In Gandhi's 'Hind Swaraj,' the Editor calls
for a new approach to breaking free of the grip of English oppression. His
method is different than others because he proposes passive resistance instead of
violent force against the British. In discussing education in India, and character traits of
a passive resistor, the Editor
makes it clear what characteristics or values that Gandhi sees fit for the
individual. These things that Gandhi values in people are significant because
they explain why passive resistance is the best option for India to gain
independence from Britain.
When the reader asks the Editor about Education,
the Editor responds that primary education is enough because it builds
character. The Editor devalues elementary or higher education because “it does
not enable us to do our duty” (100). Whatever one’s duty may be, a primary
education of character building will be sufficient for one to accomplish the
duty. Gandhi makes it clear that having a strong character is important for an
individual. Gandhi defines elements of a strong character in his response to
the reader’s question of what constitutes a passive resistor.
When the reader asks what one must
do to be a passive resistor, the Editor responds that one must embrace
chastity, poverty, truth, and fearlessness. “The mind cannot attain requisite
firmness” without chastity (105). Poverty is important in order to avoid the
temptations of riches. “Money renders a man helpless. The other thing as
harmful is sexual vice. Both are poison...” that destroy “body mind and soul”
(106). Both chastity and poverty require self-control, and are important to
maintain in order to maintain a strong character. Therefor, self-control is an
element of strong character. Truth “has necessarily to be followed, and at any
cost” (96). Fearlessness is necessary to see that the truth is followed out.
Gandhi values the characteristics of
self-control, truth seeking, and fearlessness for the individual. The Editor cannot endorse use of
violent force as a means because it is contradictory to these characteristics
that Gandhi values. While a warrior may seek the truth, it is easy to indulge
in the temptation forceful responses, which is a violation of self-control.
Furthermore, “one who is free from hatred requires no sword” (97). Because of
these violations of Gandhi’s ideal human characteristics, the use of force would not be an option as a
response to the British occupation of India. Gandhi concludes that, “real home rule
is possible only where passive resistance is the guiding force of the people”
(94).
Discussion Question: Passive resistance would require much self-sacrifice. For example, Gandhi gives the example of walking up to a canon with a smile on your face. This seems like an incredibly difficult thing to convince people to do, and would require people to adhere to the characteristics I listed above completely. What is appealing about Gandhi's proposition, and what sorts of things does he do to make a convincing argument?
Discussion Question: Passive resistance would require much self-sacrifice. For example, Gandhi gives the example of walking up to a canon with a smile on your face. This seems like an incredibly difficult thing to convince people to do, and would require people to adhere to the characteristics I listed above completely. What is appealing about Gandhi's proposition, and what sorts of things does he do to make a convincing argument?
I think Gandhi's proposition gains appeal based on the way that violent methods of resistance are shown to be incorrect. For example, the metaphor of the thief. Through this metaphor Ganhi explains that "according to the means I employ, the watch is stolen property, my own property, or a donation" (80). This shows that the way Indian dependence is precieved and its aftermath depend on the methods used to attain it. For people who are dedicated to this cause, these types of arguments would be convincing because they make the nonviolent approach seem like the best option for the future of the revolution.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly to what Kyra said, it's undoubtably a scary proposition to volunteer self-sacrifice. Imagining walking up to a canon smiling seems like a really stupid idea if you want to live more than a could seconds. But Gandhi clearly accepts this, detailing that it takes courage to participate in such self-sacrifice and that it isn't for the weak-willed. I think that Gandhi does his best to utilize logic to make passive resistance as appealing as possible. Beginning by arguing for Home rule he develops his argument in such a manner that the only apparent answer to attain the goal of home rule is passive resistance. Explicating that other means, brute force and submission in particular are non-answers to the problem present in India.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs Kyra mentioned, passive resistance, although daunting, surfaces as the best option when contrasted against brute force. Gandhi strongly disproves of such brute force partly because it ignores the traditional Indian customs that he promotes for home-rule. Gandhi argues that "brute force is not natural to the Indian soil," and for that reason alone should not be implemented in their efforts for independence (110). While passive resistance appears to be challenging, Gandhi believes it lies in the nature of the Indian people. He provides historical evidence for this claim, noting times in which Indian civilians refuted the ruling of corrupt leaders by disobeying their commands. In this manner, passive resistance is two-dimensional in Gandhi's efforts. It defends against British rule, but also celebrates native Indian traditions.
ReplyDeleteGandhi appeals to the will to power of those who read his book. The Indians reading his book were generally left at the power of the British, but Gandhi tells them that "Passive resistance, that is, soul-force, is matchless. It is superior to the force of arms" (91). This enormous power will supposedly give Gandhi's followers the ability to overcome those who oppose them, and give them control over the lives. According to Gandhi, controlling one's mind and having the discipline to walk up to a cannon smiling makes it so "man is free like the king of the forest, and his glance withers enemies" (92). Gandhi offers power and freedom through self-discipline, in return for embracing his doctrine of self-discipline and abstention.
ReplyDeleteYes, since the ends are connected to the means, a peaceful end via a peaceful mean is most desirable. Gandhi uses the famous quote that those who wield the sword will also perish by it, implying that using brute-force actually does more harm than good in the long run. Also to make this proposition appealing, though it seems insurmountably difficult, is to praise the peaceful resister as the strongest willed and most ethical. That requires much more strength than wielding a gun, as Gandhi describes.
ReplyDeleteAs various of the posters above noted, the main attractive force of Gandhi's argument seems to be that those who fight back violently tend to end badly. However, a different take on this might involve just how much Gandhi stresses that the way of self discipline is "matchless [and] superior" (91). Thus, by following this path, he simultaneously demonstrates that it is flat out-better while putting down everyone else. Gandhi implies that any other way of doing things is simply stupid compared to his way, and to be one of the elite that would bring about change one must possess the self-discipline that his followers display, which can only be shown through following his ideals. In short, Gandhi's appeal can be found in the superiority people found they felt by taking his path.
ReplyDelete