Previous
Chapter 9
Themes
Key
LitCharts assigns a color and icon to each theme in Hind Swaraj, which you can use to track the themes throughout the work.
Passive Resistance and Indian Independence
Modern Civilization and Colonialism
The Personal and the Political
Indian Nationhood and Identity
Summary
Analysis
The editor repeats that railways, lawyers, and doctors are responsible for India’s corruption. By God’s design, he argues, people can naturally only travel by walking. By creating transportation technologies like railways, people abuse their intelligence and forget God. As they travel, they encounter others with different religious beliefs and come into conflict.
When Gandhi portrays technology as an affront against God, what he really means is that it leads people to forget their spiritual needs and lose touch with their own humanity. In particular, by becoming too obsessed with technology and bodily needs, they risk forgetting the inner unity of all people and religions. This is why they may begin to see other religious groups as threatening outsiders, rather than moral and political equals. In turn, Gandhi clearly thinks that such technology has made it easier and easier for Indians to forget their unified national identity.
Themes
The reader argues that Mahomedan (Muslim) invaders and rulers destroyed India’s previous national unity. But the editor disagrees: foreigners have always assimilated into India throughout the ages. Now, Muslims are Indians. Nationality and religion are separate: Indians must respect each other’s religious beliefs. India is not a Hindu nation, and anyone who thinks it is cannot truly be Indian. The reader thinks there’s an “inborn enmity” dividing Hindus and Muslims, but the editor says this is a myth: Hindus and Muslims lived together peacefully for centuries, until the English divided them in order to conquer India. Hindus and Muslims are related, both by blood and because they ultimately worship the same God.
Animosity between Hindus and Muslims was growing in the early 1900s, so it was essential for Gandhi to explicitly say that Hindus and Muslims are equal in every way, and that Indian identity is not the same as Hindu identity. Where the reader sees an unchangeable “inborn enmity”—which would imply that Hindus and Muslims can’t live together harmoniously or belong to the same nation—the editor insists that this enmity is the temporary product of historical factors. This means that people can overcome it, if they commit themselves to doing so—and, in fact, Gandhi thinks the formation of an independent and unified India is the most important step towards reconciliation. Unfortunately, these wishes have not been fulfilled.
Themes
The reader asks about cow protection, or Hindu-led activism to prevent the slaughter of cows. The editor explains that, while he respects cows, he also respects other people. Killing a person to save a cow is just as evil as killing a cow in the first place. To stop cow-killing, people must use persuasion, not violence. If persuasion fails, people can sacrifice themselves to save cows, but never kill another person.
Although he was a militant vegetarian, Gandhi insists on seeing the value in both cows’ and humans’ lives. In other words, he does not think that a person’s life ceases to be valuable becuase they commit a crime. Here, he is introducing an idea that eventually comes to play an important role in his theory of satyagraha, or passive resistance: vengeance is never morally acceptable because it leads to a downward spiral of resentment and violence. Just like passive resistance is the solution to English tyranny, persuasion and self-sacrifice are the proper solutions to violence against animals.
Themes
The editor strongly rejects the communal politics around cow-killing. Hindu cow-protection groups encourage social division, which actually leads to more cow-killing. Plus, many Hindus also badly mistreat cows. Some argue that Hindus follow Ahinsa (nonviolence), while Muslims don’t. But this is a myth. For instance, some Hindus attack Muslims, and many Hindus eat meat. In reality, “selfish and false” religious leaders use this idea to divide people. So do the English, who foolishly pretend to know everything about other groups of people. Anyone who actually reads Hindu and Muslim scripture would see that the groups agree on most things.
By logically showing that nonviolence is the best way to maintain nonviolence and preserve life, Gandhi makes it clear that many cow-protection groups are acting out of spite, and just using moral principles as an excuse to commit violence and persecute Muslims. In reality, they are violating morality, or following a “selfish and false” distortion of it. This hypocrisy supports Gandhi’s belief that people have to morally improve themselves before they can call upon others to do the same.
Themes
Get the entire Hind Swaraj LitChart as a printable PDF.
The reader asks if the English will ever let Hindus and Muslims get along, but the editor argues that Hindus and Muslims are themselves responsible for letting the English foster divisions. As the majority, Hindus have more power to heal divisions. After all, Muslims only want separate political institutions because the Hindus and the English are trampling on their rights. In reality, Hindus only stand to gain by treating Muslims fairly. Like foolish brothers, the two groups constantly fight, when they would accomplish much more by working together.
While the English might have largely caused India’s religious divisions (like its economic and religious problems), Gandhi emphasizes, Indians have to take collective responsibility themselves for becoming corrupt and failing to improve the situation. When he insists that the English must force Hindus and Muslims to get along, the reader is really denying Indians’ own power to change the situation. By comparing Hindus and Muslims to brothers, Gandhi again reinforces the idea that Indians are inherently a unified nation that has temporarily forgotten its unity.
Themes
