From Regulation to Rejection: Gandhi and Mill’s Contrasting views on Individualism

Image Credits: Penguin Books

“If national life becomes so perfect as to become self-regulated, no representation becomes necessary. There is then a state of enlightened anarchy. In such a state everyone is his own ruler. He rules himself in such a manner that is never a hindrance to his neighbour. In the ideal state therefore, there is no political power because there is no State” (Gandhi, 1931, p. 162).

I - Introduction

In a world where Individualism has defined modern society and relations, what happens when two of the greatest political thinkers – Gandhi and Mill – have fundamentally diverging views on what it means to be truly free? This question lies at the heart of this article, which seeks to explore the very different trajectories of the singular parent idea of Individual liberty. Moreover, it becomes both apt and necessary to use ‘Political Individualism’ and ‘Individual Freedom’ interchangeably, as eminent thinkers such as Mill and Fayek consider individuality to be the key driving force behind freedom, and vice versa. Thus, Individualism comes to be primarily concerned with individual freedom, which is realized in very distinct ways by the different philosophies of Liberalism and Anarchism.

On one end of this continuum, we have Gandhi’s antistatist views, who advocated for a ‘sharp’ rejection of the state in its modern imperial form, along with a dismissal of private ownership. On the other end, liberal thinkers like J.S. Mill called for protection from the society in the form of legal provisions called ‘right’. In Millian Liberalism, Individuality is defined as ‘the right to self realization’; Gandhi sharply contrasts this stance by placing individuality in a cosmos, deriving it by harnessing the inner self. It would, however, be an oversimplification to term both these philosophies as diametrical opposites, as both ultimately aim to achieve the similar goals of individual autonomy and self-determination. Moreover, there are numerous convergences in the two philosophies, which this study aims to explore. 

Through this article, I seek to provide a nuanced understanding of how each seeks to realise individual freedom rather than simply outlining the differences between the two philosophies. Firstly, I examine Liberalism and situate it within the broader framework of Individual freedom. Secondly, I analyse the contrasting philosophy of Gandhian Anarchy and how it offers a different pathway to individual freedom. Lastly, I synthesise the thoughts from the two views and try to highlight the fundamental ways in which the authors differ.

II – Millian framework of Individualism 

At its core, Tocqueville defined individualism as a form of ‘selfishness’ that leads individuals to prioritise personal autonomy within a limited circle, thus diminishing their engagement with the broader society. One of the towering liberal figures in the realm of individual freedom, J.S. Mill offers a vision of Individual freedom, and asserts that each individual is the ultimate arbiter of their own choices. Naturally, it becomes essential to situate the role of the state within Mill’s broader vision, as any discussion of concepts like ‘freedom’ is incomplete without considering the mitigating authority of the state. In his seminal text On Liberty, Mill does not negate the possibility or necessity of societal intervention, but argues that such intervention must remain limited to cases where it affects the society in some way. In this respect, Mill differentiates between the concepts of ‘self-regarding virtues’ and ‘other-regarding virtues’. He concedes that when an individual's conduct affects others, it is subject to judgment based on ‘general rules’ established by society. However, in matters that concern only the individual i.e. self-regarding actions, Mill asserts that society’s role should be limited to expressing disapproval, and not imposing restrictions. This view is supplemented by the Harm Principle, wherein Mill advocates for a limited state, one that rightfully intervenes only to prevent harm to others.

On the contrary, we find that Spinoza argues that the form of political society in which there is the most liberty is nearest to the “state of nature”. Moreover, Locke argues otherwise, stating such 'bonds of civil society' ultimately ensure a more comfortable and peaceful existence, as well as the secure enjoyment of private property. Moreover, a state of nature where all its members possess the right to punish and be judges in their own cases, will inevitably lead to distrust. Thus, on this question, Locke’s view becomes more favorable to the Millian framework of the limited state. 

Locke’s aforementioned concept of ‘enjoyment of private property’ is central to most liberal thinkers, including Mill, who argues that while private property inevitably leads to inequalities, it also promotes justice and utility, an improvement over systems based on state force. He thus reiterates his earlier argument, making it the duty of the state to regulate private property to ensure fairness. Ultimately, Mill argues that with proper regulation, private property and state intervention can coexist to protect individual freedom in a liberal framework. However, I contend that these components of liberty as laid down by Mill are contradictory and self-defeating. While Mill advocates for a state that only intervenes to prevent harm to others, he simultaneously calls for the regulation of private property to promote justice and utility. This creates a tension, as affection regulation of private property requires extensive state machinery, redistribution policy, legal mechanisms etc. Such intervention may be viewed as infringing upon individual liberty, particularly the liberty to acquire, use, or dispose of one’s property. Over time, as the definition of “harm” expands and the regulation of property deepens, the scope of state power grows. This directly contradicts Mill’s initial insistence on a minimal, non-paternalistic state. Ultimately, these effects compound and overstep the Millian boundaries of a minimal state, turning into the cliché persistent modern state we are familiar with.

Image Credits: The Indian Express

III – Individualism and Anarchism

In stark contrast to Mill’s idea of liberty predicated with a limited state, Anarchism is rooted in the rejection of state, of society or of authority. While I acknowledge that this simplified definition does not do justice to Anarchy as a concept, it is necessary for the sake of this essay to establish a foundational understanding of Anarchy as opposed to liberal understanding of a limited state. Locating Gandhi within this wide framework, we find a natural alignment with anarchist thought, as he himself proclaimed in 1916, 'I am an anarchist, but of another type' . Gandhi also resisted the ‘pyramidal’ structure of the state and advocated for autonomous self-sufficient village units. He argues that true democracy could only result from individual action and ‘moral self-governance’ and not state structures such as the party system or legislation, which he viewed as inherently violent. Gandhi’s anarchism is more evident when he regarded the state as an agency of ‘organised violence’, and his belief of individual freedom to only flow from a ‘stateless’ democracy. Furthermore, Gandhi has argued that actual power resides in hands of people instead of the state when he explains his notion of Swaraj. This bolsters his claim for undermining the role of state in facilitating individual freedom.

Thus, Gandhi’s anarchism, in a way, provides an alternate pathway to approach Individuality. In a liberal Millian framework, a citizen has certain ‘duties’ to the society, and may be punished upon the unfulfillment of said duties. However, Gandhi opines that an Individual does not exist for the good of the larger organisation and one must always be free to leave and to dissent. Now, it would be incorrect to infer that Gandhi advocates for the complete absence of societal influence on the individual. However, the rightful conclusion to be drawn is that Gandhi emphasizes the individual's right to autonomy and to dissent over societal judgment, rooted in his anarchist thought. Gandhi’s approach of Individualism is centered around the concept of the Swaraj, which he describes to be the ability to rule oneself.

Swaraj or ‘self-rule’ is different from Liberalism, as it is not a ‘readymade’ tool for achieving freedom. Instead, Swaraj is Gandhi’s ‘supreme principle of morality’. Gandhi envisions the achievement of Swaraj only through a thoughtful cultivation of Individualism.This is evident by his description of Swaraj as ‘disciplined rule from within’ and ‘self-restraint’, instead of a rule/restraint from an external, alien authority. Moreover, Gandhi’s Swaraj was not restricted to self-realization and liberties, but also spiritual freedom, evident by his remarks on ‘liberating the self’ and ‘mastery over an individual's mind and passion’. Thus, Swaraj is strongly correlated with Individualism in a way, as both share a common commitment for individual autonomy and freedom. Gandhi propounds the theory that anarchy is not an end, but a means to achieve Swaraj, and consequently, individual freedom. 

Therefore, through the concept of ‘moral restraint,’ Gandhi links true freedom to the self, where individuals, by exercising autonomy, replace the need for coercive state control. Along with his theory of Swaraj, Gandhi starkly differentiates himself from the Millian liberal framework

IV - Conclusion

While Mill might argue for the state as a desired facilitator in the road to liberty, Gandhi would counter the state to be an impediment, and would advocate for a rejection of the same. It would be erroneous to assume that both theories are isolated, for both are mere alternatives with a common goal; attainment of individual liberty. It would be incorrect to label Gandhi's ideology as merely an extreme or exaggerated form of Mill's, as both approach individual freedom from fundamentally different viewpoints of the state. Moreover, both theories also complement each other, as the Gandhian framework of moral restraint could better support the ethical flank of the Millian framework. This clash between Gandhi and Mill, particularly on the fundamental role of state and nature of individual freedom present more than just a theoretical debate. It is important to note that an amalgamation of factors shapes the formulation of these theories. 

Gandhi’s rejection of the state is deeply rooted in his anti-colonial politics and the search for an anti-imperial alternative. His work is heavily influenced by his contemporary events, such as the first world war, British oppression of the Indians and specific events such as the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre. These events further make him depart further from Mill’s statist perspective. In contrast, Mill’s perspective emerges from his views of utilitarianism, as well as the opposition to the tyranny of political rulers, a prevalent issue in Europe during his time. 

Thus, it is demonstrated how the philosophies of Gandhi and Mill both aim to achieve individual freedom, but through contrasting means—one through the regulation of state power and another through the rejection of it. 

---

By Madhav Sharma

A 1st Year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)  student at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore. I am passionate about Law, History, Criminology and Political Theory. When I am not studying, you can find me listening to Punjabi music, playing piano, mooting and debating.

---

References

Books

Brown, L. S. (2003). The politics of individualism: Liberalism, liberal feminism, and anarchism. Black Rose Books.

Gandhi, M. K. (2010). Hind Swaraj. Navajivan Publishing House. 

Gandhi, M.K. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India. 

Locke, J. (2017). Second treatise of government (J. Bennett, Ed.). Retrieved from https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/locke1689a.pdf

Mill, J. S. (2015). On liberty, utilitarianism, and other essays (2nd ed., M. Philp & F. Rosen, Eds.). Oxford University Press.

Mineka, F. E., & Lindley, D. N. (Eds.). (1972). The collected works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XIV: The later letters of John Stuart Mill, 1849–1873, Part I. University of Toronto Press; Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Spinoza, B. de. (1883). Tractatus theologico-politicus and Tractatus politicus (R. H. M. Elwes, Trans.). In The chief works of Spinoza (Vol. 1, c. xx., § 38). George Bell & Sons. (Original work published 1670)

Tocqueville, A. de. (1990). Democracy in America (F. Bowen, Ed.; H. Reeve, Trans.). Vintage Books. (Original work published 1840)

Kant Immanuel. (1998.) Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Publishing.

Journal Articles

Baum, B. (1999). J.S. Mill’s conception of economic freedom. History of Political Thought, 20(3), 520.

Clark, J. P. (1978). What is anarchism? Nomos, 19, 3–28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24219036

Mantena, K. (2012). On Gandhi's critique of the state: Sources, contexts, conjunctures. Modern Intellectual History, 9, 535–563.