 Modern period is defined differently in different civilizations

 Modernism, as understood by western scholars, 1 is associated with the developments in

science and technology that occurred in the West in the later part of the 17 th century that
had consequences for the social order, the political order and the general way of thinking
of the people later in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Enlightenment
and Industrial Revolution are considered to be two important triggers of modernity. The
features of modernity that largely resulted from these two developments were dynamism,
and, belief in progress and power of human reason. Modernism is believed to have
originated in USA rather than Europe2. Modernity questioned all conventional ways of
doing things. It sought to substitute the authority of God with the authority of science,
economic growth, democracy or law.
 Industrialization brought in its wake technological inventions including the invention of
motor-cars and railways. All these developments brought about a change in the thinking
of individuals who started valuing punctuality, specialization, uniformity and
standardization. The need for specialization led to further division of labour. While Karl
Marx called this division antagonistic, Emile Durkheim, another sociologist, believed that
this could at some stage lead to organic unity. In the process of division of labour not
only work but home, leisure, religion were all split up. 3Assembly-line production was
also done by these new industries where components of larger machines were produced
in bulk and assembled later. Since Henry Ford was the pioneer in this field, assembly line
mass production came to be called ‘Fordism’.4

 Thus while Karl Marx gave us the concept of commodity, and Durkheim the world of
detailed subdivisions based on tasks and responsibility, another sociologist, Max Weber
gave us the concept of rationalization reflected in scientists’ work in the laboratories, or
in the businessman’s ledgers or in bureaucracy. This idea of machine-like precision
became the hallmark of much of art, literature and architecture of modernity as well.

 A byproduct of rationalization was the growth of city or urban lifestyle. This lifestyle was
also reflected in the attitudes of city-dwellers, marked by aloofness, formal and
contractual relations. The architecture was impacted where men like Le Corbusier
conceptualized cities from the vantage point of car drivers leaving no room for
pedestrians.5
 The idea of rationalization and discipline led to the valorization of control. The
orderliness in city reflected this control. The idea of hierarchy and control was reflected
in the structure of military as well. Homogeneity and control were in evidence in the
concept of nation state. Control was the operating principle in factories. Household table
manners reflected control. The description by Foucault of the Panoptican prison plan 6
1
There is an alternative view of modernism as well. Hardiman has alluded to it while discussing Gandhi defining his
views as indicative of ‘alternative modernity’.
2
David Lyon, Postmodernity, Vivagraoup Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi, 2002,p26
3
ibid., p. 30
4
ibid;p.26-27
5
ibid., p.32
6
The idea was the invention of the late nineteenth century political thinker, Jeremy Bentham.
 was the epitome of modern discipline, in which the prisoners, unsure of being watched by
prison authorities, maintained internal surveillance and discipline. In this way a new form
of control replaced the omnipresent God of the medieval ages.

 Modernity had its downside too. Karl Marx wrote about the exploitation of workers by
capitalists and the feeling of alienation among workers. Durkheim found that the division
of labour led to a feeling of restlessness among human beings that was almost suicidal in
nature. He suggested that some normative basis of society was needed. Weber hinted that
too much of rationalization was crushing the human spirit.7

 In the 1960s there was a feeling that a new kind of society was emerging. This sense was
captured by sociologist Daniel Bell who in his book The coming of the Post-industrial
Society (1973) put down the thesis that the factory worker image of the industrialism has
now been replaced by the new professional and technical elite of the service sector,
helped by new information and communication technology. Though this phenomenon
was considered to be continuation of modernity, some believed that it had some strains of
postmodernism that was to come shortly. Building on Bell’s idea of postindustrial
society, Lyotard wrote his essay ‘The Postmodern Condition’ (1979) in which he painted
the picture of a world beyond progress. The theme of progress which was so central to
modernization was thus abandoned.

Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule was written by Gandhi in 1909 while he was travelling back
to South Africa from England where he had gone as the head of the delegation representing the
case of Indians settled in South Africa before the British Parliament. In England, he came to
know about the murder of a British officer, Curzon Wyllie by an Indian youth Madan Lal
Dhingra to avenge the insult to Indians at the hands of British officials in India. Gandhi was
disturbed by this act of violence in the name of nationalism and was perturbed by the fact that the
act had the support of majority of the youth in India. He met with some of the leaders of the
groups who were not averse to gaining independence for India by killing the British. He held
long discussions with them but failed to convince most of them. Ramachandra Guha in his
book,Gandhi before India, published in 2013 mentions a ‘second’ provocation for writing Hind
Swaraj which was an attack on Indian nationalism written by GK Chesterton in the Illustrated
Indian News in September 1909 who believed that Indian Nationalism borrowed from the West
and was neither Indian nor national in its essence.(p.363, Guha). Inspired by this at two
subsequent meetings in London Gandhi emphasized the role of mother-tongue in the freedom
movement in India and also spoke about the irreligious features of modern civilization that
‘worshipped the body more than the spirit’ and questioned how railways,telegraphs and
telephones help moral elevation.(p.365, Guha)
On his return journey, he, therefore, mulled over the whole situation and wrote the small booklet
Hind Swaraj in an inspired state of mind. The pace at which the book was written, the absence of
corrections and overwriting, later reported, shows how single- minded was Gandhi in his
mission. The book was completed within ten days and was originally written in Gujarati, his
mother tongue.

7
Lyon, op.cit., p.35-41
The book is in the form of an imaginary dialogue between an ‘editor’ and a ‘reader’. The
‘editor’ represents Gandhi’s views whereas the ‘reader’ represents the views of the ‘misguided’
youth of India, and in particular, his longtime friend and confidante, Pranjivan Mehta. Gandhi
moves very cautiously from one chapter to the next, dealing with the misgivings of the young
and attempting to allay their doubts.

The book is divided into twenty chapters with headings of chapters not conveying much about
their contents. Gandhi takes up the issue of the dissatisfaction of the youth towards the moderate
leadership of the Congress party in India. He asks them to be grate ful to the Moderates for the
role they had played in educating the Indians on political affairs and sowing the seeds of
nationalism in them. He, however, agrees that the movement against the Partition of Bengal
(1905) has shown that mere petitioning is not enough and petitions need to be backed by force,
which has to be moral force. He makes it clear that violence was not the proper means to achieve
the goal of Indian independence and those who propagated it were under the spell of ‘modern
civilization’. If they gained independence by force, that would amount to replacing the British
with Indians of the same mentality. Gandhi is very critical of the British institutions of
Parliament, the Press and the overall system of governance. However, his criticism is confined to
the institutions of the British government, not the British people as such. The people are not to be
blamed because they are also the victims of the same modern civilization. Gandhi then goes on
to elaborate the features of modern civilization. According to Gandhi emphasis on bodily
comforts at the expense of spiritual growth, mad consumerism, insensitivity to fellow human
beings and mad rush to go ahead of others are some of the disturbing features of modern
civilization which is marked by ill health, death and degradation of both men and women.
Modern civilization is held in place by agents like the lawyers, doctors, modern system of
medicine, use of railways and faster means of transport. Because of being under the spell of such
civilization Indians have forgotten about their own superior civilization and allowed themselves
to be ruled by the British. Only when Indians accept their own civilization they can achieve
swaraj, which is a multi-layered concept for Gandhi. It stands for independence from British
rule. It stands for democratic governance, in which all classes and communities have equal
opportunities and power. It includes economic self-sufficiency and above all, includes, individual
self-control exercised by the people of the country.

Modern Civilization
In Chapter VI entitled ‘Civilization’, Gandhi proceeds to define civilization but before doing so
he informs the reader that he is not alone or original in his criticism of civilization but the reader
is unaware of such views because ‘We rarely find people arguing against themselves. Those who
are intoxicated by modern civilization are not likely to write against it.’ Civilization has come to
be defined in terms of bodily comforts it provides. Its manifestation are machines, printing
presses, means of faster transport and communication facilities, sophisticated weaponry and the
resultant miserable lives led by men and women, in, for example, cramped and unhygienic
factories. This civilization also underrates morality and religion and is therefore totally
irreligious.
Gandhi is however hopeful that soon this civilization would meet its nemesis and come to an
end. ‘Civilization is not an incurable disease, but it should never be forgotten that the English
people are at present afflicted by it’, which, in other words, means that the Indians should keep
themselves away from being infected by it.
If the modern civilization has nothing to commend itself and since the English are afflicted by it,
how come such sick people could not only conquer India but also continue to hold it? This is the
logical question that comes to the mind of the ‘reader’ who seeks an answer from the learned
‘editor’ in chapter VII entitled ‘Why India Lost?’ Gandhi’s considered reply is ‘The English
have not taken India; we have given it to them’,a statement borrowed verbatim from Tolstoy’s
Letter to a Hindoo that Gandhi had translated very recently. Indians could not resist the
temptation of British money and their merchandise and thus helped them establish their empire
in India. They continue to remain in India because of the same reason, believes Gandhi. ‘We
further make their job easy by quarrelling amongst ourselves’, he adds.
Gandhi is perceptive enough to identify the real motive of the British conquest of India, i.e.,
economic greed, and the reason behind their continued existence. (Later in history, he would
attack this very basis by propagating boycott of British goods and supporting the swadeshi
movement)
(a) Irreligious
In Chapter VIII entitled ‘The Condition of India’ Gandhi reverts to the discussion on the evil
effects of modern civilization and continues to discuss the same till chapter XII. Modern
civilization has made India irreligious. Religion here is not taken in terms of any denomination.
Gandhi holds that the modern civilization’s belief that one should be engaged in worldly pursuits
otherwise one would be considered lazy is irreligious because the different religions in India
preach to limit our worldly desires and emphasise that only our ‘religious ambitions should be
illimitable’.Modern civilization is also irreligious because it legitimizes the killing of innocent
animals for the advancement of scientific knowledge.
(b)Spellbinding
The dangerous fact about the evil effects of modern civilization is that we are not even aware
that it is harming us. ‘Civilization is like a mouse gnawing while it is soothing us.’ The ‘reader’
at this point tries to justify the British rule for eliminating thugs like Bhils and Pindaris who used
to loot and kill people at random. To this Gandhi responds prophetically. He argues that the
British by granting us peace have turned us into a nation of cowards and have thus emasculated
us. What he concludes later in the chapter has significance for the present as well. He says,
‘Moreover, I must remind you who desire Home Rule, that, after all, the Bhils, the Pindaris and
the Thugs are our countrymen. To conquer them is your or my work. So long as we fear our own
brethren, we are unfit to reach the goal.’ This could very well apply to the insurgents in North
East, militant groups in Jammu and Kashmir and the Naxalites.
( c )Railways spread disease, immorality and are responsible for rural poverty
Continuing with his discussion on the condition of India brought about by the modern
civilization in chapter IX entitled ‘The Condition of India (continued) : Railways’, Gandhi
castigates the railways in India. According to him the railways have been responsible for the
continuance of British rule in India and their effective control over India. Earlier, diseases like
plague would be confined to one region alone. Railways have assisted their rapid spread.
Railways have encouraged people to sell their grains at far off places for higher prices thereby
leading to famines in villages. Before the advent of railways, people used to take arduous
pilgrimages out of the holy motives. Now journeys are comfortable therefore all sorts of people
throng at holy cities thereby making them unclean.
At this point the ‘reader’ comes up with an argument in support of railways that had been current
during those times. He asks Gandhi as to what has he to say about the undoubted contribution of
railways in spreading nationalism in India? Gandhi replies, ‘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 inspires 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.’As proof of his statement he points out at the
existence of four ma thas (spiritual seats) in four directions of our country.
(d) Communal distrust by encouraging the idea of different nations
The author of the book now brings the discussion between the ‘reader’ and the ‘editor’ to the
most troubling questions of the time. The ‘reader’ accepts the argument that even before the
advent of the British, India was one nation. But he is not sure whether what was true of pre-
Muslim India would be true of the India of today where Mohammedans, Parsis and Christians
also live in the country?
Gandhi considers the issue of Hindus and Muslims to be important enough to devote a full
chapter to it. In chapter X entitled ‘The Condition of India (continued): The Hindus and the
Mahomedans’, after a detailed discussion on the communal question Gandhi sums up: ‘In no part
of the world are one nationality and one religion synonymous terms, nor has it ever been so in
India”.On the sensitive issue of cow slaughter, Gandhi does not mince words. ‘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.’ Rubbishing the argument that the British have created the rift between
the two communities, Gandhi states, ‘If two brothers want to live in peace is it possible for a
third party to separate them?’ Emphasizing the importance of strengthening of relations Gandhi
gives the simile of an unbaked mud pot. ‘The way to save the pot is not to keep it away from
danger point but to bake it so that no stone would break it.’ Gandhi is of the firm belief that the
existing mutual distrust between the two communities could be dissolved by creating mutual
confidence, or ‘heart-unity’.

(f) Lawyers aggravate communal tensions, help the continuance of British rule in India
In Chapter XI, continuing with the discussion on the condition of India, Gandhi discusses how
lawyers have a ruinous effect on the civilization of our country. Though, a lawyer himself, in the
role of the ‘editor’ Gandhi is unsparing in his criticism of lawyers. Since lawyers thrive on
disputes they have prolonged feuds between Hindus and Muslims thus embittering the relations
between the two communities. The ‘editor’ is of the ‘firm opinion’ that lawyers have enslaved
India. He elaborates upon this in his later discussion.
Through law courts the British have tightened their hold on India because they employ Indian
lawyers who help them rule the country. Had there been no Indian lawyer or judge the British
rule could not have perpetuated itself, according to Gandhi.

(g) Doctors responsible for the entrenching of British rule, for breeding immorality, playing with
religious sentiments of the people
In Chapter XII Gandhi discusses how doctors have ruined India. He alludes to the historical
references where the English were able to win over the faith of the local rulers by curing their
relatives and thus were able to establish their hold on India At philosophical plane, he states
that hospitals have taught people not to take care of their bodies hence contributed to the making
of immoral men because it was Gandhi’s belief that man can never fall sick if he has control over
his senses. As discussed earlier, Gandhi is also against the killing or torturing of animals in the
name of experimentation. Medicines also violate our religious instinct, states Gandhi, because all
sorts of animal parts or alcohol are used in the preparation of medicines. Besides medicines are
priced higher than their actual cost, which amounts to cheating the public.

True Civilization is Indian civilization

After pointing out at the evils of modern civilization, Gandhi proceeds to describe his view of
civilization in chapter XIII, appropriately entitled ‘What is true civilization?’ He equates true
civilization to Indian civilization. ‘The civilization India has evolved is not to be beaten in the
world.’ His definition of true civilization is: ‘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’When the ‘reader’ points out that how can he sing the glory of Indian
civilization when the same is criticized for treating women badly, is responsible for child
marriages, widowhood and forced prostitution and where the religion justifies the killing of
innocent animals in huge numbers? Gandhi dismisses the arguments of the reader by saying that
the instances that have been enumerated are ‘defects’ and cannot be equated with the ancient
Indian civilization. Further he elaborates upon the crucial difference between the Indian and the
modern civilization. He clarifies that while the Indian civilization attached great importance to
moral elevation, the western civilization is concerned more with physical comfort and is
therefore immoral.

India can achieve swaraj by following Indian civilization

Gandhi had seemingly moved away from the main topic of discussion with which he had started
in the first chapter and a couple of chapters following it which was how India can win swaraj. In
Chapter XIV Gandhi returns to the theme of Indian independence once again. To the question as
to how can India become free Gandhi states that he has already answered the question indirectly
and would attempt to answer it directly now. But instead of stating things very clearly Gandhi
hints that swaraj could be attained if Indians follow the great Indian civilization and keep away
from the damaging impact of the modern civilization. In that case, believes Gandhi, if the
English become Indianized it would not be necessary for them to go.

(a) Violence is not a feature of Indian civilization: Italy’s example not to be followed
The reader is not impressed. He argues that it was not possible for the British to change their
nature, (the point Gandhi refutes) and India could gain independence from the British rule only
through the use of arms as the Italians had done in the previous century. He also pointedly asks
Gandhi as to what was his view with regard to Italian freedom fighters like Mazzini and
Garibaldi.
Continuing the discussion on the freedom movement in Italy, Gandhi clearly opines that while
Mazzini cared for the common man, others fighting for freedom were fighting only for their
king. Thus Gandhi brings out a very important aspect of swaraj that is ‘democratic government’
in which the common men and women, farmers and workers, also have a say. ‘My patriotism
does not teach me that I allow people to be crushed under the heel of Indian princes if only the
English retire.’ The other difference between Italy and India according to Gandhi is that Italians
had arms and Indians do not possess them therefore the Indians cannot fight like Italians against
the British army which is well armed. At this point, Gandhi also lets out his innermost desire
when he says ‘the fact is that the Indian nation will not adopt arms, and it is well that it does
not.’(italics mine)
(b) Importance of ends and means in Indian civilization
So far the discussion on use of arms has been only in philosophical or indirect terms. The
‘reader’ now lays bare his strategy before Gandhi. He states, ‘At first, we shall assassinate a few
Englishmen and strike terror; and 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…’
Gandhi’s response to this violent strategy is predictable. He comes down heavily on the ‘reader’.
He makes it known to the ‘reader’ that ‘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.’
The ‘reader’ persists and points out that sometimes such acts frighten the government into giving
concessions as was done in the Morley-Minto reforms of 1909.Gandhi on his part is convinced
that whatever, if any thing, is given out of fear would remain as long as that fear lasts.
This argument brings the discussion between the ‘reader’ and the ‘editor’ to the discussion on
ends and means in the following chapter (Chapter XVI). Gandhi is of the opinion that good ends
could be achieved only through moral means. Petitioning the government was a way of
educating the people while articulating the grievances of the Indians.
The time has come for petition to be backed by force, moral force. If the British government
refuses to entertain or look into our petitions we should refuse to cooperate with it, because, as
sums up Gandhi, ‘the force of arms is powerless when matched against the force of love and
soul.’

(c ) India can win independence through passive resistance

Chapter XVII is devoted to the further elaboration of ‘the force of love and soul’ represented
through ‘passive resistance’. The chapter begins with the reader expressing doubts regarding the
success of soul force because, he believes, there is no evidence in history to show that soul force
has ever succeeded. Gandhi replies that since ‘history is really a record of every interruption of
the even working of the force of love and soultherefore there is little reference to the working of
soul force there. ‘Soul force being natural, is not noted in history.’Gandhi defines passive
resistance as 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.’Gandhi
proceeds to draw a distinction between the laws made by the legislatures or human institutions
and laws of the conscience which, according to him, are any day better than man made laws.
Similarly he considers it a ‘superstition and ungodly thing to believe that an act of a majority
binds a minorityalluding to the accepted procedure for making of laws by the legislatures. The
reader is still not clear about the potent weapon of passive resistance which he believes is a good
weapon for the weak while the strong can take up arms. Gandhi reprimands him for his
ignorance and tells him that passive resistance requires greater courage than what is required in
taking up arms though a physically weak person can also be a passive resister. ‘Control over the
mind is alone necessary, when that is attained, man is free like the king of the forest and his very
glance withers the enemy’.
A passive resister needs to follow a strict discipline of the body and the mind. He has to follow,
under all circumstances, the vows of chastity, of remaining in poverty, truthfulness, and last but
not least, fearlessness. Passive resistance, according to Gandhi, is a double edged sword; it
morally uplifts the resister and at the same time also conquers the enemy. Gandhi states that
whenever people had refused to obey the unjust orders of their rulers in India in the past, they
practised passive resistance.

(d)Importance of education in swaraj

Gandhi had always been a great supporter of proper education. His discussion of swarajya would
have been incomplete without a discussion on education. Hence in Chapter XVIII he discusses
the importance of education. He criticizes the British system of primary education that focuses
on three R’s which Gandhi believes is irrelevant for an Indian peasant. Gandhi also considers
higher education imparted in India to be worthless because it does not deal with or teach the
student values of life. The ‘reader’ is understandably disturbed by these views and counters
Gandhi by saying that it is only because he is educated he has been able to form opinions on such
diverse subjects. Gandhi patiently tells him that he is not against knowledge of letters but what
he wants to emphasize is that one should not make a fetish of education.
Real education is about character building. It should include knowledge of a language apart from
our provincial language such as Sanskrit for Hindus, Arabic for Muslims and Persian for Parsees.
Hindi in the Devanagari script should be the link language. English language should be given up
‘Is it not a sad commentary that we should have to speak of Indian Home Rule in a foreign
language?’

(e)Machinery should not replace human labour

Chapter XIX is the most controversial chapter of the book wherein Gandhi criticizes machines.
He is of the opinion that machines have impoverished India. The Manchester mills, by
supplying cheap cloth to India, have made the Indian weavers lose their jobs and livelihood. The
mill owners in India also have a vested interest in this and because of their support the British are
continuing to exploit Indians. Gandhi further widens criticism of machinery by including a
criticism of tram cars, electricity and printing presses in it but fails to give a very convincing
argument in support of his views.

(f)Gandhi’s definition of swaraj

In the last chapter the ‘reader’ concludes that since the views of Gandhi do not match those of
either the extremists or moderates perhaps he represents a third party. Gandhi disagrees with the
description because he does not believe in any kind of partisanship but specifies his differences
with the ‘Extremist’ and the ‘Moderates’. He disagrees with the ‘Extremists’ with regard to the
use of brute force and asks the ‘Moderates’ to back their petition with the force of soul in order
to make them effective.
Gandhi pleads to British government that it follow the Indian civilization if it wishes to remain
in India and asks it to desist from spending money on railway and military, and replace Hindi
with English as a language of instruction in education. If these conditions are not met, Gandhi
suggests that it would not be possible for Indians to co-operate with the British. Gandhi also
enumerates a list of 19 conditions regarding how he wanted people to conduct themselves in
order to obtain real swaraj. This list includes instructions to lawyers, doctors, wealthy people on
how to make themselves useful for their country and countrymen. There is also a curious
instruction (No.17) which states that one ‘should understand that deportation for life to
Andamans is not enough expiation for the sin of encouraging European civilization.’ This is
probably a hint to those who propagated violent means for attaining independence for India
because the point immediately preceding it emphasizes self suffering, and the point succeeding
this one, sings the virtue of passive resistance and self suffering involved in it.
The ‘reader’ is alarmed at the ambitious list and calls it a tall order. Gandhi, however, is
uncompromising. He states that real home rule is self rule or self control; which could be
achieved only through passive resistance; which requires the use of swadeshi; and this could be
achieved not by hating the English but by convincing them that their rule of taxes, unnecessary
expenditures, etc was harmful.

He winds up the discussion on swaraj by stating unequivocally ‘my conscience testifies that my
life henceforth is dedicated to its attainment’. And Gandhi did exactly this in his life-time

How this small booklet was received by the general public, Indian leaders, public figures, writers
and philosophers and the British rulers during Gandhi’s life-time, forms an interesting account
which shall be discussed in due course. What is important at this point is to state that though
Gandhi was in the thick of the struggle for the rights of the Indian community in South Africa,
Indian independence was not farther from his mind and he was almost prophetic about his vision
of the strategy to be followed to win independence for India.

Gandhi’s Critique of Modernity

Gandhi’s seminal work Hind Swaraj is a critique of modern civilization. Earlier attempts in his
speeches are described by Guha, as ‘throat-clearing exercises’(p.366, Guha)

Disturbed by the trend of violence evident in the freedom movement of India in the early part of
the twentieth century, Gandhi held modern civilization responsible for this violence. He
considered modern civilization as a disease that had stricken both the Indians and the English
alike. As a disease it was curable but he felt that the younger generation was held under the spell
of modern civilization and therefore it was very difficult for them to see how it was harming
them.

Emphasis on bodily comforts over spiritual development was the hallmark of modern
civilization. Modernity’s pet theme--- rationality--- sounded the death-knell of faith and religion.
This was further compounded by the introduction of modern medicine and doctors who resorted
to the killing of innocent animals for medical experiments, used animal products as components
in medicine, and, above all, encouraged people to lead immoral and uncontrolled life by assuring
them that if they fell sick because of such a life they could be cured by popping some pills.
Gandhi also hinted at the historical fact how the British doctors facilitated the establishment of
their Empire in India by curing Indian princes of diseases.

The introduction of railways leading to fast movement had its own problems. Frequent travels
made people lose their sense of belonging to one place, creating a feeling of rootless-ness thus
killing community bonds. Easy travelling also led to all sorts of people thronging to religious
places thus contaminating the sanctity of these places. Earlier, only the devout would undertake
arduous pilgrimages. Railways, believed Gandhi, also facilitated the spread of diseases from one
city to another. The people worst hit by railways were the villagers. Railway lines facilitated
village crops to be sold in urban markets leading to shortage of food in villages and the resultant
poverty and deaths there.

The lawyers were another evil product of modern civilization. Lawyers thrived on the disputes of
others, which, out of selfish interest, they perpetuated rather than solved. The Hindu-Muslim
tension, believed Gandhi, was largely the doing of lawyers who instead of solving communal
disputes aggravated them. Lawyers also helped the perpetuation of the British rule in India by
sustaining their judicial system which otherwise could not have been manned by the British
alone.

The skewed idea of nation, born out of modern civilization, is also attacked by Gandhi. He
believed that nations are not co-terminus with religious groups. The followers of different faiths
in India belong to the Indian nation. India has been one nation in ancient times and it remains so
in the present times as well. Gandhi believed that there was a religion which was above all
religions and this religion should be followed by all irrespective of the religious denomination
they belong to.

The most controversial area of the Gandhian critique of modern civilization has been his views
on machinery. Though Gandhi somewhat modified his views on machinery later in his life
saying that even the human body is a machine and therefore he was not anti-machinery as it was
made out to be, the criticisms remain to this day. Gandhi’s main grouse against machines was
that in India they were replacing human labour thus spreading unemployment.

The problem with the Gandhian critique of modern civilization is that it is couched in very stark
terms. Probably Gandhi wrote in such a tone to present a caricature that would attract attention
and that he managed to do.

Insert cartoon from ‘barbarism and civilization’ from the Hindi edition
of this book given in chapter 8.
Three commentaries on Gandhi’s critique of modern civilization are given below. All the authors
are well-known Gandhian scholars who have done extensive research on Gandhi and have also
written books on Gandhi.

BHIKHU PAREKH ON GANDHI’S CRITIQUE OF MODERNITY

Bhikhu Parekh approaches Gandhi’s critique of modernity from three angles, which are
interconnected and flow from each other. In the order they appear in Gandhi’s analysis these are:
human nature, rationality versus faith and violent state.

Bhikhu Parekh examines Gandhi’s critique of modernity in the context of the general critique of
modernity by European scholars like Mill, Tolstoy, Durkheim, Marx etc.
According to Parekh though Gandhi had the advantage of critiquing modern civilization from
both the western and the eastern perspectives, he was more sympathetic to the latter, ‘and
primarily saw it through the eyes of one of its victims.’
In order to highlight its historical specificity rather than its spatial characteristic Gandhi called it
‘modern’ instead of ‘western’ civilization, in the process also indicating that the European people
had earlier followed a different civilization.

Human Nature: Lack of self-restraint

At the base of every civilization is its distinct conception of human nature. If human nature is
depicted as selfish, the civilization based on it would also have negative traits.
Modern civilization privileged the body over soul. The predominance of body over soul led to
two consequences: self-interest and unrestrained self-indulgence. Self-interest led to insensitivity
towards the problems of other human beings. Self-indulgence led to more and more production,
more consumption of goods than was required, and over-dependence upon machinery thereby
resulting in attaching undue importance to it. This led to human beings being reduced to helpless
spectators and represented a new kind of slavery ‘more comfortable and invidious and therefore
more dangerous.’

Modern civilization emphasized speed and hence was always on the move leading to disruption
of man’s relation with his environment and making him lose his identity in the process. Constant
movement also led to loss of sentiment of goodwill and mutual concern therefore community
living was made possible only through instilling fear of law.

Enlightened self-interest, which was admired as a quality of liberty in modern civilization, led to
selfishness and immorality. It led to centrifugal society rather than a centripetal society. The
exploitation of one’s fellow beings was built into the very structure of modern civilization.
European imperialism was also one of the reflections of this.
Rationality v. Faith: Naïve rationalism

Since modern civilization laid emphasis on scientific methods and rationality, religion and faith
had no place in it. According to Gandhi blind belief in the omnipotence of reason was the worst
kind of idolatry. Rationalism justified the enslaving of the people of another country in order to
civilize them because the imperialists thought that their (the rulers) understanding of things was
right.

Rationalism also ignores the fact that people differ from each other in terms of their nature, that
is, swabhava.

Violent State: Statist culture

Highly centralized modern state was also the product of modern civilization. People with no
sense of commonality can be kept together only through a ruthless state hence the domineering
state was a necessity. Even democracies suffered from this defect.

Complex response to modernity

Gandhi’s response to modern civilization was a complex one. He praised three achievements of
modern civilization. These were (a) scientific spirit of enquiry; (b) understanding the natural
world and bringing it under greater human control; (c) contribution to the organizational side of
life. But this praise was not unqualified.

Gandhi believed that the scientific spirit of enquiry suffered from being defined in ‘narrowly
positivist and aggressive terms’ and extended to ‘those areas of life where it was least
applicable’. The matters of faith are better left outside the scrutiny of reason. Understanding of
the world and bringing it under human control had saved man from deadly diseases and ill health
but created in him a ‘morbid fear of death.’ Organizational life had cultivated civic virtues,
respect for rules, subordination of the individual to collective good etc but it reduced morality to
enlightened self-interest. By focusing on institutional importance it has left no scope for diversity
and freedom of conscience. Human initiative is also killed in the quest for conformity.
Gandhi brought to the critique of modern civilization a perspective not available to its western
critics. This also had its disadvantages because though materialist at one level modern
civilization also has a moral and spiritual dimension.

DAVID HARDIMAN: ‘AN ALTERNATIVE

MODERNITY’1
Hardiman examines Gandhi’s views on modernity as a dialogue between Gandhi and modern
civilization. In this dialogue Gandhi appreciates some features of modern civilization and rejects
others. Gandhi supports, for instance, modern concept of human rights, fundamental equality of
all humans, the right of all to democratic representation, the principle of governance through
persuasion rather than coercion etc. He even goes to the extent of accusing the western
governments that they were not following these principles in spirit.

Gandhi, however, criticizes modern civilization for its doctrines of materialism, rationalism, lack
of morality, large scale production leading to excessive consumerism and greed, system of
medicine aimed at curing rather than preventing diseases, immoral governmental institutions and
so on.

Hardiman believes that we commit the error of judging Gandhi by western standards, according
to the definition of modernity given by the West. He credits Gandhi with giving an ingenious
concept of ‘Alternative Modernity’, which is neither traditional nor totally in agreement with the
western concept, but a constructive critique of modernity accepting its good features.
Gandhi’s concept of alternative modernity is reflected in his views mentioned in Hind Swaraj;
his idea of civilization with its preference for arcadian life-style ; his innovative Constructive
Programme; and, his doctrine of Trusteeship. All these ideas have been adequately supported in
the West, or outside India as well, and Hardiman gives a detailed account of these.

In Hind Swaraj Gandhi criticizes modern civilization for creating an immoral society, by
judging progress in terms of technological development aimed at increasing bodily comforts.
Hardiman discusses Gandhi’s views on railways, doctors, medicine and so on which have
already been discussed in the earlier chapters. The alternative modernity of Gandhi comes into
play when Gandhi gives his own definition of civilization and asks all to follow that. For him
civilization stands for good conduct, doing one’s duty and having mastery over mind and
passions.

After examining the views expressed in Hind Swaraj, Hardiman dwells on the Gandhian concept
of civilization which reflects a desire to live in ‘arcadian simplicity’, i.e. a pastoral life close to
nature. This, however, did not mean running away from civilization and living in the lap of
nature like an ascetic. Nature for Gandhi meant the original or natural form of living, which in
many ways, brings man close to natural surroundings as different from urban lifestyle. He
wanted to disturb nature only as much as it was absolutely necessary for human existence. This,
therefore, was again a new concept close to the present idea of sustainable development and
protection of environment.

Hardiman moves on to the description of appropriate technology whereby Gandhi gave his own
vision of development in the form of Constructive Programme.2 When Gandhi launched his
Non-Co-operation Movement in 1920 he also advocated taking up constructive programme side
by side. Constructive Programme included spinning, development of handicrafts, propagating
communal unity, movement against untouchability, village uplift and so on. In this programme,
Hardiman argues, Gandhi gave an alternative to the concept of development with which the West
is familiar. He also managed to bring in the distinction between constructive programme and the
socialists’ concept of development based on class struggle. The latter, he held, was divisive and
violent in nature.

Gandhi was wary of both socialists and capitalists and succeeded in bridging the gap between the
two by introducing the theory of Trusteeship whereby the capitalists do not exploit the workers
for gaining profits. Rather they hold their property as a trust for the welfare of the society. The
argument Gandhi gives is that the capitalists owe to the society a debt as in the accumulation of
their wealth the society helped them. Both the capitalists and workers should work in harmony
and not as class enemies.

Gandhi’s Influence outside India

In the last section of his discussion, Hardiman discusses how Gandhi’s idea reverberated outside
India in different forms. Gandhi’s concept of appropriate technology found echo in the idea of
‘intermediate technology’ developed by Schumacher in his book Small is Beautiful published in
1973. Schumacher observed that Gandhi’s economic ideas had relevance for developing
countries, because, ‘as Gandhi said, the poor of the world cannot be helped by mass production
but by production by the masses’. The technology that suited them was intermediate technology,
which was superior to the primitive technology but at the same time ‘simpler, cheaper and freer
than the super technology of the rich’. Apart from Schumacher, Hardiman examines the support
for economic ideas of Gandhi in the writings by an Austrian Catholic priest, Ivan Illich. In his
book Tools for Conviviality, Illich talks about a people-friendly technology and asks society to
set limits to growth. In another book Deschooling Society Illich takes up the issue of education
and like Gandhi, proposes a decentralized and multiple system of learning. In still another book
Medical Nemesis, Illich echoes Gandhi’s concern for modern system of medicine. Lastly in his
book Energy and Equity, Illich criticizes the present day speedy system of transport as damaging
to environment. Here he differs from Gandhi who criticized fast transport as a contributing factor
to immorality.

Hardiman also examines how modern developmental strategies do not suit Indian conditions. He
quotes the experience of Oxfam workers who sought to implement their method for bringing
about the Green Revolution in India and ultimately had to work closely with Gandhian workers
adopting their method of work.

Gandhi’s longing for rural life is considered to be old fashioned and anti-urban by scholars like
Ramachandra Guha. Hardiman defends Gandhi by stating that he was aware of and sensitive to
the condition of urban workers as well, as was reflected in his speeches and actions during the
Ahmedabad Mill workers strike of 1918.

Hardiman winds up his discussion on alternative modernity by referring to the movements for
the protection of environment growing lately in India employing Gandhian techniques of
nonviolent protest.

POSTMODERN GANDHI
Of late there have been scholars who have described Gandhi as a postmodernist. Nicholas F.
Gier, for instance, believes that Gandhi is a ‘constructive’ postmodernist since he places virtue at
the centre of his writings as against the deconstructionist rejection of any central concept.3
One to receive maximum attention on this theme, however, has been L.I. Rudolph and S.H.
Rudolph’s book entitled Postmodern Gandhi and other essays published in 2006. Rudolphs are
well-known and much appreciated scholars writing about India. Their book deals with Gandhi as
a postmodernist. They argue that Gandhi can be termed as a postmodernist both in the
epistemological and historical sense of postmodernism. A brief summary of their arguments is
given below.

The modernist way of thinking or epistemology was challenged by Gandhi, Rudolphs argue.
Like postmodernists Gandhi refused to believe that there were universal truths, objective
knowledge and master narratives. Gandhi was of the opinion that at best human beings can know
only partial and contigent truths. His idea of truth was ‘truth in action’ which necessarily meant a
location of truth in the facts and circumstances of the particular situation. In the spirit of science
he described his pursuit of truth as ‘experiment’. Gandhi compared absolute truth to a diamond
which could not be seen whole but whose many facets or surfaces revealed partial truths. Like
Euclid’s theorem, truth was something that presented an ideal rather than a real thing. Truth, for
Gandhi, could be situational as in the goal of satyagraha, contextual and contingent as in the
experimental truths found in his autobiography, and absolute as in his commitment to ‘Truth is
God’.

Rudolphs hold that Gandhi is postmodern even in his hermeneutic (that is in relation to the
meaning) of written texts. With regard to his acceptance of vegetarianism he sources his
acceptance finally on the arguments provided by Henry Salt in his book Plea for Vegetarianism.
He neither accepts the modernist idea of usefulness of meat nor the traditional idea of its
avoidance on religious grounds but an idea that came when mankind progressed from hunter to
pastoral and then to the agricultural stage. Vegetarianism was a symbol of the progress of
mankind in the path to civilized life.

Gandhi also views the Bhagawadgita as a poem to be read by all – something new in India where
only the upper caste men were supposed to read it—and characterised it as a great poem where
meanings of words change or expand. He insisted that this is what we should learn from the great
text. The Gita also does not encourage finality. What may be permissible at one time or place
may not be so at another. This, according to Rudolphs, is a clinching evidence of the
postmodernist makeup of Gandhi’s mind. Gandhi also said that the Gita should not be treated as
a historical work but read as a metaphor. With regard to the discussion on incarnation Gandhi
argues that the message is not to show Krishna as perfect incarnation but as a guide on the path
of self realization.

After discussing Gandhi’s epistemology to be in consonance with postmodernism the Rudoplhs

try locating him in the postmodernist historical space. While Gandhi’s contemporaries were
lured by the gifts of modernization like progress, rationality and mechanization, Gandhi was free
from all these allurements. Rather he was critical of the very aspects of modern civilization feted
by others. This was amply demonstrated in Hind Swaraj wherein he denounced the so-called
gifts of modernity. The Rudolphs consider Gandhi’s critique of modern civilization in Hind
Swaraj as ‘an opening salvo of the postmodern era’. They further write that through this book
‘he helped to inaugurate the postmodern era by critiquing and rejecting ‘modern civilization’ and
by articulating a civilizational alternative to it.’ 4 Rudolphs have placed Gandhi vis-à-vis Nehru
on the issue of the right path of development. Gandhi challenged the modern view of ‘progress’
which was thought to be always benign. Gandhi was vindicated when the same progress led to
the Holocaust, World Wars and large scale devastation.

Rudolphs state how in the 1960s postmodern thinkers began to ask whether modernity should
continue to be accepted as the master narrative of the era. The destruction of environment in the
name of progress was brought out graphically by the publication of Rachel Carson’s book Silent
Spring.5 War as a means of bringing about better world was disputed in the anti-Vietnam war
demonstration throughout USA. Against this background, the Rudolphs write, ‘Gandhi’s 1909
challenge and alternative to modern civilization began to resonate with wider circles of thought
and opinion. In 1909 raj censors had declared Gandhi’s challenge to modern civilization in Hind
Swaraj politically subversive but they didn’t even notice its cultural subversions.’6They believe
Hind Swaraj to be the ‘text of our times”.

Jyotirmaya Sharma, while reviewing Rudolphs’ book for The Hindu, does not agree with
Gandhi’s characterization as a postmodernist. First, he argues with the idea of postmodernism
being desirable, and, then he questions the basis on which the Rudolphs describe Gandhi as a
postmodernist. Sharma has problem with the idea of self as propounded by the postmodernists
vis-à-vis Gandhi’s idea of self. He states: ‘Gandhi's idea of the self was based on self-
knowledge, and was far removed from the postmodernist idea of a self that is centreless, and
constituted of `random assemblages of contingent and idiosyncratic needs...’ Unlike the
postmodernists, the Mahatma did entertain the idea of a `true self'. His politics flowed from this
source. Equally dangerous is to construct Gandhi's model of India's villages as a polar opposite
of Nehruvian high modernism, Sharma argues. In doing so, the Mahatma is uncomfortably
pushed into the same slot as the Hindu nationalists, who have also approvingly endorsed
Gandhi's advocacy of villages, panchayats, trusteeship and swadeshi, without a thought being
expended on Gandhi's reception to the idea of a nation, which is radically different from theirs.’ 7

The debate whether Gandhi is a postmodernist or not, is still on.

1
D. Hardiman, ‘An alternative modernity’, Gandhi: In His Times and Ours, 2003. This is the first book of the series THE
INDIAN CENTURY edited by Ramachandra Guha and Sunil Khilnani. In the foreword to the book the editors state that the
series would contain compelling subjects on modern Indian history. They thought it appropriate to begin their series with
Gandhi. David Hardiman seems to be eminently suited for the job because of his specialization on modern Indian history
and also because of his research in various peoples’ movements in Gujarat. Apart from his own interest in Gandhi,
Hardiman’s research and experience in Gujarat has helped him see and explain the connection between the relevance of
Gandhi in his times and in present times.

2
See Appendix-II

3
The Virtue of Non-Violence: from Gautama to Gandhi (SUNY Press, 2004)

4
Ibid., p.3
5
Rachel Carson was an .American marine biologist and nature writer. In 1962 she published the book Silent Spring
bringing attention to the fact how the use of pesticides had killed bird life in USA and thus led to a season of spring devoid
of the chirping sound of birds. This book was a landmark in bringing about global awareness on environmental issues.
6
Rudolphs, op.cit.,p.15

7
The Hindu, July 4, 2006. Those desirous of reading a more technical and philosophical critique of Gandhi’s
Postmodernism are advised to read the excellent article by Upasana Pandey, ‘Problem with Postmodern Gandhi’
Mainstream, Vol XLV, No 41