Reflections on Gandhi Essay Questions

Orwell argues that Gandhi's concept of Satyagraha was effective within specific historical and political conditions. Discuss the nature of these conditions and analyze Orwell's position. Do you feel that Satyagraha could be effectively transposed onto other political situations?

According to Orwell's analysis, Satyagraha was an effective means of demanding national self-determination in the context of British rule in India. Gandhi's method of assertive non-violence was deployable as a mode of resistance against British rule. The Satyagrahi, or practitioner of Satyagraha, was able reject participation in the British colonial system and to dramatize this sensational action and demonstrate it to the broader public by means of the free press available in that circumstance. Had the circumstances been different, and had the action of Satyagraha been used in resistance to something other than colonial rule, the outcome of this method would likely have been different as well. In the case of resistance to a totalitarian regime such as that of the USSR, Satyagraha would certainly have had a different outcome. It is not only would the demands that would have been different; a different way of gaining publicity would have been necessary.

In what ways does Satyagraha differ from passive resistance and other forms of western non-violence? Discuss the roots of the concept and the way those roots shape it.

The term Satyagraha that Gandhi developed and deployed in his resistance to British colonial rule in India derives from the Sanskrit satya: "truth," and agraha: "firmness," or "insistence." The resulting definition thus becomes something akin to "firmness in truth." Non-violence was also central to the Gandhi's practice and philosophy of Satyagraha. Unlike the concept of "passive" resistance, Satyagraha is defined by assertiveness, distinct from the submissiveness notable in the western concept of passive resistance.

Orwell suggests that British imperialists, as well as Indian millionaires, were not entirely put out by Gandhi's political agenda. What did he mean by this? Analyze his claim and discuss its possible implications.

As Orwell points out in the opening of his "Reflections on Gandhi," British imperialists often liked to refer Gandhi as one of their lads. Though Gandhi led the fight against British rule in India and arguably was the main actor in successfully achieving independence for India, the British were able to joke that he was one of their own. The non-violent resistance on which Gandhi insisted, Orwell suggests, was convenient for the British in that it came at no military cost to them. The same attitude went for the Indian millionaires. Unlike certain communists who wanted to force economic equality, Gandhi's demands on the millionaires was a spiritual one. Without outright criticizing Gandhi's method for its convenience to imperialists and capitalists, Orwell implicitly suggest that other, more militant methods were effective in making them much more uncomfortable. Implicit in this is a critique of non-violence.

What does Orwell mean when he says that western progressives, specifically anarchist and pacifists, mistake Gandhi for one of their own? Discuss Gandhi's differences from these groups and present an analysis of what Orwell suggests is Gandhi's anti-humanism.

One of Orwell's goals in "Reflections on Gandhi" is to place Gandhi's politics firmly in the historical circumstances from which they derived, and also to clearly define and analyze their unique philosophical roots. These philosophical roots, as Orwell demonstrates, are distinctly religious. More specifically, they are Hindu. In the Hindu worldview, the place of the human is decentralized. Orwell claims that, according to Hindu philosophy, all of life is an illusion, and thus human life is devalued. This leveling of existence is starkly different from the humanist hierarchy that the traditional western leftist values are rooted in.

Orwell is writing his essay with the Cold War in mind. How does he sees Gandhi's life and politics as being relevant to this time? Discuss the implications.

The prospect of the bomb looms over Orwell's "Reflections on Gandhi" in a way that cannot be overestimated. Writing the essay in 1949, four years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Orwell is explicitly conscious of the nuclear threat and its presence in any future war. The Cold War is in its inception during the writing of the essay, the arms race is beginning, and the threat of nuclear holocaust looms. It is for this reason that the question of non-violence is important to Orwell, and Gandhi serves as an important test case for the viability of a non-violent politics.