1

Gandhiji’s Critique of Modern Civilization and its Relevance in Present Day

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’s reputation as the Indian spiritual and political leader who
coordinated and led a successful national struggle for independence against British imperial rule
on the strength of a non-violent movement survive largely intact (Zachariah 1990, 3). For a long
time Gandhiji holding up the batten of Indian freedom movement against the imperialist British
government. Along with this identity Gandhiji was an influential figure in the history of India
and modern Indian political theory who gained international fame for his effective ideologies.
Gandhi acknowledged traditional concepts and symbols but without reluctance introduced
interpretations and ideas from foreign to Indian culture that shows the importance of Western
humanism in his approach. Gandhiji was a national leader, prophet and a teacher of a high order.
He laid emphasis on some original ideas for the reconstruction of society and for the uplift of
human beings. In this way he is considered as a moral and political thinker. In fact he was like
the Buddha and Socrates, who experimented with truth and preached those truth to the common
people. Gandhiji’s greatness lies in the fact that he had a high moral character. Gandhiji
emphasized different moral concepts of human life in his political ideas, like Ahimsha,
Satyagraha etc.

Criticism of modern civilization is a very important area of Gandhiji’s political

philosophy. In his own way, Gandhiji had been a critique of modern civilization. He criticized
almost each and every aspect of modern civilization. Whether it was the machine, profession of
Doctors layers or various political structures like State/Parliament, Gandhiji could never confirm
his appreciation of these signifiers of modernity. He contrasted Western technology on the basis
that the machine civilization brought with it the mistreatment of men and the concentration of
power (Lal 2009, 281 -313).

Gandhiji did not reject the western civilization per se, rather his grouse was only against
western civilization as it was developed in the wake of four major European intellectual
revolutions viz. Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, and Industrial Revolution. He
indicated modern civilization by saying that it had made material comforts and bodily welfare as
prime values of human life. In the process it has neglected the higher spiritual goals of human
2

existence as if human being is made only of the body and not of the soul. He looked upon human
being as a fine combination of body, mind and soul working in unison. In his opinion every
human being carries a speck of divinity in himself/herself. Thus modern civilization totally
overlooked the spiritual aspects of human existence. Main theme of this article is to discuss
Gandhiji’s criticism of modern civilization. Especially how the notion of modern civilization
degrading our human values in present day.

Non-violence was an important aspect of Gandhiji’s political thought, but Gandhiji was
not only committed to non-violence; he was also committed to truth and other important human
values. When two values are in conflict, willingly or unwillingly, the individual must choose.
What holds true for an individual holds for societies and civilization as well. In Gandhiji’s
perception Western or modern might have been more violent than pre-British Indian civilization;
but the question of Gandhiji thinking of Indian civilization prior to colonization as non-violent
does not arise (Jain 2006, 7).

Once one recognizes that in every social order there is bound to be a multiplicity of
values and that it is highly unlikely that any significant value would be entirely absent from any
social order, it becomes evident that two social orders cannot be meaningfully compared merely
in terms of the presence or absence of this or that value. Real societies differ not so much with
respect to presence or absence of significant values as they do with respect to the domains of
different values. When different values are in conflict, as mentioned above, individuals and
societies must resolve these conflicts in some way. One society might accord to a particular
value a large domain of predominance while another society only a relatively small domain. The
meta-principle which determines the domain and sub-domain of every value is in fundamental
sense the most important constitutive element of a civilization. It is this meta- principle which
determines what is right and what is wrong. From Gandhiji’s statement that, Civilization is that
mode of conduct which points out to man the path of duty’ (Jain 2006, 9). It appears that
Gandhiji’s intuiting understanding of what a civilization is mainly about was probably very close
to identifying with the meta-principle determining the domains and sub domains of values.

If we abstract from the other constitutive feature of civilizations and concentrate only on
the normative aspects then it is clear that statements regarding superiority or inferiority of a
civilization in relation to another civilization are really statements proclaiming superiority or
3

inferiority of the meta-principle embodied in the former civilization in relation to the meta-
principle embodied in the latter. When a person belongs to or is a product of a particular
civilization then it would be well-night impossible for him not to internalize the meta-principle
embodied in the civilization. From the vantage point of the internalized meta-principle any
civilization with a radically different meta-principle is bound to be found wanting. Europeans
found all non-European civilizations fundamentally flawed. Although there were major non-
Indian influences on Gandhiji, there can be a little doubt that notwithstanding these influences
the implicit in the Indian society of those days. Someone who had internalized the normative
core of the Indian civilizational structure was bound to have the kind of judgment that Gandhiji
had regarding the radically different modern civilization. Although the above way of looking at
normative structure of societies does provide an understanding of Gandhiji’s critique of
modernity, it also trivializes the critique. Given any two different civilizations any of them would
turn out to be superior to the other from its own vantage point. The meaningful comparisons are
possible only when there are objective criteria in terms of which the meta-principles themselves
could be evaluated. It is argued in what follows that in Gandhiji’s writings, particularly in Hind
Swaraj, there are indications regarding the objective criteria which can be used for evaluating
different social arrangements from normative perspective under certain conditions, although not
in all instances; and that it is highly likely that while formulating his critique of modernity,
Gandhiji had these objective criteria in his mind, although in all probability only intuitively.

Gandhiji’s criticism of modern civilization is discussed broadly in his book Hind Swaraj,
in Gandhiji’s own words Hind Swaraj is a sever condemnation of modern civilization (Jain 2006,
9). Many people ignored this book; some opposed without reading it; and some others violently
disagreed with Gandhiji and ridiculed it. Some others considered that Gandhiji was a
representative of the bygone ages. Even some of the close followers of Gandhiji like Jawaharlal
Nehru did not agree with him. Gandhiji’s “political Guru” Gokhale felt that Gandhi would revise
his thoughts over the years. The communist leaders like S.A. Dange and M.N. Roy were critical
of Gandhiji from the Marxian angels of Class struggle (Vijayam 2009, 20 – 22). Thus the book
of Hind Swaraj was either criticized or ignored, an important account of criticism of modern
civilization posed in this book by Gandhiji. Many people did not have access to the book as it
was banned by the government the moment it was published in Guajarati and the ban was finally
lifted only in 1938 during the Congress rule.
4

In the book Gandhiji addressed some basic issues that were confronting the contemporary
society, in particular the rising trend of violence and terrorism. Some of the Indians abroad were
also attracted towards violence and they advocated violent revolution in India. But Gandhiji was
firmly opposed to the growing trend of terrorism and violence. Gandhiji was in search of a
higher alternative to violence and terrorism. He firmly believed that India’s future was intricately
interconnected with peaceful social change. By that time the British were firmly rooted in the
Indian soil and they were spreading their tentacles in all aspects of life. The introduction of
railways, legal system, medicine and education began to change the nature of Indian society.
Gandhiji examined the nature of British Colonialism. He went onto the root of the problem. In
the process he realized that the real problem lies the modern civilization itself (Vijayam 2009, 20
– 22). He considered the modern civilization is much more inimical than the colonialism. He
considered that the root of the troubles in India lay in the adoption of modern civilization itself.
Gandhiji juxtaposed modern civilization with the ethical living. He strongly felt that the strength
of India and the orient lies in its ethical living. Preserving and enhancing the moral character of
its people and the institutions was paramount importance for him (Vijayam 2009, 20 – 22). But
how he convince people about the evils of the modern civilization? Because, even the educated
started believing in the modern civilization. He felt that India was degrading and destroying itself
by accepting and emulating the Western institutions. Gandhiji firmly believe that the Western
civilization and the rise of violence were inseparable (Heredia 1999, 281 – 313). He strongly felt
that non-violence and factory civilization were incompatible and they cannot co-exist. In order to
convey his massage, in Hind Swaraj Gandhiji adopted the method of a dialogue between a
Reader (of a magazine) and the Editor. It is significant to note that Gandhiji did not adopt the
traditional model of conversation between a Guru and Sishya. Gandhiji thus avoided the
hierarchical problem and the feeling of preaching to some one. The dialogue was between two
equal partners foe exchange of views on problems that confront the contemporary society. He
explored how to arrive at an amicable solution so that India would again its preeminent position
in the comity of nations (Heredia 1999, 281 – 313).

Gandhiji believed that the real strength is not in its military might. India’s greatness is
closely linked with its ethical behavior. Gandhiji clearly realized that politics have an important
place in resolving people’s problems in a nation. But his conception of politics was that they
serve people, but not dominate over people (Rudolph, Rudolph 2010, 36). Gandhiji believed in
5

nationalism and he also realized its strength in solving its problems but his conception of
nationalism was not hindrance to the development of international peace and amity. He wanted
to clarify the meaning of swaraj, for Gandhiji swaraj was the quest for self-improvement. Hind
Swaraj means “rule of dharma” in an ideal state (Vijayam 2009, 20 – 22). In its simplicity was
the crux of the matter. Without simplicity there cannot be any ethical living and fellow feeling.
Gandhiji clearly felt in his Hind Swaraj, that the modern civilization destroys ethical living as it
built on the acquisition of material wealth. The mad rush for wealth destroyed the moral fiber of
the people. The acquisitive nature will retard the development of the personality of the
individuals. Ethical living and morality that cements and brings cohesion in society. Gandhiji felt
that these qualities are missing in the modern western civilizations as it haps on acquisition of
wealth by any means (Vijayam 2009, 20 – 22).

Now I try to discuss about how Gandhiji concentrate about the bad effect of modern
civilization which influenced the life and the moral values of Indian society.

Evils of Factory Civilization

Gandhiji realized that the factory civilization which is that hall mark of modern civilization, in
fact, reduces the value of human being. Gandhiji, thus, had a fundamental objection to
industrialization as it widens the gap between the rich and the poor and industrialization breeds
hatred and alienation. Both Gandhiji and Karl Marx were concerned with the problem of
alienation. Marx thought that class struggle would end alienation and it would ultimately lead to
harmony in society. On the other hand, Gandhiji were well aware that class struggle would led to
violence and confrontation as well as hatred, it would further perpetuate alienation in one from
the other (Vijayam 2009, 20 – 22). Gandhiji firmly believed in the process of reconciliation of
conflicts in a peaceful way.

Gandhiji was also well aware the evils of centralization – of power and positions and
leading to acquisition of power by a few at the expense of the teeming millions of people.
Gandhiji was also opposed to industrialization as it would contribute the growth of cities and
destruction of the harmonious life in the rural surroundings. In the cities slums and shanties are
invariable. In cities and towns the inequalities are much more glaring and the exploitation would
go unabated. We should not forget that Gandhiji was well aware of positive contribution of the
Western civilization, such as rule of law and constitutionalism. Civil liberty, equality, rights and
6

economic development were some of its positive gains. But Gandhiji realized that modern
civilization is based of competition and acquisition of wealth and concentration of power. Hence,
the positive gains are small, compared to the evils it perpetuates. Gandhiji wanted to combine
rights with duties, empirical knowledge with moral right, economic development with spiritual
progress, religious toleration with freedom of, or from religious beliefs and women’s liberation
with a broader conception of humanity.

Colonialism and Capitalism

Gandhiji felt that modern civilization is at the root of the colonial problem. When Linin
connected colonialism to capitalism, Gandhiji linked colonialism to modernity itself. Gandhiji
came to the conclusion that Western civilization was based on the brute force. Gandhiji opined
that even for West, modernization is an evil, and in the case of India and the Orient, it is worse.
Gandhiji saw that colonialism as the fruit of modern civilization. This truth must be grasped by
all. Gandhiji was also clear on one point, morality is far superior to any constitution or positive
law.

Quality of Life

Gandhiji thought that in the modern civilization man is become a slave of the machine. Machines
overtake men. The West equates “Civilization” with the progress of industrialization. The West
divides the world as “Civilized and non-Civilized” – the Haves and have-notes. But Gandhiji’s
yardstick for progress was quite different. Gandhiji’s conception of civilization is not right
based, duty based. “Civilization is that mode of conduct which points out to man the path of
duty.” Where there is poverty that is happiness; where there is no discrimination that is
happiness; where people have contentment that is happiness. In other words, Gandhiji was
concerned with the improvement of quality of life rather than quantitative development.

Modern Civilization is A Challenge to the Mankind

It is true that industrialization has led to an enormous development of productive forces, making
human life prosperous and comfortable. But the offshoots of industrialization are materialism,
consumerism, urbanism and competitive economy. The effect of all these factors is that the
moral and ethical values necessary to regulate human life are marginalized and they have come
to occupy only a secondary place in the lives of individuals and society. Industrialization, in the
7

course of its progress, has transformed human life - its institutions and value system and has
generated social and moral problems that mankind finds almost impossible to tackle.
Industrialism and materialism inevitably lead to the concentration of wealth and power in the
hands of the few and thereby divide the society into two - one of a few rich and the other of the
many poor. This is could be identified as the root cause of war, violence and conflicts in the
society. The research and development of science and technology are directed to satisfying the
greed for economic gains. This has led to the invention of deadly weapons of mass destruction.
Industrialization of the western kind, according to Gandhi, was a curse for mankind as it
depended entirely on exploitation. His view was that "any plan which exploits the raw materials
of a country and neglects the potentially more powerful manpower is lopsided and can never
tend to establish human equality”. As stated by Gandhi, “I cannot recall a single good point in
connection with machinery. Books can be written to demonstrate its evils.” Thus the germs of
self- destruction are inherent in it. IT revolution has gone a step further. This phase of
industrialization has produced a replica of man itself called robot, which possess artificial
intelligence, artificial memory and huge physical power to handle any difficult task. This marks
the process of dehumanization of man which was started by factory system reaching its
culmination at the IT Phase. Hence the reconstruction of society without resorting to large scale
industries and the so-called advanced technology is to be viewed seriously. Gandhi foresaw this.
In his programme for social reconstruction he took care to avoid these dangers and ensured the
gradual progress of both individuals and society as a whole to the heights of truth and non-
violence. It is a new society which represents all the elements of progressive modern society
minus large scale industries and technology. However, it does not mean that Gandhiji was totally
against all kinds of machinery and industrialization. He supported some essential big industries
maintained by the state and village industries. His objection against large scale industries was
that they are exploitative of man. They produced unemployment and hence are violative of the
spirit of Sarvodaya. Gandhi recognized that machinery has a place in the economy of his
concept. He says “what I object to is the ‘craze’ for machinery, not machinery as such”. Machine
in itself may not be bad, but the fault lies with man who has made indiscriminate use of it and
produced disastrous consequences. Gandhi had no objection to advanced technology if poverty
and unemployment could be eradicated through it and its benefits are made available to all.
8

According to him honest humanitarian consideration and not greed should be the motivating
force. If greed was replaced by love, then exploitation will vanish.

Today it is impossible to live without internet for a little time. This is the era of Wi-Fi,
every minute, every second we need technology for our livelihood. Technology is obviously
important for the growth of civilization, I am not opposing this, but it is very bad to say that, in
present day’s technology affecting our ethical value very roughly, hindrances comes mainly from
the social networking side like Facebook, Whats App, You Tube, Twitter etc. Gandhiji always
opposed modern civilization because, modern civilization is centered on the development of
body and man’s moral potentialities remain undermined. In recent times there are some news
comes from all parts of India that how by the use of modern technology we are losing our human
values. In following I discuss some of the incidents that will prove that how the modern
civilization and technology is still very harmful for ourselves.

In the early 2000’s, the Web became much more personal as social networking websites
were introduced and embraced by the masses. Social networking sites (SNS) are defined as web-
based services that allow individuals to construct a public or semi-public profile within a limited
system, articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and view and traverse
their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and terms of
these connections may vary from site to site. What makes social networking websites unique is
not that they allow individuals to meet strangers, but rather that they enable users to articulate
and make visible their social networks. While SNSs have implemented a wide variety of
technical features, their backbone consists of visible profiles that display an articulated list of
Friends1 who are also users of the system (Boyd, Ellison 2005, 210 – 212). Profiles are unique
pages where one can “type oneself into being”. Since their introduction, social networking
websites have attracted millions of users, many of whom integrated their sites as a daily practice.
Today, Facebook is the largest social network in the world. It started as a website limited to
Harvard students only, but quickly expanded to additional colleges in the Boston area, other Ivy
League schools, then eventually just about every University in North America, up till now where
1 out of every 7 people on earth is on Facebook. It was founded by Mark Zuckerberg and some
of fellow college roommates at Harvard University, including Eduardo Saverin, Dustin
Moskovitz, Andrew McCollum and Chris Hughes. The World Wide Web has been radically
9

transformed, shifting from an information repository to a more social environment where users
are not only passive receivers or active harvesters of information, but also creators of content.
Web-based technologies now encompass the socializing features of virtual spaces that have
emerged as zones for information sharing, collaboration, and community formation and
extension. Social media are technologies that facilitate social interaction, make possible
collaboration, and enable deliberation across stakeholders. These technologies now include
blogs, wikis, media (audio, photo, video, text) sharing tools, networking platforms (including
Facebook), and virtual worlds (Zeevi 2013, 75).

The negative effects of these social networking sites overweigh the positive ones. These
sites have caused some potential harm to society. The students become victims of social
networks more often than anyone else. This is because of the reason that when they are studying
or searching their course material online, they get attracted to these sites to kill the boredom in
their study time, diverting their attention from their work. Other negative side effects of social
networking websites include the following:

Reduction in Real Human Contact

The more time the students spend on these social media sites, the less time they will spend
socializing in person with others. This reduces their communication skills. They will not be able
to communicate and socialize effectively in person with others. The employers are getting more
and more unsatisfied with the communication skills of the fresh graduates due to this reason. The
effective communication skills are key to success in the real world.

Reduces Command over Language Use Age and Creative Writing Skills

Students mostly use slang words or shortened forms of words on social networking sites. They
start relying on the computer grammar and spelling check features. This reduces their command
over the language and their creative writing skills.

Effect on Health
10

The excessive use of these sites affect the mental as well as physical health. Students do not take
their meals on time and take proper rest. They take excessive amount of coffee or tea to remain
active and focused which effects negatively on their health.

The overuse of these sites on a daily basis has many negative effects on the physical and
mental health of students making them lethargic and unmotivated to create contact with the
people in person. The parents should check and balance on their children when they use the
internet. They should be on guard whether they are using it for appropriate time period or not.
The peers and teachers should also help students make them aware of the negative effects and
explain what they are losing in the real world by sticking to these social networking sites.

A 2010 Case Western Reserve School of Medicine study showed hyper-networking

(more than three hours on social networks per day) and hyper texting (more than 120 text
messages per day) correlated with unhealthy behaviors in teens, including drinking, smoking and
sexual activity. Hyper-networking was also associated with depression, substance abuse, poor
sleep patterns, suicide and poor academic performance.

People as Products

According to e-Marketer, global social networking revenues will exceed $10 billion 2013. Most
social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and many others offer their services to
members for free, yet still net significant income. In fact, according to Mashable Business,
Facebook earned $1.6 billion in revenues in the first half of 2011, and was on pace to achieve
more than $3 billion in revenues by year end.

If the services are free, then, how do social networking websites earn such staggering
sums of money? The answer is that you, the social network user, is the product these online
giants sell to generate revenue. According to BBC News, social networking sites are uniquely
positioned to make money by matching people to products. Since you generate content on a
social networking site that indicates your interests, social and work background, and a great deal
of other information about your personal preferences, the social networking sites can target
advertisements specifically to you, a service for which advertisers are willing to pay significant
amounts of money.
11

Diminishing Privacy

While many users feel their personal data is safe on social networking sites because they have set
high levels of security settings, research suggests this is not the case. According to a 2010
Northeastern University and Max Planck Institute for Software Systems study, researchers
created an algorithm to discover an individual's personal attributes by examining the one thing
that most people leave public even when all other privacy settings are place: their friend list.
Using the algorithm, researchers were able to infer many personal traits merely from friend lists,
including educational level, university attended, hometown and other private data.

Many social networking sites regularly make changes that require you to update your
settings in order to maintain your privacy, and frequently it is difficult to discover how enable
settings for your appropriate level of privacy. Because of this, many users do not realize how
much private information they are allowing to become public by not re-evaluating settings every
time the network makes a change. Tagging can also serve as an invasion of privacy. When social
networking sites have a “tagging” option, unless you disable it, friends or acquaintances may be
able to tag you in posts or photographs that reveal sensitive data.

Isolation

While on the surface it appears social networking brings people together across the Internet, in a
larger sense it may create social isolation, according to a BBC News report. As people spend
increasing amounts of time on social networks, they experience less face-to-face interaction.
Scientists have evaluated social isolation in many studies, and have determined that it can lead to
a host of mental, psychological, emotional and physical problems including depression, anxiety,
somatic complaints and many others. In fact, a University of Illinois at Chicago School of
Medicine animal study showed social isolation impaired brain hormones, which is the likely
reason socially isolated people experience tremendous levels of stress, aggression, anxiety and
other mental issues.

Others

While the above studies show actual correlations between social networking and negative
consequences, others argue that many other negative consequences may exist that have not yet
12

been studied. Some of the harmful effects people suggest social networking has that have not yet
yielded conclusive study results include:

 Encouraging poor grammar, usage, and spelling.

 Allowing the spread of misinformation that may be perceived as fact even in light of
evidence to the contrary.

 Exposing children to online predators.

 Creating a culture in which a single mistake such as a racy picture or poorly thought-out
comment can cause irreparable harm to your reputation.

 Decreasing productivity as workers habitually check social networking sites while they
should be working.

 Providing information that increases the risk of identity theft.

 Creating a platform for cyber bullying.

Conclusion

In such a dismal situation Gandhiji appears to be a beacon light even to some people in the
West. Gandhiji provided an alternate model of development. His method of Satyagraha appears
to be a most potent force as it gives enormous scope for individual action as well as non-
cooperation with evil. Gandhiji harped on restoration of moral values and he made human being
as the measure of development. His emphasis on purity of ends and means and openness of
methods is gaining importance. The rights based approach has reached a dead-end. If not today,
in the years to come people will look to Gandhi as the answer as he emphasized on duties and
human values. When Gandhi described the European civilization as a seven-day wonder, many
thought that it was a hyperbole. Gandhi was dubbed by some as the representative of the by-
gone ages. But now, after hundred years, people started listen to the lone voice of Gandhi as
sane and sensible. Gandhiji’s greatness lay in the fact that he was a builder of alternatives. He
was never content with mere criticism or condemnation. For him human is the measure of all
things. The welfare of all, or the Sarvodaya is not merely a dream, but also a blue print for
future action. What Gandhi requires today is reinterpretation of his thought in the light of
changed circumstances. The world is slowly, but steadily marching towards a post religious
13

society. Morality is not divinely ordained, it is a social necessity. It is not blind faith but
adherence to secular values, which would solve many problems in the world. Individual
freedom seasoned with social responsibility will lead to collective action. When all systems
collapse due to unbridled corruption, it is the individual initiative that would bring a sea change
in the situation. The centenary of ‘Hind Swaraj’ is yet another opportunity to think in terms of
alternatives to the present system which is enable to develop full personality of the individuals.

Reference:

 Boyd, D., and Ellison N. 2005. “Social Network Sites: Definition, History and
Scholarship”. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 37 (2): 210–212.
 G. Vijayam, Relevance of Gandhi’s Critique of Modern Civilization and its Institutions,
Speech on the eve of Hind Swaraj Centenary at the Institute of Gandhian Studies,
November 20-22, 2009.
 Jain, Satish K. 2006. Towards A Framework for Understanding Gandhiji’s Critique of
Modernity in Hind Swaraj. Accessed April 18, 2017.
http://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/satishkjain.htm
 Lal, Vinay. 2009. “Gandhi’s West, the West’s Gandhi”. New Literary History, 40 (2):
281- 313.

 Rudolf C. Heredia. 1999. “Interpreting Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj”. Economic and Political
Weekly, 34 (24): 1497-1502.
 Rudolph, Lloyd I. and Rudolph Susanne H. 2010. Postmodern Gandhi and Other
Essays: Gandhi in the World and at Home. USA. University of Chicago Press.
 Zachariah, Benjamin. 2011. “Gandhi, Non-Violence and Indian Independence.” History
Review, 69 (3): 315–378. URL:
http://www.historytoday.com/benjamin-zachariah/gandhi-non-violence-and-indian-
independence.

 Zeevi, D. 2013. The Ultimate History of Facebook. Accessed April 2, 2017.

http://socialmediatoday.com/daniel-zeevi/1251026/ultimate-history-facebook-
infographic.