Confusing Nationalism: Whether Gandhi's Reader Supports Indian or English Notions

In the Hind Swaraj, while the Reader is under the notion that the English took control of India and brought with them the problems India is facing, the Editor promotes the idea that “the English have not taken India” (38) but rather “we [Indians] created the circumstances that gave the Company [East Trading Company] its control over India. Hence it is truer to say that we gave India to the English than that India was lost” (39). The Editor approaches the situation with more internal reflection than the Reader, stating that India is in its current position not solely because of brute English force but by its own actions as well. Gandhi, through the responses of the Editor, highlights a dichotomy within the Reader, who although infuriated with the English—believing them to be the source of India’s problems—fails to see that he/she has bought into many English notions and forgotten the strength, the Editor sees, India to hold when the country is united.

While the Reader seemingly wishes to take arms against the English, the Editor explains “to arm India on a large scale is to Europeanise it. Then her condition will be just as pitiable” (75). In other words, acting in the manner of the English makes the Indians not better, and moreover it actually places them in what the Editor views as a worse off position. The Editor claims if “civilisation is that mode of conduct which points out to man the path of duty” (65) then “the tendency of Indian civilisation is to elevate the moral being, [and] that of the Western civilisation is to propagate immorality. The latter is godless, the former is based on a belief in God” (69). Adopting the Western values will effectively immoralize India creating a weaker country. By the Reader suggesting to act similarly to the English, by taking arms, he has accepted their methods as more effective than those of the Indians, even though he states his dislike of the English. The Editor, by pointing out how this method would weaken India, he shows “India is still… sound at the foundation” (64) a fact that the Reader has seemingly forgotten.

The Reader wanting to “reclaim” India from the English clearly believes himself to be part of a “new spirit of nationalism” (47) but the Editor’s responses imply this to be false. What then can we gather, from the Editor, to be Gandhi’s views on Indian nationalism and patriotism? 

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).

Understanding First

Throughout Hind Swaraj Gandhi constantly reminds his reader, both the character and us, to look beyond the superficiality of a situation. I think this is a key action in understanding Gandhi. He repeatedly emphasizes the concept of understanding an entire situation beyond the superficiality brought by preconception. This is done through a teacher – student relationship between Editor (Gandhi) and Reader.

In the first interactions between Editor and Reader, Editor tells Reader “you do not want to hear about the well-wishers of India” (14-15). Reader has a shallow preconception of British people such that he almost refuses to hear good things about them. Editor calls this “a matter of shame” (15). Gandhi’s believes in the need for a deep understanding of every issue, but does not think all people share this belief. He is teaching a lesson to remind people to step beyond what they want to see and actually view the world as it is.

 For Reader, the English are the opposition, as he argues against the National Congress that he sees as “perpetuating British Rule” (14). In the section “Why was India lost?” Editor calls Reader out on his notions of British fault. Instead Editor blames the acceptance India gave to the East India Trading Company, and later the British ruling body (39). Reader and Editor see that British Rule has taken the place of Indian Home Rule. However, when Reader jumps to blame the British, Editor makes him step back and look at the whole picture. Though the British rule is problematic, it was not brought about solely by the British, but also by Indians. By seeing the whole picture Gandhi (in the voice of Editor) identifies ways to begin to solve the problem without direct conflict with the British. Instead of kicking out the problematic British, Gandhi says that Indians need to solve the problem within by rejecting the “modern civilization” brought by the British (34). Again Gandhi rejects a superficial us versus them view and explores the buried roots of the problem.

This is a lesson that can be applied to all aspects of life. Gandhi fully acknowledges this, and he states his purpose through Editor, saying “it is my duty patiently to try to remove your prejudice” (17). Knowing that a problem has multiple sides, that there is not a simple right and wrong to see at first glance is the most important step in solving that problem, and Gandhi is trying to teach his readers this lesson to benefit humanity and to achieve his goal of Swaraj. 

"Mature Thoughts:" a Necessary Prerequisite

In the Hind Swaraj, Gandhi emphasizes the necessity of “mature thoughts,” such as patience, respect, justice, and unity, as the effective means for liberation and independence. The conflict in the Hind Swaraj is not between people, British and Indian, but between different modes of society. These societies are Modern and Ancient, which Gandhi describes as, “The one is the God of War, the other is the God of Love,” respectively (7). By relating India as the Ancient society of love, emotion instead of ammunition, Gandhi implies it has an innate capacity to harbor and manifest what Gandhi calls “mature thoughts.”

As the Editor responds to the Reader in question and answer, the Editor implies the imperativeness of “mature thoughts” by incorporating them in response. The Editor promptly tells the reader, “You are impatient. I cannot afford to be likewise,” after the Reader rushes the Editor to answer without proper consideration (14). The Editor later says “There is need for patience” in response to the Reader once again wanting answer with insufficient explanation (28). Through this emphasis on patience, Gandhi implies that, like the reader, the Indian people must also be patient in their quest of liberation and self-rule. A rush for results may not produce them, as the Reader exemplifies. The Editor introduces respect when the Editor states, “We shall become useless, if we lack respect for our elders. Only men with mature thoughts are capable of ruling themselves, and not the hasty-tempered” (16). Here, Gandhi posits that the impatience the Reader expresses would be incapable of self-rule, implying that both patience and respect are necessary in India’s quest. Both patience and respect fall into the category of “mature thoughts,” the effective tools to reach India’s goals.

            Another “mature thought” Gandhi emphasizes is justice. The Editor introduces justice by stating, “It is bad habit to say that another man’s thoughts are bad and ours are only good…I can never subscribe to the statement that all Englishmen are bad” (17). Gandhi calls self-righteousness a “bad habit,” certainly not a “mature thought,” discrediting any idea that Englishmen are inherently bad. Such ideas would be unjust. The Editor later says, “We who seek justice will have to do justice to others,” implying that the Indian people cannot afford to be unjust in thinking that the Englishmen are bad, or otherwise, for being unjust will prevent liberation and independence (17). Enforcing this point, the Editor claims, “if we act justly, India will be sooner free” (17). By harboring and manifesting these mature thoughts, which now include justice, the Indian people will become closer to realizing their goal.

            The final mature thought necessary to effectively achieve liberation and independence is unity. The Editor states that the Indian people “further [British] hold by quarrelling amongst [themselves]” (40). Gandhi suggests that such internal conflict impedes realization of India’s goal, so, naturally, unity of the Indian people is another aspect of maturity that is necessary before realizing their goal. To support this claim, the book’s editor includes the following quote by Gandhi in the footnotes: “When everyone in Japan, the rich as well as the poor, came to believe in self-respect, the country became free” (27). As soon as Japan formed a sense of unity were they able to achieve freedom.

            Gandhi claims that the Indian people’s “Strength lies in the absence of fear, not in the quantity of flesh and muscle we may have on our bodies,” as an Ancient civilization of love (44). Their strength lies in “mature thoughts,” not weapons and violence as the Modern civilization prescribes. These thoughts are a necessary prerequisite for the Indian people to achieve their goal of liberation and independence. A more violent form of revolution would not work, for Gandhi claims “arms and ammunition are perfectly useless” (40). The difference between British India and free India is not a change in the British, but a change in the Indian people themselves.

The Desert in Nietzche's Heart

Nietzche uses the image of a desert repeatedly in the third essay of On the Geaneaology of Morals, but attaches a very specific meaning to the word in order to both illuminate a point about and to poke fun at philosophers.  Nietzche contrasts the “desert against an inclination to the choice and luxurious” (88), and scoffs at the philosopher’s “struggle to maintain the will” (88) to maintain their ascetic lifestyles. A working understanding of the Nietzsche’s “desert” is necessary to understand this section.

Nietzche uses the word desert to refer to a place where those who naturally fulfill the ascetic ideal can retreat to avoid the constricting influence of the masses, a place for those with the “poverty, humility, chastity” that is so sought-after by intellectuals. Nietzche pauses here, however, and makes a clear distinction between intellectuals and those of “strong and independent constitution” (88) claiming that the intellectuals do not understand the true meaning of the desert. Intellectuals, he says, would be unable to endure it…[as it is] not nearly enough of a theatrical desert.” (88). Thus, Nietzche emphasizes that the desert is not for those who seek fame or glory through professed humility or chastity. The desert is instead “a modest official function…a mountain landscape for company…[or] possibly even a room in a busy, run-of-the-mill guesthouse, where one can be confident of going unrecognized” (88), a place where one can disappear. Nietzche praises those who naturally possess these inclinations, while simultaneously ribbing those who are untrue to themselves and instead seek the desert in pursuit of some greater aim, telling us that the desert is not nearly romantic enough to attract those who are searching for something more (88). Indeed, Nietzche claims that the lives of all great men contain the virtues of “poverty, humility, and chastity”, but that these are not virtues, rather “the most authentic and most natural conditions of their optimum existence.” (88) The word virtue implies something that is sought after, or that can be worked to and at last attained. When great men reach for the desert, he argues, it is not because they hold the belief that it will give them virtue, but because it is within their natures to live within the desert. The “virtue” is already within them, not something that they must strive for. The real desert is found by one who is naturally timid “in the face of commotion, honour, the press, influence” (88) – the purpose isn’t to demonstrate one’s superiority or virtue, but rather stems from an intrinsic desire to flee the constricting influence of the masses.  

Discussion Question(s):

Discuss how the story of Heraclitus play into Nietzche’s discussion of the desert, or interpret what Nietzche meant when he said that the “[ascetic ideal] is the happy ascetisicm of a deified and fully fledged  animal, an animal which does not so much remain at rest as hover over life” (88) and explain whether Nietzche disagrees or agrees with this view, and why.

Ascetic Ideals in Nietzsche’s Third Essay: The Sickly & the Meaning of Their Suffering

In Nietzsche’s Third Essay of On the Genealogy of Morals, he introduces ascetic ideals as a way to rid the fear of the unknown. Nietzsche states, “ the ascetic lifestyle offered mankind a meaning” (136). He describes this lifestyle to eliminate the fear of nothingness or the lack of a satisfactory reason for existence, and with this analysis, it gives meaning to the humanity’s creation of ascetic ideals. In fact, he points out “the ascetic ideal is derived from the protective and healing instincts of a degenerating life, which seeks to preserve itself and fights for existence with any available means” (99). Within his statement, he describes this ideal originates from humanity trying to protect themselves from any sorts of suffering at any cost. If there is any suffering, they seek to find some explanation of their suffering, which is not being self-inflicted, but caused by another source. Thus, they desire power to eliminate their sufferings; the ascetic ideals endow them with power to blame other things or people for their misery and then cause this sickness.

This sickness, according to Nietzsche, originates from the need of power to eliminate their suffering and receive satisfaction. He states, “the sick represent the greatest danger for the healthy; it is not the strongest but the weakest who spell disaster for the strong” (100). In his statement, he describes the ideals of these sickly people to be contagious and infect the healthy. They infect the healthy by instilling the idea: if some of humanity is unfortunate and suffering, others cannot be fortunate. He argues, “the whole misery as such into the conscience of the fortunate: so that these latter would one day begin to feel ashamed of their good fortune” (103). Once the healthy feel ashamed of their fortune, then the sickly succeed in bringing satisfaction to their miserable lives. This power allows the sickly to blame the healthy for their misfortune, and while blaming them, it gives the sickly satisfaction of understanding why they are suffering. They believe their suffering originates from others inflicting it upon them. Thus, their power allows them to eliminate their suffering by making others feel the same suffering as they do. However, this suffering upon the healthy is false because they are the ones, who are fortunate, but believe they are not as the sickly infect them with their ideals.

The ascetic ideals of the sickly represent many of the problems of slave morality. Slave morality designates the bird of prey to be evil because it inflicts harm upon the lamb, thus it suffers. Nietzsche notes “that lambs bear ill-will towards large birds of prey is hardly strange: but is in itself no reason to blame large birds of prey for making of with little lambs” (29). The lambs blame the birds for their misfortune and desire for justification for their sufferings, even though there is no reason why there should be blame put upon the birds for doing something natural. In other words, the lambs of slave morality are the same as the sickly as they bring their misfortunate on those who are fortunate. By establishing the blame on something more powerful or more fortunate, they believe to find meaning to the reason of their sufferings. Nietzsche points out “the meaninglessness of suffering and not suffering as such, has been the curse which has hung over mankind up to now-and the ascetic ideal offered mankind a meaning” (136)! In his statement, he describes humanity’s drive to find the meaning of all their misfortunate, which ascetic ideals provides for them. The real complication is truly not the suffering, but one finding the real meaning of “why do I suffer?” (136). The absence of an answer or a meaning is frightening to humanity, which explains the reason for the need of ascetic ideals to provide those “answers.” The sickly incorporate ascetic ideals to provide meaning to their misfortune and thus gain power to eliminate it by placing blame on the healthy. However, they take up these ideals to truly eliminate the fear of not understanding why they suffer. Therefore, ascetic ideals create false meanings for humanity in order to eliminate the fear of nothingness.

Discussion Questions:

“It explained suffering; it seemed to fill he gaping void; the door was closed against all suicidal nihilism” (136) Since the majority of the focus of the meaning of suffering comes from slave morality and their blame upon the nobles, what would be the suffering of noble morality? Alternatively, what void would ascetic ideals bring meaning to for the nobles? 

Smell and Bad Air in The Genealogy of Morals

          Throughout “On the Genealogy of Morals”, Nietzsche uses metaphors and appeals to the senses to emphasize different aspects of his argument against ideals. One image Nietzsche invokes over and over throughout the text is that of smell and bad air. Nietzsche uses the description of stench and bad air to emphasize his belief that ideals are a lie and a sickness to men. Also, by using something familiar such as breathing and smell, Nietzsche makes his complex argument more understandable.
          I first encountered bad air in the “dark workshop” (31). We descend into the workshop and all around are “mumbling forgers” who are “no doubt miserable”(30). But they say that they are “better than the powerful”(31). Nietzsche writes, “Bad air! Bad air! This workshop where ideals are fabricated—it seems to me to stink of nothing but lies” (32). Here, Nietzsche is drawing a parallel between lies and the stench. The air that is sickening him, making him unable to breathe, is tainted because of the lies. The lies are ideals. The people in the workshop who Nietzsche sees as the lowly and weak, imagine themselves to be the powerful and “good” (because of fabricated ideals). But it is for this very reason that Nietzsche says that man is “sick” (99).
          Nietzsche uses bad air and stench to illustrate man’s sickness due to ideals. He says, “Anyone whose sense of smell extends beyond his nose to his eyes and ears detects almost everywhere he goes something like the air of the asylum, the hospital” (101). Nietzsche is using synesthesia to emphasize the thickness of the stench all around. This sickness of man equates to the smell. Once again, the sickness derives from the fact that men believe in ideals, in particular the ascetic ideal, which Nietzsche sees as a lie. Nietzsche remarks, “The more normal sickness is in man...the more one should respect the rare cases of psychic and physical strength, mankind’s strokes of luck, and all the more carefully protect those who are well constituted from the worst air, the air of the sick” (100). Nietzsche wants the rare man who does not not believe in the ascetic ideal to avoid breathing in the sickness of ideals that most men have.
          In the end, the way that Nietzsche constantly refers to the bad air and smell helps to reinforce his point about the sickness that the lie of ideals brings to man. Breathing is something that we all do—we must breathe air to live. Also, most people can smell and know what it is like to smell an awful stench. By relating his complex argument to things as natural and breathing and smelling, Nietzsche makes himself much more understandable. He also manages to continually bring our focus back to this understanding that smell and bad air refers to the lie of ideals and the sickness it has created in man.

Discussion Question: Other than smell, what devices or senses does Nietzsche invoke to help both emphasize points of his argument and to clarify his argument?