Hind Swaraj
Critical review of this piece of writing
The first thing that needs to be borne in mindregarding this review is that it is not an original English piece of writing, but a translated one from the original Guajarati. During the process of translation it is quite possible that the exact meaning of the sense of meaning that the author would wish to convey may have been reduced to a certain extent and its English attribution may not have been exactly what the writer originally intended. Again, it is also seen thatsince this is in question answer format, the editor restricts his discourse to the questions that have been posed to him. Perhaps he isnot required to illuminate any ideas that are outside the ambit of the questions, and to this extent, this piece of writing could be considered to have a degree of biasedness, based upon the kind of questions posed by the reader.
Aspects of Swaraj, or self rule
That being said, it is now considered to move into the actual deliberations while the central theme is undoubtedly Swaraj, or self rule, it is observed that on a number of occasions there have been digressionor deviations, in which the editor speaks out his own views as an Indian or acitizen of undividedIndia rather than a responsible editor of a reputed newspaper. As an editor, it is his prime duty to inform readers about the going ons in this country, the defects that is plaguing the present British administration and the ways and means by which these defects could be remedied. A writing of thisgenre should be tempered with wisdom, perspicacity and worldly knowledge about the happenings in undividedIndia regarding the British administration and the ways and means by which Indiana leaders are seeking to gain self rule, not through subversive means but by peaceful and non-co-operative means.
While the arguments in this article are no doubt plausible, this does not, in any measure, reflect upon the mood of the public with regard to matters like Hindu-Muslim relations, civilization and religion, the railways as a precursor of cultural destruction, role of professionals in the country and so on. With due regard to this editor, it would be well within the realms of critical thinking that the editor has just given vent to his pre-conceived notions and opinion s rather than provided an unbiased, objective and well reasoned argument on contemporary Indian and the influence of the British Raj, whether good or bad. While the editor has taken pains on ascribing and describing the negative aspects of the Raj, he has deliberating refrained from commenting on the positive and healthy aspects of the Raj, which is imperative in a dialogue of this kind.
Civilization and religion
Moreover, according to this writer, civilization and religion are separate identities each having its own ways of functioning. Civilization has evolved over mans quest to better his lot and the lot of his countrymen. Progressive mindedness is necessary in our civilized world. What this editor is trying to convey is that civilization should not evolve, we should be as human were during the Cave ages.
Advancement of civilization does incur certain drawbacks that need to be seen also. Again, if one were to consider religion, perhaps the religion that were practiced by our ancestors, with certain modifications over time, is still being practices by us. The rituals, symbols and other aspects handed over from one generation, to another, sustains over time. Besides, religion evolves on different ethos rather than civilization.
Besides, the reader, having raised pertinent questions on one nation theory, believes that more than the Raj having taken India, we, as Indians have handed it over to them, perhaps on a platter. This may not be entirely plausible, since the British had established its hegemony in India, through a series of wars and blood sheds. Through manipulation and lending military support to warring princes, the English has succeeded in playing Peter against Paul and reaping the benefits. The political and geographical divide and rule policy has endured itself in the dominion of the Indian sub-continent and perhaps, continues to this day, though in more subtle forms and contents.
At best, this piece of writing could be considered an extension of the mindset ofits editor, rather than agenuine discourse on the contemporary happenings in India at the beginning of the 20th Century, under the British regime. The central idea in this writing has been one of Swaraj, or self rule. This, according to the editor needs to be achieved without violence and through a process of non-violence. While in theory, this sounds good, history has been witness to the fact that all wars of independence have been smeared with violence, bloodshed and violent agitations. By his own admissions, the editor says that most of the domains gained by the British Raj have been through wars and subjugations. And they would resist, tooth and nail, any claim for self autonomy and suzerainty by native Indians. Under these circumstances, however well meaning the arguments may be, it would be difficult for an enlightened reader to believe that Swaraj could be gained diplomatically, throughdialogue and negotiationswithout partition of the country.
Partition issues
While most of the arguments of the editor has been well thought of and is plausible, it have been grounded on the basis of analogous illustrations of similar and sometimes different kinds. For instance, he compares the ensuing after effects of Partition of this country to twisting our limbs when awakening from deep slumber. (Gandhi Parel (Ed.) 1909, p.25). However, history bears mute testimony to the fact that the Indian divide has been more serious and vexatious than he could have imagined, the cause of several wars with neighbors, and has emanating major issues that have remained unsolved till this day. This has much serious connotations than what appears in the mind of the editor. Perhaps in his over anxiety and perturbance to seek his country free form British yoke, he had underestimated the aftermath of Swaraj and its ominous implications.
When reviewed as a whole, this interview seems to have provided the editor a much desired forum in which to vent his personal views on self rule and how it could affect the common masses of the country. However, it has not be able to provide readers at an intellectual level the kind of food for thought that could critically examine issues from a neutral and perhaps an observers angle. The exuberance and vitality of a young lawyer seeking a better deal for his countrymen is evident in this piece of writing. But it is devoid of the pragmatism, objectivity and depth of insight that is so vital in an interview of this kind. In all fairness, this interview was conducted during the incipient stages of his career as a political activist and social reformer and these undercurrents are palpable.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment