The centenary of Hind Swaraj and recent developments in Gandhi scholarship have prompted the issuing of a revised centenary edition. The discovery that Gandhi had made the theory of the ‘canonical aims of life’ (purusharthas) the framework of his thought is the most significant of these developments (Parel 2006, 2008). The Introduction to this edition takes due note of this. Supporting evidence from Gandhi's writings has been added. They include the Introduction and ‘Farewell’ to his Autobiography, the Introduction to his translation of the Bhagavad Gita and his ‘Foreword’ to Gokhale's Speeches. The Gandhi–Nehru dialogue has been updated in view of the new materials that have come to light. Finally, new footnotes on such key topics as ‘civilisation’, ‘technology’ and the place of the English language in India have been added. On the debit side, in the interest of keeping this edition within reasonable length, the Gandhi–Wyberg letters and materials relating to Gandhi's ‘Quit India’ speech have been dropped.

GANDHI TO NEHRU

October 5, 1945

My dear Jawaharlal,

I have been desirous of writing to you for many days but have not been able to do so before today. The question of whether I should write to you in English or Hindustani was also in my mind. I have at length preferred to write to you in Hindustani.

The first thing I want to write about is the difference of outlook between us. If the difference is fundamental then I feel the public should also be made aware of it. It would be detrimental to our work for Swaraj to keep them in the dark. I have said that I still stand by the system of Government envisaged in Hind Swaraj. These are not mere words.

Question: You have said in your article in the Harijan of July 15, under the caption ‘The Real Danger’ that Congressmen in general certainly do not know the kind of independence they want. Would you kindly give them a broad but comprehensive picture of the Independent India of your own conception?

Answer: I do not know that I have not, from time to time, given my idea of Indian independence. Since, however, this question is part of a series, it is better to answer it even at the risk of repetition.

Independence of India should mean independence of the whole of India, including what is called India of the States and the other foreign powers, French and Portuguese, who are there, I presume, by British sufferance. Independence must mean that of the people of India, not of those who are today ruling over them. The rulers should depend on the will of those who are under their heels. Thus, they have to be servants of the people, ready to do their will.

Independence must begin at the bottom. Thus, every village will be a republic or panchayat having full powers. It follows, therefore, that every village has to be self-sustained and capable of managing its affairs even to the extent of defending itself against the whole world.

reader: Is there any historical evidence as to the success of what you have called soul-force or truth-force? No instance seems to have happened of any nation having risen through soul-force. I still think that the evildoers will not cease doing evil without physical punishment.

editor: The poet Tulsidas has said ‘Of religion, pity or love is the root, as egotism of the body. Therefore, we should not abandon pity so long as we are alive.’ This appears to me to be a scientific truth. I believe in it as much as I believe in two and two being four. The force of love is the same as the force of the soul or truth. We have evidence of its working at every step. The universe would disappear without the existence of that force. But you ask for historical evidence. It is, therefore, necessary to know what history means. The Gujarati equivalent means: ‘It so happened.’ If that is the meaning of history, it is possible to give copious evidence. But, if it means the doings of kings and emperors, there can be no evidence of soul-force or passive resistance in such history. You cannot expect silver-ore in a tin-mine. History, as we know it, is a record of the wars of the world, and so there is a proverb among Englishmen that a nation which has no history, that is, no wars, is a happy nation.

reader: I appreciate your views about civilisation. I will have to think over them. I cannot take in all at once. What, then, holding the views you do, would you suggest for freeing India?

editor: I do not expect my views to be accepted all of a sudden. My duty is to place them before readers like yourself. Time can be trusted to do the rest. We have already examined the conditions for freeing India, but we have done so indirectly; we will now do so directly. It is a world-known maxim that the removal of the cause of a disease results in the removal of the disease itself. Similarly, if the cause of India's slavery be removed, India can become free.

reader: If Indian civilisation is, as you say, the best of all, how do you account for India's slavery?

editor: This civilisation is unquestionably the best, but it is to be observed that all civilisations have been on their trial. That civilisation which is permanent outlives it. Because the sons of India were found wanting, its civilisation has been placed in jeopardy. But its strength is to be seen in its ability to survive the shock. Moreover, the whole of India is not touched. Those alone who have been affected by western civilisation have become enslaved. We measure the universe by our own miserable foot-rule. When we are slaves, we think that the whole universe is enslaved.

reader: In the whole of our discussion, you have not demonstrated the necessity for education; we always complain of its absence among us. We notice a movement for compulsory education in our country. The Maharaja Gaekwar has introduced it in his territories. Every eye is directed towards them. We bless the Maharaja for it. Is all this effort, then, of no use?

editor: If we consider our civilisation to be the highest, I have regretfully to say that much of the effort you have described is of no use. The motive of the Maharaja and other great leaders who have been working in this direction is perfectly pure. They, therefore, undoubtedly deserve great praise. But we cannot conceal from ourselves the result that is likely to flow from their effort.

What is the meaning of education? If it simply means a knowledge of letters, it is merely an instrument, and an instrument may be well used or abused. The same instrument that may be used to cure a patient may be used to take his life, and so may a knowledge of letters. We daily observe that many men abuse it, and very few make good use of it, and, if this is a correct statement, we have proved that more harm has been done by it than good.

The ordinary meaning of education is a knowledge of letters. To teach boys reading, writing and arithmetic is called primary education. A peasant earns his bread honestly.

The framing of its argument makes Hind Swaraj an original work of modern Indian political philosophy. The argument is that India is in need of a systemic transformation – political, economic, ethical, aesthetic and spiritual. Being systemic in nature and affecting key aspects of national life, these transformations, if they are to succeed, should take place more or less simultaneously. Politics, economics, ethics, aesthetics and spirituality, according to Gandhi, should operate interactively and not in isolation from one another.

The argument for this is made in light of the theory of the ‘canonical aims of life’ (purusharthas) (see below). The use of this Indian intellectual framework makes Hind Swaraj the first text of modern Indian political philosophy. As such, it marks the beginning of the emancipation of the modern Indian political mind from dependency on Western frameworks for understanding India and its problems.

The argument hinges on four major themes – nationalism, civilisation, satyagraha and swaraj (the themes of ‘machinery’ or technology and education being subsumed under civilisation). Before we examine the way they are analysed, we need to mention briefly the book's dialogue form, and the historical identity of those engaged in the dialogue.

reader: You have said much about civilisation – enough to make me ponder over it. I do not now know what I should adopt and what I should avoid from the nations of Europe, but one question comes to my lips immediately. If civilisation is a disease, and if it has attacked the English nation, why has she been able to take India, and why is she able to retain it?

editor: Your question is not very difficult to answer, and we shall presently be able to examine the true nature of Swaraj; for I am aware that I have still to answer that question. I will, however, take up your previous question. The English have not taken India; we have given it to them. They are not in India because of their strength, but because we keep them. Let us now see whether these propositions can be sustained. They came to our country originally for purposes of trade. Recall the Company Bahadur. Who made it Bahadur? They had not the slightest intention at the time of establishing a kingdom. Who assisted the Company's officers? Who was tempted at the sight of their silver? Who bought their goods? History testifies that we did all this. In order to become rich all at once, we welcomed the Company's officers with open arms. We assisted them. If I am in the habit of drinking Bhang, and a seller thereof sells it to me, am I to blame him or myself?

reader: Just at present there is a Home Rule wave passing over India. All our countrymen appear to be pining for National Independence. A similar spirit pervades them even in South Africa. Indians seem to be eager after acquiring rights. Will you explain your views in this matter?

editor: You have well put the question, but the answer is not easy. One of the objects of a newspaper is to understand the popular feeling and to give expression to it; another is to arouse among the people certain desirable sentiments; and the third is fearlessly to expose popular defects. The exercise of all these three functions is involved in answering your question. To a certain extent, the people's will has to be expressed; certain sentiments will need to be fostered, and defects will have to be brought to light. But, as you have asked the question, it is my duty to answer it.

reader: Do you then consider that a desire for Home Rule has been created among us?

editor: That desire gave rise to the National Congress. The choice of the word ‘National’ implies it.

reader: That, surely, is not the case. Young India seems to ignore the Congress. It is considered to be an instrument for perpetuating British Rule.

editor: That opinion is not justified. Had not the Grand Old Man of India prepared the soil, our young men could not have even spoken about Home Rule.

Hind Swaraj is Gandhi's seminal work. It is also a work which he himself translated from Gujarati into English: no other work of his, not even the Autobiography (translated by his secretary), enjoys this distinction. As such, the English text of this work, which is being presented here, possesses an authority all of its own. It was this text that Tolstoy and Romain Rolland, Nehru and Rajaji read and commented upon. It was through this, not the Gujarati text, that he hoped, as he put it, ‘to use the British race’ for transmitting his ‘mighty message of ahimsa’ to the rest of the world (Watson 1969, 176). And it was to this text that he returned throughout his career as if to the source of his inspiration.

Hind Swaraj is the seed from which the tree of Gandhian thought has grown to its full stature. For those interested in Gandhi's thought in a general way, it is the right place to start, for it is here that he presents his basic ideas in their proper relationship to one another. And for those who wish to study his thought more methodically, it remains the norm by which to assess the theoretical significance of his other writings, including the Autobiography.

SOME AUTHORITIES

The following books are recommended for perusal to follow up the study of the foregoing:

TESTIMONIES BY EMINENT MEN

The following extracts from Mr Alfred Webb's valuable collection, if the testimony given therein be true, show that the ancient Indian civilisation has little to learn from the modern:

Victor Cousin (1792–1867)

Founder of systematic eclecticism in philosophy

‘On the other hand, when we read with attention the poetical and philosophical movements of the East, above all, those of India, which are beginning to spread in Europe, we discover there so many truths, and truths so profound, and which make such a contrast with the meanness of the results at which the European genius has sometimes stopped, that we are constrained to bend the knee before that of the East, and to see in this cradle of the human race the native land of the highest philosophy.’

Editor's Note

For more than a decade, India has been among the fastest growing economies in the world. India's rise in the arena of information technology has had such an impact that outsourcing, in particular India taking over jobs from other countries, has become a significant factor in the world economy.