In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi emphasizes that Indians will not become truly independent—or achieve Swaraj (home-rule)—by simply overthrowing the British. This is because he blames India’s misery on modern civilization, not colonialism. This distinction is essential for understanding Gandhi’s argument: the Western way of life is responsible for India’s oppression, not just the British government. Because Gandhi thinks that modern civilization’s focus on material goods is the root cause of Indians’ poverty and misery, he concludes that Indians must replace this modern way of life with one based on ancient Indian civilization’s traditions and values.
Gandhi argues that modern civilization and its technologies are evil because they lead people to prioritize material goals over spiritual ones. For Gandhi, a civilization is essentially a way of life, which is based on a society’s specific cultural values, social structures, and religious traditions. Gandhi argues that the best (or truest) way of life is the one that “points out to man the path of duty,” or teaches people to behave morally. Following this “path of duty” requires learning to control “our mind and our passions,” which Gandhi considers the source of true happiness. In other words, a good civilization makes people happy by teaching them morality and self-control. This allows them to fulfill all their needs, both material and spiritual.
In contrast to true civilization, Gandhi argues, modern Western civilization “make[s] bodily welfare the object of life.” In other words, it encourages people to prioritize wealth, power, and pleasure over their moral, social, and spiritual well-being. Gandhi notes that Europeans define success and progress as buying bigger houses, wearing finer clothing, and developing new technologies. He ironically suggests that, in the future, people will be able to meet all their needs simply by pressing a button—but he points out that this would not make these people’s lives good or meaningful. On the contrary: the richer people get, the more miserable, greedy, and evil they become, according to Gandhi. So focusing excessively on “bodily welfare” is actually likely to make people’s lives worse. Once people meet their basic bodily needs, having more stuff does not make them any happier. Instead, they need to focus on their spiritual development, which modern civilization totally ignores.
Gandhi blames this modern civilization for the degradation of India. In fact, he argues that the English invaded India precisely because of a barbaric thirst for wealth. For more than 300 years, the English stole Indians’ land and material resources, enslaved them in factories and mines, and turned them against one another. In the process, the English committed many of the worst crimes against humanity in recorded history. But the culprit isn’t just colonialism: it’s the modern way of life that led to colonialism. If Indians cast off colonialism but do not overcome modern civilization, they will end up worse than before.
To underline his point, Gandhi looks at three key examples: railways, Western-trained doctors and lawyers, and industrial machinery. While some Indians view these developments as a silver lining to English colonialism, Gandhi believes that they have actually worsened and impoverished India. For instance, he argues that the railways were built to expedite the theft of Indian resources. Similarly, while traditional Indian doctors and village lawyers prevent illnesses and legal disputes, Western-trained doctors and lawyers profit by prolonging them. These developments show that many Indians have accepted modern civilization, too, so need to reform themselves in order to live happy and ethical lives. In fact, Gandhi thinks Indians—not the English—are responsible for letting modern civilization take over India. From his perspective, this is because greedy Indians agreed to trade with and fight alongside the English and then gradually let themselves be modernized. If the English leave India, therefore, modern civilization won’t go away—so the struggle for Indian independence is really about replacing modern civilization with true civilization, not replacing the English government with an Indian one.
To build a free society based on true civilization, Gandhi thinks that Indians must turn to their traditional past. Gandhi justifiably thinks that Indians lived far better and happier lives in the distant past than they did under British colonialism. Although they didn’t have machines, money, or railroads, they lived in small, self-sufficient village communities. They had doctors and courts, but their doctors addressed the root causes of illness (“negligence” and “indulgence”), and their courts resolved conflicts rather than extending them. In other words, Indian civilization was superior because it met people’s material needs while also providing for their spiritual ones. That said, Gandhi emphasizes that ancient Indian civilization was not perfect—for instance, many Indians had some oppressive traditions like child marriage, ritualized prostitution, and animal sacrifice, which he thinks they should absolutely reject. At the same time, Indians can integrate certain Western practices into their civilization. For example, he thinks India should create a universal education system, implement public health policies, and guarantee human rights to all its citizens. This makes it all the more clear that the conflict between ancient and modern civilization is not just a conflict between Indian traditions and Western ones: rather, it is a conflict between a balanced way of life and an unbalanced one that puts wealth, power, and technology above community, morality, and human well-being.
Gandhi doesn’t want India to turn its back on England and try to return to the past: rather, he envisions the India of the future as a democratic federation of villages, which largely govern themselves in traditional ways, but also work together on a national scale, through shared democratic institutions. If India can transform itself in this way, Gandhi thinks the English can even stay in India and “become Indianised.” There’s no contradiction between rejecting English technology while embracing English people, or living traditional lifestyles under a national democratic government. Rather, Gandhi believes that India should revitalize its ancient civilization precisely by becoming a democratic nation.
Related Themes from Other Texts
Modern Civilization and Colonialism ThemeTracker
Modern Civilization and Colonialism Quotes in Hind Swaraj
I do not know why Hind Swaraj has been seized in India. To me, the seizure constitutes further condemnation of the civilisation represented by the British Government. There is in the book not a trace of approval of violence in any shape or form. The methods of the British Government are, undoubtedly, severely condemned. To do otherwise would be for me to be a traitor to Truth, to India, and to the Empire to which I own allegiance.
The same rule holds good for the English as for the Indians. I can never subscribe to the statement that all Englishmen are bad. Many Englishmen desire Home Rule for India. That the English people are somewhat more selfish than others is true, but that does not prove that every Englishman is bad. We who seek justice will have to do justice to others. Sir William does not wish ill to India—that should be enough for us. As we proceed, you will see that, if we act justly, India will be sooner free. You will see, too, that, if we shun every Englishman as an enemy, Home Rule will be delayed. But if we are just to them, we shall receive their support in our progress towards the goal.
You have well drawn the picture. In effect it means this: that we want English rule without the Englishman. You want the tiger's nature, but not the tiger; that is to say, you would make India English, and, when it becomes English, it will be called not Hindustan but Englistan. This is not the Swaraj that I want.
Let us first consider what state of things is described by the word “civilisation.” Its true test lies in the fact that people living in it make bodily welfare the object of life.
It has been stated that, as men progress, they shall be able to travel in airships and reach any part of the world in a few hours. Men will not need the use of their hands and feet. They will press a button and they will have their clothing by their side. They will press another button and they will have their newspaper. A third, and a motorcar will be in waiting for them. They will have a variety of delicately dished-up food. Everything will be done by machinery.
The English have not taken India; we have given it to them. They are not in India because of their strength, but because we keep them.
Religion is dear to me, and my first complaint is that India is becoming irreligious. Here I am not thinking of the Hindu, the Mahomedan, or the Zoroastrian religion, but of that religion which underlies all religions. We are turning away from God. […] Hinduism, Islamism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity and all other religions teach that we should remain passive about worldly pursuits and active about godly pursuits, that we should set a limit to our worldly ambition, and that our religious ambition should be illimitable.
The English have taught us that we were not one nation before, and that it will require centuries before we become one nation. This is without foundation. We were one nation before they came to India. One thought inspired us. Our mode of life was the same. It was because we were one nation that they were able to establish one kingdom. Subsequently they divided us.
Civilisation is that mode of conduct which points out to man the path of duty. Performance of duty and observance of morality are convertible terms. To observe morality is to attain mastery over our mind and our passions. So doing, we know ourselves. The Gujarati equivalent for civilisation means “good conduct.”
A nation with a constitution like this is fitter to teach others than to learn from others. This nation had courts, lawyers and doctors, but they were all within bounds. Everybody knew that these professions were not particularly superior; moreover, these vakils and vaids did not rob people; they were considered people's dependants, not their masters. Justice was tolerably fair. The ordinary rule was to avoid courts. There were no touts to lure people into them. This evil, too, was noticeable only in and around capitals. The common people lived independently, and followed their agricultural occupation. They enjoyed true Home Rule.
By patriotism I mean the welfare of the whole people, and, if I could secure it at the hands of the English, I should bow down my head to them. If any Englishman dedicated his life to securing the freedom of India, resisting tyranny and serving the land, I should welcome that Englishman as an Indian.
History is really a record of every interruption of the even working of the force of love or of the soul. Two brothers quarrel; one of them repents and reawakens the love that was lying dormant in him; the two again begin to live in peace; nobody takes note of this. But, if the two brothers, through the intervention of solicitors or some other reason, take up arms or go to law—which is another form of the exhibition of brute force—their doings would be immediately noticed in the press, they would be the talk of their neighbours, and would probably go down to history. And what is true of families and communities is true of nations. There is no reason to believe that there is one law for families and another for nations. History, then, is a record of an interruption of the course of nature. Soul-force, being natural, is not noted in history.
What, then, would you say to both the parties?
1. Real home-rule is self-rule or self-control.
2. The way to it is passive resistance: that is soul-force or love-force.
3. In order to exert this force, Swadeshi in every sense is necessary.
4. What we want to do should be done, not because we object to the English or that we want to retaliate, but because it is our duty to do so. Thus, supposing that the English remove the salt-tax, restore our money, give the highest posts to Indians, withdraw the English troops, we shall certainly not use their machine-made goods, nor use the English language, nor many of their industries. It is worth noting that these things are, in their nature, harmful; hence we do not want them. I bear no enmity towards the English, but I do towards their civilisation.
