The Western Discourses of Power: Mahatma Gandhi and Michel Foucault Way of Reasoning
Introduction
Examining these two main thinkers, Mahatma Gandhi and Michel Foucault, based on their perception concerning the issues of power in different civilizations in the western discourse may be an interesting venture. Undeniably, the concept of power appears to be inherent practically in political and social relationships. Many scholars with different schools of thought also agree with the observation of Gandhi and Foucault concerning this aspect and the control of power being a cornerstone in the theory of politics (Ghandhi, 2009, p.101). In a similar situation, several previous academic observers have expressed their confession to power’s theoretical stagnation that needs to be energized to ensure a better progress, which never existed in the past. A person may be tempted to shift blame on the old issue involving the insufficiency of interdisciplinary relation. As a result, there has been overspecialization, isolation, and alienation in the field of social sciences, as well as in the social and political theory. For the purpose of this paper, the issues discussed will revolve around two thinkers, Gandhi and Foucault, and particularly based on their distinct reasoning concerning the issue of the western discourse of power. It may seem difficult for anyone to deny that Foucault and Gandhi prominently contribute to the subject explanation for today’s malaise of the studies on power. In most cases, this kind of subject may appear in its limited technique to the issue of violence (Gandhi, 1977, p. 263). The reasoning emanated from the activities of terrorism, genocide, and the international war on terror, which are the manifestations of violence. Therefore, the narrative will provide a discussion of the different perspectives by Gandhi and Foucault regarding what seems to have shaped the western discourse of power. Thus, one finds it necessary to consider other thinkers in the story to provide a better understanding of the current challenges that the political and social entities face. In this discussion, it will be important to acknowledge the role of Gandhi Michel Foucault’s schools of thought.
To justify the choice of this topic, the students of politics can find it interesting and educative since it provides insights on the political issues affecting many nations around the world today. Additionally, this narrative serves as a response to a critical challenge that Gandhi and Foucault point out and offers a reflection of the association of violence and power as disclosed by their supporters like Alfred North Whitehead (Gandhi, 1948, p. 292). North supports the reasoning depicted by Gandhi and Foucault concerning the discourse of power, which has been neglected in many occasions and yet important in every political and social sphere. This point carries some truth since negligence of the highest level of the abstraction occurs where power emerges as a sociological phenomenon that is complex, taken only in its exemplification of the preconceived classes of thoughts (Gandhi, 1948, p.292). Therefore, this topic is important as it will provide an understanding of the various ways that make Gandhi and Foucault distinctive based on their similarities and difference concerning the concept of the western discourse of power among other aspects.
In this textbook entitled “Power Knowledge,” Michel Foucault starts by presenting his problematic aspects associated with power in the context of popular justice (Foucault, 1977, p. 32). Most importantly, he offers his thinking that it is necessary for a person to start with a popular justice where the acts of justice need to be seen among the people and then later move to the court where they determine the place which the court has within their prevalent issue. In such a reflection, intends to explicitly explain the element which has been depicted in courts such as the decision of the power of enforcement. This aspect is one among those that give a representation of anecdotal fashion in the society. Based on Foucault’s view, we can draw conclusions that the mechanisms of power have not generally been exhaustively captured in many studies in history.
It sounds encouraging learning from Foucault that humanism in the modern society has misunderstood in distinguishing the concepts of power and knowledge. In most cases, we have seen the terms being integrated with each other, and therefore, Foucault informs us of the impossibility separating power and knowledge in his review of humanism in a utopian guise (Foucault, 1977, p.52). In his argument, Foucault seems to base his thinking on the Marxist theory while explaining the relationship between power and knowledge. Also, there is an uncritical thinking connecting the legitimate punishment mechanisms as well as the social control to the society of civilization and the emergence of the centralized modern structure that has limited governments. In the point of view of the Marxist theory, the author points out the superficial acquaintance that a person needs to have in attempts to systematically critique Newton’s liberal world (Foucault, 1977, p. 116). On the other hand, the poststructure viewpoint encompasses the theorists of “radical democracy” which depended deeply on the increasing tide of the famously known “poststructuralism” or “postmodernism” (Foucault, 1977, p.119). Therefore, Foucault generally depicts the way the rules of formation of the discourse have a connection with the operation of some form social power.
In some of Gandhi’ writings, we see him presenting his view by generalizing the distrust of the total discourses of the universal truth and reason. Gandhi seeks to unearth the nonviolent search for the truth by expressing interest in Asian philosophical traditions (Gandi, 1966, p.466). Further, he focuses on the acts of violence in the most political and social spheres as a catastrophic aspect facing humanity, especially if people cannot act with reason and restraint. In support for this idea, Foucault suggests that such situations have resulted from the aspect of sovereignty as the central issue of right in the western communities (Foucault, n.d, 94). This argument means that the imperative role of the approaches and discourse of the right has aimed at erasing the dominance and intrinsic nature of power. In effect, the approach was necessary as it would demonstrate power as the sovereignty’s legitimate rights and the legal obligation that requires the political leaders to obey it. Perhaps the issues of the western power have compelled scholars to critically look at the problems which the developing nations encounter. Attached to these severe problems of western power is the inadequacy of the accepted approaches of development and growth to resolve such issues, which has in turn forced people to think of the new techniques to these issues.
Further, Gandhi’s thoughts, with his notion of non-violence, could condemn any kind of government but supports democracy. Thus, his approach seeks attain the humanitarian aims like those in the Marxist theory, for the establishment of equality, democracy, freedom, and brotherhood. It is also easy to note Gandhi’s thoughts leaning on the change social order, which he regards as a fundamental objective for most of his works (Gandhi, 1977, p.29). On the other hand, Foucault (1977, 81) proves Gandhi’s thinking using Marxism as well as psychaoanalysis.
An understanding of the terms as applied in this paper is very important. In the first place, the term politics refers to the decision-making process involving all the members of every group in the society (Gandhi, 1977, p. 31). In most cases, the concept of politics appears to a certain way of conflict resolution. This aspect occurs by negotiation and compromise instead of using naked power and force. Secondly, Gandhi described power as an association between two social actors, whereby one actor induces or influences another to perform a particular activity based on the preference of the former when the second one cannot do otherwise (Gandhi, 1954, p. 292). Besides, the concept of law or rule or enforcement refers to the inducement of members of the collectivity to accept the allocations of resources as binding.
The Experiments by Gandhi and Foucault
The manner in which Gandhi and Foucault have written their work depicts various aspects of the methodology that will help in the development of this paper. While Gandhi considers his work as experiments (Gandhi, 1948, p.141), Foucault is viewed as an experimenter than just being a theorist (Foucault, 1972, p. 229; Foucault, 1991, p. 25). It is also evident the ends and methods of Foucault and Gandhi remarkably similar. The first technique to investigate is the language that the other thinkers who support Foucault and Gandhi’s works use while presenting their points of view concerning the concept of political power (Gandhi, 1977, p. 34). In this case, some translations issues have occurred where some words, especially those in Indian origin, need triangulation. By definition, the term ‘triangulation’ refers to the reading of more than two translations of a similar piece that makes it possible for a person to check the robustness of the meaning. For instance, the author used phrases such as ‘search for satya”, which can be interpreted as truth (Gandhi, 1954, p. 292). Another word the Gandhi uses and provides an extra meaning is ‘ahimsa’, meaning nonviolence or renouncing the will to damage or kill. Such phrases, among others, have been used since they have complex meanings, which cannot be covered in a simple direct translation, making sure the discussion of the vital terms and concepts crucial. This method also allows the reflection of the ambiguity and multiplicity of the definitions.
It is an indisputable fact that both Gandhi and Foucault utilized the method of historicism where he depicts what appeared to be possible and what is happening today in matters of political power. The historical context of the challenges of the Western discourse of power is relevant to the discussion because it depicts challenges government have been facing since time immemorial, attempts to resolve such issues, and the need for improvement (Gandhi, 2009, p. 65). This idea is evident in the fact that most of the models the current political thinkers use are mere responses to the past and current complex issues of the social and political theory. Additionally, thinkers support this concept by expressing the concern on the reification of violence as natural and an inevitable character of the human condition that remains a broad assumption among the famous realists. Furthermore, the challenge of Gandhi to the Western discourse of power is a source of inspiration to the 20th century nonviolence voices like Petra Kelly, Martin Luther King Jr., and Vaclav Havel, among others (Gandhi, 1977, p. 278). Nevertheless, historicism has a disadvantage that there is a contrast between love and power, which occur as polar opposites. Conversely, the identification of love is based on the resignation of power, while on the other side of power is identified as the denial of love.
Moreover, there is an evidence of the use of universalism where these two political thinkers argue that there have been attempts to have universal laws of politics that drive their views on the issues of political power. Seemingly, they indicate that the formation of laws seek to resolve the varied issues in different parts of the world. An illustration is derived from the Gandhi’s emphasis on the possibility of conquering fear by self-rule (swaraj) in both moral and political sense (Gandhi, 1938, p. 71). In the Foucault’s perspective, power risks being oppression if it goes beyond its set boundaries, and this is when it over-extends the contract terms (Foucault, 1977, p. 91). Additionally, Foucault points out that the traditional classic theory of political right appeared as misuse of sovereignty in the order f the judiciary. Therefore, Gandhi’s suggestion is that there needs to be the cultivation of the capacity for an elevated sacrifice to ensure people live fear-free lives across the world (Gandhi, 2009, p. 67).
The Comparison between Foucault and Gandhi based on Metaphysics, Logic, and Ethics
In the metaphysical or logical perspective, the thinkers have depicted their various similarities and differences, expressed in their moral and ethical considerations for the human relationships based on political power. For instance, Gandhi reveals through this through his argument of “strengthening reason through suffering” (Gandhi, 2008, p.334). He notes that it is crucial to shun pain and suffering using all means; for instance, during occasions when there is exposure to civility, the naked self-preservations exist. Furthermore, the thinkers have a similar perception where they condemn the acts of violence that result from political influence or any other social and political aspects (Gandhi, 1958, p.193). This ideology is logical since such activities are violations of the rights of humanity that every political leader needs to uphold for a healthy relationship between the social beings and political power. Additionally, their concern for the human rights of the people raise the ethical issues that most political powers have failed to address in the contemporary society (Gandhi, 2007, p. 128). In general, the political thinkers need to be willing to consider the fact that the legitimate violence is against their political and moral morals, thereby focusing on human dignity and improvement of life (Foucault, 1978, p. 262; Foucault, 1986, p. 118).
On the other hand, these superficial comparisons cannot dismiss the fact that Gandhi and Foucault have criticized political powers in a religious perspective. Gandhi looks at this political discourse based on the supposed religious authority (Gandhi, 2007, p. 146). Throughout his life, Gandhi sought to practice his religion which was a compelling factor in his search for truth in his arguments. He always believed that any religious teachings that do not appeal to reason and conflicts morality needs to be avoided. Additionally, Gandhi’s quest for truth and nonviolence emanates from what he believes as “all religions lead to God” (Gandhi, 1955, p. 27). What he does not believe is the suffering and pains that the political systems cause to people at all costs since it is religiously unacceptable. On the other hand, Foucault was a staunch atheist, brought up in a Bourgeois Catholic which was a blamed religion for a lot of malaise of today’s man. He believed in hidden power motivations in all social associations and placed emphasis on the positions that are powerless like those in the structures of bigger institutions (Foucault, 1978, p. 8). Unlike Gandhi who fasted on a regular basis, upholding celibacy, Foucault believed in looking for sensations which were stronger via sex and drug. Foucault was also an explorer of sexual pleasure in his last books such as “History of Sexuality” (Foucault, 1980, p. 88). In spite of Foucault appearing totally different from Gandhi based on their morals, the two appear to believe in truth and health social relations. For instance, they are against the acts of oppression and violence that the political systems cause.
Reading this text may also bring an aspect of reflexivity to the Western or modern reader based the prejudgments that they have concerning the subject. Gandhi’s reasoning seems to share the postmodern suspicion whose pervasiveness of the total claims of truth in a certain culture is indicative of a high level of social dominance. Nevertheless, interpreting the passionate indictment of Gandhi of the Western stories of utility and modernization as a rejection of all kinds of rationality can be a big mistake (Gandhi, 2009, p. 267). Additionally, Gandhi’s perception plays a role in one’s process of checking the truth in the relative claims, the provision of a moral-legal structure, and the grievance adjudication. Thus, the theoretical approach that one could get from Gandhi’s reasoning is his subscription to the principle of reciprocity whose embodiment is a subject of the rational debate, which is a precondition requirement for the social conflicts’ resolution. Therefore, a reader gets insights on the social ethics that are compromised in the events of violence in the modern or Western discourse of political power.
In the textbook, Gandhi tries to argue that the imaginative reflection’s paucity on the association between power and violence depicts the neglect of the abstraction of the highest level (Gandhi, 1977, p. 133). This scenario is evident where power seems to be a complex phenomenon of socio-politics exemplified in the preconceived thoughts. Further, he offers a critical analysis of the Western or modern of the power representation based on the various forms of violence (Gandhi, 1961, p.108). He points out that, most political thinkers have sought to present the concept of violence as both inevitable and natural feature of the human condition, which has been widely assumed.
In the liberal perspective of the concept of power and violence, Gandhi discusses the consequences of criticism culminated in the debates of the different phases of power. In his argument, we note Gandhi’s reasoning taking the direction of the conceptual universe Dahl imperative to his topic. He also builds his argument on the basis of the link that the commentators have stressed between the Western behaviorist’s power conceptions and Galilean mechanism, Human causalism, and Hobbesian atomism (Gandhi, 1948, p. 292). This idea is an intellectual constellation which has justified and also expressed a latest appearance where human beings started to see themselves as the world’s autonomous makers. At the same time, the political power emerges as generalized capacity acting with the resources or properties that are quantifiable in the causal associations between discrete people, such as male. Such individuals were believed to have their bodies interacting with one another and their outer surrounding of the mechanical fashion. Another aspect that makes Gandhi’s argument applicable in the modern discourse of power is his thinking that the Western civilization has derived its strength from the politics of what he calls the “pacifying society” (Gandhi, 1960, p.334). Further, he suggests that the metaphysical and epistemological dualism from the concept of rationalism has been an inspiration to the moral and political imaginations of the liberal “self.” This idea has been considered as an entity that is ontological independent whose key driver is the unsatisfied desires and passion, which then inhabits a world form of civility that is hostile and violent, companionship, and friendship.
Moreover, it cannot be surprising if we relate Gandhi and Foucault’s model with that of the popular liberal model promoters, such as Martin Luther King Jr., who agrees with Gandhi’s political theory (Foucault, 1988, p. 137). The point that the author brings out in their similarity is that political theory freezes the political imagination concerning power and violence and its resulting noticeable silence concerning nonviolence (Gandhi, 1960, p.222). Thus, the presence of modernity’s civility cannot mean that there will be no violence. The reason for this argument is that the liberal law comes with the death and pain of the body of peace crushing and killing it steadfastly similar to violence that is undisciplined by legitimacy.
In the context of the Marxist model of violence and power, Gandhi draws some insights from the difference that some scholars like Marx and Engel depicted from others regarding the alternative of a rational and transformational social ontology (Gandhi, 2007, p. 222; Foucault, 2005, p. 174). These thinkers showed neglected the dualism of empiricist to promote a class struggle theory in the society of capitalism in which the distribution and reproduction of the structural power are across and within such relations of classes. Their differences are evident in their attempt to embrace Hegelian belief of the self as the potentiality that is independent and unfolding in the history of political power. Thus, these differences make Gandhi’s school of thought differ from that of Foucault. Further, the scholars reveal the general assumptions of Foucault and Gandhi concerning the persistent and violent social strife that exists within the framework of the technology of scientific socialism (Gandhi, 2007, p.137). He believes that this scenario has led to the addition of a new dialectal wrinkle to the agenda of modernity by Marx and Engel regarding the invention of the latest scientific approach to political power. The basis of such advancements is the exact rational groups of causal force, violence, and relations.
Still, in the Marxist perspective, Gandhi turned to an ideological, authoritarianism, and cultural discussion that was systematic. His narrative derives much from the work of Marx that focused on tackling the various vital aspects such as the environment, the state, and the civil society, as well as the relationship between violence and power which still needs to be explored (Gandhi, 2009, p.263). His narrative starts taking a different course when a new generation of the radical social theorists started to weave Weberian, Marxian, and Gramscian groups into the social theory and consciousness that are more comprehensive (Gandhi, 2007, p.293). This aspect has been by putting the focus on the function of the interests, culture, and intent and the association between the structure and agency.
On the other hand, Foucault’s narrative on power and violence is based on the post-structural perspective. In this context, he develops his story using the views of the radical democracy theorists who were deeply affected by the increased concern on the concept of poststructuralism or postmodernism (Foucault, 1984, p.51; Foucault, 2005, p. 177). However, he differs with Gandhi when he presents a general distrust of totalizing the reason and universal truth discourses. In other words, Foucault provides a representation of the poststructuralist view of power. In his thinking, Foucault (1984) considers power as a force relations multiplicity which has posed a challenge to the models of the power of the agency and also confronting the structural determinism of Marx (p. 52).
Notably, the view of Foucault on the concept of postmodernism is based on any discursive practice considered as both limiting and liberal mode of being depictive the narrative of power. Nonetheless, Foucault’s thought seems to have a strong ontological bias promoting open semiosis which provides an explanation of his neglect of the sustained story (Foucault, 1990, p.91). Thus, it is hard to ignore the fact that these sustained narratives have depicted the existence of cruelty in the modern civilizations which need to be addressed.
Another aspect that the most of the scholars have sought to examine is the nonviolent search for Truth by Mahatma Gandhi and Foucault, depicting the genre of works concerning the non-Western that has been taken as a non-political thought. While expressing some interests in the philosophical traditions of Asia, Foucault did not give a systematic interest on the theme of non-Western politics (Foucault, 1988, p. 5). In spite of the fact that he only talks about Gandhi hardly more than twice in his argument, there seems to be a remarkable similarity in the political power analyses of these two scholars. In the first place, their similarity is based on modern being ubiquitous, circulating, and diffuse. Secondly, their perception of a radical impulse toward pluralism and decentralization, which at times borders the anarchy, is a basis for their striking difference (Foucault, 2001, p. 234; Foucault, 2005, p. 178). Thirdly, they both depict present their views that aim at attacking the vital dichotomies of the modern culture. Their standpoints are also focused on the conviction of the Democrats that political power exercise mostly relies on the obedience as well as the cooperation of the subjects (Gandhi, 1977, p.254). Additionally, both Gandhi and Foucault base their arguments of the distance of the anarchists for hierarchy, which involves the rejection of the skeptic of the traditional metaphysics ( Gandhi, 1977, p. 113). Finally, the Foucault and Gandhi emphasized on the enlargement of knowledge and power that is indissoluble and thus leading to the development of the power narrative, in a broader context.
In contrast to these similarities, the political theory of Gandhi is a representation of an affair that is less cognitive as opposed to the problem-centered one. This ideology is theoretical extension of the solid experiences of resistance as well as dominance at the daily existence level. The author cites an illustration of racism of a conceptual issue, embodied by a colonial policeman who was seen throwing a young lawyer of the Indian origin from the first-class cabin of a train for a mere Maritzburg. Another incidence is that involving an English lawyer based in Pretoria who turned down cutting the hair of a “bloody coolie” (Gandhi, 2007, p.342). Therefore, these similarities make it possible for one to know how different political addressed the issues of Western power based on the Gandhi’s scope. Another difference is evident in the religion of the two thinkers. Gandhi appears as devoted religious person who spends most of time during the day in meditation and prayer, whereas Foucault was completely immersed in atheism resenting his Bourgeois Catholic background, who shifted blame on the religion for more of the modern man’s malaise (Foucault, 1990, p. 98).
The Legacy of Foucault and Gandhi
The legacy of the thinkers is an aspect that cannot be ignored since it tremendously contributes to the development of the narrative based on their achievements of addressing the issues resulting from political power. Over a long time, Gandhi’s thoughts have been taken seriously in the school of thoughts and students of politics because of the political issues are increasingly eating into the modern society (Gandhi, 1959, p. 198). Undeniably, his perspective concerning nonviolent political theory has drawn the attention of many scholars who have also suggested defense of radical political actions that oppose oppressive traditions and rules. Such actions correspond to Gandhi’s preference for a theory’s critical conception as a critique that is rational, expecting the systems of the modern Western politics as well as their institutions not be violent with their stated principles (Gandhi, n.d, p. 133). Additionally, Gandhi still appears as an essential enlightenment thinker supporting an emancipator political project based on the quest for the truth that is ethical-motivated (Gandhi, 1977, p.127). In this case, he gets credit because his nonviolent direct action has been an effective approach to counter the power networks that lack accountability via popular obedience transformation (Gandhi, 1977, p.275). More credit is granted to him for his value of humanity since his thoughts condemn violent acts emanating from the political powers.
Foucault is also another political thinker who has left a legacy in the addressing the issues of Western discourse of power (Foucault, 1977, p.162). For instance, he has a prominent reputation of power as a violent strive where all people fight one another in the modern world of politics (Foucault, 1984, p. 117). Additionally, his suggestion for a universal reciprocity where the rule of law has become a replacement of the warfare, where humanity entails installation of its violence in a system of laws enhance moral aspects of everyday social and political relationships (Foucault, 1977p. 116, Foucault, 1997, p. 121). The impact this interpretation has on the readers is that one can be drifted from the Marxist and liberal conceptual models which focus on justice as a human intervention to the social consequences of a violent political system.
Conclusion
In the scope of Gandhi’s perception of the challenges to the Western discourse of power, he holds the truth via ahimsa (nonviolent) as a remedy to the issues of modern Western conceptualizations of power. In Steger’s arguments, his three perspectives, liberal, Marxist, and Poststructuralism, has been a cornerstone for the development of this narrative. This narrative has sought to address the question of how applicable the thoughts of Gandhi and Foucault, and their supporters have been effective in the Western discourse of power. This paper notes the striking similarities and differences that arise from their views on the challenges of the Western discourse of political power. For instance, researchers and political thinkers have focused on the relationship between power and cruelty in the modern or Western world of politics. This narrative plays a role in the provision of insights concerning the various approaches that Gandhi and Foucault have suggested to remedy the various Western political issues.
Bibliography
Foucault, M 1972, The Archeology of Knowledge, New York: Harper Torchbooks, p.229.
____1977, Power Knowledge, Gordon, C, ed. Trans. by Gordon, C, Marshall, JM, & Soper, K. New York: Pantheon Books, pp. 32-109.
____1977, Discipline and Punishment, Translated by Sheridan, A. New York: Vintage Books, p. 308.
____1977, “Language to Infinity,” in Donald Bouchard, ed., Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 162–163.
___1978, The History of Sexuality, Vol. I: An Introduction, Trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Vintage.
____1979, Discipline and Punish, The Birth of the Prison, New York: Vintage, 9.
____1980, The History of Sexuality: An Introduction (New York: Vintage, 88–89
____1984, “Truth and Power,” in Paul Rabinow, ed., The Foucault Reader, New York: Pantheon, 51–75.
___ 1984, The Foucault Reader. Edited by Paul Rabinow. New York: Pantheon.
___1986, The History of Sexuality, Vol. III: The Care of the Self. Trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Pantheon.
___1988, “Truth, Power, Self: An Interview with Michel Foucault.” Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault. Ed. L. Martin, H. Gutman, and P. Hutton. 9-15. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
___1990, The History of Sexuality, Vol. II: The Use of Pleasure, Trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Vintage.
___1991, “How an ‘Experience Book’ is Born.” In Remarks on Marx. R.J. Goldstein and J. Cascaito, Trans. J. Cascaito. 25-42. New York: Semiotext(e).
___1997, “Michel Foucault: An Interview by Stephen Riggins.” In Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth. The Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984, Vol. 1. 121-133. Ed. Paul Rabinow. Trans. Robert Hurley and Others. New York: The New Press.
___2001, Fearless Speech. J. Pearson, ed. New York: Semiotext (e), Collected 1983 University of California Lectures at Berkeley.
___2005, The Hermeneutics of the Subject: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1981-1982, Ed. F. Gros, Trans. G. Burchell. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Gandhi, MK 1938, Hind Swaraj, Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, p. 71.
____1948, Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press, pp. 141–142, 262-292.
____1955, My Religion, Navajivan Publishing House Publisher
____1966, Young India (March 23, 1921), in CWMG: vol.19, 466.
____1958, The Nation’s Voice, Edited by C. Rajagopalachari & J. C. Kumarrappa, Navjivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad.
___ 1959, Ashram observances in Action, Translated from Gujarati by V.G. Desai, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad.
____ 1960, My Non-violence, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1960
____ 2001, Fearless Speech. J. Pearson, ed. New York: Semiotext (e),Collected 1983 University of California Lectures at Berkeley.
____(n.d), The Collected Works of Mahatma Ghandhi, Delhi: The Publication Division,Vol. X, p. 133-249.
____1960, The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi, Compiled and Edited by R.K. Prabhu and U.R. Rao. Ahmedabad: Jitendra T. Desai, Navajivan Trust.
___1961, The Art of living, Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay-7.
___1977, Discourse on the Gita, Translated by Valji Govindji Desai, Jitendra T Desai, Navajivan Publishing House, India.
___1977, Non-Violence and Social Change, Edited by Mathur, JS, & Sharma, PC, Jitendra T. Desai, Navajivan Mudranalaya Publisher, India.
___1977, Ruskin unto this Last, Translated by Valji Govindji Desai, Jitendra T Desai, Navajivan Publishing House, India.
___2007, The Man, His People, and The Empire. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
___2008, The Essential Writings. Ed. Judith M. Brown, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
___ 2009, ‘Hind Swaraj’ and Other Writings: Centenary Edition. Ed. Anthony J. Parel, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
____ 2009, The Bhagavad Gita According to Gandhi. Text and commentary translated from Gujarati. Ed. John Strohmeier. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books.
