Hind Swaraj takes the form of a dialogue, in which a character called the editor—heavily implied to be Gandhi himself—answers the reader’s questions about British colonialism, the emerging Indian nationalist movement, the kind of civilization that Indians should try to build, and the means they should use to do so. Gandhi translated Hind Swaraj into English after the British authorities banned and seized the original Gujarati version, which was first published in the newspaper Indian Opinion.
Gandhi begins by defending the Indian National Congress, the national party that first brought elite Indians together to demand independence from the British. After the British split Bengal in half in 1905, Gandhi explains, Indians began seeing themselves as a unified nation and rising up to demand political change. Now, Indians are demanding Swaraj. The reader mistakenly thinks that this just means kicking out the English, but the editor clarifies that, unless Indians learn to govern themselves fairly and sustainably, India will simply have “English rule without the Englishman.” England’s Parliament is stagnant and its politicians are corrupt, which leaves the English people relatively powerless to shape the policies that structure their lives.
According to the editor, the problem with England is modern civilization, the way of life that prioritizes “bodily welfare,” or people’s material desires, above everything else. So while Europeans obsessively build new technologies and produce more and more wealth, they have plundered and enslaved the world in order to do so. Worst of all, Europeans have lost sight of their moral and spiritual needs, and their material desires are insatiable: the more luxuries they have, the more they want. This traps them and their colonies in an unsustainable cycle of constant economic expansion.
Even though the English brought modern civilization to India, the editor argues that Indians are responsible for giving up India. This is because they wrongly chose to trade with and fight alongside the English. As a result, Indians have lost their own distinctive way of life, which is grounded in the common beliefs that underlie all their various religions. Meanwhile, the modern railway network is a dangerous tool for plundering India’s resources and forcing its people into slavery: rather than living self-sufficiently in their village communities, farmers now have to sell everything to the British, which has created devastating famines.
Similarly, while Hindus and Muslims lived in harmony for centuries, now they have fallen victim to the English strategy of divide and conquer. In reality, the editor argues, Hindus and Muslims are part of the same family, worship the same God, and belong to the same Indian nation—which has always been and will always be religiously diverse. But now, the Hindu majority foolishly persecutes Muslims, who respond by building separate protected institutions. Gandhi also rejects Hindu cow-protection activists who attack Muslims for slaughtering cows because he thinks violence against others is never justified, even in response to other forms of violence.
Next, Gandhi explains why lawyers and doctors are also responsible for impoverishing India. Lawyers profit by exacerbating conflict and division, and they help the rich much more than the poor. Western-trained doctors treat the symptoms of disease rather than addressing its root causes, which are usually about “negligence or indulgence.”
Having summarized the dangers of modern civilization, the editor next argues that true Indian civilization is the set of political, personal, and spiritual practices that help people fulfill their moral duties. He argues that true happiness comes from the mind, not the body, so moral people learn to master their minds and passions. Such people also live materially humble but spiritually rich lives, as Indians traditionally did for centuries, before the English arrived. But the editor clarifies that he is not defending certain oppressive practices from Indian tradition, like child marriage and animal sacrifice.
The editor goes on to argue that the real meaning of Swaraj is achieving freedom and reinstating true civilization. This requires completely transforming society, not just expelling the English. He uses the Italian reunification led by Garibaldi and Mazzini as an example of why violent revolt doesn’t fundamentally change the system. Brute force, the editor concludes, cannot establish a just government—it would only lead to an escalating cycle of war and vengeance. But petitions are also insufficient for creating a just government, unless they’re backed by action. Rather, only moral means can establish a moral government, and the only solution to India’s condition is passive resistance—or refusing to follow the government’s demands or recognize it as legitimate. This passive resistance is grounded in the fundamental force of love (or truth, or the soul), which binds people and nations together in peaceful harmony. In passively resisting an unjust government, people must accept suffering and be willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. And they must not inflict violence on anyone else. Rather, they follow the true moral law, even when it conflicts with the government’s law. It takes greater courage and mental strength than fighting a war, but it allows people to liberate both their conscience and their country at the same time.
The reader asks about the role that education and technology pay in the independence struggle. The editor argues that Western education just teaches people facts without giving them a moral framework for understanding those facts, so it is mostly useless. Similarly, while European machines like mills lead to great wealth, that wealth all flows to Europeans, while the Indians who actually produce the wealth are forced off their land and reduced to poverty in the process. Accordingly, the editor concludes that Indians should embrace moral education and reject most Western machinery, with some exceptions (like the printing press, which can help the independence movement spread).
In his conclusion, Gandhi summarizes his political platform. While moderates try in vain to petition the British and extremists propose a dangerous armed rebellion, Gandhi argues that passive resistance offers is the only effective response to tyranny. True home rule requires Indians to rule themselves and embrace traditional Indian practices, not just kick out the British. He instructs Indians to weave their own cloth by hand, boycott British goods, and be willing to suffer imprisonment, exile, or even death in order to achieve Swaraj.
