\documentclass[a4paper,openany,12pt]{book}

% Navajivan Trust edition

\author{Mohandas K. Gandhi}
\title{Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule}

\oddsidemargin=0pt
\evensidemargin=0pt
\topmargin=-30pt
\headheight=0pt
\headsep=15pt
\textheight=705pt
\textwidth=460pt
\setlength{\parindent}{20pt}       % for indentation of paragraphs
\setlength{\parskip}{1.2ex}        % for spacing between paragraphs
\footskip=30pt
\voffset=0pt

\usepackage{indentfirst}
\usepackage[12pt]{moresize}
\usepackage{t1enc}

\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}           % for French characters
\usepackage[english,french]{babel}

\usepackage{times}

\pagestyle{plain}                  % page style with page numbers only
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\pagestyle{fancy}
\lhead{}
\chead{\textsc{Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule}}
\rhead{}

\begin{document}

\selectlanguage{english}

% \renewcommand{\thepart}{\Roman{part}}
% \renewcommand{\thechapter}{\arabic{chapter}}
%\renewcommand{\partname}{}
%\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}.}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{}
\renewcommand{\thechapter}{}
\renewcommand{\chaptername}{}

\thispagestyle{empty}
\vspace*{5ex}
\begin{center}
\fontsize{48pt}{72pt}\selectfont
Indian Home Rule\\
\fontsize{36pt}{72pt}\selectfont
or\\
\fontsize{48pt}{72pt}\selectfont
Hind Swaraj

\vspace{10ex}
\fontsize{48pt}{48pt}\selectfont
Mohandas K. Gandhi
\end{center}

\newpage
\vspace*{25ex}
\begin{center}
\large{Original editor \& publisher (1938):\\
Jitendra T. Desai\\
Navajivan Publishing House\\
(Navajivan Mudranalaya)\\
Ahmedabad 380014\\
India}

\vspace{5ex}
\large{Translation of ``Hind Swaraj'',\\
published in the Gujarat columns of Indian Opinion.\\
11th and 18th December, 1909}

\vspace{1ex}
\large{ISBN 81-7229-070-5}

\vspace{10ex}
\large{Published by Yann FORGET\\
on \today, with \LaTeXe{}.}

\vspace{1ex}
\large{\copyright{} Navajivan Trust, 1938}
\end{center}

\tableofcontents

% Problem with this line
%\part[Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule]{Hind Swaraj\\ or\\ Indian Home Rule}
\part{Hind Swaraj\\ or\\ Indian Home Rule}

\chapter[\hspace{4ex}To the reader]{To the reader}

\par I would like to say to the diligent reader of my writings and to others
who are interested in them that I am not at all concerned with appearing to be
consistent. In my search after Truth, I have discarded many ideas and learnt
many new things. Old as I am in age, I have no feeling that I have ceased to
grow inwardly or that my growth will stop at the dissolution of the flesh. What
I am concerned with is my readiness to obey the call of Truth, my God, from
moment to moment, and, therefore, when anybody finds any inconsistency between
any two writings of mine, if he has still faith in my sanity, he would do well
to choose the later of the two on the same subject.

\begin{flushright}
Mohandas K. Gandhi\\
\textit{Harijan}, 29-04-1933, page 2.
\end{flushright}

\chapter[\hspace{4ex}Preface to the new edition]{Preface to the new edition}

\par [In issuing this new edition of \emph{Hind Swaray}, it may not be
inappropriate to publish the following that I wrote in the \emph{Harijan} in
connection of the \emph{Hind Swaraj Special Number} of the \emph{Aryan
Path}. Though Gandhiji's views as expressed in the first edition of the
\emph{Hind Swaraj} have remained in substance unchanged, they have gone
through a necessary evolution. My article copied below throws some light on
this evolution. The proof copy of this edition has been revised by numerous
friends to whom I am deeply indebted.]

\begin{flushright}
Mahadev Desai\\
Wardha, 11-12-1938
\end{flushright}

\section{An Important Publication}

\par Unique in its conception and beautifully successful in its execution is
the \emph{Special Swaraj Number} of the \emph{Aryan Path}. It owes its
appearance mainly to the devoted labours of that gifted sister Shrimati Sophia
Wadia who sent copies of \emph{Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule} to numerous
friends abroad and invited the most prominent of them to express their views on
the book and seen in it the hope for future India, but she wanted the European
thinkers and writers to say that it had in it the potency to help even Europe
out of its chaos, and therefore she thought of this plan. The result is
remarkable. The special number contains articles by Professor Soddy, G. D. H.
Cole, C. Delisle Burns, John Middleton Murry, J. D. Beresford, Hugh Fausset,
Claude Houghton, Gerald Heard and Irene Rathbone. Some of these are of course
well-known pacifists and socialists. One wonders what the number would have
been like, if it had included in it articles by non-pacifist and non-socialist
writers! The articles are so arranged ``that adverse criticisms and objections
raised in earlier articles are mostly answered in subsequent ones''. But there
are one or two criticisms which have been made practically by all the writers,
and it would be worth while considering them here.

\par There are certain things which it would be well to recognize at once. Thus
Professor Soddy remarks that, having just returned from a visit to India, he
saw little outwardly to suggest that the doctrine inculcated in the book had
attainted any considerable measure of success. That is quite true. Equally true
is Mr. G. D. H. Cole's remark that though Gandhiji's is ``as near as a man can
be to Swaraj in a purely personal sense, he has never solved, to his own
satisfaction, the other problem --- that of finding terms of collaboration that
could span the gulf between man and man, between acting alone and helping
others to act in accordance with their lights, which involves acting with them
and as one of them --- being at once one's self and someone else, someone one's
self can and must regard and criticize and attempt to value.'' Also as John
Middleton Murry says, ``the efficacy of non-violence is quickly exhausted when
used as a mere technique of political pressure'', --- when the question arises,
``Is non-violence \emph{faute de mieux}, really non-violence at all?''

\par But the whole process is one of endless evolution. In working for the end,
man also works for perfecting the means. The principle of non-violence and love
was enunciated by Buddha and Christ centuries ago. It has been applied through
these centuries by individual people with success on small clear-cut issues. As
it has been recognized, and as Gerald Heard has pointed out, ``the world-wide
and age-long interest of Mr. Gandhi's experiment lies in the fact that he has
attempted to make the method work in what may be called the wholesale or
national scale.'' The difficulties of that application are obvious, but
Gandhiji trusts that they are not insurmountable. The experiment seemed
impossible in India in 1921 and had to be abandoned, but what was then
impossible became possible in 1930. Even now the question often arises: ``What
is a non-violent means?'' It will take long practice to standardize the meaning
and content of this term. But the means thereof is self-purification and more
self-purification. What Western thinkers often lose sight of is that the
fundamental condition of non-violence is love, and pure unselfish love is
impossible without unsullied purity of mind and body.

\section{The Attack on Machinery and Civilization}

\par What is a common feature of all the other appreciative reviews of the book
is in the reviewers' opinion Gandhiji's unwarranted condemnation of machinery.
``He forgets, in the urgency of his vision,'' says Middleton Murry, ``that the
very spinning wheel he loves is also a machine, and also unnatural. On his
principles it should be abolished.'' ``This,'' says Professor Delisle Burns,
``is a fundamental philosophical error. It implies that we are to regard as
morally evil any instrument which may be misused. But even the spinning wheel
is a machine; and spectacles on the nose are mere mechanisms for ``bodily''
eyesight. The plough is a machine; and the very earliest mechanisms for drawing
water are themselves only the later survivals of perhaps ten thousand years of
human effort to improve the live of men\ldots Any mechanism may be misused; but
if it is, the moral evil is in the man who misuses it, not in the mechanism.''
I must confess that in ``the urgency of his vision'' Gandhiji has used rather
crude language about machinery, which if he were revising the book he would
himself alter. For I am sure Gandhiji would accept all the statements I have
quoted here, and he has never attributed to mechanisms moral qualities which
belong to the men who use them. Thus in 1924, he used language which is
reminiscent of the two writers I have just quoted. I shall reproduced a
dialogue that took place in Delhi. Replying to a question whether he was
against \emph{all} machinery, Gandhiji said:

\begin{quote}
\par ``How can I be when I know that even this body is a most delicate piece of
machinery? The spinning wheel is a machine; a little toothpick is a machine.
What I object to is the craze for machinery, not machinery as such. The craze
is for what they call labour-saving machinery. Men go on ``saving labour'' till
thousands are without work and thrown on the open streets to die of starvation.
I want to save time and labour not for a fraction of mankind but \emph{for
all}. I want the concentration of wealth, not in the hands of a few, but in the
hands of all. Today machinery merely helps a few to ride on the backs of
millions. The impetus behind it all is not the philanthropy to save labour, but
greed. It is against this constitution of things that I am fighting with all my
might\ldots The supreme consideration is man. The machine should not tend to
atrophy the limbs of man. For instance, I would make intelligent exceptions.
Take the case of the Singer's sewing machine. It is one of the few useful
things ever invented, and there is a romance about the device itself.''
\end{quote}

\par ``But,'' asked the questioner, ``there would have to be a factory for
making these sewing machines, and it would have to contain power-driven
machinery of ordinary types.''

\par ``Yes,'' said Gandhiji in reply, ``but I am socialist enough to say that
such factories should be nationalized, State-controlled\ldots The saving of the
labour of the individual should be the object, and not human greed the motive.
Thus, for instance, I would welcome any day a machine to straighten crooked
spindles. Not that blacksmiths will cease to make spindles; they will continue
to provide spindles but when the spindle goes wrong every spinner will have a
machine to get it straight. Therefore replace greed by love and everything will
be all right.''

\par ``But,'' said the quetsioner, ``if you make an exception of the Singer's
sewing machine and your spindle, where would these exceptions end?''

\par ``Just where they cease to help the individual and encroach upon his
individuality. The machine should not be allowed to cripple the limbs of man.''

\par ``But, ideally, would you not rule out \emph{all} machinery? When you
except the sewing machine, you will have to make exceptions of the bicycle, the
motor car, etc.''

\par ``No, I don't,'' he said, ``because they do not satisfy any of the primary
wants of man; for it is not the primary need of man to traverse distances with
the rapidity of a motor car. The needle on the contrary happens to be an
essential thing in life, a primary need.''

\par But he added: ``Ideally, I would rule out all machinery, even as I would
reject this very body, which is not helpful to salvation, and seek the absolute
liberation of the soul. From that point of view I would reject all machinery,
but machines will remain because, like the body, they are inevitable. The body
itself, as I told you, is the purest piece of mechanism; but if it is a
hindrance to the highest flights of the soul, it has to be rejected.''

\par I do not think any of the critics would be in fundamental disagreement
with this position. The machine is, like the body, useful if and only to the
extent that it subserves the growth of the soul.

\par Similarly about Western civilization, Mr. G. D. H. Cole counters the
proposition that ``Western civilization is of sharp necessity at enmity with
the human soul'': ``I say that the horrors of Spain and Abyssinia, the
perpetual fear that hangs over us, the destitution in the midst of potential
plenty, are defects, grave defects, of our Western civilization, but are not of
its very essence\ldots I do not say that we shall mend this civilization of
ours; but I do not believe it to be past mending. I do not believe that it
rests upon a sheer denial of what is necessary to the human soul.'' Quite so,
and the defects Gandhiji pointed out were not inherent defects, but the defects
of its tendencies, and Gandhiji's object in the book was to contrast the
tendencies of the Indian civilization with those of the Western. Gandhiji would
wholly agree with G. D. H. Cole that Western civilization is not past mending,
also that the West will need a ``Home Rule'' after the fashion of the West, and
also conceived by ``leaders who are masters of themselves, as Gandhi is, but
masters after our Western fashion, which is not his, or India's.''

\section{Limitations of the Doctrine}

\par G. D. H. Cole has put the following poser: ``Is it so when German and
Italian airmen are massacring the Spanish people, when Japanese airmen are
slaughtering thousands upon thousands in Chinese cities, when German armies
have marched into Austria and are threatening to march into Czechoslovakia,
when Abyssinia has been bloodily bombed into defeat? Until two years ago or so,
I believed myself opposed to war and death-dealing violence under all
circumstances. But today, hating war, I would risk war to stop these horrors.''
How acute is the struggle within himself is apparent from the sentences that
follow: ``I would risk war; and yet, even now, that second self of mine shrinks
back appalled at the thought of killing a man. Personally, I would much sooner
die than kill. But may it not my duty to try to kill rather than to die? Gandhi
might answer that no such dilemma could confront a man who had achieved his
personal Swaraj. I do not claim to have achieved mine; but I am unconvinced
that the dilemma would confront me, here and now in Western Europe, less
disturbingly if I had.''

\par Occasions like those Mr. Cole has mentioned test one's faith, but the
answer has been given by Gandhiji more than once, though he has not completely
achieved his Swaraj, for the simple reason that for him Swaraj is incomplete so
long as his fellow-beings are bereft of it. But he lives in faith, and the
faith in non-violence does not begin to shake at the mention of Italian or
Japanese barbarities. For violence breeds the results of violence, and once you
start the game there is no limit to be drawn. Philip Mumford in the \emph{War
Resister} has replied as follows to a Chinese friend urging action on behalf of
China:

\begin{quote}
\par ``Your enemy is the Japanese Government and not the Japanese peasants and
soldiers --- unfortunate and uneducated people who do not even know why they
are being asked to fight. Yet, if you use ordinary military methods of
defending your country, it is these guiltless people who are not your real
enemies whom you must kill. If only China would try and preserve herself by the
non-violent tactics used by Gandhiji in India, tactics which are indeed far
more in accordance with the teachings of her great religious leaders, she
would, I venture to say, be far more successful than she will be copying the
militarist methods of Europe\ldots Surely it is a lesson to mankind in general
that the Chinese, the most pacific people on earth, have preserved themselves
and their civilization for a longer period in history than any of the warlike
races. Please do not think we do not honour those gallant Chinese who are
fighting in defence of their country. We honour their sacrifice and recognize
that they hold different principles from ourselves. None the less we believe
that killing is evil in all circumstances and out of it good cannot come.
Pacifism will not spare you from all suffering, but in the long run, it is, I
believe, a more effective weapon against the would-be conqueror than all your
fighting forces; and what is more important, it will keep alive the ideals of
your race.''
\end{quote}

\par Miss Irene Rathbone poses a similar question: ``What human being on this
earth, normal or saint-like, can endure that small boys and girls should perish
if, by bowing to the tyrant and denying his own conscience, he can save them?
That question Gandhi does not answer. He does not even pose it\ldots Christ is
clearer\ldots Here are his words: ``But whose shall offend one of these little
ones, which believe in me, it were better that millstone were hanged about his
neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.'' \ldots Christ is a
greater help to us than Gandhi\ldots'' I do not think Christ's words express
anything more than his wrath, and the action suggested is not by way of
punishment to be imposed by another on the offender, but one to be imposed on
himself by himself. And is Miss Rathbone sure that she can, by using what she
supposes to be Christ's method, save the child? She is wrong in thinking that
Gandhiji has not posed the question. He has posed it and answered it
emphatically, as it was posed and answered in action by those immortal Muslim
martyrs 1300 years ago who suffered women and children to die of hunger and
thirst rather than bow to the tyrant and deny their own conscience. For, in
bowing to the tyrant and denying your own conscience, you encourage the tyrant
to perpetrate further horrors.

\par But even Miss Irene Rathbone calls \emph{Hind Swaraj} ``an enormously
powerful book'', and says that by virtue of it she has found ``myself forced by
its tremendous honesty to search my own honesty. I would implore people to read
it.''

\par The Editors of the \emph{Aryan Path} have done a distinct service to the
cause of peace and non-violence by issuing their \emph{Hind Swaraj Special
Number}.

\cleardoublepage

\chapter[\hspace{4ex}Preface]{Preface}

\par When Lord Lothian was at Segaon, he asked me if I could give him a copy of
\emph{Hind Swaray}, for, as he said, all that Gandhiji was teaching now lay in
the germ in that little book which deserved to be read and re-read in order to
understand Gandhiji properly.

\par Curiously enough, about the same time, Shrimati Sophia Wadia was writing
an article on the book exhorting all our Ministers and M.L.A.s, all the British
and Indian Civil Servants, indeed every one who wanted the present non-violent
experiment in democracy to succeed, to read and re-read the book. ``How can a
non-violent man be a dictator in his own home?'' she asks. ``How can he be a
wine-bibber? How can a lawyer advise his client to go to court and fight?'' The
answers to all these questions raise highly important practical issues. The
people's education in \emph{Hind Swaraj}, in which these problems are dealt
with from the point of view of principles, should be extensively carried on.''

\par Her appeal is timely. The book was written in 1908, during Gandhiji's
return voyage from London, in answer to the Indian school of violence and
published serially in the columns of the \emph{Indian Opinion}, edited by
Gandhiji. Then it was published in book form, to be proscribed by the Bombay
Government. Gandhiji had translated the book for Mr. Kallenbach. In answer to
the Bombay Government's action, he published the English translation. When
Gokhale saw the translation, on his visit to South-Africa in 1912, he thought
it so crude and hastily conceived that he prophesied that Gandhiji himself
would destroy the book after spending a year in India. With deference to the
memory of the great teacher, I may say that his prediction has failed to come
true. In 1921, Gandhiji, writing about it, said: ``It teaches the gospel of
love in place of that of hate. It replaces violence with self-sacrifice. It
pits soul force against brute force. I withdraw nothing except one word of it,
and that in deference to a lady friend. The booklet is a severe condemnation of
``modern civilization''. It was written in 1908. My conviction is deeper today
than ever\ldots But I would warn the reader against thinking that I am today
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 today my corporate
activity is undoubtedly devoted to the attainment of Parliamentary Swaraj, in
accordance with the wishes of the people of India.'' Even in 1938, he would
alter nothing in the book, except perhaps the language in some parts. It is
being presented to the reader unabridged.

\par But whether India may be ripe for it or not, it is best for Indians to
study the seminal book which contains the ultimate logical conclusion of the
acceptance of the twin principles of Truth and Non-violence, and then decide
whether these principles should be accepted or rejected. On being told that the
book had been out of print for some time and that a few copies of its Madras
edition were available at eight annas a copy, Gandhiji said that it should be
published immediately at a nominal price, so that it may be within easy reach
of those who may wish to read it. The Navajivan Publishing House is therefore
publishing it at practically the cost price.

\begin{flushright}
Mahadev Desai\\
Wardha, 02-02-1938
\end{flushright}

\chapter[\hspace{4ex}A Word of Explanation]{A Word of Explanation}

\par It is certainly my good fortune that this booklet of mine is receiving
wide attention. The original is in Gujarati. It has a chequered career. It was
first published in the columns of the \emph{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 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 Satyagraha 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. What I wrote 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 it was due to my English friends that they should know its contents.

\par In my opinion it is a book which can be put into the hands of a child. It
teaches the gospel of love in place of that of hate. It replaces violence with
self-sacrifice. It pits sould 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.

\par The booklet is a severe condemnation of ``modern civilization''. It was
written in 1908. My conviction is deeper today than ever. I feel that if India
will discard ``modern civilization'', sha can only gain by doing so.

\par But I would warn the reader against thinking that I am today 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 today 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 I am aiming at a permanent summation devoutly to be wished. Still
less am I trying to destroy all machinery and mills. It requires a higher
simplicity and renunciation than the people are today prepared for.

\par The only part of the programme which is now being carried out 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.

\par 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 Satyagraha is made of sterner stuff. There is
nothing reserved and nothing secret in it. A portion of the whole theory of
life described in \emph{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.

\begin{flushright}
Mohandas K. Gandhi\\
\emph{Young India}, January, 1921.
\end{flushright}

\chapter[\hspace{4ex}A Message]{A Message}

\par I welcome your advertising the principles in defence of which \emph{Hind
Swaraj} was written. The English edition is a translation of the original which
was in Gujarati. I might change the language here and there, if I had to
rewrite the booklet. But after the stormy thirty years through which I have
passed, I have seen nothing to make me alter the views expounded in it. Let the
reader bear in mind that it is a faithful record of conversations I had with
workers, one of whom was an avowed anarchist. He should also know that it
stopped the rot that was about to set in among some Indians in South-Africa.
The reader may balance against this the opinion of a dear friend, who alas! is
no more, that it was the production of a fool.\footnote{Reproduced from the
\emph{Aryan Path, Special Hind Swaraj Number}, published in September, 1938.}

\begin{flushright}
Mohandas K. Gandhi\\
Segaon, July 14th, 1938.
\end{flushright}

\cleardoublepage
\renewcommand{\thechapter}{\Roman{chapter}.}
\setcounter{chapter}{0}

\chapter[\hspace{4ex}The Congress and its Officials]%
	{The Congress and its Officials}

\par \textsc{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 to acquire rights. Will you explain your
views in this matter ?

\par \textsc{Editor}: You have put the question well, but the answer is not
easy. One of the objects of a newspaper is to understand 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.

\par \textsc{Reader}: Do you then consider that a desire for Home Rule has
been created among us ?

\par \textsc{Editor}: That desire gave rise to the National Congress. The
choice of the word ``National'' implies it.

\par \textsc{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.

\par \textsc{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 Budruddin 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.

\par \textsc{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 talk will not satisfy me.

\par \textsc{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.

\par \textsc{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, would 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.

\par \textsc{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, today, 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
away 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 depise 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.

\par \textsc{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 should 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.

\par \textsc{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 of
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.

\par \textsc{Reader}: Are we, then, to follow him in every respect ?

\par \textsc{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 decry his work, but to believe that he is
infinitely greater then we are, 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 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.

\par \textsc{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 my comprehension.

\par \textsc{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.

\par \textsc{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 spend 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.

\par \textsc{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.

\par \textsc{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.

\par \textsc{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[\hspace{4ex}The Partition of Bengal]{The Partition of Bengal}

\par \textsc{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 this cannot be considered a real awakening.
When and how did the real awakening take place?

\par \textsc{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 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 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. The
Partition will go, Bengal will be reunited, but the rift in the
English barque will remain; it must daily widen. India awakened is
not likely to fall asleep. The demand for the abrogation of the
Partition is tantamount to a demand for Home Rule. Leaders in Bengal
know this, British officials realize it. That is why the Partition
still remains. As time passes, the Nation is being forged. Nations
are not formed is a day; the formation requires years.

\par \textsc{Reader}: What, in your opinion, are the results of the
Partition?

\par \textsc{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 the 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 awes them. They do 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.

\par \textsc{Reader}: Do you suggest any other striking result?

\par \textsc{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 preconceptions. 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[\hspace{4ex}Discontent and unrest]{Discontent and unrest}

\par \textsc{Reader}: Then you consider the Partition to be a cause of the
awakening? Do you welcome the unrest which has resulted from it?

\par \textsc{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 condition has not yet disappeared. We are still twisting
our limbs and are 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.

\par \textsc{Reader}: What is the other form of unrest?

\par \textsc{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. As 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[\hspace{4ex}What is swaraj?]{What is swaraj?}

\par \textsc{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 as yours.

\par \textsc{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?

\par \textsc{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 their
language, the word ``gone'' is equivalent to ``remained''.

\par \textsc{Editor}: Well then, let us suppose that the English have
retired. What will you do then?

\par \textsc{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.

\par \textsc{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?

\par \textsc{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.

\par \textsc{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?

\par \textsc{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.

\par \textsc{Editor}: Supposing we get Self-Government similar to what the
Canadians and the South Africans have, will it be good enough?

\par \textsc{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.

\par \textsc{Editor}: You have drawn the picture well. 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.

\par \textsc{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.

\par \textsc{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[\hspace{4ex}The condition of England]{The condition of England}

\par \textsc{Reader}: Then from your statement I deduce that the Government
of England is not worth copying by us.

\par \textsc{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. Today it is under Mr. Asquith, tomorrow it may be
under Mr. Balfour.

\par \textsc{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.

\par \textsc{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 effects 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
today may be undone tomorrow. It is not possible to recall a single
instance in which finality can be predicted for its work. When the
greatest questions are debated, its members have been seen to
stretch themselves and to doze. 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 Parliament were
entrusted to a few good men, the English nation would be occupying
today a much higher platform. 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 that
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 out grow its babyhood?

\par \textsc{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''?

\par \textsc{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. 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 Parliament. His
energy is concentrated upon securing the success of his party. His
care is not always that Parliament shall do right. Prime Ministers
are known to have made Parliament do things merely for party
advantage. All this is worth thinking over.

\par \textsc{Reader}: Then you are really attacking the very men whom we have
hitherto considered to be patriotic and honest?

\par \textsc{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 are generally known as bribes, 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.

\par \textsc{Reader}: As you express these views about Parliament, I would
like to hear you on the English people, so that I may have your view
of their Government.

\par \textsc{Editor}: To the English voters their newspaper is their Bible.
They take their cue from their newspapers which 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?

\par \textsc{Reader}: You shall describe it.

\par \textsc{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.

\par \textsc{Reader}: To what do you ascribe this state of England?

\par \textsc{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[\hspace{4ex}Civilization]{Civilization}

\par \textsc{Reader}: Now you will have to explain what you mean by
civilization.

\par \textsc{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.

\par \textsc{Reader}: Why do we not know this generally?

\par \textsc{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 works of defenders
of modern civilization, which undoubtedly claims among its votaries
very brilliant and even some very good men. Their writings hypnotize
us. And so, one by one, we are drawn into the vortex.

\par \textsc{Reader}: This seems to be very plausible. Now will you tell me
something of what you have read and thought of this civilization?

\par \textsc{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 today 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 spears as their
weapons. Now, they wear long trousers, and, for embelishing 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 civilized 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, only a few men wrote valuable books. 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 airship 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 as 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; today,
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 home-made 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.
There are all true tests of civilization. And if anyone 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.

\par This civilization is irreligion, and it has taken such a hold on
the people in Europe 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.

\par This civilization is such that one has only to be patient and it
will be self-destroyed. According to the teaching of Mahommed 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.
Parliaments 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[\hspace{4ex}Why was India lost?]{Why was India lost?}

\par \textsc{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?

\par \textsc{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 shall 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.

\par \textsc{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.

\par \textsc{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 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
utilized 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.

\par \textsc{Reader}: Will you now tell me how they are able to retain India?

\par \textsc{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. Napolean is said to
have described the English as a nation of shopkeepers. 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
someone 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[\hspace{4ex}The condition of India]{The condition of India}

\par \textsc{Reader}: I now understand why the English hold India. I should
like to know your views about the condition of our country.

\par \textsc{Editor}: It is a sad condition. In thinking of it my eyes water
and my throat gets 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 or the Mahomedan or the
Zoroastrian religion but of that religion which underlies all
religions. We are turning away from God.

\par \textsc{Reader}: How so?

\par \textsc{Editor}: There is a charge laid against us that we are a lazy
people and that Europeans are industrious and enterprizing. We have
accepted the charge and we therefore wish to change our condition.
Hinduism, Islam, 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.

\par \textsc{Reader}: You seem to be encouraging religious charlatanism. Many
a cheat has, by talking in a similar strain, led the people astray.

\par \textsc{Editor}: You are bringing an unlawful charge against religion.
Humbug there undoubtedly is about all religions.

\par 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 am
endeavoring to show to you is not to be found in religion.

\par \textsc{Reader}: How can you say that? In the name of religion Hindus
and Mahomedams 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.

\par \textsc{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 come under its scorching flames believing it to be all
good. They become utterly irreligious, in reality, derive little
advantage from the world. Civilization is like a mouse gnawing while
it is soothing us. When its full effect is realized, we shall see
that religious superstition is harmless compared to that of modern
civilization. I am not pleading for a continuance of religious
superstitions. We shall 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.

\par \textsc{Reader}: Then you will contend that the Pax Britannica is a
useless encumbrance?

\par \textsc{Editor}: You may see peace if you like; I see none.

\par \textsc{Reader}: You make light of the terror that the Thugs, the
Pindaris and the Bhils were to the country.

\par \textsc{Editor}: If you 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 someone 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 and 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 today;
but the English and 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,
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[\hspace{4ex}The condition of India: Railways]%
	{The condition of India: Railways}

\par \textsc{Reader}: You have deprived me of the consolation I used to have
regarding peace in India.

\par \textsc{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.

\par \textsc{Reader}: What may that be?

\par \textsc{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.

\par \textsc{Reader}: I do now, indeed, fear that we are not likely to agree
at all. You are attacking the very insitutions which we have
hitherto considered to be good.

\par \textsc{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.

\par \textsc{Reader}: Very well, then. I shall hear you on the railways.

\par \textsc{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, the
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. Railways 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. Nowadays rogues visit them in order to
practise their roguery.

\par \textsc{Reader}: You have given a 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?

\par \textsc{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.

\par \textsc{Reader}: Be that as it may, all the disadvantages of railways are
more than counterbalanced by the fact that it is due to them that we
see in India the new spirit of nationalism.

\par \textsc{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.

\par \textsc{Reader}: This requires an explanation.

\par \textsc{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 thoughout India either or 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 farseeing
ancestors of ours who established Setubandha (Rameshwar) in the South,
Jagannath in the 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. And we Indians are one as no two
Englishmen are. Only you and I and others who consider ourselves
civilized 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 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 had said on the
railways.

\par \textsc{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, Parsis 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 idolaters.
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[\hspace{4ex}The condition of India: The Hindus and the Mahomedans]%
	{The condition of India: The Hindus and the Mahomedans}

\par \textsc{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. Owing to them, man
has gone further away from his Maker.

\par \textsc{Reader}: But I am impatient to hear your answer to my question.
Has the introduction of Mahomedanism not unmade the nation?

\par \textsc{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 Parsis 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.

\par \textsc{Reader}: But what about the inborn enmity between Hindus and
Mahomedans?

\par \textsc{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 recognized 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
quarrels recommenced.

\par 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?

\par Moreover, there are deadly proverbs as between the followers of
Siva 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.

\par \textsc{Reader}: Now I would like to know your views about
cow-protection.

\par \textsc{Editor}: I myself respect the cow, that is, I look upon her with
affectionate reverence. The cow is the protector of India because,
being an agricultural country, she is dependent on the cow. The cow
is a most useful animal in hundreds of ways. Our Mahomedan brethren
will admit this.

\par But, just as I respect the cow, so do I respect my fellowmen. 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 of the Mahomedan
as well as of the cow. 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
overfull 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.

\par 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.

\par 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.

\par 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.

\par Lastly, if it is be true that the Hindus believe in the doctrine
of non-killing and the Mahomedans do not, what, 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.

\par 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.

\par These thoughts are put into our minds by selfish and false
religious teachers. The English put the finishing touch. They have
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 Godhead and indulge in novel
experiments. They write about their own researches in most laudatory
terms and hypnotize us into believing them. We in our ignorance then fall at
their feet.

\par Those who do not wish to misunderstand thing may read up the
Koran, and they will find therein hundreds of passages acceptable to
the Hindus; and the Bhagavadgita 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 everyone 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.

\par \textsc{Reader}: But will the English ever allow the two bodies to join
hands?

\par \textsc{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 clay pot 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.

\par 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.

\par 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 equitable. 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 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[\hspace{4ex}The condition of India: Lawyers]%
	{The condition of India: Lawyers}

\par \textsc{Reader}: You tell me that when two men quarrel they should not
go to a law-court. This is astonishing.

\par \textsc{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,
have accentuated Hindu-Mahomedan dissensions and have confirmed
English authority.

\par \textsc{Reader}: It is easy enough to bring these charges, but it will
be dificult for you to prove them. But for the lawyers, who would
have shown us the road to independence? Who would have protected the
door? Who would have secured justice? For instance, the late
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 injustice, and you are abusing the liberty of the press by
decrying lawyers.

\par \textsc{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 temptation
from which few are saved.

\par The Hindus and the Mahomedans have quarelled. 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. But 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 toots, 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 men 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.

\par 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?

\par 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 the lawyers' power, have
become loaded with debt. Many have been robbed of their all. Such
instances can be multiplied.

\par 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 for 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.

\par 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[\hspace{4ex}The condition of India: Doctors]%
	{The condition of India: Doctors}

\par \textsc{Reader}: I now understand the lawyers; the good they may have
done is accidental. I feel that profession is certainly hateful.
You, however, drag in the doctors also, how is that?

\par \textsc{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 linked 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 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.

\par The English have certainly effectively used the medical
profession for holding us. English physicians are known to have used
their profession with several Asiatic potentates for political gain.

\par 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, I take
his pills again. Had I not taken the pills in the first instance, I
would have suffered the punishments 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 medicine must,
therefore, result in loss of control over the mind.

\par 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 mastrey over myself, would have been freed from vice and
would have become happy.

\par 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.

\par 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 civilized, 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 cirsumstances, we are unfit to serve the
country. To study European medicine is to deepen our slavery.

\par 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 pence, 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[\hspace{4ex}What is true civilization?]{What is true civilization?}

\par \textsc{Reader}: You have denounced railways, lawyers and doctors. I
can see that you will discard all machinery. What, then, is civilization?

\par \textsc{Editor}: The answer to that question is not difficult. I believe
that the civilization India 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 Westernized; 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 uncivilized,
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.

\par 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''.

\par 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 the 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 seen 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 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, and 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. 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 dependants, 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.

\par 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 newfangled notions. The English do not
rule over them, nor will you ever rule over them. Those in 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 been not polluted by the railways and to live
there for six months; you might then be patriotic and speak of Home
Rule.

\par 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.

\par \textsc{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 Niyoga obtains, where, in the name of
religion, girls dedicate themselves to prostitution, and in the name
of religion sheep and goats are killed. Do you consider these also
symbols of the civilization that you have described?

\par \textsc{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 utilize 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 the
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 the mother's breast.

\chapter[\hspace{4ex}How can India become free?]{How can India become free?}

\par \textsc{Reader}: I appreciate your views about civilization. I will
have to think over them. I cannot take them in all at once. What,
then, holding the views you do, would you suggest for freeing India?

\par \textsc{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.

\par \textsc{Reader}: If Indian civilization is, as you say, the best of all,
how do you account for India's slavery?

\par \textsc{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, yet 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. There is no idea of sitting still. The Swaraj that I wish to
picture is such that, after we have once realized it, we shall
endeavour to the end of our life-time 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 Indianized, 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.

\par \textsc{Reader}: It is impossible that Englishmen should ever become
Indianized.

\par \textsc{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.

\par \textsc{Reader}: But it has not occurred in history.

\par \textsc{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 Indian has survived
many a shock.

\par \textsc{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.

\par \textsc{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?

\par \textsc{Reader}: In the same way as Italy did it. What was possible for
Mazzini and Garibaldi is possible for us. You cannot deny that they
were very great men.

\chapter[\hspace{4ex}Italy and India]{Italy and India}

\par \textsc{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 realized 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 grouping 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, then 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.

\par 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 pit
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 Europeanize 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.

\par \textsc{Reader}: You are over-stating the facts. All need not be armed.
At first, we shall 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 shall
regain our land. We shall undertake guerilla warfare, and defeat the
English.

\par \textsc{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 sacrifice 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 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 other similar 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.

\par \textsc{Reader}: But you will admit that the English have been
frightened by these murders, and that Lord Morley's reforms are due
to fear.

\par \textsc{Editor}: The English are both a timid and a brave nation.
England is, I believe, easily influenced by the use of gun-power. 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[\hspace{4ex}Brute force]{Brute force}

\par \textsc{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?

\par \textsc{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 cease stealing for fear of punishment, I would recommence
the operation as 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.

\par \textsc{Reader}: Will you not admit that you are arguing against
yourself? You know that what the English obtained in their own
country they 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 do
not 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.

\par \textsc{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 English the force of everybody
wanting and insisting on his rights, nobody thinking of his duty.
And, where everybody wants rights, who shall give them to whom? I do
not wish to imply that they do no duties. They don't perform the
duties corresponding to those rights; 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 adapted. 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?

\par 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 top 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 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.

\par Let us proceed a little further. That well-armed man has stolen
your property; you have harboured the thought of his act; 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 daylight. 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 Scylla 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 numbers; 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 only wish to show that
fair means alone can produce fair results, and that, at least in the
majority of cases, if not indeed in all, the force of love and pity
is infinitely greater than the force of arms. There is harm in the
exercise of brute force, never in that of pity.

\par 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 shall 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 shall 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.

\par 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.

\par 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 evil action of that kind by whomsoever committed and,
as in the case of the evil child, you will have to sacrifice yourself. If you
are capable of such immeasurable pity, I wish you well in its exercise.

\chapter[\hspace{4ex}Passive resistance]{Passive resistance}

\par \textsc{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.

\par \textsc{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 the 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 became
enemies of one another, 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 today. 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 take the sword shall perish by the sword.'' With
us the proverb is that professional swimmers will find a watery grave.

\par 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.

\par 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.

\par \textsc{Reader}: According to what you say, it is plain that instances of
this 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.

\par \textsc{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.

\par 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