CHAPTER - 4

MEANING, CONCEPT AND NATURE OF

GANDHIAN SWARAJ

4.1 INTRODUCTION:

Swaraj can mean generally self-governance or "home-rule" (swa- "self', rai-

"rule") but the word usually refers to Mohandas Gandhi’s concept for Indian
independence from foreign domination.1 Swaraj lays stress on governance not by
a hierarchical government, but self governance through individuals and
community building. The focus is on political decentralization.2 Since this is
against the political and social systems followed by Britain. Gandhi's concept of
Swaraj laid stress on India discarding British political, economic, bureaucratic,
legal, military, and educational institutions.2

Although Gandhi's aim of totally implementing the concepts of Swaraj in India

was not achieved, the voluntary work organizations which he founded for this
purpose did serve as precursors and role models for people’s movements,
voluntary organisations and some of the non-governmental organisations that
were subsequently launched in various parts of India.4 The Bhoodan movement
which presaged land reform legislation activity throughout India, ultimately
leading to India discarding the Zamindari system, was also inspired by the ideas
of Swaraj. Swaraj is a kind of Individualist Anarchism.2 It warrants a stateless
society as according to Gandhi the overall impact of the state on the people is
harmful. He called the state a "soulless machine" which, ultimately, does the
greatest harm to mankind.6 The raison d’etre of the state is that it is an instrument
of serving the people. But Gandhi feared that in the name of moulding the state
into a suitable instrument of serving people, the state would abrogate the rights of
the citizens and arrogate to itself the role of grand protector and demand abject
acquiescence from them. This would create a paradoxical situation where the
citizens would be alienated from the state and at the same time enslaved to it
which according to Gandhi was demoralising and dangerous. If Gandhi's close
acquaintance with the working of the state apparatus in South Africa and in India
strengthened his suspicion of a centralized, monolithic state, his intimate

34
association with the Congress and its leaders confirmed his fears about the
corrupting influence of political power and his skepticism about the efficacy of
the party systems of power politics (due to which he resigned from the Congress
on more than one occasion only to be persuaded back each time) and his study of
the British parliamentary systems convinced him that representative democracy
was incapable of meting out justice to people.2 So he thought it necessary to
evolve a mechanism to achieve the twin objectives of empowering the people and
'empowering' the state. It was for this that he developed the two pronged strategy
of resistance (to the state) and reconstruction (through voluntary and participatory
social action).

Although the word Swaraj means self-rule, Gandhi gave it the content of an
integral revolution that encompasses all spheres of life. "At the individual level
Swaraj is vitally connected with the capacity for dispassionate self-assessment,
ceaseless self-purification and growing self-reliance".6 Politically swaraj is self-
government and not good government (for Gandhi, good government is no
substitute for self government) and it means a continuous effort to be independent
of government control, whether it is foreign government or whether it is national.
In other words, it is sovereignty of the people based on pure moral authority.
Economically, Swaraj means full economic freedom for the toiling millions. And
in its fullest sense, Swaraj is much more than freedom from all restraints, it is
self-rule, self-restraint and could be equated with moksha or salvation.2

Adopting Swaraj means implementing a system whereby the state machinery is

virtually nil and the real power directly resides in the hands of people. Gandhi
said, "Power resides in the people, they can use it at any time."10 This philosophy
rests inside an individual who has to learn to be master of his own self and
spreads upwards to the level of his community which must be dependent only on
itself. Gandhi said, "In such a state (where swaraj is achieved) everyone is his
own ruler. He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a hindrance to his
neighbour";11 and also "It is Swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves."12

Gandhi explained his vision in 1946:

"Independence begins at the bottom... A society must be built in which every

village has to be self sustained and capable of managing its own affairs... It will

35
be trained and prepared to perish in the attempt to defend itself against any
onslaught from without... This does not exclude dependence on and willing help
from neighbours or from the world. It will be a free and voluntary play of mutual
forces... In this structure composed of innumerable villages, there will be ever
widening, never ascending circles. Growth will not be a pyramid with the apex
sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic circle whose center will be the
individual. Therefore the outermost circumference will not wield power to crush
the inner circle but will give strength to all within and derive its own strength
from it."1*

Gandhi was undaunted by the task of implementing such a utopian vision in India.
He believed that by transforming enough individuals and communities society at
large would change. He said, "It may be taunted with the retort that this is all
Utopian and, therefore not worth a single thought... Let India live for the true
picture, though never realizable in its completeness. We must have a proper
picture of what we want before we can have something approaching it."M

4.2 EFFORTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

In 1917, Gandhi asked Indians nationwide to sign a petition demanding Swaraj.

This petition was supported by, among others, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. Vinavak
Damodar Savarkar, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Ram Manohar Lohia. Critics
include Muhammad Ali Jinnah (who said that only a constitutional struggle could
lead to independence; see Proposed Indian Round Table Conference 19221 and
Rabindranath Tagore.

In 1919, the Navaiivan Trust, a publishing house, was founded by Gandhi to

educate through publications common Indians about the principles of Swaraj, in
their native tongue. The trust is still in existence today and according to its initial
promises is totally self reliant having accepted absolutely no donation or grant
throughout its existence.1*

Since achieving Swaraj could not be possible without the elimination of all forms
of domination, Gandhi decided to undertake a number of constructive activities
aimed at reducing the dependence of Indians from the British and simultaneously
also making them self-reliant. Therefore, he founded many voluntary
organisations throughout his life to carry out such social welfare programs. The

36
All India Spinners Association, the All India Village Industries Association, the
Harijan Sewak Sangh and the Leprosy Foundation were some of the organizations
he formed. The thrust of all these activities was social and not political. Gandhi
also decided to popularise the spinning wheel in India to make hand-spun cloth
out of Khadi. The intention was to reduce India's dependence on foreign made
cloth. This movement called The Khadi Movement later gained fame by the term
Swadeshi. Gandhi himself spun and weaved cloth from spinning wheels and
handlooms in his ashram. The spinning wheel or the Charkha became a symbol
of the Indian freedom struggle, and was incorporated into many flags.

At the Indian National Congress annual session in September 1920, delegates

supported Swaraj, and in the same year they agreed with Khilafat leaders to work
and fight together for both causes. This can be regarded as the official launching
of the Swaraj movement by the Congress. However, the Congress idea of Swaraj
was significantly different from that of Gandhi. The Gandhian idea of Swaraj
outlined in his book Hind Swaraj was not acceptable to many Congress leaders.
Jawaharlal Nehru later dismissed it as "completely unreal" and declared that
neither he nor the Congress had ever considered the picture presented in it.131 The
Congress treated Swaraj more as a politically inclined goal demanding complete
political independence from the British.

After Gandhi's assassination Vinoba Bhave formed the Sarva Seva Sangh at the
national level and Sarvodya Mandals at the regional level to the carry on
integrated village service - with the end purpose of achieving the goal of Swaraj.
Two major nonviolent movements for socio-economic and political revolution in
India: the Bhoodan movement led by Vinoba Bhave and the Total Revolution
movement led by Javaprakash Naravan were actually held under the aegis of the
ideas of Swaraj. These movements had some success, but due to the socialist
tendencies of Nehruvian India were not able to unleash the kind of revolution that
was aimed at.

Gandhi's model of Swaraj was almost entirely discarded by the Indian

government. He had wanted a system of a classless, stateless direct democracy
In what is known as his Last Will and Testament Gandhi suggested the disbanding
of the Congress as a political forum. He said, "Its task is done. The next task is to
move into villages and revitalize life there to build a new socio-economic

37
structure from the bottom upwards."12 He wanted the Congress party to change
into a constructive work organisation - Lok Sewak Sangh was the name he
proposed - to conscientise and mobilise the people to work and struggle for
Swaraj. However none of these objectives were achieved when India became
independent. India, although a federation, got a strong central government.
Representative democracy, rather than direct democracy was adopted. The
Congress Party was not disbanded. Rather it went on to become one of the
frontrunners in running the government of India.

Additionally, modem India has kept in place many aspects of British (and
Western) influence, including widespread use of the English language. Common-
law. industrialization, liberal democracy, military organisation, and bureaucracy.

4.3 WHAT IS SWARAJ ?

The concept of swaraj, or self-rule, was developed during the Indian freedom
struggle. In his book Hind Swaraj (1909), Gandhi sought to clarify that the
meaning behind swaraj much more than simply “wanted [systems of] English rule
without the Englishman; the tiger's nature but not the tiger." The crux of his
argument centered on the belief that the socio-spiritual underpinnings of British
political, economic, bureaucratic, legal, military, and educational institutions were
inherently unjust, exploitative and alienating. As Pinto explicates, "The principal
theme of Hind Swaraj is the moral inadequacy of western civilization, especially
its industrialism, as the model for free India." Gandhi was particularly critical of
the deeply embedded principles of'might is right' and 'survival of the fittest'.

On another level, the call for swaraj represents a genuine attempt to regain control
of the 'self - our self-respect, self-responsibility, and capacities for self-realization
- from institutions of dehumanization. As Gandhi states, "It is swaraj when we
learn to rule ourselves." The real goal of the freedom struggle was not only to
secure political azadi (independence) from Britain, but rather to gain true swaraj
(liberation and self-rule).

Gandhi wanted all those who believed in swaraj: (1) to reject and wholly uproot
the British raj (rule) from within themselves and their communities; and, (2) to
regenerate new reference points, systems, and structures that enable individual
and collective self-development. This regeneration was to grow from the

38
strengths, perspectives, wisdom and experiences of people living in village India,
rather than from cities in Britain, America, and even in India for that matter.
Understanding the real 'Self, and its relation to communities and. society, is
critical to the project of attaining swaraj.

How is this relevant for us today? We feel that South Asia (along with the rest of
the world) is experiencing a tremendous crisis, one overwhelming in its scale and
pace of growth. While it is easy to get caught up in the symptoms of this crisis
(the brutal violence, the enormous inequities, the extinction of cultures and
languages, the degradation of the environment), it is equally, if not more,
important to understand its roots. We must creatively analyze the content and the
consequences of our current economic, political, social, and educational systems,
without reverting to a romanticized past of so-called untouched or pristine
traditions.

From these critical reflections, we must generate new spaces, systems, and
processes - based on moral and holistic visions of human potential and human
progress - which can lead us out of the global self-destruction which engulfs us.
Throughout it all, we must consider and negotiate our own roles, while asking
ourselves how we are either working for solutions or contributing to making the
crisis worse. Thus, today, we recognize Gandhi's concept of swaraj integral to
three parallel action-reflection agendas for the 21st century:

4.3.1 Decolonization of the Mind :

Though the British were nonviolently compelled to physically withdrew from

India in 1947, they left behind: Lord Macauley’s governing class "of persons,
Indian in blood and color, but British in taste, in opinions, morals and in
intellect"; several structures (political, economic, bureaucratic, legal, military and
educational) which extended great privileges and powers to this elite class while
devaluing peoples with other knowledge and cultural systems; and, a huge sub­
class of peoples impotently dependent on this elite class, their structures,
knowledge systems, and ‘modem’ notions of progress. In sum, the British left
behind a debilitating deficit framework in which Indians either saw (and continue
to see) themselves as falsely inferior or chauvinistically superior to their former

39
masters. In both cases, the reference points were in relation to catching up or
surpassing the masters at their own game.

Deeply inspired by principled and radical critiques of the modem urban-

industrial-military paradigm and the consequent alienation of human beings raised
by thinkers and activists such as, Leo Tolstoy, John Ruskin, David Thoreau, and
Ralph Waldo Emerson, Gandhi firmly believed that only when Indians dispelled
their illusions about the ‘progress’ of modem Western civilization and the
superiority of its role models could they move towards real liberation. Thus, on
one level, Hind Swaraj can be seen to represent a post-modern critique of
development. It calls for profoundly questioning and challenging the legitimacy
of modem science/technology, the nation-state, the global economy, and factory­
schooling - oppressive systems and structures of power which serve to define our
existence. Ashis Nandy describes the starting point for a generative (rather than
nihilistic) process of decolonization, "Criticism is the main thing [to building
another kind of world]. It forces us to admit that no worldview, no ideology, no
transformative principle automatically becomes morally acceptable just because,
at this point of time, no one has produced a viable or convincing alternative to it.
That keeps intact our moral sensitivities and forces us to search harder for new
alternatives." We must regain our faith that there are other options for living.

However, this criticism must go beyond simply an institutional analysis if it

wishes to be truly generative. Makarand Paranjape argues that decolonization
must be "more centered on the Self than on the Other. By decolonizing myself, I
mean developing myself and my society fully, realizing our potential, enlarging
our capacities - rather than displacing, overthrowing or defeating the Other."
Swaraj means engaging in processes of self-understanding and self-reflection to
rebuild a self-confidence that is free from arrogance, hatred or egoism. We must
acknowledge that we are both ‘oppressed’ and ‘oppressors’ and seek to
understand what roles we play as oppressors and in supporting institutions of
oppression. We must also re-evaluate our own wants and needs and seek to
understand how these are manipulated and controlled by others.

40
4.3.2 Creative Regeneration :

Gandhi's notion of Swaraj was, however, much more than simply a reactionary
attempt towards decolonization in which the reference points for action and
reflection were framed solely in relation to colonialism. The genius of Gandhi lies
in taking us beyond post-modernist critiques of deconstructing the existing system
and also beyond bivalent solutions, which force us to choose only between
tradition vs. modernity. Swaraj is essentially a constructivist agenda and is linked
to creating a new path for humanity. With this in mind, Gandhi links his
Constructive Work Programme for village regeneration as a critical process in
achieving puma (complete) swaraj. In this vision of development, action and
reflection are necessarily deeply intertwined.

Swaraj is relevant to us today, in that, it represents a deep recognition that people

themselves must continuously strive to create a different set of reference points,
institutions, structures and processes - which are consistent with the diverse
cultures, values, philosophies, wisdom traditions, and needs of the sub-continent
as well as with the principles of the natural world - to inspire and guide their own
development. Such development must be geared towards supporting the struggle
to liberate our individual and collective potentialities and to discover what it
means to be fully human. It must be linked to and guided by larger principles of
justice, love and hope.

Critical to the concept of swaraj is a pluralistic and organic outlook on

development: there is not, nor can there ever be, just one model for the entire
world. Swaraj also requires that we regain our faith in the capacity of human
beings and restore agency/locus of power back to individual and local
communities (and stop seeing human beings as 'victims' or 'beneficiaries' or
’targets'). The process of swaraj seeks to create a reflective and participatory
context for people to ask who we have been, who we are, and who we want to
become, without the interference and intervention from externally-driven,
prescriptive and homogenizing models of development. Underlying, catalyzing
and providing continuous feedback to this process must be new opportunities and
systems for conscious learning, un-leaming, and re-learning which unleash the
creativity, sensitivity and intrinsic motivation of people.

41
4.3.3 Gandhi’s Vision of Swaraj :

Gandhi used swaraj for the first time in his writing in the year 1906 in connection
with Shyamji Krishna Verma, an Indian patriot, who had risked his profession,
security of life for the sake of swaraj. Gandhi gave serious thought to the question
of swaraj only in the series of article that he wrote for the Indian Opinion during
his return voyage from England to South Africa in 1909 and appeared
subsequently in the form of Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule such Hind Swaraj
constitute Gandhi’s first blue print on swaraj and conveys a comprehensive notion
of the idealistic aspect of his vision of swaraj.

The fundamental principles elaborated in the pages of Hind swaraj remained valid
for Gandhi throughout his life. Although, he improved upon the details in course
of evolution of his thought and hardening of his conviction in the context of
experience gained and expansion of his mental horizon. Hence, he wrote in this
message to the Aryan Path special Hind Swaraj number published in September
1938. “I might change the language here and there if; I had to rewrite the booklet.
But after the stormy thirty years through which I have since passed, I have seen
nothing to make me alter the views expounded in it.”18

However, Gandhi as per his own claim was a “practical idealist”. Apart from the
idealist aspect of swaraj to which he was deeply committed, he had a knack for
practical, utilitarian approach to swaraj. They were expressed in course of his
struggle for swaraj from 1920 to 1947 and his vision about it after independence.

I. Idealist Aspect of the Vision

Gandhi’s initial reaction to the issue of swaraj was ethical and idealistic rather
than practical, pragmatic, and utilitarian. The very purpose behind Gandhi
authoring Hind swaraj was not so much to champion because of, swaraj or to
provide a detailed systematic and well thought out blue-print for swaraj but, to
counter an approach to the question of swaraj that smacked of unethical, immoral,
and inhuman proclivities. The primary purpose, according to Gandhi’s admission
was to expose the “misguided” zeal of the Indian anarchists in London, the Indian
school of violence and their counterparts in South Africa”, while impressed by
their bravery, he tried to persuade them through his writing that, “violence was no
remedy for India’s ills.” Besides, his objective was to ensure their ethical conduct

42
by preaching the message of some eternal, true honored moral values. As Gandhi
write,” it teaches the gospel of love in place of that of hate. It replaces violence
with self-sacrifice. It pits soul force against brute-force.”19

Gandhi was conscious of the extent of economic exploitation and loss of political
identity and national self-respect from which India suffered due to foreign
domination. But his ethical approach to the issue of swaraj, restrained him from
laying the blame at the British door for loss of India’s freedom. Rather, he pointed
his index finger at the Indians’ themselves, for their misfortune and said, “The
English have not taken Indian; we have given it to them. They are not in India
because of their strength, but because we keep them.” India, he felt was handed
over to the Britishers in a silver platter, and it is not the Britishers who are to be
blamed for our loss of freedom, but the Indians themselves. Indians, he argued
lost their freedom because of their slavery to the modem western civilization, the
dazzling wares of the industrialized west. Their greed for the favour of the British
traders, their assistance to these traders to spread their tentacles throughout the
country, their acceptance of the subordinate position under them that they
welcomed thereby, propped up the system of political domination fabricated by
them. As Gandhi writes “recall the company Bahadur. Who made is Bahadur they
had not the slightest intention at the time of establishing kingdom. Who assisted
the company’s officers? Who has tempted at the sight of their silver? Who but
their goods? History testifies that we did all this. In order to become rich all at
once we welcomed the company’s officers with open arms, we assisted them.”

Not only, Indians welcomed the British traders of the east India Company and
assisted them in so many ways, with selfish motives, they encouraged them to get
a footing on the Indian soil, acquire political and military strength and consolidate
themselves in such position. Indian princes in their quarrel among themselves
took advantage of the military strength of the company on hire and thereby
enhanced the company’s military potentiality and capacity to fight back Indian
opposition to it. Hence, it is height of insanity blame the Britishers for Indians
misfortune. As a Gandhi writes, “whenever princes fought amongst themselves,
they sought the assistance of the company Bahadur. That corporation was versed
alike in commerce and war. It was on unhampered by question of morality. Its
object was to increase its commerce and to make money. It accepted our

43
assistance and increased the number of its warehouses. To protect the later it
employed an army, which was utilized by us also. Is it not then useless to blame
the English for what we did at that time?”

The communal conflicts too aided the growing influence of the company. If they
fished in the troubled water, it was not their fault but of the Indians, who could
not compose their differences and create a situation for British intervention at
every stage and aided their gradual invincibility. As Gandhi finally concluded, “it
is truer to say that we gave India to the English than that India was lost.... We
keep the English in India for our best self-interest... the English entered India for
the purpose of trade. They remain in it for the same purpose and we help them to
do so. Their arms and ammunitions are perfectly useless.”20

Hence, swaraj, felt Gandhi, can be attained not by finding out British faults but by
discovering our own, righting our own wrongs and improving the nature and tenor
of our own character. Indians can win true swaraj not by expelling the Britishers
from the Indian soil but by moralizing their life, by practicing self-restraint or by
subjecting themselves to the rule of their higher selves. Accordingly Gandhi
writes, “it is swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves. It is therefore, in the palm of
our hands, do not considers this swaraj to be like a dream”

While dreaming of swaraj, Gandhi was also motivated by philanthropic and

humanistic consideration. It was not only for Indians^alone, for their own benefit
and emancipation that swaraj should be own. India’s swaraj- Indians enjoying it-
shall enable her to think of enjoyment of swaraj by other people, and shall lead to
her endeavor for the enjoyment of swaraj by other people. Hence India’s desire
for swaraj shall not remain a mere selfish desire concerned with the benefit and
prosperity of indian alone, but shall extend to embrace the progress and prosperity
of other peoples, may be all peoples all over the world. But a slave, himself in
bondage, cannot act effectively for the liberation of other slaves. His desire for the
liberation of other shall remain an empty dream unless; he is himself liberated and
acts for the liberation of other peoples. Hence Gandhi’s passion for swaraj was as
much motivated by the philanthropic desire of service to other people’s world
over as by the desire for India’s self-rule or self-government. As the writes in
Hind swaraj, “There is no idea of sitting still. The swaraj that I wish to picture is
such that, after we have once realized it, we will Endeavour to the end of our

44
lifetime, to persuade others to do likewise for him-self. One drowning man will
never save another. Slaves ourselves it would be mere pretension to think of
freeing others....... it is not necessary for us to have as our goal the expulsion of
the English.”21

Thus swaraj, Gandhi felt could be secured even without expulsion of Bruisers i.e.,
buys purification of our conduct, by shedding our love and flair for materialistic,
consumerist style of life, the type of soft-life that is the bye product of the
mechanistic civilization of the west that “seeks to increase bodily comfort”. As
Gandhi writes, “it is my deliberate opinion that India is being ground down not
under the English heel but under that of modem civilization. It is groaning wing
under the monster’s terrible weight.”22 That it is to say, Gandhi felt that only by
liberating themselves from their slavery that “takes note neither of morality nor of
religion”, but simulates “temptation of money and of the luxuries that money can
buy”, to the western civilization that Indians can win true swaraj. Hence he said,
“Real home rule is self-rule or self-control.”23

Besides, according to Gandhi, swaraj was inconsistent with English system of

government and the paraphernalia associated with it. Partly a product of British
culture, because of his legal education in London he was conversant with the
working of the English system of government and its deficiencies. Hence he felt
that “Government of England is not desirable and not worth copying by us.”24 He
even went to the extent of writing, “if India copies England” in respect of the
system of government “it is my firm conviction that she will be mined.”25 The
British parliament, the mother of parliaments is considered by him as a “sterile
woman” since it “has not yet of its own accord done a single good thing” and a
prostitute since without outside pressure it can do nothing.” He considered its
members as “hypocritical and selfish” each of whom “thinks of his own little
interest.” Members” of the parliament, he felt vote for their party without a
thought” and the prime minister is more concerned about his power than about the
welfare of parliament.” Above all, he felt that he “parliament is simply a costly
toy of the nation”26 having no substantial merit or utility and not an object for
imitation. A noble objective like swaraj can ill-afford to run after such a mirage.

However on idealistic ground and from ethical consideration Gandhi was not
prepared to accommodate the paraphernalia of British administrative system and

45
western civilization within the fame work of his vision of swaraj. Expulsion of
Britishers from India but retaining the state apparatus intact, and state power
emanating from the army and they navy and pomp and splendor associated with
it, were unacceptable to Gandhi. Gandhi’s ethical sense did not permit him to
retain the “English rule without the Englishmen, “the tigers’ nature, but not the
tiger” and “make India English”, make it, “Englishtan” and not Hindustan. As
Gandhi said, “This is not the swaraj that I want.”

Hence Gandhi’s emphasis was on the removal of the causes of India’s slavery i.e.
slavery to western civilization, to which British people themselves, were victims
and slavery to British system of government rather than removal of the British
people from indian soil.

That apart from Gandhi’s vision of swaraj was not to be content with mere change
of the governing personnel, i.e. replacement of the British by the Indian
administrators. He visualized drastic change in the nature of the government, its
aims and objectives, the motive force behind it. The government under swaraj
must cater to the interest of the masses, the peasantry and labourers. He wanted
“millions of indians to be happy” and not merely the rein of government in Indian
hands.”25 Gandhi as a subject of princely India had the bitter experience of mal­
administration and tyranisation of the subject by the ruling princes. Hence while
dreaming of swaraj, he did not visualize replacement of British mal­
administration and oppression of the people by mal-administration and oppression
of the masses by the indian ruling princes. Hence, he wrote in Hindi swaraj, “You
will admit that people under several Indian princes are being ground down. The
latter mercilessly crush them. Their tyranny is greater than that of the
English....my patriotism does not teach me that I am to allow people to be
crushed under the heels of the Indians princes, if only the English retire. If I have
the power I should resist the tyranny of the Indian princes first as much as the
English. By patriotism I mean the welfare of the whole people.”27

Gandhi’s idealistic approach to swaraj did not stop short here. Even when he
reluctantly concedes to the demand that the Britishers shall take leave of his land
so that Indians enjoy the benefit of swaraj, he was not prepared to concede to the
use of terroristic and violent method for the attainment of such end. Here comes
Gandhi’s emphasis on purity of means for the attainment of any noble end, on his

46
doctrine of end-means relationship. For the attainment of any noble objective and
admirable goal, the means he believed must equally noble or quality admirable.
He pinned his faith on indissoluble relationship between the nature of the means
and the nature of the end. Means he believed to be more important than the end
itself. If right type of means, is chosen to be applied the noble end shall
automatically follow. On other hand, if for the attainment of any noble end the
means adopted is ignoble or impure or immoral the end shall recede and elude
one’s grasp. Hence one need not overlook the nature of the means adopted for the
attainment of any noble end. As Gandhi would say, the means may be likened to a
seed, the end to a tree; and there is just the same inviolable connection between
the means and the end as there is between the seed and the tree. I am not likely to
obtain the result flowing from the worship of god by laying myself prostrate
before Satan.. .we reap exactly as we sow.”27

Thus it is not by spilling British blood, by inspiring fear in them, that swaraj can
be attained. The British blood if shed shall taint and stain, the noble aim that
swaraj is. Hence, Gandhi rejected violent method, open or secret, armed
insurrection or terroristic method or guerrilla warfare or “Brute force” and
advocated the use of “Soul force” or “Truth force” or what he termed passive
Resistance for the attainment of swaraj.

Passive resistance according to Gandhi is the appropriate method of resistance to

the evil, perpetrated by the evildoer without any rancor or bitterness, hatred or
animosity against him. Whereas resistance to evil is considered a moral
obligation, it is equally a moral obligation of the passive Resister to restrain
oneself from using physical force or violence against the adversary and instead to
be ready to suffer the consequence of such resistance. Thus self-suffering for the
sake of the attainment of a noble cause rather than inflicting suffering on others is
the hallmark of passive Resistance. What is expected of a passive Resister are,
courage to resist evil and courage to take suffering on oneself for demonstrating
the courage of resistance to evil. As he says, “passive Resistance is a method of
securing right by personal suffering; it is the reverse of resistance by arms....it
involves sacrifice of self.”28

Gandhi’s idealistic approach to swaraj had its final manifestation in his suggestion
that while British administration in India may continue the British ruling

47
community, shall be persuaded to shed their selfishness and exploitative behavior,
remain in India as servant of the people rather than their masters, and guard and
protect indian interest rather than their own. As Gandhi writes, “To them I would
respectfully say....I have no objection to your remaining in my country, but
although you are the rules, you will have no remain as servant of the people. It is
not we who have to do as you wish but it is you who have to do as we wish... .you
must abandon the idea of deriving any commercial benefit from us.” At the failure
of such effort Gandhi suggested withdrawal of support from the government and
infliction of self-suffering on themselves by the intellectuals like doctors and
lawyers and the wealthy section of the society. And in this connection Gandhi
said, “No nation has risen without suffering” and “We shall become free only
through suffering.” Gandhi even went to the extent of announcing, “My life,
henceforth, is dedicated to its attainment.”29

Gandhi’s vision of swaraj remained purely idealistic till his disillusionment, with
the British Indian policy, by the year 1919.

II. Pragmatic-cum-idealistic Aspect of the vision.

Gandhi remained an idealist throughout his life. Yet, he was an experimenter with
truth too. He was not a person to be satisfied with mere dreams and that too day­
dreams, but with realizable and realization of the dreams. That is why is used to
call himself a “Practical idealist”. Of course as a pragmatist he was conscious of
the fact that all the dreams are not realizable, and all dreams are not realized in
life. Yet he dreamt many happy dreams and sincerely their realisation. Sometimes
the details of the dreams have to be toned down in order to make it practicable
while strictly adhering to the broad outline. Sometimes even the broad outline of
the dreams had to be radically modified keeping intact only the basic values
contained therein. The dream of swaraj was one such vision that changed its
nature and character, its contour and boundary in course of time to make it more
practical while retailing intact its basic values.

As discussed earlier in this chapter, Gandhi aspired to win swaraj even by keeping
Britishers in India and entrusting them the rein of power provided they promote
common good, and welfare of the people. As Gandhi wrote in Hind swaraj. “ I
believe that you want the millions of India to be happy, not that you want the rein

48
of government in your hands”. As he further wrote, “By patriotism, I mean the
welfare of the whole people and if could secure it at the hands of the English,
should bow down, my head to them. If any English man dedicated his life to
securing the freedom of India, resisting tyranny, and serving the land, I should
welcome that Englishman as an Indian.”30 Besides Gandhi believed sincerely and
seriously in persuading in the British people to stop exploitation of India and act
as the protector and trustees of the people of India -the masses-and promote
general welfare or common good. If he used the term “self-rule” in Hind swaraj,
he used it in the sense of self-government. Such attitude of Gandhi was promoted
by his profound faith in man and his high regard for English character and
Englishmen. As he said later, “I did not consider Englishmen, nor do I now
consider them as particularly bad or worse, than other human beings. I considered
and still consider them to be as capable of high motive and actions as any other
body of men ...”31 Hence he almost considered good government as synonymous
with self-government, and thus an appropriate substitute for the later, and
expected to secure it for indians by persuading the English people and British
government to concede to such just demand; if not by mere petition and prayer, as
was indulged in by moderate nationalists. Of course he had in mind backing up
such persuasion by withdrawal of co-operation from the government, to make the
persuasion more effective.

With such notion of swaraj and fired with the ambition of winning it. Through
British good-will and British magnanimity, Gandhi had extended his co-operation
to the British Empire during the Boer war and the Zulu Rebellion while in South
Africa and while on his way back from South Africa to India, organized the
indian student in England to to render humanitarian service to the British empire
at the time of the first world war. Such steps he expected would create an
impression among the British ruling community and the British people in favour
of India that would go a long way in obtaining concession from the British
government in the direction of welfare of the people or the masses and thus
obtaining his vision of swaraj as understood then. As Gandhi wrote in young
India in October 10,1920, addressed “To Every English man in India” he had
rendered an unbroken service of about 29 years of his public life to the British
government and such co-operation was “not based on the fear of punishment” but

49
“free and voluntary co-operation” based on the profound faith that the sum total
of the activity of the British government was for the benefit of India” and that
“acts such as mine just gain for my country an equal status in the empire.”32

Thus the British system of government in India was taken for granted by Gandhi
and swaraj for him meant tampering with the existing system so as to lend it
mass-orientation or a welfaristic and that too to be secured by pampering and
placating British good will through services to the empire during critical periods
of her history. As Gandhi explained his position for extending his support to the
empire during the First World War “I felt then that it was more the fault of
individual British officials than of the British system and that we could convert
them by love. If we would improve our status through the help and co-operation
of the British, it was our duty to win their help by standing by them in their hours
of need. Though the system was faulty it did not seem to me to be intolerable as it
does today.”33

Hence Gandhi had then “views favourable to the British connection” and as he
says, “I had hoped to improve my status and that of my people through the British
Empire.”

However Gandhi on his return to India in 1915 was ushered in to a political arena
that was quickly getting surcharged with passion for self-rule or self-government
understood in the sense of government by the representatives of the people,
instead of self-rule in the sense of “self-control” as understood by him and
expressed in the pages of Hind swaraj. The madras session of the India national
congress of 1914 had already adopted a resolution on self-government. The
impassioned patriot and nationalist Bal Gangadhar Tilak with the objective of
obtaining self-government in India had formed his home rule league in April
1916. Mrs. Annie Besant who it is said “jumped from religion to polities, from
Theosophy to Home rule” had been popularizing through her daily “New India”
and the weekly “The common Weal” the cry of Home rule and was carrying on a
raging learning propaganda,” in its favour and had organized her own home Rule
League in September 1916.” The Indian national congress and the Muslim League
of India had been coming closer together since Bombay session of the congress
and the league in 1915, and the Lucknow session of the congress of 1916 adopted
the congress league plan for self-government within the empire. The resolution of

50
 the congress dealing with self-government for India declared “(a) having regard to
the ancient civilization of India, the progress made in education and the public
spirit shown, his Majesty the king Emperor should be pleased to issue a
proclamation announcing that it is the aim and the intention of British policy to
confer self-government on India at an early date; (b) that as a definite step in that
direction the congress league scheme should be granted and (c) that in the
reconstruction of the Empire, India should be lifted from the position of
dependency to that of an equal partner in the Empire with the self-government
Dominations.”34

The cry of home rule vent the air in the year 1917, and home rule league were
established throughout the country. Particularly after the internment of its leaders
Mrs. Annie Besant, G.S. Arundale and Mr. B.P. Wadia, the home rule idea,
became very popular in the country and did spread like prairie fire. The special
session of the Congress held at Bombay in August, September 1918 declared its
firm adherence to the Congress - League scheme of Self Government within the
Empire expressed the feeling that nothing less than this shall satisfy the legitimate
aspirations of the Indian people. It declared that the people of India were fit for
Responsible government and that Responsible government shall be introduced
both in the provinces and in the government of India. It demanded for the Indian
Legislature the same measure of fiscal autonomy as the Self-Governing
Dominions of the Empire possessed. It asked for the recognition of India by the
British Parliament and by the Peace Conference as “one of the progressive nations
to whom the principle of self determination should be applied and as a first step in
that direction the immediate repeal of all laws, regulations and ordinances
restricting the free discussion of political questions on the Executive, the power to
arrest, detain, intern, extern or imprison any British subject in India outside the
process of ordinary civil or criminal law and the assimilation of the law of
sedition to that of England.” Above all, it demanded an act of Parliament,
establishing at an early date, complete Responsible Government in India and a
place for India similar to that of the self-governing Dominions in the
reconstruction of Imperial Policy.”35

Gandhi, when exposed to the atmosphere in India surcharged with the cry of and
demand for self-government in the sense of Parliamentary Government and

51
institution, could not but be infected by it. Hence, while idealism remained
ingrained in his character throughout his life, he developed all the same a
practical and pragmatic sense in respect of his concept of Swaraj. Swaraj was,
henceforward conceived by him not in the sense of mere :self control” practiced
by each Indian and rejection of the values and life-style associated with Western
Civilizations; it also meant for him self-government or responsible government as
understood in the West for the people of India, as a part of the British empire.
Reacting to the atmosphere prevailing in the country Gandhi said in his speech at
Surat on August 1, 1918, “Swaraj has become a household word all over India.”
As he further said, “I do not advocate a go slow policy in asking for Swaij. On the
other hand I am a staunch fighter in its cause.” He went still further and said, “We
should agitate to get it as a matter of right, staking our very lives on it.”36

Gandhi s passion for swaraj in the sense of self-government for the people of
India within the British Empire and that too with the blessing of the British Raj
prompted him to attend the War Conference convened by the Viceroy, Lord
Chelmsford in 1918, and support the resolution on recruitment of Indians in to the
Army in defense of the War Policy of the Government. In spite of the fact that the
he was an apostle of non-violence.

Thus pragmatism had entered in to Gandhi’s approach to swaraj and had calmed
his idealism, so that from this cross-fertilization emerged Gandhi’s idealistic-
cum-pragmatic approach to swaraj. As a consequence, his political goal as a
public man became one of self-government or responsible Government, whereas,
the method he had to use for the attainment of the goal remained as ever, moral
and ethical, emphasizing on the purity and nobility of the means. The British mal­
administration in India and the undemocratic and authoritarian posture it assumed
day after the termination of the world war made Gandhi pragmatic, still more and
more. The broken promises of the British government gradually steeled his
determination to win self-government within shortest time. However, such self-
government was still comprehended as a part of the British Empire at the initial
stage but outside it at the subsequent stage. Yet Gandhi’s vision of swaraj was
conceived in the broadest sense of the term, i.e., freedom from foreign domination
and imperialistic control and exploitation on the one hand and all-round
development of the nation on the other. Hence, Gandhi’s idealistic-cum-pragmatic

52
 approach to swaraj may be viewed from two different angles i.e., negative or
elimination of something obnoxious and position of something noble and
desirable.

4.4 NEGATIVE FEATURE OF SWARAJ :

Gandhi s faith in the brutish sense of justice and fair-play and the prospect of
India, wining self-government within the British Empire with British assistance
had been rudely shaken after the enactment of the rowlatt act and the course of
events culminating in the Jallianawalabag massacre and the British policy on the
Khilafat issue. He realized, henceforward that in order to erect the mansion of
swaraj in the sense of responsible and representative government on the soil of
India, the British imperialistic structure that was octopus like, squeezing the
vitality of the nation must be razed to the ground, the debris cleared and the site
got ready.

The Rowlett committee recommendations, to which he felt “no self-respecting

people could submit” and the Indian criminal law (amendment Bill No-1 of 1919
and the criminal law (Emergency power) Bill No-2 of 1919 based on the aforesaid
recommendations that he considered “unjust, subversive of the principle of liberty
and justice and destructive of the elementary rights of individuals” were he felt
unmistakable symptoms of a deep-seated disease in the governing body” that
made the system too obnoxious to be tolerated any longer, if Swaraj in the sense
of responsible government was to be experienced and enjoyed, It must be
negotiated or nullified and scrapped, root and branch.

(A) Termination of British Political Domination

There was a time when Gandhi wrote, “Partnership in the Empire is our definite
goal. We should to the utmost of our ability and even lay down our lives to defend
the Empire. If the empire perishes with it perishes, our cherished aspiration.......
Hence the easiest and the straightest way to win Swaraj is to participate in the
defense of the Empire “. But by the year 1920 Gandhi was confirmed in his
conviction that British people believed in domination rather than partnership and
it was vain to expect enjoyment of self-government within the Empire as an
honorable partner of the empire. Subjection to the Empire he considered to be
inconsistent with national self-respect and honour of the people of India. Hence

53
this subjection to the Empire must be terminated so that national self-respect is
vivified. Political domination by British and Swaraj in the sense of Self-
Government was inconsistent concepts and they go ill together. Real self-
government or Swaraj if at all must be at the cost estrangement of relationship
with the Empire. Hence Gandhi while returning his Kaisar-I-Hind gold medal etc.
and announcing his non-co-operation. With the Government, wrote to the
Viceroy. Lord Chelmsford on August 1, 1020 “The imperial Government have
acted in the Khilafat matter in an unscrupulous immoral and unjust manner and
have been moving from wrong in order to defend their immorality. I can retain
neither respect nor affection for such Government or the attitude of the imperial
and your Excellency’s government on the Punjab question has given me
additional cause for grave dissatisfaction..... Your Excellency’s light hearted
treatment of the official crime, your exoneration of Sri Michael O’ Dwyer, Mr.
Montague’s dispatch, and above all the shameful ignorance of the Punjab event
and callous disregard of the feeling of Indians betrayed by the House of Lords,
have flailed me with the gravest misgivings regarding the future of the Empire,
have estranged me completely from the present government and have disabled me
from tendering as I have hitherto, whole heartedly rendered, my loyal co-
operatapion.”37

Thus Swaraj for Gandhi meant by his time freedom from political domination by
the British and maintenance of independent identity, uncontrolled by extraneous
interference. Hence Gandhi wrote in Young India on September 9, 1920, “Swaraj
means a state such that we can maintain our separate existence without the
presence of the English.” If any connection was to be maintained with English
people and the British Empire, that shall be purely on the basis of equality of
status of India and Britain, and Indians and the British people. It shall be
completely free the consideration of superiority and inferiority or the spirit of
domination of Britain over Indian affairs. Speaking about the possible relationship
between India under Swaraj and the British Empire, he made his stand clear by
saying, if it is to be a partnership; it must be partnership at will. There can be no
Swaraj, without our feeling and being equals of English men.”38

Gandhi felt that British political domination over India must cease in the interest
of national self-respect, which can never be sacrificed. He considered it

54
“derogatory to national dignity to think of permanence of British connection at
any cost” and particularly in the context of “wanton cruelty and inhumanity
unparalleled in modem times,” broken promises to the people, “The emasculation
of Punjab and the betrayal of Muslim sentiment.” The argument of Pax Britannica
was unacceptable to Gandhi. India had been weakened both physically and
morally by British domination plover it. Depending on the British might for their
defense. Deprived of the privilege of mil8itary training for their self defense, had
become weak and coward deprived of bravery and self-confidence. That spells
not only their physical emasculation but also moral degradation. As he said, “The
blessing of Pax Britannica I reckon .....to be a curse. We would have at least
remained like the other nations’ brave men and women instead of feeling as we
do so utterly helpless, if we had no British Rule imposing on us an armed on
peace. The blessing of roads and railways is a return, no self-respecting nation
would accept for its degradation.”39

Hence in the interest of national self-respect that involves “natural life in perfect
freedom even though it may be full of defects”, Gandhi desired termination of
British domination over India. Even if it is connected to that British Rule had
showered many blessings on India he was not prepared to tolerate if any longer
since he felt “good-government is no substitute for self government. “ He not only
considered it “amazing” but also “humiliating” that “less than one hundred
thousand white men should be able to rule three hundred and fifteen million
Indians.” This national shame and dishonor must he remedied by the termination
of British domination over India. There was greater urgency still for the
termination of such domination in the context of recent wrongs done in Punjab
and on the Khilafat issue. As Gandhi warned the British Government and the
British people, “The British people will have to be aware that, if they do not want
to do justice it will be the bounden duty of every Indian to destroy the Empire.”
As he further said. : Still maintain that if our grievances remain underdressed we
should sever the British connection.”

Gandhi an apostle of-violence desired termination of British domination because

he considered it to be a “Satanic system” whose very life blood was violence. It
not only had its origins in violence and terror, force and fraud; but also was being
sustained by perpetrating violence and inspiring terror among the people of India

55
of India. Speaking about the nature of the Government, he said without
equivocation, “it bases itself finally not on right but on might. Its last appeal is not
to reason, not to heart but to the sword. “It is a system where fear reigns and from
which freedom has been banished. Terrorism he felt Governmental terrorism-
ruled the roost and freedom was the greatest casualty under the system. As he
wrote, “India is held in the last resort by a system of terrorism. “ As he further
writes. “My whole soul has risen against the existing system of government
because I believe that there is no real freedom for India under the British
connection, if English men cannot give up the fetish of their pre-destined
superiority. This attitude of English man has deprived the tallest Indian of any
chance of rising to his full height.”

After the British power was consolidated on the Indian soil the company’s
commercial and revenue policy ruined Indian’s indigenous industry and the
peasants. As it is said, “The East India Company and the British Parliament,
following the selfish commercial policy of hundred years ago discouraged Indian
manufacturers in the early years of British rule in order to encourage the
manufactures of England. Their fixed policy pursued during the last decades of
the eighteenth and the first decades of the nineteenth was to make India
subservient to the industries of great British and the Indian people grow raw
produce only in order to supply material for the looms and manufactories of Great
Britain.”40 Thus Indian handicraft rich in its variety and veracity dwindled.
Millions of Indian artisans lost their jobs, their earning and their food too. India
lost one greet source of her wealth.

With the decline and gradual disappearance of handicrafts, one section of people-
the craftsmen- was ruined. Agriculture remained the only means of livelihood of
hundreds of millions. Yet the revenue policy of the Company- the rack renting-
pauperized the peasantry. Without providing any encouragement to the peasantry
for the development of land and irrigational facilities, the Company went on
raising its land revenue demand on the peasantry at each recurring settlement,
leaving the peasantry perpetually poor and leaving no scope for the formation of
capital. The needs and necessities of the masses, the land and the people were
subordinated to the greed of the ruling community. The government was
conducted as a commercial proposition, the end being maximization of profit for

56
the shareholder of the Company. Revenue was raised to pay the administrative
cost and taking away the balance as profit of the shareholders of the Company to
home. As it is said “They considered India as a vast estate or plantation the profits
of which were to be withdrawn from India and deposited in Europe. They
reserved all the high appointment in India for their own nominees seeking a
lucrative career in the East. They bought their merchandise out of the revenue of
India, and sold it in Europe for their own profit. They vigorously exacted from
India a high interest on their stock-in-trade. In one shape or another all that could
be raised in India by an excessive taxation flowed to Europe after paying for a
starved administration.” Thus under the Company’s rule indigenous industries
were ruined, agriculture with uncertain land tax was crippled, and with a financial
arrangement requiring one half of its revenues to be annually remitted out of the
country, the masses were left paralysed and anemic.

Thus Gandhi wanted Swaraj for the sake of termination of British political
domination over India that was at the root of all the inequities, improprieties and
injustice committed by the British Imperialists in India. It was due to the
unbridled power of the British Empire to control the destiny of India, that India
was being exploited and impoverished. To put an end to such exploitation and
impoverisation, the political over Indian shall cease and India shall enjoy Swaraj.
However till the midnight of 31st 1929, Swaraj was understood by Gandhi and the
term used by him in the sense of Dominion Status and not complete independence
as it happened to be from January 1, 1930. At the Nagpur session of the Congress
in 1920, on December 28, Gandhi moved the resolution “the object of the India
National Congress is the attainment of Swaraj by the people of India.” However
he did not mean by Swaraj complete break away from the British Empire. Instead,
he took the position that if British political domination ends, the Government
undoes the Khilafat wrong and regrets for the Punjab atrocities and a real
responsible and responsive government is enthroned at Delhi. He would not have
any objection to make India develop and prosper within the protective umbrella of
the British Empire. In case the British authorities, the Government of India, and
the Imperial power made concessions in favor of introduction in India real
responsible and responsive government, he would perhaps be too happy to
continue contact with the Empire till too distant a future.

57
Between 1920 and 1929, Gandhi steered clear of two extreme lines of thought in
respect of his concept of Swaraj. He neither accepted the line that India should
completely sever her relationship with British Empire and win complete
independence nor the line of action of the moderates who were in favour of
continuing connection with the Empire whatever may be the nature and extent of
humiliation heaped on the Indian people. As he said, “The doctrine that whether
these wrongs are redressed or not, we shall have to evolve ourselves within the
British Empire. There is no room for me in that creed.”41

Thus Gandhi during the twenties conceived of Swaraj in the sense of within the
British Empire, if possible and outside it, if necessary. He made this position very
clear through his writing in the Navajivan on January 9, 1921. As he wrote, “The
new aim is the achievement of Swaraj in the form of our choice that is Swaraj
with the British connection kept up, if possible or severed if it is not to our
liking.” That is to say if Britishers shed their domineering position, associate
Indians with the system of Government and make the Government really
responsive and responsible to the people of India, he had objection to
accommodate his Swaraj within the British Empire. In case they continued to
adhere to their policy of domination and not ready to share responsibility with the
people of India and not responsive to their interests, and disregard their national
self-respect, Gandhi had to shun the Empire without shading a drop of tear. As he
said, “If their connection is to continue it can do so only in such form as will
permit the aim of the Congress to be fully realized. That is to say the British

should give up behaving as our superiors.”

However at this stage Gandhi accepted real Dominion Status for India as true
manifestation of Swaraj. As he said “The whole of our demand may be
compressed into one word retire.” But as usual, with one eye on principle and
another on practicability, and one eye on idealism and the other on reality he
carried on, “If you are not yet willing to retire completely, give us at least the
autonomy of your self-governing dominions. We have enough common sense to
prefer the half-loaf to no bread at all.” Thus complete independence or puma
Swaraj as advocated after the mid- night of 31st December 1929, was not his
ideological position or the political goal during the twenties. On 3rd March, 1927
Gandhi writing in young India said, “the cry for Swaraj came out of realisation of
growing helplessness in matters of permanent importance to our well being

......... Nothing is possible without swaraj.”

Towards the end of January 1928 i.e., on 29th, Gandhi wrote in Prajabandhu,
“Swaraj is our birth right.” He further wrote, “Swaraj is the birth right of all
countries.” Yet Swaraj was not conceived in term of independence or complete
severance of political relationship with British but complete freedom to shape its
destiny within the British Empire. Hence, in Young India on 12th January 1928,
“Personally I crave not for independence which I do not understand but I long for
freedom from the English yoke.” His vituperation against the English system of
government was unalloyed and uncompromising. He was impatient to end British
domination and enjoy Swaraj. He wrote, “I would pay any price for it. For the
English, peace is the peace of the grave. Anything would be better than this living
death of the whole people. This satanic rule has well-nigh, ruined the law courts
denying justice and murdering the truth.” However, he did not cherish anything
beyond complete for India to manage its own affairs and mould its own future
uncontaminated by British intervention or direction. Hence in his interview to
Alice Schalek, he said on March’ 20* of the same year, “I want prefect freedom
for my country............. I want the freedom to make mistakes and freedom to
unmake them and freedom to grow to my full-height and freedom to stumble also.

I do not want crutches.”

That the ‘perfect freedom’ that Gandhi aspired to have, was nothing more than
dominion status, is evident from his championship of the Dominion Status
scheme formulated by the Nehru Committee. As a matter of fact, he drafted and
moved the compromise resolution of the Congress at the Calcutta session in 1928
that called for acceptance by the British Government of dominion status Proposal
framed by the Nahru Committee and approved by the All-parties Conference.
Hence he said at the Calcutta Congress on December 31, 1928, on the Resolution
on Dominion Status based on Nehru Report. “If you all wish India to be free, you
should stop all this controversy about Dominion Status and Independence. You
should remember Swaraj is what we have outlined here.” Accordingly at the
Congress session at Calcutta while he said, “Swaraj is my birth right just as
breathing is my birth right.” He did not advocate severance of all political
connection with British, he meant-by Swaraj complete freedom from extraneous
 control, while still remaining a partner in the common-wealth of nations with
British as one of its members even a senior partner. Hence he said, “There is no
opposition between Dominion status and Independence. I do not want a dominion
status that will interfere with my fullest growth with my independence.” His
primary concern was complete freedom for the growth and development of the
nation even within the British Empire, if it is possible and if, British people and
politicians are reasonable, rational, and magnanimous to grant it and tolerate it.
As he said later on 11* January 1030 at Gujarat Vidyapith Convocation, his
objective, while speaking about Swaraj in the twenties was Dominion status or the
status of Australia, New Zealand and Canada, he said, were “virtually
Independent.” He said categorically, “I never had anything else in mind when I
talked about Dominion status for India.”42

Thus, for a decade i.e. from the early twenties to the late twenties, Gandhi
advocated Swaraj - he did not comprehend it beyond complete responsible
government within the British Empire. His Swaraj would at best go up to
Dominion Status but not beyond nor complete break away from Britain. His
primary concern was termination of British political domination and not
termination of British connection.

4.5 POSITIVE ASPECT OF SWARAJ :

For Gandhi, Swaraj did not consist in mere termination of British Political
domination or British Rule or British Imperialistic exploitation of India. As a
matter of fact he was as much a product of British system of education and British
culture as he was a product of Indian culture and he had developed such kinship
with Britain, that as he says, "Time was when, I prided myself on being and being
called a British subject. For the defence of the British Empire he even, risked his
life four times. Even after he was deeply committed to the goal of Puma Swaraj,
he said at the Round Table Conference, "I do not want to break the bond between
England and India, but I do want to transform that bond. Hence, what Gandhi
wanted to realise by breaking the British Imperialistic bond was, as he says, "I
want to transform that slavery into complete freedom for my country."43 Thus
Gandhi's whole intention was to break the bond of slavery for India and usher her
into the realm of freedom. But the slavery to which India was subjected due to
British Imperialistic domination was, apart from, being intolerable because of its

60
slavish nature i:e., absence of freedom and justice for Indians, was intolerable too,
because of the economic ruin, it spelled for India and the moral and cultural
degradation that ensued at its wake. The British Imperialistic Domination was
only a means for effecting economic ruin of India and its cultural and moral' and
spiritual degradation. Hence Gandhi's real objective behind his championship of
and struggle for Swaraj was economic revival of India and its cultural, moral and
spiritual upsurge apart from its political regeneration and resurgence of freedom
in the country.

British political domination and economic exploitation cultural and moral

degradation that are the products of such political domination may be put an end
to, after British Imperialism withdraws itself from India but its place can be taken
over by indigenous power seekers and capitalist exploiters. As it is very rightly
said, "The termination of the darkness of night may not necessarily presage the
birth of the glory of the day. The dawn may be the harbinger of a misty and foggy
morning, a gale and storm-tossed day, and an inclement afternoon. Likewise
freedom from foreign domination may not necessarily lead to Swaraj. Just as after
the day break, there must be bright sun-shine, uninhibited by atmospheric
disturbances, in order to add to the glory of the day, the negative aspect of Swaraj
i.e. freedom from foreign domination...must be supplemented by be positive
aspects, the presence of which would add real significance to Swaraj.44

Thus Gandhi while dreaming of Swaraj had in mind the interest of the people in
general, "the whole people", the entire Indian community, the rich and the poor,
the peasantry and the workers, the haves and the have nots, the able bodied and
the disabled, the blind, the deaf, the mute and the crippled, shall benefit from
Swaraj. Hence it is aptly said, "Gandhian concept of Swaraj is Mazzinian in
Tone" or is a type of people's Swaraj." This people's Swaraj of Gandhi shall,
however, cateroto various needs of the people or principally to four basic needs of
the people I.e. Political, social, economic and moral needs. In other words
Gandhi's Swaraj shall be a four-dimensional concept, the four dimensions being
provided by economic dimension, social dimension, political dimension and
moral dimension. Gandhi considered them constituting the "Square of Swaraj".
Unless these four dimensions are in proper trim, and are properly adjusted and

61
coordinated, the square of swaraj shall present a distorted picture. As Gandhi said,
"it will be out of shape if any of its angles is untrue.'45

A. Puma Swaraj

Till the end of the year 1929, Gandhi had, as his political objective. Self-
government of the pattern of the dominion status and termination of British
Political domination over India, from the commencement of the year 1930 to
1947, he cherished the vision of complete severance of relationship with the
British Empire and acquisition of Puma Swaraj or complete freedom. Apart from
all other weighty considerations, Gandhi's sentimental bond with the British
people and the British system was too strong and too enduring to be snapped even
after years of deep disillusionment and disappointment. The passion to keep the
bond intact was so intense that he was finally contemplating to give British
authorities two-year time, as recommended by the Nehru Report to make up its
mind to grant Dominion Status to India. It was only to placate the younger
elements like Jawaharlal Nehru and Subash Chandra Bose and to keep the
Congress united that he brought about a compromise resolution reducing the
period of grace to one year. Even after the resolution of the Calcutta Congress
demanding Dominion Status in one year or demand for complete independence
thereafter, Gandhi said in an interview to the press on January 2,1929, "severance
on any account is not my goal. Power for severance when desired, is.' However,
the British statesmen were in no hurry to woo or oblige Gandhi.

Gandhi had in his interview to the press, referred to above have said in reply to a
question as to what will happen if the Parliament does not accede to the demand
for dominion status, "I am an incorrigible optimist." Up to the mid-night on the
31st of December 1929,1 shall be hoping and hoping and praying that the definite
move we ask for will be made by Britain. To a subsequent question as to what
step he will take if his hopes are not realised he, said, "In that case on New Year's
Day 1930,1 shall wakeup to find myself an Independence Wallah. -46

Gandhi knew British mind more intimately and more correctly than most of his
Party colleagues. Hence he wrote in Young India "England will never make any
advance so as to satisfy India's aspirations till she is forced to it. British rule is no
philanthropic job; it is terribly earnest business proposition the coating of

62
benevolence that is periodically given to it merely prolongs the agony. His
prognosis proved true. Ram Say Mac Donald came to power. He had earlier
voiced the hope for a Dominion of India within months rather than years. The
Viceroy was summoned to discuss Indian affairs with him and the Secretary of
State Wedgwood Benn. With his return to India the Viceroy announced the
Intention of the British government on October 31 to be attainment of dominion
status by India and the convening of a Round Table Conference in London. The
congress that met to discuss the Viceroy's announcement, demanded that the
Conference shall frame a scheme of Dominion Constitution for India" and as far
as possible the Government of India should act as a Dominion Government or a
more liberal spirit should be infused into the Government of the country." The
Government Government turned down Congress demand, Gandhi in his reply to
his British friends 'who were pressing him to reciprocate the efforts of British
Labour Government to help India, expressed his feeling that he was "dying for
cooperation" and would be satisfied with "real dominion status in action." As he
said, "That is to say, if there is real change of heart, a real desire on the part of the
British people to see India a free and self-respecting Nation, and on the part of the
officials in India true spirit of service My conception of Dominion Status implies
present ability to sever the British connection if I wish to Therefore, there can be
no such thing as compulsion in the regulation of the relation between Britain and
India. If I choose to remain in the Empire, it is to make a partnership of power, for
promoting peace and good will in the world, never to promote exploitation what
is known as Britain's imperialistic creed.”47

Thus Gandhi by now - by the end of 1929 - had come to identify Swaraj with
severance of all political connection with the British Empire. The idea of self-
Govemment within the British Empire "if possible" had no relevance for him any
longer. He had been thoroughly convinced that it is not possible to conceive of
self-government within the British Empire with the British imperialistic steel-
frame intact and to enjoy real self-government such steel-frame must be exploded
and Puma Swaraj must emerge there from. As he said in Subjects Committee
meeting of Congress the next day i.e. December 27, "The Madras Congress had
setup the ideal of Swaraj within the Empire if possible and without it if
necessary..... We are now compelled to declare that the congress wants complete

63
independence and fixes it as its Swaraj. The Madras Congress did not actually
change the objective of the Congress. The Calcutta Congress too did not take up
definitely any attitude in regard to this matter. But, now we are going to change
our objective into definite form of complete independence To-day, I do not want
to say Swaraj within the Empire is possible at all and we say clearly that Swaraj

means complete independence.

However it has to be borne in mind that even if at Madras and at Calcutta, the
idea of complete independence arrested the attention of Congressmen and at
Madras, Congress adopted a resolution on complete independence and at
Calcutta, the Congress announced its objective for the complete independence,
unless dominions status was granted by the end of 1929. Gandhi was never
committed to complete independence or Puma Swaraj prior to the Lahore session
of the Congress. He was harping on self-government within the British Empire, if
possible and without it, if necessary and was at best ready to scale up to
Dominion Status of the type prevalent in Australia, New Zealand and Canada and
not beyond. He was earlier concerned at best with equal membership of India and
Britain of British Empire with the right of cessation at will or virtual
independence or "Partnership" at will for mutual benefit to be dissolved at the
instance of either partner. But at Lahore, Gandhi became for the first time
unequivocally committed to severance of relationship with British Empire apart
from self-government. Hence vagueness about his political goal vanished with his
unwavering declaration on Puma Swaraj as his political goal. It will be perhaps
more accurate to say that from the Congress session at Lahore, Swaraj or Puma
Swaraj become Gandhi's immediate goal and he become impatient to achieve it.

Thus Gandhi's primary concern from the early thirties - rather from the very first
day of 1930 became one of freeing "thirty crores of people held bond slaves by a
few thousand Englishmen, coming all the way from England," from British
Imperialistic bondage and Swaraj for him meant Puma Swaraj or complete
severance of relationship with the imperialistic yoke. Hence the Draft Declaration
that Gandhi prepared on 10th January, 1930 for adoption in public meetings all
over the country on 26th January, that was being observed as Independence Day
reads, "We believe that it is the inalienable right of the Indian peoples as of any
other people to have freedom and to enjoy the fruits of their toil and have

64
necessities of life so that they may have full opportunities of growth. We believe
also that if any government deprives the people of their rights and oppresses
them, the people have a further right to alter it or to abolish it. The British
government in India has not only deprived the Indian people of their freedom but
has based itself on the exploitation of the masses, and has ruined India
economically, politically, culturally and spiritually. We believe, therefore, that
India must sever the British connection and attain Puma Swaraj or complete
independence...... we hold it to be a crime against men and God to submit any
longer to a rule that has caused this four-fold disaster to our country."48

What Gandhi meant by Puma Swaraj, therefore, was not complete breakaway
with Britain but complete breakaway from the British Empire, as the latter's
dependency, depending on its mercy and subject to complete political domination
and economic exploitation. At the Round Table Conference while pressing for
Puma Swaraj or complete Independence, Gandhi, while emphasizing on freedom
from British Imperialistic yoke expressed his deep sentiment to keep intimate
contact with the British people even after severance of relationship with the
British Empire as its dependency. Instead, he wanted with British people a
relationship more cordial than what it was with India as a part of British
Dominion and British Empire - a type of relationship based on equality,
fellowship, good will and mutual assistance, a type of mutually agreed
partnership.

Gandhi, in fact, had in mind a type of partnership between India under Swaraj aid
British people and the British nation - partnership based on equality and free
partnership, comprehending mutual give and take. A partnership voluntarily
entered into, freely dissolved in case it fails to promote and uphold interest
common to both the parties to the partnership.

Thus Gandhi while dreaming of Puma Swaraj and complete severance of

connection with British Empire pitched his hope on building up a more endurable
relationship with British people by making both the nations' members of a
voluntarily agreed common wealth of nations. As he said in the Round Table
conference, "I would love to go away from the shores of the British Isles with the
conviction that there was to be honourable and equal partnership between Great
Britain and India."49

65
B.Political, C.Economic D. Social and E. Moral Dimensions of Swaraj are
discussed in next chapters.
Notes and references:
1. What is Swarai?. Retrieved on July 12,2007.
2. Parel, Anthony. Hind Swaraj and other writings of M. K. Gandhi.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, 1997.
3. What is Swarai?. Retrieved on March 3,2007.
4. What Swarai meant to Gandhi. Retrieved on September 17,2008.
5. Non-Western Anarchisms: Rethinking the Global Context. Jason
Adams. Retrieved on March 18,2007.
6. Jesudasan, Ignatius. A Gandhian theology of liberation. Gujarat Sahitya
Prakash: Ananda India, 1987, pp 236-237.
7. Hind Swaraj. M.K. Gandhi. Chapter V
8. M. K. Gandhi, Young India, June 28, 1928, p. 772.
9. "M. K. Gandhi, Young India, December 8, 1920, p.886 (See also Young India,
August 6, 1925, p. 276 and Harijan, March 25, 1939, p.64.)
10. Jesudasan, Ignatius. A Gandhian theology of liberation. Gujarat Sahitya
Prakash: Ananda India, 1987, pp 251.
11. Murthy, Srinivas.Mahatma Gandhi and Leo Tolstoy Letters. Long Beach
Publications: Long Beach, 1987, pp 13.
12. M. K. Gandhi. Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule. Ahmedabad, Gujarat:
Navajivan Publishing House, 1938.
13. Murthy, Srinivas .Mahatma Gandhi and Leo Tolstoy Letters. Long Beach
Publications: Long Beach, 1987, pp 189.
14. Parel, Anthony. Hind Swaraj and other writings ofM. K. Gandhi. Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge, 1997, pp 189.
15. The Naviivan Trust. Retrieved on March 3,2007.
16. Bhattacharyya, Buddhadeva. Evolution of the political philosophy of Gandhi.
Calcutta Book House: Calcutta, 1969, pp 479.
17. Jesudasan, Ignatius. A Gandhian theology of liberation. Gujarat Sahitya
Prakash: Ananda India, 1987, pp 225.
18. Hind Swaraj, Reprint, 1962. p-18
19. Ibid, p-16
20. Ibid, p.38,40

66
21. Ibid, p.65
22. Ibid, p.41
23. Ibid, p.91
24. Ibid, p.31
25. Ibid, p.34
26. Ibid, p.32
27. Ibid, p.68
28. Ibid, p.79
29. Ibid, p.99-104
30. Ibid, p.61
31. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol.XXI. p.438
32. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol.XXI. p.375
33. Gandhi, M.K., My Experiment with Truth, p.290
34. Staramaya, P., The History of the Congress, Vol. lp.25,26,128
35. Ibid, p.158
36. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol.XV. p.l
37. Tendulkar, D.G.,Mahatma,Vol.II P. 1,2
38. Ibid, p.31,32
39. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol.XVIII p.270
40. Dutta, R.C., The Economic History of India, p.vii
41. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol.XIX,p.l60
42. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol.XLII,p.388
43. Ibid, p.8,79
44. Pradhan, B.,in Gandhi in To-day’s India, Ed. By Das, B.C. & Mishra, G.P.
p.35,36
45. Harijan, January 2, 1927
46. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol.XXXVIII.p.316,317
47. Staramaya, P., The History of the Congress, Vol. 1.p.350-352
48. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol.XLII.p.384,385
49. Rajgopalchari, C. & Kumarappa, J.C., The Nations Voice.p.7-10

67