Add files from ibiblio as of 2025-03-08 22:30:09HEADmain

1 files changed, 3327 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/40461-0.txt b/40461-0.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..dbeadef
--- /dev/null
+++ b/40461-0.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,3327 @@
+*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 40461 ***
+
+  INDIAN HOME RULE
+
+  BY
+  M. K. GANDHI
+
+  FIFTH EDITION
+  AS. 6
+
+  GANESH & Co., MADRAS
+
+
+
+
+Books by C. F. Andrews
+
+
+The Claim for Independence
+
+    Within or without the British Empire      =Price As. 8.=
+
+
+Non-Co-operation
+
+    The Whys and Wherefores      =Price As. 8.=
+
+
+Indians in South Africa
+
+    Helots within the British Empire      =Price As. 8.=
+
+
+The Drink and Opium Evil
+
+    _Miss La Molte says_: "A nation that can subjugate 300,000,000
+    helpless Indian people, and then turn them into drug addicts, for
+    the sake of revenue, is a nation, which commits a cold-blooded
+    atrocity unparalleled by any atrocity committed in the rage and heat
+    of war."
+
+    =Price As. 4.=
+
+
+How India can be Free
+
+    "India has no need to take the sword in order to be free: She has a
+    much more powerful weapon ready to her hand. If once her people
+    unitedly decide to be free they can be free."
+
+    =Price As. 4.=
+
+
+Indian Independence:
+
+The immediate need
+
+    To be in subjection to a band of foreign rulers, if Seeley's
+    historical maxim is true, cannot but lead to national deterioration.
+    This is why the need for independence is so immediate. This is why
+    it cannot be postponed. The verdict of the most sober English
+    Historians is this, that India, without a single hand being lifted
+    to strike a single blow, can determine her own destiny. The sheer
+    weight of numbers,--three hundred and twenty millions against a few
+    thousands,--is so great, that if these numbers could once speak with
+    one mind, their will must be carried out.
+
+    =Price As. 8.=
+
+
+GANESH & Co., Publishers, Madras.
+
+
+
+
+  INDIAN HOME RULE
+
+  BY
+  M. K. GANDHI
+
+  Reprinted with a new foreword by the author
+
+  FIFTH EDITION
+
+  GANESH & Co., MADRAS
+  1922
+
+
+  MADRAS:
+  THE MODERN PRINTING WORKS, MOUNT ROAD.
+
+
+
+
+NOTE
+
+
+The doctrine of violence is more widely believed in than is generally
+realised. The votaries of violence can be divided into two classes.
+Some, a small and dwindling class, believe in it and are prepared to act
+according to their faith. Others, a very large class always, and now,
+after bitter experiences of the failure of constitutional agitation,
+larger than ever, believe in violence, but that belief does not lead
+them to action. It disables them from work on any basis other than
+force. The belief in violence serves to dissuade them from all other
+kinds of work or sacrifice. In both cases the evil is great.
+
+There can be no reconstruction or hope for this land of ours, unless we
+eradicate the worship of force in all its forms, and establish work on a
+basis other than violence. A refutation of the doctrine of violence is,
+in the present situation of the affairs of our country, more necessary
+than ever.
+
+To this end, nothing better can be conceived than the publication and
+wide distribution of Mr. Gandhi's famous book.
+
+It was extremely patriotic of Messrs. Ganesh and Company to have readily
+agreed to undertake the work when they were approached with the request.
+
+  Satyagrah Sabha, }
+    Madras,        } C. RAJAGOPALACHAR.
+    6-6-19.        }
+
+
+
+
+FOREWORD
+
+
+I have re-read this booklet more than once. The value at the present
+moment lies in re-printing it as it is. But if I had to revise it, there
+is only one word I would alter in accordance with a promise made to an
+English friend. She took exception to my use of the word 'prostitute' in
+speaking of the Parliament. Her fine taste recoiled from the indelicacy
+of the expression. I remind the reader that the booklet purports to be a
+free translation of the original which is in Gujarati.
+
+After years of endeavour to put into practice the views expressed in the
+following pages, I feel that the way shown therein is the only true way
+to Swaraj. Satyagrah--the law of love is the Law of life. Departure from
+it leads to disintegration. A firm adherence to it leads to
+regeneration.
+
+BOMBAY,           }
+_28th May, 1919_. } M. K. GANDHI.
+
+
+
+
+HIND SWARAJ
+
+OR
+
+THE INDIAN HOME RULE
+
+_Reply to Critics_
+
+
+It is certainly my good fortune that this booklet of mine is receiving
+wide attention. The original is in Gujarati. It had a chequered career.
+It was first published in the columns of the 'Indian Opinion' of South
+Africa. It was written in 1908 during my return voyage from London to
+South Africa in answer to the Indian school of violence, and its
+prototype in South Africa. I came in contact with every known Indian
+anarchist in London. Their bravery impressed me, but I feel that their
+zeal was misguided. I felt that violence was no remedy for India's ills,
+and that her civilization required the use of a different and higher
+weapon for self-protection. The _Satyagrah_ of South Africa was still an
+infant hardly two years old. But it had developed sufficiently to permit
+me to write of it with some degree of confidence. It was so much
+appreciated that it was published as a booklet. It attracted some
+attention in India. The Bombay Government prohibited its circulation. I
+replied by publishing its translation. I thought that it was due to my
+English friends that they should know its contents. In my opinion it is
+a book which can be put into the hands of a child. It teaches the gospel
+of love in the place of that of hate. It replaces violence with
+self-sacrifice. It pits soul force against brute force. It has gone
+through several editions and I commend it to those who would care to
+read it. I withdraw nothing except one word of it, and that in deference
+to a lady friend. I have given the reason for the alteration in the
+preface to the Indian edition.
+
+The booklet is a severe condemnation of 'modern civilization.' It was
+written in 1908. My conviction is deeper to-day than ever. I feel that
+if India would discard 'modern civilization' she can only gain by doing
+so.
+
+But I would warn the reader against thinking that I am to-day aiming at
+the Swaraj described therein. I know that India is not ripe for it. It
+may seem an impertinence to say so. But such is my conviction. I am
+individually working for the self-rule pictured therein. But to-day my
+corporate activity is undoubtedly devoted to the attainment of
+Parliamentary Swaraj in accordance with the wishes of the people of
+India. I am not aiming at destroying railways or hospitals, though I
+would certainly welcome their natural destruction. Neither railways nor
+hospitals are a test of a high and pure civilization. At best they are a
+necessary evil. Neither adds one inch to the moral stature of a nation.
+Nor am I aiming at a permanent destruction of law courts, much as I
+regard it as a 'consummation devoutly to be wished for.' Still less am I
+trying to destroy all machinery and mills. It requires a higher
+simplicity and renunciation than the people are to-day prepared for.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The only part of the programme which is now being carried out in its
+entirety is that of non-violence. But I regret to have to confess that
+even that is not being carried out in the spirit of the book. If it
+were, India would establish Swaraj in a day. If India adopted the
+doctrine of love as an active part of her religion and introduced it in
+her politics, Swaraj would descend upon India from heaven. But I am
+painfully aware that that event is far off as yet.
+
+I offer these comments because I observe that much is being quoted from
+the booklet to discredit the present movement. I have even seen writings
+suggesting that I am playing a deep game, that I am using the present
+turmoil to foist my fads on India, and am making religious experiments
+at India's expense. I can only answer that _Satyagrah_ is made of
+sterner stuff. There is nothing reserved and nothing secret in it. A
+portion of the whole theory of life described in 'Hind Swaraj' is
+undoubtedly being carried into practice. There is no danger attendant
+upon the whole of it being practised. But it is not right to scare away
+people by reproducing from my writings passages that are irrelevant to
+the issue before the country.
+
+M. K. GANDHI,
+_Young India, 26th January, 1921_.
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS
+
+
+   CHAP.                           PAGE
+
+      I The Congress and Its Officials      11
+
+     II The Partition of Bengal      18
+
+    III The Discontent and Unrest      21
+
+     IV What is Swaraj?      22
+
+      V The Condition of England      26
+
+     VI Civilization      30
+
+    VII Why was India Lost?      35
+
+   VIII The condition of India      39
+
+     IX Do. Railways      43
+
+      X Do. Hindus and Mahomedans      47
+
+     XI Do. Lawyers      55
+
+    XII Do. Doctors      60
+
+   XIII What is True Civilization?      63
+
+    XIV How can India become Free?      67
+
+     XV Italy and India      71
+
+    XVI Brute Force      75
+
+   XVII Passive Resistance      84
+
+  XVIII Education      97
+
+    XIX Machinery      105
+
+     XX Conclusion      110
+
+        Appendices      123
+
+
+
+
+INDIAN HOME RULE
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER I
+
+THE CONGRESS AND ITS OFFICIALS
+
+
+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. How can we forget what Mr. Hume has written, how he has
+lashed us into action, and with what effort he has awakened us, in order
+to achieve the objects of the Congress? Sir William Wedderburn has given
+his body, mind and money to the same cause. His writings are worthy of
+perusal to this day. Professor Gokhale, in order to prepare the Nation,
+embraced poverty and gave twenty years of his life. Even now, he is
+living in poverty. The late Justice Buddrudin Tyebji was also one of
+those who, through the Congress, sowed the seed of Home Rule. Similarly
+in Bengal, Madras, the Punjab and other places, there have been lovers
+of India and members of the Congress, both Indian and English.
+
+
+READER: Stay, stay, you are going too far, you are straying away from my
+question. I have asked you about Home or Self-Rule; you are discussing
+foreign rule. I do not desire to hear English names, and you are giving
+me such names. In these circumstances, I do not think we can ever meet.
+I shall be pleased if you will confine yourself to Home Rule. All other
+wise talk will not satisfy me.
+
+EDITOR: You are impatient. I cannot afford to be likewise. If you will
+bear with me for a while, I think you will find that you will obtain
+what you want. Remember the old proverb that the tree does not grow in
+one day. The fact that you have checked me, and that you do not want to
+hear about the well-wishers of India, shows that, for you at any rate,
+Home Rule is yet far away. If we had many like you, we would never make
+any advance. This thought is worthy of your attention.
+
+
+READER: It seems to me that you simply want to put me off by talking
+round and round. Those whom you consider to be well-wishers of India are
+not such in my estimation. Why, then, should I listen to your discourse
+on such people? What has he whom you consider to be the father of the
+nation done for it? He says that the English Governors will do justice,
+and that we should co-operate with them.
+
+EDITOR: I must tell you with all gentleness that it must be a matter of
+shame for us that you should speak about that great man, in terms of
+disrespect. Just look at his work. He has dedicated his life to the
+service of India. We have learned what we know from him. It was the
+respected Dadabhai who taught us that the English had sucked our
+life-blood. What does it matter that, to-day, his trust is still in the
+English nation? Is Dadabhai less to be honoured because, in the
+exuberance of youth, we are prepared to go a step further? Are we, on
+that account, wiser than he? It is a mark of wisdom not to kick against
+the very step from which we have risen higher. The removal of a step
+from a staircase brings down the whole of it. When, out of infancy we
+grow into youth, we do not despise infancy, but, on the contrary, we
+recall with affection the days of our childhood. If, after many years of
+study, a teacher were to teach me something, and if I were to build a
+little more on the foundation laid by that teacher, I would not, on that
+account, be considered wiser than the teacher. He would always command
+my respect. Such is the case with the Grand Old Man of India. We must
+admit that he is the author of Nationalism.
+
+
+READER: You have spoken well. I can now understand that we must look
+upon Mr. Dadabhai with respect. Without him and men like him, we would
+probably not have the spirit that fires us. How can the same be said of
+Professor Gokhale? He has constituted himself a great friend of the
+English; he says that we have to learn a great deal from them, that we
+have to learn their political wisdom, before we can talk of Home Rule.
+I am tired of reading his speeches.
+
+EDITOR: If you are tired, it only betrays your impatience. We believe
+that those who are discontented with the slowness of their parents, and
+are angry because the parents would not run with their children, are
+considered disrespectful to their parents. Professor Gokhale occupies
+the place of a parent. What does it matter if he cannot run with us? A
+nation that is desirous of securing Home Rule cannot afford to despise
+its ancestors. We shall become useless if we lack respect for our
+elders. Only men with mature thoughts are capable of ruling themselves
+and not the hasty-tempered. Moreover, how many Indians were there like
+Professor Gokhale, when he gave himself to Indian education? I verily
+believe that whatever Professor Gokhale does he does with pure motives
+and with a view to serving India. His devotion to the Motherland is so
+great, that he would give his life for it if necessary. Whatever he says
+is said not to flatter anyone but because he believes it to be true. We
+are bound, therefore, to entertain the highest regard for him.
+
+
+READER: Are we, then, to follow him in every respect?
+
+EDITOR: I never said any such thing. If we conscientiously differed from
+him, the learned Professor himself would advise us to follow the
+dictates of our conscience rather than him. Our chief purpose is not to
+cry down his work, but to believe that he is infinitely greater than we,
+and to feel assured that compared with his work for India, ours is
+infinitesimal. Several newspapers write disrespectfully of him. It is
+our duty to protest against such writings. We should consider men like
+Professor Gokhale to be the pillars of Home Rule. It is a bad habit to
+say that another man's thoughts are bad and ours only are good, and that
+those holding different views from ours are the enemies of the country.
+
+
+READER: I now begin to understand somewhat your meaning. I shall have to
+think the matter over, but what you say about Mr. Hume and Sir William
+Wedderburn is beyond comprehension.
+
+EDITOR: The same rule holds good for the English as for the Indians. I
+can never subscribe to the statement that all Englishmen are bad. Many
+Englishmen desire Home Rule for India. That the English people are
+somewhat more selfish than others is true, but that does not prove that
+every Englishman is bad. We who seek justice will have to do justice to
+others. Sir William does not wish ill to India--that should be enough
+for us. As we proceed, you will see that, if we act justly, India will
+be sooner free. You will see, too, that, if we shun every Englishman as
+an enemy, Home Rule will be delayed. But if we are just to them, we
+shall receive their support in our progress towards the goal.
+
+
+READER: All this seems to me at present to be simply nonsensical.
+English support and the obtaining of Home Rule are two contradictory
+things. How can the English people tolerate Home Rule for us? But I do
+not want you to decide this question for me just yet. To pass time over
+it is useless. When you have shown how we can have Home Rule, perhaps I
+shall understand your views. You have prejudiced me against you by
+discoursing on English help. I would, therefore, beseech you not to
+continue this subject.
+
+EDITOR: I have no desire to do so. That you are prejudiced against me is
+not a matter for much anxiety. It is well that I should say unpleasant
+things at the commencement, it is my duty patiently to try to remove
+your prejudice.
+
+
+READER: I like that last statement. It emboldens me to say what I like.
+One thing still puzzles me. I do not understand how the Congress laid
+the foundation of Home Rule.
+
+EDITOR: Let us see. The Congress brought together Indians from different
+parts of India, and enthused us with the idea of Nationality. The
+Government used to look upon it with disfavour. The Congress has always
+insisted that the Nation should control revenue and expenditure. It has
+always desired self-government after the Canadian model. Whether we can
+get it or not, whether we desire it or not, and whether there is not
+something more desirable, are different questions. All I have to show is
+that the Congress gave us a foretaste of Home Rule. To deprive it of the
+honour is not proper, and for us to do so would not only be ungrateful,
+but retard the fulfilment of our object. To treat the Congress as an
+institution inimical to our growth as a Nation would disable us from
+using that body.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER II
+
+THE PARTITION OF BENGAL
+
+
+READER: Considering the matter as you put it, it seems proper to say
+that the foundation of Home Rule was laid by the Congress. But you will
+admit that it cannot be considered a real awakening. When and how did
+the awakening take place?
+
+EDITOR: The seed is never seen. It works underneath the ground, is
+itself destroyed, and the tree which rises above the ground is alone
+seen. Such is the case with the Congress. Yet, what you call the real
+awakening took place after the Partition of Bengal. For this we have to
+be thankful to Lord Curzon. At the time of the Partition, the people of
+Bengal reasoned with Lord Curzon, but, in the pride of power, he
+disregarded all their prayers--he took it for granted that Indians could
+only prattle, that they could never take any effective steps. He used
+insulting language, and, in the teeth of all opposition, partitioned
+Bengal. That day may be considered to be the day of the partition of the
+British Empire. The shock that the British power received through the
+Partition has never been equalled by any other act. This does not mean
+that the other injustices done to India are less glaring than that done
+by the Partition. The salt-tax is not a small injustice. We shall see
+many such things later on. But the people were ready to resist the
+Partition. At that time, the feeling ran high. Many leading Bengalis
+were ready to lose their all. They knew their power; hence the
+conflagration. It is now well nigh unquenchable; it is not necessary to
+quench it either. Partition will go, Bengal will be re-united, but the
+rift in the English barque will remain: it must daily widen. India
+awakened is not likely to fall asleep. Demand for abrogation of
+Partition is tantamount to demand for Home Rule. Leaders in Bengal know
+this, British officials realise it. That is why Partition still remains.
+As time passes, the Nation is being forged. Nations are not formed in a
+day; the formation requires years.
+
+
+READER: What, in your opinion, are the results of Partition?
+
+EDITOR: Hitherto we have considered that for redress of grievances, we
+must approach the Throne and, if we get no redress, we must sit still,
+except that we may still petition. After the Partition, people saw that
+petitions must be backed up by force, and that they must be capable of
+suffering. This new spirit must be considered to be the chief result of
+Partition. That spirit was seen in the outspoken writings in the press.
+That which the people said tremblingly and in secret began to be said
+and to be written publicly. The Swadeshi movement was inaugurated.
+People, young and old, used to run away at the sight of an English face;
+it now no longer awed them. They did not fear even a row, or being
+imprisoned. Some of the best sons of India are at present in banishment.
+This is something different from mere petitioning. Thus are the people
+moved. The spirit generated in Bengal has spread in the North to the
+Punjab, and in the South to Cape Comorin.
+
+
+READER: Do you suggest any other striking result?
+
+EDITOR: The Partition has not only made a rift in the English ship, but
+has made it in ours also. Great events always produce great results. Our
+leaders are divided into two parties: the Moderates and the Extremists.
+These may be considered as the slow party and the impatient party. Some
+call the Moderates the timid party, and the Extremists the bold party.
+All interpret the two words according to their pre-conceptions. This
+much is certain--that there has arisen an enmity between the two. The
+one distrusts the other, and imputes motives. At the time of the Surat
+Congress, there was almost a fight. I think that this division is not a
+good thing for the country, but I think also that such divisions will
+not last long. It all depends upon the leaders how long they will last.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER III
+
+DISCONTENT AND UNREST
+
+
+READER: Then you consider Partition to be a cause of the awakening? Do
+you welcome the unrest which has resulted from it?
+
+EDITOR: When a man rises from sleep, he twists his limbs and is
+restless. It takes some time before he is entirely awakened. Similarly,
+although the Partition has caused an awakening, the comatose has not yet
+disappeared. We are still twisting our limbs and still restless, and
+just as the state between sleep and awakening must be considered to be
+necessary, so may the present unrest in India be considered a necessary
+and, therefore, a proper state. The knowledge that there is unrest will,
+it is highly probable, enable us to outgrow it. Rising from sleep, we do
+not continue in a comatose state, but, according to our ability, sooner
+or later, we are completely restored to our senses. So shall we be free
+from the present unrest which no one likes.
+
+
+READER: What is the other form of unrest?
+
+EDITOR: Unrest is, in reality, discontent. The latter is only now
+described as unrest. During the Congress-period it was labelled
+discontent; Mr. Hume always said that the spread of discontent in India
+was necessary. This discontent is a very useful thing. So long as a man
+is contented with his present lot, so long is it difficult to persuade
+him to come out of it. Therefore it is that every reform must be
+preceded by discontent. We throw away things we have only when we cease
+to like them. Such discontent has been produced among us after reading
+the great works of Indians and Englishmen. Discontent has led to unrest,
+and the latter has brought about many deaths, many imprisonments, many
+banishments. Such a state of things will still continue. It must be so.
+All these may be considered good signs, but they may also lead to bad
+results.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER IV
+
+WHAT IS SWARAJ?
+
+
+READER: I have now learnt what the Congress has done to make India one
+nation, how the Partition has caused an awakening, and how discontent
+and unrest have spread through the land. I would now like to know your
+views on Swaraj. I fear that our interpretation is not the same.
+
+EDITOR: It is quite possible that we do not attach the same meaning to
+the term. You and I and all Indians are impatient to obtain Swaraj, but
+we are certainly not decided as to what it is. To drive the English out
+of India is a thought heard from many mouths, but it does not seem that
+many have properly considered why it should be so. I must ask you a
+question. Do you think that it is necessary to drive away the English,
+if we get all we want?
+
+
+READER: I should ask of them only one thing that is: "Please leave our
+country." If after they have complied with this request, their
+withdrawal from India means that they are still in India, I should have
+no objection. Then we would understand that, in our language, the word
+"gone" is equivalent to "remained."
+
+EDITOR: Well then, let us suppose that the English have retired. What
+will you do then?
+
+
+READER: That question cannot be answered at this stage. The state after
+withdrawal will depend largely upon the manner of it. If, as you assume,
+they retire, it seems to me we shall still keep their constitution, and
+shall carry on the government. If they simply retire for the asking, we
+should have an army, etc. ready at hand. We should, therefore, have no
+difficulty in carrying on the government.
+
+EDITOR: You may think so: I do not. But I will not discuss the matter
+just now. I have to answer your question, and that I can do well by
+asking you several questions. Why do you want to drive away the English?
+
+
+READER: Because India has become impoverished by their government. They
+take away our money from year to year. The most important posts are
+reserved for themselves. We are kept in a state of slavery. They behave
+insolently towards us, and disregard our feelings.
+
+EDITOR: If they do not take our money away, become gentle, and give us
+responsible posts, would you still consider their presence to be
+harmful?
+
+
+READER: That question is useless. It is similar to the question whether
+there is any harm in associating with a tiger, if he changes his nature.
+Such a question is sheer waste of time. When a tiger changes his nature,
+Englishmen will change theirs. This is not possible, and to believe it
+to be possible is contrary to human experience.
+
+EDITOR: Supposing we get self-government similar to what the Canadians
+and the South Africans have, will it be good enough?
+
+
+READER: That question also is useless. We may get it when we have the
+same powers; we shall then hoist our own flag. As is Japan, so must
+India be. We must own our navy, our army, and we must have our own
+splendour, and then will India's voice ring through the world.
+
+EDITOR: You have well drawn the picture. In effect it means this: that
+we want English rule without the Englishman. You want the tiger's
+nature, but not the tiger; that is to say, you would make India English,
+and when it becomes English, it will be called not Hindustan but
+Englistan. This is not the Swaraj that I want.
+
+
+READER: I have placed before you my idea of Swaraj as I think it should
+be. If the education we have received be of any use, if the works of
+Spencer, Mill and others be of any importance and if the English
+Parliament be the mother of Parliaments, I certainly think that we
+should copy the English people and this to such an extent that, just as
+they do not allow others to obtain a footing in their country, so we
+should not allow them or others to obtain it in ours. What they have
+done in their own country has not been done in any other country. It is,
+therefore, proper for us to import their institutions. But now I want to
+know your views.
+
+EDITOR: There is need for patience. My views will develop of themselves
+in the course of this discourse. It is as difficult for me to understand
+the true nature of Swaraj as it seems to you to be easy. I shall,
+therefore, for the time being, content myself with endeavouring to show
+that what you call Swaraj is not truly Swaraj.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER V
+
+THE CONDITION OF ENGLAND
+
+
+READER: Then from your statement, I deduce the Government of England is
+not desirable and not worth copying by us.
+
+EDITOR: Your deduction is justified. The condition of England at present
+is pitiable. I pray to God that India may never be in that plight. That
+which you consider to be the Mother of Parliaments is like a sterile
+woman and a prostitute. Both these are harsh terms, but exactly fit the
+case. That Parliament has not yet of its own accord done a single good
+thing, hence I have compared it to a sterile woman. The natural
+condition of that Parliament is such that, without outside pressure, it
+can do nothing. It is like a prostitute because it is under the control
+of ministers who change from time to time. To-day it is under Mr.
+Asquith, to-morrow it may be under Mr. Balfour.
+
+
+READER: You have said this sarcastically. The term "sterile woman" is
+not applicable. The Parliament, being elected by the people, must work
+under public pressure. This is its quality.
+
+EDITOR: You are mistaken. Let us examine it a little more closely. The
+best men are supposed to be elected by the people. The members serve
+without pay and, therefore, it must be assumed only for the public weal.
+The electors are considered to be educated and, therefore, we should
+assume that they would not generally make mistakes in their choice. Such
+a Parliament should not need the spur of petitions or any other
+pressure. Its work should be so smooth that its effect would be more
+apparent day by day. But, as a matter of fact, it is generally
+acknowledged that the members are hypocritical and selfish. Each thinks
+of his own little interest. It is fear that is the guiding motive. What
+is done to-day may be undone to-morrow. It is not possible to recall a
+single instance in which the finality can be predicted for its work.
+When the greatest questions are debated its members have been seen to
+stretch themselves and to dose. Sometimes the members talk away until
+the listeners are disgusted. Carlyle has called it the "talking shop of
+the world." Members vote for their party without a thought. Their
+so-called discipline binds them to it. If any member, by way of
+exception, gives an independent vote, he is considered a renegade. If
+the money and the time wasted by the Parliament were entrusted to a few
+good men, the English nation would be occupying to-day a much higher
+platform. The Parliament is simply a costly toy of the nation. These
+views are, by no means, peculiar to me. Some great English thinkers
+have expressed them. One of the members of the Parliament recently said
+that a true Christian could not become a member of it. Another said that
+it was a baby. And, if it has remained a baby after an existence of
+seven hundred years, when will it outgrow its babyhood?
+
+
+READER: You have set me thinking; you do not expect me to accept at once
+all you say. You give me entirely novel views. I shall have to digest
+them. Will you now explain the epithet "prostitute"?
+
+EDITOR: That you cannot accept my views at once is only right. If you
+will read the literature on this subject, you will have some idea of it.
+The Parliament is without a real master. Under the Prime Minister, its
+movement is not steady, but it is buffeted about like a prostitute. The
+Prime Minister is more concerned about his power than about the welfare
+of the Parliament. His energy is concentrated upon securing the success
+of his party. His care is not always that the Parliament shall do right.
+Prime Ministers are known to have made the Parliament do things merely
+for party advantage. All this is worth thinking over.
+
+
+READER: Then you are really attacking the very men whom we have hitherto
+considered to be patriotic and honest?
+
+EDITOR: Yes, that is true; I can have nothing against Prime Ministers,
+but what I have seen leads me to think that they cannot be considered
+really patriotic. If they are to be considered honest because they do
+not take what is generally known as bribery, let them be so considered,
+but they are open to subtler influences. In order to gain their ends,
+they certainly bribe people with honours. I do not hesitate to say that
+they have neither real honesty nor a living conscience.
+
+
+READER: As you express these views about the Parliament, I would like to
+hear you on the English people, so that I may have your views of their
+Government.
+
+EDITOR: To the English voters their newspaper is their Bible. They take
+cue from their newspapers, which latter are often dishonest. The same
+fact is differently interpreted by different newspapers, according to
+the party in whose interests they are edited. One newspaper would
+consider a great Englishman to be a paragon of honesty, another would
+consider him dishonest. What must be the condition of the people whose
+newspapers are of this type?
+
+
+READER: You shall describe it.
+
+EDITOR: These people change their views frequently. It is said that they
+change them every seven years. These views swing like the pendulum of a
+clock and are never steadfast. The people would follow a powerful orator
+or a man who gives them parties, receptions, etc. As are the people, so
+is their Parliament. They have certainly one quality very strongly
+developed. They will never allow their country to be lost. If any person
+were to cast an evil eye on it, they would pluck out his eyes. But that
+does not mean that the nation possesses every other virtue or that it
+should be imitated. If India copies England, it is my firm conviction
+that she will be ruined.
+
+
+READER: To what do you ascribe this state of England?
+
+EDITOR: It is not due to any peculiar fault of the English people, but
+the condition is due to modern civilization. It is a civilization only
+in name. Under it the nations of Europe are becoming degraded and ruined
+day by day.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VI
+
+CIVILIZATION
+
+
+READER: Now you will have to explain what you mean by civilization.
+
+EDITOR: It is not a question of what I mean. Several English writers
+refuse to call that, civilization which passes under that name. Many
+books have been written upon that subject. Societies have been formed to
+cure the nation of the evils of civilization. A great English writer has
+written a work called "Civilization: Its Cause and Cure." Therein he has
+called it a disease.
+
+
+READER: Why do we not know this generally?
+
+EDITOR: The answer is very simple. We rarely find people arguing against
+themselves. Those who are intoxicated by modern civilization are not
+likely to write against it. Their care will be to find out facts and
+arguments in support of it, and this they do unconsciously, believing it
+to be true. A man, whilst he is dreaming, believes in his dream; he is
+undeceived only when he is awakened from his sleep. A man labouring
+under the bane of civilization is like a dreaming man. What we usually
+read are the work of defenders of modern civilization, which undoubtedly
+claims among its votaries very brilliant and even some very good men.
+Their writings hypnotise us. And so, one by one, we are drawn into the
+vortex.
+
+
+READER: This seems to be very plausible. Now will you tell me something
+of what you have read and thought of this civilization.
+
+EDITOR: Let us first consider what state of things is described by the
+word "civilization." Its true test lies in the fact that people living
+in it make bodily welfare the object of life. We will take some
+examples. The people of Europe to-day live in better-built houses than
+they did a hundred years ago. This is considered an emblem of
+civilization, and this is also a matter to promote bodily happiness.
+Formerly, they wore skins, and used as their weapons spears. Now, they
+wear long trousers, and for embellishing their bodies they wear a
+variety of clothing, and, instead of spears, they carry with them
+revolvers containing five or more chambers. If people of a certain
+country, who have hitherto not been in the habit of wearing much
+clothing, boots, etc., adopt European clothing, they are supposed to
+have become civilised out of savagery. Formerly, in Europe, people
+ploughed their lands mainly by manual labour. Now, one man can plough a
+vast tract by means of steam-engines, and can thus amass great wealth.
+This is called a sign of civilization. Formerly, the fewest men wrote
+books, that were most valuable. Now, anybody writes and prints anything
+he likes and poisons people's minds. Formerly, men travelled in waggons;
+now they fly through the air, in trains at the rate of four hundred and
+more miles per day. This is considered the height of civilization. It
+has been stated that, as men progress, they shall be able to travel in
+airships and reach any part of the world in a few hours. Men will not
+need the use of their hands and feet. They will press a button, and they
+will have their clothing by their side. They will press another button,
+and they will have their newspaper. A third, and a motor-car will be in
+waiting for them. They will have a variety of delicately dished up food.
+Everything will be done by machinery. Formerly, when people wanted to
+fight with one another, they measured between them their bodily
+strength; now it is possible to take away thousands of lives by one man
+working behind a gun from a hill. This is civilization. Formerly, men
+worked in the open air only so much as they liked. Now, thousands of
+workmen meet together and for the sake of maintenance work in factories
+or mines. Their condition is worse than that of beasts. They are obliged
+to work, at the risk of their lives, at most dangerous occupations, for
+the sake of millionaires. Formerly, men were made slaves under physical
+compulsion, now they are enslaved by temptation of money and of the
+luxuries that money can buy. There are now diseases of which people
+never dreamt before, and an army of doctors is engaged in finding out
+their cures, and so hospitals have increased. This is a test of
+civilization. Formerly, special messengers were required and much
+expense was incurred in order to send letters; to-day, anyone can abuse
+his fellow by means of a letter for one penny. True, at the same cost,
+one can send one's thanks also. Formerly, people had two or three meals
+consisting of homemade bread and vegetables; now, they require something
+to eat every two hours, so that they have hardly leisure for anything
+else. What more need I say? All this you can ascertain from several
+authoritative books. These are all true tests of civilization. And, if
+any one speaks to the contrary, know that he is ignorant. This
+civilization takes note neither of morality nor of religion. Its
+votaries calmly state that their business is not to teach religion. Some
+even consider it to be a superstitious growth. Others put on the cloak
+of religion, and prate about morality. But, after twenty years'
+experience, I have come to the conclusion that immorality is often
+taught in the name of morality. Even a child can understand that in all
+I have described above there can be no inducement to morality.
+Civilization seeks to increase bodily comforts, and it fails miserably
+even in doing so.
+
+This civilization is irreligion, and it has taken such a hold on the
+people in Europe that those who are in it appear to be half mad. They
+lack real physical strength or courage. They keep up their energy by
+intoxication. They can hardly be happy in solitude. Women, who should be
+the queens of households, wander in the streets, or they slave away in
+factories. For the sake of a pittance, half a million women in England
+alone are labouring under trying circumstances in factories or similar
+institutions. This awful fact is one of the causes of the daily growing
+suffragette movement.
+
+This civilization is such that one has only to be patient and it will be
+self-destroyed. According to the teaching of Mahomed this would be
+considered a Satanic civilization. Hinduism calls it the Black Age. I
+cannot give you an adequate conception of it. It is eating into the
+vitals of the English nation. It must be shunned. Parliament are really
+emblems of slavery. If you will sufficiently think over this, you will
+entertain the same opinion, and cease to blame the English. They rather
+deserve our sympathy. They are a shrewd nation and I therefore believe
+that they will cast off the evil. They are enterprising and industrious
+and their mode of thought is not inherently immoral. Neither are they
+bad at heart. I, therefore, respect them. Civilization is not an
+incurable disease, but it should never be forgotten that the English
+people are at present afflicted by it.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VII
+
+WHY WAS INDIA LOST?
+
+
+READER: You have said much about civilization--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 civilization is a disease, and if it has attacked
+England 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? By blaming
+the seller shall I be able to avoid the habit? And, if a particular
+retailer is driven away, will not another take his place? A true servant
+of India will have to go to the root of the matter. If an excess of food
+has caused me indigestion, I will certainly not avoid it by blaming
+water. He is a true physician who probes the cause of disease and, if
+you pose as a physician for the disease of India, you will have to find
+out its true cause.
+
+
+READER: You are right. Now, I think you will not have to argue much with
+me to drive your conclusions home. I am impatient to know your further
+views. We are now on a most interesting topic. I shall, therefore,
+endeavour to follow your thought, and stop you when I am in doubt.
+
+EDITOR: I am afraid that, in spite of your enthusiasm, as we proceed
+further we shall have differences of opinion. Nevertheless, I shall
+argue only when you will stop me. We have already seen that the English
+merchants were able to get a footing in India because we encouraged
+them. When our princes fought among themselves, they sought the
+assistance of Company Bahadur. That corporation was versed alike in
+commerce and war. It was unhampered by questions of morality. Its object
+was to increase its commerce, and to make money. It accepted our
+assistance, and increased the number of its warehouses. To protect the
+latter it employed an army which was utilised by us also. Is it not then
+useless to blame the English for what we did at that time? The Hindus
+and the Mahomedans were at daggers drawn. This, too, gave the Company
+its opportunity; and thus we created the circumstances that gave the
+Company its control over India. Hence it is truer to say that we gave
+India to the English than that India was lost.
+
+
+READER: Will you now tell me how they are able to retain India?
+
+EDITOR: The causes that gave them India enable them to retain it. Some
+Englishmen state that they took, and they hold, India by the sword.
+Both these statements are wrong. The sword is entirely useless for
+holding India. We alone keep them. Napoleon is said to have described
+the English as a nation of shop-keepers. It is a fitting description.
+They hold whatever dominions they have for the sake of their commerce.
+Their army and their navy are intended to protect it. When the Transvaal
+offered no such attractions, the late Mr. Gladstone discovered that it
+was not right for the English to hold it. When it became a paying
+proposition, resistance led to war. Mr. Chamberlain soon discovered that
+England enjoyed a suzerainty over the Transvaal. It is related that some
+one asked the late President Kruger whether there was gold in the moon.
+He replied that it was highly unlikely, because, if there were, the
+English would have annexed it. Many problems can be solved by
+remembering that money is their God. Then it follows that we keep the
+English in India for our base self-interest. We like their commerce,
+they please us by their subtle methods, and get what they want from us.
+To blame them for this is to perpetuate their power. We further
+strengthen their hold by quarrelling amongst ourselves. If you accept
+the above statements, it is proved that the English entered India for
+the purposes of trade. They remain in it for the same purpose, and we
+help them to do so. Their arms and ammunition are perfectly useless. In
+this connection, I remind you that it is the British flag which is
+waving in Japan, and not the Japanese. The English have a treaty with
+Japan for the sake of their commerce, and you will see that, if they can
+manage it, their commerce will greatly expand in that country. They wish
+to convert the whole world into a vast market for their goods. That they
+cannot do so is true, but the blame will not be theirs. They will leave
+no stone unturned to reach the goal.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VIII
+
+THE CONDITION OF INDIA
+
+
+READER: I now understand why the English hold India. I should like to
+know your views about the condition of our country.
+
+EDITOR: It is a sad condition. In thinking of it, my eyes water and my
+throat get parched. I have grave doubts whether I shall be able
+sufficiently to explain what is in my heart. It is my deliberate opinion
+that India is being ground down not under the English heel but under
+that of modern civilization. It is groaning under the monster's terrible
+weight. There is yet time to escape it, but every day makes it more and
+more difficult. Religion is dear to me, and my first complaint is that
+India is becoming irreligious. Here I am not thinking of the Hindu and
+Mahomedan or the Zoroastrian religion, but of the religion which
+underlies all religions. We are turning away from God.
+
+
+READER: How so?
+
+EDITOR: There is a charge laid against us that we are a lazy people, and
+that the Europeans are industrious and enterprising. We have accepted
+the charge and we, therefore, wish to change our condition. Hinduism,
+Islamism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity and all other religions teach
+that we should remain passive about worldly pursuits and active about
+godly pursuits, that we should set a limit to our worldly ambition, and
+that our religious ambition should be illimitable. Our activity should
+be directed into the latter channel.
+
+
+READER: You seem to be encouraging religious charlatanism. Many a cheat
+has by talking in a similar strain led the people astray.
+
+EDITOR: You are bringing an unlawful charge against religion. Humbug
+there undoubtedly is about all religions. Where there is light, there is
+also shadow. I am prepared to maintain that humbugs in worldly matters
+are far worse than the humbugs in religion. The humbug of civilization
+that I endeavour to show to you is not to be found in religion.
+
+
+READER: How can you say that? In the name of religion Hindus and
+Mahomedans fought against one another. For the same cause Christians
+fought Christians. Thousands of innocent men have been murdered,
+thousands have been burned and tortured in its name. Surely, this is
+much worse than any civilization.
+
+EDITOR: I certainly submit that the above hardships are far more
+bearable than those of civilization. Everybody understands that the
+cruelties you have named are not part of religion, although they have
+been practised in its name: therefore there is no aftermath to these
+cruelties. They will always happen so long as there are to be found
+ignorant and credulous people. But there is no end to the victims
+destroyed in the fire of civilization. Its deadly effect is that people
+came under its scorching flames believing it to be all good. They become
+utterly irreligious and, in reality, derive little advantage from the
+world. Civilization is like a mouse gnawing, while it is soothing us.
+When its full effect is realised, we will see that religious
+superstition is harmless compared to that of modern civilization. I am
+not pleading for a continuance of religious superstitions. We will
+certainly fight them tooth and nail, but we can never do so by
+disregarding religion. We can only do so by appreciating and conserving
+the latter.
+
+
+READER: Then you will contend that the Pax Britannica is a useless
+encumbrance?
+
+EDITOR: You may see peace if you like; I see none.
+
+
+READER: You make light of the terror that Thugs, the Pindaris, the Bhils
+were to the country.
+
+EDITOR: If you will give the matter some thought, you will see that the
+terror was by no means such a mighty thing. If it had been a very
+substantial thing, the other people would have died away before the
+English advent. Moreover, the present peace is only nominal, for by it
+we have become emasculated and cowardly. We are not to assume that the
+English have changed the nature of the Pindaris and the Bhils. It is,
+therefore, better to suffer the Pindari peril than that some one else
+should protect us from it, and thus render us effeminate. I should
+prefer to be killed by the arrow of a Bhil than to seek unmanly
+protection. India without such protection was an India full of valour.
+Macaulay betrayed gross ignorance when he libelled Indians as being
+practically cowards. They never merited the charge. Cowards living in a
+country inhabited by hardy mountaineers, infested by wolves and tigers
+must surely find an early grave. Have you ever visited our fields? I
+assure you that our agriculturists sleep fearlessly on their farms even
+to-day, and the English, you and I would hesitate to sleep where they
+sleep. Strength lies in absence of fear, not in the quantity of flesh
+and muscle we may have on our bodies. Moreover, I must remind you who
+desire Home Rule that, after all, the Bhils, the Pindaris, the Assamese
+and the Thugs are our own countrymen. To conquer them is your and my
+work. So long as we fear our own brethren, we are unfit to reach the
+goal.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER IX
+
+THE CONDITION OF INDIA (_Continued_)
+
+RAILWAYS
+
+
+READER: You have deprived me of the consolation I used to have regarding
+peace in India.
+
+EDITOR: I have merely given you my opinion on the religious aspect, but
+when I give you my views as to the poverty of India you will perhaps
+begin to dislike me, because what you and I have hitherto considered
+beneficial for India no longer appears to me to be so.
+
+
+READER: What may that be?
+
+EDITOR: Railways, lawyers and doctors have impoverished the country, so
+much so that, if we do not wake up in time, we shall be ruined.
+
+
+READER: I do now indeed fear that we are not likely to agree at all. You
+are attacking the very institutions which we have hitherto considered to
+be good.
+
+EDITOR: It is necessary to exercise patience. The true inwardness of the
+evils of civilization you will understand with difficulty. Doctors
+assure us that a consumptive clings to life even when he is about to
+die. Consumption does not produce apparent hurt--it even produces a
+seductive colour about a patient's face, so as to induce the belief that
+all is well. Civilization is such a disease, and we have to be very
+wary.
+
+
+READER: Very well, then, I shall hear you on the railways.
+
+EDITOR: It must be manifest to you that, but for the railways, the
+English could not have such a hold on India as they have. The railways,
+too, have spread the bubonic plague. Without them, masses could not move
+from place to place. They are the carriers of plague germs. Formerly we
+had natural segregation. Railways have also increased the frequency of
+famines, because, owing to facility of means of locomotion, people sell
+out their grain, and it is sent to the dearest markets. People become
+careless, and so the pressure of famine increases. They accentuate the
+evil nature of man. Bad men fulfil their evil designs with greater
+rapidity. The holy places of India have become unholy. Formerly people
+went to these places with very great difficulty. Generally, therefore,
+only the real devotees visited such places. Now-a-days, rogues visit
+them in order to practise their roguery.
+
+
+READER: You have given an one-sided account. Good men can visit these
+places as well as bad men. Why do they not take the fullest advantage of
+the railways?
+
+EDITOR: Good travels at a snail's pace--it can, therefore, have little
+to do with the railways. Those who want to do good are not selfish, they
+are not in a hurry, they know that to impregnate people with good
+requires a long time. But evil has wings. To build a house takes time.
+Its destruction takes none. So the railways can become a distributing
+agency for the evil one only. It may be a debatable matter whether
+railways spread famines, but it is beyond dispute that they propagate
+evil.
+
+
+READER: Be that as it may, all the disadvantages of railways are more
+than counter-balanced by the fact that it is due to them that we see in
+India the new spirit of nationalism.
+
+EDITOR: I hold this to be a mistake. The English have taught us that we
+were not one nation before, and that it will require centuries before we
+become one nation. This is without foundation. We were one nation before
+they came to India. One thought inspired us. Our mode of life was the
+same. It was because we were one nation that they were able to establish
+one kingdom. Subsequently they divided us.
+
+
+READER: This requires an explanation.
+
+EDITOR: I do not wish to suggest that because we were one nation we had
+no differences, but it is submitted that our leading men travelled
+throughout India either on foot or in bullock-carts. They learned one
+another's languages, and there was no aloofness between them. What do
+you think could have been the intention of those far-seeing ancestors of
+ours who established Shethubindu-Rameshwar in the South, Juggernaut in
+the South-East and Hardwar in the North as places of pilgrimage? You
+will admit they were no fools. They knew that worship of God could have
+been performed just as well at home. They taught us that those whose
+hearts were aglow with righteousness had the Ganges in their own homes.
+But they saw that India was one undivided land so made by nature. They,
+therefore, argued that it must be one nation. Arguing thus, they
+established holy places in various parts of India, and fired the people
+with an idea of nationality in a manner unknown in other parts of the
+world. Any two Indians are one as no two Englishmen are. Only you and I
+and others who consider ourselves civilised and superior persons imagine
+that we are many nations. It was after the advent of railways that we
+began to believe in distinctions, and you are at liberty now to say that
+it is through the railways that we are beginning to abolish those
+distinctions. An opium-eater may argue the advantage of opium-eating
+from the fact that he began to understand the evil of the opium habit
+after having eaten it. I would ask you to consider well what I have said
+on the railways.
+
+
+READER: I will gladly do so, but one question occurs to me even now. You
+have described to me the India of the pre-Mahomedan period, but now we
+have Mahomedans, Parsees and Christians. How can they be one nation?
+Hindus and Mahomedans are old enemies. Our very proverbs prove it.
+Mahomedans turn to the West for worship whilst Hindus turn to the East.
+The former look down on the Hindus as idolators. The Hindus worship the
+cow, the Mahomedans kill her. The Hindus believe in the doctrine of
+non-killing, the Mahomedans do not. We thus meet with differences at
+every step. How can India be one nation?
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER X
+
+THE CONDITION OF INDIA (_Continued_)
+
+THE HINDUS AND THE MAHOMEDANS
+
+
+EDITOR: Your last question is a serious one; and yet, on careful
+consideration, it will be found to be easy of solution. The question
+arises because of the presence of the railways, of the lawyers and of
+the doctors. We shall presently examine the last two. We have already
+considered the railways. I should, however, like to add that man is so
+made by nature as to require him to restrict his movements as far as his
+hands and feet will take him. If we did not rush about from place to
+place by means of railways and such other maddening conveniences, much
+of the confusion that arises would be obviated. Our difficulties are of
+our own creation. God set a limit to a man's locomotive ambition in the
+construction of his body. Man immediately proceeded to discover means of
+overriding the limit. God gifted man with intellect that he might know
+his Maker. Man abused it, so that he might forget his Maker. I am so
+constructed that I can only serve my immediate neighbours, but in my
+conceit, I pretend to have discovered that I must with my body serve
+every individual in the Universe. In thus attempting the impossible, man
+comes in contact with different natures, different religions and is
+utterly confounded. According to this reasoning, it must be apparent to
+you that railways are a most dangerous institution. Man has there
+through gone further away from his Maker.
+
+
+READER: But I am impatient to hear your answer to my question. Has the
+introduction of Mahomedanism not unmade the nation?
+
+EDITOR: India cannot cease to be one nation because people belonging to
+different religions live in it. The introduction of foreigners does not
+necessarily destroy the nation, they merge in it. A country is one
+nation only when such a condition obtains in it. That country must have
+a faculty for assimilation. India has ever been such a country. In
+reality, there are as many religions as there are individuals, but those
+who are conscious of the spirit of nationality do not interfere with
+one another's religion. If they do, they are not fit to be considered a
+nation. If the Hindus believe that India should be peopled only by
+Hindus, they are living in dreamland. The Hindus, the Mahomedans, the
+Parsees and the Christians who have made India their country are
+fellow-countrymen, and they will have to live in unity if only for their
+own interest. In no part of the world are one nationality and one
+religion synonymous terms; nor has it ever been so in India.
+
+
+READER: But what about the inborn enmity between Hindus and Mahomedans?
+
+EDITOR: That phrase has been invented by our mutual enemy. When the
+Hindus and Mahomedans fought against one another, they certainly spoke
+in that strain. They have long since ceased to fight. How, then, can
+there be any inborn enmity? Pray remember this too, that we did not
+cease to fight only after British occupation. The Hindus flourished
+under Moslem sovereigns and Moslems under the Hindu. Each party
+recognised that mutual fighting was suicidal, and that neither party
+would abandon its religion by force of arms. Both parties, therefore,
+decided to live in peace. With the English advent the quarrels
+re-commenced.
+
+The proverbs you have quoted were coined when both were fighting; to
+quote them now is obviously harmful. Should we not remember that many
+Hindus and Mahomedans own the same ancestors, and the same blood runs
+through their veins? Do people become enemies because they change their
+religion? Is the God of the Mahomedan different from the God of the
+Hindu? Religions are different roads converging to the same point. What
+does it matter that we take different roads, so long as we reach the
+same goal? Wherein is the cause for quarrelling?
+
+Moreover, there are deadly proverbs as between the followers of Shiva
+and those of Vishnu, yet nobody suggests that these two do not belong to
+the same nation. It is said that the Vedic religion is different from
+Jainism, but the followers of the respective faiths are not different
+nations. The fact is that we have become enslaved, and, therefore,
+quarrel and like to have our quarrels decided by a third party. There
+are Hindu iconoclasts as there are Mahomedan. The more we advance in
+true knowledge, the better we shall understand that we need not be at
+war with those whose religion we may not follow.
+
+
+READER: Now I would like to know your views about cow protection.
+
+EDITOR: I myself respect the cow, that is I look upon her with
+affectionate reverence. The cow is the protector of India, because, it
+being an agricultural country, is dependant on the cow's progeny. She
+is a most useful animal in hundreds of ways. Our Mahomedan brethren will
+admit this.
+
+But, just as I respect the cow so do I respect my fellow-men. A man is
+just as useful as a cow, no matter whether he be a Mahomedan or a Hindu.
+Am I, then, to fight with or kill a Mahomedan in order to save a cow? In
+doing so, I would become an enemy as well of the cow as of the
+Mahomedan. Therefore, the only method I know of protecting the cow is
+that I should approach my Mahomedan brother and urge him for the sake of
+the country to join me in protecting her. If he would not listen to me,
+I should let the cow go for the simple reason that the matter is beyond
+my ability. If I were over full of pity for the cow, I should sacrifice
+my life to save her, but not take my brother's. This, I hold, is the law
+of our religion.
+
+When men become obstinate, it is a difficult thing. If I pull one way,
+my Moslem brother will pull another. If I put on a superior air, he will
+return the compliment. If I bow to him gently, he will do it much more
+so, and if he does not, I shall not be considered to have done wrong in
+having bowed. When the Hindus became insistent, the killing of cows
+increased. In my opinion, cow protection societies may be considered
+cow-killing societies. It is a disgrace to us that we should need such
+societies. When we forgot how to protect cows, I suppose we needed such
+societies.
+
+What am I to do when a blood-brother is on the point of killing a cow?
+Am I to kill him, or to fall down at his feet and implore him? If you
+admit that I should adopt the latter course, I must do the same to my
+Moslem brother.
+
+Who protects the cow from destruction by Hindus when they cruelly
+ill-treat her? Whoever reasons with the Hindus when they mercilessly
+belabour the progeny of the cow with their sticks? But this has not
+prevented us from remaining one nation.
+
+Lastly, if it be true that the Hindus believe in the doctrine of
+non-killing and the Mahomedans do not, what, I pray, is the duty of the
+former? It is not written that a follower of the religion of Ahimsa
+(non-killing) may kill a fellow-man. For him the way is straight. In
+order to save one being, he may not kill another. He can only
+plead--therein lies his sole duty.
+
+But does every Hindu believe in Ahimsa? Going to the root of the matter,
+not one man really practises such a religion, because we do destroy
+life. We are said to follow that religion because we want to obtain
+freedom from liability to kill any kind of life. Generally speaking, we
+may observe that many Hindus partake of meat and are not, therefore,
+followers of Ahimsa. It is, therefore, preposterous to suggest that the
+two cannot live together amicably because the Hindus believe in Ahimsa
+and the Mahomedans do not.
+
+These thoughts are put into our minds by selfish and false religious
+teachers. The English put the finishing touch. They have a habit of
+writing history; they pretend to study the manners and customs of all
+peoples. God has given us a limited mental capacity, but they usurp the
+function of the God-head and indulge in novel experiments. They write
+about their own researches in most laudatory terms and hypnotise us into
+believing them. We, in our ignorance, then fall at their feet.
+
+Those who do not wish to misunderstand things may read up the Koran, and
+will find therein hundreds of passages acceptable to the Hindus; and the
+Bhagavad-Gita contains passages to which not a Mahomedan can take
+exception. Am I to dislike a Mahomedan because there are passages in the
+Koran I do not understand or like? It takes two to make a quarrel. If I
+do not want to quarrel with a Mahomedan, the latter will be powerless to
+foist a quarrel on me, and, similarly, I should be powerless if a
+Mahomedan refuses his assistance to quarrel with me. An arm striking the
+air will become disjointed. If every one will try to understand the core
+of his own religion and adhere to it, and will not allow false teachers
+to dictate to him, there will be no room left for quarrelling.
+
+
+READER: But will the English ever allow the two bodies to join hands?
+
+EDITOR: This question arises out of your timidity. It betrays our
+shallowness. If two brothers want to live in peace is it possible for a
+third party to separate them? If they were to listen to evil counsels,
+we would consider them to be foolish. Similarly, we Hindus and
+Mahomedans would have to blame our folly rather than the English, if we
+allowed them to put us asunder. A claypot would break through impact; if
+not with one stone, then with another. The way to save the pot is not to
+keep it away from the danger point, but to bake it so that no stone
+would break it. We have then to make our hearts of perfectly baked clay.
+Then we shall be steeled against all danger. This can be easily done by
+the Hindus. They are superior in numbers, they pretend that they are
+more educated, they are, therefore, better able to shield themselves
+from attack on their amicable relations with the Mahomedans.
+
+There is mutual distrust between the two communities. The Mahomedans,
+therefore, ask for certain concessions from Lord Morley. Why should the
+Hindus oppose this? If the Hindus desisted, the English would notice it,
+the Mahomedans would gradually begin to trust the Hindus, and
+brotherliness would be the outcome. We should be ashamed to take our
+quarrels to the English. Everyone can find out for himself that the
+Hindus can lose nothing by desisting. That man who has inspired
+confidence in another has never lost anything in this world.
+
+I do not suggest that the Hindus and the Mahomedans will never fight.
+Two brothers living together often do so. We shall sometimes have our
+heads broken. Such a thing ought not to be necessary, but all men are
+not equiminded. When people are in a rage, they do many foolish things.
+These we have to put up with. But, when we do quarrel, we certainly do
+not want to engage counsel and to resort to English or any law-courts.
+Two men fight; both have their heads broken, or one only. How shall a
+third party distribute justice amongst them? Those who fight may expect
+to be injured.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XI
+
+THE CONDITION OF INDIA (_Continued_)
+
+LAWYERS
+
+
+READER: You tell me that, when two men quarrel, they should not go to a
+law-court. This is astonishing.
+
+EDITOR: Whether you call it astonishing or not, it is the truth. And
+your question introduces us to the lawyers and the doctors. My firm
+opinion is that the lawyers have enslaved India and they have
+accentuated the Hindu-Mahomedan dissensions, and have confirmed English
+authority.
+
+
+READER: It is easy enough to bring these charges, but it will be
+difficult for you to prove them. But for the lawyers, who would have
+shown us the road to independence? Who would have protected the poor?
+Who would have secured justice? For instance, the late Mr. Manomohan
+Ghose defended many a poor man free of charge. The Congress, which you
+have praised so much, is dependent for its existence and activity upon
+the work of the lawyers. To denounce such an estimable class of men is
+to spell justice injustice, and you are abusing the liberty of the press
+by decrying lawyers.
+
+EDITOR: At one time I used to think exactly like you. I have no desire
+to convince you that they have never done a single good thing. I honour
+Mr. Ghose's memory. It is quite true that he helped the poor. That the
+Congress owes the lawyers something is believable. Lawyers are also men,
+and there is something good in every man. Whenever instances of lawyers
+having done good can be brought forward, it will be found that the good
+is due to them as men rather than as lawyers. All I am concerned with is
+to show you that the profession teaches immorality; it is exposed to
+temptations from which few are saved.
+
+The Hindus and the Mahomedans have quarrelled. An ordinary man will ask
+them to forget all about it, he will tell them that both must be more
+or less at fault, and will advise them no longer to quarrel. They go to
+lawyers. The latter's duty is to side with their clients, and to find
+out ways and arguments in favour of the clients to which they (the
+clients) are often strangers. If they do not do so, they will be
+considered to have degraded their profession. The lawyers, therefore,
+will, as a rule advance quarrels, instead of repressing them. Moreover,
+men take up that profession, not in order to help others out of their
+miseries, but to enrich themselves. It is one of the avenues of becoming
+wealthy and their interest exists in multiplying disputes. It is within
+my knowledge that they are glad when men have disputes. Petty pleaders
+actually manufacture them. Their touts, like so many leeches, suck the
+blood of the poor people. Lawyers are men who have little to do. Lazy
+people, in order to indulge in luxuries, take up such professions. This
+is a true statement. Any other argument is a mere pretension. It is the
+lawyers who have discovered that theirs is an honourable profession.
+They frame laws as they frame their own praises. They decide what fees
+they will charge, and they put on so much side that poor people almost
+consider them to be heaven-born. Why do they want more fees than common
+labourers? Why are their requirements greater? In what way are they more
+profitable to the country than the labourers? Are those who do good
+entitled to greater payment? And, if they have done anything for the
+country for the sake of money, how shall it be counted as good?
+
+Those who know anything of the Hindu-Mahomedan quarrels know that they
+have been often due to the intervention of lawyers. Some families have
+been ruined through them; they have made brothers enemies.
+Principalities, having come under lawyer's power, have become loaded
+with debt. Many have been robbed of their all. Such instances can be
+multiplied.
+
+But the greatest injury they have done to the country is that they have
+tightened the English grip. Do you think that it would be possible for
+the English to carry on their government without law-courts? It is wrong
+to consider that courts are established for the benefit of the people.
+Those who want to perpetuate their power do so through the courts. If
+people were to settle their own quarrels, a third party would not be
+able to exercise any authority over them. Truly, men were less unmanly
+when they settled their disputes either by fighting or by asking their
+relatives to decide upon them. They became more unmanly and cowardly
+when they resorted to the courts of law. It was certainly a sign of
+savagery when they settled their disputes by fighting. Is it any the
+less so if I ask a third party to decide between you and me? Surely,
+the decision of a third party is not always right. The parties alone
+know who is right. We, in our simplicity and ignorance, imagine that a
+stranger, by taking our money, gives us justice.
+
+The chief thing, however, to be remembered is that, without lawyers,
+courts could not have been established or conducted, and without the
+latter the English could not rule. Supposing that there were only
+English Judges, English Pleaders and English Police, they could only
+rule over the English. The English could not do without Indian Judges
+and Indian pleaders. How the pleaders were made in the first instance
+and how they were favoured you should understand well. Then you will
+have the same abhorrence for the profession that I have. If pleaders
+were to abandon their profession, and consider it just as degrading as
+prostitution, English rule would break up in a day. They have been
+instrumental in having the charge laid against us that we love quarrels
+and courts, as fish love water. What I have said with reference to the
+pleaders necessarily applies to the judges; they are first cousins, and
+the one gives strength to the other.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XII
+
+THE CONDITION OF INDIA (_Continued_)
+
+DOCTORS
+
+
+READER: I now understand the lawyers; the good they may have done is
+accidental. I feel that the profession is certainly hateful. You,
+however, drag in these doctors also, how is that?
+
+EDITOR: The views I submit to you are those I have adopted. They are not
+original. Western writers have used stronger terms regarding both
+lawyers and doctors. One writer has likened the whole modern system to
+the Upas tree. Its branches are represented by parasitical professions,
+including those of law and medicine, and over the trunk has been raised
+the axe of true religion. Immorality is the root of the tree. So you
+will see that the views do not come right out of my mind, but they
+represent the combined experiences of many. I was at one time a great
+lover of the medical profession. It was my intention to become a doctor
+for the sake of the country. I no longer hold that opinion. I now
+understand why the medicine men (the vaids) among us have not occupied a
+very honourable status.
+
+The English have certainly effectively used the medical profession for
+holding us. English physicians are known to have used the profession
+with several Asiatic potentates for political gain.
+
+Doctors have almost unhinged us. Sometimes I think that quacks are
+better than highly qualified doctors. Let us consider: the business of a
+doctor is to take care of the body, or, properly speaking, not even
+that. Their business is really to rid the body of diseases that may
+afflict it. How do these diseases arise? Surely by our negligence or
+indulgence. I overeat, I have indigestion, I go to a doctor, he gives me
+medicine. I am cured, I overeat again, and I take his pills again. Had I
+not taken the pills in the first instance, I would have suffered the
+punishment deserved by me, and I would not have overeaten again. The
+doctor intervened and helped me to indulge myself. My body thereby
+certainly felt more at ease, but my mind became weakened. A continuance
+of a course of a medicine must, therefore, result in loss of control
+over the mind.
+
+I have indulged in vice, I contract a disease, a doctor cures me, the
+odds are that I shall repeat the vice. Had the doctor not intervened,
+nature would have done its work, and I would have acquired mastery over
+myself, would have been freed from vice, and would have become happy.
+
+Hospitals are institutions for propagating sin. Men take less care of
+their bodies, and immorality increases. European doctors are the worst
+of all. For the sake of a mistaken care of the human body, they kill
+annually thousands of animals. They practise vivisection. No religion
+sanctions this. All say that it is not necessary to take so many lives
+for the sake of our bodies.
+
+These doctors violate our religious instinct. Most of their medical
+preparations contain either animal fat or spirituous liquors; both of
+these are tabooed by Hindus and Mahomedans. We may pretend to be
+civilised, call religious prohibitions a superstition and wantonly
+indulge in what we like. The fact remains that the doctors induce us to
+indulge, and the result is that we have become deprived of self-control
+and have become effeminate. In these circumstances, we are unfit to
+serve the country. To study European medicine is to deepen our slavery.
+
+It is worth considering why we take up the profession of medicine. It is
+certainly not taken up for the purpose of serving humanity. We become
+doctors so that we may obtain honours and riches. I have endeavoured to
+show that there is no real service of humanity in the profession, and
+that it is injurious to mankind. Doctors make a show of their knowledge,
+and charge exorbitant fees. Their preparations, which are intrinsically
+worth a few pennies, cost shillings. The populace in its credulity and
+in the hope of ridding itself of some disease, allows itself to be
+cheated. Are not quacks then, whom we know, better than the doctors who
+put on an air of humaneness?
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XIII
+
+WHAT IS TRUE CIVILIZATION?
+
+
+READER: You have denounced railways, lawyers and doctors. I can see that
+you will discard all machinery. What, then, is civilization?
+
+EDITOR: The answer to that question is not difficult. I believe that the
+civilization India has evolved is not to be beaten in the world. Nothing
+can equal the seeds sown by our ancestors. Rome went, Greece shared the
+same fate, the might of the Pharaohs was broken, Japan has become
+westernised, of China nothing can be said, but India is still, somehow
+or other, sound at the foundation. The people of Europe learn their
+lessons from the writings of the men of Greece or Rome, which exist no
+longer in their former glory. In trying to learn from them, the
+Europeans imagine that they will avoid the mistakes of Greece and Rome.
+Such is their pitiable condition. In the midst of all this, India
+remains immovable, and that is her glory. It is a charge against India
+that her people are so uncivilised, ignorant and stolid, that it is not
+possible to induce them to adopt any changes. It is a charge really
+against our merit. What we have tested and found true on the anvil of
+experience, we dare not change. Many thrust their advice upon India, and
+she remains steady. This is her beauty; it is the sheet-anchor of our
+hope.
+
+Civilization is that mode of conduct which points out to man the path of
+duty. Performance of duty and observance of morality are convertible
+terms. To observe morality is to attain mastery over our mind and our
+passions. So doing, we know ourselves. The Gujarati equivalent for
+civilization means "good conduct."
+
+If this definition be correct, then India, as so many writers have
+shown, has nothing to learn from anybody else, and this is as it should
+be. We notice that mind is a restless bird; the more it gets the more it
+wants, and still remains unsatisfied. The more we indulge our passions,
+the more unbridled they become. Our ancestors, therefore, set a limit to
+our indulgences. They saw that happiness was largely a mental condition.
+A man is not necessarily happy because he is rich, or unhappy because he
+is poor. The rich are often seem to be unhappy, the poor to be happy.
+Millions will always remain poor. Observing all this, our ancestors
+dissuaded us from luxuries and pleasures. We have managed with the same
+kind of plough as it existed thousands of years ago. We have retained
+the same kind of cottages that we had in former times, and our
+indigenous education remains the same as before. We have had no system
+of life-corroding competition. Each followed his own occupation or
+trade, and charged a regulation wage. It was not that we did not know
+how to invent machinery, but our forefathers knew that, if we set our
+hearts after such things, we would become slaves and lose our moral
+fibre. They, therefore, after due deliberation, decided that we should
+only do what we could with our hands and feet. They saw that our real
+happiness and health consisted in a proper use of our hands and feet.
+They further reasoned that large cities were a snare and a useless
+encumbrance, and that people would not be happy in them, that there
+would be gangs of thieves and robbers, prostitution and vice flourishing
+in them, and that poor men would be robbed by rich men. They were,
+therefore, satisfied with small villages. They saw that kings and their
+swords were inferior to the sword of ethics, and they, therefore, held
+the sovereigns of the earth to be inferior to the Rishis and the Fakirs.
+A nation with a constitution like this is fitter to teach others than to
+learn from others. This nation had courts, lawyers and doctors, but they
+were all within bounds. Everybody knew that these professions were not
+particularly superior; moreover, these vakils and _vaids_ did not rob
+people; they were considered people's dependents, not their masters.
+Justice was tolerably fair. The ordinary rule was to avoid courts. There
+were no touts to lure people into them. This evil, too, was noticeable
+only in and around capitals. The common people lived independently, and
+followed their agricultural occupation. They enjoyed true Home Rule.
+
+And where this cursed modern civilization has not reached, India remains
+as it was before. The inhabitants of that part of India will very
+properly laugh at your new-fangled notions. The English do not rule over
+them nor will you ever rule over them. Those whose name we speak we do
+not know, nor do they know us. I would certainly advise you and those
+like you who love the motherland to go into the interior that has yet
+not been polluted by the railways, and to live there for six months; you
+might then be patriotic and speak of Home Rule.
+
+Now you see what I consider to be real civilization. Those who want to
+change conditions such as I have described are enemies of the country
+and are sinners.
+
+
+READER: It would be all right if India were exactly as you have
+described it; but it is also India where there are hundreds of
+child-widows, where two-year-old babies are married, where
+twelve-year-old girls are mothers and housewives, where women practise
+polyandry, where the practice of Niyog obtains, where, in the name of
+religion, girls dedicate themselves to prostitution, and where, in the
+name of religion, sheep and goats are killed. Do you consider these also
+symbols of the civilization that you have described?
+
+EDITOR: You make a mistake. The defects that you have shown are defects.
+Nobody mistakes them for ancient civilization. They remain in spite of
+it. Attempts have always been made, and will be made, to remove them. We
+may utilise the new spirit that is born in us for purging ourselves of
+these evils. But what I have described to you as emblems of modern
+civilization are accepted as such by its votaries. The Indian
+civilization, as described by me, has been so described by its votaries.
+In no part of the world, and under no civilization, have all men
+attained perfection. The tendency of Indian civilization is to elevate
+the moral being, that of the western civilization is to propagate
+immorality. The latter is godless, the former is based on a belief in
+God. So understanding and so believing, it behoves every lover of India
+to cling to the old Indian civilization even as a child clings to its
+mother's breast.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XIV
+
+HOW CAN INDIA BECOME FREE?
+
+
+READER: I appreciate your views about civilization. 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 civilization is, as you say, the best of all, how do
+you account for India's slavery?
+
+EDITOR: This civilization is unquestionably the best; but it is to be
+observed that all civilizations have been on their trial. That
+civilization which is permanent outlives it. Because the sons of India
+were found wanting, its civilization 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 civilization 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. Because we are in an abject
+condition, we think that the whole of India is in that condition. As a
+matter of fact, it is not so, but it is as well to impute our slavery to
+the whole of India. But if we bear in mind the above fact we can see
+that, if we become free, India is free. And in this thought you have a
+definition of Swaraj. It is Swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves. It
+is therefore in the palm of our hands. Do not consider this Swaraj to be
+like a dream. Hence there is no idea of sitting still. The Swaraj that I
+wish to picture before you and me is such that, after we have once
+realised it, we will endeavour to the end of our lifetime to persuade
+others to do likewise. But such Swaraj has to be experienced by each one
+for himself. One drowning man will never save another. Slaves ourselves,
+it would be a mere pretension to think of freeing others. Now you will
+have seen that it is not necessary for us to have as our goal the
+expulsion of the English. If the English become Indianised, we can
+accommodate them. If they wish to remain in India along with their
+civilization, there is no room for them. It lies with us to bring about
+such a state of things.
+
+
+READER: It is impossible that Englishmen should ever become Indianised.
+
+EDITOR: To say that is equivalent to saying that the English have no
+humanity in them. And it is really beside the point whether they become
+so or not. If we keep our own house in order, only those who are fit to
+live in it will remain. Others will leave of their own accord. Such
+things occur within the experience of all of us.
+
+
+READER: But it has not occurred in history!
+
+EDITOR: To believe that, what has not occurred in history will not occur
+at all, is to argue disbelief in the dignity of man. At any rate, it
+behoves us to try what appeals to our reason. All countries are not
+similarly conditioned. The condition of India is unique. Its strength is
+immeasurable. We need not, therefore, refer to the history of other
+countries. I have drawn attention to the fact that, when other
+civilizations have succumbed, the Indians has survived many a shock.
+
+
+READER: I cannot follow this. There seems little doubt that we shall
+have to expel the English by force of arms. So long as they are in the
+country, we cannot rest. One of our poets says that slaves cannot even
+dream of happiness. We are, day by day, becoming weakened owing to the
+presence of the English. Our greatness is gone; our people look like
+terrified men. The English are in the country like a blight which we
+must remove by every means.
+
+EDITOR: In your excitement, you have forgotten all we have been
+considering. We brought the English, and we keep them. Why do you forget
+that our adoption of their civilization makes their presence in India at
+all possible? Your hatred against them ought to be transferred to their
+civilization. But let us assume that we have to drive away the English
+by fighting; how is that to be done?
+
+
+READER: In the same way as Italy did it. What it was possible for
+Mazzini and Garibaldi to do, is possible for us. You cannot deny that
+they were very great men.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XV
+
+ITALY AND INDIA
+
+
+EDITOR: It is well that you have instanced Italy. Mazzini was a great
+and good man; Garibaldi was a great warrior. Both are adorable; from
+their lives we can learn much. But the condition of Italy was different
+from that of India. In the first instance the difference between Mazzini
+and Garibaldi is worth noting. Mazzini's ambition was not, and has not
+yet been realised, regarding Italy. Mazzini has shown in his writings on
+the duty of man that every man must learn how to rule himself. This has
+not happened in Italy. Garibaldi did not hold this view of Mazzini's.
+Garibaldi gave, and every Italian took arms. Italy and Austria had the
+same civilization; they were cousins in this respect. It was a matter of
+tit for tat. Garibaldi simply wanted Italy to be free from the Austrian
+yoke. The machinations of Minister Cavour disgrace that portion of the
+history of Italy. And what has been the result? If you believe that,
+because Italians rule Italy, the Italian nation is happy, you are
+groping in darkness. Mazzini has shown conclusively that Italy did not
+become free. Victor Emanuel gave one meaning to the expression; Mazzini
+gave another. According to Emanuel, Cavour, and even Garibaldi, Italy
+meant the King of Italy and his henchmen. According to Mazzini, it meant
+the whole of the Italian people, that is, its agriculturists. Emanuel
+was only its servant. The Italy of Mazzini still remains in a state of
+slavery. At the time of the so-called national war, it was a game of
+chess between two rival kings, with the people of Italy as pawns. The
+working classes in that land are still unhappy. They therefore indulge
+in assassination, rise in revolt, and rebellion on their part is always
+expected. What substantial gain did Italy obtain after the withdrawal of
+the Austrian troops? The gain was only nominal. The reforms, for the
+sake of which the war was supposed to have been undertaken, have not yet
+been granted. The condition of the people, in general, still remains the
+same. I am sure you do not wish to reproduce such a condition in India.
+I believe that you want the millions of India to be happy, not that you
+want the reins of Government in your hands. If that be so, we have to
+consider only one thing: how can the millions obtain self-rule? You will
+admit that people under several Indian princes are being ground down.
+The latter mercilessly crush them. Their tyranny is greater than that of
+the English, and, if you want such tyranny in India, that we shall
+never agree. My patriotism does not teach me that I am to allow people
+to be crushed under the heel of Indian princes, if only the English
+retire. If I have the power, I should resist the tyranny of Indian
+princes just as much as that of the English. By patriotism I mean the
+welfare of the whole people, and, if I could secure it at the hands of
+the English, I should bow down my head to them. If any Englishman
+dedicated his life to securing the freedom of India, resisting tyranny
+and serving the land, I should welcome that Englishman as an Indian.
+
+Again, India can fight like Italy only when she has arms. You have not
+considered this problem at all. The English are splendidly armed; that
+does not frighten me, but it is clear that, to fit ourselves against
+them in arms, thousands of Indians must be armed. If such a thing be
+possible, how many years will it take. Moreover, to arm India on a large
+scale is to Europeanise it. Then her condition will be just as pitiable
+as that of Europe. This means, in short, that India must accept European
+civilization, and if that is what we want, the best thing is that we
+have among us those who are so well trained in that civilization. We
+will then fight for a few rights, will get what we can and so pass our
+days. But the fact is that the Indian nation will not adopt arms, and it
+is well that it does not.
+
+
+READER: You are overassuming facts. All need not be armed. At first, we
+will assassinate a few Englishmen and strike terror; then a few men who
+will have been armed will fight openly. We may have to lose a quarter of
+a million men, more or less, but we will regain our land. We will
+undertake guerilla warfare, and defeat the English.
+
+EDITOR: That is to say, you want to make the holy land of India unholy.
+Do you not tremble to think of freeing India by assassination? What we
+need to do is to kill ourselves. It is a cowardly thought, that of
+killing others. Whom do you suppose to free by assassination? The
+millions of India do not desire it. Those who are intoxicated by the
+wretched modern civilization think of these things. Those who will rise
+to power by murder will certainly not make the nation happy. Those who
+believe that India has gained by Dhingra's act and such other acts in
+India make a serious mistake. Dhingra was a patriot, but his love was
+blind. He gave his body in a wrong way; its ultimate result can only be
+mischievous.
+
+
+READER: But you will admit that the English have been frightened by
+these murders, and that Lord Morley's reforms are due to fear.
+
+EDITOR: The English are both a timid and a brave nation. She is, I
+believe, easily influenced by the use of gunpowder. It is possible that
+Lord Morley has granted the reforms through fear, but what is granted
+under fear can be retained only so long as the fear lasts.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XVI
+
+BRUTE-FORCE
+
+
+READER: This is a new doctrine; that what is gained through fear is
+retained only while the fear lasts. Surely, what is given will not be
+withdrawn?
+
+EDITOR: Not so. The Proclamation of 1857 was given at the end of a
+revolt, and for the purpose of preserving peace. When peace was secured
+and people became simple-minded, its full effect was toned down. If I
+ceased stealing for fear of punishment, I would re-commence the
+operation so soon as the fear is withdrawn from me. This is almost a
+universal experience. We have assumed that we can get men to do things
+by force and, therefore, we use force.
+
+
+READER: Will you not admit that you are arguing against yourself? You
+know that what the English obtained in their own country they have
+obtained by using brute-force. I know you have argued that what they
+have obtained is useless, but that does not affect my argument. They
+wanted useless things, and they got them. My point is that their desire
+was fulfilled. What does it matter what means they adopted? Why should
+we not obtain our goal which is good, by any means whatsoever even by
+using violence? Shall I think of the means when I have to deal with a
+thief in the house? My duty is to drive him out anyhow. You seem to
+admit that we have received nothing, and that we shall receive nothing
+by petitioning. Why, then, may we not do so by using brute-force? And,
+to retain what we may receive, we shall keep up the fear by using the
+same force to the extent that it may be necessary. You will not find
+fault with a continuance of force to prevent a child from thrusting its
+foot into fire? Somehow or other, we have to gain our end.
+
+EDITOR: Your reasoning is plausible. It has deluded many. I have used
+similar arguments before now. But I think I know better now, and I shall
+endeavour to undeceive you. Let us first take the argument that we are
+justified in gaining our end by using brute-force, because the English
+gained theirs by using similar means. It is perfectly true that they
+used brute-force, and that it is possible for us to do likewise: but by
+using similar means, we can get only the same thing that they got. You
+will admit that we do not want that. Your belief that there is no
+connection between the means and the end is a great mistake. Through
+that mistake even men who have been considered religious have committed
+grievous crimes. Your reasoning is the same as saying that we can get a
+rose through planting a noxious weed. If I want to cross the ocean, I
+can do so only by means of a vessel; if I were to use a cart for that
+purpose, both the cart and I would soon find the bottom. "As is the God,
+so is the votary," is a maxim worth considering. Its meaning has been
+distorted, and men have gone astray. The means may be likened to a seed,
+the end to a tree; and there is just the same inviolable connection
+between the means and the end as there is between the seed and the tree.
+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. The English in 1833 obtained greater voting power by violence. Did
+they, by using brute-force, better appreciate their duty? They wanted
+the right of voting, which they obtained by using physical-force. But
+real rights are a result of performance of duty; these rights they have
+not obtained. We, therefore, have before us in England the force of
+everybody wanting and insisting on his rights, nobody thinking of his
+duty. And, where everybody wants rights, who shall give them and to
+whom? I do not wish to imply that they never perform their duty, but I
+do wish to imply that they do not perform the duty to which those rights
+should correspond; and, as they do not perform that particular duty,
+namely, acquire fitness, their rights have proved a burden to them. In
+other words, what they have obtained is an exact result of the means
+they adopted. They used the means corresponding to the end. If I want to
+deprive you of your watch, I shall certainly have to fight for it; if I
+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?
+
+Now we shall take the example given by you of the thief to be driven
+out. I do not agree with you that the thief may be driven out by any
+means. If it is my father who has come to steal I shall use one kind of
+means. If it is an acquaintance, I shall use another; and, in the case
+of a perfect stranger, I shall use a third. If it is a white man, you
+will perhaps say, you will use means different from those you will adopt
+with an Indian thief. If it is a weakling, the means will be different
+from those to be adopted for dealing with an equal in physical strength;
+and, if the thief is armed from tip to toe, I shall simply remain quiet.
+Thus we have a variety of means between the father and the armed man.
+Again, I fancy that I should pretend to be sleeping whether the thief
+was my father or that strong-armed man. The reason for this is that my
+father would also be armed, and I should succumb to the strength
+possessed by either, and allow my things to be stolen. The strength of
+my father would make me weep with pity; the strength of the armed man
+would rouse in me anger, and we should become enemies. Such is the
+curious situation. From these examples, we may not be able to agree as
+to the means to be adopted in each case. I myself seem clearly to see
+what should be done in all these cases, but the remedy may frighten you.
+I, therefore, hesitate to place it before you. For the time being, I
+will leave you to guess it, and, if you cannot, it is clear that you
+will have to adopt different means in each case. You will also have seen
+that any means will not avail to drive away the thief. You will have to
+adopt means to fit each case. Hence it follows that your duty is _not_
+to drive away the thief by any means you like.
+
+Let us proceed a little further. That a well-armed man has stolen your
+property, you have harboured the thought, you are filled with anger; you
+argue that you want to punish that rogue, not for your own sake, but for
+the good of your neighbours; you have collected a number of armed men,
+you want to take his house by assault, he is duly informed of it, he
+runs away; he too, is incensed. He collects his brother-robbers, and
+sends you a defiant message that he will commit robbery in broad
+day-light. You are strong, you do not fear him, you are prepared to
+receive him. Meanwhile, the robber pesters your neighbours. They
+complain before you, you reply that you are doing all for their sake;
+you do not mind that your own goods have been stolen. Your neighbours
+reply that the robber never pestered them before, and that he commenced
+his depredations only after you declared hostilities against him. You
+are between Sylla and Charybdis. You are full of pity for the poor men.
+What they say is true. What are you to do? You will be disgraced if you
+now leave the robber alone. You, therefore, tell the poor men: "Never
+mind. Come, my wealth is yours, I will give you arms, I will teach you
+how to use them; you should belabour the rogue; don't you leave him
+alone." And so the battle grows; the robbers increase in number; your
+neighbours have deliberately put themselves to inconvenience. Thus the
+result of wanting to take revenge upon the robber is that you have
+disturbed your own peace; you are in perpetual fear of being robbed and
+assaulted; your courage has given place to cowardice. If you will
+patiently examine the argument, you will see that I have not overdrawn
+the picture. This is one of the means. Now let us examine the other. You
+set this armed robber down as an ignorant brother; you intend to reason
+with him at a suitable opportunity; you argue that he is, after all, a
+fellow-man; you do not know what prompted him to steal. You, therefore,
+decide that, when you can, you will destroy the man's motive for
+stealing. Whilst you are thus reasoning with yourself, the man comes
+again to steal. Instead of being angry with him, you take pity on him.
+You think that this stealing habit must be a disease with him.
+Henceforth you, therefore, keep your doors and windows open; you change
+your sleeping-place, and you keep your things in a manner most
+accessible to him. The robber comes again, and is confused, as all this
+is new to him; nevertheless, he takes away your things. But his mind is
+agitated. He inquires about you in the village, he comes to learn about
+your broad and loving heart, he repents, he begs your pardon, returns
+you your things, and leaves off the stealing habit. He becomes your
+servant, and you find for him honourable employment. This is the second
+method. Thus, you see different means have brought about totally
+different results. I do not wish to deduce from this that robbers will
+act in the above manner or that all will have the same pity and love
+like you; but I wish only to show that only fair means can produce fair
+results, and that, at least in the majority of cases, if not, indeed, in
+all, the force of love and pity is infinitely greater than the force of
+arms. There is harm in the exercise of brute-force, never in that of
+pity.
+
+Now we will take the question of petitioning. It is a fact beyond
+dispute that a petition, without the backing of force, is useless.
+However, the late Justice Ranade used to say that petitions served a
+useful purpose because they were a means of educating people. They give
+the latter an idea of their condition, and warn the rulers. From this
+point of view, they are not altogether useless. A petition of an equal
+is a sign of courtesy; a petition from a slave is a symbol of his
+slavery. A petition backed by force is a petition from an equal and,
+when he transmits his demand in the form of a petition, it testifies to
+his nobility. Two kinds of force can back petitions. "We will hurt you
+if you do not give this" is one kind of force; it is the force of arms,
+whose evil results we have already examined. The second kind of force
+can thus be stated: "If you do not concede our demand, we will be no
+longer your petitioners. You can govern us only so long as we remain the
+governed; we shall no longer have any dealings with you." The force
+implied in this may be described as love-force, soul-force, or, more
+popularly but less accurately, passive resistance. This force is
+indestructible. He who uses it perfectly understands his position. We
+have an ancient proverb which literally means "One negative cures
+thirty-six diseases." The force of arms is powerless when matched
+against the force of love or the soul.
+
+Now we shall take your last illustration, that of the child thrusting
+its foot into fire. It will not avail you. What do you really do to the
+child? Supposing that it can exert so much physical force that it
+renders you powerless and rushes into fire, then you cannot prevent it.
+There are only two remedies open to you--either you must kill it in
+order to prevent it from perishing in the flames, or you must give your
+own life, because you do not wish to see it perish before your very
+eyes. You will not kill it. If your heart is not quite full of pity, it
+is possible that you will not surrender yourself by preceding the child
+and going into the fire yourself. You, therefore, helplessly allow it to
+go into the flames. Thus, at any rate, you are not using physical force.
+I hope you will not consider that it is still physical-force, though of
+a low order, when you would forcibly prevent the child from rushing
+towards the fire if you could. That force is of a different order, and
+we have to understand what it is.
+
+Remember that, in thus preventing the child, you are minding entirely
+its own interest, you are exercising authority for its sole benefit.
+Your example does not apply to the English. In using brute-force against
+the English, you consult entirely your own, that is the national
+interest. There is no question here either of pity or of love. If you
+say that the actions of the English, being evil, represent fire, and
+that they proceed to their actions through ignorance, and that,
+therefore, they occupy the position of a child, and that you want to
+protect such a child, then you will have to overtake every such evil
+action by whomsoever committed, and, as in the case of the child, you
+will have to sacrifice yourself. If you are capable of such immeasurable
+pity, I wish you well in its exercise.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XVII
+
+PASSIVE RESISTANCE
+
+
+READER: Is there any historical evidence as to the success of what you
+have called soul-force or truth-force? No instance seems to have
+happened of any nation having risen through soul-force. I still think
+that the evil-doers will not cease doing evil without physical
+punishment.
+
+EDITOR: The poet Tulsidas has said: "Of religion, pity or love is the
+root, as egotism of the body. Therefore, we should not abandon pity so
+long as we are alive." This appears to me to be a scientific truth. I
+believe in it as much as I believe in two and two being four. The force
+of love is the same as the force of the soul or truth. We have evidence
+of its working at every step. The universe would disappear without the
+existence of that force. But you ask for historical evidence. It is,
+therefore, necessary to know what history means. The Gujarati equivalent
+means: "It so happened." If that is the meaning of history, it is
+possible to give copious evidence. But if it means the doings of kings
+and emperors, there can be no evidence of soul-force or passive
+resistance in such history. You cannot expect silver-ore in a tin-mine.
+History, as we know it, is a record of the wars of the world, and so
+there is a proverb among Englishmen that a nation which has no history,
+that is, no wars, is a happy nation. How kings played how they become
+enemies of one another and how they murdered one another is found
+accurately recorded in history and, if this were all that had happened
+in the world, it would have been ended long ago. If the story of the
+universe had commenced with wars, not a man would have been found alive
+to-day. Those people who have been warred against have disappeared, as,
+for instance, the natives of Australia, of whom hardly a man was left
+alive by the intruders. Mark, please, that these natives did not use
+soul-force in self-defence, and it does not require much foresight to
+know that the Australians will share the same fate as their victims.
+"Those that wield the sword shall perish by the sword." With us, the
+proverb is that professional swimmers will find a watery grave.
+
+The fact that there are so many men still alive in the world shows that
+it is based not on the force of arms but on the force of truth or love.
+Therefore the greatest and most unimpeachable evidence of the success of
+this force is to be found in the fact that, in spite of the wars of the
+world, it still lives on.
+
+Thousands, indeed, tens of thousands, depend for their existence on a
+very active working of this force. Little quarrels of millions of
+families in their daily lives disappear before the exercise of this
+force. Hundreds of nations live in peace. History does not and cannot
+take note of this fact. History is really a record of every interruption
+of the even working of the force of love or of the soul. Two brothers
+quarrel: one of them repents and re-awakens the love that was lying
+dormant in him; the two again begin to live in peace: nobody takes note
+of this. But if the two brothers, through the intervention of solicitors
+or some other reason, take up arms or go to law--which is another form
+of the exhibition of brute-force--their doings would be immediately
+noticed in the press, they would be the talk of their neighbours, and
+would probably go down to history. And what is true of families and
+communities is true of nations. There is no reason, to believe that
+there is one law for families, and another for nations. History, then,
+is a record of an interruption of the course of nature. Soul-force,
+being natural, is not noted in history.
+
+
+READER: According to what you say, it is plain that instances of the
+kind of passive resistance are not to be found in history. It is
+necessary to understand this passive resistance more fully. It will be
+better, therefore, if you enlarge upon it.
+
+EDITOR: Passive resistance is a method of securing rights by personal
+suffering; it is the reverse of resistance by arms. When I refuse to do
+a thing that is repugnant to my conscience, I use soul-force. For
+instance, the government of the day has passed a law which is applicable
+to me: I do not like it, if, by using violence, I force the government
+to repeal the law, I am employing what may be termed body-force. If I do
+not obey the law and accept the penalty for its breach, I use
+soul-force. It involves sacrifice of self.
+
+Everybody admits that sacrifice of self is infinitely superior to
+sacrifice of others. Moreover, if this kind of force is used in a cause
+that is unjust only the person using it suffers. He does not make others
+suffer for his mistakes. Men have before now done many things which were
+subsequently found to have been wrong. No man can claim to be absolutely
+in the right, or that a particular thing is wrong, because he thinks so,
+but it is wrong for him so long as that is his deliberate judgment. It
+is, therefore, meet that he should not do that which he knows to be
+wrong, and suffer the consequence whatever it may be. This is the key to
+the use of soul-force.
+
+
+READER: You would then disregard laws--this is rank disloyalty. We have
+always been considered a law-abiding nation. You seem to be going even
+beyond the extremists. They say that we must obey the laws that have
+been passed, but that, if the laws be bad, we must drive out the
+law-givers even by force.
+
+EDITOR: Whether I go beyond them or whether I do not, is a matter of no
+consequence to either of us. We simply want to find out what is right,
+and to act accordingly. The real meaning of the statement that we are a
+law-abiding nation is that we are passive resisters. When we do not like
+certain laws, we do not break the heads of law-givers, but we suffer and
+do not submit to the laws. That we should obey laws whether good or bad
+is a new-fangled notion. There was no such thing in former days. The
+people disregarded those laws they did not like, and suffered the
+penalties for their breach. It is contrary to our manhood, if we obey
+laws repugnant to our conscience. Such teaching is opposed to religion
+and means slavery. If the government were to ask us to go about without
+any clothing, should we do so? If I were a passive resister, I would say
+to them that I would have nothing to do with their law. But we have so
+forgotten ourselves and become so compliant, that we do not mind any
+degrading law.
+
+A man who has realised his manhood, who fears only God, will fear no one
+else. Man-made laws are not necessarily binding on him. Even the
+government do not expect any such thing from us. They do not say: "You
+must do such and such a thing," but they say: "If you do not do it, we
+will punish you." We are sunk so low, that we fancy that it is our duty
+and our religion to do what the law lays down. If man will only realise
+that it is unmanly to obey laws that are unjust, no man's tyranny will
+enslave him. This is the key to self-rule or home-rule.
+
+It is a superstition and an ungodly thing to believe that an act of a
+majority binds a minority. Many examples can be given in which acts of
+majorities will be found to have been wrong, and those of minorities to
+have been right. All reforms owe their origin to the initiation of
+minorities in opposition to majorities. If among a band of robbers, a
+knowledge of robbing is obligatory, is a pious man to accept the
+obligation? So long as the superstition that men should obey unjust laws
+exists, so long will their slavery exist. And a passive resister alone
+can remove such a superstition.
+
+To use brute-force, to use gun-powder is contrary to passive resistance;
+for it means that we want our opponent to do by force--that which we
+desire but he does not. And, if such a use of force is justifiable,
+surely he is entitled to do likewise by us. And so we should never come
+to an agreement. We may simply fancy, like the blind horse moving in a
+circle round a mill, that we are making progress. Those who believe that
+they are not bound to obey laws which are repugnant to their conscience
+have only the remedy of passive resistance open to them. Any other must
+lead to disaster.
+
+
+READER: From what you say, I deduce that passive resistance is a
+splendid weapon of the weak but that, when they are strong, they may
+take up arms.
+
+EDITOR: This is gross ignorance. Passive resistance, that is,
+soul-force, is matchless. It is superior to the force of arms. How,
+then, can it be considered only a weapon of the weak? Physical force men
+are strangers to the courage that is requisite in a passive resister. Do
+you believe that a coward can ever disobey a law that he dislikes?
+Extremists are considered to be advocates of brute-force. Why do they,
+then, talk about obeying laws? I do not blame them. They can say nothing
+else. When they succeed in driving out the English, and they themselves
+become governors, they will want you and me to obey their laws. And that
+is a fitting thing for their constitution. But a passive resister will
+say he will not obey a law that is against his conscience, even though
+he may be blown to pieces at the mouth of a cannon.
+
+What do you think? Wherein is courage required--in blowing others to
+pieces from behind a cannon or with a smiling face to approach a cannon
+and to be blown to pieces? Who is the true warrior--he who keeps death
+always as a bosom-friend or he who controls the death of others? Believe
+me that a man devoid of courage and manhood can never be a passive
+resister.
+
+This, however, I will admit: that even a man, weak in body, is capable
+of offering this resistance. One man can offer it just as well as
+millions. Both men and women can indulge in it. It does not require the
+training of an army; it needs no Jiu-jitsu. Control over the mind is
+alone necessary, and, when that is attained, man is free like the king
+of the forest, and his very glance withers the enemy.
+
+Passive resistance is an all-sided sword; it can be used anyhow; it
+blesses him who uses it and him against whom it is used. Without drawing
+a drop of blood, it produces far-reaching results. It never rusts, and
+cannot be stolen. Competition between passive resisters does not
+exhaust. The sword of passive resistance does not require a scabbard. It
+is strange indeed that you should consider such a weapon to be a weapon
+merely of the weak.
+
+
+READER: You have said that passive resistance is a speciality of India.
+Have cannons never been used in India?
+
+EDITOR: Evidently, in your opinion, India means its few princes. To me,
+it means its teeming millions, on whom depends the existence of its
+princes and our own.
+
+Kings will always use their kingly weapons. To use force is bred in
+them. They want to command, but those who have to obey commands, do not
+want guns; and these are in a majority throughout the world. They have
+to learn either body-force or soul-force. Where they learn the former,
+both the rulers and the ruled become like so many mad men, but, where
+they learn soul-force, the commands of the rulers do not go beyond the
+point of their swords, for true men disregard unjust commands. Peasants
+have never been subdued by the sword, and never will be. They do not
+know the use of the sword, and they are not frightened by the use of it
+by others. That nation is great which rests its head upon death as its
+pillow. Those who defy death are free from all fear. For those who are
+labouring under the delusive charms of brute-force, this picture is not
+overdrawn. The fact is that, in India, the nation at large has generally
+used passive resistance in all departments of life. We cease to
+co-operate with our rulers when they displease us. This is passive
+resistance.
+
+I remember an instance when, in a small principality, the villagers were
+offended by some command issued by the prince. The former immediately
+began vacating the village. The prince became nervous, apologised to his
+subjects and withdrew his command. Many such instances can be found in
+India. Real home-rule is possible only where passive resistance is the
+guiding force of the people. Any other rule is foreign rule.
+
+
+READER: Then you will say that it is not at all necessary for us to
+train the body?
+
+EDITOR: I will certainly not say any such thing. It is difficult to
+become a passive resister, unless the body is trained. As a rule, the
+mind, residing in a body that has become weakened by pampering, is also
+weak, and where there is no strength of mind, there can be no strength
+of soul. We will have to improve our physique by getting rid of infant
+marriages and luxurious living. If I were to ask a man having a
+shattered body to face a cannon's mouth I would make of myself a
+laughing-stock.
+
+
+READER: From what you say, then, it would appear that it is not a small
+thing to become a passive resister, and, if that is so, I would like you
+to explain how a man may become a passive resister.
+
+EDITOR: To become a passive resister is easy enough, but it is also
+equally difficult. I have known a lad of fourteen years become a passive
+resister; I have known also sick people doing likewise and I have also
+known physically strong and otherwise happy people being unable to take
+up passive resistance. After a great deal of experience, it seems to me
+that those who want to become passive resisters for the service of the
+country have to observe perfect chastity, adopt poverty, follow truth,
+and cultivate fearlessness.
+
+Chastity is one of the greatest disciplines without which the mind
+cannot attain requisite firmness. A man who is unchaste loses stamina,
+becomes emasculated and cowardly. He whose mind is given over to animal
+passions is not capable of any great effort. This can be proved by
+innumerable instances. What, then, is a married person to do, is the
+question that arises naturally; and yet it need not. When a husband and
+wife gratify the passions, it is no less an animal indulgence on that
+account. Such an indulgence, except for perpetuating the race, is
+strictly prohibited. But a passive resister has to avoid even that very
+limited indulgence, because he can have no desire for progeny. A married
+man, therefore, can observe perfect chastity. This subject is not
+capable of being treated at greater length. Several questions arise: How
+is one to carry one's wife with one? What are her rights, and such
+other questions? Yet those who wish to take part in a great work are
+bound to solve these puzzles.
+
+Just as there is necessity for chastity, so is there for poverty.
+Pecuniary ambition and passive resistance cannot well go together. Those
+who have money are not expected to throw it away, but they are expected
+to be indifferent about it. They must be prepared to lose every penny
+rather than give up passive resistance.
+
+Passive resistance has been described in the course of our discussion as
+truth-force. Truth, therefore, has necessarily to be followed, and that
+at any cost. In this connection, academic questions such as whether a
+man may not lie in order to save a life, etc. arise, but these questions
+occur only to those who wish to justify lying. Those who want to follow
+truth every time are not placed in such a quandary, and, if they are,
+they are still saved from a false position.
+
+Passive resistance cannot proceed a step without fearlessness. Those
+alone can follow the path of passive resistance who are free from fear
+whether as to their possessions, false honour, their relatives, the
+government, bodily injuries, death.
+
+These observances are not to be abandoned in the belief that they are
+difficult. Nature has implanted in the human breast ability to cope with
+any difficulty or suffering that may come to man unprovoked. These
+qualities are worth having, even for those who do not wish to serve the
+country. Let there be no mistake as those who want to train themselves
+in the use of arms are also obliged to have these qualities more or
+less. Everybody does not become a warrior for the wish. A would-be
+warrior will have to observe chastity, and to be satisfied with poverty
+as his lot. A warrior without fearlessness cannot be conceived of. It
+may be thought that he would not need to be exactly truthful, but that
+quality follows real fearlessness. When a man abandons truth, he does so
+owing to fear in some shape or form. The above four attributes, then,
+need not frighten any one. It may be as well here to note that a
+physical-force man has to have many other useless qualities which a
+passive resister never needs. And you will find that whatever extra
+effort a swordsman needs is due to lack of fearlessness. If he is an
+embodiment of the latter, the sword will drop from his hand that very
+moment. He does not need its support. One who is free from hatred
+requires no sword. A man with a stick suddenly came face to face with a
+lion, and instinctively raised his weapon in self-defence. The man saw
+that he had only prated about fearlessness when there was none in him.
+That moment he dropped the stick, and found himself free from all fear.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XVIII
+
+EDUCATION
+
+
+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
+of 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 civilization 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. He has ordinary knowledge of the
+world. He knows fairly well how he should behave towards his parents,
+his wife, his children and his fellow-villagers. He understands and
+observes the rules of morality. But he cannot write his own name. What
+do you propose to do by giving him a knowledge of letters? Will you add
+an inch to his happiness? Do you wish to make him discontented with his
+cottage or his lot? And even if you want to do that, he will not need
+such an education. Carried away by the flood of western thought, we came
+to the conclusion, without weighing _pros_ and _cons_, that we should
+give this kind of education to the people.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Now let us take higher education. I have learned Geography, Astronomy,
+Algebra, Geometry, etc. What of that? In what way have I benefitted
+myself or those around me? Why have I learned these things? Professor
+Huxley has thus defined education:--"That man I think has had a liberal
+education who has been so trained in youth that his body is the ready
+servant of his will and does with ease and pleasure all the work that as
+a mechanism it is capable of, whose intellect is a clear, cold logic
+engine with all its parts of equal strength and in smooth working order
+... whose mind is stored with a knowledge of the fundamental truths of
+nature ... whose passions are trained to come to heel by a vigorous
+will, the servant of a tender conscience ... who has learnt to hate all
+vileness and to respect others as himself. Such an one and no other, I
+conceive, has had a liberal education, for he is in harmony with Nature.
+He will make the best of her and she of him."
+
+If this be true education, I must emphatically say that the sciences I
+have enumerated above, I have never been able to use for controlling my
+senses. Therefore, whether you take elementary education or higher
+education, it is not required for the main thing. It does not make of us
+men. It does not enable us to do our duty.
+
+
+READER: If that is so, I shall have to ask you another question. What
+enables you to tell all these things to me? If you had not received
+higher education, how would you have been able to explain to me the
+things that you have?
+
+EDITOR: You have spoken well. But my answer is simple: I do not for one
+moment believe that my life would have been wasted, had I not received
+higher or lower education. Nor do I consider that I necessarily serve
+because I speak. But I do desire to serve and, in endeavouring to fulfil
+that desire, I make use of the education I have received. And, if I am
+making good use of it, even then it is not for the millions, but I can
+use it only for such as you, and this supports my contention. Both you
+and I have come under the bane of what is mainly false education. I
+claim to have become free from its ill-effects, and I am trying to give
+you the benefit of my experience, and, in doing so, I am demonstrating
+the rottenness of this education.
+
+Moreover, I have not run down a knowledge of letters under all
+circumstances. All I have shown is that we must not make of it a fetish.
+It is not our Kamdhuk. In its place it can be of use, and it has its
+place when we have brought our senses under subjection, and put our
+ethics on a firm foundation. And then, if we feel inclined to receive
+that education, we may make good use of it. As an ornament it is likely
+to sit well on us. It now follows that it is not necessary to make this
+education compulsory. Our ancient school system is enough.
+Character-building has the first place in it, and that is primary
+education. A building erected on that foundation will last.
+
+
+READER: Do I then understand that you do not consider English education
+necessary for obtaining Home Rule?
+
+EDITOR: My answer is yes and no. To give millions a knowledge of English
+is to enslave them. The foundation that Macaulay laid of education has
+enslaved us. I do not suggest that he had any such intention, but that
+has been the result. Is it not a sad commentary that we should have to
+speak of Home Rule in a foreign tongue?
+
+And it is worthy of note that the systems which the Europeans have
+discarded are the systems in vogue among us. Their learned men
+continually make changes. We ignorantly adhere to their cast-off
+systems. They are trying each division to improve its own status. Wales
+is a small portion of England. Great efforts are being made to revive a
+knowledge of Welsh among Welshmen. The English Chancellor, Mr. Lloyd
+George, is taking a leading part in the movement to make Welsh children
+speak Welsh. And what is our condition? We write to each other in faulty
+English, and from this even, our M. A.'s are not free; our best thoughts
+are expressed in English; the proceedings of our Congress are conducted
+in English; our best newspapers are printed in English. If this state of
+things continues for a long time, posterity will--it is my firm
+opinion--condemn and curse us.
+
+It is worth noting that, by receiving English education, we have
+enslaved the nation. Hypocrisy, tyranny, etc., have increased;
+English-knowing Indians have not hesitated to cheat and strike terror
+into the people. Now, if we are doing anything for the people at all, we
+are paying only a portion of the debt due to them.
+
+Is it not a most painful thing that, if I want to go to a court of
+justice, I must employ the English language as medium; that, when I
+become a barrister, I may not speak my mother-tongue, and that some one
+else should have to translate to me from my own language? Is not this
+absolutely absurd? Is it not a sign of slavery? Am I to blame the
+English for it or myself? It is we, the English-knowing men, that have
+enslaved India. The curse of the nation will rest not upon the English
+but upon us.
+
+I have told you that my answer to your last question is both yes and no.
+I have explained to you why it is yes. I shall now explain why it is no.
+
+We are so much beset by the disease of civilization, that we cannot
+altogether do without English education. Those who have already received
+it may make good use of it wherever necessary. In our dealings with the
+English people, in our dealings with our own people, when we can only
+correspond with them through that language, and for the purpose of
+knowing how much disgusted they (the English) have themselves become
+with their civilization, we may use or learn English, as the case may
+be. Those who have studied English will have to teach morality to their
+progeny through their mother-tongue, and to teach them another Indian
+language; but when they have grown up, they may learn English, the
+ultimate aim being that we should not need it. The object of making
+money thereby should be eschewed. Even in learning English to such a
+limited extent we will have to consider what we should learn through it
+and what we should not. It will be necessary to know what sciences we
+should learn. A little thought should show you that immediately we cease
+to care for English degrees, the rulers will prick up their ears.
+
+
+READER: Then what education shall we give?
+
+EDITOR: This has been somewhat considered above, but we will consider it
+a little more. I think that we have to improve all our languages. What
+subjects we should learn through them need not be elaborated here. Those
+English books which are valuable we should translate into the various
+Indian languages. We should abandon the pretension of learning many
+sciences. Religious, that is ethical, education will occupy the first
+place. Every cultured Indian will know in addition to his own provincial
+language, if a Hindu, Sanskrit; if a Mahomedan, Arabic; if a Parsee,
+Persian; and all, Hindi. Some Hindus should know Arabic and Persian;
+some Mahomedans and Parsees, Sanskrit. Several Northerners and
+Westerners should learn Tamil. A universal language for India should be
+Hindi, with the option of writing it in Persian or Nagric characters. In
+order that the Hindus and the Mahomedans may have closer relations, it
+is necessary to know both the characters. And, if we can do this, we can
+drive the English language out of the field in a short time. All this is
+necessary for us, slaves. Through our slavery the nation has been
+enslaved, and it will be free with our freedom.
+
+
+READER: The question of religious education is very difficult.
+
+EDITOR: Yet we cannot do without it. India will never be godless. Rank
+atheism cannot flourish in that land. The task is indeed difficult. My
+head begins to turn as I think of religious education. Our religious
+teachers are hypocritical and selfish; they will have to be approached.
+The Mullas, the Dasturs and the Brahmins hold the key in their hands,
+but if they will not have the good sense, the energy that we have
+derived from English education will have to be devoted to religious
+education. This is not very difficult. Only the fringe of the ocean has
+been polluted, and it is those who are within the fringe who alone need
+cleansing. We who come under this category can even cleanse ourselves,
+because my remarks do not apply to the millions. In order to restore
+India to its pristine condition, we have to return to it. In our own
+civilization, there will naturally be progress, retrogression, reforms,
+and reactions; but one effort is required, and that is to drive out
+Western civilization. All else will follow.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XIX
+
+MACHINERY
+
+
+READER: When you speak of driving out Western civilization, I suppose
+you will also say that we want no machinery.
+
+EDITOR: By raising this question, you have opened the wound I had
+received. When I read Mr. Dutt's Economic History of India I wept; and,
+as I think of it, again my heart sickens. It is machinery that has
+impoverished India. It is difficult to measure the harm that Manchester
+has done to us. It is due to Manchester that Indian handicraft has all
+but disappeared.
+
+But I make a mistake. How can Manchester be blamed? We wore Manchester
+cloth, and that is why Manchester wove it. I was delighted when I read
+about the bravery of Bengal. There are no cloth-mills in that
+Presidency. They were, therefore, able to restore the original
+hand-weaving occupation. It is true Bengal encourages the mill-industry
+of Bombay. If Bengal had proclaimed a boycott of _all_ machine-made
+goods, it would have been much better.
+
+Machinery has begun to desolate Europe. Ruination is now knocking at the
+English gates. Machinery is the chief symbol of modern civilization; it
+represents a great sin.
+
+The workers in the mills of Bombay have become slaves. The condition of
+the women working in the mills is shocking. When there were no mills,
+these women were not starving. If the machinery craze grows in our
+country, it will become an unhappy land. It may be considered a heresy,
+but I am bound to say that it were better for us to send money to
+Manchester and to use flimsy Manchester cloth than to multiply mills in
+India. By using Manchester cloth we would only waste our money, but by
+reproducing Manchester in India, we shall keep our money at the price of
+our blood, because our very moral being will be sapped, and I call in
+support of my statement the very mill-hands as witnesses. And those who
+have amassed wealth out of factories are not likely to be better than
+other rich men. It would be folly to assume that an Indian Rockfeller
+would be better than the American Rockfeller. Impoverished India can
+become free, but it will be hard for an India, made rich through
+immorality, to regain its freedom. I fear we will have to admit that
+moneyed men support British rule; their interest is bound up with its
+stability. Money renders a man helpless. The other thing is as harmful
+as sexual vice. Both are poison. A snakebite is a lesser poison than
+these two, because the former merely destroys the body, but the latter
+destroys body, mind and soul. We need not, therefore, be pleased with
+the prospect of the growth of the mill-industry.
+
+
+READER: Are the mills, then, to be closed down?
+
+EDITOR: That is difficult. It is no easy task to do away with a thing
+that is established. We, therefore, say that the non-beginning of a
+thing is, supreme wisdom. We cannot condemn mill-owners, we can but pity
+them. It would be too much to expect them to give up their mills, but we
+may implore them not to increase them. If they would be good, they would
+gradually contract their business. They can establish in thousands of
+households the ancient and sacred handlooms, and they can buy out the
+cloth that may be thus woven. Whether the mill-owners do this or not,
+people can cease to use machine-made goods.
+
+
+READER: You have so far spoken about machine-made cloth, but there are
+innumerable machine-made things. We have either to import them or to
+introduce machinery into our country.
+
+EDITOR: Indeed, our gods even are made in Germany. What need, then, to
+speak of matches, pins, and glassware? My answer can be only one. What
+did India do before these articles were introduced? Precisely the same
+should be done to-day. As long as we cannot make pins without machinery,
+so long will we do without them. The tinsel splendour of glassware we
+will have nothing to do with and we will make wicks, as of old, with
+home-grown cotton, and use hand-made earthern saucers for lamps. So
+doing, we shall save our eyes and money, and will support Swadeshi, and
+so shall we attain Home Rule.
+
+It is not to be conceived that all men will do all these things at one
+time, or that some men will give up all machine-made things at once.
+But, if the thought is sound, we will always find out what we can give
+up, and will gradually cease to use this. What a few may do, others will
+copy, and the movement will grow like the cocoanut of the mathematical
+problem. What the leaders do, the populace will gladly follow. The
+matter is neither complicated nor difficult. You and I shall not wait
+until we can carry others with us. Those will be the losers who will not
+do it, and those who will not do it, although they can appreciate the
+truth, will deserve to be called cowards.
+
+
+READER: What, then, of the tram-cars and electricity?
+
+EDITOR: This question is now too late. It signifies nothing. If we are
+to do without the railways, we shall have to do without the tram-cars.
+Machinery is like a snake-hole which may contain from one to a hundred
+snakes. Where there is machinery there are large cities; and where there
+are large cities, there are tram-cars and railways; and there only does
+one see electric light. English villages do not boast any of these
+things. Honest physicians will tell you that, where means of artificial
+locomotion have increased, the health of the people has suffered. I
+remember that, when in a European town there was a scarcity of money,
+the receipts of the tramway company, of the lawyers and of the doctors,
+went down, and the people were less unhealthy. I cannot recall a single
+good point in connection with machinery. Books can be written to
+demonstrate its evils.
+
+
+READER: It is a good point or a bad one that all you are saying will be
+printed through machinery?
+
+EDITOR: This is one of those instances which demonstrate that sometimes
+poison is used to kill poison. This, then, will not be a good point
+regarding machinery. As it expires, the machinery, as it were, says to
+us: "Beware and avoid me. You will derive no benefit from me, and the
+benefit that may accrue from printing will avail only those who are
+infected with the machinery-craze." Do not, therefore, forget the main
+thing. It is necessary to realise that machinery is bad. We shall then
+be able gradually to do away with it. Nature has not provided any way
+whereby we may reach a desired goal all of a sudden. If, instead of
+welcoming machinery as a boon, we would look upon it as an evil, it
+would ultimately go.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XX
+
+CONCLUSION
+
+
+READER: From your views I gather that you would form a third party. You
+are neither an extremist nor a moderate.
+
+EDITOR: That is a mistake. I do not think of a third party at all. We do
+not all think alike. We cannot say that all the moderates hold identical
+views. And how can those who want to serve only have a party? I would
+serve both the moderates and the extremists. Where I should differ from
+them, I would respectfully place my position before them, and continue
+my service.
+
+
+READER: What, then, would you say to both the parties?
+
+EDITOR: I would say to the extremists:--"I know that you want Home Rule
+for India; it is not to be had for your asking. Everyone will have to
+take it for himself. What others get for me is not Home Rule but foreign
+rule; therefore, it would not be proper for you to say that you have
+obtained Home Rule, if you expelled the English. I have already
+described the true nature of Home Rule. This you would never obtain by
+force of arms. Brute-force is not natural to the Indian soil. You will
+have, therefore, to rely wholly on soul-force. You must not consider
+that violence is necessary at any stage for reaching our goal."
+
+I would say to the moderates:--"Mere petitioning is derogatory; we
+thereby confess inferiority. To say that British rule is indispensable,
+is almost a denial of the Godhead. We cannot say that anybody or
+anything is indispensable except God. Moreover, commonsense should tell
+us that to state that, for the time being, the presence of the English
+in India is a necessity, is to make them conceited.
+
+"If the English vacated India bag and baggage, it must not be supposed
+that she would be widowed. It is possible that those who are forced to
+observe peace under their pressure would fight after their withdrawal.
+There can be no advantage in suppressing an eruption, it must have its
+vent. If, therefore, before we can remain at peace, we must fight
+amongst ourselves, it is better that we do so. There is no occasion for
+a third party to protect the weak. It is this so-called protection which
+has unnerved us. Such protection can only make the weak weaker. Unless
+we realise this, we cannot have Home Rule. I would paraphrase the
+thought of an English divine and say that anarchy under home rule were
+better than orderly foreign rule. Only, the meaning that the learned
+divine attached to home rule is different to Indian Home Rule according
+to my conception. We have to learn, and to teach others, that we do not
+want the tyranny of their English rule or Indian rule."
+
+If this idea were carried out both the extremists and the moderates
+could join hands. There is no occasion to fear or distrust one another.
+
+
+READER: What, then, would you say to the English?
+
+EDITOR: To them I would respectfully say: "I admit you are my rulers. It
+is not necessary to debate the question whether you hold India by the
+sword or by my consent. I have no objection to your remaining in my
+country, but although you are the rulers, you will have to remain as
+servants of the people. It is not we who have to do as you wish, but it
+is you who have to do as we wish. You may keep the riches that you have
+drained away from this land, but you may not drain riches henceforth.
+Your function will be, if you so wish, to police India; you must abandon
+the idea of deriving any commercial benefit from us. We hold the
+civilization that you support to be the reverse of civilization. We
+consider our civilization to be far superior to yours. If you realise
+this truth, it will be to your advantage, and, if you do not, according
+to your own proverb, you should only live in our country in the same
+manner as we do. You must not do anything that is contrary to our
+religions. It is your duty as rulers that, for the sake of the Hindus,
+you should eschew beef, and for the sake of the Mahomedans, you should
+avoid bacon and ham. We have hitherto said nothing, because we have been
+cowed down, but you need not consider that you have not hurt our
+feelings by your conduct. We are not expressing our sentiments either
+through base selfishness or fear, but because it is our duty now to
+speak out boldly. We consider your schools and law courts to be useless.
+We want our own ancient schools and courts to be restored. The common
+language of India is not English but Hindi. You should, therefore, learn
+it. We can hold communication with you only in our national language.
+
+"We cannot tolerate the idea of your spending money on railways and the
+military. We see no occasion for either. You may fear Russia; we do not.
+When she comes we will look after her. If you are with us, we will then
+receive her jointly. We do not need any European cloth. We will manage
+with articles produced and manufactured at home. You may not keep one
+eye on Manchester and the other on India. We can work together only if
+our interests are identical.
+
+"This has not been said to you in arrogance. You have great military
+resources. Your naval power is matchless. If we wanted to fight with you
+on your own ground we would be unable to do so, but, if the above
+submissions be not acceptable to you, we cease to play the ruled. You
+may, if you like, cut us to pieces. You may shatter us at the cannon's
+mouth. If you act contrary to our will, we will not help you and,
+without our help, we know that you cannot move one step forward.
+
+"It is likely that you will laugh at all this in the intoxication of
+your power. We may not be able to disillusion you at once, but, if there
+be any manliness in us, you will see shortly that your intoxication is
+suicidal, and that your laugh at our expense is an aberration of
+intellect. We believe that, at heart you belong to a religious nation.
+We are living in a land which is the source of religions. How we came
+together need not be considered, but we can make mutual good use of our
+relations.
+
+"You English who have come to India are not a good specimen of the
+English nation, nor can we almost half Anglicised Indians, be considered
+a good specimen of the real Indian nation. If the English nation were to
+know all you have done, it would oppose many of your actions. The mass
+of the Indians have had few dealings with you. If you will abandon your
+so-called civilization, and search into your own scriptures, you will
+find that our demands are just. Only on conditions of our demands being
+fully satisfied may you remain in India, and, if you remain under those
+conditions we shall learn several things from you, and you will learn
+many from us. So doing, we shall benefit each other and the world. But
+that will happen only when the root of our relationship is sunk in a
+religious soil."
+
+
+READER: What will you say to the nation?
+
+EDITOR: Who is the nation?
+
+
+READER: For our purposes it is the nation that you and I have been
+thinking of, that is, those of us who are affected by European
+civilization, and who are eager to have Home Rule.
+
+EDITOR: To these I would say: It is only those Indians who are imbued
+with real love who will be able to speak to the English in the above
+strain without being frightened, and those only can be said to be so
+imbued who conscientiously believe that Indian civilization is the best,
+and that European is a nine days' wonder. Such ephemeral civilizations
+have often come and gone, and will continue to do so. Those only can be
+considered to be so imbued, who, having experienced the force of the
+soul within themselves, will not cower before brute-force, and will not,
+on any account, desire to use brute-force. Those only can be considered
+to have been so imbued who are intensely dissatisfied with the present
+pitiable condition having already drunk the cup of poison.
+
+If there be only one such Indian, he will speak as above to the English,
+and the English will have to listen to him.
+
+These demands are not demands, but they show our mental state. We will
+get nothing by asking; we shall have to take what we want, and we need
+the requisite strength for the effort and that strength will be
+available to him only who
+
+    1. will, only on rare occasions, make use of the English language;
+
+    2. if a lawyer, will give up his profession and take up a hand-loom;
+
+    3. if a lawyer, will devote his knowledge to enlightening both his
+    people and the English;
+
+    4. if a lawyer, will not meddle with the quarrels between parties,
+    but will give up the courts and from his experience induce the
+    people to do likewise;
+
+    5. if a lawyer, will refuse to be a judge, as the will give up his
+    profession;
+
+    6. if a doctor, will give up medicine, and understand that rather
+    than mending bodies, he should mend souls;
+
+    7. if a doctor, will understand, that no matter to what religion he
+    belongs, it is better that bodies remain diseased rather than that
+    they are cured through the instrumentality of the diabolical
+    vivisection that is practised in European schools of medicine;
+
+    8. although a doctor, will take up a hand-loom and, if any patients
+    come to him, will tell them the cause of their diseases, and will
+    advise them to remove the cause, rather than pamper them by giving
+    useless drugs; he will understand that, if by not taking drugs,
+    perchance the patient dies, the world will not come to grief, and
+    that he will have been really merciful to him;
+
+    9. although a wealthy man, regardless of his wealth, will speak out
+    his mind and fear no one;
+
+    10. if a wealthy man, will devote his money to establishing
+    hand-looms, and encourage others to use hand-made goods by wearing
+    them himself;
+
+    11. like every other Indian, will know that this is a time for
+    repentance, expiation and mourning;
+
+    12. like every other Indian, will know that to blame the English is
+    useless, that they came because of us, and remain also for the same
+    reason, and that they will either go or change their nature, only
+    when we reform ourselves;
+
+    13. like others, will understand that, at a time of mourning, there
+    can be no indulgence, and that, whilst we are in a fallen state, to
+    be in gaol or in banishment is much the best;
+
+    14. like others, will know that it is superstition to imagine it
+    necessary that we should guard against being imprisoned in order
+    that we may deal with the people;
+
+    15. like others, will know that action is much better than speech;
+    that it is our duty to say exactly what we think and face the
+    consequences, and that it will be only then that we shall be able to
+    impress anybody with our speech;
+
+    16. like others, will understand that we will become free only
+    through suffering;
+
+    17. like others, will understand that deportation for life to the
+    Andamans is not enough expiation for the sin of encouraging European
+    civilization;
+
+    18. like others, will know that no nation has risen without
+    suffering; that, even in physical warfare, the true test is
+    suffering and not the killing of others, much more so in the warfare
+    of passive resistance;
+
+    19. like others, will know that it is an idle excuse to say that we
+    will do a thing when the others also do it; that we should do what
+    we know to be right, and that others will do it when they see the
+    way; that when I fancy a particular delicacy, I do not wait till
+    others taste it; that to make a national effort and to suffer are in
+    the nature of delicacies; and that to suffer under pressure is no
+    suffering.
+
+
+READER: This is a large order. When will all carry it out?
+
+EDITOR: You make a mistake. You and I have nothing to do with the
+others. Let each do his duty. If I do my duty, that is, serve myself, I
+shall be able to serve others. Before I leave you, I will take the
+liberty of repeating.
+
+    1. Real home-rule is self-rule or self-control.
+
+    2. The way to it is passive resistance: that is soul force or
+    love-force.
+
+    3. In order to exert this force, Swadeshi in every sense is
+    necessary.
+
+    4. What we want to do should be done, not because we object to the
+    English or that we want to retaliate, but because it is our duty to
+    do so. Thus, supposing that the English remove the salt-tax, restore
+    our money, give the highest posts to Indians, withdraw the English
+    troops, we shall certainly not use their machine-made goods, nor use
+    the English language, nor many of their industries. It is worth
+    nothing that these things are, in their nature, harmful; hence, we
+    do not want them. I bear no enmity towards the English, but I do
+    towards their civilization.
+
+In my opinion, we have used the term "Swaraj" without understanding its
+real significance. I have endeavoured to explain it as I understand it,
+and my conscience testifies that my life henceforth is dedicated to its
+attainment.
+
+
+
+
+APPENDICES:
+
+Some Authorities.
+
+Testimonies by Eminent Men.
+
+
+APPENDICES.
+
+Some Authorities.
+
+
+The following books are recommended for perusal to follow up the study
+of the foregoing:--
+
+"The Kingdom of God is Within You"--_Tolstoy_.
+
+"What is Art?"--_Tolstoy._
+
+"Slavery of Our Times"--_Tolstoy_.
+
+"The First Step"--_Tolstoy_.
+
+"How Shall We Escape"--_Tolstoy_.
+
+"Letter to a Hindoo"--_Tolstoy_.
+
+"The White Slaves of England"--_Sherard_.
+
+"Civilization: Its Cause and Cure"--_Carpenter_.
+
+"The Fallacy of Speed"--_Taylor_.
+
+"A New Crusade"--_Blount_.
+
+"On the Duty of Civil Disobedience"--_Thoreau_.
+
+"Life Without Principle"--_Thoreau_.
+
+"Unto This Last"--_Ruskin_.
+
+"A Joy for Ever"--_Ruskin_.
+
+"Duties of Man"--_Mazzini_.
+
+"Defence and Death of Socrates"--From _Plato_.
+
+"Paradoxes of Civilization"--_Max Nordau_.
+
+"Poverty and Un-British Rule in India"--_Naoroji_.
+
+"Economic History of India"--_Dutt_.
+
+"Village Communities"--_Maine_.
+
+
+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
+civilization, 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."
+
+
+J. Seymour Keay, M. P.
+
+_Banker in India and India Agent._
+
+(_Writing in 1883._)
+
+"It cannot be too well understood that our position in India has never
+been in any degree that of civilians bringing civilization to savage
+races. When we landed in India we found there a hoary civilization,
+which, during the progress of thousands of years, had fitted itself into
+the character and adjusted itself to the wants of highly intellectual
+races. The civilization was not prefunctory, but universal and
+all-pervading--furnishing the country not only with political systems
+but with social and domestic institutions of the most ramified
+description. The beneficent nature of these institutions as a whole may
+be judged of from their effects on the character of the Hindu race.
+Perhaps there are no other people in the world who show so much in their
+characters the advantageous effects of their own civilization. They are
+shrewd in business, acute in reasoning, thrifty, religious, sober,
+charitable, obedient to parents, reverential to old age, amiable,
+law-abiding, compassionate towards the helpless, and patient under
+suffering."
+
+
+Friedrich Max Muelier, LL.D.
+
+"If I were to ask myself from what literature we hear in Europe, we who
+have been nurtured almost exclusively on the thoughts of Greeks and
+Romans, and of one Semetic race, the Jewish may draw that corrective
+which is most wanted in order to make our inner life more perfect, more
+comprehensive, more universal, in fact more truly human, a life, not for
+this life only but a transfigured and eternal life--again I should point
+to India."
+
+
+Michael G. Mulhall, F.R.S.S.
+
+_Statistics_ (_1899_).
+
+  Prison population per 100,000 of inhabitants:
+       Several European States        100 to 230
+       England and Wales                      90
+       India                                  38
+
+--"_Dictionary of Statistics_," _Michael G. Mulhall, F.R.S.S._,
+_Routledge and Sons, 1899_.
+
+
+Colonel Thomas Munro.
+
+_Thirty-two years' service in India._
+
+"If a good system of agriculture, unrivalled manufacturing skill, a
+capacity to produce whatever can contribute to convenience or luxury;
+schools established in every village, for teaching, reading, writing and
+arithmetic; the general practice of hospitality and charity among each
+other; and, above all, treatment of the female sex, full of confidence,
+respect and delicacy, are among the signs which denote a civilised
+people, then the Hindus are not inferior to the nations of Europe; and
+if civilization is to become an article of trade between the two
+countries, I am convinced that this country [England] will gain by the
+import cargo."
+
+
+Frederick von Schlegel.
+
+"It cannot be denied that the early Indians possessed a knowledge of the
+true God; all their writings are replete with sentiments and expressions
+noble, clear and severely grand, as deeply conceived and reverently
+expressed as in any human language in which men have spoken of their
+God.... Among nations possessing indigenous philosophy and metaphysics,
+together with an innate relish for these pursuits, such as at present
+characterises Germany; and in olden times, was the proud distinction of
+Greece, Hindustan holds the first rank in point of time."
+
+
+Sir William Wedderburn, Bart.
+
+"The Indian village has thus for centuries remained a bulwark against
+political disorder, and the home of the simple domestic and social virtues.
+No wonder, therefore, that philosophers and historians have always dwelt
+lovingly on this ancient institution which is the natural social
+unit and the best type of rural life; self-contained, industrious,
+peace-loving, conservative in the best sense of the word.... I think you
+will agree with me that there is much that is both picturesque and
+attractive in this glimpse of social and domestic life in an Indian
+village. It is a harmless and happy form of human existence. Moreover,
+it is not without good practical outcome."
+
+
+J. Young.
+
+_Secretary, Savon Mechanics' Institutes._
+
+(_Within recent years_).
+
+"Those races, [the Indian viewed from a moral aspect] are perhaps the
+most remarkable people in the world. They breathe an atmosphere of moral
+purity, which cannot but excite admiration, and this is especially the
+case with the poorer classes who, notwithstanding the privations of
+their humble lot, appear to be happy and contented. True children of
+nature, they live on from day to day, taking no thought of to-morrow and
+thankful for the simple fare which Providence has provided for them. It
+is curious to witness the spectacle of coolies of both sexes returning
+home at nightfall after a hard day's work often lasting from sunrise to
+sunset. In spite of fatigue from the effects of the unremitting toil,
+they are, for the most part, gay and animated, conversing cheerfully
+together and occasionally breaking into snatches of light-hearted song.
+Yet what awaits them on their return to the hovels which they call home?
+A dish of rice for food, and the floor for a bed. Domestic felicity
+appears to be the rule among the Natives, and this is the more strange
+when the customs of marriage are taken into account, parents arranging
+all such matters. Many Indian households afford examples of the married
+state in its highest degree of perfection. This may be due to the
+teachings of the Shastras, and to the strict injunctions which they
+inculcate with regard to marital obligations; but it is no exaggeration
+to say that husbands are generally devotedly attached to their wives,
+and in many instances the latter have the most exalted conception of
+their duties towards their husbands."
+
+
+Abbe J. A. Dubois.
+
+_Missionary in Mysore. Extracts from letter dated Seringapatam, 15th
+December, 1820._
+
+"The authority of married women within their houses is chiefly exerted
+in preserving good order and peace among the persons who compose their
+families: and a great many among them discharge this important duty with
+a prudence and a discretion which have scarcely a parallel in Europe. I
+have known families composed of between thirty and forty persons, or
+more, consisting of grown-up sons and daughters, all married and all
+having children, living together under the superintendence of an old
+matron--their mother or mother-in-law. The latter, by good management,
+and by accommodating herself to the temper of the daughters-in-law, by
+using, according to circumstances, firmness or forbearance, succeeded in
+preserving peace and harmony during many years amongst so many females,
+who had all jarring interests, and still more jarring tempers. I ask you
+whether it would be possible to attain the same end, in the same
+circumstances, in our countries, where it is scarcely possible to make
+two women living under the same roof to agree together.
+
+"In fact, there is perhaps no kind of honest employment in a civilised
+country in which the Hindu females have not a due share. Besides the
+management of the household, and the care of the family, which (as
+already noticed) under their control, the wives and daughters of
+husbandmen attend and assist their husbands and fathers in the labours
+of agriculture. Those of tradesmen assist theirs in carrying on their
+trade. Merchants are attended and assisted by theirs in their shops.
+Many females are shopkeepers on their own account and _without a
+knowledge of the alphabet_ or of the decimal scale, they keep by other
+means their accounts in excellent order, and are considered as still
+shrewder than the males themselves in their commercial dealings."
+
+
+THE MODERN PRINTING WORKS, MOUNT ROAD, MADRAS.
+
+
+
+
+Books on Liberty and Freedom
+
+
+The Ideal of Swaraj.
+
+    In Education and Government by Nirpendra Chandra Banerjee with an
+    introduction by C. F. Andrews.
+
+    Those who are out of sheer prejudice and incapacity for political
+    thought, sneer, at the goal of Swaraj proclaimed by the National
+    Congress as merely a destructive and at best a visionary ideal as
+    well as those who in spite of their approval of the goal are unable
+    to visualise it in concrete contents, will do well to read this
+    interesting and instructive book by an ardent Bengali patriot and
+    ex-school master. The author has political insight, and faith in the
+    country's capacity. He recognises that the soul of India is in her
+    numerous villages in rural centres and has given out practical
+    suggestions for national reconstruction along sound lines.
+
+    Mr. Andrews has written an introduction to the volume wherein he has
+    dealt with the value of the Swaraj ideal and his own conception of
+    the same. It is a useful publication worthy to be placed in the
+    hands of our young men and women.--_Hindu._
+
+    =Price Rs. 1.=
+
+
+India's Will to Freedom.
+
+    By =Lala Lajpat Rai=. A collection of Writings and Addresses on the
+    present situation and the work before us. "We in India should, one
+    and all, take a vow that whether we have to lay down our life,
+    whether we are mutilated or hanged, whether our women and children
+    are mal-treated, our desire for Swaraj will never grow a little any
+    the less. Every child of this land, whatever his religion or
+    persuasion, should swear that, as long as there is life in his
+    limbs, or breath in his nostrils, he would strive for national
+    liberty."
+
+    =Price Rs. 2-8.=
+
+
+Footsteps of Freedom.
+
+    By =James H. Cousins=. "Another stunt which will also be vigorously
+    vamped by the opponents of dyarehy, in fact of all reform will be
+    the absolute necessity of politically educating the masses of India
+    before giving them any measure of political freedom. In a book of
+    charming essays which he has just published through Messrs. Ganesh &
+    Co., of Madras, under the title of "Footsteps of Freedom" Mr. James
+    Cousins attacks this particular fallacy and shatters it
+    convincingly." _Ditcher in Capital._
+
+    =Price Rs. 2.=
+
+
+Freedom's Battle.
+
+    A comprehensive collection of Writings and Speeches of Mahatma
+    Gandhi on the present situation including The Khilafat Wrongs, The
+    Punjab Agony, Swaraj, Hindu-Muslim Unity, Indians Overseas, The
+    Depressed Classes, Non-co-operation, etc., with an historical
+    introduction by Mr. C. Rajagopalachar.
+
+    "The war that the people of India have declared and which will
+    purify and consolidate India, and forge for her a true and stable
+    liberty is a war with the latest and most effective weapon. In this
+    war, what has hitherto been in the world an undesirable but
+    necessary incident in freedom's battles, the killing of innocent men
+    has been eliminated; and that which is the true essential for
+    forging liberty, the self-purification and self-strengthening of men
+    and women has been kept pure and unalloyed."
+
+    The best preparation for any one who desires to take part in the
+    great battle now going on is a silent study of the writings and
+    speeches collected herein.
+
+    =Price Rs. 2-8.=
+
+
+GANESH & Co., Publishers, Madras.
+
+
+
+
+TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE:
+
+
+Obvious typographical and printer errors have been corrected without
+comment. In addition to obvious errors, the following two changes have
+been made:
+
+   Page 62: 'four' replaced with 'our' in the phrase: "... to deepen our
+   slavery."
+
+   Page 115: 'cover' changed to 'cower' in the phrase: "... will not
+   cower before brute-force...."
+
+   Page 128: 'foot' changed to 'roof' in the phrase: "... living under
+   the same roof....'
+
+Other than this, any inconsistencies in the author's spelling, use of
+grammar and punctuation have been preserved in this text as they appear
+in the original publication.
+
+Two possible printer errors which have not been corrected in this text
+include:
+
+   Page 116: "... the will give up his profession;" probably should
+   read, "... he (or 'they') will give up his profession...."
+
+   Page 119: "It is worth nothing that these things are...." probably
+   should read, "It is worth noting that these things are...."
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Indian Home Rule, by M. K. Gandhi
+
+*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 40461 ***