Making of Contemporary Indian Philosophy and Dilemmas of Demanded Change: A Critical Study of Swaraj in Light of Neo-Vedanta

Prologue: Theoretic Proximity of Swaraj and Neo-Vedanta

For a considerable period, a perception prevailed that Vedanta, especially Shankara’s Advaita philosophy, asserted the world as Maya [illusion]. Consequently, a misconception, which has long been refuted, emerged, suggesting that Indian thought primarily revolves around life-negation and otherworldliness (Radhakrishnan, 1989; Schweitzer, 2013). However, a thorough examination of Indian philosophy reveals more nuanced perspectives. While Shankara’s Advaita philosophy does emphasize the concept of Maya (the world and individual self are an illusion from a transcendental perspective), it is essential to recognize that this interpretation of Vedanta is not the only one within the vast landscape of Indian philosophical thought (Hacker, 1995). Vedanta, as a philosophical system, includes various schools of thought, each with its unique interpretation and emphasis on different aspects of reality and existence. Other schools of Vedanta, such as Vishishtadvaita [qualified non-dualism] and Dvaita [dualism], present alternative viewpoints. These schools do not dismiss the world as a mere illusion; instead, they acknowledge the ontological status of empirical reality. Likewise, in the series of theoretical developments in Vedanta during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a philosophical trend known as Neo-Vedanta emerged. Neo-Vedanta trend again sought to emphasize the central thesis of Vedanta philosophy but in a unique way (Bhattacharyya, 1976). Likewise, what distinguished Neo-Vedanta from traditional Advaita was its application to address practical human suffering and its unique approach to addressing the issue of maya and the socio-cultural challenges of that time.

Of equal importance, recent developments in the making of Indian philosophy and culture have proven to be highly significant, rightfully earning their place on the global stage, a position momentarily hindered by external factors such as foreign imperialism and colonialism. In this context, the popular Indian concept of Swaraj has captured the attention of thinkers worldwide. Apart from its classical connotation, Swaraj represents a central and unified socio-political and moral perspective embraced by numerous Indian thinkers and Indologists in general, with a specific focus by Neo-Vedantists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, addressing broader humanistic concerns. In light of this, as noted in the Abstract, we propose that Swaraj not only embodies the essence of a unique form of virtue and enlightenment but also presents a worldview that reflects the spirit of the Indian Renaissance, balancing academic and politico-cultural connotations. It likewise transcends external challenges such as caste, creed religion and extreme chauvinism, albeit with the forewarning of remaining vigilant against falling into the trap of cultural relativism. Concisely, Swaraj, in the context of Neo-Vedanta, provided a unique framework for human endeavour, empowering individuals and communities to take charge of their destinies and work towards uplifting themselves and their society (Dasgupta, 1999).

The proponents of Neo-Vedanta, whose characteristics and significance we will further highlight, recognized and addressed pressing issues such as human destiny, poverty, casteism, violence, imperialism, enslavement and the future of the world in general and India in particular (Medhananda, 2022; Mukerji, 1983). ¹ To streamline the selection process and recognize the evolving global and cultural landscapes, our analysis investigates the philosophy of Swaraj as expounded by K. C. Bhattacharyya, Sri Aurobindo, Swami Vivekananda and Mahatma Gandhi, who actively engaged with these concepts during and after India’s independence movement (Mahadevan & Saroja, 1983; Sherma, 2008). Neo-Vedantists sought to bridge ancient Indian spiritual philosophy with contemporary socio-political and global challenges. To fully appreciate their ideas, we must acknowledge the intellectual and ethical foundations driving their transformative endeavours. Recognizing the power of ideas like Swaraj enables a deeper understanding of freedom struggles and the positive influence of thoughtful contributions in shaping societies. Accordingly, this composition relies on essential works of Neo-Vedantists, primarily focusing on significant texts such as K. C. Bhattacharyya’s lecture on ‘Swaraj in Ideas’ (1929), Sri Aurobindo’s ‘Foundation of Indian Culture’ and ‘The Renaissance in India’ (Ghose, 1975) and Mahatma Gandhi’s ‘Hind Swaraj’ (Gandhi, 1997).

However, before proceeding further, a brief biography of K. C. Bhattacharyya would clarify the preliminary doubt because apart from other Neo-Vedantists, he is a relatively lesser-known figure outside academic circles. Yet, his role is enormous; in fact, he was one of the first to use the term Neo-Vedanta. Bhattacharyya was a distinguished modern Indian philosopher affiliated with the University of Calcutta. Born on 12 May 1875, in Serampore into a family renowned for its Sanskrit scholarship, he pursued higher education at Presidency College. His philosophy of freedom and absolutism, along with their alternative forms, is considered revolutionary in modern metaphysical studies (Bhattacharyya, 1930, 1976). Likewise, renowned for his method of ‘constructive interpretation’, Bhattacharyya investigated ancient Indian philosophical systems while also engaging with modern Western thought, exploring the new realms of metaphysical idealism (Raveh & Saouma, 2023). ² He advocated for a cosmopolitan approach to philosophy, urging the contemporization of Indian frameworks through assimilation rather than mere replication of European ideas. Amidst India’s struggle for independence, he fervently appealed for liberation from ‘cultural subjection’, defining it as a form of intellectual servitude. His notable work Swarāj in Ideas, which we have selected for thisarticle, articulated this concept, emphasizing the unconscious nature of cultural subjection and the necessity for comparison and competition in the exchange of ideas.

Threads of Neo-Vedanta: Swaraj as a Prospective Philosophy of Change

Change is inevitable in the progression of human civilization. However, there are always people in any given society who seem reluctant to change how society is organized, whether such people benefit from the existence of the status quo or fear that change will bring unpredictability (AOI, 2013; Von Mises, 2005). Conversely, some pioneers see the same existing social order as far from pragmatism, fear and short-term gratification and thus envision change. In line with this essential component of the human world, a question of great interest for detached and methodical scholars, notwithstanding for different reasons, is how society should change or what normative factors contribute to how society organizes itself without violence. For example, the acceptance of any form of subjugation, such as colonialism in the context of India, is both challenging experimentally and philosophically. Everyone wants freedom from any sort of subjugation. However, the challenge arises when freedom struggle or significant societal change often revolves around the visible aspects, such as battles, weaponization, prisons and detention centres. These tangible elements tend to overshadow the critical and pacific role played by ideas and ethics, which actually fuel and drive the entire freedom movement and societal change in a far better way. In the words of Cicero, with which we can readily agree, ‘it is not by muscle, speed, or physical dexterity that great things are achieved, but by reflection, force of character, and judgment’ (Radford, 2022, p. 9).

Similarly, it is often insensitively overlooked how crucial ideas are shaping the human world order, a negligence that can lead to the neglect or mistreatment of many great thinkers. One such prominent example is Mahatma Gandhi, who became a primary victim of this hostile ethos. Misjudgements and mistreatment of great thinkers like Gandhi often stem from a failure to fully comprehend the depth and breadth of their ideas and intentions, not only for the Indian people struggling with colonialism but also for the entire humanity. Gandhi’s vision, for instance, extended far beyond the immediate context of India’s freedom struggle; he advocated for principles that could be applied universally to promote peace, justice and human dignity. His philosophy of non-violence (ahimsa) and civil disobedience, located in the philosophy of Swaraj and learned from other cultures and civilizations, was not just a means to achieve political independence for India but a profound belief in resolving conflicts peacefully and promoting understanding among different communities and nations (Jahanbegloo, 2023). As Gandhi expressed:

Swaraj means ‘self-government.’ But there are two selves in every individual, as well as in every Society and Nation: a higher self and a lower self; a selfish self and an altruistic self; the elements of virtue and the elements of vice. Government by the higher self only is true self-government. Government by the lower self is the same thing as government by another; for this lower self is the worse of foreign tyrants; and all foreign government is, of necessity, and, either frankly or hypocritically tyrannical, because it is government by a selfish self…government of one race, or nation, or class, by another race, or nation, or class, which keeps itself apart, socially and biologically, can never be government by the higher self, however much it may pretend to be such….To secure true Self-government, true Swaraj, means, then, to secure the government of a people by its own higher self; and that means, to ensure purity and wisdom of head and heart in its legislators by wise memorandums (Bhushan & Garfield, 2011, p. 93).

Additionally, this pacific philosophy extends beyond Gandhi; a multitude of thinkers, such as the Neo-Vedantists cited above, remain unrecognized for their invaluable ideas and contributions to humanity (Mahadevan & Saroja, 1983). ³ Here note that the term or trend ‘Neo-Vedanta’ is known for its ambiguity and frequent controversy in recent philosophical debates. Scholars have engaged in significant debates over whether thinkers such as Gandhi, Tagore, K. C. Bhattacharyya and Sri Aurobindo should be included in this category. Interestingly, in line with our objective, some scholars, such as T. M. P. Mahadevan (1911–1983), George Burch (1902–1973), Stephen H. Phillips and R Balasubramanian (1929–2017), have attempted to establish the trend that encompasses these thinkers (Phillips, 1998). While the debates on the classification continue, there is value in adopting the term ‘Neo-Vedanta’ to facilitate discussions and promote a unified concept of the modern Indian perspective. This categorization acknowledges the valuable contributions of these thinkers to Indian philosophy and their efforts to carve out an indigenous response to colonialism and modernity. The ideas attributed to Neo-Vedanta, such as peaceful cosmopolitanism, consolidation of modernity and Indian renaissance, and an open scope for diversity, align with the principles of Swaraj, which is the focus of this paper. These ideas have played a crucial role in shaping the modern Indian philosophical landscape, including the socio-political one (Radhakrishnan, 2018).

As far as the idea of change is concerned, in the long march of human history, philosophers and historians have often viewed the role played by individuals and the freedom given to them in shaping the course of events (Tucker, 2011). Many also have adhered to the practice of the philosophy of history. Hegel, Marx, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Michael Foucault are the prominent pioneers of this practice in the West (Sweet, 2019). This theory (philosophy of history) attempts to discern an underlying general pattern in the course of historical events instead of seeing value in the change brought about by individuals’ actions. Those who use such theories see these patterns as evidence that some exceptional or impersonal entity is guiding the course of history. There is not a single philosophy of history but rather a variety of them; different philosophers and historians have observed different patterns in the course of human history and made use of different theories to explain these patterns. Hegelian spiritual dialectic, Marxian dialectic materialism, Schopenhauer’s will to life, Nietzshena’s will to power and Foucauldian episteme or study of power relationships are just a few of the popular versions of the theory of the philosophy of history (Hughes-Warrington, 2014).

However, the issue with these philosophies of history is that they presuppose violence and tensions as mediums of change. In other words, in the philosophies of Hobbes, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche and Michel Foucault, the notion of violence emerges as a complex and nuanced aspect of social change. Hegel’s dialectical method posits that historical progress arises from clashes between opposing ideas, potentially leading to societal transformation through conflict (Rosen, 1984). Marx’s theory of state and historical materialism similarly identifies class struggle as the driving force behind social change, often culminating in revolutionary upheavals that involve implicational violence (Merleau-Ponty, 2022). Hobbes’s concept of ‘human nature’ suggests that inherent conflicts in the human world can lead to competition and potentially violent outcomes in the pursuit of satisfaction (Joas & Knöbl, 2013). Nietzsche’s exploration of the ‘will to power’ acknowledges the role of conflict and dominance in human interactions, with the potential for violent assertion of power as a means of transcending societal norms (Parrish, 2006). Michel Foucault’s analysis of power dynamics reveals how institutions enforce control through subtle or explicit forms of violence, and how resistance to these power structures may also manifest violently in pursuit of social change or liberation.

Now, the question arises: Where should we position the Neo-Vedantist thinkers concerning their emphasis on the practice of Swaraj? A clear position that emerges from their advocacy of Swaraj is their promotion what can be termed as ‘integral individualism’ for societal change, where a unique spirituality always guides their value system. This way of life embodies the classical Indian notion that true freedom encompasses the liberation of all individuals in every aspect of life, including the socio-political, cultural, moral and economic spheres. Much like Buddha’s ‘Bodhisattva’ ideal, figures such as Vivekananda, Tagore and Gandhi were deeply committed to this holistic aim, as evidenced by their life actions (Shantideva, 2002). The central slogan of the Neo-Vedantist philosophy of Swaraj, therefore, can be summarized as ‘No one is free until everybody is free’. This principle reflects their vision of interconnectedness and the essential unity of all human beings. Swaraj, as we have been outlining, fundamentally embraces the idea of holistic development, freedom and creativity. It is a vision that goes beyond merely achieving political independence; instead, it envisions a society where every individual can thrive and contribute to the collective progress and well-being of humanity.

Subsequently, to contextualize the discourse and make sense of the practical implications of Swaraj, we may begin with some experiential questions: Who would willingly embrace any form of restraint? What nation can prosper under enslavement? How can we deal with post-colonial traumas and heal socio-cultural wounds? Adding to the inquiry, inherent in every human being is the yearning for freedom, a fundamental aspect vital for flourishing. Consequently, socio-political and moral associations are contingent on the foundation of freedom. Throughout history, it has become evident that sustained enslavement is unsustainable; eventually, individuals rise against oppression, seeking liberation. India stands as a compelling example of such resilience. Neo-Vedantists thinkers also adhered to this profound philosophy in various ways. However, their perspective on freedom transcended a mere negative conception of it. They delved deeper, exploring the essence of true freedom and its relation to humanity. They posed such questions as: What constitutes genuine freedom? Under what circumstances should we be willing to sacrifice our liberty? These inquiries reflect the philosophical musings on the nature of freedom, occupying a prominent place in the thoughts of great thinkers who contemplate individual and collective freedom, whether at the national or global level. In the words of Lala Lajpat Rai:

What is progress? Progress is nothing but progress toward freedom. Your ancestors have taught you the lesson that freedom is taken away the moment you have the feeling of dependence…. Freedom must come from within. Freedom must come from the within of the mother of India. Freedom won’t come from without. Freedom won’t fall from the heavens. Freedom will rise goddess-like from our earth; and we shall rise, and with our own hands we shall offer flowers and we shall worship her (Rai, 2007, p. 98).

In the disposition of Rai, Neo-Vedantists first aimed to liberate India from the conservative shackles that hindered its evolution, progress and role as a humanistic global player. Their collective intention represented not just political independence from foreign domination but also a deeper aspiration for self-governance, social upliftment and human development. The Neo-Vedantists saw ‘Swaraj’ as a holistic vision that encompassed not only political autonomy but also the liberation of minds, hearts and souls, leading to a nation’s comprehensive growth and a meaningful role in the global community. Subsequently, their philosophy embodied the pursuit of freedom in its most profound sense, enabling India to transcend the limitations imposed by colonial rule and conservative ideologies. Likewise, Swaraj, originating from the spiritual metaphysics of Neo-Vedanta, emerged as a guiding principle for national progress, imbuing the values of self-reliance, unity and ethical governance. It laid the groundwork for a transformative movement, redefining India’s destiny and global role while emphasizing sustainable progress and humanistic values. Swaraj stands as a unique philosophy of change, integral not only to individual character but also to the collective cultural consciousness. Much like courage and temperance in Greek philosophy, Swaraj serves as a foundational virtue. Without it, it is challenging to envision the practice of other virtues and creativity. As Fred Reinhard Dallmayr frames about Gandhian idea of Swaraj in a greater cultural implication:

Swaraj, as Gandhi sees it, means basically an ethical ascent or transformation: a willingness to shed all forms of himsa in favour of ahimsa—where the latter denotes not just abstention from overt violence but a commitment to fostering goodness or the ‘good life’ in all dimensions. In a way, swaraj for Gandhi was part, and even the essence, of karma yoga – which, in the Hindu tradition, is a ‘soteriological’ path. As we know, Gandhi explicitly described himself as a karma yogin – which does not mean a mindless activist or social busybody but one who in his actions follows a path, an invitation, a calling.

All the while, the philosophy of Swaraj among the Neo-Vedantists does not align much with theories based on the speculative philosophy of history and state. Instead, they grounded much of their analysis of social phenomena on what they considered a self-evident truth known as ‘Karma yoga’ or the ‘Action Maxim’ (Bhargava, 2022, p. 129). The first quotation of Gandhi in the Introduction implies that this concept implies that individual human actions hold the power to shape their own future. To repeat in brief: ‘Swaraj is in the palm of our hands. Do not consider this swaraj to be like a dream. Here there is no idea of sitting still (Parel, 2009, p. 73). In essence, the philosophy of Karma emphasizes the notion that individuals can influence their destiny through their actions (Phillips, 2009; Reichenbach, 1990). It underscores the significance of personal responsibility and agency in determining one’s outcomes and objectives. By aligning their actions with ethical principles and higher ideals, individuals can work towards achieving their desired ends or goals. This emphasis on self-empowerment and moral action resonates strongly within the philosophy of Swaraj, as it encourages individuals to actively participate in shaping their own lives and contributing to the well-being of society.

While such a statement may seem somewhat trivial at first hand, when we go underneath, most of the Neo-Vedantists give the impression that one could unpack a great deal of insight from the ‘Karma yoga’ for understanding the individual self and social phenomena (Phillips, 2009). In order to make sense of the Neo-Vedantists’ ‘Karma yoga’, we may take help from the Bhagavad Gita, which largely shaped their thinking and actions altogether and set the tone for Indian Renaissance as well. Almost every known Neo-Vedantists and many modern Indian thinkers have written or commented on the Bhagavad Gita, including Gandhi (1965), Aurobindo (Ghose, 2000), Vivekananda (1963), K. C. Bhattacharyya (2023), Tilak (Gangadhar, 2022). As Gandhi devotedly said:

I confess to you that when doubts haunt me, disappointments stare me in the face, and when I see no ray of light on the horizon, I run to the Bhagavad Gita and find a verse to comfort me. I immediately begin to smile amid overwhelming sorrow (Gandhi, 1965, p. 5).

Bal Gangadhar Tilak stated this about the Gita:

The Geeta teaches the duty of man, as it is revealed by the Lord Himself. It is not a question of preaching. Man has the right to work only but never to the fruit of the work. He should not be inactive in the world, without any work. There is no salvation for him who shirks from action. Nor can he gain perfection by refraining from work (Tilak, 2002).

Tilak’s profound interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita, which he developed during India’s struggle for independence, emphasizes the teachings of detached action [Nishkama Karma] and the significance of fulfilling one’s duties without being attached to the outcomes. His philosophy encourages individuals to be actively engaged in their responsibilities without fear of the results, recognizing that the true essence of life lies in performing one’s duties selflessly. In essence, Tilak’s understanding of the Gita underscores the importance of selfless action and the liberation that comes from dedicating oneself to duty without any expectation of personal gain. As Gandhi, analogous to Tilak, interprets the famous Karma yoga:

Gita, the Eternal Mother, advises us to do a few things regarding performing one Karma: First, yogah karmasukaushalam (Ch. 2, v. 50), i.e., to master the skill of action, and second, samatvam yoga ucchyate (Ch. 2, v. 48), i.e., equilibrium is Yoga which imply that one must remain balanced or equipoised in success or failure; like a sthitaprajna, and last but not the least, Karmanye vadhikaraste Ma Phaleshu Kadachana, Ma Karmaphalaheturbhurma Te Sangostvakarmani (Ch.2, V.47), i.e., do your work as duty par excellence but renounce the desire for the fruit of action … this desirelessness is the sun around which devotion, knowledge and the rest revolve like planets (Gandhi, 1965, p. 6).

One critique that may arise here is the reliance on the Gita to understand Swaraj could be problematic for several reasons, including conflicting commentaries, historical context and connotation of cultural relativism overall. Also, an ongoing debate is whether Indian Renaissance thinkers critiqued and accepted the caste structure with the help of Gita. Those who affirm the latter position claim that while the Gita contains liberating elements, it also emphasizes acting according to dharma representing a closed ethos of life. Therefore, relying solely on the Gita to explain Indians’ ‘Dharma (spiritual) way of life’ acknowledges and may reinforce existing arrangements. Therefore, it is important to address criticisms of the Gita regarding the caste system. Thinkers like Ambedkar describe the Gita as an attempt to defend religious dogmas on philosophical grounds, effectively merging Dharma and caste. These practical problems are crucial and often controversial. However, when we look at the Gita independently and from the perspective of Neo-Vedantists, things are not like that as projected by antagonists. Their philosophy of Swaraj is categorically non-sectarian and applicable to all, as it emphasizes the importance of Karma and freedom in human flourishing.

To contextualize it further, the idea of ‘Swadharma’ in the Gita, embracing the essence of Swaraj, is so comprehensive that it encompasses all human beings and professions without degrading the value of any individual or occupation. Swadharma, quite analogous to Swaraj, is a Sanskrit term that can be broken down into ‘Swa’ [self] and ‘Dharma’ [duty, righteousness]. It refers to the concept of fulfilling one’s inherent duties and responsibilities based on their individual nature, skills and social role which are open-ended. It emphasizes the idea that each person has a unique role to play in society and should perform their duties sincerely without attachment to the outcomes. When combined, ‘Gita Swadharma’ would imply the concept of understanding and following one’s inherent duties and righteous actions as explained or guided by the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita. Further, the Gita does not claim to offer any exclusive solutions, instead it offers perspectives and subsequently moves towards conclusions with humanistic and philosophical humility. As echoed in Chapter 18, Verse 63: ‘jñānam akhyātam guhyād guhyatararh mayā vimršyaitadašesena yathecchasitathâ kuru!!’.

That is, ‘Thus, I have explained to your wisdom more confidential than any confidential knowledge. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do’ (self-translated). In this verse, Lord Krishna concludes his teachings to Arjuna, emphasizing the significance of the wisdom he has imparted. He encourages Arjuna to carefully reflect on the knowledge provided and then make his own decision on how to proceed. This verse symbolizes the essence of free will and choice while acknowledging the importance of understanding profound wisdom.

In other words, Gandhi and other prominent Neo-Vedantist thinkers of the twentieth century did not adhere to the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita in a conventional religious sense. Instead, they embraced a critical philosophy and interpretation of the scripture and same suggestions to others. Their approach involved a thoughtful and analytical examination of the Gita’s principles, transcending dogma and seeking deeper insights into its moral and philosophical aspects. Indeed, when we examine the life works of Neo-Vedantists, we find a remarkable alignment with the existential struggles and concerns of prominent thinkers such as Ambedkar and Roy. For instance, Swami Vivekananda addressed the issue of poverty extensively, emphasizing the importance of social upliftment and empowering the marginalized sections of society. On the other hand, Mahatma Gandhi dedicated significant efforts to writing and speaking about untouchability, advocating for its eradication and the promotion of social equality. The shared focus on addressing pressing issues of humanity highlights the convergence of their philosophical perspectives, despite belonging to different intellectual and social backgrounds. Whether it was Vivekananda’s emphasis on service to the poor or Gandhi’s relentless fight against untouchability, they were all deeply committed to the betterment of society and the upliftment of the downtrodden (Kolge, 2018). Likewise, Bhattacharyya’s philosophy of Swaraj, in line with Gandhi, refutes all claims of egoism in all forms, whether national or cultural.

This cosmopolitan convergence of purpose highlights that Neo-Vedantists were primarily united by their concern for human suffering and subjugation, along with their commitment to addressing social injustices irrespective of national or cultural boundaries (they did not shy away from criticizing the World War and religious conflicts). Despite their diverse philosophical approaches, their actions were consistently directed towards fostering a freer, just, equitable and compassionate society, reflecting the spirit of Neo-Vedantism. This shared vision underscores the universal appeal of humanitarian values and the collective aspiration to build a more inclusive and harmonious world. While they may have differed on solutions, whether affirming European modernity or returning to ancient Indian wisdom, it does not imply fundamentalism or a categorical acceptance of India’s existing conditions at the time. Instead, it is a matter of philosophical discourse. It is essential to clarify that when Neo-Vedantists spoke of human action, they did not refer to automatic reactions or involuntary responses [Akarma], but rather purposeful behaviour in which every individual is an active socio-moral agent. Here we can also see another practical implication of Swaraj, which emphasizes action. In modern society, where laziness often hides behind the veil of comfort, addiction and technology, the philosophy of Swaraj presents a personal challenge: Should we consider laziness and fear as symbols of freedom, or should we take charge of our lives and shape our destinies?

In line with this action-oriented philosophy, all Neo-Vedantists would agree that meaningful behaviour shapes the course of human history and destiny. They exemplify this perspective through their own lives and find textual support from ancient Indian texts like Karma Yoga in the Bhagavad Gita, as demonstrated above. By implication, we can also draw that human history is the chronicle of human actions. All can agree with this philosophy, whether someone is a Pro-Darwin or a religious figure. This action axiom establishes that definite ideas inspire men who make definite value judgements, choose definite ends and resort to definite means, subsequently influencing the course of human history. Also, if people adopt the view that a phenomenon is outside their control and directs human action and history, then they are likely to feel powerless and ineffectual at bringing about change. They will see themselves as puppets in the grand march of history. However, instead of viewing men as mere puppets, Neo-Vedantists believed that if people realized that ideas inspire action, like the idea of action axiom and action shapes the course of human history, then they could also hold out the hope that individuals could help create societal change. The essence is simple that as long as one believes that people’s minds can be changed, there is always the possibility that through education and the spreading of ideas, one can help bring about change.

However, Neo-Vedantists were quick to tip-off that the ability to change society through unexamined ideas and action could lead to negative or destructive change just as easily as examined one could lead to positive change. They were all aware that the structure of society was primarily determined by ideology or, in other words, the ideas one holds concerning social organization and how individuals should conduct themselves. It is also a fact that most people spend little time forming their own judgements and allowing ideologies to govern them. In other words, they adopt the ideology put forth by those who are viewed as the intellectual leaders of society. However, suppose the so-called leaders promulgate a profound ideology due to their desire to maintain power, obtain wealth or just because of plain ignorance. In that case, society will ultimately suffer the masses. Here we require the idea of Swaraj that can help us be alert about our ideas, choices and actions. Moreover, it is also the reason that Neo-Vedantists were not passive in the development of ideologies but in the promotion and development of ideas in other fields, such as science, technology, philosophy or literature, so that they can lead society to emphasize the essential role that individual innovators play in shaping the course of human history.

As a precaution, the philosophy of Swaraj, as discoursed by Neo-Vedantists, inherently acknowledges the existential challenge that most individuals are common people. They often lack independent thinking and act as passive receptors, merely repeating what they have heard or imitating what they have seen. Swaraj, on the other hand, emphasizes the necessity for positive change to stem from well-considered ideas and actions guided by them. It stems from the idea that true innovations and changes do not emerge from mediocre and ideologically conformist minds; they are the achievements of exceptional individuals. These creative geniuses play an integral role in shaping human history and driving the societal changes we all desire but may not have the courage to pursue ourselves. The quest for such visionary thinkers within the Neo-Vedantist context highlights the supreme importance of Swaraj. It also suggests that when individual freedoms are restricted, and society places greater emphasis on conformity and contributing to the so-called greater good, the opportunities for individuals to make significant creative contributions to the progress of humankind significantly diminish, alongside their freedom. In essence, the philosophy of Swaraj underlines the significance of individual freedom and the need for independent, thoughtful actions to bring about meaningful societal change. Interestingly, we can find out how the individual thinkers of this Neo-Vedanta tradition themselves contributed to socio-cultural and global change, whether it is Vivekananda, Tagore or Gandhi. Their individual contributions to the world are exceptional.

The Neo-Vedantists’ philosophy of change also emphasizes that to promote flourishing levels of creativity, which lead to positive change in society, one must have a smoothly functioning economic system capable of producing adequate amounts of wealth and leisure required for creativity. Broadly speaking, the Gandhian notion of trusteeship is almost courtesy of this theory of smooth-functioning economics (Gandhi, 1970). They were not naive to the fact that if most people constantly worry about where they will get their next meal, it is unlikely they will put much effort into philosophizing, developing innovative technologies, composing music, writing books or engaging in scientific experiments. As Vivekananda Famously said in one of his Chicago lectures, while indigenous industries and Indian cultural heritage were important, industrialization was also necessary for the country to progress. Bread and not religion was the crying need of India. In his words:

So long as the millions live in hunger and ignorance, I hold every person a traitor who, having been educated at their expense, pays not the least heed to them! (Vivekananda, 2018, p. 1113)

Gandhi also famously echoed‘The Swaraj of my dream is the poor man’s Swaraj’ (Gandhi, 2017, p. 37).

Swaraj as a Virtue and Spirit of Indian Renaissance

If we closely examine the above expressions by Aurobindo and remain connected to the discourse of the preceding section, which can be further supplemented with the words of other Neo-Vedantists, we find that these expressions implicitly embrace numerous humanistic and existential questions at their core, on the one hand, and the ancient Indian philosophy of self-quest on the other. In other words, apart from this glimpse of swaraj as a comprehensive philosophy of change, there are other deeper reasons to believe in this idea as most of the thinkers who were using the term ‘Swaraj’ knew that it embodies a Vedic injunction that implies self-rule and self-control, which makes it conceptually different from the Western notion and practice of freedom, which exemplifies the radically free individual and society. Gandhi, of course, took motivation from other cultures as well to strengthen his thesis of Swaraj, but that can still be embraced in the Indian legacy. Anyway, it is not a matter of dispute since a good thing can be taken from anyone and anywhere. Vedas itself proclaims this: ‘Aano Bhadra krtavo yantu vishwatah’, that is, let noble thoughts come to me from all directions (Rig-Veda 1.89.1). The idea of Swaraj, in other words, encompasses the ‘all-around awakening-social, educational, moral, economic and political’ (Young India, 1926, p. 77).

Additionally, it would not be a wrong interpretation that Swaraj takes Dharma in the formation, which implies that true freedom can be accomplished via the practice of moral law, rational intuition, non-violence and the regulation of one’s true being only. It persuades a person to seek ethics (way of life), aesthetics (beauty in the world) and bliss (well-being of all), which can collectively be summarized as Sat-Chitta-Ananda. Swaraj means strength of will, a conquest over self that can be attained via the practice of virtues such as prudence and courage. As Dalton beautifully interprets the Gandhian practice of swaraj: the philosophy of Gandhian means three things:

First, freedom is primarily an individual, forming a collective quality well along.

Conversely, the socio-political understanding of freedom has been typical and dominating among modern people and does not require much effort. Nevertheless, the question is, does it provide an all-inclusive conception of freedom? Does it embrace the natural state of ‘self’ [atman]? At least, such kind of question may perplex us for a moment since most of the time, we struggle for rights, justice and other socially constructed phenomena in the name of freedom. One may ask, what is the trouble with such a conception? Actually, the problem does not lie in the fact that we battle for justice, rights and so on; instead, it is with our vision of such notions. We care much more about our rights than our duties; we focus more on our confined justice than on our ‘care’ towards others and our national integrity. In short, we do not know what is worth cherishing and what is not. When Vivekananda, K. C. Bhattacharyya, Sri Aurobindo and Mahatma Gandhi speak on freedom, they basically expose this aspect of our understanding that what we consider freedom is not freedom at all, but just a tiny shell of that. True freedom lies in the interior of the ‘self’, the central thesis of Neo-Vedantists’ unity, which should not be stunned by social conformity, personal mediocrity or other challenges. As K. C. Bhattacharyya expressed about the falsity of consciousness, which we gain via false education and consequently lose our Swaraj:

[W]e ourselves asked for foreign education, and we feel, and perhaps rightly, that it has been a blessing in specific ways. We have not generally assimilated it in an open-eyed (critically) way with our old-world Indian mind. That Indian mind has lapsed in most cases for our educated men and subsided below the conscious level of culture (Bhushan & Garfield, 2011, p. 104).

This agony of Bhattacharyya and longing for Indian roots was shared among all the thinkers which we have selected in our composition. In other words, Rabindranath Tagore, Lokmanya Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi and Sri Aurobindo, all were in search of Indian Renaissance. Their project aimed to fill the cavity between the educated and uneducated, the cities and the villages so that we all could understand the ancient Indian notion of unity. As Tagore famously recited:

Where the mind is without fear, and the head is held high, where knowledge is free, where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls. Where words come out from the depth of Truth, where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection, where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit, where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening thought and action, into that heaven of freedom, my Father let my country awake… (Tagore, 2018, pp. 13–14).

Now, expanding further on the intersection of Swaraj and Neo-Vedanta, and their converging point, we can comprehend why thinkers such as Tilak, Tagore, K. C. Bhattacharyya, Gandhi and others preferred to use the concept of Swaraj instead of simply ‘freedom’. This preference is rooted in their philosophical foundations and understanding. Some thinkers associate this preference with the Advaitic notion of ‘self’, which not only establishes individual integrity but also emphasizes the unity of all (Mahadevan & Cairns, 1977; Mahadevan & Saroja, 1983). Most importantly, this philosophy originates from none other than the Prasthānatrayī (Upanishads, Gita and Brahmasutras), which they wholeheartedly embraced and contextualized in the world, making it clear why they were all Vedantists. Similarly, it refutes any accusations of national or cultural egoism, as long as one upholds the doctrine of universalism, as Neo-Vedantists did. Within this framework, whether in matters of spirituality or ethics, the concept of selfishness, be it nationalism or culturalism, becomes logically untenable. Moreover, as long as one adheres to the Karma theory as discussed in the above section, one does not become too rigid. It opens up avenues for embracing others. This was the implicational ethics of Swaraj which was perhaps driven by the needs of the time, as these thinkers sought to uphold national dignity, on the one hand, while simultaneously preserving universal unity through essential reforms.

As frequently outlined, this ethos is well reflected in the acts of Vivekananda’s movement of unity of all religions and universal religion, as well as Gandhi’s idea of peace for all, whether at the global level or the national level. Thus, the charge of cultural and national ego is superficial as it aligns neither with the metaphysics nor with the ethics of Neo-Vedantists. In essence, the concept of Swaraj harmonized with the broader organic idea of individual and collective freedom that contemporary Indian thinkers advocated. In summary, Swaraj, as propagated by these thinkers, signifies a holistic vision of self-rule that integrates moral principles, cultural heritage and the pursuit of collective liberation. It reflects their profound understanding of individual integrity and interconnectedness, encapsulating the essence of India’s struggle for a harmonious and self-governing society. Swaraj undertakes a very different philosophical meaning rather than the simple political sense we often use due to some majestic mindsets. As Gandhi put it:

Swaraj, for me, means freedom for the despicable of my fellow citizens. I am not engrossed in freeing India merely from the English encumbrance. I am bent upon freeing India from any yoke whatsoever. I have no desire to exchange ‘king log’ for ‘king stork’… there is no freedom for India so long as one man, no matter how highly placed he may be, holds the life, property, and honour of millions of human beings in the hollow of his hands. It is an artificial, unnatural, and uncivilized institution. The end of it is an essential preliminary of Swaraj (Gandhi, 2010, p. 11).

Therefore, Swaraj, for most modern Indian thinkers, was certainly a wide-ranging impression that includes almost every human aspect that influences an individual and collective life in one way or another. Politics, ethics, spirituality, economics, society and morals are human endeavours that have to be presented in a well-versed notion of freedom, which the idea of Swaraj essentially embraces. It must further fulfil the utmost necessity of human well-being and related factors. As Nalini Bhusan put it:

Gandhi brought the terms swaraj and swadeshi to centre stage in colonial Indian discourse. These two words have both descriptive and evaluative content. On the one hand, they denote independence and native character; on the other, they suggest freedom and independence at individual and collective levels. They served to unify metaphysical and political thinking about India and Indianness (Bhushan & Garfield, 2017, p. 155).

A comprehensive understanding that we develop from our above discussion is that the full rejoinder to the question about the connotation of Swaraj and Swadeshi and their relation to each other in the Indian context requires careful study of every aspect of Indian culture, such as its archaeology, art, history, Dharma, religion, philosophy and the like. Likewise, we also need to highlight the inclusive enlargement of Swaraj that was passed by thinkers to thinkers directly or undercurrent and was hidden for the Britishers during that sovereignty. Also, when the above thinkers talk about the practice of Swaraj and Swadeshi, they do not negate the possibility of globalization, multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism and other modern practices; instead, they simply aim to make us realize the need for cultural and individual identity regarding future of India and Indians. As K. C. Bhattacharyya beautifully put it:

When I speak of cultural subjection, I do not mean the assimilation of an alien culture. That assimilation need not be evil; it may be positively necessary for healthy progress, and in any case, it does not mean a lapse of freedom.

So, what is this ‘ethereal proprietorship’ which K. C. Bhattacharyya announces or the ghostly civilization [assuri sabhyata] that Mahatma Gandhi highlights. An adjacent review of Hind Swaraj and Swaraj in Ideas suggests that when Mahatma Gandhi and K. C. Bhattacharyya talked about human subjection, they had in mind a form of captivity more undemonstrative than a mere political subjection to Britishers:

…a form so subtle as to be phenomenologically opaque even to the most reflective individual Indian subject. This subjection is accomplished by immersion in broadly Western cultural norms, Western ways of seeing, and Western values and habits of mind, all ingested in a language that is not Indian (Bhushan & Garfield, 2017).

In a nutshell, such a preoccupation produces mediocre minds that engage with foreign conformity since we do not know what we are or our legacy. This whole phenomenon makes those ideas, ways of seeing and practices of free values snappishly blur since we have loosened the gravity of integrity and identity. In other words, the central concern for Swarjins was to expose the enslavement by Western civilization and condemnation to the status of a mere imitator. Gandhi’s intention often suggested that the whole of Europe experienced the taste of the machinery mechanism, and we have seen that it did not taste sweet to them. We may learn from them that a culture that basically lived any particular way of life could not manage the power of that, how we, the Dharmic culture, would survive the alienation from one another. As Gandhi writes:

The devastation has constantly been checking the morals of the English. Machinery is the chief symbol of modern civilization but is a gateway to sinful culture. The workers in the mills of Bombay have become enslaved… It would be folly to assume that an Indian Rockefeller would be better than an American Rockefeller. Underprivileged India could revive, but it will be hard for an India made rich through immorality to regain its freedom (Gandhi, 1966, p. 19).

Adding to the above thinking, most of the modern Indian thinkers who were involved in an intellectual and moral confrontation against British sovereignty warned that this intellectual certainty is reinforced by the degree of caressed comfort and familiarity with which the colonial subject inhabits that realm of idea and practice. Whereas Gandhi is worried in the Hind Swaraj about the alienation of Indians from their Dharma (spiritual) way of life, Bhattacharyya in the Swaraj in Ideas and Shri Aurobindo in Foundation of Indian Culture are concerned more specifically with a value alienation from Indian culture, intrinsically. Nevertheless, their intention is of the same kind. As Sri Aurobindo put it:

We cannot afford to raise any institution to the rank of obsession. To do so would be simply to become the slaves of our machinery…Our actual enemy is not any external force but our crying weaknesses, cowardice, selfishness, hypocrisy, purblind sentimentalism, and, most importantly, losing our roots (Ghose, 1975, p. 206).

Now a question arises: What would be a hypothetical reaction of our great leaders who formed and transferred the philosophy of Swaraj to us? In this regard, the Gandhian position seems much more inclusive who directly base the idea of Swaraj on his virtues of truth and non-violence, which, according to him, are the positive categorical virtues and also give a solid foundation to every human endeavour, including Swaraj. To Gandhi, it is not possible to seek and find the truth without the practice of non-violence and also to find the other positive ends in life. He imagined an interwoven version of truth and non-violence that was practically impossible to separate. They are as if they are the two sides of a coin. But then again, it is also a fact that Gandhi did not propose any idea of cowardice and laziness; he clearly declared that if he had to choose between cowardice and violence, he would choose violence since cowardice is also an antithesis to Swaraj. Gandhian truth aimed for this sort of motivation. As Gandhi put it:

Who can say, which is the obverse, and which is the reverse? Nevertheless, ahimsa is the means; Truth is the end. It means to be means or later. When once we have grasped this point, the final victory is beyond question. Whatever difficulties we encounter, whatever apparent reverses we sustain, we may not give up the quest for Truth, which alone is, being God Himself (Gandhi, 1958, p. 224).

Therefore, for every modern Indian stalwart discussed in this article, understanding India’s spirit is crucial for modern India and its Swaraj. Achieving its cultural gravity, a complex topic beyond the scope of a few pages, necessitates a firm grasp of its philosophy, particularly in metaphysics, which originates in the Prasthānatrayī and evolves through materialist and atheistic schools such as Buddhism or Jainism. Similarly, these thinkers connected their missions with India’s global role. The underlying idea is simple: When engaging globally, we must bring something of value. For instance, upon examining the intellectual pursuits of Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, Tilak, Tagore and others, it is evident how deeply they longed for India’s Renaissance. They understood its potential significance in a modern, technologically interconnected world. Thus, once again, they did not limit their vision to India alone but extended it to the global stage through their philosophies of change. But recognizing this legacy would still require a sound philosophy that we can methodically attempt to discover or make us realize how to find our roots. Sri Aurobindo assumed that the circumstances had made the process of the Indian Renaissance inevitable, which we could analyse, both historically and logically. He proposes the three-fold process of this transition management:

First, European contact prompts a radical reevaluation of existing cultural elements, even leading to the rejection of established principles. Second, the Indian response to this influence varies, oscillating between outright denial and a selective emphasis on traditional values, concealing a deeper process of assimilation. Finally, the ongoing or recent phase marks a period of genuine renewal, where the Indian intellect retains its spiritual vigor, reclaiming inherent truths while integrating valid aspects of modern thought and forms, thus catalyzing a transformative rebirth rather than a mere continuation of the past.

Equally significant to the most modern Indian thinkers mentioned above, including Gandhi, K. C. Bhattacharyya and Aurobindo, was the realization that the issue with Western ideologies extended beyond its purely socio-political and commercial aspects. They found that the real problem is philosophical that we largely miss and perhaps requires a rigorous epistemological and phenomenological inquiry. Gandhian thought might not seem philosophical to many, but his conception of truth is actually a model of philosophical vision. Though both K. C. Bhattacharyya and Gandhi realized this task and aimed to mould their philosophy in this critical way, their call for Swaraj and Swadeshi establishes a radical critique of modern Western modernity that promotes machine cities, atheistic secularization, individualism and so on. Gandhi questions: Have not we forgotten to take care of others, the environment, the society, the family and even the personal self, including the personal body, since the speed at which instrumental mechanisms, medicalization, parliamentarianism, law courts and the like were catching was not a good sign for human evolution (Parel, 2009)? Modern critique takes Hind swaraj in a literal sense and considers it to be abruptly childish, but Gandhian motive in this regard was to make us aware of our true sense of self and responsibility that collectively forms the philosophy of Swaraj. As Gandhi echoed about machine culture:

Machinery is like a snake hole that may contain one to a hundred snakes. There are machinery promoters that outsized cities; large cities empower the Trans-cars and railways, and consequently there only does one see electric light… I cannot reminisce any virtue in connection with machinery (Gandhi, 2010, p. 49).

Therefore, we can now grasp the collective intention of Gandhi and other of his contemporaries, which aimed to explore every aspect of human endeavour so that we can understand what is suitable for our Swaraj and us and what is not. We may learn from the lives of the Swaraj thinkers who lived and practiced very sober and simple lives. They may teach us how to resist cultural sovereignty that may threaten Swaraj. Many thinkers, both from the East and West, have the prospect that it is inevitable to stop westernization since the gifts of modernity are very reasonable in all parameters, particularly in the economic sense. Nevertheless, they forget how these instantaneous promises unescapably estrange us from our own lives, from our own Dharma, from our companions and consequently from our whole Swaraj. Furthermore, the most critical factor here is that this alienation occurs in the ribbons and bows of productivity, instant gratification, neutral rationality, wealth, progress, etc. For that reason, the problem of Western modernism is a complex problem that hints towards a moral dilemma, spiritual alienation and social isolation, and it is also a derivative sense. As Nalini Bhushan put it:

Where we sought the self-mastery and freedom modernity promised, we lost the self-mastery and freedom that was once available to us, articulated in such profound texts as the Gītā, mastery, and freedom grounded in real jñāna and rendered impossible in the modern context. Nevertheless, here too lies the assurance that once the inner direction has found its way and its implications have come to the surface, the result will be no mere Asiatic modification of Western modernism but some great, new and original thing of the first importance to the future of human civilization (Bhushan & Garfield, 2017, pp. 78–79).

For this motivation, for all of Gandhian intention and importance, he collectively feasted his eyes on the acts and intentions of the other figures in Indian intellectual life, whether they were in opposition or favour. It further motivates us to compare the patriotic intention of modern Indian thinkers that prompted a genuine cultural revitalization. Unquestionably, modern Indian thinkers embraced the Renaissance gesture of deference to a golden age, but they did not try to create a version of modernity under pressure or seduction; instead, they envisioned it by keeping Swaraj and Swedesi models in their minds. Of course, the Gandhian way of life was much more conservative than other thinkers such as Tagore and K. C. Bhattacharyya as he only developed more kind of a moralistic and spiritualistic system of thought without realizing the fact that India’s condition has changed a lot from its golden period. In short, whereas the spiritual philosophy of independence unites contemporary Indian thinkers, the conclusions they draw from this understanding could be considered the cause of their temporary contract. In the words of Nalini Bhushan:

Tagore, like Bhattacharyya, rejects the negative side of Gandhi’s Swadeshi. Whereas Gandhi adopts an essentially parochial reading of values and institutions, rejecting all things foreign and an essentially conservative view of identity, Tagore is instinctively cosmopolitan and progressive. A great deal of his critique of Gandhi’s views of development rests on his view that Gandhi—despite his assertions to the contrary—never took economic considerations seriously as ethical—as having a value in their own right (Bhushan & Garfield, 2017, p. 61).

For that reason, we may all agree that the Gandhian model required a solid economic foundation, and during that period and even in the future, globalized capitalism seemed to be the prevailing economic system. However, Gandhi continuously faced criticism from his contemporaries since he vehemently opposed this model. As mentioned earlier, Rabindranath Tagore, a prominent critic, could be placed in this category, as he shared many points of agreement with Gandhi while also challenging his Swadeshi mode (Bhushan & Garfield, 2017, p. 62). However, due to the Neo-Vedanta culture, Tagore’s perspective resonates with Gandhi’s in their shared belief that nationwide harmony and Swaraj [self-rule] are not simply socio-political concepts but also deeply rooted in moral and spiritual practices. Tagore further concurred with Gandhi’s holistic approach to Indian freedom and collaborated with other contemporaries who believed that a profound engagement with Indian philosophical, Dharmic (ethical and moral), axiological (value-based) and socio-political traditions was indispensable for reclaiming Swaraj, both at a personal and public level and fortifying its future prospects.

This recognition of the significance of drawing from India’s rich cultural heritage and traditions became a crucial element in the quest for genuine freedom and empowerment. In their collective pursuit of Swaraj, both Gandhi and Tagore acknowledged the need for a comprehensive understanding of the complexities of freedom, not merely in the political sense but as an intrinsic aspect of human existence, encompassing social, moral and spiritual dimensions. By emphasizing the importance of a strong economic foundation, moral and spiritual values and a return to India’s own wisdom and traditions, they sought to foster a vision of Swaraj that transcended mere political independence and aspired to uplift and empower individuals and society as a whole. This holistic and principled approach has left a lasting legacy in the discourse surrounding freedom, self-governance and the preservation of cultural identity in the face of global influences. Another motivating factor (or a haunting factor) of the collective intention of modern Indian thinkers was Thomas Macaulay’s pronouncement in which he openly challenged the future of Indian originality. Thomas Macaulay wrote:

…that the goal of education in India, and of the introduction of the English language, in particular, was to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect.

What else is needed for thinkers and, most importantly, for patriots? Thomas Macaulay could not have imagined the consequences of his pronouncement. The way generations of intellectuals emerged, along with patriotic literature, philosophy, cultural history and more, completely transformed the scenario of Western imperialism and orientalism. This paradigm shift, initiated by modern Indian thinkers, revitalized Indian society and cultural consciousness, which had been overshadowed for centuries by unfortunate events. As a result, it also changed the global perception of Indian culture and its participation in the world. However, one might raise an issue here: If we suddenly aim to free ourselves from age-old foreign sovereignty and begin boasting about our capabilities, could this be a form of illusion? Might it lead to cultural egoism or orientalism? Therefore, it is crucial to acknowledge that Indian freedom was a gradual process, shaped by various events and experiences, and most importantly, by the efforts of great minds who devoted their lives to understanding the essence of India. The transformation of Indian society and cultural consciousness was a well-grounded and meaningful evolution, not a baseless form of arrogance. It stemmed from a profound exploration of India’s identity, heritage and inherent strengths, and the thinkers we have selected are the perfect embodiments of this endeavour.

It is apparent that all the Neo-Vedantists faced the conflict between Imperialism and Nationalism, but it did not last long since Indian consciousness matured after enduring the painful experience of enslavement. They realized that progress was impossible without cultural grounding (Swaraj). It is a different thing that they had their unique interpretation of this philosophical concept. This understanding led to the belief in one India for the Indians, fostering self-trust and confidence. Importantly, the concept of Swaraj did not imply isolationism; rather, it aimed at a holistic vision of freedom for each and everyone, acknowledging that each country has a unique role to play in the creative human venture and world order. Every nation contributes to the long history of human progress, but it requires self-reliance, a principle that these Indian thinkers collectively emphasized. It is a commonsensical phenomenon that anyone can imagine that a nation that is not free to develop its own individuality and consciousness cannot contribute to the sum of human progress. As Sri Aurobindo rightly put it:

India can best develop herself and serve humanity by being herself only… This does not mean, as some blindly and narrowly suppose, the rejection of everything new that comes to us… [that] happens to have been first developed or powerfully expressed by the West. Such an attitude would be intellectually absurd, physically impossible, and unspiritual; true spirituality rejects no new light, no added means or materials of our human self-development. It means simply to keep our center. and assimilate to it all we receive and evolve out of it all we do and create.

Conclusion: Swaraj as an Enlightenment and Open-ended Quest

Swaraj is akin to a fundamental need for the human spirit and collective consciousness, much like air and food are essential for the body. Just as we often fail to recognize the importance of food and air until deprived of them, so too do we experience profound agitation in the absence of the Swaraj element within ourselves and our culture. This agitation transcends national boundaries; it is universal, whether expressed through Buddha’s Four Noble Truths, Shankara’s Non-dualism, Gandhi’s Truth and Non-violence, Vivekananda’s Universal Religion of Peace and many others. A selfish self cannot embody Swaraj. This philosophy lies at the heart of Neo-Vedanta. We have witnessed how the philosophy of Swaraj facilitated the formation of a collective intention and lifeworld in modern India, evolving into a virtue, a way of life and a pathway to Indian enlightenment and Renaissance. Figures such as Swami Dayananda, Swami Vivekananda, Rabindranath Tagore, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Sri Aurobindo, Mahatma Gandhi, Subash Chandra Bose, and K. C. Bhattacharyya formed a collective intention for India’s bright future through their literary works and movements. Subsequently, it actively contributed to the development of contemporary Indian philosophy, which now boasts global recognition for its uniqueness and emancipatory contributions (Coquereau-Saouma & Raveh, 2023; Rajan, 2023).

Likewise, we have already had extensive discussions on how Swaraj represents a unique from of virtue and key point to the essence of the Indian Renaissance perspective. However, intriguingly, it also carries a modern connotation. K. C. Bhattacharyya, a leading figure in this regard, demonstrated proficiency in both classical Indian and modern Western thought, including Kant and Hegel. He better illustrates this in Swaraj in Ideas, as the title itself connotes how Swaraj connects to the idea of enlightenment. Just look at Kant’s definition of Enlightenment, and we shall get a glimpse of how closely the Neo-Vedantists idea of Swaraj aligns with it:

Enlightenment implies employing one’s own reason, which is nothing more than always asking oneself, about everything one is supposed to accept, whether one finds it possible to make the ground on which one accepts it, or the rule that follows from accepting it, into a universal principle for one’s use of reason. Everyone can apply for this test for himself, and he will see superstition, false narratives and enthusiasm immediately disappear with this examination (Immanuel Kant, What is Enlightenment? 1784) (Fleischacker, 2013, p. 23).

However, it is not necessary for Indian enlightenment or any other idea to match the Western one line by line; rather, it is a matter of indicating how being free within us aligns with the central spirit of the Swaraj slogan. Further, Neo-Vedantists consciously renovated the classical connotation of Indian enlightenment, which was much more limited to soteriology for a longer period. In our treatise, we observed how they have beautifully embraced the ideas of science, reason, aesthetics, open-mindedness and other important ideals throughout the philosophy of Swaraj. Whether we read Gandhi, Bhattacharyya, Aurobindo or Vivekananda, we explicitly find how they engage with enlightenment, but in a very unique way. The essence is simple the evaluation of whether something is good or bad depends on a philosophical and discerning mind, one that engages in proper inquiry rather than blindly following the judgement of others whether culturally or individually. The philosophy of Swaraj is all about that which then can be called by any name whether virtue or enlightenment. It calls us to reconsider the idea that we should remain open-minded without letting our brains fall out in nuisances and unnecessary scepticism. To conclude, we may, of course, cannot be able to get back to the past and live up to the value of the same in the present, but history can give us some perennial questions required for thinking and the progress of any given society. As Kalidasa proposed:

purāṇamityeva na sādhu sarvaṃ na cāpi kāvyaṃ navamityavadyam| santaḥ parīkṣyānyataradbhajante mūḍhaḥ parapratyayaneyabuddhiḥ|| (Kalidasa, Malavikagnimitram: 1:2)

It follows that not all that is old is gold solely by virtue of antiquity, nor is poetry bad simply because it is new; rather, goodness or badness is determined by a philosophical examination, not by the judgement of others. Only a foolish and conformist mind is led by the judgements of others. Likewise, given the complex modern value discourse, it can also be interpreted through the philosophy of Swaraj, as discussed above, that it is a time when we need to recognize that not everything old should be rejected, nor should everything new be embraced blindly. In other words, it is not just a trend but also a crisis; in the pursuit of novelty, everything old is deemed obsolete and useless, while anything new is considered trendy. But does this hold true for spirituality and normative goals? Is it a sound approach to discard old pearls of wisdom and values simply because we do not see their followers or their implementation? I believe, as glimpsed through our discourse, that it is flawed reasoning to reject something for pragmatic reasons, as it could be our own fault if we fail to apply those values in our lives, which does not render them obsolete. We cannot deem ancient philosophical legacies obsolete just because we do not observe their teachings and reasoning implemented at the ground level. Instead, we ought to introspect and recognize that it might be our own failure if we cannot uphold those moral standards due to a lack of willpower and moral courage.

Kalidasa’s words can also be connected with Swaraj philosophy, which, far from advocating cultural or national egoism, presents a nuanced approach to addressing contemporary challenges while preserving cultural integrity and promoting collective well-being. It emphasizes self-governance and autonomy, encouraging societies to assert their cultural identity without isolating themselves from the global community. Rather than promoting narrow nationalism, Swaraj philosophy promotes a balanced perspective that acknowledges the interconnectedness of all societies and the need for cooperation in addressing common issues such as environmental degradation and social inequality. It calls for a re-evaluation of cultural heritage and traditions in the context of modern challenges, advocating for sustainable living practices, equitable resource distribution and participatory democracy. Furthermore, following the collective spirit of the central two sections, we can point out that the philosophy of Swaraj, deeply rooted in the principles of self-governance and spiritual liberation, beyond selfishness and imperialism, offers a comprehensive framework for addressing a wide array of societal challenges.

By drawing upon ancient Indian wisdom while embracing modernity, Swaraj in light of Neo-Vedanta advocates for the cultivation of traditional values to foster both individual progress and societal betterment. As discussed, figures such as Mahatma Gandhi exemplified this approach, emphasizing the importance of non-violence and simplicity in shaping a more harmonious and resilient society. Central to the concept of Swaraj is the notion of universal spirituality since it comes out of the compassion of Neo-Vedanta, which transcends cultural and religious boundaries. Intellectuals such as Gandhi, Swami Vivekananda and Aurobindo underscored the universality of spiritual principles, promoting Karma and Yogic practices as a means to attain self-realization and foster inner peace. Likewise, in the realm of governance, Swaraj by implication advocates for decentralized decision-making and participatory democracy. The idea is simple that by empowering local communities and prioritizing the welfare of all citizens, governments can formulate inclusive policies that address the needs of diverse populations.

Moreover, as discussed thoroughly, Swaraj equally offers a path towards non-violent conflict resolution and mutual respect among nations because it advocates earning one’s due through duty rather than imperialistic means. Instead of resorting to aggression, Swaraj encourages dialogue, diplomacy and cooperation to resolve conflicts peacefully. By fostering mutual understanding and empathy, stemming from the belief in the interconnectedness of all beings, nations can transcend divisive ideologies and work towards common goals, thereby fostering sustainable peace and stability in today’s interconnected world. This vision was shared by Gandhi and other Neo-Vedantists. In other words, once individuals embrace this philosophy, it inherently provides a framework for post-conflict reconciliation and rehabilitation efforts. By promoting dialogue and reconciliation, communities can heal from the wounds of conflict and build a shared future based on mutual respect and cooperation. Ultimately, Swaraj redefines nationalism as a commitment to self-rule and collective empowerment, transcending narrow definitions of identity and division. By embracing Swaraj, nation-states can address the challenges of our times with a renewed sense of unity and solidarity, grounded in the values of freedom, justice and equality.

To be precise, this treatise conducted a comprehensive exploration of Swaraj, concentrating on diverse perspectives within the Neo-Vedantist framework. By unravelling alternative forms related to prospective change, enlightenment and the spirit of the Indian Renaissance, the study introduces novel interpretations. The analysis of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Neo-Vedantists’ viewpoints highlights the dynamic and evolving nature of Swaraj, countering static ideologies. This opens up the scope for further discussion on important humanistic concepts such as freedom, cultural integrity and futuristic change. Although we have attempted to decode the idea of Swaraj in terms of tenets of philosophy and culture, such as virtue, enlightenment and the spirit of the Indian Renaissance, we acknowledge the limits of interpretive thinking. Consequently, we conclude with the Gandhian existential agony, which also represents the open-ended nature of Swaraj, inviting generations to perpetually contemplate upon it:

…in my opinion, we have used the term ‘Swaraj’ without understanding its real significance. I have endeavored to explain it as I understand it, and my conscience testifies that my life henceforth is dedicated to its attainment (Parel, 2009, p. 117).