A Comparative Study of M. K. Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj and John Ruskin’s Unto This Last https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13688173

A Comparative Study of M. K. Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj and John Ruskin’s Unto This Last

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13688173

Author(s): Upasna Yadav

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13688173

PDF: Download Full Text

Volume 15 | Issue 4 | August 2024

Pages: 458-465

The Criterion: An International Journal in English Vol. 15, Issue-IV, August 2024 ISSN: 0976-8165
www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
A Comparative Study of M. K. Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj and John Ruskin’s
Unto This Last
Upasna Yadav
Department of English,
SGRR (PG) College, Dehradun.
Article History: Submitted-31/07/2024, Revised-15/08/2024, Accepted-26/08/2024, Published-31/08/2024.
Abstract:
The present paper proposes to investigate the different aspects of Mahatma Gandhi’s
Hind Swaraj and John Ruskin’s Unto This Last. Hind Swaraj and Unto This Last deal with
common socio-economic aspects, other problems related to modern civilisation,
dehumanisation, the true nature of wealth, etc. Both texts share the same arena of socio-
economic factors and evaluation of machinery and its impacts on human civilisation. The
purpose of Ruskin and Gandhi’s writing is to establish a Utopian society but their views roar
upon the hostility of machinery, and capitalism. Regarding their views, Gandhi and Ruskin
followed the same path when discussing the political economy. However, Ruskin’s and
Gandhi’s views share common aspects but the dissimilarity between the two was that Ruskin
was more willing about the working class and labourer by providing them equal wages and
the same way of living as the rich. But Gandhi’s view of Sarvodaya acts as an umbrella that
covers the poor as well as the rich, Brahmans as well as Dalits, and women as well as men.
So, adopting ‘Sarvodaya’ the utopian dream will not remain a dream for any society; it is the
most beautiful aspect of Sarvodaya.
Keywords:
Sarvodaya,
dehumanization,
industrialization,
modern
civilization,
decentralization.
Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj was published in 1909 and John Ruskin’s Unto This Last was
published in 1860. Ruskin’s Unto This Last has given insight into labour wages, capitalism,
production and supply. It would not be wrong to say that Unto This Last is his greatest work
on socio-economics. In Unto This Last, time and again he has criticized the political economy.
In his opinion, industrialization made men handicapped and he is unable to see the beauty of
458
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13688173

A Comparative Study of M.K Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj and John Ruskin’s Unto This Last
www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
nature. M.K. Gandhi was deeply influenced by John Ruskin’s Unto This Last. He has drawn
the insights of ‘Sarvodaya’ from Unto This Last by Ruskin and coined the term in 1908. The
very basic meaning of Sarvodaya is the ‘upliftment’ or ‘progress of all’.
Gandhi’s view in the Hind Swaraj is beyond the time limit, the thought of Sarvodaya,
the exaltation of all or the welfare of all, guides the human civilization from being
dehumanized. Gandhi saw Sarvodaya as an exercise for economic upliftment which saved the
Indian culture from dehumanization. Gandhian view of the socioeconomic gap between the
rich and the poor is not much different than that of Ruskin’s. As Ruskin too was very
supportive of the upliftment of the poor by giving them economic rights. They both were the
critique of ‘modern civilization’ which posed a threat to the human system.
The title Unto This Last had been adopted by the Parables of the Workers in the
Vineyard in which labourers were paid in the last hour as they worked for the entire day. Both
texts, Hind Swaraj and Unto This Last deal with the relevance and existence of life, morality
and ethical education and pave the way for the establishment of an ‘egalitarian society’ which
is not only concerned with the economic upliftment of the poor but one can also choose the
path of ethical development.
John Ruskin was born in London on 8th February. As his mother was a religious-
minded lady she always asked her son to read the Bible daily with her and to learn whole
portions by heart. This reading of the Bible influenced John Ruskin, deeply.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born on 2nd October, 1869, Porbandar, Kathiawar
Agency, British Raj. Gandhi in his childhood was an average and not a meritorious student.
But Gandhi was deeply committed to moral values. Tulsidas’ Ramayana is, in his opinion, the
greatest work of all devotional literature. Gandhi regarded the Gita as his mother.
Spiritualism and morality hit the minds of Ruskin and Gandhi in their childhood, both
were religious and truthful men, and Gandhi was highly influenced by the character of ‘Harish
Chandra’. “I do not remember”, writes Gandhi in The Story of My Experiments with Truth,
“having ever told a lie during a short period either to my teachers or schoolmates” (25).
This intense honesty of John Ruskin and M.K. Gandhi led them towards the path of
social reformation. They greatly emphasized correctness and truthfulness. Gandhi devoted his
whole life to social work because he was a keen believer in giving service to the needy and the
poor, Ruskin also wanted the welfare of society. He wanted labourers should be paid well so
that the economy would gain pace.
459

The Criterion: An International Journal in English Vol. 15, Issue-IV, August 2024 ISSN: 0976-8165

www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
The essay Unto This Last was first published in 1860 in Cornhill Magazine. However,
it sparked controversy when released as a series of articles. As a result, the editor, Thackeray,
stopped the publication of Ruskin’s paper. This essay was later published in Fraser’s
Magazine, which Froude edited.
John Ruskin’s Unto This Last had a great impact on Gandhi which motivated him to
‘good of Individuals lies in the good of all’. Unto This, Last helped him to emerge his
Sarvodaya theory and its principles that is progress for all. Therefore, it would be true to say
that Unto This Last meant to Gandhi as Antyodaya that is only upliftment of the last. Kept into
the serial Gandhi had published the nine-part paraphrase of John Ruskin’s book into Gujarati
in Indian Opinion which was later published under the title of Sarvodaya as a pamphlet. And
in 1951 it was again translated into English.
Hind Swaraj was written in Gujarati between November 13-22 in 1909 on board the
Kildonan Castle, on Gandhi’s return trip from England to South Africa. It was published in
two instalments in the Gujarati section of Indian Opinion (December 11 and 19). It was later
released as a book in January 1910. The English translation by Gandhi, under the title Indian
Home Rule, with Preface and Forward was published on March 20, 1910. Hind Swaraj is
presented in the literary genre of dialogue between a reader and an editor. Gandhi says “I wrote
the entire Hind Swaraj for my dear friend Dr. Pranjivan Mehta. All the argument in the book
is mimeograph almost as it took place with him.” Hind Swaraj has been published in several
editions. In 1938 it was published by Navjivan Press in India. Thereafter in an American
edition, in 1924 published in Chicago under the name Sermon on the Sea.
In 1910, this text was banned by the British government, with the claim that it was
agitating. However, the British were considered hypocritical for only banning the Gujarati
version and not the English one. This was because at the time, few people knew how to read
English and those who did were under British control. Therefore, there would be no effect
of the English version on Hind Swaraj on English English-speaking population. Gandhi
defended himself by stating that he had translated Unto This Last into Gujarati as Sarvodaya.
For Gandhi, the true meaning of Swaraj lies in promoting the Indian government and
Indian economy wholly according to the Indian ways. If we will be able to do so, then, we
shall attain Home Rule. In other words, Home Rule is nothing but ‘Poorna Swadeshi’.
Gandhi in Hind Swaraj, “You want 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
460

A Comparative Study of M.K Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj and John Ruskin’s Unto This Last
www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
Englistan. This is not the Swaraj I want” (24). Gandhi was a critique of modern civilization
and according to him for the people of modern culture material pursuits were the ‘emblem
of civilization’. The more the lives of people are materialized, the more they are known to
be civilized. But Gandhi emphasized that it is the moral character of a person that makes him
civilized not his pursuits. And one could connect such an idea to true Indian ideology. In
Indian ideology, the total emphasis is on moral character and behavioural code which is
opposite to that of Western civilization.
Similar was the way of thinking of John Ruskin who accentuated that wealth and
material pursuits which cannot be equated with natural surroundings and without nature wealth
is worthless. Nature is a binding force for human beings to connect with their surroundings.
“There Is No Wealth But Life”, writes John Ruskin in Unto This Last “including all its powers
of love, of joy, and admiration” (125). The happiness, nature and joys of life hold much more
value than the monetary wealth. The power of nature is unseen yet it is more impactful on
human minds.
Ruskin considered that the poor also share a major portion of the society. If the
bourgeoisie is important for the economy of the nation; the proletariat has its relevance. The
exploitation and insufficient wages of the proletariat will make them against the bourgeois
which creates a gap between the two and this circumstance is not ethically good for the society.
That is why Ruskin fights for equal rights for the working class. Gandhi also considered
capitalism as the main reason for inequality in society but his idea of ‘upliftment for all’ is
slightly different from that of Ruskin’s idea and is not restricted to a particular class, creed,
gender and race. Sarvodaya gives benefit to both, its doer as well as who is being uplifted by
the doer. For him, upliftment means upliftment by all ‘just means’. Genuinely, upliftment is
possible for both the rich and poor. The rich can gain upliftment by acting as a trust and this
action will help both the rich and the poor for their upliftment. His ideal of Sarvodaya is not
only limited to the economics of the poor but also by practising it the rich can develop himself
ethically. According to Gandhi, if anyone has surplus assets, he should treat himself as a trustee
towards the weak and the poor. The concept of Sarvodaya goes beyond times and it is as new
as it was at that time when the term was coined. By the word trusteeship he does not mean to
say that everyone should have equal wealth but the real meaning of trusteeship is that everyone
should have wealth but according to his or her needs. Because man’s greed has no limitation
and wealth is limited this craving for comfort gives rise to the accumulation of materialistic
wealth and the use of monetary wealth more than their needs. Capitalism is the root cause of
461

The Criterion: An International Journal in English Vol. 15, Issue-IV, August 2024 ISSN: 0976-8165

www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
this wide gap between the haves and the haves not. According to Gandhi, it is all due to the
mechanical era which is responsible for the capitalistic system. The main ambition of
trusteeship was to demolish the capitalistic system.
The concept of Ruskin of ill-gotten wealth in his essay “Qui Judicatis Terram” is
very similar to Gandhi’s concept of trusteeship in his Hind Swaraj. Ruskin took the example
of a Jewish merchant in his essay who was famous because of his wisdom and who had
accumulated money but kept in his mind the distinction between ill-gotten and well-gotten
wealth. For him, justice was the way to get rich; he was an ideal to all merchants of the
contemporary era. The Jewish merchant was successful only because of his honesty and
truthfulness. In his essay “Qui Judicatis Terram” included in Unto This Last, John Ruskin
writes, “The rich and the poor have met. God is their maker/ The rich and the poor have met.
God is their light.” (65). Ruskin puts up a question on the meeting of the rich and the poor. He
finds that the rich cannot do anything good for the welfare of the poor instead they oppress
and exploit them.
Moreover, Gandhi and Ruskin both stood in support of workers. According to Ruskin,
it is necessary to have fixed wages for the workers to secure the job of the working class
whereas Gandhi suggests giving up the use of machine-made products to secure the jobs to the
craftsmen and to support the use of handicrafts in India. Their willingness was to promote the
working class which shows that they were subconsciously sensitive towards the proletariat and
carried a feeling of pity for workers.
Gandhi very intellectually concludes that the machinery slowly with time sucks the
real skills of labourers without letting them know that their natural skills are devastated with
time. The hatred towards political economy can be justified by the views of Gandhi writes of
machinery in Hind Swaraj, “Machinery is the chief symbol of modern civilization it represents
a great sin” (76).

The mechanical era, according to John Ruskin, reduced the social affection in human
beings and made them covetous of self-interest. Ruskin was against the subjugation of the
working class because it would lead towards an economically and morally imbalanced society.
He obstructs the capitalistic theory of using the labour force as if they are machines
themselves.

462

A Comparative Study of M.K Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj and John Ruskin’s Unto This Last
www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
Gandhi and Ruskin were not emotional boors but their logical thinking and the
irregularity in economic flow due to capitalism made them stand against the tremendous
industrialization. Even in Hind Swaraj Gandhi appealed not to go for machine-made products
because at that time the readymade products were imported from the European Nations which
weakened India economically. But in the case of John Ruskin, he was more worried about
master and worker relationship. Ruskin sees the political economy not only from the
perspective of merchants but also from the workers’ and says that workers should not demand
high pay when their master is not in the condition to pay high wages. Socio-political theory
for Ruskin is something in which the role of labour and worker go hand in hand. Without the
cooperation of both the employer and the employee, the entire socio-political structure would
not function properly.
According to Gandhi, the centralization of power is the major shortcoming of any
society in both the social and economic domains. If all individuals become self-sufficient then
there will be no need for a central authority or power. Hence decentralization is a must for the
establishment of a society that is free from the evils of class inequality. Centralization of
authority leads to the suppression of the voices of those who are economically and socially
backward. Therefore, it leads to the condition of subalternity. The even distribution of power
opens the doors to equality among the society and people can live more dignified lives. The
decentralization of the economy enables individuals to experience economic freedom. If
individuals are not economically free then it would lead to illiteracy, class disparity and
poverty. The economic condition of the whole nation depends on its citizens irrespective of
their class and social strata. However, such an ideal society can only be established by non-
violence which is more inclined towards performing duties rather than emphasis on rights.
Gandhi wanted to decentralize India’s economy so that poverty would not increase there.
However, his concept of establishing an ideal state will remain ambiguous. He thought that
self-rule would be sufficient for ruling over the nation because a sort of centralized power is
recommended for socio-political command of the society.
Similar were the views of Ruskin on monetary centralization. To become rich,
according to Ruskin, is to accumulate more and more wealth, which signifies the power of the
individual to accumulate money not only to get rich it means that a person obtains power over
others to exert authority over them. If the circulation and accumulation of money are not in a
just way, the nation will have to suffer tyranny.
463

The Criterion: An International Journal in English Vol. 15, Issue-IV, August 2024 ISSN: 0976-8165

www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
As Gandhi was against capitalism and mechanical civilization, he attacked social
disparity. He also criticized colonialism in his Hind Swaraj. He thought that the root cause of
colonialism is capitalism which makes a group of individuals so much stronger that they could
be able to subjugate other individuals. Not only had it created social disparity but also
economic disparity and a sense of alienation. He wanted to prohibit colonialism because it
promoted violence along with the exploitation of the poor. Gandhi strictly condemned
industrialization and analysed its effects in his Hind Swaraj and considered industrialization
as a hindrance rather than a progression. He always targeted the Western culture, especially in
the fields of education and industrialization and warned his countrymen that if would copied
them there would be nothing than mere anarchy. The empowerment of our nation will only be
possible if we can establish our state with our own rules.
Both Gandhi and Ruskin criticized modern technology and mechanical civilization
because it creates ecological imbalance, pollution and unemployment. Gandhian model of
‘welfare of all’ proved a social rejuvenation that played a great role in the establishment of a
society that is morally strong where neither violence has its place nor corruption exists.
Even Gandhi’s socio-political views are slightly different from that of Ruskin
because Ruskin suggested the way of equal distribution of wealth through the socio-political
methods but Gandhi’s methodology was different as he suggested the more ideal way of the
upliftment of the society through Sarvodaya although it sounds entirely utopian and Gandhi
himself was aware of the problems in its implementation. Gandhi’s method of social equality
was based on non-violence self-suffering and self-reliance. The real wealth for Ruskin and
Gandhi was human life itself. The wealth of any country is due to the happy citizens but if the
citizens of the nation are not in a joyous condition, then it cannot be counted as a progressive
nation. Their prime object was to determine the meaning of real happiness and the satisfaction
of life.

Works Cited:
Gandhi, M. K. Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule. Navjivan Publishing House, 1938.
—Sarvodaya. Trans. Valji Govind Desai. Unto This Last: A Paraphrase. Ahmedabad: The
Navajivan Trust, 1956. Print.
464

A Comparative Study of M.K Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj and John Ruskin’s Unto This Last
www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
Henderson, Willie. John Ruskin’s Political Economy. London: Routledge, 2000. Print.
Ruskin John. Unto This Last. This Floating Press, 2009. Print.

465