Hind Swaraj is Gandhi’s political, philosophical, and economic manifesto for the Indian Independence Movement. When he first wrote this book in 1909, Gandhi had been living in South Africa for more than 15 years and was virtually unknown in his native India. However, this would all change over the next decade, as his ideas became the driving philosophy behind the massive popular campaign to free India from British rule. In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi lays out these ideas through a dialogue between two characters: the editor, who represents Gandhi, and the reader, who represents Gandhi’s audience—mainly politically active, educated Indian professionals. Gandhi’s key message is that achieving independence, or Swaraj (home-rule), is not as simple as taking up arms and forcing the British out of India. Rather, he argues that Indians must win their independence through a method he calls satyagraha—which literally means “the force that comes from holding onto truth,” but is usually translated as “passive resistance” or “nonviolent civil disobedience.” Gandhi believes that satyagraha is the best way to overthrow the British colonial government because it draws its strength from morality, not weapons, and builds a democratic community through the very process of protest.
Gandhi first argues that armed rebellion, as proposed by extremists in the Indian National Congress, is not a viable strategy for Indians to win independence. Like many of these extremists, the reader argues that the British conquered India with military force, so Indians are justified in using the same to kick the British out. But Gandhi disagrees. First of all, Indians aren’t armed and simply don’t have the resources to fight a war. Notwithstanding these limits, Gandhi thinks that revenge is never an adequate reason to fight a war because it creates an endless cycle of escalation. If the Indians retaliate to British aggression by taking up arms, the British would retaliate disproportionately and become even more repressive. This means that taking up arms would likely only worsen Indians’ situation.
Similarly, when the reader proposes that a group of mercenaries should try to assassinate British officials and launch a coup, Gandhi points out that these mercenaries will then take over India’s government—at which point they are likely to be just as repressive and self-interested as the British. So Gandhi concludes that in India, armed revolution or guerrilla war would lead to “English rule without the Englishman.” In practical terms, he means that a revolution would just replace the repressive English government with a repressive Indian one. At its core, Gandhi’s argument against brute force is moral, not just practical: he thinks there is always an inherent connection between the means of action and the ends that those means produce. He compares this to the connection between a seed and the tree that grows from it. That means that using violence only breeds more violence. Therefore, to create a free and just society, Indians must fight with freedom and justice.
To meet this challenge, Gandhi proposes satyagraha—passive resistance, or nonviolent civil disobedience. He argues that passive resistance is the only free and just tool for protest, which means it’s the only legitimate strategy Indians can use to fight for independence from the repressive English government. Gandhi defines satyagraha as making the decision to follow moral laws rather than human ones. This means disobeying unjust laws imposed by the government. Satyagraha requires activists to accept the consequences the government imposes on them—even if they have to suffer or die for their beliefs. In the context of 20th-century colonial India, this means that Indians should live by the rules of their own religions and communities, while refusing to follow English laws. Although passive resistance is a simple concept, creating a satyagraha movement is not easy, because it requires deep moral courage. Violent resistance only requires bodily strength, Gandhi argues, but passive resistance requires the bodily strength to withstand physical violence, as well as an even greater mental and spiritual strength.
Passive resistance works, according to Gandhi, because it shows that the people consider the government illegitimate. Practically speaking, laws only constrain people if everybody follows them—either because they agree with them, or because they fear the consequences of breaking the law. But when people accept the consequences of unjust laws, these laws lose their power. This forces unjust governments into a moral dilemma: they either attack nonviolent protestors and further lose their legitimacy, or they acquiesce to the people’s demands. As a result, the satyagraha movement either proves the government’s illegitimacy—and wins even more support—or achieves its demands.
Ultimately, for Gandhi, satyagraha is not only an effective political strategy: it is also the deepest expression of human morality. Gandhi argues that the power behind satyagraha is the force of truth, love, and the soul—the same force that holds together the universe and the human race. When people protest nonviolently, they are declaring their commitment to building a better society—one that truly upholds their moral duties to one another. In fact, through passive resistance, they are actually fulfilling their moral duties to the community, because they choose to follow moral laws rather than the government’s laws. This means that passive resistance isn’t just a call for a more humane society: it’s also the means through which people build it. In other words, the organized community of nonviolent protestors is the new, humane, democratic society that will eventually replace the oppressive government.
Today, Gandhi’s concept of nonviolent civil disobedience is virtually synonymous with popular protest. But it can be easy to forget that this idea only gained widespread acceptance in the 20th century, in large part through the successful Indian Independence Movement. Ever since, Gandhi’s ideas have left an unmistakable mark on people’s struggles for democracy around the world, ranging from the American Civil Rights Movement and the South African Anti-Apartheid Movement to the Arab Spring.
Related Themes from Other Texts
Passive Resistance and Indian Independence ThemeTracker
Passive Resistance and Indian Independence 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.
This discontent is a very useful thing. So long as a man is contented with his present lot, so long is it difficult to persuade him to come out of it. Therefore it is that every reform must be preceded by discontent. We throw away things we have, only when we cease to like them. Such discontent has been produced among us after reading the great works of Indians and Englishmen. Discontent has led to unrest, and the latter has brought about many deaths, many imprisonments, many banishments. Such a state of things will still continue. It must be so. All these may be considered good signs, but they may also lead to bad results.
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.
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.
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.”
Your belief that there is no connection between the means and the end is a great mistake. Through that mistake even men who have been considered religious have committed grievous crimes. Your reasoning is the same as saying that we can get a rose through planting a noxious weed.
Real rights are a result of performance of duty; these rights they have not obtained. We, therefore, have before us in England the farce of everybody wanting and insisting on his rights, nobody thinking of his duty. And, where everybody wants rights, who shall give them to whom?
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.
Passive resistance is a method of securing rights by personal suffering; it is the reverse of resistance by arms. When I refuse to do a thing that is repugnant to my conscience, I use soul-force. For instance, the government of the day has passed a law which is applicable to me. I do not like it. If, by using violence, I force the government to repeal the law, I am employing what may be termed body-force. If I do not obey the law, and accept the penalty for its breach, I use soul-force. It involves sacrifice of self.
But a passive resister will say he will not obey a law that is against his conscience, even though he may be blown to pieces at the mouth of a cannon. What do you think? Wherein is courage required—in blowing others to pieces from behind a cannon or with a smiling face to approach a cannon and to be blown to pieces? Who is the true warrior—he who keeps death always as a bosom-friend or he who controls the death of others? Believe me that a man devoid of courage and manhood can never be a passive resister.
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.
