Reading Reflection 2

Sneha Thankam Alexander

According to Mahatma Gandhi, passive resistance, the means of the soul out of love and truth, is superior to violence in attaining freedom. Freedom or Swaraj to him does not mean freedom from the oppressors but, freedom from oppression itself. By oppression he does not mean being deprived of material gains and power but, the condition of not being able to follow the instincts of one’s own soul and in the context of India, not being able to pursue the Indian civilization. He goes to the extreme level of this thought and it is clear when he says that the nation is ready to accept any English who is ready to be Indianized.

In order to adopt passive resistance a person should be daring enough to accept the results that can also be death, has to have control over one’s worldly pleasures and desires of the heart. The concept of passive resistance is to make the oppressor realize the imposition of their power and will on the people is of no effect and is purposeless. He sends out the message that people should not consider themselves as slaves but, as people with the same dignity or even more when they are to demand their rights. When they use violence it is because of the inferior feeling of being slaves and of the need of overthrow of the oppressor. To stop the circle of oppression and violence, if we use passive resistance the oppressor himself will get tired of the use of violence.

As mentioned earlier the prerequisites for passive resistance are courage and self control. Do these prerequisites inflict violence on oneself? When he says that freedom should be attained without bloodshed and without inflicting pain on others but, at the same time asking people to sacrifice their lives, their pleasures, and passions is his concept of passive resistance going against humanity. If humanity is about equal importance to each life and pursuit of one’s choice and happiness and not just about pursuing one’s civilization then the concept of passive resistance should be rethought.

Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule

Sweta Kumari

Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule

What does slavery mean and what does freedom refer to? Slavery, in its general meaning, refers to being under others domination where one does not have right to choose for themselves. However, for Gandhi slavery have a specific meaning and he refers to it in Indian context. According to him those who do not value Indian civilization are enslaved because they succumb to Western or foreign civilization. To state Gandhi, “Those alone who have been affected by Western civilization have become enslaved”. To him, one does not get freedom by driving away the colonizers or by having one’s own government but by having the ability to rule oneself. Freedom is something that should be realized by everyone in their own minds and this is what Gandhi calls Swaraj.

Gandhi puts Indian civilization above all and his goal is to secure its existence. He defines civilization as the mode of conduct which shown man the path of duty. The primary goal is not to drive away English, but to secure that welfare of the whole Indian people. Gandhi even goes further and states that if he could do that even in the hands of English he would surely go for it. Gandhi’s thoughts about freedom and the ways it should be attained are very different from the other philosophers who justify violence in order to gain freedom from colonizers. Gandhi is concerned about the ways because different ways of performing an action give out different results.

I agree with Gandhi’s idea of choosing the right way of performing an action in order to get desirable results. Since fighting with arms also involves one’s own destruction it is important to think what our end goal is and what can we sacrifice for that. Generally, fighting violence with violence results in further violence and the cycle goes on therefore, choosing the right way with the clear goals in mind is crucial for freedom fighting.

Reflection on Hind Swaraj

S.Mehala

Reflection on Hind Swaraj

               Gandhi throughout his article, Hind Swaraj argues that passive resistance is the best way to obtain freedom from colonialism. He says “what we obtain is the result of the means we adopt. Fair means alone, can produce fair results” (119). One’s resistance should not make others to suffer, at the same time the resistance method must be powerful and doable to everyone. Passive resistance is a method of securing rights by personal suffering. It does not need a single drop of blood. Therefore, it is a fair mean to be adopted. Gandhi believes that this method is stronger than the armed force and it is suitable to everyone.

Considering Gandhi’s and Fanon’s ideas, both are contrast. Fanon argues that violence can be removed only through violence. Implying Fanon’s method for the independence of India, it would necessitate thousands of Indians to be armed. According to Gandhi, to arm India in large scale is to Europeanize the country, which should be avoided. Gandhi argues that to overcome from decolonization, the native must follow passive resistance, which is a non-violent method.  In addition to that, Fanon believes that the reason behind the violence is that, one state’s people cannot accept another state’s people. However in Gandhi’s perspective, the British came to colonize India because they are tempted by the Indian civilization, therefore as long as the British do not spoil the civilization they are welcomed to stay in India. Besides, Fanon focuses only in freeing the people from the settlers as he believes that no one wants to be dominated or ruled by others who do not belong to their own nation. Yet, Gandhi thinks that asking for freedom is to see the happiness in the people’s face. Even after chasing the British, the condition of the general people will remain the same. Therefore, what he considers to be the freedom of India is not only to be free from British, but also free from Indian princes.

However, an objection on Gandhi’s argument can be made.  Gandhi suggests that love- force or soul –force are much powerful than armed force. He uses an example of thief to explain two different means. In the first example, the affected person uses violence against the thief which worsened the situation. In the second example, the affected person uses force of love, which made the situation better and solved the problem. This argument is not applicable in the context of colonialism. According to his example, the thief became a thief because of some pity full reason, but are there any pity full reasons for the colonizers to excuse them and to use love force? In the case of thief, he is impressed by the kind heart of the victim. Nevertheless, the colonizers will never get impressed by these things. If they would have had that much sensitive hearts, they would have never been able to colonize a country.

Passive Resistance: A Means of Restoring Humanity

Asma Noureen

Mohandas Gandhi believes in duty-based ethics as he argues against the violent means for decolonization because the independence achieved by the fearful means might be temporary.  Therefore, he, in “Hind Sawraj, or Indian Home Rule,” argues that we cannot justify the means by the ends because there is an “inviolable connection” between the means and the ends as we cannot make the God happy by using the means of Satan (117). His perspective is totally opposite of the two previous authors: Fanon and Freire, who justify the violence in order to decolonize or dispose of the oppressor.

I feel that Gandhi’s main goal in achieving independence of India is somewhat similar to that of the freire’s as both want to restore humanity by disposing off the oppressor. Even though Gandhi does not explicitly states it, but by the example of bringing the thief on right path through treating him with kindness seems to me an act of restoring humanity. However, Gandhi and freire use two very different approaches to achieve the same goal. According to Gandhi, the ends achieved by inhumane or violent means can never be humane. Therefore, to achieve the independence of home rule country, India, the means should also be self ruled, which according to him is passive resistance. Similar to Freire, he is also concerned with the issue of oppressed becoming the oppressor as he does not want the people of India to be ruled by the Indian princes after the English leave (115). His motive for the Indian nation is to obtain self-rule so that they can be happier and more prosperous. Examining the two ways: violence and passive resistance, I think that non-violent means are more effective to achieve the goal of restoring humanity by the independence the oppressed or colonized.

However, I have some concerns about the Gandhi’s point of view of breaking laws when we do not like certain laws (122-123). Is there any criterion for passively resisting/breaking the laws? Only because you do not like them, sometimes, is not a legitimate reason to break the law. For example, while driving the car, I do not want to stop on the stop sign just because I do not like it, does not give me the legitimacy of breaking the traffic law. Is there any limit of breaking the rules? Otherwise anyone who does not like any specific law for his/her personal benefit will break the law. Will that be counted passive resistance? Resistance from what? If all the people start doing this, then what is the need of making laws?

Waruni Weraluanga

Hind Swaraj, or Indian Home Rule – Mohandas K.Gandhi

“The force of arm is powerless when matched against the force of love or the soul”- Mohandas K.Gandhi

In his article, “Hind Swaraj, or Indian Home Rule”, by Mohandas K. Gandhi oppose the use of violence. Instead of using violence he suggests the use of passive resistance to overcome the obstacles where people ought to take violent actions. He brings in more philosophical analysis against the use of violence. He affirms that the ethics are more powerful than any power. Focusing on the colonial power and the Indian homeland he states that the good conduct and the satisfaction of people will not lead to harm and further violence. Furthermore, Gandhi explains how means matter according to different situations.

In between the discussion given in the article with the reader and the editor, the reader is suggesting the editor to use arms against the enemies (English colonizers).However; the editor claims that the use of arms will not gain anything. Here the author exemplifies the case of Italy to illustrate that use of arm did not make the Italian people happy rather than the condition of the people remained same.

Gandhi states that it is a “cowardly thought” to use violence and kill others and “Those who rise to power by murder will certainly not make the nation happy”. Thus, this contradicts what Walzer and Machiavelli was arguing in their writings, which justify the violence used by the leaders of the state in order to protect the state. On the one hand, Gandhi also talks about the fear of freedom that Freire mentioned in his writing. He writes that the Use of violence might increase the situation rather than decreasing the threat ,and it will increase the number of people who will us arms, which can be a form of ‘fear of freedom’. On the other hand, Fanon and Freire justify the violence against the colonizers or the oppressors, while Gandhi is denying violence and suggesting the use of Passive resistance.

This article also discusses some of the theories that we discuss in class. The author talks about the Duties corresponding to the rights, power, ethical conduct, and how means matter more than the ends.

Even though, Gandhi is best known for his theory of non violence it is problematic in real life. According to Gandhi, “Fair means alone can produce fair results” but is this possible in the real world, can be a question raised against his theory of non violence.