Gandhi's Hind Swaraj takes the form of a dialogue between two characters, The Reader and The Editor. The Reader essentially serves as the typical Indian countryman whom Gandhi would have been addressing with Hind Swaraj. The Reader voices the common beliefs and arguments of the time concerning Indian Independence. Gandhi, The Editor, explains why those arguments are flawed and interject his own arguments. As The Editor Gandhi puts it, "it is my duty patiently to try to remove your prejudice."
In the dialogue which follows, Gandhi outlines four themes which structure his arguments.
1. First, Gandhi argues that ‘Home Rule is Self Rule’. He argues that it is not enough for the British to leave only for Indians to adopt a British-styled society. As he puts it, some "want English rule without the Englishman ... that is to say, [they] would make India English. And when it becomes English, it will be called not Hindustan but Englishtan. This is not the Swaraj I want.”
2. Gandhi also argues that Indian independence is only possible through passive resistance. In fact, more than denouncing violence, Gandhi argues that it is counter-productive; instead, he believes, “The force of love and pity is infinitely greater than the force of arms. There is harm in the exercise of brute force, never in that of pity.” This is essential throughout Hind Swaraj.
3. In order to exert passive resistance, Gandhi reasons that Swadeshi (self-reliance) be exercised by Indians, meaning the refusal of all trade and dealings with the British. He addresses the English when he states, “If you do not concede our demand, we shall be no longer your petitioners. You can govern us only so long as we remain the governed; we shall no longer have any dealings with you." Gandhi makes an intriguing argument here; if the British want India for trade, remove trade from the equation.
4. Finally, Gandhi argues that India will never be free unless it rejects Western civilization itself. In the text he is deeply critical of western civilization, claiming, “India is being ground down, not under the English heel, but under that of modern civilization." He speaks about civilization not just in relation to India, though. He argues that “Western civilization is such that one has only to be patient and it will be self destroyed." It is a profound repudiation. Not only is western civilization unhealthy for India, but western civilization is by its own virtue unhealthy.

Introduction
The quest for peace is an eternal pursuit for human fulfillment. Peace or absence of antagonistic, violent, or destabilizing conflict is essential for existence to become life, for survival to become human. Human beings can become human and humane only in conditions of peace. Creativity, spirituality, individual and collective achievements attain grandeur and glory only when there is peace. Qualities of compassion, forgiveness, love, sharing and universal solidarity become cherished and sought after virtuous attributes only when a community, society or nation is at peace-within and without. War on the other hand, internal or external, civil or military, declared or undeclared valorizes bravery-the capacity to kill or be killed-the destruction of human life and accomplishments; it mocks compassion and conscience; it belittles refusal to erect artificial walls that divide human beings in the name of one identity or the other; it glorifies the destructive principle and devalues the principles of creation and life. The warmongers are invariably persons with few qualms of conscience, ever ready to eliminate and exterminate human life, emotions, thought, ideas, and achievements.
Mahatma Gandhi developed an integrated approach and perspective to the concept of life itself on the basis of his experiences and experiments. His ideas, which came to be known as his philosophy, were a part of his relentless search for truth. [Iyer. 1973, p. 270]. The concept of Satyagraha is related to the social, political, cultural, economic and psychological conditions, which influenced the life and personality of Gandhi. He adopted the non-violent approach to resist all the forces that exerted pressure on him physically and psychologically.
He believed that the supreme law that governs all living things and the universe is nothing but love and non-violence. It was Gandhi's firm belief that the basis of all religions of the world was the law of love. The very purpose of non-violent resistance and upholding the principles of truth was none other than asserting the freedom of oneself over his mind and body. Gandhi's concept of Satyagraha is an integrated concept and includes truth, non-violence, non-stealing, chastity or Brahmacharya, poverty or non-possession, bread labor, fearlessness, control of the palate [Asvada], tolerance, Swadeshi and removal of untouchability.
Scope of Satyagraha
According to Gandhi, Satyagraha can be adopted by anybody. Gandhi said that Satyagraha was like a banyan tree, which had innumerable branches. Truth-Satya and non- violence-Ahimsa together made its parent trunk from which all the innumerable branches shoot out. [Iyer. 1973, p. 265]
Satyagraha has also been considered as a weapon of soul force to resist any kind of oppression. While Gandhi regarded Satyagraha as a way of life, during the freedom struggle of India, Satyagraha was used as a weapon to resist the authority of the state and to achieve various things for the general welfare of the people.
Gandhi and his chief lieutenant Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel had conducted the Satyagrahas at Champaran and Bardoli not only to achieve material gains for the people, but also to resist the unjust authority of the then British regime. The Civil Disobedience Movement of 1930, which was started with the breaking of the Salt Law at Dandi, and the Quit India Movements were classic examples when Gandhi and his colleagues used Satyagraha as a weapon of the soul force.
Satyagraha as a means of resistance and conflict resolution has different forms. Hunger strike [fasting], Hartal [striking work], hijrat [immigration] etc. are some of the forms suggested. The principles, conditions and qualifications of Satyagraha are relevant to all these forms.
Relevance of Satyagraha in the Twenty-First Century Is Satyagraha relevant to the present-day society or the Twenty-First Century? The answer is not a simple yes or no. When we try to decide whether it is relevant to the present day society, the fundamental thing we have to consider is the nature of the present-day individual. Gandhi was well aware of the increasing influence of materialistic considerations on the modern society and individual. According to Gandhi, the main objective of Satyagraha was to eradicate the evil or to reform the opponent. In the present socio-economic political system, there is a dire necessity to wean the individual away from the influence of wealth, luxuries and power. In all the educational institutions, right from the lowest level to the level of university, it would be worthwhile to teach the young people the concept of Satyagraha and the principles of truth and non-violence, as the basic factors contributing to the peace, harmony and the welfare of the society. In all the industrial establishments and other places of mass employment also, Satyagraha would be a viable alternative to other methods for the peaceful resolution of disputes and conflicts. And in all walks of life, wherever there is scope for conflict and disharmony, the practice of the principles of truth and non-violence in the smallest way possible, would definitely make a great contribution in bringing about peace and harmony. Satyagraha as an ideal and as a great weapon of conflict resolution will always serve as a great inspiration to the people of all generations to come, both in India and elsewhere. It may not be possible for ordinary human beings to practice Brahmacharya, poverty and simple living in the age of scientific and technological development, but the usefulness of truth and non-violence will always be relevant wherever the goal is prosperity, welfare and development, because without truth and non-violence, there cannot be peace and without peace there cannot be development.

Three Pillars of Satyagraha
The Gandhian quest for peace rests on the foundation of non-violence. For conflict resolution Mahatma Gandhi used method of Satyagraha [insistence on truth or Zeal for Truth] that has three pillars:
1. Sat-which implies openness, honesty, and fairness:
Each person's opinions and beliefs represent part of the truth;
In order to see more of the truth we must share our truths cooperatively;
This implies a desire to communicate and a determination to do so, which in turn requires developing and refining relevant skills of communication; and
Commitment to seeing as much of the truth as possible means that we cannot afford to categorize others or ourselves.
2. Ahimsa-refusal to inflict injury on others:
Ahimsa is dictated by our commitment to communication and to sharing of our pieces of the truth. Violence shuts off channels of communication;
The concept of Ahimsa appears in most major religions, which suggests that while most people may not practice it, it is respected as an ideal;
Ahimsa is an expression of our concern that our own and other's humanity be manifested and respected; and
We must learn to genuinely love our opponents in order to practice Ahimsa.
3. Tapasya-willingness for self-sacrifice:
A Satyagrahi [one who practices Satyagraha] must be willing to shoulder any sacrifice which is occasioned by the struggle which they have initiated, rather than pushing such sacrifice or suffering onto their opponent, lest the opponent become alienated and access to their portion of the truth become lost; and
The Satyagrahi must always provide a face-saving way out for the opponents. The goal is to discover a wider vista of truth and justice, not to achieve victory over the opponent.
Conflict resolution discourse of modern problem solving and win-win [as opposed to power-based and zero sum] approaches leading to integrative conflict resolution [as opposed to mere compromise and distributive outcomes] strongly echoes Gandhi's own writings and the analyses of some Gandhi scholars. The Twenty-First Century radical thinkers of environment, human rights and women's movements advocate conflict resolution techniques as potentially being about more than the solution of immediate problems that see a broader personal and societal transformation as the ultimate goal.
Gandhian Satyagraha should be squarely located within conflict resolution discourse. In this principle of non-violence Gandhi introduced technique of resistance to evil and untruth. His Satyagraha is inspired by boundless love and compassion. It is opposed to sin, not sinner, the evil, not evildoer. For him truth was God. Truth is not yours or mine. It is neither Western nor Eastern.
Process of Satyagraha
The success of a Satyagraha campaign to resolve any conflict rests on three basic assumptions. They are:
That there can always be found some elements of common interest to all the contending parties;
That the parties are or at least might be amenable to an appeal to the heart and mind; and
That those in a position to commence Satyagraha are also in a position to carry it through to the end. If these prerequisites are fulfilled, the scene is set for the process aimed at the required conversion to be initiated. This can involve several steps, reasoning with the opponent, then persuasion through self suffering wherein the Satyagrahi [Seeker of Truth] attempts to dramatize the issues at stake and to get through to the opponent's unprejudiced judgment so that he/she may willingly come again onto a level where he/she may be persuaded through natural argument. This is the process of moral appeal through self-suffering in lieu of coercion. Gandhi while he summarizes this process says, "I seek entirely to blunt the edge of the tyrant's sword, not by putting up against a sharper edged weapon, but by disappointing his expectation that I would be offering physical resistance". [Gandhi, M. K. 1925, October 8. Young India]
Hence if the attempts at conversion through these measures fail, the tools of non-cooperation or civil disobedience may be brought into play.
Given this presentation of moral equivalent of War or Satyagraha as a background paper, it is now left open to examine and test the efficacy of Satyagraha by referring to certain recurring points of debate or controversy:
The role of the individual especially the charismatic personality in Satyagraha;
Pacifism and Satyagraha;
Satyagraha as a way of life and as a process or weapon of conflict resolution; and
Satyagraha against incorrigible violence.
In the Twenty-First Century, Gandhian concept of forgiveness seems to be central to the theoretical development of the emerging field of conflict resolution. Forgiveness has been a topic of increasing interest both academically and to practitioners. There seems to be a healing and liberating quality to forgiveness that helps both individuals and societies move away from revenge and toward reconciliation. In a word, forgiveness offers hope. In a time of tense conflicts based on caste, class, ethnicity, race, gender, religion and territory forgiveness may have extraordinary value as a daily ethic, as well as a practical process.
After demolition of World Trade Centre youth of America have formed an organization, named as we want peace no war and want to start a new dialogue, to replace hatred by propagating friendship among the nations and different communities. The United Nations has declared this decade as the Decade of Culture of Peace and Non-violence for the Children of the World. In this context, Gandhian thoughts on conflict transformation are gaining increasing global popularity.
Critical Evaluation of Satyagraha
Rai [2000] makes an attempt to study Gandhian Satyagraha in a philosophical way by analyzing the basic principles of Satyagraha with a critical viewpoint. It contents the basic philosophical ideas persisting in Gandhi throughout his life. The book has detailed and elaborates explanation of all the basic thought and practices of Satyagraha, and what are the inherent contradictions. In concluding chapter the author has pluck up courage to find out how far Satyagraha and its principles are relevant now a days and what its negative implications are. This book is not only for the students of Gandhian thought or philosophy but also for general people as well to know Gandhian Satyagraha in its totality in context to modern times.
Satyagraha operates at a level deeper than nationality, politics, military power, book education or socio-economic ideology. It is a process working in the very elemental human nature of mankind as a biological species. As Satyagraha becomes more widely employed, it will, partly by virtue of this capacity as a mirror, help in the development of human self-consciousness and confidence in one's own capacities. Verma and Bakshi [2005] analyze a very crucial period of modern India under the British Rule because after end of First World War followed by famine, unemployment and magnified sufferings of Indian people and new motivations and impulses, which influenced the character of freedom, struggle. Mahatma Gandhi made it clear that he had no admiration for British Parliamentary system and also declared in a special session of Indian National Congress held in Calcutta [now Kolkata] that Swarajya can be attained in one year provided adequate response from masses to the Congress. Occurrence of such events in quick succession widened the scope of the fight for freedom. Non-cooperation Movement, nonviolent Satyagraha, participation of women, appointment of the Simon Commission and movement against him, emergence of Lala Lajpat Rai followed by Bhagat Singh and other revolutionaries and their martyrdom shook the roots of the British Rule and they started sensing that their days were numbered. Krishna [2008] deconstructs the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi in South Africa that was gradually entering a new era, the era of non-racial democracy. Though ethnicity will continue to cast its shadow on politics, as religion and castes do in India even after six decades of secular democracy. The Gandhian Satyagraha can be an effective tool to challenge the unjust order. Shukla [2008] states that the first Satyagraha Revolutions inspired by Mahatma Gandhi in the Indian Independence Movement occurred in Kheda of Gujarat and Champaran of Bihar between the years of 1917 and 1918. Gandhi established an Ashram in Champaran, organizing scores of his veteran supporters and fresh volunteers from the region. He organized a detailed study and survey of the villages, accounting the atrocities and terrible episodes of suffering, including the general state of degenerate living. Building on the confidence of villagers, he began leading the cleanup of villages, building of schools and hospitals and encouraging the village leadership to undo Purdah, untouchability and the suppression of women.
War, Peace and Satyagraha
Peace is threatened generally by three kinds of national or international conflicts. The first and most destructive is the arms race, carrying with it the possibility of nuclear confrontation; the second is that of conventional wars between the states for territory, resources, honour, or ideological supremacy; the third is a consequence of totalitarian or authoritarian rule resulting in oppression and denial of equality, freedom, and justice to the whole population of a state or to distinguishable groups within it.
For the first time in the modern world, we have witnessed that President Barack Hussein Obama managed to convince the house to reduce the defense budget and allocate more resources to the public health. Currently, at 200 geographical locations conflict situations are prevalent. Peace movements are gaining momentum throughout the world. Goal 8 of The MDGs also demands from the nation state mutual cooperation and global peace.
The wars of national liberation in Latin America and Africa are instances of the third type. The second and third kinds of threats can become intertwined, as evidenced in such wars as the one between Ethiopia and Somalia in the late 1970s [in which Somalia put forward claims to the Ogaden region based on traditional movements of the tribes within its own jurisdiction], or the disputes between India and Pakistan over the territory of Kashmir. The war between Iran and Iraq is at once an ideological conflict [where the Shiah fundamentalist Islam of Iran has set itself against the more secularist, traditional Sunni Islam of the Arabs] and a dispute over boundaries separating the two states. The conflict between Arab states and Israel is similarly multilayered. It is about territory, the rights of the Palestinians for a homeland, and Israel's right to exist as a state.
There is very little possibility that in the foreseeable future any state will replace arms with non-violent means to deter aggression. Indeed, all governments believe that nonviolence is irrelevant to the problem of defense, and that therefore armed force must be the ultimate arbiter in human affairs. Against this unqualified faith in the efficacy of force, one must point out that wars do not always obtain their desired ends, nor does oppression ensure true and enduring control over peoples and nations. Indeed, Adolph Hitler did not obtain his objective through force, nor did various imperial nations such as Great Britain and France gain their ends by employing force in their colonies. The wars of national independence have time and again proven the impotency of superior force when matched against massive grassroots violent and non-violent resistance. Thus, there is no reason to believe that force and violence will invariably intimidate others and achieve the ends desired of them. By the same token, non-violence is not applicable in every situation of potential conflict, although Gandhi and his supporters claimed that it was.
Let us take the case of ultimate violence first.
Ever since the advent of nuclear weapons, the world has lived in terror of annihilation. The means of destruction are so lethal that they have rendered largely irrelevant the objectives for which a war could be waged.
There is no real purpose in waging a war if the conflict spells certain mutual destruction within a few minutes and if very little of either adversary's national substance would be left to dominate the other.
Horsburg, however, argues that although Satyagraha is no substitute for deterrence, the spread of nuclear weapons to a large number of states will create a situation in which nonviolent means of resolving conflict will become increasingly relevant. He admits that disagreement and hostilities will persist, "There are bound to be many cases in which negotiations will end in a deadlock". However, he claimed, "it does not seem wildly speculative to predict that in these circumstances an increasing interest will come to be taken in the possibilities of non-violent action."
He defends his position, "If it is said that those optimistic speculations are absurd, I must insist that they are soundly based on the logic of deterrence. If the risks that deterrent policies involve must continue to increase, the use of armed force in the international sphere must become progressively more dangerous and hence it must eventually become too hazardous to use in the most extreme national emergencies."
Unfortunately, the logic of deterrence does not quite work in the way Horsburg describes. Nuclear states often engage in conventional wars and by a tacit agreement refrain from using their most lethal weapons. For instance, in the conflict over the Falkland Islands between England and Argentina, England certainly had the capacity to wage a nuclear war. Similarly, in the 1979 conflict between China and Vietnam, China had an independent nuclear capacity and Vietnam was under the Soviet nuclear umbrella. Indeed, one might point out that the rough parity in nuclear weapons has aggravated the competition for the Third World between the USA and the USSR.
Gandhi's Solution to External Invasion Would be to Convert the Conflict from One at the Borders to One Against Occupation within the Country A struggle against occupation, rather than defense at the borders, will shift the conflict to the turf where Satyagraha has a decided advantage and where the enemy must depend on popular cooperation. However, there are cases where Satyagraha will not be feasible. For instance, the enemy may be interested merely in inflicting military humiliation and may withdraw promptly after armed intervention. In some situations, the national population may be too small in numbers to mount effective non-violent resistance. In other situations, the invader may be interested merely in extracting raw materials, and may not require cooperation of the civilian population to do so. In most other instances, however, the Gandhian theory of power will become operational and give civilian defense a powerful means to foil the ambitions of an aggressor. The Norwegian resistance to Nazi rule, the Indian community Satyagraha against the Transvaal government, the Chinese boycotts of 1905, and the revolutionary change in Russia were not conducted in a liberal socio-political environment. Draconian laws were in effect, and in each case the government had the means to stamp out opposition promptly. It must be pointed out that with the exception of South African involvement; protestors resorted to Satyagraha without fully understanding its principles or techniques, mainly because arms were not available. Even in South Africa, Gandhi was still experimenting with Satyagraha, and it had not as yet attained the fullness of a strategy for conflict resolution. This was to happen much later.
In India, Satyagraha succeeded, not because British rule was democratic and liberal-the massacre of innocent women and men at Jallianwala Bagh pointed to the opposite-but because the British had ignored Gandhi's early calls for Satyagraha, thinking it to be an entirely eccentric and unworkable idea. The movement gathered force in the meantime, until it became too late to control the nationalists' fervour or the moral elan among the masses.
Indeed, even in the late 1980s there is persuasive evidence that Satyagraha would be an appropriate alternative for conflict as a means of change. As one looks at Central American upheavals, such as those in Nicaragua and El Salvador, a certain similarity of underlying causes becomes apparent. There is not much dispute even among policymakers in Washington that in each case the conflict is a result of long years of oppression, misery, and denial of freedom to the majority. However, in an oppressive environment, tightly knit violent revolutionary movements spring up, plunging the country into civil war. The masses want neither communism not the semi-feudal oligarchies that have been the rule in Central America, and certainly they do not want civil war. In fact, when the revolutionaries succeed, as they did in Nicaragua in 1979, the results may be different only in degree from the oppression of the past. Born in violence, and threatened by great powers like the United States and its surrogates, a revolutionary government has no choice but to enforce austerity and strict rule.
However, in each case the guerilla movement could not have succeeded without mass support. Indeed, in the classic strategy enacted in Cuba and elsewhere in Latin America, the guerrillas first fight for control of the countryside and slowly tighten the noose around the capital. As a final blow, the capital or major metropolis then goes on strike, and the government comes to a halt. In other words, non-cooperation and mass support could not be obtained without organization and publicity. And in every successful case these are quite effectively employed, even when clandestine operations are necessary.
Satyagraha is a better functional alternative to guerilla warfare in the classic strategy scenario, because here Gandhi's theory of power can be operationalized with stunning effect.
The ruling oligarchies cannot remain in power unless they deliver a large portion of the wealth of the county to external powers on whose support they depend for their own survival. In other words, such regimes represent the interests, not of the masses within, but of exploiting forces outside their country. This is the regimes strength; however, if viewed from the perspective of Satyagraha strategy, it is also its major weakness.
A great power like America may intervene on behalf of ruling interests on the pretext that the revolutionary movement is aided and abetted by America's enemies. Because self-reliance and non-violent persuasion are the cardinal rules in Satyagraha, there would be no need for arms from abroad; thus, the United States would look foolish sending an army against unarmed citizens who were simply agitating for human rights, and demanding liberty and democracy. What is more, if Satyagraha were to succeed and political change be brought about, the resulting government founded as it would be on peace and popular legitimacy without ill will, should be able to maintain internal as well as external peace.
Indeed, one of the most critical revolutions of recent times, the revolution in Iran, has many lessons for us in this respect. Admittedly, Islamic fundamentalism has nothing in common with Gandhian Satyagraha; however, we should note several elements that this movement holds in common with other revolutions.
First the masses in Iran were imbued with moral and religious fervour; secondly, they were willing to accept enormous suffering, punishment and even death for the success of their cause; and thirdly, they bravely faced the Shah's troops, displayed enormous courage in the face of superior arms [often only meagerly armed themselves], and staged massive demonstrations, strikes, and rallies despite express warning not to do so. The Islamic Revolutionary Party that came to power was certainly not imbued with Ahimsa; indeed, it proceeded to eliminate all opposition. Nevertheless, it is significant that it had used non-cooperation and civil resistance to topple the Shah. It should be noted that the Shah saw only two choices before him: to plunge the country into a bloodbath or to abdicate. He chose the second, not because he was particularly compassionate and liberal, but because he saw little purpose in pursuing the path of civil war.
Gandhi would have abhorred the goals and methods of the Islamic revolution, but that is not the point here. The point is that moral determination; willingness to sacrifice, and mass resistance can succeed, even in an environment where there is no liberty to organize and no freedom to rally enthusiasts openly around a cause. The Islamic revolutionary used the mosques just as the Solidarity movement in Poland has used the Catholic Church. 'People power' succeeded in the Philippines.
Conclusion
Gandhi advocated Satyagraha not as a new religion but as a superior means for attaining social harmony and human advancement for peace. This alliance of a pragmatic quest for solutions and a deep spiritual conviction also points to the way in which future generations may be educated in the task of struggling for peace. Mahatma Gandhi's teachings of Satyagraha and Ahimsa are becoming more popular with the youth of today, said veteran Gandhians Monday as the nation marked the birth of non-violence as a means of resistance advocated by Gandhi in South Africa one hundred years ago. "The day is a sweet reminder of a great movement that is still relevant for any civilization. I think the Twenty-First Century belongs to this ideology, and people especially youngsters must follow the path of the Mahatma to fight corruption and injustice," said veteran Gandhian Nirmala Deshpande. [www.theshillongtimes.com/c-12- Sept.html, 2006] The concept of Satyagraha or truthful passive resistance, took its birth at the Empire Theatre in Johannesburg on September 11, 1906. The meeting was convened to oppose a proposed new legislation on the Indian community in South Africa.
"The ideology that gave us independence is gaining popularity among youngsters and it's certainly a positive indication", Deshpande said, referring to a recent survey that found 76 percent youngsters in India consider Gandhi as their icon. Deshpande, also a Rajya Sabha member, said that from cinematic themes to special educational courses, Gandhi's teachings were making a comeback. "It seems the country is set for a transformation on the lines of Gandhian theories. And the centenary celebration will act as a catalyst to remind us to strengthen our commitment for a better tomorrow," she added. K. K. Mukhopadhyay, a Gandhian and former director of the Gandhi Bhavan in Delhi University, said, "Gandhi's popularity is on the rise. From cinema to dedicated courses in colleges, Gandhi is covering new grounds and the response is quite encouraging."
According to Delhi University authorities, a hundred marks examination paper termed Understanding Gandhi in the second year of the BA programme had fetched excellent response from students. Plans are afoot to rope in actors who have played Gandhi in films and theatre to make the course more appealing for students. Several cultural programmes and exhibitions were organized to mark the day in the national capital. The Gandhi Museum held an exhibition on Satyagraha, including portraits and write-ups on the life of the Mahatma in South Africa, the Dandi March and the Quit India Movement.
Minister of Tourism and Culture Ambika Soni released three books- Satyagraha, Friends of Gandhi and Satyagraha-on the occasion. Anil Dutta Mishra, deputy director of the Museum, said, "We have also arranged for special lectures for the public to understand Gandhi better." The Gandhi Smriti and Darshan Samiti here exhibited rare photographs of Mahatma and his struggle against apartheid in South Africa. The director of the organization said that they have planned yearlong special cultural programmes in different parts of the country to commemorate the historic event. "The year 1906 may rightly be described as a turning point in the life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. It was in this year when he experienced a deep spiritual awakening within and dedicated himself to the service of humanity. We hope the centenary celebration will awaken many such souls."

References:-
Hind swaraj - By M.K.Gandhi www.Google.doc www.wikipedia.com
Information provided by Our Professor Mr. Manoj Mishra.
& Some Notes.