Three Case Studies Of Nonviolence -in the Context of their Relationship to Gandhian Satyagraha

By Krishna Mallick

The purpose of this paper is to make the point that nonviolence is well alive in this violent world. It is being followed in the different parts of the world. I intend to show how the situation of the three countries - the United States, South Africa, and Myanmar - is different by giving the timelines of each of these cases, yet each of them has used the nonviolent method to resolve the injustices that went on, in the case of U.S. with regard to the treatment of blacks, in South Africa with regard to Apartheid which discriminated against the black majorities, and is going on in the Myanmar (previously called Burma) struggle for democracy in spite of NLD's (National League For Democracy) victory in the 1990 election.

Gandhi said, "The essence of nonviolence technique is that it seeks to liquidate antagonism but not the antagonists themselves;" "Satyagraha is a relentless search for truth and a determination to reach truth" and "The Satyagrahi's object is to convert, not to coerce, the wrong-doer."

In conflict situations Satyagraha merely means that the satyagrahi follows no other plan than the adherence to nonviolence and has no other goal than to reach the truth. The truth being the end of the process, nonviolence is the means to achieve it. As good ends can never grow out of bad means, the opponent is not forced to expose himself to loss.

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. SAID: "The ultimate measure of a man not where he stands in moments of comforts and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

Martin Luther King Jr. was born on 15 January 1929 and was assassinated on 4 April 1968. During his life he developed a great interest in non-violent struggle. His major protest took place in the form of the well-known Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955-56, which he launched against the segregation policy on the use of buses. His commitment to nonviolent methods got a fillip during his visit to India in 1959 when he met the followers of Gandhi and acquired first-hand knowledge about the theory and practice of Gandhian nonviolence. His protests put him in Birmingham Jail from where he issued a letter in April 1963 in which he elaborated his principles of nonviolent protest. In the same year, a few months later, he delivered a speech which is known as "I Have A Dream" speech in Washington. In this speech he outlined his vision of a just and nonviolent American society in which everybody would enjoy legitimate rights. As a recognition of his contribution to nonviolent struggle and peace, he received the Nobel Peace Prize in December 1964.

NELSON MANDELA WROTE: "I always knew that deep down in every human heart, there is mercy and generosity...People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite." Nelson Mandela was born in 1918. Having studied at the University of Fort Hare, he became involved in political struggle against racism followed by the Government of South Africa. After completing his legal studies in Johannesburg, he started having active involvement in the African National Congress (ANC). He established the ANC's Youth League in 1944. During the late 1950's Nelson Mandela and his associates provided a more military direction to the ANC. In August 1968, Mandela was arrested in South Africa and was found guilty of several charges of indulging in anti-state activities. As a result, he was imprisoned for life. Despite this he was able to maintain contact with the ANC movement. Therefore Mandela became the most important symbol of the resistance. He was released from imprisonment in 1990 and became the first president of the Republic of South Africa. He gave up the South African presidency in 1999. It was because of his relentless efforts that South Africa was free from the Apartheid policies which were made illegal. For his contribution to the creation of a just society in South Africa through nonviolent struggle he was also awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Through his relentless nonviolent struggle, Apartheid has been made illegal in South Africa.

AUNG SAN SUU KYI SAID: "Now that we are gaining control of the primary historical role imposed on us of sustaining life in the context of the home and family, it is time to apply in the arena of the world the wisdom and experience thus gained in activities of peace over so many thousands of years. The education and empowerment of women throughout the world cannot fail to resolve in more enduring, tolerant, just, and peaceful life for all."

Aang San Suu Kyi was born in June 1945 in Burma (Myanmar). Burma came under the British rule in 1885. Burmese nationalists, led by her father Gen Aung San, helped the British defeat Japan in exchange for their country's independence. Myanmar has been ruled by repressive military regime since 1962. The first military leader, Gen. Ne Win initiated socialist policies and nationalized the economy and discouraged foreign investment. Aung San Suu Kyi is the leading voice of democracy in her troubled economy. She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 while she had been under house arrest. In 1990, her National League for Democracy won a landslide victory but the military government refused to recognize the result of this election. She was released in 1995 after six years of house arrest but she was not allowed to leave the country. It is believed that there had been more talks of reconciliation. Myanmar is facing a number of problems created by the military regime of the country. Military action and its policies continue to create unlimited hardships for the people. Aung San Suu Kyi is considered to be the symbol of nonviolence and democracy in Myanmar providing able leadership to the people's protest against the repressive and authoritarian regime of the country.

IN EACH OF THESE CASES, the method of nonviolence has been used. Gandhi states that Satyagraha or truth force should involve the following criteria:

• Satyagraha is the weapon of the strong, not of the weak.
• Satyagraha excludes violence in any shape or form, whether in thought, speech, or deed. It resists the will of the tyrant wholeheartedly.
• It involves self-sacrifice and the readiness to bear endless suffering bravely.
• It is to be exercised by the well-qualified, well-prepared people who are devoted to truth, non-violence, and the welfare of all.
• It is grounded in faith, in the efficacy of innocent suffering.
• It is described as an unending relentless, dialectical quest for truth. It is holding on to truth, no matter what.

It requires no physical assistance or material aid and is capable of being exercised by men, women and children.

Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and Aung San Suu Kyi have demonstrated through their loves and their actions that nonviolent method of Satyaghraha can be effective in the long run. It takes tremendous amount of courage and patience to pursue nonviolence. It is something that can be accomplished only through discipline. In the end, it turns out to be long lasting accomplishment rather than a quick fix. Nonviolence is a struggle for justice, not for material gain. Each of these practitioners of nonviolence held and is holding on to truth/justice at any cost. It is a conviction, which results in peace and justice. King, Mandela, and Suu Kyi have operated on the foundation of nonviolence rather than on violence. Nonviolence as a practical tool connotes minimum amount of violence, not total absence of violence. During the civil rights movement of King, Mandela's struggle against Apartheid and Suu Kyi's ongoing struggle for democracy - in each of these cases, many people were killed unjustly by the side which is doing the injustice, yet it did not lead to killing on a very large scale. This is due to the fact that nonviolence does not breed more violence. Satyagraha, as a method of nonviolence, can be applied universally, both in the East and in the West.

The above account of the three case studies is very sketchy. It only gives an indication on the broad relationship of the three cases with Gandhian method and technique, in the hope that someone might take it as a framework of analysis and make a full-length study of the subject.

Source: Gandhi Marg, Volume Twenty-Five, Number Three, October-December 2003

Gandhi's Vision and Technique of Conflict Resolution

By Y V Satyanarayana

THIS ARTICLE IS intended to explore Gandhi's technique of conflict resolution and his vision of an ideal society. I have also made an attempt to analyse and compare the vision of Marx and Gandhi about the future of mankind. Since Marx and Gandhi are the outspoken champions of the interests of the down-trodden and exploited humanity, who fought in their own way against social suffering, political subjugation, and economic exploitation, it is quite natural for them to have some similar views, if not identical ones. They are not only concerned for the poor and oppressed humanity, but also revolutioned the character of philosophy and brought it to the realm of social action. The history of mankind shows how great men have always struggled and fought against the prevailing social evils and human sufferings. Of such great men in human history, the 19th century produced two outstanding personalities-Marx and Gandhi. The great men while being products of history also act as the agents of history. Marx and Gandhi responded to the challenges of the given historical situations, realized the historical necessities of their times and tried to actualize the needs and aspirations of the people of their times in their own way. Describing the nature of great man, Hegel says: The great man of the age is the one who can put into words the will of his age, tell his age what its will is, and accomplish it. What he does is the heart and essence of his age, he" actualizes his age

What is a conflict? A conflict may be said as a serious disagreement between the opinions .or interests of two persons or two groups of persons involved in an issue. Gandhi was much concerned to evolve a revolutionary approach to political action and social change. His originality lay in the formulation of a new technique of non-violent non-cooperation or Satyagraha for social action. He believed that Satyagraha is an infallible means for resolving all social, political, and economic evils. As a technique of social action, satyagraha may be applied to resolve the following type of social conflicts: conflict between one individual and another individual conflict between an individual and a group conflict between one group and another group or between two classes conflict between a section of the community and the state conflict between one nation and another nation Unlike Marx; Gandhi never regarded all history as the history of class struggle or all social conflicts as fundamentally antagonistic in their nature. Nevertheless he was aware of the class conflicts and wanted to resolve them or minimise them by nonviolent means. Marx and Gandhi held a similar view that no social conflict can be resolved unless the sufferers realise their suffering and their strength, constitute themselves into a class or an organisation refuse to cooperate with the evil and demonstrate their power to the evil-doers or exploiters. Thus arousing of consciousness, continuing them with a powerful organisation are the more essential phenomena in the Marxian and Gandhian techniques of social action.

Both these thinkers recognised the existence of social conflicts as a fact and advocated their own methods to resolve them. They believed that exploitation of the masses can be extinguished by the exploited class itself and, therefore, they put the burden of their programme of action on the shoulders of the exploited class. To that extent the "nonviolent non cooperation or satyagraha" of Gandhi and the "class struggle" of Marx are based on the same technique of social action. Gandhi identified two areas in which class conflict is more conspicuous: conflict between capitalists and workers in industry. conflict between landlords and tenants in agriculture.

Gandhi's method of conflict resolution is based on a greater understanding and love between the two parties involved in it. He prescribed the trusteeship formula to the rich and the weapon of nonviolent Non-cooperation or Satyagraha to the poor and exploited to bring change in the attitude of the rich. Satyagraha is a technique of action wherein the ideal of love would reign in the place of hatred and killing. It is based on truth, works through nonviolence and achieves its end by converting or compelling the opponent through self-suffering.

Capital and Labour Gandhi pleaded for mutual love between the capital and the labour. He demanded equal status and dignity for capital and labour to avoid conflict between them. Why should million rupees put together be more than million men put together?, he questioned. Without labour, gold, silver, and copper are a useless burden. A nation may do without its millionaires and without its capitalists but a nation can never do with out its labour. The labour is far superior to capital because it is less dependent on capital than the latter is on the labour. The capital at present is able to control labour because it has learnt the art of combination before labour. Gandhi thought that if all the labourers could combine in the true nonviolent spirit, capital would inevitably come under their control. He advised the workers to refuse to serve under degrading conditions and for insufficient wages.

Gandhi, like any other socialist thinker, believed that all forms of property and human accomplishments are either gifts of nature or products of collective social effort. As such, they must belong not to the individual but to society as a whole and therefore should be used for the good for all. He made a distinction between legal ownership and moral ownership. Legally wealth belongs to the owner, but morally to the whole society. In this sense of moral ownership, the labourers are also the owners of the wealth possessed by mill-owners.

Marx and Gandhi have similar views regarding the institution of private property and they intended to abolish not only private property but also the inheritance of property rights. Marx held that communism "wants to destroy everything which is not capable of being possessed by all as private property."2 Gandhi also expressed a similar view and said: "I can only possess certain things which I know that others who also want to possess similar things, are able to do so”

Class Collaboration Unlike Marx, Gandhi did not believe in class war. He said there may be conflicts between workers and employees but there was no reason why they should be fomented or intensified. His belief in the innate goodness of man and his capacity for improvement implies that mutual conflict cannot be regarded as the dominant or governing principle of human life. Therefore he argued that "class war" as superfluous and unnecessary. He thought that only through class collaboration can the interests of both the individual and the society as a whole be advanced. If the idea of trusteeship is accepted and implemented by capital and labour, there will be no scope for conflicts. If the workers non-cooperate with the evil of capitalism, it must die of in-animation. Thus Gandhi mainly relied on the nonviolent non-cooperation of the workers to bring about the conversion of capitalists.

Exploitation of the poor can be extinguished not by effecting the destruction of a few millionaires but by removing the ignorance of the poor and teaching them to non-cooperate with their exploiters. That will convert the exploiters also.

Moral Conversion Gandhi emphasized the need for adopting pure means for achieving the goals in life. His approach was indeed moral transformation of the individual heart, which is the basis of all social dynamics. He believed that the duty of renunciation differentiates mankind from the beast and held that "man becomes great exactly in the degree in which he works for the welfare of his fellow-men."5 The means proposed by Gandhi are based on voluntary conversion of the exploiting class to the cause of socio-economic justice by moral appeal to their conscience. His emphasis on moral conversion not only includes the moral transformation of the exploiter but also the awakening of the workers and peasants to realize their moral strength. He felt that most of the evils of the modern economic system existed because we co-operated with them or tolerated them. Cooperation with the good and non-cooperation with the evil should be the duty of every citizen. The exploiters would deprive their power of exploitation if, the labourers realize that exploitation could take place only with their cooperation.

Unlike Gandhi, Marx did not plead for a change of heart because he considered it to be a substitute for one set of illusions to another. He believed that men just simply do not give us their riches on hearing a socialist sermon. Marx, therefore, relied on revolutionary means rather than on reformist means of Gandhi.

Gandhi's method of Satyagraha is based on three fundamental assumptions: Man's nature is not beyond redemption and it can be perfectible. Human nature is one in its essence and responds to love, and What is possible to do for one man is equally possible for all.

Salient Features of Satyagraha The underlying principle of satyagraha is not to destroy or injure the opponent, but to convert or win him by sympathy, patience, and self-suffering.

The doctrine of satyagraha is based on the metaphysical belief that the tyrant may have power over the body and material possessions of a satyagrahi, but not over his soul. Hence the soul can remain unconquered and unconquerable even when the body is imprisoned.

Satyagraha, as a tool of social action, is based on a strong moral content. Self-suffering is its unique character which distinguishes it from all other forms of violent methods of action. Self-suffering is infinitely more superior and powerful than the law of the Jungle for converting the opponent and opening his ears to the voice of reason.

Self-sacrifice of one innocent man, in a satyagraha movement, is a million times more potent than the sacrifice of a million men who die in the act of killing others.

Nonviolence is not a negative virtue. It is not merely abstaining from violence or harmlessness, but a positive state of love or doing good even to the evil-doer. In other words, to resist his evil acts without hatred or harm to him.

The underlying principle of nonviolence is "hate the sin but not the sinner." The philosophy of nonviolence is aimed at reconstructing, remoulding, and reshaping human nature. Nonviolent non-cooperation should not be equated with inaction or non-action. It is an active condemnation of untruth, without violence, anger, or malice. It is an active fight against all wickedness or putting of one's soul against the will of the tyrant to win him over by love. The scope of satyagraha is much wider as it can be applied against our dearest and nearest since there is no hatred or anger or violence in it.

The significant feature of satyagraha method lies in arousing consciousness of the masses, continuing education, maintaining the unity of the sufferers and make them as fearless soldiers, providing them with a powerful organization and throw them into heroic battles. The multi-class or non-class character of satyagraha movement is distinct from other methods which mainly consists of the same class.

Thus the basic aim of Satyagraha movement is to educate the masses, make them conscious of the exploitation, prepare them into a broad front, provide them a powerful organization, and finally lead them in their struggle against the exploiters. Gandhi's satyagraha method fulfils all the necessary requirements for a revolution, no matter, whether that revolution is nonviolent or violent. Once the masses realize their strength and become conscious of the exploitation they would certainly revolt against the existing social order. Gandhi, as a man of practical affairs, visualized this possibility and rightly predicted that: I see coming the days of the rule of the poor, whether that rule be through force of arms or of nonviolence.6 Whether Satyagraha is a universal panacea or not, it served some positive function in a specific historical context in India. On the political front it contributed a major share for achieving independence to the country, on the social front it minimized the evils of untouchability and communal riots, but it failed to bring any worth mentioning results on the economic front.

Theory of Trusteeship Gandhi's theory of trusteeship is based on two basic premises. The rich cannot accumulate wealth without the cooperation of the poor. Western socialism and communism are not the last word on the question of mass poverty. He developed the theory of trusteeship as an alternative to capitalism and scientific socialism. He was opposed to the western capitalism, which necessarily leads to oppression, exploitation, concentration of wealth and inequality. At the same time, he was against an increase in the power of the state which, in his opinion, is essentially based on violence. Gandhi, therefore, wanted to provide the institution of trusteeship as a compromise between private enterprise and state controlled enterprise.

As an ardent advocate of democracy and adult franchise, he believed that the poverty-stricken people would be able to bring their electoral pressure on government to restructure the society on the basis of trusteeship. He thought that the only alternative to trusteeship would be bloody revolution and put before the capitalists to make a choice between class war arid trusteeship. He warned them:

A violent and bloody revolution is a certainty one day unless there is a voluntary abdication of riches and of power that riches gave and sharing them for the common good.

Conclusion Gandhi's thought process was an outcome of his political struggle first in South Africa as a revolt against the practice of aparthied and later in India as a battle against British imperialism for national independence.

Gandhian thought, as a philosophy of life, did not believe in a set of doctrines claiming finality. It is neither a dogma nor a closed system of thought. Since human knowledge and achievements are a continuous process, they need not stop growing with Gandhi. Hence we may not necessarily stick to the ideas of Gandhi expressed in a particular historical situation and from his own experiences of his life. It should be the duty of a true follower of Gandhi, to elaborate, amplify, and even revise his ideas in the light and experiences of contemporary changing situations it the national and international spheres. In this context, it seems to be more appropriate and necessary, to re-read and re-judge his ideas from a new angle of vision on various aspects.

Is Gandhi's Vision of Ramarajya Realizable? The imperfections or the existing social order demanded many philosophers and thinkers to visualize an ideal social order of their own conception wherein man can realize all his potentialities and lead a happy and peaceful life. Marx and Gandhi visualized an "exploitation ­free" society of their own conception. For Marx the ideal society is the "communist society" and for Gandhi it is "Ramarajya". Though Marx and Gandhi wanted an egalitarial social order, they differed in their methods of approach to the realization of their ideal society.

The ideal society of Gandhi's concept is based on the moral evolution of individuals. Gandhi was of the opinion that his ideal society may not be possible in the present state of, but it can be realizable in future in the course of evolution of human society. If people become genuinely nonviolent, morally elevated, mutually affectionate, learn to cooperate voluntarily among themselves, and averse to anti-social activities then the society will be elevated to a higher plane of culture. Gandhi's vision of ideal society is nothing but an expression of his striving for a just and perfect society, i.e., the Kingdom of righteousness on earth.

What are the stages through which the evolution of human society has advanced till now and in what direction it tends to in future?

If we understand the different stages of human evolution, we can arrive at an indication of the next possible stages of evolution of human society. If an answer could be found to the question, in what direction the evolution of human society is progressing?, it would be possible for us to draw a programme of action suitable to the present stage and to work for the realization of an ideal society.

Gandhi firmly believed that history is steadily progressing towards ahimsa or nonviolence working on the law of love. Thus he argued:

If we turn our eyes to the time of which history has any record down to our time, we shall find that man has been steadily progressing towards ahimsa. Our remote ancestors were cannibals. . . . Next came a stage when ashamed of leading the life of a wandering hunter, man took to agriculture . . . . Thus from being a nomad he settled down to civilized stable life, founded villages and towns, and from a member of a family he became a member of a community and a nation. All these are signs of progressive ahimsa and diminishing himsa. Had it been otherwise, the human species should have been extinct by now, even as many of the lower species have disappeared.

If we accept that mankind has steadily progressed towards ahimsa till now, it follows that it has to progress still further and further and raise itself from the human plane to the divine plane. Gandhi accepted man's animal ancestry and said "in our present state, we are partly men and partly beasts." He also admitted Darwinism and said "we have become men by a slow process of evolution from the brute."10 The evolution of species has made man the highest creature in the cycle of creation. Though man is a rational animal, his nature is still dominated by qualities of the beast in him because the human species is still in the process of evolutionary development. Man is distinguished from the beast in his ceaseless striving to rise above the beast on the moral plane. Gandhi, therefore, argued that man is superior to selfishness and violence, which belong to the beast nature, not to the nature of man.

Violence and nonviolence are the two natural impulses of all cerebral beings. These two distinct instincts have been inherited from nature. When compared to human species, the violent impulse is dominant and pervasive in creatures than in men. Thus, on the one hand, man has his animal nature and, on the other, he has his power of reason and judgment which no other animal possesses. In the course of evolution, man has made continuous progress in the cultivation of nonviolent tendencies in him and the violent aspect of him has been gradually suppressed. Man as a social being understands that mutual assistance and cooperation with his fellow beings may render his life more easy and happy. So he has been able to build up his civilization and culture with the cooperation of his fellow beings. Human species by applying reason and judgment have been able to make astonishing progress. When the bestial part of human nature is tamed, the scope of nonviolence tendency increases and human society will be elevated to a higher plane. A civilization may be said to have advanced as far as it has succeeded in controlling the animal passions of man. Violence is counter-productive resulting in anger, hatred, jealousy, revenge, and bloodshed. Therefore nonviolent means is the only alternative to eradicate the beastly and anti-social tendencies from the human mind and to elevate human society to a superior plane wherein the entire humanity can live in peace and harmony.

Gandhi's concept of Ramarajya stands for an egalitarian, nonviolent, and democratic social order, wherein moral values pervade all spheres of human life. Politically it is a form of stateless society, socially it is a form of classless society where all persons are equally treated irrespective of caste, colour, religion, sex etc., and economically it is a form of socialist society in which inequalities based on possession and non-­possession vanish because all wealth belongs to the society as a whole.

The law of "dharma" and the inward morality of the individuals bind together the members of the society and make them fulfill their social obligations. Dharma or social ethics exerts strong moral pressure on the individuals and sustains social cohesion. Each individual works for the "greatest good for all" and the society will provide maximum opportunities to all individuals to develop their potentialities.

Marx scientifically explained the rise, development, and decline of particular forms of societies in human history due to their inherent contradictions and conflicts. He conceived that the germs of the future society are contained within the present society. Capitalism has not only developed the economic and technological prerequisites of a future society, but it has also created a political force for its own destruction. He apprehended that a society based on class antagonisms had a need of the state to subjugate other classes by the ruling class. Once the classes are abolished, he argued, there is no need of the state and it gradually withers away, which finally leads to a classless and stateless communist society.

For Marx, communism as such is not the fulfillment of man's life, but it is the condition for such a fulfillment. He conceived communism as the condition of human freedom and creativity, but not as the final goal of humanity. In communist society, the struggle for existence ceases and man emerges from mere animal conditions of existence into truly human conditions. It assures the basic necessaries of life to all members of the society; creates suitable conditions for the development of physical and mental faculties; liberates man from his one sided, partial, and alienated labour activity; and creates conditions for a free and creative labour activity to develop talents and interests to each member of the society.

The material abundance of communism will make it possible to distribute foods, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”11 Thus Marx's conception of communist society is not merely a society of plenty, but also a society of human dignity and fredom.12 The communist society, as Marx envisaged it, will not make angels out of devils, nor will it bring heaven on earth, but will solve only those problems that can be solved at this present stage in the development of man.

Notes and References G.W.F. Hegel, Eng. Tr. T.M. Knox, Philosophy of Right, (London: Oxford University Press, 1953), p. 295. Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, (Moscow: Progressive Publishers, 1977), p. 94. M.K. Gandhi, Quoted in Dr. V.K.R.V. Rao, The Gandhian Alternative to Western Socialism, (Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1970), p. 33. Harijan, 28 July, 1940, p. 219. N.K. Bose, Selections from Gandhi, (Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1972), p. 25. Harijan, 1 February 1942, p. 20. M.K. Gandhi, Constructive Programme, (Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1968), pp. 20-21. M.K. Gandhi, For Pacifists, (Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1949), p. 9. Young India, 9 March 1920, p. 286. Harijan, 2 April 1938, p. 65. Karl Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Selected Works, Vol. 3, (Moscow: Progressive Publishers, 1973), p. 19. Eugene Kamenka, The Ethical foundations of Marxism, (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1972), p. 157.

Why didn't the Indians do it?

Unlike the Arab-Islamic world, other colonised peoples have reacted to oppression by looking forward, not backward, writes Abdel-Moneim Said*

---

I hope the reader will bear with me as I continue to discuss the problem of terrorism in Arab and Islamic countries. I stress, here, that I am speaking of Muslim human beings, not Islam. I am also speaking of all people who have fallen victim to terrorism everywhere in the world, whether in Islamic or non-Islamic countries. So if I bring up the London underground bombings, for example, that is not to attribute any greater value to that tragedy than those that struck Sharm El-Sheikh, Riyadh, Bali, Casablanca, Baghdad or anywhere else that has experienced mass murder and ritual executions perpetrated in the name of Islam. Our ultimate purpose is to find a remedy to the terrorist phenomenon and such a remedy will remain out of reach until we identify the causes. Specifically, we must determine whether the phenomenon is a product of a sense of injustice and persecution felt by some Muslims in response to certain events and circumstances in the Arab and Islamic world, or whether it is a manifestation of a specific ideology that sanctions killing as part of its mission to establish a system of rule and social organisation that achieves deliverance in this world and the next. India offers a prime example of a country with a history steeped in colonialist oppression, economic subjugation, colonialist settlement expansion and geographic partition. Nevertheless, not a single Indian is to be found among the groups that bombed London, New York or Madrid, among the ranks of the "resistance" in Iraq or Chechnya, or anywhere else in the known arenas of the "jihad". Since Vasco da Gama rounded the Cape of Good Hope in 1498 and headed to India, the history of that country would be inexorably altered. European adventurers, pirates and evangelists began flocking to its shores, commencing the systematic plundering of the subcontinent that would continue over subsequent centuries. In the 17th century, the British began to dominate the field and used their infamous "divide and conquer" tactics to play off the various ethnic and religious groups against one another. By the mid-19th century, Britain controlled 60 per cent of Indian territories, and in 1877 Queen Victoria declared herself Empress of India. At no point before or afterwards did Britain cease its exploitation of the wealth of that country to the detriment of the Indian people. During the course of 100 years, between the mid-19th and mid-20th century, India suffered the ravages of 25 major famines, claiming between 30 and 40 million lives. Between three and four million Indians died in the last of these famines alone, which occurred in 1943-44. Mahatma Gandhi famously said, "poverty is the worst form of violence." He could not have more succinctly encapsulated the Indian condition and its affect on all sectors of the population: Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and others. Yet -- and here comes the surprise -- his response was to launch a campaign of pacifist resistance, not to kill people in London or elsewhere. And when some Indians did commit acts of violence against the British, who themselves had perpetrated horrendous massacres, Gandhi's response was to condemn these acts in no uncertain terms and to regard them as having tainted the Indian national movement as a whole. British colonial oppression was both economic and demographic. Large segments of the British populace settled in India, where they carved out colonies and urban quarters governed by laws that set Westerners above all indigenous peoples in terms of rights and obligations. In 1857, groups of Indian Muslims and Hindus learned that the British used rendered pork and beef fat to grease the new Lee Enfield rifle. The discovery triggered mutiny, which the British did not hesitate to suppress with excessive force and violence, just as they had mercilessly crushed all resistance forces irrespective of religious or sectarian affiliation. Ultimately, the British only left India after that country was severed into India and Pakistan, creating a gaping wound in the Indian subcontinent, the volatile repercussions of which can still be felt today in the flare-ups between the two states over Kashmir. However, the partition of India has also yielded a most interesting and perplexing phenomenon. While Pakistan backed the extremist- fundamentalist Taliban movement in Afghanistan and was among the countries to feed Al-Qaeda with manpower, and while persons of Pakistani origin perpetrated the London bombings of 7 July, the Muslims of India (with 150 million Muslims, India has a larger Muslim population than any other country) went another direction entirely. They gave India its current president and several speakers of the Senate. Moreover, not only in the past did they give India many of its great national independence leaders, today they are supplying many of the intellectual and political pioneers in India's project for the future. The Indian response to the injustices and tragedies of the past was to build a modern democratic state that commands the respect of all nations, large and small. After a half century of independence, India became a nuclear power. It produces its own satellites, its own military and commercial ships, some of its aircraft, a lot of steel, not to mention the computer software and hardware that have made it a major player in the third industrial revolution. After a period of flirting with socialist economic policies that yielded an average growth rate of 3.6 per cent between 1950 and 1979, India shifted course, as a result of which it has attained annual growth rates that, today, range between seven and eight per cent, or almost as high as those of China. The Indian solution to its historical problems was to work to create a universal consensus that India should not only be accepted as a member of the nuclear club and it had to fight staunch resistance and penalties from the US and the West to win this membership but also as a permanent member of the Security Council. The Indian response was not that different from the response of China to the historical injustices visited upon it, or from the response of the indigenous inhabitants of North and South America to the successive waves of European encroachment and colonisation, or to South East Asia where colonial armies trampled the peoples underfoot, partitioned their nations and spread colonies and settlements and even -- as was the case with Japan -- dropped atomic bombs on them. In all these cases, the solution was to build a multi-faceted economic, political, technological and academic project for the future that would enable them to compete with the Western project and interact constructively with the world. In none of these nations do we find that morbid sense of isolation and that destructive desire to be rid of the world, which has long inflicted pain on other human groups, both Muslim and Christian. This is not to suggest that other nations, ethnic groups and religions do not have their fanatics and even terrorists and suicidal martyrs among them. However, their anger is directed against their own countries and no one in those countries celebrates them or even tries to excuse or justify their actions. The difference between this part of the world and elsewhere is not just that we have projects that our trapped in the past whereas others have projects that look to the future, but also that we have organised political groups who dictate that our future resides in a return to the past. Perhaps this is where the problem really lies. * The writer is director of Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.

Non-violence and World Crisis

In my opinion, non-violence is not passivity in any shape or form. Non-violence, as I understand it, is the activest force in the world. Therefore, whether it is materialism or anything else, if non-violence does not provide an effective antidote, it is not the active force of my conception. Or, to put it conversely, if you bring me some conundrums that I cannot answer, I would say my non-violence is still defective. Non-violence is the supreme law. During my half a century of experience, I have not yet come across a situation when I had to say that I was helpless, that I had no remedy in terms of non-violence.

Take the question of the Jews on which I have written. No Jew need feel helpless if he takes to the non-violent way. A friend has written me a letter, objecting, that in that article I have assumed that the Jews have been violent. It is true that the Jews have not been actively violent in their own persons. But they called down upon the Germans the curses of mankind, and they wanted America and England to fight Germany on their behalf.1 If I hit my adversary, that is of course violence, but to be truly non-violent I must love him to and pray for him, even when he hits me. The Jews have not been actively non-violent or, in spite of the misdeeds of the dictators, they would say: “We shall suffer at their hand; they know no better but we shall suffer not in the manner in which they want us to suffer.” If even one Jew acted thus, he would save his self respect and leave an example which, if it became infectious, would save the whole of Jewry and leave a rich heritage to mankind besides.

What about China, you will ask. The Chinese have no designs upon other people. They have no desire for territory. True, perhaps, China is not ready for such aggression; perhaps, what looks like her pacifism is only indolence. In any case, China's is not active non-violence. Her putting up a valiant defence against Japan is proof enough that China was never intentionally non-violent. That she is on the defensive is no answer in terms of non-violence. Therefore, when the time for testing her active non-violence came, she failed in the test. This is no criticism of China. I wish the Chinese success. According to the accepted standards, her behavior is strictly correct. But when the position is examined in terms of non-violence, I must say it is unbecoming for a nation of 400 millions, a nation as cultured as Japan, to repel Japanese aggression by resorting to Japan’s own methods. If the Chinese had non-violence of my conception, there would be no use left for the latest machinery for destruction which Japan possesses. The Chinese would say to Japan; “Bring all your machinery, we present half of our population to you. But the remaining two hundred millions won’t bend their knee to you.” If the Chinese did that, Japan would become China’s slave.

It has been objected, however, that non-violence is all right in the case of the Jews because there is personal contact between the individual and his persecutors, but in China, Japan comes with its long-range guns and aeroplanes. The person who rains death from above has never any chance of even knowing who and how many he has killed. How can non-violence combat aerial warfare, seeing that there are no personal contacts? The reply to this is that behind the death-dealing bomb there is the human hand that releases it, and behind that still, is the human heart that sets the hand in motion. And at the back of the policy of terrorism is the assumption that terrorism, if applied in a sufficient measure, will produce the desired result, namely, bend the adversary to the tyrant’s will. But supposing a people make up their mind that they will never do the tyrant’s not will, nor retaliate with the tyrant’s own methods, the tyrant will not find it worth his while to go on with his terrorism. If sufficient food is given to the tyrant, a time will come when he will have had more than surfeit. If all the mice in the world held conference together and resolved that they would no more fear the cat but all run into her mouth, the mice would live. I have actually seen a cat play with a mouse. She did not kill it outright but held it between her jaws, then released it, and again pounced upon it as soon as it made an effort to escape. In the end, the mouse died out of sheer fright. The cat would have derived no sport if the mouse had not tried to run away. I learnt the lesson of non-violence from my wife, when I tried to bend her to my will. Her determined resistance to my will on the one hand and her quiet submission to the suffering my stupidity involved on the other, ultimately made me ashamed of myself and cured me of my stupidity in thinking that I was born to rule over her, and in the end she became my teacher in non-violence. And what I did in South Africa was but an extension of the rule of Satyagraha which she unwillingly practiced in her own person.

Q. You do not know Hitler and Mussolini. They are incapable of any kind of moral response. They have no conscience and they have made themselves impervious to world opinion. Would it not be playing into the hands of these dictators if, for instance, the Czechs following your advice confronted them with non-violence? Seeing that dictatorships are unmoral by definition, would the law of moral conversion hold good in their case?

A. Your argument presupposes that the dictators like Mussolini or Hitler are beyond redemption. But belief in non-violence is based on the assumption that human nature in its essence is one and, therefore, unfailingly responds to the advances of love. It should remembered that they have up to now always found ready response to the violence that they have used. Within their experience, they have not come across organized non-violent resistance on an appreciable scale, if at all. Therefore, it is not only highly likely, but I hold it to be inevitable, that they would recognize the superiority of non-violent resistance over any display of violence that they may be capable of putting forth. Moreover, the non-violent technique that I have presented to the Czechs does not depend for its success on the goodwill of the dictators; for, a non-violent resister depends upon the unfailing assistance of God which sustains him throughout difficulties which would otherwise be considered insurmountable. His faith makes him indomitable.

Suppose, they (dictators) come and occupy mines, factories and all sources of natural wealth belonging to the Czechs, then the following results can take place: (1) The Czechs, may be annihilated for disobedience to orders. That would be a glorious victory for the Czechs and the beginning of the fall of Germany. (2) The Czechs might become demoralized in the presence of overwhelming force. This is a result common in all struggles, but if demoralization does take place, it would not be on account of non-violence, but it would be due to absence or inadequacy of non-violence. (3) The third thing that can take place is that Germany might use her new possessions for occupation by her surplus population. This, again, could not be avoided by offering violent resistance, for we have assumed that violent resistance is out of the question. Thus, non-violent resistance is the best method under all conceivable circumstances.

Q. What can I, as a Christian, do to contribute to international peace? How can international anarchy be broken down and non-violence made effective for establishing peace? Subject nations apart, how can nations at the top be made to disarm themselves?

A. You, as a Christian, can make an effective contribution by non-violent action even though it may cost you your all. Peace will never come until the Great Powers courageously decide to disarm themselves. It seems to me that recent events must force that belief on the Great powers. I have an implicit faith - a faith that today burns brighter than ever, after half a century’s experience of unbroken practice non-violence - that mankind can only be saved through non-violence which is the central teaching of the Bible as I have understood the Bible. Harijan: Dec. 24, 1938.

1. This observation was subsequently withdrawn by Gandhiji.

Non-violence - Neither a beginning nor an end

- By V. S. Thyagarajan

September 11 precedes October 2 only by three weeks but, as dates that symbolise events, they have nothing in common. The first is known for the unprecedented terror and violence unleashed on thousands of innocent people, while the other is a date etched in history by the apostle of peace-the Mahatma. As the years go by and generations change, doubts begin to creep in is October 2 still relevant and does non-violence still have meaning in a world deeply divided by conflicting ideologies and religious fundamentalism? Since Mahatma Gandhi's name and philosophy of non-violence are inseparable, there is an attempt to reduce the scope of the tenets of non-violence to the period in which Gandhiji live and context in which he fought for the freedom of the country. But September 11 has brought back into sharp focus the relevance of non-violence to a world in which the United States, the only "super power", found itself vulnerable for the first time in its history. Before 1947, for many freedom fighters in India, Gandhiji's tenets of non-violence was a tool, a powerful instrument pressed into use to fight the forces of British imperialism to gain independence. It was not a faith, not a philosophical discourse and it was certainly not a commitment an independent India could not afford. The questions that troubled the minds of freedom fighters were: how can a modern nation-state function without building an effective coercive apparatus? To maintain law and order within its borders and to meet any challenge of external aggression, will it not be the duty of a state to construct, strengthen and constantly nurture its police, paramilitary and military forces? While Gandhiji did agree that yielding to external threats would be tantamount to compromising with cowardice, his commitment to non-violence was not a mere policy formulation for a country that struggled to free itself from the British yoke. His idea of non-violence was a comprehensive philosophy that would serve the purpose of all countries, all men and women, under all circumstances. In the last five decades, he has been proven right, in different parts of the world under different circumstances. Gandhiji's disciple, Martin Luther King Jr., did not carry any weapon. His shield for the emancipation of the Black people was moulded in non-violence, and with that shield he dared to dream. His dream seems to have been fulfilled in a substantial measure in the decades since the turbulent 1960s. September 11 was yet another occasion when it became clear that violence would never be justified under any circumstance, either in the name of an ideology or a religion. If terrorism marks one end of the spectrum, at the other end lies the U.S. Administration's obsession with objectives that are in stark contrast to Gandhiji's obsession with the means. Gandhiji believed that if the means were right, the end would take care of itself. Gandhiji could never bring himself to experimenting with short-term policies to serve short-term interests. September 11 could perhaps have been different if the U.S. had cared a little more for the means as well as the ends in the 1980s and refrained from funding and arming terrorist forces that were led by men like Osama bin Laden. With the assistance of bin Laden and the forces of extremism, terrorism and religious fundamentalism, the U.S. succeeded in getting Soviet troops, out of Afghanistan in 1989, but such short-sighted policy had begun to haunt Washington a decade later. Gandhiji or no Gandhiji, it is unfortunately true today that a call for jehad, a "holy war" for 1,000 years, motivates thousands of young men to carry deadly arms and have suicidal impulses, but a call for non-violence is not exactly fashionable. Non-violence as a philosophical concept looks as dull and uninspiring as a United Nations' conference on disarmament or sustainable development. Yet, if we examine Gandhiji's visualisation of non-violence dispassionately, we will find that, like the Buddha's sermons, it has neither a beginning nor an end. It transcends time, nations and peoples. Since the atrocities committed in New York and Washington in September 2001, scholars have made attempts to find meaning of September 11. It appears that they have succeeded only partly. If they care to view the phenomenon of terrorism through the prism of non-violence and aim at marrying the ends with the means, the meaning of September 11 may become clearer. And the meaning of October 2, the day Gandhiji was born 133 years ago, would be still valid.

Source : The Hindu, Sunday, September 29, 2002

Application Of Nonviolence

IF ONE does not practice non-violence in one's personal relations with others, and hopes to use it in bigger affairs, one is vastly mistaken. Non-violence like charity must begin at home. But if it is necessary for the individual to be trained in non-violence, it is even more necessary for the nation to be trained likewise. One cannot be non-violent in one's own circle and violent outside it. Or else, one is not truly non-violent even in one's own circle; often the non-violence is only in appearance. It is only when you meet with resistance, as for instance, when a thief or a murderer appears, that your non-violence is put on its trail. You either try or should try to oppose the thief with his own weapons, or you try to disarm him by love. Living among decent people, your conduct may not be described as a non-violent. Mutual forbearance is non-violence. Immediately, therefore, you get the conviction that non-violence is the law of life, you have to practice it towards those who act violently towards you, and the law must apply to nations as individuals. Training no doubt is necessary. And beginnings are always small. But if the conviction is there, the rest will follow. Universality of Non-violenceNon-violence to be a creed has to be all-pervasive. I cannot be non-violent about one activity of mine and violent about others. It is a blasphemy to say that non-violence can only be practiced by individuals and never by nations which are composed of individuals. In my opinion, non-violence is not passivity in any shape or form. Non-violence, as I understand it, is the most active force in the world...Non-violence is the supreme law. During my half a century of experience, I have not yet come across a situation when I had to say that I was helpless, that I had no remedy in terms of non-violence. Cultivation of Non-violenceI am an irrepressible optimist. My optimism rests on my belief in the infinite possibilities of the individual to develop non-violence. The more you develop it in your own being, the more infectious it becomes till it over-whelms your surroundings and by and by might over sweep the world. I have known from early youth that non-violence is not a cloistered virtue to be practiced by the individual for his peace and final salvation, but it is a rule of conduct for society if it is to live consistently with human dignity and make progress towards the attainment of peace for which it has been yearning for ages past. To practice non-violence in mundane matters is to know its true value. It is to bring heaven upon earth. There is no such thing as the other world. All works are one. There is no 'here' and no 'there'. As Jeans has demonstrated, the whole universe including the most distant stars, invisible even through the most powerful telescope in the world, is compressed in an atom. I hold it, therefore, to be wrong to limit the use of non-violence to cave-dwellers and for acquiring merit for a favoured position in the other world. All virtue ceases to have use if it serves no purpose in every walk of life. Use on Mass ScaleUnfortunately for us, we are strangers to the non-violence of the brave on a mass scale. Some even doubt the possibility of the exercise of non-violence by groups, much less by masses of people. They restrict its exercise to exceptional individuals. Only, mankind can have no use of it if it is always reserved only for individuals. EfficacyI have been practicing with scientific precision non-violence and its possibilities for an unbroken period of over fifty years. I have applied it in every walk of life, domestic, institutional, economic and political. I know of no single case in which it has failed. Where it has seemed sometimes to have failed, I have ascribed it to my imperfections. I claim no perfection for myself. But I do claim to be a passionate seeker after Truth, which is but another name for God. In the course of that search, the discovery of non-violence came to me. Its spread is my life mission. I have no interest in living except for the prosecution of that mission. There is no hope for the aching world except through the narrow and straight path of non-violence. Millions like me may fail to prove the truth in their own lives, that would be their failure, never of the eternal law.

Source: The Mind of Mahatma