The state, understood as the legitimate supreme coercive authority of the political community, is an integral part of Gandhi’s political philosophy. Amajor goal of his political activities as a leader of the Indian nationalist movement had been the establishment of a sovereign coercive state for India. Without such a state, it would have been impossible to realize to the full his vision of political swaraj.

Not being a political philosopher in the formal sense, Gandhi did not write a treatise on the subject of the state. However, ideas relating to the state are found scattered in his writings. His two theoretical works, Hind Swaraj and Constructive Program, are of special importance here. The state is the focal point of Hind Swaraj. The work ultimately is about the sort of state that Gandhi wanted for India. The term swaraj, in the title Hind Swaraj, he translated as ‘home rule’ – a nineteenth-century term for the state that enjoyed self-government. What complicates matters for the reader is the fact that the book uses the terms waraj in a second sense, meaning ‘self-rule’ that the inner self enjoys or is capable of enjoying. Thus Hind Swaraj wants swaraj in both senses: it wants political swaraj in the sense of home rule for India and spiritual swaraj in the sense of inner ‘self-rule’ for Indians. The focal point of Constructive Programme is Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) of civil society. However, the general thesis of the work is that the NGOs should work in tandem with the state. The state therefore is taken for granted here.

The reader of this volume will have encountered many Gandhis. They have ranged chronologically from the boy growing up in conservative, Western India, under British imperial rule; to the diffident student in London and failed lawyer in Bombay; to the self-taught activist, public figure, and lawyer in South Africa; and finally to the influential leader of the Indian nationalist movement who was also, uniquely and surprisingly, the founder of several ashram communities, which he considered to be his best work and where he tried to work out the core elements of his spiritual vision of the good human life in the pursuit of Truth. The reader will also have encountered different aspects of Gandhi’s life and thinking, including his developing ideas on the nature of politics, the state and the nature of the Indian nation, his wrestling with a range of acute human problems as they were manifested in Indian society, and his attempts to envisage an economic foundation for moral human lives and societies. Undergirding all of these aspects of his life and thought was his particular understanding of the nature of true religion, and his passionate quest for Truth as the underlying principle of all life, as another name for a divine force that addressed him personally and prompted his actions.

Furthermore, it is evident that during and after Gandhi’s life, people appropriated him and his image, thereby creating further ‘Gandhis’. Many groups and individuals have understood him in the framework of their pre-existing ideas, used him to forward their own agendas, or found him an inspiration for change in situations he never encountered himself. We know, for example, that while he was alive, and particularly during the years he was a major leader in India and increasingly known as a Mahatma, peasant groups understood him as a miracle worker, as a semi-divine saviour, but also used his image as a means of coercion and local discipline using moral assumptions already present in their worlds.

The attainment of independence was no ordinary turning point in Indian history. It marked, according to Nehru’s celebrated ‘Tryst with Destiny’ speech of 15 August 1947, the end of an age and the beginning of a new one. Gandhi, more than any other Indian, had contributed to this transition. His contributions were made during the pre-independent period (he lived only for six months into independence). They had their sources in his struggle against colonial rule and in his deeply cherished aspirations for the future of his country.

There are two ways of looking at Gandhi’s contributions to independent India. One is to look at them as norms by which to evaluate India’s fortunes over the last six decades. The other is to use the fortunes of independent India to test the empirical viability of his contributions. Both approaches are relevant to the present discussion.

Of the numerous contributions that he has made to India, the following are the more significant. First, there is his idea of India as an inclusive nation – ek-praja (‘one-nation’) as he called it. Second, there is his scheme of building a nonviolent social order in a country rent for centuries by violence originating in caste, gender, and religious differences. Third, there is his approach to solving the problem of India’s chronic poverty and his doubts about the suitability of the nineteenth-century type of industrialization.

GANDHI TO TOLSTOY

4 April 1910

Johannesburg

Dear Sir,

You will recollect my having carried on correspondence with you whilst I was temporarily in London. As a humble follower of yours, I send you herewith a booklet which I have written. It is my own translation of a Gujarati writing. Curiously enough, the original writing has been confiscated by the Government of India. I, therefore, hastened the above publication of the translation. I am most anxious not to worry you, but, if your health permits it and if you can find the time to go through the booklet, needless to say I shall value very highly your criticism of the writing. I am sending also a few copies of your Letter to a Hindoo, which you authorised me to publish. It has been translated into one of the Indian languages also.

I am,

Your obedient servant,

M. K. Gandhi.

(Source: CW 10: 210)

TOLSTOY TO GANDHI

8 May 1910

Yasnaya Polyana

Dear Friend,

I just received your letter and your book Indian Home Rule.

I read your book with great interest because I think that the question you treat in it – the passive resistance – is a question of the greatest importance not only for India but for the whole humanity.

I could not find your former letters, but came across your biography by J. Doss [Doke] which too interested me much deeply and gave me the possibility to know and understand you better.

reader: You tell me that, when two men quarrel, they should not go to a law court. This is astonishing.

editor: Whether you call it astonishing or not, it is the truth. And your question introduces us to the lawyers and the doctors. My firm opinion is that the lawyers have enslaved India, and they have accentuated the Hindu–Mahomedan dissensions, and have confirmed English authority.

reader: It is easy enough to bring these charges, but it will be difficult for you to prove them. But for the lawyers, who would have shown us the road to independence? Who would have protected the poor? Who would have secured justice? For instance, the late Mr Manomohan Ghose defended many a poor man free of charge. The Congress, which you have praised so much, is dependent for its existence and activity upon the work of the lawyers. To denounce such an estimable class of men is to spell justice injustice, and you are abusing the liberty of the press by decrying lawyers.

editor: At one time I used to think exactly like you. I have no desire to convince you that they have never done a single good thing. I honour Mr Ghose's memory. It is quite true that he helped the poor. That the Congress owes the lawyers something is believable. Lawyers are also men, and there is something good in every man.

I have written some chapters on the subject of Indian Home Rule which I venture to place before the readers of Indian Opinion. I have written because I could not restrain myself. I have read much, I have pondered much, during the stay, for four months in London of the Transvaal Indian deputation. I discussed things with as many of my countrymen as I could. I met, too, as many Englishmen as it was possible for me to meet. I consider it my duty now to place before the readers of Indian Opinion the conclusions, which appear to me to be final. The Gujarati subscribers of Indian Opinion number about 800. I am aware that, for every subscriber, there are at least ten persons who read the paper with zest. Those who cannot read Gujarati have the paper read to them. Such persons have often questioned me about the condition of India. Similar questions were addressed to me in London. I felt, therefore, that it might not be improper for me to ventilate publicly the views expressed by me in private.

These views are mine, and yet not mine. They are mine because I hope to act according to them. They are almost a part of my being. But, yet, they are not mine, because I lay no claim to originality. They have been formed after reading several books. That which I dimly felt received support from these books.