted in a proper use of our hands and feet.\nThey further reasoned that large cities were a snare and a useless\nencumbrance, and that people would not be happy in them, that there\nwould be gangs of thieves and robbers, prostitution and vice flourishing\nin them, and that poor men would be robbed by rich men. They were,\ntherefore, satisfied with small villages. They saw that kings and their\nswords were inferior to the sword of ethics, and they, therefore, held\nthe sovereigns of the earth to be inferior to the Rishis and the Fakirs.\nA nation with a constitution like this is fitter to teach others than to\nlearn from others. This nation had courts, lawyers and doctors, but they\nwere all within bounds. Everybody knew that these professions were not\nparticularly superior; moreover, these vakils and _vaids_ did not rob\npeople; they were considered people's dependents, not their masters.\nJustice was tolerably fair. The ordinary rule was to avoid courts. There\nwere no touts to lure people into them. This evil, too, was noticeable\nonly in and around capitals. The common people lived independently, and\nfollowed their agricultural occupation. They enjoyed true Home Rule.\n\nAnd where this cursed modern civilization has not reached, India remains\nas it was before. The inhabitants of that part of India will very\nproperly laugh at your new-fangled notions. The English do not rule over\nthem nor will you ever rule over them. Those whose name we speak we do\nnot know, nor do they know us. I would certainly advise you and those\nlike you who love the motherland to go into the interior that has yet\nnot been polluted by the railways, and to live there for six months; you\nmight then be patriotic and speak of Home Rule.\n\nNow you see what I consider to be real civilization. Those who want to\nchange conditions such as I have described are enemies of the country\nand are sinners.\n\n\nREADER: It would be all right if India were exactly as you have\ndescribed it; but it is also India where there are hundreds of\nchild-widows, where two-year-old babies are married, where\ntwelve-year-old girls are mothers and housewives, where women practise\npolyandry, where the practice of Niyog obtains, where, in the name of\nreligion, girls dedicate themselves to prostitution, and where, in the\nname of religion, sheep and goats are killed. Do you consider these also\nsymbols of the civilization that you have described?\n\nEDITOR: You make a mistake. The defects that you have shown are defects.\nNobody mistakes them for ancient civilization. They remain in spite of\nit. Attempts have always been made, and will be made, to remove them. We\nmay utilise the new spirit that is born in us for purging ourselves of\nthese evils. But what I have described to you as emblems of modern\ncivilization are accepted as such by its votaries. The Indian\ncivilization, as described by me, has been so described by its votaries.\nIn no part of the world, and under no civilization, have all men\nattained perfection. The tendency of Indian civilization is to elevate\nthe moral being, that of the western civilization is to propagate\nimmorality. The latter is godless, the former is based on a belief in\nGod. So understanding and so believing, it behoves every lover of India\nto cling to the old Indian civilization even as a child clings to its\nmother's breast.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV\n\nHOW CAN INDIA BECOME FREE?\n\n\nREADER: I appreciate your views about civilization. I will have to think\nover them. I cannot take in all at once. What, then, holding the views\nyou do, would you suggest for freeing India?\n\nEDITOR: I do not expect my views to be accepted all of a sudden. My duty\nis to place them before readers like yourself. Time can be trusted to\ndo the rest. We have already examined the conditions for freeing India,\nbut we have done so indirectly; we will now do so directly. It is a\nworld-known maxim that the removal of the cause of a disease results in\nthe removal of the disease itself. Similarly, if the cause of India's\nslavery be removed, India can become free.\n\n\nREADER: If Indian civilization is, as you say, the best of all, how do\nyou account for India's slavery?\n\nEDITOR: This civilization is unquestionably the best; but it is to be\nobserved that all civilizations have been on their trial. That\ncivilization which is permanent outlives it. Because the sons of India\nwere found wanting, its civilization has been placed in jeopardy. But\nits strength is to be seen in its ability to survive the shock.\nMoreover, the whole of India is not touched. Those alone who have been\naffected by western civilization have become enslaved. We measure the\nuniverse by our own miserable foot-rule. When we are slaves, we think\nthat the whole universe is enslaved. Because we are in an abject\ncondition, we think that the whole of India is in that condition. As a\nmatter of fact, it is not so, but it is as well to impute our slavery to\nthe whole of India. But if we bear in mind the above fact we can see\nthat, if we become free, India is free. And in this thought you have a\ndefinition of Swaraj. It is Swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves. It\nis therefore in the palm of our hands. Do not consider this Swaraj to be\nlike a dream. Hence there is no idea of sitting still. The Swaraj that I\nwish to picture before you and me is such that, after we have once\nrealised it, we will endeavour to the end of our lifetime to persuade\nothers to do likewise. But such Swaraj has to be experienced by each one\nfor himself. One drowning man will never save another. Slaves ourselves,\nit would be a mere pretension to think of freeing others. Now you will\nhave seen that it is not necessary for us to have as our goal the\nexpulsion of the English. If the English become Indianised, we can\naccommodate them. If they wish to remain in India along with their\ncivilization, there is no room for them. It lies with us to bring about\nsuch a state of things.\n\n\nREADER: It is impossible that Englishmen should ever become Indianised.\n\nEDITOR: To say that is equivalent to saying that the English have no\nhumanity in them. And it is really beside the point whether they become\nso or not. If we keep our own house in order, only those who are fit to\nlive in it will remain. Others will leave of their own accord. Such\nthings occur within the experience of all of us.\n\n\nREADER: But it has not occurred in history!\n\nEDITOR: To believe that, what has not occurred in history will not occur\nat all, is to argue disbelief in the dignity of man. At any rate, it\nbehoves us to try what appeals to our reason. All countries are not\nsimilarly conditioned. The condition of India is unique. Its strength is\nimmeasurable. We need not, therefore, refer to the history of other\ncountries. I have drawn attention to the fact that, when other\ncivilizations have succumbed, the Indians has survived many a shock.\n\n\nREADER: I cannot follow this. There seems little doubt that we shall\nhave to expel the English by force of arms. So long as they are in the\ncountry, we cannot rest. One of our poets says that slaves cannot even\ndream of happiness. We are, day by day, becoming weakened owing to the\npresence of the English. Our greatness is gone; our people look like\nterrified men. The English are in the country like a blight which we\nmust remove by every means.\n\nEDITOR: In your excitement, you have forgotten all we have been\nconsidering. We brought the English, and we keep them. Why do you forget\nthat our adoption of their civilization makes their presence in India at\nall possible? Your hatred against them ought to be transferred to their\ncivilization. But let us assume that we have to drive away the English\nby fighting; how is that to be done?\n\n\nREADER: In the same way as Italy did it. What it was possible for\nMazzini and Garibaldi to do, is possible for us. You cannot deny that\nthey were very great men.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV\n\nITALY AND INDIA\n\n\nEDITOR: It is well that you have instanced Italy. Mazzini was a great\nand good man; Garibaldi was a great warrior. Both are adorable; from\ntheir lives we can learn much. But the condition of Italy was different\nfrom that of India. In the first instance the difference between Mazzini\nand Garibaldi is worth noting. Mazzini's ambition was not, and has not\nyet been realised, regarding Italy. Mazzini has shown in his writings on\nthe duty of man that every man must learn how to rule himself. This has\nnot happened in Italy. Garibaldi did not hold this view of Mazzini's.\nGaribaldi gave, and every Italian took arms. Italy and Austria had the\nsame civilization; they were cousins in this respect. It was a matter of\ntit for tat. Garibaldi simply wanted Italy to be free from the Austrian\nyoke. The machinations of Minister Cavour disgrace that portion of the\nhistory of Italy. And what has been the result? If you believe that,\nbecause Italians rule Italy, the Italian nation is happy, you are\ngroping in darkness. Mazzini has shown conclusively that Italy did not\nbecome free. Victor Emanuel gave one meaning to the expression; Mazzini\ngave another. According to Emanuel, Cavour, and even Garibaldi, Italy\nmeant the King of Italy and his henchmen. According to Mazzini, it meant\nthe whole of the Italian people, that is, its agriculturists. Emanuel\nwas only its servant. The Italy of Mazzini still remains in a state of\nslavery. At the time of the so-called national war, it was a game of\nchess between two rival kings, with the people of Italy as pawns. The\nworking classes in that land are still unhappy. They therefore indulge\nin assassination, rise in revolt, and rebellion on their part is always\nexpected. What substantial gain did Italy obtain after the withdrawal of\nthe Austrian troops? The gain was only nominal. The reforms, for the\nsake of which the war was supposed to have been undertaken, have not yet\nbeen granted. The condition of the people, in general, still remains the\nsame. I am sure you do not wish to reproduce such a condition in India.\nI believe that you want the millions of India to be happy, not that you\nwant the reins of Government in your hands. If that be so, we have to\nconsider only one thing: how can the millions obtain self-rule? You will\nadmit that people under several Indian princes are being ground down.\nThe latter mercilessly crush them. Their tyranny is greater than that of\nthe English, and, if you want such tyranny in India, that we shall\nnever agree. My patriotism does not teach me that I am to allow people\nto be crushed under the heel of Indian princes, if only the English\nretire. If I have the power, I should resist the tyranny of Indian\nprinces just as much as that of the English. By patriotism I mean the\nwelfare of the whole people, and, if I could secure it at the hands of\nthe English, I should bow down my head to them. If any Englishman\ndedicated his life to securing the freedom of India, resisting tyranny\nand serving the land, I should welcome that Englishman as an Indian.\n\nAgain, India can fight like Italy only when she has arms. You have not\nconsidered this problem at all. The English are splendidly armed; that\ndoes not frighten me, but it is clear that, to fit ourselves against\nthem in arms, thousands of Indians must be armed. If such a thing be\npossible, how many years will it take. Moreover, to arm India on a large\nscale is to Europeanise it. Then her condition will be just as pitiable\nas that of Europe. This means, in short, that India must accept European\ncivilization, and if that is what we want, the best thing is that we\nhave among us those who are so well trained in that civilization. We\nwill then fight for a few rights, will get what we can and so pass our\ndays. But the fact is that the Indian nation will not adopt arms, and it\nis well that it does not.\n\n\nREADER: You are overassuming facts. All need not be armed. At first, we\nwill assassinate a few Englishmen and strike terror; then a few men who\nwill have been armed will fight openly. We may have to lose a quarter of\na million men, more or less, but we will regain our land. We will\nundertake guerilla warfare, and defeat the English.\n\nEDITOR: That is to say, you want to make the holy land of India unholy.\nDo you not tremble to think of freeing India by assassination? What we\nneed to do is to kill ourselves. It is a cowardly thought, that of\nkilling others. Whom do you suppose to free by assassination? The\nmillions of India do not desire it. Those who are intoxicated by the\nwretched modern civilization think of these things. Those who will rise\nto power by murder will certainly not make the nation happy. Those who\nbelieve that India has gained by Dhingra's act and such other acts in\nIndia make a serious mistake. Dhingra was a patriot, but his love was\nblind. He gave his body in a wrong way; its ultimate result can only be\nmischievous.\n\n\nREADER: But you will admit that the English have been frightened by\nthese murders, and that Lord Morley's reforms are due to fear.\n\nEDITOR: The English are both a timid and a brave nation. She is, I\nbelieve, easily influenced by the use of gunpowder. It is possible that\nLord Morley has granted the reforms through fear, but what is granted\nunder fear can be retained only so long as the fear lasts.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI\n\nBRUTE-FORCE\n\n\nREADER: This is a new doctrine; that what is gained through fear is\nretained only while the fear lasts. Surely, what is given will not be\nwithdrawn?\n\nEDITOR: Not so. The Proclamation of 1857 was given at the end of a\nrevolt, and for the purpose of preserving peace. When peace was secured\nand people became simple-minded, its full effect was toned down. If I\nceased stealing for fear of punishment, I would re-commence the\noperation so soon as the fear is withdrawn from me. This is almost a\nuniversal experience. We have assumed that we can get men to do things\nby force and, therefore, we use force.\n\n\nREADER: Will you not admit that you are arguing against yourself? You\nknow that what the English obtained in their own country they have\nobtained by using brute-force. I know you have argued that what they\nhave obtained is useless, but that does not affect my argument. They\nwanted useless things, and they got them. My point is that their desire\nwas fulfilled. What does it matter what means they adopted? Why should\nwe not obtain our goal which is good, by any means whatsoever even by\nusing violence? Shall I think of the means when I have to deal with a\nthief in the house? My duty is to drive him out anyhow. You seem to\nadmit that we have received nothing, and that we shall receive nothing\nby petitioning. Why, then, may we not do so by using brute-force? And,\nto retain what we may receive, we shall keep up the fear by using the\nsame force to the extent that it may be necessary. You will not find\nfault with a continuance of force to prevent a child from thrusting its\nfoot into fire? Somehow or other, we have to gain our end.\n\nEDITOR: Your reasoning is plausible. It has deluded many. I have used\nsimilar arguments before now. But I think I know better now, and I shall\nendeavour to undeceive you. Let us first take the argument that we are\njustified in gaining our end by using brute-force, because the English\ngained theirs by using similar means. It is perfectly true that they\nused brute-force, and that it is possible for us to do likewise: but by\nusing similar means, we can get only the same thing that they got. You\nwill admit that we do not want that. Your belief that there is no\nconnection between the means and the end is a great mistake. Through\nthat mistake even men who have been considered religious have committed\ngrievous crimes. Your reasoning is the same as saying that we can get a\nrose through planting a noxious weed. If I want to cross the ocean, I\ncan do so only by means of a vessel; if I were to use a cart for that\npurpose, both the cart and I would soon find the bottom. \"As is the God,\nso is the votary,\" is a maxim worth considering. Its meaning has been\ndistorted, and men have gone astray. The means may be likened to a seed,\nthe end to a tree; and there is just the same inviolable connection\nbetween the means and the end as there is between the seed and the tree.\nI am not likely to obtain the result flowing from the worship of God by\nlaying myself prostrate before Satan. If, therefore, anyone were to say:\n\"I want to worship God: it does not matter that I do so by means of\nSatan,\" it would be set down as ignorant folly. We reap exactly as we\nsow. The English in 1833 obtained greater voting power by violence. Did\nthey, by using brute-force, better appreciate their duty? They wanted\nthe right of voting, which they obtained by using physical-force. But\nreal rights are a result of performance of duty; these rights they have\nnot obtained. We, therefore, have before us in England the force of\neverybody wanting and insisting on his rights, nobody thinking of his\nduty. And, where everybody wants rights, who shall give them and to\nwhom? I do not wish to imply that they never perform their duty, but I\ndo wish to imply that they do not perform the duty to which those rights\nshould correspond; and, as they do not perform that particular duty,\nnamely, acquire fitness, their rights have proved a burden to them. In\nother words, what they have obtained is an exact result of the means\nthey adopted. They used the means corresponding to the end. If I want to\ndeprive you of your watch, I shall certainly have to fight for it; if I\nwant to buy your watch, I shall have to pay you for it; and, if I want a\ngift, I shall have to plead for it; and, according to the means I\nemploy, the watch is stolen property, my own property, or a donation.\nThus we see three different results from three different means. Will you\nstill say that means do not matter?\n\nNow we shall take the example given by you of the thief to be driven\nout. I do not agree with you that the thief may be driven out by any\nmeans. If it is my father who has come to steal I shall use one kind of\nmeans. If it is an acquaintance, I shall use another; and, in the case\nof a perfect stranger, I shall use a third. If it is a white man, you\nwill perhaps say, you will use means different from those you will adopt\nwith an Indian thief. If it is a weakling, the means will be different\nfrom those to be adopted for dealing with an equal in physical strength;\nand, if the thief is armed from tip to toe, I shall simply remain quiet.\nThus we have a variety of means between the father and the armed man.\nAgain, I fancy that I should pretend to be sleeping whether the thief\nwas my father or that strong-armed man. The reason for this is that my\nfather would also be armed, and I should succumb to the strength\npossessed by either, and allow my things to be stolen. The strength of\nmy father would make me weep with pity; the strength of the armed man\nwould rouse in me anger, and we should become enemies. Such is the\ncurious situation. From these examples, we may not be able to agree as\nto the means to be adopted in each case. I myself seem clearly to see\nwhat should be done in all these cases, but the remedy may frighten you.\nI, therefore, hesitate to place it before you. For the time being, I\nwill leave you to guess it, and, if you cannot, it is clear that you\nwill have to adopt different means in each case. You will also have seen\nthat any means will not avail to drive away the thief. You will have to\nadopt means to fit each case. Hence it follows that your duty is _not_\nto drive away the thief by any means you like.\n\nLet us proceed a little further. That a well-armed man has stolen your\nproperty, you have harboured the thought, you are filled with anger; you\nargue that you want to punish that rogue, not for your own sake, but for\nthe good of your neighbours; you have collected a number of armed men,\nyou want to take his house by assault, he is duly informed of it, he\nruns away; he too, is incensed. He collects his brother-robbers, and\nsends you a defiant message that he will commit robbery in broad\nday-light. You are strong, you do not fear him, you are prepared to\nreceive him. Meanwhile, the robber pesters your neighbours. They\ncomplain before you, you reply that you are doing all for their sake;\nyou do not mind that your own goods have been stolen. Your neighbours\nreply that the robber never pestered them before, and that he commenced\nhis depredations only after you declared hostilities against him. You\nare between Sylla and Charybdis. You are full of pity for the poor men.\nWhat they say is true. What are you to do? You will be disgraced if you\nnow leave the robber alone. You, therefore, tell the poor men: \"Never\nmind. Come, my wealth is yours, I will give you arms, I will teach you\nhow to use them; you should belabour the rogue; don't you leave him\nalone.\" And so the battle grows; the robbers increase in number; your\nneighbours have deliberately put themselves to inconvenience. Thus the\nresult of wanting to take revenge upon the robber is that you have\ndisturbed your own peace; you are in perpetual fear of being robbed and\nassaulted; your courage has given place to cowardice. If you will\npatiently examine the argument, you will see that I have not overdrawn\nthe picture. This is one of the means. Now let us examine the other. You\nset this armed robber down as an ignorant brother; you intend to reason\nwith him at a suitable opportunity; you argue that he is, after all, a\nfellow-man; you do not know what prompted him to steal. You, therefore,\ndecide that, when you can, you will destroy the man's motive for\nstealing. Whilst you are thus reasoning with yourself, the man comes\nagain to steal. Instead of being angry with him, you take pity on him.\nYou think that this stealing habit must be a disease with him.\nHenceforth you, therefore, keep your doors and windows open; you change\nyour sleeping-place, and you keep your things in a manner most\naccessible to him. The robber comes again, and is confused, as all this\nis new to him; nevertheless, he takes away your things. But his mind is\nagitated. He inquires about you in the village, he comes to learn about\nyour broad and loving heart, he repents, he begs your pardon, returns\nyou your things, and leaves off the stealing habit. He becomes your\nservant, and you find for him honourable employment. This is the second\nmethod. Thus, you see different means have brought about totally\ndifferent results. I do not wish to deduce from this that robbers will\nact in the above manner or that all will have the same pity and love\nlike you; but I wish only to show that only fair means can produce fair\nresults, and that, at least in the majority of cases, if not, indeed, in\nall, the force of love and pity is infinitely greater than the force of\narms. There is harm in the exercise of brute-force, never in that of\npity.\n\nNow we will take the question of petitioning. It is a fact beyond\ndispute that a petition, without the backing of force, is useless.\nHowever, the late Justice Ranade used to say that petitions served a\nuseful purpose because they were a means of educating people. They give\nthe latter an idea of their condition, and warn the rulers. From this\npoint of view, they are not altogether useless. A petition of an equal\nis a sign of courtesy; a petition from a slave is a symbol of his\nslavery. A petition backed by force is a petition from an equal and,\nwhen he transmits his demand in the form of a petition, it testifies to\nhis nobility. Two kinds of force can back petitions. \"We will hurt you\nif you do not give this\" is one kind of force; it is the force of arms,\nwhose evil results we have already examined. The second kind of force\ncan thus be stated: \"If you do not concede our demand, we will be no\nlonger your petitioners. You can govern us only so long as we remain the\ngoverned; we shall no longer have any dealings with you.\" The force\nimplied in this may be described as love-force, soul-force, or, more\npopularly but less accurately, passive resistance. This force is\nindestructible. He who uses it perfectly understands his position. We\nhave an ancient proverb which literally means \"One negative cures\nthirty-six diseases.\" The force of arms is powerless when matched\nagainst the force of love or the soul.\n\nNow we shall take your last illustration, that of the child thrusting\nits foot into fire. It will not avail you. What do you really do to the\nchild? Supposing that it can exert so much physical force that it\nrenders you powerless and rushes into fire, then you cannot prevent it.\nThere are only two remedies open to you--either you must kill it in\norder to prevent it from perishing in the flames, or you must give your\nown life, because you do not wish to see it perish before your very\neyes. You will not kill it. If your heart is not quite full of pity, it\nis possible that you will not surrender yourself by preceding the child\nand going into the fire yourself. You, therefore, helplessly allow it to\ngo into the flames. Thus, at any rate, you are not using physical force.\nI hope you will not consider that it is still physical-force, though of\na low order, when you would forcibly prevent the child from rushing\ntowards the fire if you could. That force is of a different order, and\nwe have to understand what it is.\n\nRemember that, in thus preventing the child, you are minding entirely\nits own interest, you are exercising authority for its sole benefit.\nYour example does not apply to the English. In using brute-force against\nthe English, you consult entirely your own, that is the national\ninterest. There is no question here either of pity or of love. If you\nsay that the actions of the English, being evil, represent fire, and\nthat they proceed to their actions through ignorance, and that,\ntherefore, they occupy the position of a child, and that you want to\nprotect such a child, then you will have to overtake every such evil\naction by whomsoever committed, and, as in the case of the child, you\nwill have to sacrifice yourself. If you are capable of such immeasurable\npity, I wish you well in its exercise.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII\n\nPASSIVE RESISTANCE\n\n\nREADER: Is there any historical evidence as to the success of what you\nhave called soul-force or truth-force? No instance seems to have\nhappened of any nation having risen through soul-force. I still think\nthat the evil-doers will not cease doing evil without physical\npunishment.\n\nEDITOR: The poet Tulsidas has said: \"Of religion, pity or love is the\nroot, as egotism of the body. Therefore, we should not abandon pity so\nlong as we are alive.\" This appears to me to be a scientific truth. I\nbelieve in it as much as I believe in two and two being four. The force\nof love is the same as the force of the soul or truth. We have evidence\nof its working at every step. The universe would disappear without the\nexistence of that force. But you ask for historical evidence. It is,\ntherefore, necessary to know what history means. The Gujarati equivalent\nmeans: \"It so happened.\" If that is the meaning of history, it is\npossible to give copious evidence. But if it means the doings of kings\nand emperors, there can be no evidence of soul-force or passive\nresistance in such history. You cannot expect silver-ore in a tin-mine.\nHistory, as we know it, is a record of the wars of the world, and so\nthere is a proverb among Englishmen that a nation which has no history,\nthat is, no wars, is a happy nation. How kings played how they become\nenemies of one another and how they murdered one another is found\naccurately recorded in history and, if this were all that had happened\nin the world, it would have been ended long ago. If the story of the\nuniverse had commenced with wars, not a man would have been found alive\nto-day. Those people who have been warred against have disappeared, as,\nfor instance, the natives of Australia, of whom hardly a man was left\nalive by the intruders. Mark, please, that these natives did not use\nsoul-force in self-defence, and it does not require much foresight to\nknow that the Australians will share the same fate as their victims.\n\"Those that wield the sword shall perish by the sword.\" With us, the\nproverb is that professional swimmers will find a watery grave.\n\nThe fact that there are so many men still alive in the world shows that\nit is based not on the force of arms but on the force of truth or love.\nTherefore the greatest and most unimpeachable evidence of the success of\nthis force is to be found in the fact that, in spite of the wars of the\nworld, it still lives on.\n\nThousands, indeed, tens of thousands, depend for their existence on a\nvery active working of this force. Little quarrels of millions of\nfamilies in their daily lives disappear before the exercise of this\nforce. Hundreds of nations live in peace. History does not and cannot\ntake note of this fact. History is really a record of every interruption\nof the even working of the force of love or of the soul. Two brothers\nquarrel: one of them repents and re-awakens the love that was lying\ndormant in him; the two again begin to live in peace: nobody takes note\nof this. But if the two brothers, through the intervention of solicitors\nor some other reason, take up arms or go to law--which is another form\nof the exhibition of brute-force--their doings would be immediately\nnoticed in the press, they would be the talk of their neighbours, and\nwould probably go down to history. And what is true of families and\ncommunities is true of nations. There is no reason, to believe that\nthere is one law for families, and another for nations. History, then,\nis a record of an interruption of the course of nature. Soul-force,\nbeing natural, is not noted in history.\n\n\nREADER: According to what you say, it is plain that instances of the\nkind of passive resistance are not to be found in history. It is\nnecessary to understand this passive resistance more fully. It will be\nbetter, therefore, if you enlarge upon it.\n\nEDITOR: Passive resistance is a method of securing rights by personal\nsuffering; it is the reverse of resistance by arms. When I refuse to do\na thing that is repugnant to my conscience, I use soul-force. For\ninstance, the government of the day has passed a law which is applicable\nto me: I do not like it, if, by using violence, I force the government\nto repeal the law, I am employing what may be termed body-force. If I do\nnot obey the law and accept the penalty for its breach, I use\nsoul-force. It involves sacrifice of self.\n\nEverybody admits that sacrifice of self is infinitely superior to\nsacrifice of others. Moreover, if this kind of force is used in a cause\nthat is unjust only the person using it suffers. He does not make others\nsuffer for his mistakes. Men have before now done many things which were\nsubsequently found to have been wrong. No man can claim to be absolutely\nin the right, or that a particular thing is wrong, because he thinks so,\nbut it is wrong for him so long as that is his deliberate judgment. It\nis, therefore, meet that he should not do that which he knows to be\nwrong, and suffer the consequence whatever it may be. This is the key to\nthe use of soul-force.\n\n\nREADER: You would then disregard laws--this is rank disloyalty. We have\nalways been considered a law-abiding nation. You seem to be going even\nbeyond the extremists. They say that we must obey the laws that have\nbeen passed, but that, if the laws be bad, we must drive out the\nlaw-givers even by force.\n\nEDITOR: Whether I go beyond them or whether I do not, is a matter of no\nconsequence to either of us. We simply want to find out what is right,\nand to act accordingly. The real meaning of the statement that we are a\nlaw-abiding nation is that we are passive resisters. When we do not like\ncertain laws, we do not break the heads of law-givers, but we suffer and\ndo not submit to the laws. That we should obey laws whether good or bad\nis a new-fangled notion. There was no such thing in former days. The\npeople disregarded those laws they did not like, and suffered the\npenalties for their breach. It is contrary to our manhood, if we obey\nlaws repugnant to our conscience. Such teaching is opposed to religion\nand means slavery. If the government were to ask us to go about without\nany clothing, should we do so? If I were a passive resister, I would say\nto them that I would have nothing to do with their law. But we have so\nforgotten ourselves and become so compliant, that we do not mind any\ndegrading law.\n\nA man who has realised his manhood, who fears only God, will fear no one\nelse. Man-made laws are not necessarily binding on him. Even the\ngovernment do not expect any such thing from us. They do not say: \"You\nmust do such and such a thing,\" but they say: \"If you do not do it, we\nwill punish you.\" We are sunk so low, that we fancy that it is our duty\nand our religion to do what the law lays down. If man will only realise\nthat it is unmanly to obey laws that are unjust, no man's tyranny will\nenslave him. This is the key to self-rule or home-rule.\n\nIt is a superstition and an ungodly thing to believe that an act of a\nmajority binds a minority. Many examples can be given in which acts of\nmajorities will be found to have been wrong, and those of minorities to\nhave been right. All reforms owe their origin to the initiation of\nminorities in opposition to majorities. If among a band of robbers, a\nknowledge of robbing is obligatory, is a pious man to accept the\nobligation? So long as the superstition that men should obey unjust laws\nexists, so long will their slavery exist. And a passive resister alone\ncan remove such a superstition.\n\nTo use brute-force, to use gun-powder is contrary to passive resistance;\nfor it means that we want our opponent to do by force--that which we\ndesire but he does not. And, if such a use of force is justifiable,\nsurely he is entitled to do likewise by us. And so we should never come\nto an agreement. We may simply fancy, like the blind horse moving in a\ncircle round a mill, that we are making progress. Those who believe that\nthey are not bound to obey laws which are repugnant to their conscience\nhave only the remedy of passive resistance open to them. Any other must\nlead to disaster.\n\n\nREADER: From what you say, I deduce that passive resistance is a\nsplendid weapon of the weak but that, when they are strong, they may\ntake up arms.\n\nEDITOR: This is gross ignorance. Passive resistance, that is,\nsoul-force, is matchless. It is superior to the force of arms. How,\nthen, can it be considered only a weapon of the weak? Physical force men\nare strangers to the courage that is requisite in a passive resister. Do\nyou believe that a coward can ever disobey a law that he dislikes?\nExtremists are considered to be advocates of brute-force. Why do they,\nthen, talk about obeying laws? I do not blame them. They can say nothing\nelse. When they succeed in driving out the English, and they themselves\nbecome governors, they will want you and me to obey their laws. And that\nis a fitting thing for their constitution. But a passive resister will\nsay he will not obey a law that is against his conscience, even though\nhe may be blown to pieces at the mouth of a cannon.\n\nWhat do you think? Wherein is courage required--in blowing others to\npieces from behind a cannon or with a smiling face to approach a cannon\nand to be blown to pieces? Who is the true warrior--he who keeps death\nalways as a bosom-friend or he who controls the death of others? Believe\nme that a man devoid of courage and manhood can never be a passive\nresister.\n\nThis, however, I will admit: that even a man, weak in body, is capable\nof offering this resistance. One man can offer it just as well as\nmillions. Both men and women can indulge in it. It does not require the\ntraining of an army; it needs no Jiu-jitsu. Control over the mind is\nalone necessary, and, when that is attained, man is free like the king\nof the forest, and his very glance withers the enemy.\n\nPassive resistance is an all-sided sword; it can be used anyhow; it\nblesses him who uses it and him against whom it is used. Without drawing\na drop of blood, it produces far-reaching results. It never rusts, and\ncannot be stolen. Competition between passive resisters does not\nexhaust. The sword of passive resistance does not require a scabbard. It\nis strange indeed that you should consider such a weapon to be a weapon\nmerely of the weak.\n\n\nREADER: You have said that passive resistance is a speciality of India.\nHave cannons never been used in India?\n\nEDITOR: Evidently, in your opinion, India means its few princes. To me,\nit means its teeming millions, on whom depends the existence of its\nprinces and our own.\n\nKings will always use their kingly weapons. To use force is bred in\nthem. They want to command, but those who have to obey commands, do not\nwant guns; and these are in a majority throughout the world. They have\nto learn either body-force or soul-force. Where they learn the former,\nboth the rulers and the ruled become like so many mad men, but, where\nthey learn soul-force, the commands of the rulers do not go beyond the\npoint of their swords, for true men disregard unjust commands. Peasants\nhave never been subdued by the sword, and never will be. They do not\nknow the use of the sword, and they are not frightened by the use of it\nby others. That nation is great which rests its head upon death as its\npillow. Those who defy death are free from all fear. For those who are\nlabouring under the delusive charms of brute-force, this picture is not\noverdrawn. The fact is that, in India, the nation at large has generally\nused passive resistance in all departments of life. We cease to\nco-operate with our rulers when they displease us. This is passive\nresistance.\n\nI remember an instance when, in a small principality, the villagers were\noffended by some command issued by the prince. The former immediately\nbegan vacating the village. The prince became nervous, apologised to his\nsubjects and withdrew his command. Many such instances can be found in\nIndia. Real home-rule is possible only where passive resistance is the\nguiding force of the people. Any other rule is foreign rule.\n\n\nREADER: Then you will say that it is not at all necessary for us to\ntrain the body?\n\nEDITOR: I will certainly not say any such thing. It is difficult to\nbecome a passive resister, unless the body is trained. As a rule, the\nmind, residing in a body that has become weakened by pampering, is also\nweak, and where there is no strength of mind, there can be no strength\nof soul. We will have to improve our physique by getting rid of infant\nmarriages and luxurious living. If I were to ask a man having a\nshattered body to face a cannon's mouth I would make of myself a\nlaughing-stock.\n\n\nREADER: From what you say, then, it would appear that it is not a small\nthing to become a passive resister, and, if that is so, I would like you\nto explain how a man may become a passive resister.\n\nEDITOR: To become a passive resister is easy enough, but it is also\nequally difficult. I have known a lad of fourteen years become a passive\nresister; I have known also sick people doing likewise and I have also\nknown physically strong and otherwise happy people being unable to take\nup passive resistance. After a great deal of experience, it seems to me\nthat those who want to become passive resisters for the service of the\ncountry have to observe perfect chastity, adopt poverty, follow truth,\nand cultivate fearlessness.\n\nChastity is one of the greatest disciplines without which the mind\ncannot attain requisite firmness. A man who is unchaste loses stamina,\nbecomes emasculated and cowardly. He whose mind is given over to animal\npassions is not capable of any great effort. This can be proved by\ninnumerable instances. What, then, is a married person to do, is the\nquestion that arises naturally; and yet it need not. When a husband and\nwife gratify the passions, it is no less an animal indulgence on that\naccount. Such an indulgence, except for perpetuating the race, is\nstrictly prohibited. But a passive resister has to avoid even that very\nlimited indulgence, because he can have no desire for progeny. A married\nman, therefore, can observe perfect chastity. This subject is not\ncapable of being treated at greater length. Several questions arise: How\nis one to carry one's wife with one? What are her rights, and such\nother questions? Yet those who wish to take part in a great work are\nbound to solve these puzzles.\n\nJust as there is necessity for chastity, so is there for poverty.\nPecuniary ambition and passive resistance cannot well go together. Those\nwho have money are not expected to throw it away, but they are expected\nto be indifferent about it. They must be prepared to lose every penny\nrather than give up passive resistance.\n\nPassive resistance has been described in the course of our discussion as\ntruth-force. Truth, therefore, has necessarily to be followed, and that\nat any cost. In this connection, academic questions such as whether a\nman may not lie in order to save a life, etc. arise, but these questions\noccur only to those who wish to justify lying. Those who want to follow\ntruth every time are not placed in such a quandary, and, if they are,\nthey are still saved from a false position.\n\nPassive resistance cannot proceed a step without fearlessness. Those\nalone can follow the path of passive resistance who are free from fear\nwhether as to their possessions, false honour, their relatives, the\ngovernment, bodily injuries, death.\n\nThese observances are not to be abandoned in the belief that they are\ndifficult. Nature has implanted in the human breast ability to cope with\nany difficulty or suffering that may come to man unprovoked. These\nqualities are worth having, even for those who do not wish to serve the\ncountry. Let there be no mistake as those who want to train themselves\nin the use of arms are also obliged to have these qualities more or\nless. Everybody does not become a warrior for the wish. A would-be\nwarrior will have to observe chastity, and to be satisfied with poverty\nas his lot. A warrior without fearlessness cannot be conceived of. It\nmay be thought that he would not need to be exactly truthful, but that\nquality follows real fearlessness. When a man abandons truth, he does so\nowing to fear in some shape or form. The above four attributes, then,\nneed not frighten any one. It may be as well here to note that a\nphysical-force man has to have many other useless qualities which a\npassive resister never needs. And you will find that whatever extra\neffort a swordsman needs is due to lack of fearlessness. If he is an\nembodiment of the latter, the sword will drop from his hand that very\nmoment. He does not need its support. One who is free from hatred\nrequires no sword. A man with a stick suddenly came face to face with a\nlion, and instinctively raised his weapon in self-defence. The man saw\nthat he had only prated about fearlessness when there was none in him.\nThat moment he dropped the stick, and found himself free from all fear.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII\n\nEDUCATION\n\n\nREADER: In the whole of our discussion, you have not demonstrated the\nnecessity for education; we always complain of its absence among us. We\nnotice a movement for compulsory education in our country. The Maharaja\nof Gaekwar has introduced it in his territories. Every eye is directed\ntowards them. We bless the Maharaja for it. Is all this effort then of\nno use?\n\nEDITOR: If we consider our civilization to be the highest, I have\nregretfully to say that much of the effort you have described is of no\nuse. The motive of the Maharaja and other great leaders who have been\nworking in this direction is perfectly pure. They, therefore,\nundoubtedly deserve great praise. But we cannot conceal from ourselves\nthe result that is likely to flow from their effort.\n\nWhat is the meaning of education? If it simply means a knowledge of\nletters, it is merely an instrument, and an instrument may be well used\nor abused. The same instrument that may be used to cure a patient may be\nused to take his life, and so may a knowledge of letters. We daily\nobserve that many men abuse it, and very few make good use of it, and if\nthis is a correct statement, we have proved that more harm has been done\nby it than good.\n\nThe ordinary meaning of education is a knowledge of letters. To teach\nboys reading, writing and arithmetic is called primary education. A\npeasant earns his bread honestly. He has ordinary knowledge of the\nworld. He knows fairly well how he should behave towards his parents,\nhis wife, his children and his fellow-villagers. He understands and\nobserves the rules of morality. But he cannot write his own name. What\ndo you propose to do by giving him a knowledge of letters? Will you add\nan inch to his happiness? Do you wish to make him discontented with his\ncottage or his lot? And even if you want to do that, he will not need\nsuch an education. Carried away by the flood of western thought, we came\nto the conclusion, without weighing _pros_ and _cons_, that we should\ngive this kind of education to the people.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNow let us take higher education. I have learned Geography, Astronomy,\nAlgebra, Geometry, etc. What of that? In what way have I benefitted\nmyself or those around me? Why have I learned these things? Professor\nHuxley has thus defined education:--\"That man I think has had a liberal\neducation who has been so trained in youth that his body is the ready\nservant of his will and does with ease and pleasure all the work that as\na mechanism it is capable of, whose intellect is a clear, cold logic\nengine with all its parts of equal strength and in smooth working order\n... whose mind is stored with a knowledge of the fundamental truths of\nnature ... whose passions are trained to come to heel by a vigorous\nwill, the servant of a tender conscience ... who has learnt to hate all\nvileness and to respect others as himself. Such an one and no other, I\nconceive, has had a liberal education, for he is in harmony with Nature.\nHe will make the best of her and she of him.\"\n\nIf this be true education, I must emphatically say that the sciences I\nhave enumerated above, I have never been able to use for controlling my\nsenses. Therefore, whether you take elementary education or higher\neducation, it is not required for the main thing. It does not make of us\nmen. It does not enable us to do our duty.\n\n\nREADER: If that is so, I shall have to ask you another question. What\nenables you to tell all these things to me? If you had not received\nhigher education, how would you have been able to explain to me the\nthings that you have?\n\nEDITOR: You have spoken well. But my answer is simple: I do not for one\nmoment believe that my life would have been wasted, had I not received\nhigher or lower education. Nor do I consider that I necessarily serve\nbecause I speak. But I do desire to serve and, in endeavouring to fulfil\nthat desire, I make use of the education I have received. And, if I am\nmaking good use of it, even then it is not for the millions, but I can\nuse it only for such as you, and this supports my contention. Both you\nand I have come under the bane of what is mainly false education. I\nclaim to have become free from its ill-effects, and I am trying to give\nyou the benefit of my experience, and, in doing so, I am demonstrating\nthe rottenness of this education.\n\nMoreover, I have not run down a knowledge of letters under all\ncircumstances. All I have shown is that we must not make of it a fetish.\nIt is not our Kamdhuk. In its place it can be of use, and it has its\nplace when we have brought our senses under subjection, and put our\nethics on a firm foundation. And then, if we feel inclined to receive\nthat education, we may make good use of it. As an ornament it is likely\nto sit well on us. It now follows that it is not necessary to make this\neducation compulsory. Our ancient school system is enough.\nCharacter-building has the first place in it, and that is primary\neducation. A building erected on that foundation will last.\n\n\nREADER: Do I then understand that you do not consider English education\nnecessary for obtaining Home Rule?\n\nEDITOR: My answer is yes and no. To give millions a knowledge of English\nis to enslave them. The foundation that Macaulay laid of education has\nenslaved us. I do not suggest that he had any such intention, but that\nhas been the result. Is it not a sad commentary that we should have to\nspeak of Home Rule in a foreign tongue?\n\nAnd it is worthy of note that the systems which the Europeans have\ndiscarded are the systems in vogue among us. Their learned men\ncontinually make changes. We ignorantly adhere to their cast-off\nsystems. They are trying each division to improve its own status. Wales\nis a small portion of England. Great efforts are being made to revive a\nknowledge of Welsh among Welshmen. The English Chancellor, Mr. Lloyd\nGeorge, is taking a leading part in the movement to make Welsh children\nspeak Welsh. And what is our condition? We write to each other in faulty\nEnglish, and from this even, our M. A.'s are not free; our best thoughts\nare expressed in English; the proceedings of our Congress are conducted\nin English; our best newspapers are printed in English. If this state of\nthings continues for a long time, posterity will--it is my firm\nopinion--condemn and curse us.\n\nIt is worth noting that, by receiving English education, we have\nenslaved the nation. Hypocrisy, tyranny, etc., have increased;\nEnglish-knowing Indians have not hesitated to cheat and strike terror\ninto the people. Now, if we are doing anything for the people at all, we\nare paying only a portion of the debt due to them.\n\nIs it not a most painful thing that, if I want to go to a court of\njustice, I must employ the English language as medium; that, when I\nbecome a barrister, I may not speak my mother-tongue, and that some one\nelse should have to translate to me from my own language? Is not this\nabsolutely absurd? Is it not a sign of slavery? Am I to blame the\nEnglish for it or myself? It is we, the English-knowing men, that have\nenslaved India. The curse of the nation will rest not upon the English\nbut upon us.\n\nI have told you that my answer to your last question is both yes and no.\nI have explained to you why it is yes. I shall now explain why it is no.\n\nWe are so much beset by the disease of civilization, that we cannot\naltogether do without English education. Those who have already received\nit may make good use of it wherever necessary. In our dealings with the\nEnglish people, in our dealings with our own people, when we can only\ncorrespond with them through that language, and for the purpose of\nknowing how much disgusted they (the English) have themselves become\nwith their civilization, we may use or learn English, as the case may\nbe. Those who have studied English will have to teach morality to their\nprogeny through their mother-tongue, and to teach them another Indian\nlanguage; but when they have grown up, they may learn English, the\nultimate aim being that we should not need it. The object of making\nmoney thereby should be eschewed. Even in learning English to such a\nlimited extent we will have to consider what we should learn through it\nand what we should not. It will be necessary to know what sciences we\nshould learn. A little thought should show you that immediately we cease\nto care for English degrees, the rulers will prick up their ears.\n\n\nREADER: Then what education shall we give?\n\nEDITOR: This has been somewhat considered above, but we will consider it\na little more. I think that we have to improve all our languages. What\nsubjects we should learn through them need not be elaborated here. Those\nEnglish books which are valuable we should translate into the various\nIndian languages. We should abandon the pretension of learning many\nsciences. Religious, that is ethical, education will occupy the first\nplace. Every cultured Indian will know in addition to his own provincial\nlanguage, if a Hindu, Sanskrit; if a Mahomedan, Arabic; if a Parsee,\nPersian; and all, Hindi. Some Hindus should know Arabic and Persian;\nsome Mahomedans and Parsees, Sanskrit. Several Northerners and\nWesterners should learn Tamil. A universal language for India should be\nHindi, with the option of writing it in Persian or Nagric characters. In\norder that the Hindus and the Mahomedans may have closer relations, it\nis necessary to know both the characters. And, if we can do this, we can\ndrive the English language out of the field in a short time. All this is\nnecessary for us, slaves. Through our slavery the nation has been\nenslaved, and it will be free with our freedom.\n\n\nREADER: The question of religious education is very difficult.\n\nEDITOR: Yet we cannot do without it. India will never be godless. Rank\natheism cannot flourish in that land. The task is indeed difficult. My\nhead begins to turn as I think of religious education. Our religious\nteachers are hypocritical and selfish; they will have to be approached.\nThe Mullas, the Dasturs and the Brahmins hold the key in their hands,\nbut if they will not have the good sense, the energy that we have\nderived from English education will have to be devoted to religious\neducation. This is not very difficult. Only the fringe of the ocean has\nbeen polluted, and it is those who are within the fringe who alone need\ncleansing. We who come under this category can even cleanse ourselves,\nbecause my remarks do not apply to the millions. In order to restore\nIndia to its pristine condition, we have to return to it. In our own\ncivilization, there will naturally be progress, retrogression, reforms,\nand reactions; but one effort is required, and that is to drive out\nWestern civilization. All else will follow.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX\n\nMACHINERY\n\n\nREADER: When you speak of driving out Western civilization, I suppose\nyou will also say that we want no machinery.\n\nEDITOR: By raising this question, you have opened the wound I had\nreceived. When I read Mr. Dutt's Economic History of India I wept; and,\nas I think of it, again my heart sickens. It is machinery that has\nimpoverished India. It is difficult to measure the harm that Manchester\nhas done to us. It is due to Manchester that Indian handicraft has all\nbut disappeared.\n\nBut I make a mistake. How can Manchester be blamed? We wore Manchester\ncloth, and that is why Manchester wove it. I was delighted when I read\nabout the bravery of Bengal. There are no cloth-mills in that\nPresidency. They were, therefore, able to restore the original\nhand-weaving occupation. It is true Bengal encourages the mill-industry\nof Bombay. If Bengal had proclaimed a boycott of _all_ machine-made\ngoods, it would have been much better.\n\nMachinery has begun to desolate Europe. Ruination is now knocking at the\nEnglish gates. Machinery is the chief symbol of modern civilization; it\nrepresents a great sin.\n\nThe workers in the mills of Bombay have become slaves. The condition of\nthe women working in the mills is shocking. When there were no mills,\nthese women were not starving. If the machinery craze grows in our\ncountry, it will become an unhappy land. It may be considered a heresy,\nbut I am bound to say that it were better for us to send money to\nManchester and to use flimsy Manchester cloth than to multiply mills in\nIndia. By using Manchester cloth we would only waste our money, but by\nreproducing Manchester in India, we shall keep our money at the price of\nour blood, because our very moral being will be sapped, and I call in\nsupport of my statement the very mill-hands as witnesses. And those who\nhave amassed wealth out of factories are not likely to be better than\nother rich men. It would be folly to assume that an Indian Rockfeller\nwould be better than the American Rockfeller. Impoverished India can\nbecome free, but it will be hard for an India, made rich through\nimmorality, to regain its freedom. I fear we will have to admit that\nmoneyed men support British rule; their interest is bound up with its\nstability. Money renders a man helpless. The other thing is as harmful\nas sexual vice. Both are poison. A snakebite is a lesser poison than\nthese two, because the former merely destroys the body, but the latter\ndestroys body, mind and soul. We need not, therefore, be pleased with\nthe prospect of the growth of the mill-industry.\n\n\nREADER: Are the mills, then, to be closed down?\n\nEDITOR: That is difficult. It is no easy task to do away with a thing\nthat is established. We, therefore, say that the non-beginning of a\nthing is, supreme wisdom. We cannot condemn mill-owners, we can but pity\nthem. It would be too much to expect them to give up their mills, but we\nmay implore them not to increase them. If they would be good, they would\ngradually contract their business. They can establish in thousands of\nhouseholds the ancient and sacred handlooms, and they can buy out the\ncloth that may be thus woven. Whether the mill-owners do this or not,\npeople can cease to use machine-made goods.\n\n\nREADER: You have so far spoken about machine-made cloth, but there are\ninnumerable machine-made things. We have either to import them or to\nintroduce machinery into our country.\n\nEDITOR: Indeed, our gods even are made in Germany. What need, then, to\nspeak of matches, pins, and glassware? My answer can be only one. What\ndid India do before these articles were introduced? Precisely the same\nshould be done to-day. As long as we cannot make pins without machinery,\nso long will we do without them. The tinsel splendour of glassware we\nwill have nothing to do with and we will make wicks, as of old, with\nhome-grown cotton, and use hand-made earthern saucers for lamps. So\ndoing, we shall save our eyes and money, and will support Swadeshi, and\nso shall we attain Home Rule.\n\nIt is not to be conceived that all men will do all these things at one\ntime, or that some men will give up all machine-made things at once.\nBut, if the thought is sound, we will always find out what we can give\nup, and will gradually cease to use this. What a few may do, others will\ncopy, and the movement will grow like the cocoanut of the mathematical\nproblem. What the leaders do, the populace will gladly follow. The\nmatter is neither complicated nor difficult. You and I shall not wait\nuntil we can carry others with us. Those will be the losers who will not\ndo it, and those who will not do it, although they can appreciate the\ntruth, will deserve to be called cowards.\n\n\nREADER: What, then, of the tram-cars and electricity?\n\nEDITOR: This question is now too late. It signifies nothing. If we are\nto do without the railways, we shall have to do without the tram-cars.\nMachinery is like a snake-hole which may contain from one to a hundred\nsnakes. Where there is machinery there are large cities; and where there\nare large cities, there are tram-cars and railways; and there only does\none see electric light. English villages do not boast any of these\nthings. Honest physicians will tell you that, where means of artificial\nlocomotion have increased, the health of the people has suffered. I\nremember that, when in a European town there was a scarcity of money,\nthe receipts of the tramway company, of the lawyers and of the doctors,\nwent down, and the people were less unhealthy. I cannot recall a single\ngood point in connection with machinery. Books can be written to\ndemonstrate its evils.\n\n\nREADER: It is a good point or a bad one that all you are saying will be\nprinted through machinery?\n\nEDITOR: This is one of those instances which demonstrate that sometimes\npoison is used to kill poison. This, then, will not be a good point\nregarding machinery. As it expires, the machinery, as it were, says to\nus: \"Beware and avoid me. You will derive no benefit from me, and the\nbenefit that may accrue from printing will avail only those who are\ninfected with the machinery-craze.\" Do not, therefore, forget the main\nthing. It is necessary to realise that machinery is bad. We shall then\nbe able gradually to do away with it. Nature has not provided any way\nwhereby we may reach a desired goal all of a sudden. If, instead of\nwelcoming machinery as a boon, we would look upon it as an evil, it\nwould ultimately go.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX\n\nCONCLUSION\n\n\nREADER: From your views I gather that you would form a third party. You\nare neither an extremist nor a moderate.\n\nEDITOR: That is a mistake. I do not think of a third party at all. We do\nnot all think alike. We cannot say that all the moderates hold identical\nviews. And how can those who want to serve only have a party? I would\nserve both the moderates and the extremists. Where I should differ from\nthem, I would respectfully place my position before them, and continue\nmy service.\n\n\nREADER: What, then, would you say to both the parties?\n\nEDITOR: I would say to the extremists:--\"I know that you want Home Rule\nfor India; it is not to be had for your asking. Everyone will have to\ntake it for himself. What others get for me is not Home Rule but foreign\nrule; therefore, it would not be proper for you to say that you have\nobtained Home Rule, if you expelled the English. I have already\ndescribed the true nature of Home Rule. This you would never obtain by\nforce of arms. Brute-force is not natural to the Indian soil. You will\nhave, therefore, to rely wholly on soul-force. You must not consider\nthat violence is necessary at any stage for reaching our goal.\"\n\nI would say to the moderates:--\"Mere petitioning is derogatory; we\nthereby confess inferiority. To say that British rule is indispensable,\nis almost a denial of the Godhead. We cannot say that anybody or\nanything is indispensable except God. Moreover, commonsense should tell\nus that to state that, for the time being, the presence of the English\nin India is a necessity, is to make them conceited.\n\n\"If the English vacated India bag and baggage, it must not be supposed\nthat she would be widowed. It is possible that those who are forced to\nobserve peace under their pressure would fight after their withdrawal.\nThere can be no advantage in suppressing an eruption, it must have its\nvent. If, therefore, before we can remain at peace, we must fight\namongst ourselves, it is better that we do so. There is no occasion for\na third party to protect the weak. It is this so-called protection which\nhas unnerved us. Such protection can only make the weak weaker. Unless\nwe realise this, we cannot have Home Rule. I would paraphrase the\nthought of an English divine and say that anarchy under home rule were\nbetter than orderly foreign rule. Only, the meaning that the learned\ndivine attached to home rule is different to Indian Home Rule according\nto my conception. We have to learn, and to teach others, that we do not\nwant the tyranny of their English rule or Indian rule.\"\n\nIf this idea were carried out both the extremists and the moderates\ncould join hands. There is no occasion to fear or distrust one another.\n\n\nREADER: What, then, would you say to the English?\n\nEDITOR: To them I would respectfully say: \"I admit you are my rulers. It\nis not necessary to debate the question whether you hold India by the\nsword or by my consent. I have no objection to your remaining in my\ncountry, but although you are the rulers, you will have to remain as\nservants of the people. It is not we who have to do as you wish, but it\nis you who have to do as we wish. You may keep the riches that you have\ndrained away from this land, but you may not drain riches henceforth.\nYour function will be, if you so wish, to police India; you must abandon\nthe idea of deriving any commercial benefit from us. We hold the\ncivilization that you support to be the reverse of civilization. We\nconsider our civilization to be far superior to yours. If you realise\nthis truth, it will be to your advantage, and, if you do not, according\nto your own proverb, you should only live in our country in the same\nmanner as we do. You must not do anything that is contrary to our\nreligions. It is your duty as rulers that, for the sake of the Hindus,\nyou should eschew beef, and for the sake of the Mahomedans, you should\navoid bacon and ham. We have hitherto said nothing, because we have been\ncowed down, but you need not consider that you have not hurt our\nfeelings by your conduct. We are not expressing our sentiments either\nthrough base selfishness or fear, but because it is our duty now to\nspeak out boldly. We consider your schools and law courts to be useless.\nWe want our own ancient schools and courts to be restored. The common\nlanguage of India is not English but Hindi. You should, therefore, learn\nit. We can hold communication with you only in our national language.\n\n\"We cannot tolerate the idea of your spending money on railways and the\nmilitary. We see no occasion for either. You may fear Russia; we do not.\nWhen she comes we will look after her. If you are with us, we will then\nreceive her jointly. We do not need any European cloth. We will manage\nwith articles produced and manufactured at home. You may not keep one\neye on Manchester and the other on India. We can work together only if\nour interests are identical.\n\n\"This has not been said to you in arrogance. You have great military\nresources. Your naval power is matchless. If we wanted to fight with you\non your own ground we would be unable to do so, but, if the above\nsubmissions be not acceptable to you, we cease to play the ruled. You\nmay, if you like, cut us to pieces. You may shatter us at the cannon's\nmouth. If you act contrary to our will, we will not help you and,\nwithout our help, we know that you cannot move one step forward.\n\n\"It is likely that you will laugh at all this in the intoxication of\nyour power. We may not be able to disillusion you at once, but, if there\nbe any manliness in us, you will see shortly that your intoxication is\nsuicidal, and that your laugh at our expense is an aberration of\nintellect. We believe that, at heart you belong to a religious nation.\nWe are living in a land which is the source of religions. How we came\ntogether need not be considered, but we can make mutual good use of our\nrelations.\n\n\"You English who have come to India are not a good specimen of the\nEnglish nation, nor can we almost half Anglicised Indians, be considered\na good specimen of the real Indian nation. If the English nation were to\nknow all you have done, it would oppose many of your actions. The mass\nof the Indians have had few dealings with you. If you will abandon your\nso-called civilization, and search into your own scriptures, you will\nfind that our demands are just. Only on conditions of our demands being\nfully satisfied may you remain in India, and, if you remain under those\nconditions we shall learn several things from you, and you will learn\nmany from us. So doing, we shall benefit each other and the world. But\nthat will happen only when the root of our relationship is sunk in a\nreligious soil.\"\n\n\nREADER: What will you say to the nation?\n\nEDITOR: Who is the nation?\n\n\nREADER: For our purposes it is the nation that you and I have been\nthinking of, that is, those of us who are affected by European\ncivilization, and who are eager to have Home Rule.\n\nEDITOR: To these I would say: It is only those Indians who are imbued\nwith real love who will be able to speak to the English in the above\nstrain without being frightened, and those only can be said to be so\nimbued who conscientiously believe that Indian civilization is the best,\nand that European is a nine days' wonder. Such ephemeral civilizations\nhave often come and gone, and will continue to do so. Those only can be\nconsidered to be so imbued, who, having experienced the force of the\nsoul within themselves, will not cower before brute-force, and will not,\non any account, desire to use brute-force. Those only can be considered\nto have been so imbued who are intensely dissatisfied with the present\npitiable condition having already drunk the cup of poison.\n\nIf there be only one such Indian, he will speak as above to the English,\nand the English will have to listen to him.\n\nThese demands are not demands, but they show our mental state. We will\nget nothing by asking; we shall have to take what we want, and we need\nthe requisite strength for the effort and that strength will be\navailable to him only who\n\n    1. will, only on rare occasions, make use of the English language;\n\n    2. if a lawyer, will give up his profession and take up a hand-loom;\n\n    3. if a lawyer, will devote his knowledge to enlightening both his\n    people and the English;\n\n    4. if a lawyer, will not meddle with the quarrels between parties,\n    but will give up the courts and from his experience induce the\n    people to do likewise;\n\n    5. if a lawyer, will refuse to be a judge, as the will give up his\n    profession;\n\n    6. if a doctor, will give up medicine, and understand that rather\n    than mending bodies, he should mend souls;\n\n    7. if a doctor, will understand, that no matter to what religion he\n    belongs, it is better that bodies remain diseased rather than that\n    they are cured through the instrumentality of the diabolical\n    vivisection that is practised in European schools of medicine;\n\n    8. although a doctor, will take up a hand-loom and, if any patients\n    come to him, will tell them the cause of their diseases, and will\n    advise them to remove the cause, rather than pamper them by giving\n    useless drugs; he will understand that, if by not taking drugs,\n    perchance the patient dies, the world will not come to grief, and\n    that he will have been really merciful to him;\n\n    9. although a wealthy man, regardless of his wealth, will speak out\n    his mind and fear no one;\n\n    10. if a wealthy man, will devote his money to establishing\n    hand-looms, and encourage others to use hand-made goods by wearing\n    them himself;\n\n    11. like every other Indian, will know that this is a time for\n    repentance, expiation and mourning;\n\n    12. like every other Indian, will know that to blame the English is\n    useless, that they came because of us, and remain also for the same\n    reason, and that they will either go or change their nature, only\n    when we reform ourselves;\n\n    13. like others, will understand that, at a time of mourning, there\n    can be no indulgence, and that, whilst we are in a fallen state, to\n    be in gaol or in banishment is much the best;\n\n    14. like others, will know that it is superstition to imagine it\n    necessary that we should guard against being imprisoned in order\n    that we may deal with the people;\n\n    15. like others, will know that action is much better than speech;\n    that it is our duty to say exactly what we think and face the\n    consequences, and that it will be only then that we shall be able to\n    impress anybody with our speech;\n\n    16. like others, will understand that we will become free only\n    through suffering;\n\n    17. like others, will understand that deportation for life to the\n    Andamans is not enough expiation for the sin of encouraging European\n    civilization;\n\n    18. like others, will know that no nation has risen without\n    suffering; that, even in physical warfare, the true test is\n    suffering and not the killing of others, much more so in the warfare\n    of passive resistance;\n\n    19. like others, will know that it is an idle excuse to say that we\n    will do a thing when the others also do it; that we should do what\n    we know to be right, and that others will do it when they see the\n    way; that when I fancy a particular delicacy, I do not wait till\n    others taste it; that to make a national effort and to suffer are in\n    the nature of delicacies; and that to suffer under pressure is no\n    suffering.\n\n\nREADER: This is a large order. When will all carry it out?\n\nEDITOR: You make a mistake. You and I have nothing to do with the\nothers. Let each do his duty. If I do my duty, that is, serve myself, I\nshall be able to serve others. Before I leave you, I will take the\nliberty of repeating.\n\n    1. Real home-rule is self-rule or self-control.\n\n    2. The way to it is passive resistance: that is soul force or\n    love-force.\n\n    3. In order to exert this force, Swadeshi in every sense is\n    necessary.\n\n    4. What we want to do should be done, not because we object to the\n    English or that we want to retaliate, but because it is our duty to\n    do so. Thus, supposing that the English remove the salt-tax, restore\n    our money, give the highest posts to Indians, withdraw the English\n    troops, we shall certainly not use their machine-made goods, nor use\n    the English language, nor many of their industries. It is worth\n    nothing that these things are, in their nature, harmful; hence, we\n    do not want them. I bear no enmity towards the English, but I do\n    towards their civilization.\n\nIn my opinion, we have used the term \"Swaraj\" without understanding its\nreal significance. I have endeavoured to explain it as I understand it,\nand my conscience testifies that my life henceforth is dedicated to its\nattainment.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDICES:\n\nSome Authorities.\n\nTestimonies by Eminent Men.\n\n\nAPPENDICES.\n\nSome Authorities.\n\n\nThe following books are recommended for perusal to follow up the study\nof the foregoing:--\n\n\"The Kingdom of God is Within You\"--_Tolstoy_.\n\n\"What is Art?\"--_Tolstoy._\n\n\"Slavery of Our Times\"--_Tolstoy_.\n\n\"The First Step\"--_Tolstoy_.\n\n\"How Shall We Escape\"--_Tolstoy_.\n\n\"Letter to a Hindoo\"--_Tolstoy_.\n\n\"The White Slaves of England\"--_Sherard_.\n\n\"Civilization: Its Cause and Cure\"--_Carpenter_.\n\n\"The Fallacy of Speed\"--_Taylor_.\n\n\"A New Crusade\"--_Blount_.\n\n\"On the Duty of Civil Disobedience\"--_Thoreau_.\n\n\"Life Without Principle\"--_Thoreau_.\n\n\"Unto This Last\"--_Ruskin_.\n\n\"A Joy for Ever\"--_Ruskin_.\n\n\"Duties of Man\"--_Mazzini_.\n\n\"Defence and Death of Socrates\"--From _Plato_.\n\n\"Paradoxes of Civilization\"--_Max Nordau_.\n\n\"Poverty and Un-British Rule in India\"--_Naoroji_.\n\n\"Economic History of India\"--_Dutt_.\n\n\"Village Communities\"--_Maine_.\n\n\nTestimonies by Eminent Men.\n\nThe following extracts from Mr. Alfred Webb's valuable collection, if\nthe testimony given therein be true, show that the ancient Indian\ncivilization, has little to learn from the modern:--\n\n\nVictor Cousin.\n\n(_1792--1867_). _Founder of Systematic Eclecticism in Philosophy._\n\n\"On the other hand when we read with attention the poetical and\nphilosophical movements of the East, above all, those of India, which\nare beginning to spread in Europe, we discover there so many truths, and\ntruths so profound, and which make such a contrast with the meanness of\nthe results at which the European genius has sometimes stopped, that we\nare constrained to bend the knee before that of the East, and to see in\nthis cradle of the human race the native land of the highest\nphilosophy.\"\n\n\nJ. Seymour Keay, M. P.\n\n_Banker in India and India Agent._\n\n(_Writing in 1883._)\n\n\"It cannot be too well understood that our position in India has never\nbeen in any degree that of civilians bringing civilization to savage\nraces. When we landed in India we found there a hoary civilization,\nwhich, during the progress of thousands of years, had fitted itself into\nthe character and adjusted itself to the wants of highly intellectual\nraces. The civilization was not prefunctory, but universal and\nall-pervading--furnishing the country not only with political systems\nbut with social and domestic institutions of the most ramified\ndescription. The beneficent nature of these institutions as a whole may\nbe judged of from their effects on the character of the Hindu race.\nPerhaps there are no other people in the world who show so much in their\ncharacters the advantageous effects of their own civilization. They are\nshrewd in business, acute in reasoning, thrifty, religious, sober,\ncharitable, obedient to parents, reverential to old age, amiable,\nlaw-abiding, compassionate towards the helpless, and patient under\nsuffering.\"\n\n\nFriedrich Max Muelier, LL.D.\n\n\"If I were to ask myself from what literature we hear in Europe, we who\nhave been nurtured almost exclusively on the thoughts of Greeks and\nRomans, and of one Semetic race, the Jewish may draw that corrective\nwhich is most wanted in order to make our inner life more perfect, more\ncomprehensive, more universal, in fact more truly human, a life, not for\nthis life only but a transfigured and eternal life--again I should point\nto India.\"\n\n\nMichael G. Mulhall, F.R.S.S.\n\n_Statistics_ (_1899_).\n\n  Prison population per 100,000 of inhabitants:\n       Several European States        100 to 230\n       England and Wales                      90\n       India                                  38\n\n--\"_Dictionary of Statistics_,\" _Michael G. Mulhall, F.R.S.S._,\n_Routledge and Sons, 1899_.\n\n\nColonel Thomas Munro.\n\n_Thirty-two years' service in India._\n\n\"If a good system of agriculture, unrivalled manufacturing skill, a\ncapacity to produce whatever can contribute to convenience or luxury;\nschools established in every village, for teaching, reading, writing and\narithmetic; the general practice of hospitality and charity among each\nother; and, above all, treatment of the female sex, full of confidence,\nrespect and delicacy, are among the signs which denote a civilised\npeople, then the Hindus are not inferior to the nations of Europe; and\nif civilization is to become an article of trade between the two\ncountries, I am convinced that this country [England] will gain by the\nimport cargo.\"\n\n\nFrederick von Schlegel.\n\n\"It cannot be denied that the early Indians possessed a knowledge of the\ntrue God; all their writings are replete with sentiments and expressions\nnoble, clear and severely grand, as deeply conceived and reverently\nexpressed as in any human language in which men have spoken of their\nGod.... Among nations possessing indigenous philosophy and metaphysics,\ntogether with an innate relish for these pursuits, such as at present\ncharacterises Germany; and in olden times, was the proud distinction of\nGreece, Hindustan holds the first rank in point of time.\"\n\n\nSir William Wedderburn, Bart.\n\n\"The Indian village has thus for centuries remained a bulwark against\npolitical disorder, and the home of the simple domestic and social virtues.\nNo wonder, therefore, that philosophers and historians have always dwelt\nlovingly on this ancient institution which is the natural social\nunit and the best type of rural life; self-contained, industrious,\npeace-loving, conservative in the best sense of the word.... I think you\nwill agree with me that there is much that is both picturesque and\nattractive in this glimpse of social and domestic life in an Indian\nvillage. It is a harmless and happy form of human existence. Moreover,\nit is not without good practical outcome.\"\n\n\nJ. Young.\n\n_Secretary, Savon Mechanics' Institutes._\n\n(_Within recent years_).\n\n\"Those races, [the Indian viewed from a moral aspect] are perhaps the\nmost remarkable people in the world. They breathe an atmosphere of moral\npurity, which cannot but excite admiration, and this is especially the\ncase with the poorer classes who, notwithstanding the privations of\ntheir humble lot, appear to be happy and contented. True children of\nnature, they live on from day to day, taking no thought of to-morrow and\nthankful for the simple fare which Providence has provided for them. It\nis curious to witness the spectacle of coolies of both sexes returning\nhome at nightfall after a hard day's work often lasting from sunrise to\nsunset. In spite of fatigue from the effects of the unremitting toil,\nthey are, for the most part, gay and animated, conversing cheerfully\ntogether and occasionally breaking into snatches of light-hearted song.\nYet what awaits them on their return to the hovels which they call home?\nA dish of rice for food, and the floor for a bed. Domestic felicity\nappears to be the rule among the Natives, and this is the more strange\nwhen the customs of marriage are taken into account, parents arranging\nall such matters. Many Indian households afford examples of the married\nstate in its highest degree of perfection. This may be due to the\nteachings of the Shastras, and to the strict injunctions which they\ninculcate with regard to marital obligations; but it is no exaggeration\nto say that husbands are generally devotedly attached to their wives,\nand in many instances the latter have the most exalted conception of\ntheir duties towards their husbands.\"\n\n\nAbbe J. A. Dubois.\n\n_Missionary in Mysore. Extracts from letter dated Seringapatam, 15th\nDecember, 1820._\n\n\"The authority of married women within their houses is chiefly exerted\nin preserving good order and peace among the persons who compose their\nfamilies: and a great many among them discharge this important duty with\na prudence and a discretion which have scarcely a parallel in Europe. I\nhave known families composed of between thirty and forty persons, or\nmore, consisting of grown-up sons and daughters, all married and all\nhaving children, living together under the superintendence of an old\nmatron--their mother or mother-in-law. The latter, by good management,\nand by accommodating herself to the temper of the daughters-in-law, by\nusing, according to circumstances, firmness or forbearance, succeeded in\npreserving peace and harmony during many years amongst so many females,\nwho had all jarring interests, and still more jarring tempers. I ask you\nwhether it would be possible to attain the same end, in the same\ncircumstances, in our countries, where it is scarcely possible to make\ntwo women living under the same roof to agree together.\n\n\"In fact, there is perhaps no kind of honest employment in a civilised\ncountry in which the Hindu females have not a due share. Besides the\nmanagement of the household, and the care of the family, which (as\nalready noticed) under their control, the wives and daughters of\nhusbandmen attend and assist their husbands and fathers in the labours\nof agriculture. Those of tradesmen assist theirs in carrying on their\ntrade. Merchants are attended and assisted by theirs in their shops.\nMany females are shopkeepers on their own account and _without a\nknowledge of the alphabet_ or of the decimal scale, they keep by other\nmeans their accounts in excellent order, and are considered as still\nshrewder than the males themselves in their commercial dealings.\"\n\n\nTHE MODERN PRINTING WORKS, MOUNT ROAD, MADRAS.\n\n\n\n\nBooks on Liberty and Freedom\n\n\nThe Ideal of Swaraj.\n\n    In Education and Government by Nirpendra Chandra Banerjee with an\n    introduction by C. F. Andrews.\n\n    Those who are out of sheer prejudice and incapacity for political\n    thought, sneer, at the goal of Swaraj proclaimed by the National\n    Congress as merely a destructive and at best a visionary ideal as\n    well as those who in spite of their approval of the goal are unable\n    to visualise it in concrete contents, will do well to read this\n    interesting and instructive book by an ardent Bengali patriot and\n    ex-school master. The author has political insight, and faith in the\n    country's capacity. He recognises that the soul of India is in her\n    numerous villages in rural centres and has given out practical\n    suggestions for national reconstruction along sound lines.\n\n    Mr. Andrews has written an introduction to the volume wherein he has\n    dealt with the value of the Swaraj ideal and his own conception of\n    the same. It is a useful publication worthy to be placed in the\n    hands of our young men and women.--_Hindu._\n\n    =Price Rs. 1.=\n\n\nIndia's Will to Freedom.\n\n    By =Lala Lajpat Rai=. A collection of Writings and Addresses on the\n    present situation and the work before us. \"We in India should, one\n    and all, take a vow that whether we have to lay down our life,\n    whether we are mutilated or hanged, whether our women and children\n    are mal-treated, our desire for Swaraj will never grow a little any\n    the less. Every child of this land, whatever his religion or\n    persuasion, should swear that, as long as there is life in his\n    limbs, or breath in his nostrils, he would strive for national\n    liberty.\"\n\n    =Price Rs. 2-8.=\n\n\nFootsteps of Freedom.\n\n    By =James H. Cousins=. \"Another stunt which will also be vigorously\n    vamped by the opponents of dyarehy, in fact of all reform will be\n    the absolute necessity of politically educating the masses of India\n    before giving them any measure of political freedom. In a book of\n    charming essays which he has just published through Messrs. Ganesh &\n    Co., of Madras, under the title of \"Footsteps of Freedom\" Mr. James\n    Cousins attacks this particular fallacy and shatters it\n    convincingly.\" _Ditcher in Capital._\n\n    =Price Rs. 2.=\n\n\nFreedom's Battle.\n\n    A comprehensive collection of Writings and Speeches of Mahatma\n    Gandhi on the present situation including The Khilafat Wrongs, The\n    Punjab Agony, Swaraj, Hindu-Muslim Unity, Indians Overseas, The\n    Depressed Classes, Non-co-operation, etc., with an historical\n    introduction by Mr. C. Rajagopalachar.\n\n    \"The war that the people of India have declared and which will\n    purify and consolidate India, and forge for her a true and stable\n    liberty is a war with the latest and most effective weapon. In this\n    war, what has hitherto been in the world an undesirable but\n    necessary incident in freedom's battles, the killing of innocent men\n    has been eliminated; and that which is the true essential for\n    forging liberty, the self-purification and self-strengthening of men\n    and women has been kept pure and unalloyed.\"\n\n    The best preparation for any one who desires to take part in the\n    great battle now going on is a silent study of the writings and\n    speeches collected herein.\n\n    =Price Rs. 2-8.=\n\n\nGANESH & Co., Publishers, Madras.\n\n\n\n\nTRANSCRIBER'S NOTE:\n\n\nObvious typographical and printer errors have been corrected without\ncomment. In addition to obvious errors, the following two changes have\nbeen made:\n\n   Page 62: 'four' replaced with 'our' in the phrase: \"... to deepen our\n   slavery.\"\n\n   Page 115: 'cover' changed to 'cower' in the phrase: \"... will not\n   cower before brute-force....\"\n\n   Page 128: 'foot' changed to 'roof' in the phrase: \"... living under\n   the same roof....'\n\nOther than this, any inconsistencies in the author's spelling, use of\ngrammar and punctuation have been preserved in this text as they appear\nin the original publication.\n\nTwo possible printer errors which have not been corrected in this text\ninclude:\n\n   Page 116: \"... the will give up his profession;\" probably should\n   read, \"... he (or 'they') will give up his profession....\"\n\n   Page 119: \"It is worth nothing that these things are....\" probably\n   should read, \"It is worth noting that these things are....\"","title":"Indian Home Rule","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":29427}