The Negative Impact of the British on India: The Souring of Relationships and the Advent of Lawyers

In this section, Gandhi, through the voice of the Editor, examines four specific aspects of railways, the relationship between Hindus Mahomedans, lawyers, and doctors. They make it more difficult for India to gain independence. I found change in the relationship between the Hindus and Mahomedans and the advent of lawyers most relevant. Through these, Gandhi shows how the current condition of India, perpetuated by the British, is detrimental to self-rule. This is significant because it shows Gandhi believes India must look back before it can move forward and become independent.

            Gandhi partially attributes the negative change in the Hindu-Mahomedan relationship to British rule. When the Reader questions the Editor about the “inborn enmity between Hindus and Mahomedans,” the Editor asserts that the phrase was “invented by our mutual enemy” (51). Gandhi isn’t asserting the two groups were entirely peaceful prior to British rule, but rather that the British only worsened the situation by labeling one religious group of the nation as the enemy of another. Gandhi asserts “in no part of the world are one nationality and one religion synonymous terms: nor has it ever been so in India” (51). India must look back before it can move forward. He asserts that before the British, “each party recognized that mutual fighting was suicidal, and that neither party would abandon its religion by force of arms. Both parties, therefore, decided to live in peace. With the English advent the quarrels recommenced” (51). India was previously able to live peacefully as one nation, and could do so again under home rule should the British leave.

            Gandhi ascribes the negative impact on India of lawyers to the British. The Editor asserts, “The lawyers have enslaved India, and they have accentuated the Hindu-Mahomedan dissensions, and have confirmed English authority” (56). The confirmation of British authority by Indians has led India away from self-rule, which moves the blame partly onto the Indians themselves for allowing such a thing to happen. Gandhi asserts, “the lawyers…will as a rule, advanced quarrels, instead of repressing them” (57). Instead of solving “their disputes either by fighting or by asking their relatives to decide upon them,” Indians now have an unrelated third party decide for them (57). This means that India can no longer make its own decisions. The fact that “without lawyers, courts could not have been established or conducted, and without the latter the English could not rule” (59) makes this condition worse. Gandhi asserts that if Indians returned to their state before British rule, they would be able to solve their own problems. Lawyers only perpetuate British rule and make India incapable of self-rule.

            Gandhi specifically uses the examples of the relationship between Hindus and Mahomedans along with the importance of lawyers to show how the current condition of India perpetuates its inability to gain independence from the British. Instead, it shows that India needs to look backwards before it can look forward. As the Editor says, “Nothing can equal the seeds sown by our ancestors” (64).