10

Gandhi: Swaraj and Satyagraha

Himanshu Roy

Gandhi’s theories of swaraj and satyagraha have been an integral part of his liberation struggle and his public discourse since the beginning of the 20th century, both in Africa and in India. It was different from the typical liberal and Marxian discourse of alternative development as its philosophy was derived from India’s past and was uniquely premised on the restoration of ramrajya—an imagined, historical, ideal society of small traditional peasants located in autonomous villages, situated amidst nature and guided by sanatani ethics and scriptures. The concept of swaraj and ramrajya, promoted by Gandhi, was based on the idea of governance by an ideal state and regulated by elementary technology and subsistence economy, whose base (an ideal, self-sufficient village) was destroyed by colonial capitalism. Gandhi’s arguments were an appreciation of and belief in the traditional peasant world, which he believed was superior to the contemporary urban, industrialized and capitalist civilization, to which humanity must return for its blissful existence. It was a concept of an unalienated world rooted in the simplicity of plough, small villages and cottages, and in ‘good conduct’. Unlike the belief of moderates and the extremists, Gandhi’s approach was neither a critique of the traditional civilization nor a glorification of it. On the contrary, his writings reflect a balanced account of its past existence—an appreciation of its traditional economy and a critique of its discriminatory practices with regard to gender and caste. His vision was to restore the past glory of our civilization, an ideal life which could form the foundation of the future of humanity. The restoration process was to be actuated through satyagraha, a method of struggle, which abhors physical force but resists the evil with moral power without having any ill-will against the evil doers. In this struggle, there is no room for defeat as one does not yield to the evil. The doer, therefore, gradually changes his position, persuaded by the logic of the circumstances, and the evil slowly peters out. In the process, the society witnesses an overall transition towards enlightened consciousness.

The construct of his struggle, epistemologically, may be located in Chapter XII of his book Hind Swaraj (1909) and in his article ‘Who Can Offer Satyagraha’ written for the journal Indian Opinion (1909) where he outlined their basic postulates to be subsequently enriched by his new experiences.

Swaraj

Gandhi’s swaraj had evolved out of the combination of his Indian roots, his readings and his early experiences in London. His discussions with Savarkar and others in London prompted him to pen down his vision of swaraj for India.

Gandhi viewed swaraj, or self-rule, essentially, as a ‘mode of conduct which points out to m(e) n the path of (their) duty’, the path of control over desires and the path of ‘mastery over (their) minds and passions’. It meant the knowledge of self and living within bounds. It implied an elevation of a personal moral being that sets a limit to indulgences and sees happiness as largely a mental condition. He envisioned swaraj as a life of simplicity, opposed to the pursuit of wealth and power, where the individual could have control over things that were necessary for sustenance of life; the issue involved was the principle of renunciation. According to Gandhi, high thinking was inconsistent with complicated material life. All the graces of life were possible only when one learnt the art of living nobly. Essentially, it meant an ethical world of sovereign individuals who followed their agricultural occupation and lived independently. Swaraj, for Gandhi, existed in oceanic circles of village republics ensconced in organic proximity to nature. It was a civilization that abhorred coercive power and functioned through moral persuasion. It was a true home rule manifesting the people’s inner world.

Gandhi’s objective was to inculcate inner strength in people, and encourage them to be active in godly pursuits and desist from worldly pleasures. He dreamt of a state where people would learn from each other’s language and religion voluntarily. They would be conscious of the spirit of nationality and regions. It would be a society possessing assimilative spirit and living in peace. Thus it was to be a swaraj in which people were to be guided by the condition of nature, customary rights and duties, and belief in god. It was to be a traditional peasant society using elementary technology, based on subsistence economy and a minimalist state. It was to be ‘an India full of valour’ inspired by one thought and similar mode of life. In brief, swaraj was an ideal state of social existence, ethical and simple in nature, situated amidst ideal villages that existed only in (Gandhi’s) imagination and were different from the contemporary villages of his times. It was an idea that was premised on the principle that worldly pursuits should give way to ethical living. His contemporary India was not, however, ripe for it. It was to be built with patience and self-discipline.¹

Politically, swaraj meant the ‘capacity to regulate national life through national representatives’. The national life, in course of time, was however to become so perfect that it would be selfregulated and not need any representation, leading to a state of enlightened anarchy where everyone would be his own ruler and would rule himself in such a manner that he would never become a hindrance to his neighbour. In this ideal state, therefore, there would be no political power because there would be no state. Men and women would live in freedom, prepared to face the whole world. The villagers would not be dull, they would be all aware. They would not live like animals in filth and darkness. There would be no plague, no cholera and no small pox. Nobody would be allowed to be idle or wallow in luxury. Everyone would do manual labour and follow the path of duty. There would be large-scale reorganization of things that would differentiate the ideal society from the contemporary one. In this structure, there would be ever-widening, never ascending circles. Life would not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. It would be an oceanic circle whose center would be the individual always ready to perish for the circle of villages till at last the entire circle becomes one life composed of individuals, never aggressive in their arrogance but ever humble, sharing the majesty of the oceanic circle of which they would be integral units. Every village would be a republic or panchayat, self-sustaining and managing its affairs to the extent of being able to defend itself against the whole world. In it, the last would be equal to the first or none would be first and last. However, till the time such a state became a reality, the villages could be ruled by the classical concept of Thoreau, which says ‘that government is the best which governs the least’, and political power could be used for the sake of reforms to enable people to better their condition in every sphere of life. Acquisition and application of political power in the absence of the ability to govern would render that power futile, as legislation in advance of public opinion is ineffective.²

Gandhi’s corporate activity was guided towards parliamentary, i.e., democratic, swaraj. But it was not meant to be ‘an English rule without Englishmen’. It was to be, on the contrary, a different polity premised on local moral economy where ‘people would plough their lands mainly by manual labour’. It was to be a civilization abhorring coercive power and functioning through moral persuasion. The religion would transcend Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc., and would create an ordered moral government of the universe. Religion and state, however, were to be kept separate. Religion was to be a personal concern of the citizen, with the state having no role to play in it. There was to be no religious teachings in educational institutions aided or recognized by the state.

All educational activities including university education was to be on the pattern of basic education that was to be premised on the requirement of the locality and universality of learning to be conducted through the mother tongue. English, despite being a world language, was to be only the second optional language and that too only at the university level, and not in schools. In the curricula for basic education, instructions were to be provided in agriculture, horticulture, sericulture, animal husbandry, sanitation and hygiene, electrical engineering, roads and transport, home economics, pottery, rural economics, rural sociology, rural reconstruction, rural trade and bullion and banking. In addition to these, cooperative farming or dairying was to be promoted in the national interest. The intention was not to approach others or be dependent on them for our requirements. The objective was to be self-reliant. This approach reflects in every aspect of his constructive work.

In case of health care, similarly, it meant a return to elementary instruction in medicine with emphasis on cleanliness of dwellings, village paths, general surroundings, fields and also of livestock. Information about the importance of balanced diet, use of herbs, animal husbandry, model latrine, organic manure, utilization of hides and bones of dead cattle, and maintenance of maternity homes would form part of the lessons to be imparted. The objective was to follow the basics rules of hygiene and nutrition, and to understand that all diseases were caused by insanitation, lack of knowledge of proper diet, lack of proper nourishment or due to eating unhealthy food. It emanated from the belief that diseases spring from a willful ignorant breach of the laws of nature, therefore, a timely return to those laws meant restoration of health.³

In this setting there would be no room for the mechanization process that displaced human labour; however, machines that facilitated man in his work were to be welcomed. People were to be taught to help themselves to rely on their own labour and skill which were commensurate with high thinking. Village crafts were to be provided encouragement and compromise in soil fertility for the sake of quick returns and such other activities were to be discouraged. These ideas emanated from ‘the concern for the dignity and status of the village as a unit as against big cities and the dignity and status of an individual against the machine’. It was also intended to actualize ‘justice between the town and the village’ as the villages had faced the brunt of unjust development. Only a few key industries which were necessary and could employ large number of people were to be owned by the state. However, industries were not to be forcibly nationalized and the state was not to be involved in running private or business establishments as this was not to be the function of the state. The state’s role would be limited to providing necessary infrastructural/technical support required by the people for progress.

The state was to care for the secular welfare of its people and power was to be decentralized to the grass-root level to be recomposed from the bottom to the top as ultimately it was the individual who was to be the unit of development. Effectively, it meant the reconstruction of polity where real power was to be placed in the general body, from the gramsabha to the parliament, at different tiers of legislature. Every panchayat would have five men or women from the village or persons committed to the development of the village. Two such contiguous panchayats were to form a working party under a leader elected from among them. From a group of one hundred such panchayats, fifty first grade leaders were to be elected; in a similar pattern, second grade leaders were to be elected who would supervise the work of the first grade leaders. All second grade leaders were to serve jointly for the whole of India and severally for their respective areas. The second grade leaders were to elect whenever they deemed necessary, from among themselves, a chief who was to, during pleasure, regulate and command all the groups.⁴ The contemporary parliament and the existing structure of polity was just to facilitate the transition towards the reconstruction of polity. It was to gradually abdicate its contemporary centralized powers to the gramsabha and remain confined to only the functions of defence, currency, international relations and communications. Functioning of the polity was to be transparent and representatives, at each tier, were to be accountable for their duties.

The government officials were to be the true servants of the people, honest and incorruptible men capable in their work. The taxation system was to be framed keeping the poor out of the purview of taxes and the money generated was to be used for the public good. The prices of the food grains were to reach the peasants directly without any middlemen. The laws were to be non-discriminatory but the economically impoverished were to be supported without any distinction of caste and religion.⁵

Voluntary discipline was to be the first requisite of corporate freedom leading to the marginalization of the coercive state apparatus. Nationalism was to be the embodiment of this freedom. It was to be part of international humanism without any rancour towards anyone and at the same time mean protecting the nation’s interest and never submitting to others. It was not to swallow small nations neither was it to allow others to swallow it. Moreover, if foreigners decided to live in India as Indians, they would have no cause to worry. This emerged from the belief that diversity in unity is the law of the world.

In summary, the entire focus of Swaraj was on self-reliance of the individual, village, taluka, district, province and nation in that order. Its soul was decentralization of power and economy leading to a gradual reduction of the role of the state in society and an increased role of the individual and of the local community in their praxis.

Satyagraha

In 1906, a movement began in South Africa, primarily constituting Indians, that was subsequently termed as Satyagraha. The word satyagraha is a combination of two words satya (truth) and agraha (insistence), which when combined means ‘insisting on holding firmly to truth’; it is a force emerging out of love for truth and essentially means belief in a good cause. Gandhi also described this word as a soul-force and said it was different from passive resistence.⁶

As a concept, its elaborate reference can be delineated in the writings of Patanjali’s Yogsutra.⁷ As an isolated, individual non-violent act of protest and corrective measure against perceived injustice, satyagraha was in vogue in India for centuries. However, the organized mass application of the technique begins with Gandhi who had conceived of this idea from his childhood experiences. Its fundamental principle was to correct the unjust acts of an individual or a system without having animosity towards them. The method and the procedure to be adopted for it, however, were not bound by any formula. Rather, it was to change according to circumstances. The best part of it was that there were no losers: the opponents, in course of time, were won over, and the Satyagrahis moved ahead to new areas. In brief, it was a technique to harmonize the widely different, sometimes opposite, interests of people for the overall betterment of society. It was a lesson imparted to Indians and the humanity to seek solutions for problems without being violent and being an enemy of others.

In order to differentiate it with passive resistance, Gandhi delineated five points of departure and it was based on his personal and historical experiences. These points are discussed below.

1. In passive resistance, there was always an idea of harassment against the other party while, simultaneously, being ready to undergo any hardships. In Satyagraha, there was not even the remotest idea of injuring the opponent. On the contrary, it was to conquer the adversary by self-suffering and love, by persuading him to abdicate his evil. The adversary, in course of time, moves away from his stated position as he finds the situation unfit for his operation under the changed consciousness of the people.
2. Satyagraha could be offered against the loved ones as well, for it did not imply any hatred and animosity personally. The fight in Satyagraha was against the evil, the eradication of which served the purpose of Satyagraha. Passive resistance, on the contrary, could never be offered against the loved ones unless they had ceased to be so and had become objects of hatred, because passive resistance did not differentiate between the evil and the evil-doer. The evil and its perpetrators were perceived as one fused whole who could not be reformed. Satyagraha, on the contrary, separated the two and always believed that the perpetrators can be persuaded to abdicate their evil.
3. Passive resistance could be offered along with the use of arms if the circumstances permitted, for resistors often resorted to passive resistance when they lacked armed power and were weak. In positions of strength, they could take to armed struggle. Satyagraha and brute force, on the contrary, were antithetical to each other as Satyagrahis did not consider themselves or their method of struggle as weak. Therefore, even when the circumstances provided them the opportunity to resort to violent struggle, they would not adopt it. They believed that violence breeds violence and it is the weapon of the weak.
4. There was no scope for love in passive resistance as the philosophy of passive resistance was premised on the power struggle between the strong and the weak and in power struggle there was no scope for love and compassion. In Satyagraha, there was no place for hatred as it was not based on power-struggle. Instead, its primary focus was to eradicate evil and not its perpetrators who could be transformed by Satyagraha and awakened public opinion.
5. Satyagraha fostered the feeling of being strong as it emanated from the idea of moral self-strength. This feeling of moral power permeated the participants and that kept their morale high, contrary to the belief of the passive resistors who considered themselves weak. The difference in their belief created wide chasms in their method of struggle and in making their protests effective or less effective. Since passive resistance began with the idea of being weak, its protests petered out at the earliest opportunity.

In brief, Satyagraha postulated the conquest of adversary by self-suffering. It was invented by Gandhi in the modern era to denote the resistance movement of the Indians in the Transvaal, in South Africa, to prevent its being confused with passive resistance.⁸ Christ was the only other who, in an earlier era, applied Satyagraha on a mass scale against evil.

Satyagraha pre-supposed self-discipline, self-purification and recognized the social status of the Satyagrahi. A Satyagrahi was not to forget the distinction between evil and the evil-doer. He was not to harbour ill-will or bitterness against the latter. He was not to use offensive language against the evil person, for there was none so fallen in his world who could not be converted by love. A Satyagrahi was always to try to overcome evil by good, anger by love, untruth by truth, and violence by non-violence. No matter how often a Satyagrahi might have been betrayed, he was to repose his trust in the adversary till he had cogent ground for distrust. Pain to a Satyagrahi was to be similar to pleasure. He was not, therefore, to be misled by the fear of suffering and distrust. Since a Satyagrahi relied on his own strength, the betrayal by his adversary was not to affect him. Satyagraha, therefore, was a priceless and matchless weapon and defeat was a stranger to its practitioners. There was supposed to be no other way of purging the world of evil.

A Satyagrahi was always to introspect about his infirmities and taints of anger and ill-will, for self-purification and penance were to facilitate his victory. He was, first, to mobilize public opinion against the evil to be eradicated. An awakened and intelligent public opinion, he believed, was the most potent weapon against the evil, followed by wide and extensive agitation to create social ostracism or complete non-cooperation of society against the evil perpetuated either by the system or by an individual. This was supposed to chasten the perpetrators of evil in general. In peculiar cases, specific measures were to be applied.

A Satyagrahi was to be free from addiction, needed to have self-control, was to disregard the comforts of life, develop simple food habits and be free from a false sense of prestige.⁹ Presence of such things weakened his resolve to fight against the evil. A Satyagrahi, in a word, was to be ready to suffer and to posses the will to fight till the last, or till the evil was conquered. He was obliged to break away from family attachments to avoid concerns about the future of his family. He was to be indifferent to wealth.

Thus, Satyagraha was to be the silent and demonstrative action of truth and love that produced far more permanent and abiding results than many other methods of struggle. It transcended the boundary of nations and was applicable across all sections of humanity. Since it cultivated family-feeling and strove for self-purification and, through it, transformation of social consciousness, it was the most potent weapon for the creation of an ideal society.

Conclusion

Gandhi’s Swaraj and Satyagraha were the philosophical expressions of peasants’ idealized praxis which were not recognized in public discourse as predominant ideals of social existence under the expanding capitalism. Worse, these ideals were considered as unfeasible in application and were labelled as unprogressive, un-modern in the age of industrialism and urbanism. Gandhi, who had classed himself as a peasant, partially demonstrated its feasibility and broke through the myth of it being inapplicable. Moreover, he transcended the pre-conceived notion of peasantry as ‘buffoons’ and its moral life as idiocy. He demonstrated through limited mass praxis that the peasants’ dream could be realized once their consciousness was transformed and that it was a better mode of social living than the capitalist civilization, as it provided a contended and unalienated life. But he acknowledged frankly that his was a Sheikh Chilli’s dream¹⁰ which was difficult to realize, though he struggled valiantly for it till the last day of his life.¹¹ He had noticed his marginalization and witnessed history bypassing him after the Second World War. It was inevitable, not ironical, as his peasant base itself was being marginalized under expanding capitalism. The shrinkage of this base in post-colonial development has further reduced him to a distant historical figure to be idolized only by the mantra chanting politicalacademic bards who argue about his relevance without applying his mantras. It is the negation of his ramrajya.