A Letter to a Hindu

by Leo Tolstoy

About the subjection of India, its cause and cure, with an introduction by M.K. Gandhi.

Genres: Nonfiction, Philosophy, India, History, Politics, Religion, Russia

15 pages, Kindle Edition

First published December 1, 1908

About the author

Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (Russian: Лев Николаевич Толстой; most appropriately used Liev Tolstoy; commonly Leo Tolstoy in Anglophone countries) was a Russian writer who primarily wrote novels and short stories. Later in life, he also wrote plays and essays. His two most famous works, the novels War and Peace and Anna Karenina, are acknowledged as two of the greatest novels of all time and a pinnacle of realist fiction. Many consider Tolstoy to have been one of the world's greatest novelists. Tolstoy is equally known for his complicated and paradoxical persona and for his extreme moralistic and ascetic views, which he adopted after a moral crisis and spiritual awakening in the 1870s, after which he also became noted as a moral thinker and social reformer.

His literal interpretation of the ethical teachings of Jesus, centering on the Sermon on the Mount, caused him in later life to become a fervent Christian anarchist and anarcho-pacifist. His ideas on nonviolent resistance, expressed in such works as The Kingdom of God Is Within You, were to have a profound impact on such pivotal twentieth-century figures as Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

See also:
French → Léon Tolstoï
Spanish → León Tolstói

Reviews

[Viji (Bookish endeavors) · Rating 5 out of 5]

"A commercial company enslaved a nation comprising two hundred millions. Tell this to a man free from superstition and he will fail to grasp what these words mean. What does it mean that thirty thousand men,not athletes but rather weak and ordinary people,have subdued two hundred million vigorous,clever,capable,and freedom-loving people? Do not the figures make it clear that it is not the English who have enslaved the Indians,but the Indians who have enslaved themselves?"
A really interesting take on the foreign rule in India by one of the most eminent writers of the world. He blames it on blindly following the scientific or the religious. Love,and not violence,is the only solution for all the problems,he says. The whole letter is about how lack of love in this world have created problems and how its presence can bring back peace. Beautiful verses from Gita and Upanisads and Kural are cited throughout the letter..
A strong critique of all that is wrong with the world. With a constructive solution to it.
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

[Helen]

Part 1

Short recap: So you might have heard of Leo Tolstoy, that old Russian dude with huge beard who wrote long-ass books no one but literary snobs read, because them snobs love to boast about how they can read long-ass books with large vocabulary and meaning and stuff. But did you know that Count Tolstoy was a Christian anarchist and anti-war advocate of civil disobedience?

And, as chance (or maybe not) would have it, his works on the subject appeared at roughly the same time (then) Mohandas Gandhi began his activities in South Africa?

But it wasn't until the appearance of A Letter to a Hindu that Gandhi wrote to Tolstoy. Thus, a correspondence was established that lasted until Tolstoy's death. In fact Tolstoy's last letter was to Gandhi.

Now why don't HuffPo and Salon post tidbits like this instead of copying and pasting statements out of context, without bothering to do background research?

(FLAG AWAY!)

[Pragya · Rating 5 out of 5]

In my search for 'Eleven stories by Leo Tolstoy', I stumbled upon this treasure. The title intrigued me. I am a Hindu after all. Seeing a personal letter (well, almost) from no less than Leo Tolstoy will get anyone's heart beating faster and me being an ardent fan, 'ahh' is the word. I might have had too much on my to-do list but then this short little letter somehow made some time for itself to be read and I have no idea how everything else shifted to the back burner. ;)

An introduction by Mahatma Gandhi gives way to the book. On a personal note, I am not a big fan of his actions. His beliefs, possibly, but some of his actions just didn't go down well with me and few of his words in the letter found their way to infuriate me. But I carried on.

And then came Krishna and Tolstoy, two of my very favorite people or perhaps a semi-God and an author but well who goes by the decree. I love them both! And I completely agree with their beliefs. The quotes by Krishna reminded me why He was the one who had inspired my pen name while Tolstoy's writing reminded me why Anna Karenina is my all time favorite book and he my all time favorite author.

His words rang true to me and I found myself nodding in agreement. His letter written in 1908 still holds true to this day. But it now assimilates the whole world and is not limited to a Hindu or an Indian. It might well include Israel and Russia and Ukraine and the entire world population. 'Love' is the word. Violence and war should give way to love because that's what is natural and pervasive.

This little letter might hurt a few sentiments because at a point, it even questions one's beliefs in Gods and religion but all for one's belief in an even higher aim of life - love. I somehow agree with all that Tolstoy has to say because God is a belief but love is natural. God one learns about but love is an instinct, something we are born with.

I wish Tolstoy was alive. He seems like my dream man. ;) On a serious note, I realised why I had fallen in love with him years ago when I read Anna Karenina. And it's time I pick up more of him. I'm craving now.

[MihaElla · Rating 4 out of 5]

'Who am I? I am that which thou hast searched for since thy baby eyes gazed wonderingly upon the world, whose horizon hides this real life from thee. I am that which in thy heart thou hast prayed for, demanded as thy birthright, although thou hast not known what it was. I am that which has lain in thy soul for hundreds and thousands of years. Sometimes I lay in thee grieving because thou didst not recognize me; sometimes I raised my head, opened my eyes, and extended my arms calling thee either tenderly and quietly, or strenuously, demanding that thou shouldst rebel against the iron chains which bound thee to the earth.' (Krishna.)

I finished reading this letter, dated December 14th, 1908, written by count Leo Tolstoy at place Yasnaya Polyana, and realized that I posted updates only from the verses of Krishna and no words as embedded by the author himself. Mea culpa! It is more than obvious that I have been completely seduced by Krishna’s words rather than the rest of the letter. I was just thinking how would have felt to meet Krishna, the man. I guess that would be called an oceanic experience. 😁 As this is impossible, then I am glad also for having the free access to its philosophy.

This short text is titled A Letter to a Hindu with sub-title The Subjection of India—its Cause and Cure and has an introduction by M. K. Gandhi. Now that I’ve read it, I would rather choose the title When Krishna, god of protection, compassion, tenderness and love, goes to the West, or maybe just East Europe Of course, I have in mind the place where I am currently living and not where Tolstoy used to dwell.😁

The original letter written by Tolstoy in Russian in reply to one from the Editor of Free Hindustan seems to focus chiefly on reiterating one of his passionate statements (or famous preaches), do not resist evil, but also do not yourselves participate in evil [...] and no one in the world will enslave you Definitely his words commands attention and his presentation of his truth is refreshingly forceful, but there is no doubt there is a lot to understand and act upon when one realizes the irresistible power of the soul over the body, which Tolstoy identifies as the power of love, as the attribute of the soul, in conquering the evil passions.

This is a theme that interests me extremely. I mean about the life being directed by the spiritual element which is its basis. According to author the sole cause of the enslavement of the Indian people by the English lied in the absence of a religious consciousness and of the guidance for conduct which should flow from it. Going farther back, it is proven that the coercion of man by man has existed in all ages, and it follows that such coercion must continue to exist. Sigh! Further on, once eyes were opened to the religious fraud justifying violence, it had happened that a new justification came in place, a scientific superstition replacing the religious one.

Still, let's not despair, there is a solution available, that is what Tolstoy reminds us, Love is the only way to rescue humanity from all ills and it seems that in it there is the only method of saving people from enslavement. I do not accept all that Tolstoy says but I do empathize with his glorious idea, in fact the knowledge of the simple and clear truth which has dwelt in the hearts of humans from remote antiquity, that the law of love is in accord with the nature of humans.

[Sidharth Vardhan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Nothing new in it, even introducor Gandhi says so. The irony of British rule in India (a small population ruling over such a large one) was already too popular and solution Tolstoy suggested is too vague. Like Gandhi, he is liberaly quoting Krishna - not knowing that Krishna spoke those words to encourage use of arms against evil, something both he and Gandhi were condemning. Also it should be titled 'a letter to an Indian' not 'A letter to a Hindu'. Hugely disappointed.

[Hari · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everyone should read this.!! Love tolstoy and gandhi!

[Satyabrata Mishra · Rating 3 out of 5]

I guess the book deserves more than 3 stars as I've strong views against those present in the book... A letter to a Hindu was Tolstoy's doctrine on non violence translated by M.K. Gandhi in 1909. I don't know whether it was Tolstoy's own or Gandhi's misrepresentation, there's too much grandiosing the suffering of love and non violence. What else do you expect from the Father of the Nation?

[Bettie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bettie's Books

[Laura · Rating 3 out of 5]

Free download available at Project Gutenberg.

When a man like Tolstoy, one of the clearest thinkers in the western world, one of the greatest writers, one who as a soldier has known what violence is and what it can do, condemns Japan for having blindly followed the law of modern science, falsely so-called, and fears for that country 'the greatest calamities', it is for us to pause and consider whether, in our impatience of English rule, we do not want to replace one evil by another and a worse. India, which is the nursery of the great faiths of the world, will cease to be nationalist India, whatever else she may become, when she goes through the process of civilization in the shape of reproduction on that sacred soil of gun factories and the hateful industrialism which has reduced the people of Europe to a state of slavery, and all but stifled among them the best instincts which are the heritage of the human family.
[19th November, 1909] M. K. GANDHI

[Navi · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short, well thought out letter that Leo Tolstoy wrote to the Indian newspaper, Free Hindustan. He argues that if the people of India wish to free themselves from colonial British rule, they need to implement nonviolent approaches. Not anything new but still interesting to read!

[Atul Sabnis · Rating 4 out of 5]

On the day after the ban (or perhaps the correct word is recall?) of a book on Hindus in India, I read the very small book — A Letter to a Hindu, by Leo Tolstoy. This is the first book by Leo Tolstoy I’ve ever read. I emphasise the word book because 20-odd pages doesn’t a book make; further, it is actually a letter, that was published as a book. Well, if Goodreads is willing to call it a book, I have no qualms. [You can download a PDF version of the book from here]

The letter was written over a hundred years ago, by Leo Tolstoy to Tarak Nath Das, in 1908, “in response to two letters sent by Das, seeking support from the famous Russian author and thinker, for India's independence from British colonial rule. The letter was published in the Indian newspaper Free Hindustan." [Link] Mahatma Gandhi, who later published this letter, and wrote the foreword, warns that:

One need not accept all that Tolstoy says—some of his facts are not accurately stated […]

but

[…] his presentation of the old truth is refreshingly forceful. His logic is unassailable. And above all he endeavours to practise what he preaches. He preaches to convince. He is sincere and in earnest. He commands attention.

And while it is easy to assume that there is some form of treatise of Hinduism in the book; there isn’t. The letter is addressed to a Hindu; but talks of a world that has just recovered from religious superstition and plunged itself into scientific superstition. This is 1908. I checked and double checked. It is uncanny that a letter is as relevant to today as it was a hundred years ago; makes you believe nothing has changed. The letter explores the nature of enslavement - the context was the British rule:

A commercial company enslaved a nation comprising two hundred millions. Tell this to a man free from superstition and he will fail to grasp what these words mean. What does it mean that thirty thousand people, not athletes, but rather weak and ordinary people, have enslaved two hundred millions of vigorous, clever, capable, freedom-loving people? Do not the figures make it clear that not the English, but the Indians, have enslaved themselves?

Physical and social slavery are but weaker manifestations of the slavery archetype — of the belief system. The contradictory belief system, according to Tolstoy, that humans around the world have employed in different forms needs to be re-evaluated:

[…] the very people who recognize love as a virtue accept as lawful at the same time an order of life based on violence and allowing men not merely to torture but even to kill one another.

As the Mahatma says in the foreword, the logic is unassailable and he commands attention. This letter is time-proof, as is evidenced by current affairs. Slavery is rampant, the nature of superstition has changed.

[Isaac Chan · Rating 5 out of 5]

These letters simply had an electrifying impact on me.

I guess Tolstoy is invoking a simple observation of the mysteries of life, that anyone who looks inward can attest to – that all of mankind is one, and the love for our fellow man should naturally extend to all mankind, and this is how our societies and their politics should be structured. Also, it was through reading this letter that I could gain some further understanding on the motivation behind Gandhi’s ‘Universal brotherhood’.

Tolstoy’s argument in support of this is clearly intuitive – for I do believe that love for our fellow humans is, for the most part, deeply encoded into the human psyche, and one does not frequently observe hatred or extreme malice in young children. Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains – I do believe that it is society and its conventions that imprint evil on a man’s heart. My recent reading of Schopenhauer further intrigued me on this point, whereby Schopenhauer made the forceful claim in his ‘The basis of Morality’ that it is intelligent people, attuned to philosophy, who are better able to grasp the metaphysical concept of the unity of all life forms, and thus see others in themselves, which compels them to act morally.

It is thought-provoking to reflect on the fact that throughout human history, the many have been subjected to the rule of the few. Why is this seemingly such a natural phenomenon of human society? Tolstoy’s claim that, over time, those in power perpetrate lies and myths to restrain the people from seeing the obvious truth of universal love and equality, is hard to falsify. But then, easy examples come to mind, among them being:

i) The Egyptian myth of Pharaoh being the mediator between gods and men,
ii) The Indian rulers’ poisonous perpetration of the notion of castes, which to this day, deeply affect and restrain Indian society in profoundly complex ways,
iii) And obviously, the prosecution of Christians has happened since Christ Himself walked this earth, as per Tolstoy’s argument that the oppressors use force to silence the truth of universal love.

Does the long stretch of history really march towards freedom? These letters between Tolstoy and Gandhi made me reflect on this again. I suspect it does. And if it really does, I would hazard that the truth of universal love and non-resistance is so self-evident as to conquer any forms of evil that attempt to suppress it.

While Tolstoy made an insightful point regarding the emergence of ‘science’ that supplanted ‘religion’ as a means to suppress the truth and justify the status quo, nevertheless he does make some arguments that I can’t help but resist.

Firstly, it doesn’t sit well with me to accept the take, that the science behind the intellectual justification of the status quo is all bad. If I interpret ‘science’ to mean political economy or philosophy, then I find myself agreeing with plenty of political philosophy arguments that justify a strong state. The argument that’s front and center on my mind is Hobbes. I’ve come to realise that often-times, the key behind one’s politics lies in one’s assumptions about the state of nature – Hobbes imagined a nasty, brutish and short life in the state of nature, whereby Tolstoy clearly imagines a utopian state of nature, characterized by love.

Can we trust people to love each other?

The realist in me leans towards Hobbes.

Did Tolstoy lock the doors of Yasnaya Polyana when he went to bed at night? If he did, then I’m not too sure if he REALLY wanted anarchy, or strong forms of communitarianism. Like Tolstoy and Gandhi, I certainly find within myself (on good days) a vague, lingering notion of love for my fellow humans, but that’s not the point! The point is – can I trust others to love me? If I can’t, and I must lock my door at night, then I can love my neighbours however much I want, but I’d still need the Leviathan. Which leads me to my 2nd point of:

Does Tolstoy have a well-conceived economic and political system to administer his vision of society whereby love is seen as the highest good? I myself have not yet studied Tolstoy’s economics so I have little right to comment on this, but his preaching of communitarianism and the abolition of private property (and he even calls taxation evil in these letters) is unsettling. So, all the earth belongs to all mankind? What should we do, plough the soils together and share its spoils equally among all? Where would be the incentives to work, when I can rely on the universal love of my dear brothers? How can I have a single moment of peace, when I have no private property and any random smelly tramp can invade on my privacy (and I myself have no bed to call my own)? What would we do once we have far surpassed the largely agrarian society which Tolstoy lived and operated in, and live in a knowledge society where the value of one’s labour is very difficult to gauge due to asymmetric information and skill biases?

Can humans even agree on the good life? History seems to suggest that we can’t. Should we, then, pursue such lofty politics then, or should we settle for the 2nd-best solution, of subverting politics of ‘the good life’ and delegate the pursue of happiness to individual liberty?

My 3rd point isn’t a challenge to Tolstoy, but rather a refinement of an interesting point he made which I think he missed a chance to make conclusive.

The science that Tolstoy inveighs against, makes 2 justifications of the status quo, according to Tolstoy:

i) Coercion of man by man has existed in all ages, hence it follows that such coercion should continue.
ii) It is observed that lower life forms, e.g. plants and the beasts, are locked in a perpetual struggle for existence, and survival of the fittest. Hence, it follows that manking should live in this state as well.

The underlying causal mechanism that these 2 faulty arguments appear to invoke, is that the factual observations imply a ‘natural state of the world’, ‘this is just how things are’, hence humans should just abide to this natural state, i.e. coercion and unfettered competition.

Tolstoy argues against these 2 scientific justifications by merely invoking the intuitive conscience of loving-kindness, and also hints at notions of the supremacy of human nature (as compared to the lower life forms), and universal human rights.

But I myself think that there’s a much better way to argue against these justifications: the is-ought fallacy.

Observations of positive facts of the world doesn’t immediately lead to normative judgments.

In fact, I don’t think pure reason can ever lead us to normative judgments, unless we invoke the passions!

Even if I relax this high philosophical standard somewhat for the time being, I still find myself in a messy situation to justify how human society should be organized, just by observing the natural world. What is the logical chain of thought? Intuitively, it is the aforementioned ‘natural state of the world’ causal link that these factual observations summon to mind. Presumably, straying away from the ‘natural state of the world’ is unwise, since it is unnatural by definition and would revert to the mean anyway. But even if I accept this causal link, I still find myself skeptical of this causal chain, via standard Humean logic, because if 1 hypothesis explains the facts, an infinite number of other hypotheses do. In short, I do not observe the underlying cause!

I now find myself troubled, as I descend once more to my philosophical skepticism, as I wonder what empirical data can tell me at all concerning the normative questions of the high-causal-density world of political economy.

[Akshay · Rating 5 out of 5]

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (5/5)

What if the most powerful resistance against oppression wasn’t force—but truth? A Letter to a Hindu by Leo Tolstoy is a brief yet profoundly influential work that distills his philosophy of nonviolence, moral strength, and spiritual resistance into a message that feels both timeless and urgent.

Written as a response to Indian revolutionary Taraknath Das, Tolstoy’s letter addresses the struggle against colonial rule, but its scope extends far beyond politics. At its core, the work argues that true freedom cannot be achieved through violence or retaliation. Instead, it must arise from an unwavering commitment to love, truth, and moral integrity.

Tolstoy’s central claim is both radical and disarming: oppression persists not solely because of the oppressor’s strength, but because of the cooperation—willing or unwilling—of the oppressed. This shifts the conversation from external resistance to internal awakening.

Violence may overthrow rulers, but only truth can dismantle the system that sustains them.

The writing is simple, direct, and deeply persuasive. Tolstoy avoids complex rhetoric, choosing clarity over ornamentation. His arguments unfold with quiet conviction, making the letter accessible while retaining philosophical depth. There’s a sense of calm certainty in his tone—he doesn’t argue aggressively; he reasons patiently.

Key strengths:

Philosophical clarity: The ideas are presented in a straightforward yet impactful manner.
Moral depth: Emphasis on love and nonviolence as transformative forces.
Historical significance: The work influenced figures like Mahatma Gandhi and movements of nonviolent resistance.
Timeless relevance: Its message applies to conflicts far beyond its original context.

Where it may feel limited:

Idealistic tone: The emphasis on nonviolence may seem impractical to readers who favor direct confrontation.
Lack of nuance: The argument is strongly one-sided, leaving little room for alternative perspectives.

Critically, the strength of A Letter to a Hindu lies in its unwavering belief in moral power. However, that same conviction can feel overly idealistic, especially when applied to complex, real-world conflicts. Tolstoy doesn’t deeply engage with the practical challenges of nonviolent resistance—he asserts its necessity rather than proving its feasibility.

The underlying message suggests that true liberation begins with rejecting participation in systems of violence, making inner transformation the first step toward societal change.

Final verdict: Despite its brevity, A Letter to a Hindu carries immense intellectual and spiritual weight. It challenges readers to reconsider the nature of power, resistance, and freedom—not through force, but through conscience.

A quietly powerful manifesto that proves some of the most transformative ideas don’t need volume—only conviction.

[Adhiiee · Rating 1 out of 5]

I agree with Tolstoy when he said:

A commercial company enslaved a nation comprising two hundred millions. Tell this to a man free from superstition and he will fail to grasp what these words mean. What does it mean that thirty thousand men, not athletes but rather weak and ordinary people, have subdued two hundred million vigorous, clever, capable, and freedom-loving people? Do not the figures make it clear that it is not the English who have enslaved the Indians, but the Indians who have enslaved themselves?

When the Indians complain that the English have enslaved them it is as if drunkards complained that the spirit-dealers who have settled among them have enslaved them. You tell them that they might give up drinking, but they reply that they are so accustomed to it that they cannot abstain, and that they must have alcohol to keep up their energy. Is it not the same thing with the millions of people who submit to thousands' or even to hundreds, of others—of their own or other nations?

If the people of India are enslaved by violence it is only because they themselves live and have lived by violence, and do not recognize the eternal law of love inherent in humanity.

It is true that Hindus have suppressed other Hindus with the varna system (untouchability), the practise of sati and female infanticide for centuries. But colonial subjugation in India affected diverse communities, not just Hindus (It should have been titled "A Letter to an Indian" instead). Love alone cannot address the deep-rooted impacts of colonization, nor is the lack of religious instruction the sole reason why a larger population was dominated by the minority.

Tolstoy said: Do not resist the evil-doer and Hold aloof from all participation in violence—as soon as this happens, not only will hundreds be unable to enslave millions, but not even millions will be able to enslave a single individual.
But Lord Krishna—the one whom he often quotes—said:

द्रोणं च भीष्मं च जयद्रथं च
कर्णं तथान्यानपि योधवीरान्
मया हतांस्त्वं जहि मा व्यथिष्ठा
युध्यस्व जेतासि रणे सपत्नान्

droṇaṁ cha bhīṣhmaṁ cha jayadrathaṁ cha
karṇaṁ tathānyān api yodha-vīrān
mayā hatāṁs tvaṁ jahi mā vyathiṣhṭhā
yudhyasva jetāsi raṇe sapatnān

- Bhagavad-Gita: Chapter 11, Verse 34

Translation: Dronacharya, Bheeshma, Jayadratha, Karn, and other brave warriors have already been killed by Me. Therefore, slay them without being disturbed. Just fight and you will be victorious over your enemies in battle.

Lord Krishna does not condemn violence but rather he says: "Though the soul is immortal, violence is not encouraged, but at the time of war it is not discouraged when there is actual need for it," which is against the philosophy of Tolstoy and Gandhi who advocated for complete non-violence.

[J9 · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm glad I read it, it was interesting, but not necessarily enjoyable. The British Rule was a high conversation topic of the day and I feel like the only aspect Tolstoy's viewpoint that I can really get on board with is the need for more love in humanity. It's cheesy, but true. Love, forgiveness, and kindness go hand in hand and could only benefit any situation, especially this one. From what I understand, although Tolstoy's references to Krishna are enlightening, apparently the meaning behind what Krishna was talking about is debatable. There are enough reviews out there that give specifics on this, just take it with a grain of salt or do your own research before coming to some strong conclusions on how you feel about what he says. Especially the disparaging comments about science and religion. I truly believe you can take anything too far, so I guess on that point I agree with him. I do believe, though, that this is, in many ways, still relevant today. An entertaining read, nonetheless.

[Regina Fleck · Rating 5 out of 5]

Peace and love at its finest

[Sangeetha Ramachandran · Rating 4 out of 5]

"A commercial company enslaved a nation comprising two hundred millions. Tell this to a man free from superstition and he will fail to grasp what these words mean. What does it mean that thirty thousand men, not athletes but rather weak and ordinary people, have subdued two hundred million vigorous, clever, capable and freedom-loving people? Do not the figures make it clear that it is not the English who have enslaved the Indians, but the Indians who have enslaved themselves?"

I happened to pick this book as it was one of the free books available in the store. It was a very short read but I found it has good insights in it. A very interesting interpretation of religious and scientific beliefs. The verses quoted are very powerful. Even though there aren't anything like new theory, it helps a lot to understand what we are and where we stand.
It was an eye opener for me and I strongly recommend it to all.

[Shrey Goyal · Rating 4 out of 5]

"A commercial company enslaved a nation comprising two hundred millions. Tell this to a man free from superstition and he will fail to grasp what these words mean."

The anarchist from Russia writes a letter to an Indian publication that get passed from hand to hand, ultimately reaching Mahatma Gandhi, who then publishes it (along with his own thoughts) in 1909.

The letter thus makes a fascinating read not just for its own content (even Gandhi says "There is no doubt that there is nothing new" in it), but for how it must have influenced Gandhi and everyone else who read it over a century ago. This is not about history. This IS history.

[Krishna Smeeta · Rating 2 out of 5]

Love is all you need.

Leo Tolstoy,in this short letter speaks how love, is the only weapon that can truly help India attain freedom from the British.there are references from Indian epics and although its a brief collection of ideas,the content seems to be extremely heavy,and is not something that you can read fast.some ideas may go over your head or may appear vague ,but there are parts which may grip you.

[Dhevathi R Kannan · Rating 5 out of 5]

A good long letter to read and learn

This letter to a Hindu is about love. If all the people learn to love then there will be no wars, fights, arguments and so on. This letter reinstates the point.

[Nitin]

An interesting piece of philosophy - well-written and with good ideas about non-violence but also full of leaps of logic without any real evidence, along with a dash of victim-blaming. Worth reading for historical context.

[Sanjeev Satheesh · Rating 1 out of 5]

I usually admire Tolstoy's view of history. In this essay however, I feel, he grossly oversimplifies much of it. His agenda is remarkable, but his arguments are weak, and exhortations without force. Makes a nice read though!

[Ghadeer Jallad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sense i love tolstoy's ideology, naturally, the essay has draw my attention from the.beginning. It just describe the same scenario with my arab nation these days.

[heer]

I cannot possibly review this book. I can only talk about it.

I was attracted to the title, at first sight, what, being a Hindu myself.
It is disappointing that I had never heard of such a work of Tolstoy's before today, when I chanced upon it on Apple Books.

The most fun part of this book was my discovering of the fact that, initially, the letter was never written to Mahatma Gandhi, but to Tarak Nath Das and it was the subsequent publication of that letter upon Gandhi's request which started a series of correspondences between him and Tolstoy spanning through a couple of years, to the very last letter by Tolstoy which was addressed to Gandhi.

On to the "talk"...
In this epistolary compilation, Leo Tolstoy quotes the Gita and the narrations of Krishna to convey one simple message: It is through "Love" and love alone, that humankind can be liberated, from itself and from its 'sins'.

“...Just as formerly everything called 'religious' was held to be unquestionable simply because it was called religious, so now all that is called 'scientific' is held to be unquestionable.”
This matches Nietzsche's argument in his controversial, God-killing work. However, it is also the truest statement in Tolstoy's whole compilation, one that is the most rational, straying away from his usual idealistic views in the text.

“A commercial company enslaved a nation comprising two hundred millions. Tell this to a man free from superstition and he will fail to grasp what these words mean... Do not the figures make it clear that it is not the English who have enslaved the Indians, but the Indians who have enslaved themselves?”
This resembles a debate/discussion that loosely every Indian student must have had, be it casually or methodically, at least once in their school lives. One that gets paused to never be picked up again, simply because we all know that we never will be able to understand exactly what had gone on in the country over those decades of systematic subjugation. Thus, having gone through the various aspects of this argument already, Tolstoy's rather impactful statement as quoted here, falls limp and stale, him being a foreign commentator close to the rest of us.
I do get his perspective, however. It is even true, but only to some extent. To agree with him would be to shift the whole blame on to the common people for their inaction, for "enabling their enslavement", and therefore, trivialising the darkest period seen by the young Indian nation.

“Do not resist the evil-doer and take no part in doing so... and no one in the world will be able to enslave you."
Tolstoy very confidently states that if a people do not resist their oppressors, they will somehow find a way out to their own liberation.
How, he does not bother to throw light upon. It is as if saying that as long as one accepts and consequently eases into subjugation (as opposed to have to be forced to it, perhaps), they will have managed to never have been entered into that situation at all. Sense cannot be found in this argument, but insensitivity certainly can be.


Gandhi was sensible to include at the end of the introduction he wrote to this book:
“There is no doubt that there is nothing new in what Tolstoy preaches. But his presentation of the old truth is refreshingly forceful. His logic is unassailable... He commands attention."


Side note: For a deeper dive blended with a vague feeling of elation, mix "A Letter to a Hindu" with a parallel reading of "God Is Dead..." by Friedrich Nietzsche.

[Thomas Lønn Hammer · Rating 3 out of 5]

The amount of Englishmen needed to conquer India was roughly 20 000 to 30 000. There was 200 - 300 million Indians at the same, a ratio of 10 000 to 15 000 Indians per Englishman. How was that possible? Tolstoy thought that the Indians ‘enslaved themselves’. Striking argument. Definitely politically incorrect. Yet, you have to wonder?

Not that they physically enslaved themselves, it is not to be taken literally. But spiritually, religiously, by way of self-subordination to science and modernity, which the English brought, giving up the religious idea of ‘love’, which he thinks is at the core of all religions. A little too vague there, probably. Or is it just that we of the 21st century can’t handle that word without feeling a slight sense of embarrassment?

Which is not to say that the English were without sin, far from it, but simply that the Indians were complicit. By way of giving up their religious traditions. Today we see a resurgence of two powerful forces combined, nationalism and Hinduism. Paradoxically, the unification of India as a country - it was previously a scattered civilization with no aggregated sense of unification or integrated consciousness - did enable it to become more unified than it ever was. And it seems that the way it happened was according to the prescription of Tolstoy.

[Vlad Ardelean · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting ways of thinking people had 100+ years ago!

The part about how human kind needs to be sceptical about scientific superstitions is relevant to this day. However Tolstoy was clearly onto something, as the "pure rase" ideas played a nasty role in last century's history. The idea is fresh, and I have my own way of expressing this idea: "You can't outlaw ignorance". We need to always be critical of everything.

The part about how the English didn't conquer Indians, rather the Indians conquered themselves was also interesting. Can't comment much on that, as I'm ignorant in regards to the details of the whole British Empire - India thing :|

And then when the author says that "all we need is love", I can't really agree that reality is as simple as that. To me, the human nature is clearly full of contradictions. I think we tried the strategy of "let's all just love each other". I think that's Christianity. Not sure we can call that experiment successful. Hippies tried it again. I'm sure it was tried plenty of times and it just fails. Humans are not as simple as that, and I'm not sure any animal is as simple as that.

[Asha Seth · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gandhi's dogmas of non-violence were influenced by Leo Tolstoy's inspirations derived from his soul-searching, and that is a fact widely known. Most of what 'A Letter to a Hindu' has to say is centred around the same faith that channeled the literary genius' life. His preachings revolving around love, and how one must be free of and be uncontrolled by human emotions of rage, envy, vengeance, and/or pride, especially when he is asked of his opinions on the colonial rule of the British in India, and the efforts of Indians to oust the English power. These preachings are supported by verses from Hindu deity Krishna's doctrines of love and primarily, an ideal life.

[Urvi · Rating 5 out of 5]

An interesting read. I wasn’t aware of how deeply Gandhi was influenced by Tolstoy, or how he carried Tolstoy’s ideas forward through his own interpretation.
The book has made me increasingly curious about Tolstoy, and I can see myself reading more of his work and his life.

[Hemlyn · Rating 1 out of 5]

I hated this so much. No, Tolstoy, love is not the antidote to close to 2 centuries of colonial repression and violence.

[Dr.J.G. · Rating 1 out of 5]

................................................................................................
................................................................................................
A Letter to a Hindu,
the Complete Original Classic:
(Leo Tolstoy Masterpiece Collection)
with Introduction, by Mahatma Ghandi
by Leo Tolstoy, Mahatma Gandhi
................................................................................................
................................................................................................


I seem to have bought a copy of this book on kindle, from Amazon, with a cover, giving title

"A Letter to a Hindu"

and author

"Graf Leo Tolstoy"

from

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...

but it has the identification - when checked with Amazon -

ASIN B0084ANYWY

assigned to

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...,

and blurb and title

"A LETTER TO A HINDU
THE SUBJECTION OF INDIA—
ITS CAUSE AND CURE
With an Introduction by M. K. GANDHI
Leo Tolstoy"

from

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...,

so it's hard to know if Amazon mixed it up, and why.
................................................................................................


The two names involved are universally thought great. It's not just dismaying, but shocking to see how little the reverence, universally accorded, is deserved by worth evident in their arguments.

Moreover, the quotes ascribed to Krishna aren't clear as to where exactly they come from - it ought to be from Bhagawatgeeta, but therein one can hardly justify claiming Krishna talks of Love! It's about explaining to the chief warrior on the just side that he must war, and in the process explaining the unreality of the material world, the reality of Divine and Soul behind it all; it was not a moment about talk of loving the enemy who were unjust. And there is no such talk therein, as far as memory serves.

Imagine Churchill sending in RAF to fight off bombers arriving yo destroy London with a message of loving the nazis!

The quotes below are remarkable, not necessarily for laudable reasons. Often enough it's candy floss, unhealthy, however colourful and attractive to kids.
................................................................................................
................................................................................................


From introduction by Gandhi:-

"One of the accepted and 'time-honoured' methods to attain the end is that of violence. The assassination of Sir Curzon Wylie was an illustration of that method in its worst and most detestable form. Tolstoy's life has been devoted to replacing the method of violence for removing tyranny or securing reform by the method of non-resistance to evil. He would meet hatred expressed in violence by love expressed in self-suffering. He admits of no exception to whittle down this great and divine law of love. He applies it to all the problems that trouble mankind."

"If we do not want the English in India we must pay the price. Tolstoy indicates it. 'Do not resist evil, but also do not yourselves participate in evil—in the violent deeds of the administration of the law courts, the collection of taxes and, what is more important, of the soldiers, and no one in the world will enslave you', passionately declares the sage of Yasnaya Polyana. ... 'A commercial company enslaved a nation comprising two hundred millions. Tell this to a man free from superstition and he will fail to grasp what these words mean. What does it mean that thirty thousand people, not athletes, but rather weak and ordinary people, have enslaved two hundred millions of vigorous, clever, capable, freedom-loving people? Do not the figures make it clear that not the English, but the Indians, have enslaved themselves?'"
................................................................................................


Quoted from Tolstoy letter:-

" ... The oppression of a majority by a minority, and the demoralization inevitably resulting from it, is a phenomenon that has always occupied me and has done so most particularly of late. ... "

"The reason for the astonishing fact that a majority of working people submit to a handful of idlers who control their labour and their very lives is always and everywhere the same—whether the oppressors and oppressed are of one race or whether, as in India and elsewhere, the oppressors are of a different nation."
................................................................................................


"Your letter, as well as the articles in Free Hindustan and Indian political literature generally, shows that most of the leaders of public opinion among your people no longer attach any significance to the religious teachings that were and are professed by the peoples of India, and recognize no possibility of freeing the people from the oppression they endure except by adopting the irreligious and profoundly immoral social arrangements under which the English and other pseudo-Christian nations live to-day."
................................................................................................



"In former times the chief method of justifying the use of violence and thereby infringing the law of love was by claiming a divine right for the rulers: the Tsars, Sultans, Rajahs, Shahs, and other heads of states. But the longer humanity lived the weaker grew the belief in this peculiar, God—given right of the ruler. That belief withered in the same way and almost simultaneously in the Christian and the Brahman world, as well as in Buddhist and Confucian spheres, and in recent times it has so faded away as to prevail no longer against man's reasonable understanding and the true religious feeling. People saw more and more clearly, and now the majority see quite clearly, the senselessness and immorality of subordinating their wills to those of other people just like themselves, when they are bidden to do what is contrary not only to their interests but also to their moral sense. And so one might suppose that having lost confidence in any religious authority for a belief in the divinity of potentates of various kinds, people would try to free themselves from subjection to it. But unfortunately not only were the rulers, who were considered supernatural beings, benefited by having the peoples in subjection, but as a result of the belief in, and during the rule of, these pseudodivine beings, ever larger and larger circles of people grouped and established themselves around them, and under an appearance of governing took advantage of the people. And when the old deception of a supernatural and God-appointed authority had dwindled away these men were only concerned to devise a new one which like its predecessor should make it possible to hold the people in bondage to a limited number of rulers."
................................................................................................


"A commercial company enslaved a nation comprising two hundred millions. Tell this to a man free from superstition and he will fail to grasp what these words mean. What does it mean that thirty thousand men, not athletes but rather weak and ordinary people, have subdued two hundred million vigorous, clever, capable, and freedom-loving people? Do not the figures make it clear that it is not the English who have enslaved the Indians, but the Indians who have enslaved themselves?"
................................................................................................


"If the people of India are enslaved by violence it is only because they themselves live and have lived by violence, and do not recognize the eternal law of love inherent in humanity."
................................................................................................


"If only people freed themselves from their beliefs in all kinds of Ormuzds, Brahmas, Sabbaoths, and their incarnation as Krishnas and Christs, from beliefs in Paradises and Hells, in reincarnations and resurrections, from belief in the interference of the Gods in the external affairs of the universe, and above all, if they freed themselves from belief in the infallibility of all the various Vedas, Bibles, Gospels, Tripitakas, Korans, and the like, and also freed themselves from blind belief in a variety of scientific teachings about infinitely small atoms and molecules and in all the infinitely great and infinitely remote worlds, their movements and origin, as well as from faith in the infallibility of the scientific law to which humanity is at present subjected: the historic law, the economic laws, the law of struggle and survival, and so on—if people only freed themselves from this terrible accumulation of futile exercises of our lower capacities of mind and memory called the 'Sciences', and from the innumerable divisions of all sorts of histories, anthropologies, homiletics, bacteriologics, jurisprudences, cosmographies, strategies—their name is legion—and freed themselves from all this harmful, stupifying ballast—the simple law of love, natural to man, accessible to all and solving all questions and perplexities, would of itself become clear and obligatory."
................................................................................................
................................................................................................

................................................
................................................

July 24, 2021 - July 25, 2021.

................................................
................................................

................................................................................................
................................................................................................