Teachings form Communist manifesto

Is fiction really the metaphor of truth or has been someway related with making of truth.
The discussion will be based on work of fiction named “Communist Manifesto” written by Karl Marx and Fedrick Angels.

Is fiction really the metaphor of truth or has fiction really helped in building the truth of various times? Does the truth change with time? Well this essay is about a fictional work whose depiction of truth has passed the test of time. This is the essay on a work that has been interpreted differently by different people at different times and has been the force behind making history and thus making it the truth of that time.

This book is Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Fredrick Angels. This book has been part of many revolutionary movements of all times. Its effects have given rise to many philosophies like those of Leninism, Maoism, Marxism, Naxal movements etc. This book has been part of many philosophical movements around the world.


This is about the writings of Karl Marx in his book communist manifesto. This is an effort to understand the effect of this fiction as a metaphor of truth of our times. Does it really resemble the truth of our times? Does it answer all the problems of class struggle that we see today which is quite different from the class struggles of the time of Marx? This is an effort to link how human understanding of the society to the various class struggles that are quite visible today.
I do not want to say that I just want to speak about the communism. This is not about communism which according to the general conception has failed but something other that Communist Manifesto focused on, that is the struggle between the classes namely the Bourgeois and Proletarians classes and what are the various forms of class struggle that is possible.

The basic assumption that I would like to make in the whole essay is that India today can be said to be under Industrial revolution. We are a developing nation, so all our understanding about a developed nation specifies that the nation should be industrially developed. So the essay will always keep in mind this fact and the classes that I talk of are those that generate due to this industrial revolution.

This essay is an effort to answer many questions that come in my mind when I think about India and the conditions that we live in. It is an effort to view synthetically the changes in the society due to various socio-economic factors and also an effort to transcend time and try to understand the effect of these in the future of India.

The question is will communist manifesto be able to pass the test when I try to understand whether its understanding about class struggles really fits into the Indian economic situation. To do so I will put forward a list of questions in which I will be discussing the various points raised in the book. I will also try to see the fact that how much has the book really effected India till now.

As Communist Manifesto is such a vast topic to discuss, so I will just take one section of the whole book and discuss how that work of fiction really metaphors the truth of our times.

1. Bourgeois and Proletarians

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.




Well let me define the struggles in our life. The question is do we really struggle as per fictional definition of struggle used in communist manifesto. It is a well acclaimed fact that it is very easy to lose hope in this nation. Most of us after seeing little failure easily lose hope and the society structure is such that it easily accepts these people. Now the situation is that most of the people are like this. These people just try to adjust and compromise with the situation and this has become part of the culture.

It is also said that Indian society has a structure that does not accepts failure. People are so afraid of failure that they prevent themselves from trying anything. So what actually is the result of such a structure where people do not want to do anything much adventurous is that the society does not show much advancement. This society is not able to grow, improve. it just implodes to become a society that is at the mercy of some political structure and not social structure. This society breeds contempt among each other that slowly and slowly breaks the whole society into many smaller parts that are in it is unstable. These smaller parts are unwilling to do something for the whole society but are in a watch to control the socio-economic structure of the society through hook and crook or through political means.

Now those parts that due to social conditions could not take control of the socio economic condition losses hope in the whole structure and bow down to being someone who is always trying either to move out of the society and settle somewhere or to live like a slave the entire life. But they do not struggle against the dominant classes.

Why is the reason so? The simple reason may be that we do not know how to struggle. We from our childhood have been taught to accept the entire situation and try to do better in the existing system. If you feel it is wrong do not try to change it but learn to give excuses to be able to settle in this structure. The biggest example of this fact is that we have not changed anything even ourselves from the time of Britishers. But thanks to their contributions or we would have been like an African nation at the mercy of others. I am not saying that we are not developing but we are developing at the genes of British India and we have not developed something of ours own much. We have been following their rules their laws, I am not saying that is wrong but the mere thing that there had been quite little social reforms after Britishers left tell the story.

I also would like to add that here the class struggle also comprises of the so called caste struggle that had been part of the Indian system since ages. Most of the people find it wrong but apart from some reforms that had been there during the British rule there has been no such effort to change the system. We actually are so busy in settling down in the system that we do not have time to change the system and thus the whole structure remains the same. I may be wrong in saying so as the reservation criteria may have been an effort but I see no results of this reform.

Here I don’t refer to the caste system that is part of the society but one must see how this issue has been badly politicized. See most political parties are breeding on these type of concepts and the concerns for them is growing with time and surely these people act as if they take the entire responsibility of the atrocities that had been done by their ancestors which surely sounds like a bolt from the blue seeing their political motives.


Now I would also like to add a new form of class struggle. This is the class struggle that has just been here because of the part played by some political moves. Now there is some sort of class struggle that is different from the struggle that is the result of suppression but some sort of struggle that is the result of uneven opportunities in the society. Well I do not say that I support the point of survival of the fittest as it is a somehow failed concept but I would consider such a move directly opposite to this quotation. Now how successful is this move only time will tell. What actually the result of such moves is that the political organization stamps a groups as proletariats on the basis of there caste structure and some groups bourgeois. They may not be actually what they are stamped but become some preconceived notion about that class and this .

But still the struggle against such move by the so called suppressed class effected by this move will be minimal and most of the people who find this wrong will not even stand against this. Why is this so? Well the reason may be that after so many years of being slave we just have got the habit of being tamed by someone. Most of the people do not want to do something on their own but to follow someone to prosperity of their own but nothing for the society of the country.

This type of structure actually people do not struggle as we have been fed from our childhood that there is nothing as such as wrong in the system. There is a famous quotation that “whatever happens, happens for the good” depicts the behaviour of most of the people of this class towards anything in the life.

In the book Karl marx referred to a term called proletariat and bourgeoisie. What words of Karl
“ In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital , is developed , in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed - a class of laborers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital. These laborers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.”



Now let me change the point of discussion by looking at a higher level of abstraction. Who actually are the bourgeois of Indian society in strict terms? In terms that is well understood keeping apart the caste issues. Who are those classes who are expected to bring in changes in the Indian society? Are we the educated class is the bourgeois of the society? Well let us assume that this is somewhat quite appropriate to say as we are the ones who are expected to bring in that change. Well are we doing so or there are some other forces that actually control the whole structure of the class here too.


To put in my point that we the educated class are the bourgeois of Indian society I would like to quote the following example. "It is quite visible throughout the freedom struggle of India that students have tried to bring in changes in the society. Take the freedom fighters, most of whom were just college going students be it Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev or take the cases of those students who actually took part in the Jaiprakash movement after Independence.


But there are some doubts. Now the conditions have changed. Student’s involvement in such type of activities has tremendously gone down. Politics is a hated term in most colleges. Press is not even skeptical of colleges doing anything. Even police thinks that the college students are some sort of people who are easy to be tamed as is witnessed by incident in DAIICT where students were all the students were badly beaten by the cops while they were attending a party.


On second thought question arises, are this class of people even realize this fact that they are the bourgeoisies of the Indian society and they are expected to bring change in the society. I hope not. What I interpret from this situation is something very much different. Among the first questions that puts serious doubts about this class is, why even after 50 years of existence of IIT’s not much of an R&D has been done and it has been quite a visible thing that IITs are supplying engineers to the west to serve the people out there. Why has not IITs done much for this country. Why is the case such, well is it the case that there are not many intelligent students in these institutes. I think not as they have shown great entrepreneurship outside the country but why not in India.

What actually I interpret the case is that most of the students in the institute come with the motivation of getting jobs. Well I consider them to be the Proletarians. But these proletariats are actually controlling the few bourgeois that are left in this system. They actually control them in such a way that the bourgeois are not allowed to do any change and the system becomes more or less suitable to the proletariats as they have the skill to adopt to the system.

This is the unique case in India that proletarians have been on top of the bourgeois or in some way the political structure support them for their own benefits. In most places the system only breeds opportunity for the existence of the proletariats and the bourgeois are someway suppressed. Most bourgeois are either compelled to bow down or move out of the system. This becomes a very difficult place to bring in some change.

Now discuss the case with Indian politics. Well most of the people are aware of the reservation related issues in Indian Diaspora. Well now that the point of bringing in 49% reservation can be consider as a political attempt to bring in the proletariats control the bourgeois. This will only lead to another form of class struggle that will be quite widespread.

Again change the point of discussion to the system that exists in India. “Francis Fukuyama quoted democracy as the end of history.”

What has democracy given to India? I would like to quote something what I feel about the present status of India- “We do not really know or interested in controlling population growth but I surely can say that we really know how to control this population and democracy is the answer to how we control them.”. We control the population by presenting a form of democracy that justifies the existence of everything, even the greatest of crimes to the greatest of humanitarian activities. There are rules that actually form the part of the games that government play, take the present reservation policies. The democratic structure is purely on an experimental platform but has reached such a state that going back is impossible. This structure has shown enough defeats than success, take it the case of failure in many wars in the past and inability to take decision or make comment on the global level. Take the case of India’s failure to comment on Iraq’s issue or intelligence and political failure at Kargil etc. quite specifies the mindset developed due to this form of democracy.

The first thing that comes out of the democracy that India boosts of is the inability to express oneself. Expressing oneself needs words and the words need languages, and languages are generated through the literary pieces of work that the citizens of the nation write. It is quite a visible that the amount of political literature that Indian citizens have provided after Independence is quite low. Literature on cases like Operation Blue star or IPKF in Sri Lanka or 1971 war are even not available then how one expects literature on issues like the naxalite movements or Ulfa movements will be available. Most literature that are there are either politically manipulated or giving the top level facts and nothing more.

Take another case, the Indian democracy that is so lenient and tolerable was able to absorb crimes on humanity like Babri Masjid Demolition and the riots that followed it or the Gujarat Riots quite easily. How is this possible, is it this democracy for humanity or human sentiments. Such philosophies are even not clear even today. Only sentiments flow but no one discusses the consequences.

Has history been made while one demolishes Babri Masjid or Mumbai blasts or many Hindus being killed on some day? No we do not see this as history, as a reason for some new events but see this as a politically motivated and we do not want to find the cure of the solution, we just scratch the wounds to make it fresher and greener in the present minds. Those events are not seen as an historical movement that changed something but are actually seen as shame and a thing to be forgotten of. No one discusses the reason behind those events and such events are waiting to start again to go down in history as a day to be forgotten of.


Coming back to the point that I discussed earlier, what actually I mean to say of controlling the population, I must ask one to have a look at the structure of society again through a different view. What we see is that the term perfection and perusing perfection is greatly prevalent in this society. But what actually is perfection we don’t know. Actually we look at the past for this purpose and so come to conclusion that we cannot be as perfect as our ancestors were, but we do not know what those perfections were. So this way we find excuse to be as perfect as they were and just excel in one field and totally neglecting the other things. This is how we bring in differences between different people and there come struggle. Now as there are only chosen few who actually are expected to do things then class struggle is the core of this society. Why is engineer not expected to play sports, why is some who excels in arts or music suppressed and brought into the realms of engineers and doctors. Well what is the reason for this?


The reason for this is how our society stereotypes everything for its existence. We actually stereotype everything that exists and all the skills that persist and it becomes very much difficult to change the stereotype that one has. Slowly and slowly corruption has become a stereotype. English had a stereotype that Indians are the people who could be made slaves and that stereotype exists within us that we should be tamed. There are stereotypes about how to treat different classes in India. Also there are stereotype of behaviour of some different classes. So actually in this situation it takes great ditch of effort to bring in change in the society as stereotype of someone doing this is very less.

There is one more point that I will like to add. The difference between the classes comes in the way how we see our own people. How the bourgeoisie class in India starts to see their own citizens that is those of the proletariat class and the other classes. Well what has been a common experience in the way most people see and treat the poor or the helpless? The treat them as if they are the foreigners to the system and do not want to improve their status. These people see the bourgeoisie as enemies and try to become someone like them. They do struggle against the horrifying circumstances to come at par with them but most of them do not actually struggle against the class for all the ill treatments. Slowly they are accustomed to such behaviors. Well is this something that was gifted by the Britishers or something that is because of our cultural heritage that I do not know.

But it is not the feeling of being foreigner to the system must change. This is new type of class that emerges out of this is someone who hates this bourgeoisie class and will try to become someone of their stature but will not be so poetic and artistic a bourgeoisie must be as they are the ones who are expected to bring change in the society. Well I suppose that is why doctors and engineers are the most sought after professions as these are the people who become someone who can act as some stereotype of the bourgeoisie and this have left people like painters and artists and writers someway back.


I believe that the bourgeoisie class has been quite influential in Indian society. How much influential they are in positive sense is somewhat controversial. Well I would like to quote some examples that briefly explain what I am saying.

First thing that I would like to address is the state of DA-IICT, one of the leading institutes of India or so called that it is by one of the leading business houses of India. But here still the effort is to provide them with a way to get to jobs and teach them mostly job oriented knowledge and of course here also no research goes on just producing a breed of engineers who work to be over the inflation rate of India.

We have BCCI which is the richest board in World but or god sake tell me it is just involved in giving the cricketers great sum of money but is not in any way involved in coaching of the individuals of the country. This is very confusing. Well with so much money they just try to make the life of few cricketers wealthy as these activities do lots of marketing for them which generates more money.

What I think the need of the hour is to building character of the nation than doing some confusing stuffs. Well someone said that nation’s character is showed by the sports they play. Well we are poor at sports so are in character. According to me if a society that starts respecting sports and games then it becomes quite more simplified and provides humble space for growth as sports are the places that depict a true class less struggle towards a common goal which is the need of hour of the proletariats to do something.


Now I just talk about the marketing policy of India in this respect. Whatever happens here one keeps in mind the profit that comes in. Take for example we are always talking of jam packed trains and jam packed buses but have we anytime ever thought why don’t we have these things before hand so the public may feel enough comfortable. No we do not think in this way. If we had thought that way then we could have healthy living conditions but we are used to being slaves so like living like slaves.

This situation adds another class to the bourgeoisie in this society. Well it is the working class that controls the market. Well what I see at the present scenario the top company policies are all market oriented. Tell me how much research goes in these companies or how much research they sponsor in the institutes that are there in India so that living can be improved by setting examples to the world. No they are only service providers and are trying to redefine the structure of the Indian society as per their requirements so that they can make profit. Most of them do not make any effort to bring in the lower classes at some level.

Another example: Most of the pioneer institutes are busy in giving just grade based education so that most of us after getting some grade can just pick up the job and then live a peaceful life. Students come in to get grades and if they get good grades through hook or crook then they are happy and then get jobs and live a life happily ever after.

We have an in-depth ability to discriminate or classify and attach status symbol to people around us. Take it how we discriminate everything from the very beginning. The scope of excelling has been to a so limited and so distinguished that it becomes a cut throat competition out there. So in this situation people have reservations about the type of jobs and thus this creates a social inequality.


Now I would like to quote some of the lines of the book communist manifesto and try to understand those conditions if true in India.


This organization of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently, into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus, the Ten-Hours Bill in England was carried.


This is somewhat not common in India. But one can quote the Bhirsha Munda movement or the Chipko movement or the Bhudaan movement or the Narmada Bachao Andolan as examples of how the proletariats grouped themselves to form a great and effective struggle.

But in this case these proletariats use the divisions among the bourgeoisie class for there benefits. For example in most of these movements many social reformers actually came in to work for the rights of these people and bring in an unexpected change in the whole system.

This is true that these examples are very few. Most of us can also relate the strike in industries to this. But I would like to say that most of the strikes are for increasing wages to match the inflation level, an example of the indifference to liberty issues and also in these case most of the strikes are stereotyped as people coming and shouting slogans against the system and in some cases violently.

Slowly and slowly the bourgeoisie have been able to control these types of grouping by various means and privatization has also led to blinding of these people to the different aspects of life and just work as slaves do.



The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all time with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for help, and thus to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie.

This type of phenomenon in Indian Diaspora is quite complex. Of course for political mightiness bourgeoisie has made use of many people from the proletariats, but their role has somewhat been different.

Leading proletariats has categorically somewhat similar in India. These bourgeoisie classes have mostly misled them to serve their own business and needs. They actually tried to use the imperfections in the social structure to their benefit. The examples where the bourgeoisie classes have led them to a philosophical or social revolt are quite few.

Mostly these people fight for the cause that they do not understand which is quite similar to how slaves act. Though there are examples of something coming out of sound revolutions but mostly blind policies have led to disturbances in this structure.


Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a genuinely revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.

Well the question arises are we really trying to let the other classes decay and finally disappear. Now there are efforts to prevent the so called tribals roots. There have been efforts from many foreign bodies like UNICEF to prevent these classes. In order to prevent them from so called exploitation they are prevented to come in terms with the industrial revolution. So these classes are in some way deprived of the mere understanding of the industrial revolution.

And now suddenly there is a urge to bring in some of the people from these classes to be associated with normal industrial classes but methods such as reservation policies. Now this urge is on the basis that they are the classes that had been exploited for many generations. So they bring in some of them at par with the modern industrial class.

These few people who are enthroned by the fanciness of the industrial revolution somehow instead of becoming a bourgeoisie himself become a proletariat. They mostly lack the jest to do something. The main reason is the absence of struggle on their part.

But there are some of them who use such opportunities as an effort to bring changes to there class. But what type of change can they bring. Their class cannot retain its basic structure and in the force of globalization, such classes disappear and slowly slowly most of them become the proletariats.

These people slowly under the influences of the bourgeoisie will learn to fight for their rights and thus become a genuinely revolutionary class that the proletariats represent.



Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

This struggle has taken a national face today. If one considers that the class struggle as the so called caste struggle, it has been part of the history of India. The rate at which the Naxalite activities are growing in India is quite an example of how the castes have struggled at the national levels.

But there is another angle to this type of assumptions. As what actually is witnessed in this country that the situation of the proletariats class is not improving but they are mostly rejected from the scene. The bourgeoisie class actually does not pay attention to such struggles until they seriously pose problem to the social structure which is necessary for survival of the bourgeoisie class.



The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an overriding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.


This has been discussed mostly in this essay. The pauperism has increased to such level that the society has broken into various strands. After years of discrimination of these people a condition has come that nothing much could be done in this respect now and so most of them have lost hope in this system. So this has resulted people to upsurge against the bourgeoisie class and thus in most cases like the Naxal movements are overriding the law by doing an arms struggle against the bourgeoisie which has lead to instability in the system.


Well to end this, what I would like to say that this peace of fiction “Communist Manifesto” so beautifully explains the truth of India today. Or to add to it this book actually has resulted in framing the truth in India in someway. The Naxal movement is direct affect of the philosophies of that book that justifies arm struggle.

Of course this book justifies my point that fiction is not the metaphor of truth of that era but some work of fiction actually have resulted in making truth of that era and has transverse time to become truth of many eras to come.

I just call to say wether I love him or hate him

Me and Gandhi

This essay is about what I think of Gandhi and why. This is in a dialogue form and explains some of the facts that sometimes disturb me about Gandhi.
So the discussion starts--

Me: The overall attitude that Gandhi showed in tackling with the Britisher’s didn’t provide a healthful lesson to the people of India. I do not think that the way that he followed would provide any fruitful result in present day. You cannot submit to anyone like this because now a day one is witnessing how the helpless people are crushed. Take the case of Israel, how it has been taking actions against the Palestine’s to safeguard ones own security. And also look at what the people of Palestine is doing to safeguard its own independence. Take the similar case in India. India has suffered the same form of militancy for over two decades now from Pakistani side. What has it done, always talking about peace and friendship with Pakistan, never has been a firm step taken against it. China attacked from behind the veil of friendship. Isn’t it the gandhivadian attitude being responsible for no leader taking step against them.

Myself: this is not at all true. What you speak of is right but there is another perspective though which you must see. Palestine crisis is not going to solve in the present future. The hatred that the Palestinian people have generated against Israelis will last for many decades. There is much blood bath to take place. The way that U.S is waving war for oil will also have its own consequences, one of the examples we see is downing of the world trade center. The way that India has coped with the problem of militancy is different, first of all you must know that India was never favored over Pakistan by the western countries. So India was not able to take any firm step against Pakistan. Secondly the way in which India has acted has resulted in generation of respect for the country.

Me: Gandhi has always stressed on religious solutions for the welfare of the society and improve the way of living. This is quite visible today that the religious bodies are only providing havoc on the people of the society. See what the sangh parivar has been doing in India, is this that what Gandhi wanted. No this results in riots and oppression of the weaker sections.

Myself: you are absolutely wrong about this. This is not what Gandhi said about using religion for the refinement of the society. Let me explain in other perspective other than the situation in India. Take the two countries US and Russia. They are superpowers, but there is a great difference between these two societies. The Russian society is seeking religion for solving the problems in the society, on the other hand the American society is far of from this. The difference seems to be clear here. In Russian society despite of being very poor as compared to the American counterpart are far better of in understanding of human values, the family holds a respectable place in this part while on the other hand in the American society breakage of families is quite a visible thing.



Me: the other thing that is what the attitude that Gandhi showed to the partition of Bengal was also not right. At that time no serious efforts were taken against it. He writes in hindswaraj that Bengal will be reunited after the British leadership had gone, in this he failed to estimate that the seeds of the Hindu Muslim inequality was laid down now which slowly engulfed India. He then also kept on giving petitions.

Myself: The way Gandhi acted does not mean what you think. It was Gandhi who was instrumental in stopping the riots between the Muslims and Hindus. But at the time he was not a great political leader so his comment does not say what he really means. He was always against these riots and laid his life for preventing this.

Me: Gandhi says that English are enterprising and says that this is not the way one must be. Gandhi in his comment says that one must not ask for earthly possessions but try for godly pursuits. Let’s take the case in the present context. Let you try this thing out, how on earth not being enterprising can help you to do some thing for country. Some one has to help others to fill their stomachs. Now everyone cannot be Gandhi or Vinoba Bhabe and the other interesting fact is that both took the help of entrepreneurs in some way or other in fulfilling their dreams. Also how can a country develop without the help of entrepreneurs and the people who think ahead.


Myself: This is really a very tricky question. But you have taken it the other way, how can one do these things when you know that he himself was a professional lawyer and a great entrepreneur too. He said this in comparison with the Britishers and says that too much of want of power is not a good thing if you respect humans. One can clearly witness what America is doing for the want of oil. Is it they who want the oil or something else.

Me: I do not understand why when the non corporation movement was moving at full fledged, Gandhi pulled it of. Think about the people who had taken part in the movement against the British rule. Many lost what they had. The movement was going in full pace when an event of not such an high intensity of what happened in chouri-chaura resulted in Gandhi calling of the movement. After that he left the political scene for many years. This left most of the people helpless and congress without a leader was rendered to be a useless institute.

Myself: you may be right but this is not as easy as it seems. Let the event would have been left to be continued. There would have been many such attacks on the British rule but this would have given rise to a new problem. There would have been emergence of new leaders in many parts of the country and different strategies that they have used would only result in weakening of the massive movement and in such a case a full fledged movement will not be possible for some time. The other thing is that once the civilians pick arm against the administration they will also do the same once an administration in Indian hands will come in place. This may result in civil rights that may have engulfed the country which was mostly witnessed by other nations that became independent along with India. You can say that it was because of Gandhi there was no such an action against any government and today one can say that here democracy is among the best in the world.

Me: It has been said that Gandhi because of his rivalry with people like Bhagat Singh and Shubash Chandra Bose has tried to remove them from the path. Some say that he even had the chance to save the life of Bhagat Singh but didn’t do anything.

Myself: I do not really know the truth behind these but the thing is that way they were operating was not right for the nation. Subhash Chandra Bose was trying the military way out. This was not a good idea as this would have resulted in increase in violence as the after affects. Also a war torn nation is not what one likes. Bhagat Singh was also somewhat of this approach.

These are some of the views that come to my mind. I do not think that the contradictions are up to the mark. But these things really say that I have not fully understood what Gandhi really was. I cannot think the way he used to think but certainly his ideas seem to impress me after all we are proud of Gandhi.

The Salt Satyagraha

The Salt Satyagraha

The Salt Satyagraha movement was one of the most defining moments of The Indian freedom Struggle. It was one rare time in which the whole of the India was united in a common cause; the struggle, though non-violent, had gained such a tremendous intensity that ultimately culminated in the freedom of our country from the British. In this essay, we shall have a glimpse of how the Salt Satyagraha was initiated and how it became a national movement.

The Salt tax imposed by the British came upon like a huge blow upon the Indian mass. Salt, which had always been traditionally manufactured, had now to be purchased. The British rule stating that the sale or production of salt by anyone other than the British Government was a criminal offence, outraged the Indian mass. The fact that one has to pay money and taxes for salt while it was abundantly available in India struck the poor people of India, many of whom used to earn their living mainly by manufacturing salt.

The Salt Satyagraha also gave Mohandas Gandhi a proper platform to communicate with the Indian mass, which had been a long standing problem in the country’s freedom movement. Since all the people in India had been affected by the Salt Laws, the people no longer hesitated to come forward to join the movement, since technically; they had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

In an effort to amend the Salt Tax without breaking it, Mohandas Gandhi appealed to the Viceroy Lord Irwin on March 2^nd pleading with him to amend the law. He had also added that if his request went unheeded then, Gandhi, along with the co-workers of the Sabarmati Ashram “to disregard the provisions of the Salt Law”.

On receiving no reply to his requests Gandhi made an evening speech at The Sabarmati Ashram, to a group of more than ten thousand listeners. He had anticipated that the British would first arrest him, but then he had already chosen Jawaharlal Nehru and Sarojini Naidu, as the leaders.

The historic march commenced on the very next day, i.e. on 12^th of March. Gandhi started out with about seventy nine followers from the Sabarmati Ashram, and the group enlarged rapidly as more and more people came forward to join him in the ranks. At one point the entire procession ranged over more than two miles on the road. After the exhausting march two hundred and forty miles for twenty four days, Gandhi and his followers reached Dandi, a small seaside place on the west coast of India. The night when they arrived in Dandi was spent in fasting and prayer. Early in the next morning, Gandhi alone walked out to the sea, and picked up a handful of mud and salt mixture. That mixture was then boiled in sea water to produce that very commodity that every Indian was banned to produce – salt.

It was as if a signal was sent up through out the country, a signal that the entire nation was waiting for with bated breath. On receiving Gandhi’s clarion call, millions of people came forward to join him in that violation of that Salt Law. Soon salt was being produced illegally all over the country and almost all the Indians were buying them. Soon the British Government swooped into action. One night, when Gandhi and a few of his followers were sleeping under a mango tree, a group of heavily armed police force came suddenly and arrested Gandhi. As per the orders of Gandhi, Sarojini Naidu, Jawaharlal Nehru and the other prominent leaders of the country took over the leadership of the Salt Satyagraha.

This movement against the British was one of the finest demonstrations of defiance without violence. At the heavily protected salt depots, the volunteer groups would come; and row upon row of unarmed satyagrahis would advance towards the salt depot. The police force would then advance upon them and beat that unarmed group mercilessly with steel covered truncheons. The satyagrahis would moan with pain and collapse with broken limbs and shoulders, yet none of them even raised a hand to defend themselves from the merciless onslaught of the British.

There was another effect of the Salt Satyagraha – the launch of the civil disobedience movement. This movement called for a total boycott of all the government institutions and called for people to violate all government rules. This movement soon died down due to the arrest of the prominent leaders and the eruption of communal violence in the different parts of the country.

The Salt Satyagraha failed to achieve its objective: neither the Salt Laws were relaxed and nor were the atrocities against the Indians stopped. However the movement has its own significance; it was indeed the stepping stone to a mass revolution that would lead to our freedom from the British

Hind Swaraj – an Analysis

Hind Swaraj – an analysis

To turn to Hind Swaraj, after a full seventy-six years after its writing, must connote more than an intellectual curiosity to know what a "crank, prophet, genius, human. . ." in Mahadevan’s words. Hindi Swaraj is a book written by Gandhi saying about what he thinks that must be done to free India or in other words what is the solution to the problem of British rule or analyzing whether it is really a problem.

So lets start from the way Gandhi started taking about what really Swaraj is.
Gandhi in the starting of the book speaks about congess and its role in India. Gandhi speaks about the importance or more substantially the presence as a national party. He stresses on the role played by various leaders who played the role in preparing India or in other words increasing the maturity level of the people of the country towards a rule which does not rope itself from its liberty. This gives the foundation for the home rule and also the way in which this is to be amended. The congress accepted the constitution of Canada. He also says that the foundation of home rule was also laid down by India.

In hind-Swaraj Gandhi says that the partition of Bengal was the factor that was really responsible for coming up of people for home rule. This was the reason that India was awakened against the Britishers and started the real fight against them.

Gandhi says after India got awakened against the British, everybody needed to free themselves but how, was the real question . From here starts the great debate about the way that this has to be done. He says many like the way the British rule us and also like the law and order of the British people but nobody wants them. Well it is the best to keep the most knowledgeable and Britishers are the best in their rules. So why on earth should we remove Britisher. How can we be so selfish wanting the rule but not the ruler. This is practically the most impossible of all tasks. So what to be done and how to be done is the real question or what really what the country needs.

Gandhi says that we take the British law or in other words proclaim the British parliament. so the parliament that is to be followed is the British parliament. But on the contrary Gandhi says that the British parliament is actually a malfunctioning machine. He thinks parliament is the most costly toy for any nation. He says that parliament has not done much for the nation.

Gandhi also stresses the importance of newspaper in providing for the view of the government. He says that a biased newspaper will only affect in changing the views of the people now and then and this is utterly dangerous for democracy. He also stresses that in England for the sake of power people do anything, but this is not possible in India as the people of India are not as selfish as the English ones. If so happens most of the people would be roped of their basic rights.

Swaraj: What Gandhi intended “Real home-rule is self-rule or self-control.” Gandhi describes not what he thinks Swaraj really is, but rather what he thinks Swaraj really isn’t. The “Reader” takes what Gandhi says and tries to paraphrase what Gandhi’s definition of Swaraj is, but is entirely unsuccessful. Gandhi also admits to the Reader that “all Indians are impatient to obtain Swaraj, but we are certainly not decided as to what it is.”







In the next part he analyses what actually is the condition of India and what can be done to do something.

In this he writes the most important thing that he had witnessed in his life. He says that the modern civilization has a terrible effect on India. the people of India have moved away from religion . By saying so he means that the people are moving away from god and are searching for worldly possessions which are not what religions teach.

Another important comment that he adds in this context is that religious superstitions that kills many is far more better than the modern civilization. In modern civilization one losses himself in the way in his life. His mind is agog of what to do and what not to do. If one is not religiously bound he is sure to commit sin without the play of conscience.

he describes civilization as a patient who is about to die but being consolidated by the doctor. The same way the civilization sooths one while it is killing. Another interesting fact that he adds to this is the believe of the Europeans that India is a not a nation as a whole but distributed between different sects. This is not so, he says that Indians feel more of oneness as compared to the English. Supporting this he says that dividing India was not the right thing that the English have done. What Gandhi condemns in modern civilization is only the external manifestation of the world-view that became dominant in the Western world in the seventeenth century when industrial revolution began to take long strides.


In the next context he explains about the relationships between the Hindus and the Muslims in the country. What he says that the people of different religions just merge to make a nation that is India, be it a Hindu, parish, Christian or Muslim. The disparities between the religions are not so grave that it poses a threat to the nation but the Britishers in their own way build walls between them. He says though for centuries there had been wars between Hindus and Muslim but they have come together to fight the common enemy and this is the characteristics of a great nation. He also says that the differences between the two religions can only be removed by respecting other and administer restrain. He also add that it is because of our own ignorance the Britishers are playing with and dividing the country.


In a different proposition he also adds that railway has also brought harm to the situation in India. In another proposition he also says that lawyers which was a n English concept has really resulted in disruption of peace in the nation. Only when there is conflict these people move to courts which helps in increase in their conflict. He also says that doctors are also not what we want but what is the result of the civilization.


The question that next comes is what exactly civilization is. Every country in the world have shown some straits of change. Greece have come down and so was Rome. Japan lost most of the culture they had to become westernized, but India has stick to its roots. It has not changed much .how strongly the concept of India has survived the various invasions is the thing to be admired of. Gandhi says civilization is that mode of conduct which points out to a man the path of duty.

There have been some mental constraints that had been fed into our minds for a very long time. This if that richness does not bring you happiness but it is the good conduct that keeps you happy. He said why Indian have remained uncivilized is nothing related to their abilities. For centuries many have seen that people have seen the evils that riches bring to someone. So they have not liked to change. Why are the doctors and lawyers really the ones that tame the life of the people. India had hakims for so long and it is presently seen that ayurvedic is in many ways superior to the allopathic medicines. He says one has to ask for as much as needed to survive and nothing more than thatand that is why Indians have always restricted themselves to very less wants and so to the westerners them seem like they are uncivilized but truly they are more civilized if you take civilization to happiness. The best example of this is the believe of people on rishis and fakirs over the kings. The simplicity keeps India a safe haven for people to survive.

So he says it is not by force that we can win over them, it is their civilization that will take them off. Use of force will not be in any effect but the way should be such that our civilization wins over them.