Mahatma Gandhi

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj

[ref] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hind_Swaraj_or_Indian_Home_Rule Chapter IV starts with what is the view of Swaraj by Gandhi(Editor) and an opposing or misunderstood view by others(reader). The whole work is organized in such a way that there is this ongoing conversation with Gandhi’s viewpoint on the matters and the opposing views. The reader wants India to be free of British rule, saying India is impoverished by their ruling and have become mere slaves. Also, he notes that India should liberate from Britain and then adopt their systems. As for Gandhi Swaraj is a Free India which is not expected to be a copy of English systems. He ridicules the English parliament(The mother of all parliaments) telling that it’s like a sterile prostitute, simply a costly to of the nation. The members of the parliament are hypocritical and selfish, thinking of their own interests rather than the country. The prime minister taking actions to secure his power and the party rather the country. The voters misguided by the newspapers. A few good men with best interests of the country would have made Britain far greater than they have achieved from their parliament system. The conversation covers, about civilization, the ongoing heat between the Hindus and Mohammedans, that civilization is a disease(modern common sense), how India lost (because the Indians accepted the British, not because they were powerful), Railways, lawyers and doctors( have impoverished the

country so much so that, if we do not wake up in time. we shall be ruined), “A man is not necessarily happy because he is rich, or unhappy because he is poor” etc.

His views on Bruteforce and Passive Resistance are particularly interesting. His argument against brute force is as follows:

“Let us first take the argument that we are justified in gaining our end by using brute force because the English gained theirs by using similar means. You will admit that we do not want that. Your belief that there is no connection between the means and the end is a great mistake. Your reasoning is the same as saying that we can get a rose through planting a noxious weed. If I want to cross the ocean, I can do so only by means of a vessel: if I were to use a cart for that purpose, both the cart and I would soon find the bottom.

I am not likely to obtain the result flowing from the worship of God by laying myself prostrate before Satan. If, therefore, anyone were to say: “I want to worship God; it does not matter that I do so by means of Satan,” it would be set down as ignorant folly. We reap exactly as we sow. If I want to deprive you of your watch, I shall certainly have to fight for it; if l want to buy your watch, I shall have to pay you for it; and if I want a gift, I shall have to plead for it, and, according to the means I employ, the watch is stolen property,

my own property, or a donation. Thus we see three different results from three different means. Will you still say that means do not matter?….I only wish to show that fair means

alone can produce fair results, and that, at least in the majority of cases, if not indeed in all, the force of love and pity is infinitely greater than the force of arms.”

Also on passive resistance, he points out “Moreover if this kind of force is used in a cause that is unjust only the person using, it suffers, he does not make others suffer for his mistakes.”

Gandhi was also dead against machinery(especially the Manchester clothing mills) “It is machinery that has impoverished India.” He argues on the health hazards etc that machinery and locomotion have given risen to.

Gandhi concludes with final takeaways as:

Real home-rule is self-rule or self-control.

The way to it is passive resistance: that is soul-force or love force.

In order to exert this force, Swadeshi in every sense is necessary.

What we want to do should be done, not because we object to the English or because or we want to retaliate but because it is our duty to do so.

Gandhi: The Wheel of Fortune

[ref] https://archive.org/details/cu31924022938389

Gandhi was a hard fast proponent of the spinning wheel as an additional income for all the working class people that would help elevate poverty.”I have abundant proof now to support my statement that the spinning wheel will solve the problem of economic distress in millions of India’s homes, and it constitutes an effective insurance, against famines.” The whole argument is about distributing the means of production back to the working class. He notes that billions of hours are wasted idle because the people are having nothing to do when they are out of their primary work.

My opinion: In some sense Gandhi’s argument of instantiating the spinning wheel was right. It would redistribute the means of production back to the proletariat and stop capitalists capitalizing on clothing mills and absorbing the economy. But on the other hand if everybody were spinning the wheel there might be overproduction and time is wasted on something that could have been otherwise efficiently mechanized.

A Note on Gandhi

[ref] http://www.swaraj.org/huxley.htm “Gandhi succeeded in ridding his country of the alien tiger, but he failed in his attempts to modify the essentially tigerish nature of nationalism as such.”

Mahatma Gandhi was greatly respected by the Indian nation and even the world alike for his pacifist efforts on liberating India from the hands of Britain. His ideal nation was a one with decentralized economy and decentralized(federated) politics. Aligned with the communist economy(except no centralized plan) in a certain way but was more sensible and was about distributing the wealth equally and just fully in a naturally decentralized way (unlike a central plan as in most communist views of the economy). The author compares Gandhi’s philosophy of politics as of with Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy on politics of a fully federated government. Gandhi, like Jefferson, thought of politics in moral and religious terms and he went further than Jefferson in recommending economics as well to be decentralized.

Perhaps we would have been in a better place with an equal and just economy and a better state of life for everybody if Gandhi’s and Jefferson’s philosophies were enacted.