Asian-Arab philosophical dialogues on globalization, democracy ...

4
Asia-<strong>Arab</strong> Philosophical Dialogues on Globalization, Democracy and Human Rights
The remedy proposed in Hind Swaraj for this state of affairs is precisely self-rule or “swaraj”—which does
not mean selfish rule or promotion of self-centered ambitions, but rather the ability to rein in such
ambitions for the benefit of the common good, that is, the good of all people. As Gandhi points out,
egocentrism or individual self-seeking is contrary not only to ethical and spiritual “rightness” (one sense
of dharma) but also to the teachings of practically all the great religions of the world—including (next
to Hinduism) Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism (he might have added Buddhism). What
all these religions try to teach us, he writes, is “that we should remain passive [or reticent] about worldly
pursuits and active about godly [or ethical] pursuits, that we should set a limit to our worldly ambition,
and that our religious [or dharmic] ambitions should be illimitable”. Despite differences of accent or
detail, all religions and ethical-spiritual paths can thus be seen as “different roads converging to the
same point”. In Gandhi’s terse formulation: “Civilization is that mode of conduct which points out to
human beings the path of duty. Performance of ethical duty . . . means to attain mastery over our mind
and our passions. In so doing, we come to know ourselves”. Even more importantly: in so doing, we
come to rule ourselves both as individuals and as people. The clear implication of this view is a new
understanding of democracy: in the sense not of the pursuit of individual or collective self-interest but
of a transformative popular self-rule (that is, rule of people over themselves) or swaraj: “It is swaraj when
we learn to rule ourselves”. 8
Although composed relatively early in his life (and during an arduous sea voyage from London to South
Africa), the basic tenets of Hind Swaraj remained firm guideposts during Gandhi’s mature years. Although
willing to revise minor details, he never disavowed his early text; in fact, he reconfirmed its central
argument on repeated occasions in subsequent years. A few examples should suffice to document this
continuity. In his “Constructive Program” submitted to the Indian National Congress in 1941, Gandhi
strongly reaffirmed his commitment to swaraj, explaining the meaning of the term as denoting
“complete independence through truth [satya] and non-violence [ahimsa]” and “without distinction of
race, color or creed”. A letter written to Jawaharlal Nehru a few years later made explicit reference to
the text of 1909, stating: “I have said that I still stand by the system of government envisaged in Hind
Swaraj”. In retrospect, what appeared to Gandhi as the central lesson of his book was the emphasis on
ethical self-rule and self-restraint, on a conception of individual and public agency performed within
the limits of rightness or truth (satya) and non-violent generosity toward others. The most dramatic
and direct application of the idea of swaraj came in his “Quit India” speech delivered in Bombay in 1942.
In that speech, Gandhi—now the leader of a nationwide “satyagraha” (civil resistance relying on “truth
power”)—contrasted his vision of Indian self-rule with the kind of freedom and political rulership found
in Britain and the Western world, saying:
I do not regard England, or for that matter America, as free countries. They are free after their own
fashion: free to hold in bondage the colored races of the earth. . . . According to my own interpretation
of that freedom, I am constrained to say: they are strangers to that freedom which their [own] poets and
teachers have described. 9
Profiled against dominant Western approaches, Gandhi’s idea of swaraj discloses a conception of
democracy—an ethical conception—sharply at variance with interest-based models of liberal or
libertarian democracy. Despite his fondness for Western writers like Ruskin, Thoreau, and Tolstoy,
Gandhi was not a radical individualist (in the modern “liberal” sense) ready to separate a vast arena
of private freedom from a narrowly circumscribed, perhaps minimalist, public-democratic domain.
Faithful to older <strong>philosophical</strong> traditions (both in India and the West), he preferred to stress a qualitative
distinction between modes of human and political conduct—a distinction that cannot readily collapsed
into modern private/public or internal/external polarities. Without blandly fusing individual and
society or subordinating one to the other, his thought was able to hold the two elements in fruitful,
perhaps tensional balance. This aspect is clearly shown in another letter Gandhi wrote to Nehru in
1945. Picking up Nehru’s suggestion regarding the importance of human and social development, he
fully agreed that it was crucial to “bring about man’s highest intellectual, economic, political and moral
development,” that is, the “flourishing” of all human abilities. The basic issue was how to accomplish this
goal. For Gandhi this was impossible without thorough attention to rightness (dharma) and without
8 Hind Swaraj, p. 42-43, 67, 73.
9 These and similar statements are collected in the “Supplementary Writings” attached by Parel to his edition of
Hind Swaraj, p. 149-150, 171, 185. The sources can be found in The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. New Delhi,
Government of India, 1958-1989, vol. 75, p. 146-147; vol. 76, p. 339-401; vol. 81, p. 319-321. By “their (own) poets and
teachers” Gandhi seems to refer to some of his favorite Western authors like Thoreau, Ruskin, and Tolstoy.