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