The Gandhi Project by Nashid Fareed-Ma’at

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 449.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 159.

a Government for people, for it tolerates orderly and respectful

disobedience where injustice is felt.”

(emphasis mine)

If government fell outside the scope of Swaraj (and Truth), Gandhi would not utter these and

other statements. In fact, if he sought the elimination of government as a goal he would seek it

directly. But he obviously did not. Much of Gandhi’s criticism of government must be seen in

the context of his strong objections to the British run-government in India and other regional /

local governments that operated in the British style and contrary to Swaraj.

But seeing a value in government as a way to organize collective governance does not

mean that all governments should be blindly accepted and honored. To the contrary, Gandhi was

very critical of the British colonial government which fell short of the Swaraj measure: it was not

run by self-governed persons, it oppressed millions of India’s citizens, it imposed unjust laws, it

concentrated power among a select elite, it made profit a priority over serving the Indian masses,

it propagated violence of all kinds among the Indian people and in the world abroad, etc. Gandhi

felt that such a government must be transformed or abandoned by cultivating Swaraj, via

Satyagraha, among the Indian masses. Let’s examine some of the components of this

cultivation.

INDIA’S INDEPENDENCE LAYS IN INDIA

Gandhi taught incessantly that a government must be for the people. This statement can

be interpreted many ways, but it surely includes the virtue of service. For Gandhi, this service is

best rooted in (the pursuit of) Truth:

“If I found myself entirely absorbed in the service of the

community, the reasons behind it was my desire for self-

realization. I had made the religion of service my own, as I felt

that God {Truth} could be realized only through service. And

service for me was the service of India, because it came to me

without my seeking, because I had an aptitude for it.”

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule), 1938 reprint from original publication in 1909,

p. 37, Chapter X: The Condition Of India: The Hindus And The Mahomedans.

Much service not based in Truth has rendered more harm than good. It is through such service

many oppressed people have been kept in states of dependency, instead of truly being served to

cultivate the means to become self-empowered, self-sufficient and self-governing individuals

and communities. In contrast to many European structures of government, Gandhi saw that a

government could be designed and operated to assist people in cultivating the governance of

their individual selves and communities.

Another thing to note about the above quote is Gandhi’s focus on India. Most of his

service in India was carried out by focusing on specific local-based approaches to community

issues, even if success in certain local efforts had a national (or even international) impact. Even

much of his “national” work is often confused as being nation-wide campaigns when in actuality

such campaigns were usually simultaneous local (and sometimes regionally) based efforts.

Central to this work was the specific focus on local communities. He realized there was a danger

in setting the scope of one’s service too broad:

“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.”

Many may be surprised to realize Gandhi’s Satyagraha work very rarely went beyond the

borders of India and the Indian community in South Africa (when he resided there). He didn’t,

as some do today, advocate and work for the betterment of people in foreign countries halfway

around the world while people in his own country (let alone his community) were in need of

such service. It is hypocritical to seek to eliminate poverty around the world without first

completely eliminating it in your own neighborhood first: why seek to eliminate a problem you

do not see with your own eyes while ignoring a problem that is right before your eyes? Gandhi’s

approach focused on addressing the problems in one’s community first, making that community

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule), 1938 reprint from original publication in 1909,

p. 46, Chapter XIII: What Is True Civilization?

an example of how such problems can be overcome. Then it may make sense to expand to one’s

city, region, and nation. And, for Gandhi, such work went beyond merely treating the symptoms

of problems, but cultivating the means for people to move beyond the grips of problems. This

was fulfilled by developing people to become self-empowered and self-sufficient. The following

pages will speak more to this.

A strength of the local-based approach to service is that it can be catered to the specific

needs of those being served. Too often with contemporary service models, generic approaches

are made in which many service providers expect those suffering to adjust to a generic remedy in

order to be served. This insistence is made even if it means ignoring local factors the providers

are not aware of but are serious challenges to those in need of service. Catering service to the

specific needs of people renders such service more relevant and effective to those receiving it.

The emphasis then is placed on those receiving the service, not the service provider. And such

service is honestly evaluated as effective if it actually provides an empowering and sustaining

benefit to those served.

To this end, Gandhi rooted Indian Swaraj efforts in the embrace of traditional Indian

culture and values. He didn’t hesitate to advocate that seekers of Swaraj should look back to

their ancestral ways:

“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

{Truth}. So understanding and so believing, it behoves [sic] every

lover of India to cling to the old Indian civilization even as a child

clings to the mothers’s breast.”

Gandhi was against the Europeanization of India, in part, because of how European

values conflicted with traditional Indian values. He made statements such as:

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule), 1938 reprint from original publication in 1909,

p. 61, Chapter XVIII: Education.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule), 1938 reprint from original publication in 1909,

p. 28, Chapter V: The Condition Of England.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule), 1938 reprint from original publication in 1909,

p. 68, Chapter XX: Conclusion.

“It is worth noting that, by receiving English education, we have

enslaved the nation.”

“If India copies England, it is my firm conviction that she will be

ruined.”

He is careful to note that, “I bear no enmity towards the English but I do towards their

civilization.”

These words may seem harsh to some but remember: it was European

civilization (and values) that carried out and justified the colonization of India and many other

countries throughout the world, and the consequent brutal oppression that resulted in the

exploitation, abuse, and murder of millions of human beings.

In his advocacy of Indian culture, Gandhi encouraged India to return to traditional Indian

definitions of civilization and to resist British attempts to have India embrace Western values.

He felt this was best for the people of India. Thus, he rejected British concepts of civilization

that glorified commerce, technological advancement, and luxurious comfort. (Also note that

even some British rejected these concepts as a number of philosophical, moral, religious, and

other writings and artistic expressions attest.) Instead, Gandhi spoke of civilization in ways that

reflected traditional Indian values:

“Civilization is that mode of conduct which points out to

[humanity] 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 [an Indian language] equivalent for

civilization means “good conduct”.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule), 1938 reprint from original publication in 1909,

p. 45, Chapter XIII: What Is True Civilization?

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule), 1938 reprint from original publication in 1909,

p. 31, Chapter VII: Why Was India Lost?

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule), 1938 reprint from original publication in 1909,

p. 31, Chapter VII: Why Was India Lost?

“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. ... Observing all this, our ancestors dissuaded us from

luxuries and pleasures.”

(emphasis mine)

The duties spoke of by the Indian ancestors include living and upholding moral and religious

laws. And, for Gandhi, such laws were designed to guide one on the quest for Truth. This basis

of civilization differs much from the British concept of civilization which admonished many

moral / religious laws in pursuit of wealth (money) and power. The British concept of

civilization did not resonate with many in India. But the traditional Indian teachings did and

played a part in why Indian people were receptive of Gandhi’s teachings.

Gandhi’s emphasis on Indian civilization goes even further in explaining how and why

India became colonized by the British. He pointed out that the abandonment of traditional

Indian values opened the door to British colonization:

“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.”

Gandhi explained, “We have already seen that the English merchants were able to get a footing

in India because we encouraged them.”

The encouragement was engaging in trade with the

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule), 1938 reprint from original publication in 1909,

p. 32, Chapter VII: Why Was India Lost?

British. The top priorities for the British merchants were commerce and war (to protect their

business), not morality. The choice by many Indians to engage in such commerce for wealth and

comfort (i.e. buying manufactured goods) created and sustained the dynamics by which the

British colonized India and kept it colonized. Gandhi continued:

“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. ... 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.”

A few things are important to point out in the above statement. One is that Gandhi pointed to

Indians engaging in commerce with the British as the foothold of British reign over India. The

second is that war and militarism are by-products of the commerce. I will deal with both of these

points separately.

CONFRONTING THE FOOTHOLD OF COLONIZATION (OPPRESSION)

India’s engagement of commerce with Britain was the foothold of British reign over

India. And such trade was not conducted on an equal basis: it was done so that Indian goods

were exported out of the country for very cheap while importing, sometimes via exclusive

monopolies, more expensive British goods into India, whether these goods were made in Britain

or sold by British traders. This formula of European colonization was carried out (and still

continues) throughout much of the world. As a result, Indians were rendered into a nation of

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule), 1938 reprint from original publication in 1909,

p. 64, Chapter XIX: Machinery.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule), 1938 reprint from original publication in 1909,

p. 63, Chapter XIX: Machinery.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule), 1938 reprint from original publication in 1909,

p. 63, Chapter XIX: Machinery.

dependent consumers who exported their goods and resources for an economic loss. The

continuing loss of wealth across the nation and undercutting of Indian-to-Indian commerce (by

imported manufactured goods) increased poverty throughout the country. The impact of this

increasing poverty was felt especially in rural areas since British commerce activities were based

in cities. This dynamic was further exacerbated by the shift to industrial machines: larger

amounts of British goods could be made and imported into India while transforming large

portions of the Indian population into low-wage workers toiling in urban factories owned by or

aligned with the British business elite. To the extent Indians participated in this economic

scheme, they sustained and expanded the reach of British colonization. Yet Gandhi realized that

if Indians refrained from participating in such economic exploitation they would gain

independence.

This realization drove Gandhi to make statements such as: “Machinery is like a snake-

hole which may contain from one to a hundred snakes”

and “The workers in the mills of

Bombay have become slaves.”

He also acknowledged that India wasn’t alone in suffering the

ramifications of a machine-based economy:

“Machinery has begun to desolate Europe. Ruination is now

knocking at the English gates. Machinery is the chief symbol of

modern civilization; it represents a great sin.”

Gandhi’s response to this was to utilize a traditional Indian symbol and strategy to have Indians

no longer continue this trend: the charkha, or spinning wheel.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 326, excerpt from Young India,

April 10, 1930.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 329, excerpt from Young India,

April 17, 1930.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. viii.

Gandhi targeted foreign cloth imported into India by the British, some manufactured in

British factories, because: “Foreign cloth undermines the economic foundations of the nation and

throws millions out of employment.”

His response to this was:

“The formula therefore is: Discard foreign cloth and make your

own khadi [hand-spun cloth] and wear it. ... Even as we cook our

food and eat it so can we, if we but will it, make our own cloth and

wear it. We did it only a hundred years ago and we can relearn the

trick now.”

He implored everyone to make, or at least buy and wear, clothing made from hand-spun cloth in

India. Making himself an example, he wore only hand-spun Indian cloth. He also devoted

himself to a daily practice of spinning cloth on the charkha, a traditional Indian spinning wheel.

The charkha was inexpensive and could be set up in people’s homes. It also has a long history in

India, therefore, serving as a symbol of re-embracing Indian culture over British commerce.

There were also powerful economic implications produced by people spinning home-spun cloth:

the poor throughout the country could devote time to this practice and have a viable way to

support themselves. Farmers in India could sell their cotton to people in their own nation instead

of selling it to be exported abroad, often at low prices that benefitted the British exporters. Other

Indians could be involved in buying and selling the khadi, sewing it into clothes, selling the

clothes, etc. -- building a framework for economic self-reliance. And the sign of this reclamation

of Indian culture would be evident to the people by seeing the masses wear Indian cloth spun by

Indian hands.

Gandhi placed khadi and charkha efforts within a larger scope of constructive service.

His realization for the need of such a scope lay in the spiritual law of Swadeshi. Some have

reduced Swadeshi to mean “the principle of using goods made locally or in one’s own

country,”

glorified in the historical Swadeshi Movement in India during the early 1900s. But

Mohandas K. Gandhi, From Yeravda Mandir, 1936, Chapter XVI: Swadeshi.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 250, excerpt from Young India,

April 3, 1930.

Gandhi warned, “It is the greatest delusion to suppose, that the duty of Swadeshi begins and ends

with merely spinning some yarn anyhow and wearing it.”

Instead, he noted:

“Swadeshi stands for the final emancipation of the soul from her

earthly bondage. For this earthly tabernacle is not her natural or

permanent abode; it is a hindrance in her onward journey; it stands

in the way of her realizing her oneness with all life. A votary of

Swadeshi, therefore, in his striving to identify himself with the

entire creation, seeks to be emancipated from the bondage of the

physical body.

“If this interpretation of Swadeshi be correct, then it follows, that

its votary will, as a first duty, dedicate himself to the service of his

immediate neighbours.”

The Swadeshi framework of ending earthly bondage through service of one’s neighbors

informed Gandhi’s approach to constructive service:

“If there is true mass awakening, those who are not engaged in

civil disobedience are expected to occupy themselves and induce

others to be engaged in some national service such as khadi work,

liquor and opium picketing, foreign cloth exclusion, village

sanitation, assisting the families of civil resistance prisoners in a

variety of ways.”

This service was also accompanied by literacy work, community schooling (for youth and

adults), health services, and more. These activities were not overseen by an outside organization

or committee (like a national or regional nonprofit provider), these service activities were

locally-based, organized, and carried out by local people. Even in instances where organizers

from outside these communities were sent in to provide guidance (i.e. training in techniques used

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 141, excerpt from Young India,

January 26, 1922.

in liquor boycotts), such organizers were sent as assistants, not leaders of the activities. And

Gandhi’s emphasis on the charkha made it a symbol to which all these national service activities

were linked. Part of what made this a powerful symbol is that the symbolic connections were

rooted in cherished values and community action, not superficial whims or shallow public

rhetoric. In fact, when symbols are rooted in the later it leaves them open to loose associations

and manipulation.

By working to encourage and support these efforts throughout India, khadi and charkha

efforts became a foundational point in the cultivation of national virtues. As Gandhi wrote:

“Non-violence is certainly nine-tenths of the battle, but it is not all.

The peasantry may remain non-violent, but may not treat the

untouchables as their brethren; they may not regard Hindus,

Mussalmans [Muslims], Christians, Jews, Parsis, as the case may

be, as their brethren; they may not have learnt the economic and

the moral value of the charkha and khaddar [another word for

khadi]. If they have not, they cannot gain Swaraj. They will not

do all these things after Swaraj, if they will not do them now.

They must be taught to know that the practice of these national

virtues means Swaraj.”

(bold emphasis mine)

In this way, the economic practices of khadi and charkha were connected to efforts to eliminate

untouchability and religious conflicts immediately. In the vein that the British economic system

oppressed all these groups and fostered disunion and conflict among them, Gandhi utilized the

charkha as an economic and unifying remedy for all these groups. And he did not delay the

embrace of these more challenging elements of Swaraj to a later day. Although he realized the

groups’ common distaste against British dominance could be used as a temporary unifying force,

he challenged them to deal with their own intergroup barriers to genuine unity and Swaraj.

Gandhi also saw khadi spinning in spiritual terms: