Contemporary applicability: Environmentalism, preoccupation with materialism → political

reprecrussion; production shift to Global South

Consider whether Gandhi’s argument is made on the basis of cultural particularity, is it

persuasive to someone who doesn’t derive their ethical framework from ancient Indian
principles? This speculation as to whether the Gandhian ethical framework can be applied to
a broader audience can be answered through a consideration of Gandhi’s emphasis on
universalised ethics, a set of principles accessible to all by virtue of being human.

Who would Gandhi’s ideas appeal to?

With the thief analogy, whereby Gandhi reminds the reader that people’s moral duties to one
another as humans are paramount to any duties we have to our property, Gandhi’s ethical
framework gains a renewed audience amongst those interested in communal-based
rehabilitation for criminals

- Gandhi believes in moral perfectibility

Politics of the environment:

● FACULTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL’S MIND: Principle of ahimsa extends beyond human

relations to incorporate the environment - ahimsa shouldunderpin our interactions
with nature, thus enocuraging a respectful and sustainable approach to the natural
world conscious of the consequences of our actions upon later generations
● CRITICISMS OF MODERN INDUSTRIAL STATE: The pursuit of material progress is
a “disease”, according to Gandhi. He forgrounds several historical instances
illustrating how the vice of materialism begets political and social decay, such as
Rome “suffering a moral fall when it attained high moral influence”. This criticism of
consumerism appeals to environmentalist movements as Gandhi’s emphasis on
self-sufficiency, such as sustainable development being carried out in the name of
Swadeshi (self-reliance). Whilst this retains relevance in relation to the
environmentally and socially damaging practises such as the geographic shift in
production to the Global South, Gandhi’s advocacy for self-sufficiency has
implications when considered in a contemporay context, globalisation is arguably a
must during instances such as the recent pandemic

● Gandhi’s philosophy of Satyagraha, implying non-violent resistance carried out

through “soul-force”, influenced environmental activism

Essay plans

How persuasive is Gandhi’s ethical critique of the democratic modern state? // 14. Does
Gandhi offer a viable alternative to representative democracy? (2017)

Hind Swaraj elucidates the Gandhian questioning of the fundamental assumptions of

modern civilisation, forming the foundation of his ethical critique of the modern state due to
its coercive nature. When considering how persuasive this is, it is necessary to consider first
what lies at the art of Gandhi’s analysis of the modern state. This Gandhian emphasis on the
restorative faculties of the individual’s mind is key to understanding how the project of outer
transformation must succeedin the inner transformation of the moral agent. 2.) This
exaltation of the nonviolent ethical sense of self-realisation enables Gandhi’s criticism of the
features of the democratic modern state, as his antistatist politics pose a compelling
argument for both anticolonial and contemporary politics. 3.) Thirdly, Gandhi’s ethical critique
requires further discussion of how the democratic modern state will not meet the spiritual
and physical well-being of the majority (known as true Swaraj) so much as a decentralised,
village-based system would. As such, the underlying theme of practicality and accessibility to
individuals asserts how Gandhi’s ethical critique of the modern state is fundamentally
persuasive despite questions of the applicability of alternative systems in increasingly
modernised societies.
1. Gandhi’s emphasis on the faculty of the individual’s mind

It is necessary first to consider what constitutes the rudimentary level of Gandhi’s

analysis of state systems, specifically how it serves as the ethical authority for his
critique of the democratic modern state. This consists of the Gandhian emphasis on
the internal capacity of individuals to actualise a degree of self-realisation necessary
for eventual national cohesion between people. This necessitates the essential
nature of bottom-up participation, a feature the top-down apparatus of the modern
democratic state cannot provide. For Gandhi, the centrality of understanding the self
evokes an interrogation of modern civilisation. He argues that is the failure to
cultivate an ethical and spiritual self that is responsible for many atrocities of the
modern state – this anti-colonial context in which he wrote arguably influenced his
critique of the modern state. The reason “empires cannot easily look inward”, as
Uday Mehta explains, is “because their internal life merely reflects the principles of
their existence, which are extension”. The Gandhian understanding of Swaraj
signifies both self-knowledge and, therefore, self-government, departs from the
dominant view that the material world functions as the sole site of social
transformation. “Real home-rule is self-rule or self-control”, the Gujarati text reads:
“One’s rule over one’s own mind is real swaraj.” The mind, according to Gandhi,
serves as the most integral faculty to attain true Swaraj.

Contrary to Fanon’s emphasis on national violence serving as the medium through

which the formerly colonised could reclaim a sense of autonomy. In accordance with
the ancient Indian principle of Ahimsa, Gandhi contends that the human capacity to
be introspectively nonviolent precedes a desire to outcompete peers. This nonviolent
ethos, which Gandhi refers to as Satyagraha, forms the bedrock of how persuasive
his ethical critique is. Whilst one may be critical of this intensely spiritual nature, a
sense of practicality is associated with this form of Swaraj beginning with the self.
Hind Swaraj explicates a connection between self-realisation (atmadarshan -
specifically in any faith closest to the individual, a facet perhaps influenced by
religious differences within India) and politics (rajyaprakaran). This makes his ethical
critique, at its core, persuasive - as it creates a plausible method for individuals to
become increasingly conscious of the pitfalls of their societal arrangement. This is
relevant to criticisms of Gandhi’s political thought as being predicated on a basis of
cultural particularity, unique to ancient Indian principles. Rather, Gandhi’s ethical
framework is arguably not restricted to those who observe Hinduism as he
maintained that there were ethical truisms present in all religions. In line with this
reasoning, those who arguably do not subscribe to a religion are not absolved of
understanding how Satyagraha, the belief that moral righteousness can
fundamentally transform society,and can understand these humanistic values
eventually through dialogue.
This opposes the criticism that Gandhi perhaps over-emphasises the individual; as
his ethical criticism of the democratic modern state remains compelling precisely
because the project of societal transformation demands a willingness to strive
towards inner change within the moral agent - “Emancipate your own self. Even that
burden is very great. Apply everything to yourself…In your emancipation is the
emancipation of India.”

2. Criticisms of the modern industrial state

Building upon the Gandhian preoccupation with how nonviolent ethics (Satyagraha)
can gradually transform a violent mode of being to one of nonviolence, Gandhi
remains steadfast in his criticism of how the democratic modern state
institutionalised the worst of modern civilisation. It is important to consider the
nuance in Gandhi’s criticism, as this contributes towards how persuasive his ethical
argument is. He was not wholly critical of how specifically modern civilisation can
provide semblances of “bodily welfare”, such as physical improvements to living
standards. Rather, his criticism stemmed from a hope of improvement. Gandhi,
referencing English governance to frame his criticism of modern states, deduced that
the condition of English governance was frankly “pitiable” and its’ importation to
postcolonial India would not satisfy Swaraj. In an interview with Bose, in the midst
of a discussion of state expropriation and ownership of land, Gandhi sharply
objected to the modern state as a representative of “violence in the
concentrated and organised form” and structurally tethered to violence to
which it owes its very existence. It could be argued that Gandhi’s staunch criticism
against modern civilisation could be perceived as exceeding traditionalist, as
articulated by Nehru in their correspondence (he specified the inevitability of “other
modern developments must continue and be developed”) Gandhi articulated a more
precise concern regarding the moral foundations of the state - specifically, its
legitimating structure being founded upon force and violence. Whilst this appears
most obviously through apparatuses such as the police and the military, Gandhi was
attentive towards the violence lying under the surface of its fundamental political and
legal institutions. Gandhi disputes the Weberian perception of the state’s monopoly
on violence as legitimate and instead sees this as a mask of perpetual domination.
Yet he also extended his criticism to how the immorally coercive foundation of the
modern state was solidified by a sense of acquiescence by the subjugated.
Influenced by the anticolonial text in which Hind Swaraj was written, Gandhi argued
that the fallacy of an authority based on force was supplemented by the fact that “we
keep them (the English)” through accepting their institutions. By extension, Gandhi’s
understanding of swaraj cannot be equated with the assumption of state power - a
change of personnel is insufficient, as this would amount to retaining “the tiger’s
nature but not the tiger”. Logically, this is a persuasive chain of reasoning as
maintaining modern apparatuses not only institutionalises a sense of violence
beneath political institutions but also influences social relationships, as violence
becomes the prototype for forms of competition and conflict resolution.

3. Gandhi’s vision of alternative governance

A corollary to the Gandhian criticisms of the structures of the democratic modern state is,
naturally, an examination of what Gandhi believes should exist in lieu of it - this will enable a
holistic assessment of how persuasive his ethical framework is. Gandhi was staunchly
critical of what he referred to as a “pyramidic” system, a hierarchical structure which would
concentrate power into the hands of “big men” (i.e; Gandhi most likely conceived of the
Congress politicians) and away from the villages and instead favoured the “oceanic” model.
Gandhi believed that independence and, therefore, self-governance must “begin at the
bottom. Thus, every village will be a verity for my picture in which the last is equal to the
first.” This vision whereby panchayats voluntarily associate together through a style of
decentralisation would define Gandhi’s anti-statist politics. What underlines Gandhi’s political
vision is his criticism of the inherent coercion implicit to political centralisation. This highlights
how his ethical framework acquires a renewed audience, as his analogy of opening dialogue
with a thief rather than relegating him into the confines of state appeals to contemporary
calls for community based policing.

However, it would be valid to be critical of how persuasive this vision is. Whilst the
decentralisation is compelling, it would be questionable to consider how sustainable this
would be in an increasingly technological and interconnected world. It is important to
consider that Gandhi discusses this, as he perceived steadfast technological progress as an
extension of materialism (he believed that “Western nations today are groaning under the
heel of the monster-god of materialism), yet his insistence that “there is no room for
machines that would displace human labour” contradicts how ingrained these material
faculties are. Certainly, Gandhi’s emphasis on Swadeshi (or, self-reliance) would arguably
take issue with the globally co-ordinated solution to the COVID-19 pandemic which brings to
question the relevance of this aspect of his ethical framework in today’s increasingly
globalised world.

In a similar vein, Gandhi acknowledges how there is no “common goal” amongst the
architects of the postcolonial order, “I do not know how many swear by non-violence, or
believing in decentralisation, regard the village as the nucleus.” This links to a broader
pitfall surrounding the collective organisation and whether individuals would be
willing to develop their spiritual selves to the extreme where they would reach the
same conclusion. Whilst this intention to forge new forms of political community that
did not entail the hierarchical pyramidic, based on the authority of violence, is
incredibly persuasive - Gandhi arguably does not go into sufficient detail about how
reinstatement of ancient Indian structures may become antiquated. Perhaps as a result of
his own position, he quickly regards caste as a simple “defect”. Mantena draws a distinction
between Gandhi and Mukherjee, two theorists preoccupied with increased decentralisation,
as Gandhi did not emphasise social harmony at all levels as extensively as Mukerjee - a
further cause for questioning of how persuasive his ethical framework is.

14. What can contemporary resistance movements learn from Gandhi? (2020)

Intro: Deconstructing Gandhi’s ethical framework of Satyagraha, which fundamentally arises

out of the belief that moral righteousness can transform social systems, into the principles
which comprise it can elucidate its relevance to contemporary resistance movements.

1. A certain pragmatism associated with Gandhi’s foundational emphasis on the

individual first “emancipating” themselves → accessibility —> Satyagraha requires
self-discipline, as contemporary resistance movements require this

This then empowers the strength of collective action → stems from Gandhi’s criticism of
handing over our decision-making power to a concentrated group, he disliked this
“pyramidic” system as it alienates political intervention at the most local level and instead
hands this power over to bureucrats, big men, who see politics as a means of material
advancement —> the moral foundations of the modern state is founded upon violence, and
coerces us to not deliberate whether we agree, contemporary activists can expand base of
support through urging a sense of consciousness amongst potential supporters.

—> Rather, Gandhi advocates for discipline in order to gain consciousness at the individual
level as he argues that emancipation must first begin within the mind. Contemporary
relevance: argument not necessarily restricted to cultural particularity,

2. Nonviolence as a powerful tool for change

Underpinning Gandhi’s ethical framework of Satyagahara, is the applicability of Ahimsa as

having the capacity to transform modern social systems of inequality, coercion and injustice
into alternative systems in which equality is paramount. According to this ethical value,
nonviolence not only precedes the human capacity for violent action but that the capacity for
spontaneous nonviolent cooperation can manifest, to greater or lesser extents, within
individuals and can be nurtured through symbiotic relationships. Contrary to the Hobbesian
sceptical view of human nature, Gandhi is insistent that “the human race would have ceased
to exist long ago” if this were not the case. The Gandhian perception of this nonviolent “law
of our being” where trust is prior to distrust, arguably retains relevance in a contemporary
context - as Gandhi’s ideal political vision centres the “oceanic” model whereby nonviolence
will transform conflict resolution into an empathatic reconciliation. His analogy of advocating
for dialogue with a thief rather than punitive punishment (ultimately due to a moral duty to the
thief, rather than to property) provides theoretical backing to movements advocating for
restorative justice practises such as community policing such as the Restorative Justice
Council. This illustrates the relevance of
A corollary to this point, is how the methods of contemporary resistance movements can be
influenced by Gandhi’s argument that the means prefigure the ends. Contrary to theorists
such as Fanon and Hobbes, who maintain that violence serves as a stabilising force, Gandhi
urges protestors to consider how immoral means can culminate in immoral ends. Influenced
by the anticolonial context in which Hind Swaraj was written, Gandhi draws on a critiicism of
nationalists who organise their protest in the mirror image of the coercive, dominant powers
of the state. By this logic, a nonviolent ethical framework is rudimentary to any effective
change towards justice. This atittude has gained a renewed audience amongst several
resistance movements, such as various protests during the Arab Spring of 2010 where
several activists across the Middle East utilised civil disobdience, namely through physical
acts of resistance, to demand reform. More specifically, the Tahir Square protests which
purposefully coincided with a day commemorating the power of the police - as several
protestors orchestrated strikes and sit-ins. This illustrates how Gandhi’s advocacy for
maintaining principles of nonviolence is not only necessary for the possible outcome to
reflect this but how the objective of nonviolent resistance is not necessarily an arbitrary
victory so much as transforming the violent adversary into a nonviolent partner.

Can do extra paragraph on how Gandhi’s rejection of accepting and working within the
parameters of the modern state is futile - change of personnel is ineffective, the tiger’s
nature without the tiger, but instead advocate for systemic transformation. Example: Rojava
Revolution in Northern Syria, whereby the model is based on two pillars; communalist
system and management of the polis, from neighbourhoods to the municipality - Swadeshi,
systems of self-reliance, as well as ecological harmony being fostered → Gandhi’s ethical
framework argues that self-rule can empower local comunities through the decentralisation
of decision-making

14. Is Gandhian ‘self-rule’ a solution to contemporary problems such as criminal violence

and environmental catastrophe? (2019)

14. How did Gandhi understand the connection between modern politics and modern
technology? (2018)

Thesis: modern technology is microcosmic of the larger, moral and ethical decay associated
with modern politics

Could do, one part on ethics and materialism - vs his view of self-sufficiency and one part on
how the modern industrial state fosters community disintegration, the system of
representation central to our modern democratic system inherently compels us to hand over
decision-making power to another group who we are compelled to obey - this is inherently
wrong + will not fulfill Swaraj

1. Gandhi emphasises the restorative faculty of the individual’s mind

- Emphasis on the individual being the main site of social transformation

- The pursuit of material progress is a “disease”, according to Gandhi. He forgrounds

several historical instances illustrating how the vice of materialism begets political
and social decay, such as Rome “suffering a moral fall when it attained high moral
influence”. This criticism of consumerism appeals to environmentalist movements as
 Gandhi’s emphasis on self-sufficiency, such as sustainable development being
carried out in the name of Swadeshi (self-reliance).

2/3. the modern industrial state fosters community disintegration, the system of
representation central to our modern democratic system inherently compels us to hand over
decision-making power to another group who we are compelled to obey - this is inherently
wrong + will not fulfill Swaraj

Gandhi was concerned with the mechanisation and atomisation of social life evoked by the
industrial state, arguing that man might function best in small communities
● When the state “originates in force, the form of government is so instituted that it can
best represent and symbolize that force”. Not only were intermediate jurisdictions
“effaced” but “the heavy hand of State absolutism” marked the very structure of law
and administration; they bore the imprint of a mode of assimilating subjects as if they
were conquered peoples.

Gandhi was staunchly critical of the nationalist conception of independence as simply a

demand for “English rule without the Englishman”

Capturing the state amounted to retaining “the tiger's nature but not the tiger”, and therefore
would do nothing to undo the modern state's tendencies towards militarism, expansion, and
domination—in other words, imperialism.
- It is important to consider that Gandhi discusses this, as he perceived
steadfast technological progress as an extension of materialism (he believed
that “Western nations today are groaning under the heel of the monster-god of
materialism), yet his insistence that “there is no room for machines that would
displace human labour”

Swaraj therefore could not be equated with the assumption of state power, indeed it
demanded a sharp rejection of the state in its modern imperial form.

For Gandhi, modern politics seemed to institutionalize the most instrumental aspects
of politics, embodying little more than an elite struggle for power and a vehicle for
professional advancement.

● The party system infused politics with the logic of competition and resentment rather
than an inclination towards moderation, reciprocity, and right judgment.
● Gandhi were especially anxious about the adverse consequences of
centralized structures of democratic competition. They worried that politics,
when abstracted from local contexts, engendered violent forms of antagonism
and politicization. It also left the common man/woman—here the
peasant—vulnerable to the ambitions and agendas of elite, urban politicians.
● Which is why Gandhi wanted to prioritise political authority and participation at the
local level, since only in such contexts could the people directly shape politics and
judge the intentions of political actors = Gandhi’s recurring image of a
 nonhierarchiical “oceanic circle” of panchayats voluntarily associating together -
resisted the pyramidal structure of the state, an opposition to institutional hierarchy
that framed his style of decentralised politics as antistates

Disapproved of handing over our decision-making power to a larger authority stems from his
fear of community disintegration, social fragmentation

14. Was Gandhi right to identify the artificiality of Western civilisation as its basic flaw?
(2016)

● Gandhi’s ethical criticism of Western civilisation

Gandhi’s condemnation of the adverse effects of modernity highlights his call to a shift
towards simplicity and sustainability

His principles of nonviolence and truth shape his analysis

● the modern industrial state fosters community disintegration, the system of

representation central to our modern democratic system inherently compels
us to hand over decision-making power to another group who we are
compelled to obey - this is inherently wrong + will not fulfill Swaraj

- Materialistic pursuits impact on the individual’s spiritual wellbeing

- Expands this to consider how it fosters community disintegration → human labour

being displaced —> contemporary example: geographical shift to the global south

- Decentralisation addresses these flaws and reiterates how Western civilisation does
not fulfill this

● Modern industrial state also has ecological implications

- Advocates for self-sufficiency, Swadeshi,

14. Can Western politics learn from Gandhi’s critique of Western civilisation? (2015)

14. In Gandhi’s view, how is it possible to do politics without violence? (2014)

1. Begins with individual self-control

Foundational to Gandhi’s ethical framework,

2. Capable of non-violence

At the heart of Gandhi’s analysis is a contrast between two general modes of power that
have many specific manifestations in different relationships and circumstances.

These are: (1) the power of violence, domination and exploitation (profiting at the expense or
suffering of others), or, simply, ‘power-over’ and ‘against’ other living beings; and
 (2) the power of love or nonviolence, non-domination and non-exploitation, or, simply,
‘power-with’ other living beings. Of the two, the power of nonviolence is more basic. It is the
power that animates and connects all forms of life in infinitely complex relationships of
interdependency, symbiosis, mutual aid and nonviolent dispute resolution.

In modern industrial societies, we are entangled in both modes of power in their

various instantiations. However, relations of violence, domination and exploitation of
humans and the living earth tend to be paramount.

Violence is not only used to impose coercive relationships of power-over others. It

requires relationships and ever more extensive military-industrial- economic
complexes of command-obedience and ruler-ruled in order to mobilise for the next
cycle of violence and counter-violence

And these dominant relationships have blowback effects on all social relationships. Violent
conflict becomes the prototype for nonviolent forms of competition and conflict resolution in
the political, economic and social spheres. When people mobilise to resist the injustices in
these societies, then tend to organise themselves in the mirror image of the dominant
powers-that-be, and orient themselves to seizing their concentrated forms of power
themselves in armed or unarmed friend-enemy struggles.

Thus, when this mode of power becomes paramount, we tend to foreground it in our
histories, political theories, social sciences and media, and so take it as the model of all
forms of human power – as Gandhi argued in chapter 17 of Hind Swaraj

, it is not violent struggles for existence that are the major factor in the evolution of
life on earth, but, rather, these symbiotic relationships of interdependency, mutual
care, and nonviolent dispute resolution. If this were not the case, as Gandhi roundly
concludes in Hind Swaraj, ‘the human race would have ceased to exist long ago.’

Gandhi argues that violent and nonviolent social systems are based on contrasting
assumptions. The power of nonviolence is based on the assumption of a spiritual or
animating unity of life in relationships of interdependency and mutual aid that is more
fundamental than our differences. Spontaneous nonviolent cooperation is seen as prior
to competition; trust is prior to distrust; and love to hate. These qualities exist in
greater or less strength in every person and can be developed by self-training and
working together. These are all aspects of the power of nonviolence.

MEANS = ENDS. Nonviolent means = nonviolent ends —> The power of nonviolence rests
on the assumption that the means prefigure and give rise to the ends, as the seed to the
flower. It follows that the only way to a nonviolent world is by nonviolent means in each
step we take. Thus all effective change towards peace and justice begins with ethics as
ethos – with being nonviolent in everything one says and does – whether in our everyday life
and the technological means we use, and in confronting a violent adversary

- Gandhi questions the Hobbesian, as well as the Fanonian, assumption that vicious or
immoral means can lead to virtuous or moral ends
- Modern example: The Arab Spring, which began in 2010, witnessed nonviolent
protests across several countries in the Middle East and North Africa region.
 Inspired by Gandhi's principles, activists utilized civil disobedience, peaceful
demonstrations, and acts of resistance to demand political reforms, social
justice, and human rights.
- Example: The Tahrir Square protests in Egypt, where people gathered to
peacefully protest against authoritarian rule and demand democratic reforms,
drew parallels to Gandhi's principles of nonviolence and civil resistance
-

The objective of nonviolent resistance, therefore, is not victory over an opponent,

voluntary submission or even compromise. Rather the aim is to transform the violent
adversary into a nonviolent partner in a nonviolent relationship of exercising power
together.

3. Through this cultivation, people can work together = oceanic

Gandhi’s vision of alternative governance

the nonviolent way (or ways) of life that has the capacity transform modern social systems
of inequality, violence and domination into alternative social systems in which equality,
nonviolence and self-organising democratic cooperation would become paramount.

THIEF STORY

Gandhi’s view of how the enactment and coordination of nonviolent ethics, community-based
participatory democracy (swaraj), cyclical economics (swadeshi), and nonviolent agonistics -
locally and globally - can change and gradually transform our violent world into one in which
nonviolence is paramount.

We are all connected with and animated by the power of nonviolence. Nonviolence (ahimsa)
refers here to nonviolence in both the negative sense of non-harm or minimum harm to all
living beings; and the positive sense of active care or compassion for all living beings. ‘Truth
is love, and love is truth’

It is this self-transformative power of Gandhian ethics that enables practitioners to withstand

tremendous suffering in upholding nonviolence in nonviolent agonistics, for what is sacrificed
here is just the ego-self.

According to Richard Gregg, Gandhi’s great insight was to see that bringing this nonviolent
ethos into being and sustaining it over time has to be grounded in apprenticeship in
nonviolent communities of practice with like-minded others. These are communities of
practice organised around participatory democracy, the shared exercise of power-with
each other, and the settlement of disputes nonviolently: that is, collective
self-government or swaraj.
for Gandhi, “an increase of the power of the State” should be viewed “with the greatest fear,
because, although while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation it does the
greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality”.

Gandhi's critique of the state is often subsumed under his well-known rejection of modern
civilization and, in this vein, too quickly dismissed as naively traditionalist. While it is certainly
true that the violence of centralization was associated with “factory civilization”, Gandhi
articulated a more precise worry about the moral foundations of the state.

● He was objecting to the specific way that the authority of the modern state—its
legitimating structure—was also founded upon force and violence. The state's
association with violence, while most obvious in its military and police apparatuses,
was thought to brim under the surface of its fundamental political and legal
institutions.

Gandhi was peculiarly attentive to the externality of modern political institutions, the close
association between law and force, and the strict conditions of obedience and disobedience;
indeed, this was the cornerstone of the theory and practice of satyagraha.

Gandhi insisted that for law to have a moral claim it could not command obedience through
the threat of force. To obey a law out of fear of punishment was a sign of moral weakness
and compliance out of fear served only to mask domination in the language of legitimacy.

If ‘self-rule’ is impossible in the modern world, what is the price paid?

Self-rule, or ‘Swaraj’ as he refers to it in his Hind Swaraj, is an idea that holds significant
weight in Gandhi’s writings. This essay will seek to address two main questions: whether
self-rule is impossible in the modern world and, if so, what are the costs incurred. In the first
section, this essay will seek to substantiate that self-rule is impossible in the modern world,
through demonstrating its idealistic nature as well as its overestimation of human nature. In
the second section, this essay will discuss the possible costs incurred as a result of the lack
of possibility of ‘self-rule’ being achieved in the modern world, including the continuation of a
violent modern state and an increase in centralised power structures. As this essay
progresses, it will become clear that self-rule is impossible in the modern world and that
such an absence of Swaraj is accompanied with significant costs.

1. The possibility of self-rule in a modern world.

The plausibility of self-rule, or Swaraj, is arguably called into question within a modern
context due to its reliance on an ethical and spiritual cultivation. For Gandhi, the most
optimal model of self-governance is the “oceanic” model whereby political rule would emerge
from the bottom-up. This village-based system of participatory democratic communities,
which incorporates collective organisation which will eventually form a national network with
other villages, is seldom found within modern societies. Whilst there are societies such as
the Rovaja Revolution in Northern Syria which centre local participation, this is debatably an
exceptional case inapplicable to the world of modern nation-states. This vision of antistatist
politics is irreconcilable with modern societies characterised by political traditions such as
bureaucracy, a concept central to democratic states. This demands individuals to relinquish
their decision-making powers into a centralised group of politicians, Gandhi resented this
process as this hierarchical, pyramidc system was fundamentally based on coercion. This
centring of bureaucracy within modern civilisations have closed off the political systems of
nations to regular communities and has garnered political control into the hands of a minority
of what Gandhi referred to as “big men”. Gandhi’s ethical framework demands a large scale
deconstruction of systems which is arguably not possible as Gandhi’s contempt for intensive
material developments (namely in technology, including globalisation) has manifested into
reality as social fragmentation has already taken place across modern societies.

Firstly, Swaraj, or self-rule, can be argued to be impossible in a modern world due to its extremely idealistic nature. In
his Hind Swaraj, Gandhi’s posits Swaraj to be self-rule, or home-rule, that is achieved individually but can expand on a
national level. To Gandhi, the model in which such self-rule would manifest itself is the establishment of individual and
collective self-organising and self-governing participatory democratic communities; these communities would then form
a national network across the country. Whilst this form of living may have been feasible in the time of his writing, such is
not the case within a modern society. The concept that Swaraj can manifest itself in decentralised communities is one
that is irreconcilable with modern society. Modern civilisation can be characterised by traditions such as that of
bureaucracy, a hierarchical structure of government. Therefore, modern civilisation is unlike Gandhi’s prospective model
of an oceanic circle of a society, whereby the centre of the circle was to be an individual who is willing to prepare to
perish for the village and the and the latter being ready to perish for the circle of villages’ but instead are pyramidal. The
bureaucratic nature of modern civilisation hasmade it so that nations are dependent upon closed systems that provide
order and demand obedience. ForGandhi’s vision of a society rooted in Swaraj to be made possible in the modern
world, the systems that have been put in place must be dismantled. If one were to follow the proposals made by
Gandhi, this would require a large-scale deconstruction of systems that have been meticulously assembled for the
purpose of sustaining global order. For the sake of argument, if one were to accept that the elimination of bureaucracy
was possible, it is still highly improbable that the absence of bureaucracy in a modern world could be adequately
replaced with self-governed stateless societies. This can be explained by Gandhi’s overestimation of human nature,
which this essay will explore.

gandhi was critical of accepting materialist developments of technology, arguing that this not
only displaced human labour (would consider the production shift to the global south as
evidence of the “disease of materialism”) but also abetted social fragmentation and the
disintegration of community life

A corollary to this, is considering whether Gandhi’s understanding of the internal capacity of

individuals actualising a degree of self-realisation necessary

As mentioned above, human nature is a topic that is of great importance when determining
whether or not self-rule is possible in a modern world. In his writings, Gandhi had been clear
that human ability to practise self-control and discipline over oneself, and, by extension,
ability to conduct their actions in a way that will not jeopardise the wellbeing of their
neighbours, is the foundation and requirement for self-rule. To him it is the violent nature of
states that sets the conditions for further violence within societies and that it is only
individualistic self-rule that can undo this through the enlightenment of the mind. Such a
presumption, however, overestimates the character of people and presupposes that every
member of a society is prepared to devote themselves to such Swaraj rather than allowing
modern political structures to function as they were designed to. Gandhi’s Swaraj is
dependent upon a bottom-up approach, that the individual sacrifices himself for the
community, the community sacrifices himself itself for the district, the district for the province,
the province for the nation, and the nation for the world; however, the problem with this idea
of self-rule government is that it places too much trust in individuals. This trust in humans
that Gandhi holds is rooted in his belief that humans have the ability to engage in spiritual
development and that humans have the capacity to actualise a degree of self-realisation that
is essential for social cohesion. Gandhi is staunch in his belief that the mind is the most
important avenue in which to attain Swaraj, providing an explanation for his optimistic trust in
humans. However, even if we accept Gandhi’s premise that all humans hold the capacity to
attain Swaraj, it would be an overestimation to assume that every human is able to access
such capacities – it may be in a bird’s genetics to fly but holding such capacity does not
deem it inevitable for every single bird to engage in flight. It would be an even further
overestimation to assume that all citizens are willing to do so.

Albeit, Gandhi was conscious of this criticism as it was often levied by his contemporaries
such as Nehru who understood Gandhi’s vision as exceedinly traditionalist in the face of
inevitable technological progress - yet, Gandhi remained persistent in emphasising that

can argue that it is indeed possible on an individual level, and perhaps within communities which
centre spiritual development but arguably impractical in modern, representative democracies at
the disadvantage of ..

2. If self-rule is impossible, what are the prices to be paid?

Moreover, a significant price to be paid in the absence of self-rule is that a lack of individual
autonomy and participation in political processes would lead to greater bureaucratic
advancement. If people lack the ability to achieve Swaraj, individuals within a society would
rely heavily upon the state to provide the state with their needs and the protection of their
interests – paving the way for centralised power structures. An example of this can be seen
at the way in which Gandhi expresses grievances with the British parliament's inefficiency
and arbitrariness; he states that "without a real master...the Prime Minister is more
concerned about his power than about the welfare...concentrated upon securing the success
of his party". Here, Gandhi makes reference to party politics, whereby politicians become
committed to the success of their party as opposed to fulfilling their jobs as politicians. This
pyramidic system of politics (whereby ‘big men’ hold concentrated power) that arises in the
absence of the achievement of Swaraj is what Gandhi disliked. Gandhi took further liking to
the oceanic model, which is that self-governance and independence must "begin at the
bottom . . . thus, a result, every village will be a verity for my picture in which the last is equal
to the first.” However, to Gandhi, such a model would be impossible without Swaraj, making
the hierarchical ‘pyramidic’ model an inevitable feature of modern civilisation – a substantial
price to be paid.

Furthermore, another price to be paid in the absence of Swaraj is that of the existence of a
modern state grounded in coercion and violence. Gandhi states that self-rule, or Swaraj, is
the only solution to the problem of violence within the state, as the state itself cannot be
reformed. For Gandhi, the modern state is irredeemable, it ‘can never be weaned from the
violence to which it owes its very existence’. As this essay has already accepted the premise
that self-rule is an impossible objective in the modern world, it is logical to assert that, in this
case, Gandhi would propose that the violent nature of the state will continue perpetually with
no end. This is because modern states are based on principles of coercion and force in
order to maintain their power and prevent individuals from being empowered to govern
themselves. For Gandhi, the modern state is ‘bereft of human touch’ and lacks the ability to
serve the body politic in an ethical and sustainable way as it a product of violence and
continues to beget violence. It is also of significance to note that, in a society whereby
people have not experienced the spiritual transformation that is associated with Swaraj, state
violence is also perpetuated by those who are victims of it. It is the acquiescence of the body
politic that allows for such a violent system to flourish and that, in the absence of Swaraj,
such acquiescence will continue and, by proxy, so will the states use of violence as an
integral instrument of control. For instance, Gandhi states that “we keep them (the English)”;
here, Gandhi is referring to the colonial presence of the English in India, putting forward the
idea that victims of colonists allow for the continuation of such power imbalances by
accepting English institutions and customs. It is only with the attainment of Swaraj that one
can end the violent cycle and, if Swaraj is impossible within the modern world, then the
violent nature of the modern state is a grave price to pay.