Rev. B. de Ligt has written in a
French journal called Evolution a long open letter to me. He has favoured me
with a translation of it. The open letter strongly criticizes my participation
in the Boer War and then the Great War of 1914, and invites me to explain my
conduct in the light of Ahimsa. Other friends too have put the same question. I
have attempted to give the explanation more than once in these columns.
There is no defence for my
conduct weighed only in the scales of Ahimsa. I draw no distinction between
those who wield the weapons of destruction and those who do red cross work.
Both participate in war and advance its cause. Both are guilty of the crime of
war. But even after introspection during all these years, I feel that, in the
circumstances in which I found myself, I was bound to adopt the course I did
both during the Boer War and the Great European War and for that matter the
so-called Zulu 'Rebellion' of Natal in 1906.
Life is governed by a multitude
of forces. It would be smooth sailing, if one could determine the course of
one's actions only by one general principle whose application at a given moment
was too obvious to need even a moment's reflection. But I cannot recall a
single act which could be so easily determined.
Being a confirmed war resister I
have never given myself training in the use of destructive weapons in spite of
opportunities to take such training. It was perhaps thus that I escaped direct
destruction of human life. But so long as I lived under a system of government
based on force and voluntarily partook of the many facilities and privileges it
created for me, I was bound to help that government to the extent of my ability
when it was engaged in a war, unless I non-co-operated with that government and
renounced to the utmost of my capacity the privileges it offered me.
Let me take an illustration. I am
a member of an institution which holds a few acres of land whose crops are in
imminent peril from monkeys. I believe in the sacredness of all life, and hence
I regard it as breach of Ahimsa to inflict any injury on the monkeys. But I do
not hesitate to instigate and direct an attack on the monkeys in order to save
the crops. I would like to avoid this evil. I can avoid it by leaving or
breaking up the institution. I do not do so because I do not expect to be able
to find a society where there will be no agriculture and therefore no
destruction of some life. In fear and trembling, in humility and penance, I
therefore participate in the injury inflicted on the mon-keys, hoping some day
to find a way out.
Even so did I participate in the
three acts of war. I could not, it would be madness for me to, sever my
connec-tion with the society to which I belong. And on those three occasions I
had no thought of non-co-operating with the British Government. My position
regarding that Government is totally different today, and hence I should not
voluntarily participate in its war, and I should risk imprisonment and even the
gallows, if I was forced to take up arms or otherwise take part in its military
operations.
But that still does not solve the
riddle. If there was a national Government, whilst I should not take any direct
part in any war, I can conceive occasions when it would be my duty to vote for
the military training of those who wish to take it. For I know that all its
members do not believe in non-violence to the extent I do. It is not possible
to make a person or a society non-violent by compulsion.
Non-violence works in a most
mysterious manner. Often a man's actions defy analysis in terms of
non-violence: equally often his actions may wear the appearance of violence
when he is absolutely non-violent in the highest sense of the term and is
subsequently found so to be. All I can then claim for my conduct is that it
was, in the instances cited, actuated in the interests of non-violence. There
was no thought of sordid national or other interest. I do not believe in the
promotion of national or any other interest at the sacrifice of some other
interest.
I may not carry my argument any
further. Language at best is but a poor vehicle for expressing one's thoughts
in full. For me non-violence is not a mere philosophical principle. It is the
rule and the breath of my life. I know I fail often, sometimes consciously,
more often unconsciously. It is a matter not of the intellect but of the heart.
True guidance comes by constant waiting upon God, by utmost humility,
self-abnegation, by being ever ready to sacrifice one's self. Its practice
requires fearlessness and courage of the highest order. I am painfully aware of
my failings.
But the Light within me is steady
and clear. There is no escape for any of us save through truth and
non-violence. I know that war is wrong, is an unmitigated evil. I know too that
it has got to go. I firmly believe that freedom won through bloodshed or fraud
is no freedom. Would that all the acts alleged against me were found to be
wholly indefensible rather than that by any act of mine non-violence was held
to be compromised or that I was ever thought to be in favour of violence or
untruth in any shape or form. Not violence, not untruth, but non-violence,
Truth is the law of our being.[1]
Sword v. Spirit
A friend sends the following
interesting extract from an old number of My Magazine: "No conqueror ever
gained more by wars than did Napoleon, Emperor of the French, who, beginning as
a poor Corsican Lieutenant, for a little while dominated Europe, altering
boundaries, upset-ting thrones. Yet Napoleon knew that it was folly to rely on
force. [2]
There are only two powers in the world,' he said, not after he had been
defeated and exiled, but while he appeared to be at the height of his success,
'those powers are the spirit and the sword. In the long run the sword will
always be conquered by the spirit.'
But why, we may ask, did
Napoleon, if he saw so plainly the uselessness of war, continue to make war?
Why did he use the sword until it was wrenched out of his hand at Waterloo?
Partly because Napoleon, like the rest of us, could not always practise what he
preached, but partly because other kings and emperors would not let him alone.
They were not as wise as he. When he pleaded for peace they would not believe
he was sincere. To the Emperor of Austria after a fierce battle he addressed
this personal appeal :
'Thousands of Frenchmen and
Austrians have been killed. The prospect of continuance of such horrors
distresses me so greatly that I make a personal appeal to you. Amid grief and
surrounded by 15,000 corpses, I implore Your Majesty, I feel bound to give you
an urgent warning. You are far from the scene, your heart cannot be so deeply
moved as mine is on the spot.
Would that India, which through
her Congress has subscribed to the policy of non-violence, will adhere to it
and demonstrate to a world groaning under the curse of the sword that the
spirit does triumph over the sword in national affairs as it has ever been
shown to have triumphed in individual affairs.[3]
For Conscience' Sake
Pax International is a monthly
journal issued at Geneva, (12 rue de Vieux-College) on behalf of the Women's
International League for Peace and Freedom. I have before me a copy of the
November number of this monthly which has the following paragraph:
"In Jugoslavia 72 members of
the religious body of Nazarenes have been condemned by the military court of
the Save District to ten years' imprisonment for refusing to take up arms. All
of the condemned have already served five years' imprisonment for the same
offence. All friends of peace in the whole world should protest against these
inhuman sentences and demand the revision of the sentence."
It is a remarkable awakening in
the Western world, this peace movement. That ten years' servitude for the mere
refusal to take up arms is possible under a system in respect of 72 honourable
men who follow the law of love rather than the law of hate which the system
pro-mulgates, is proof of its barbarity. Whether the world conscience
disapproves of these savage sentences or not and whether such disapproval
produces an effect on the Jugoslavian Government or not, it is certain that the
system must be at its last gasp that needs for its sustenance the infliction of
barbarous sentences on innocent and honourable citizens. I tender my respectful
congratulations to the brave Nazarenes whom, let me hope, the conscience of
Jugoslavia itself will not allow to lie buried in its goals for ten long years.[4]
Our Choice
An American correspondent has
sent me a cutting from an old number of The World Tomorrow (August, 1928). It
is a remarkable article on 'Pacifism and National Security' by John Nevin
Sayre, which is worthy of perusal by every patriot. The following opening
paragraphs show which way the writer would lead us:
"Pacifism, first of all,
asks people to consider whether national armament can really conduce to
security in a civilization which uses the tools of twentieth century science.
No matter what may be said for defence by armament in the past, we believe that
it is an utterly obsolete and extremely dangerous way of attempting to attain
security now. In the world in which we live and in the decades immediately
ahead, it is open to the double objection of (1) mounting cost, and (2)
diminishing effectiveness of defence.
Within the span of forty years,
that is, within the lifetime of many, of my readers, the United States has
increased the annual expenditure for its navy from 15 million to 318 million
dollars. The last session of Congress passed appropriations which mean that,
every time the hands of the clock traverse twenty-four hours, the United States
spends 2,000,000 dollars for upkeep of the army and navy. A leading article in
The New York Times, published in March 1927, was headed, War - Man's Greatest
Industry'. The writer asserted that preparation to be ready for war constitutes
what is actually the greatest industry in the world.'
There is also an increasing human
cost not measurable in dollars. The machines of war have to be tended by men.
The muni-tions of war have to be manufactured by men, and approach is being
made more and more toward the drafting of industry and of whole populations for
war service. Once wars were fought by professional armies which constituted but
a relatively small part of any people; today military strategists plan to
conscript the activity of the entire man power of a nation. A proposed French
law gives power to the State to conscript also the women. Compulsory military
training in time of peace and the invasion of schools and colleges by military
departments run by the Department of War are requisitioning study time of
youth, and tending to regiment youth's thinking. The post office, the
newspapers, the radio, the movies, artists, and men of science are in danger of
being drawn in to give their support to the building of War's preparedness
machine. All this means an increasing cost to human liberty, to freedom of
thought and discussion, to the possibility of social advance. It should be
fully weighed in estimating the price to be paid for putting over an 'adequate'
security programme. Armed preparedness is a huge cost in the present, and for
the future it is mounting.
Even worse is the fact that
increase of expenditure for arma-ment does not in the modern world purchase
increase of security. It may do so, possibly, for a score of years, but the
policy is subject to a law of diminishing returns, and leads straight towards a
climax of disaster. Senator Borah in discussing 'what is preparedness?'
recently called attention to the huge public debts and constantly increasing
tax burdens which governments are putting on their peoples throughout the
world. 'The things with which governments will have to contend in the future,'
he said, 'are the economic distress and political unrest of their own people.'
'A big armament programme,' he warns us, 'will be courting trouble.' It will
widen the breach between the citizen and his Government. It will further
discourage and exasperate those who already have more than they can bear. It
will not be preparedness, for that which accentuates economic distress is
unpreparedness."
The fashion nowadays is to take
for granted that whatever America and England are doing is good enough for us.
But the figures given by the writer of the cost to America of her armament are
too terrible to contemplate. War has become a matter of money and
resourcefulness in inventing weapons of destruction. It is no longer a matter
of personal bravery or endurance. To compass the destruction of men, women and
children, it might be enough for me to press a button and drop poison on them
in a second.
Do we wish to copy this method of
defending ourselves? Even if we do, have we the financial ability? We complain
of ever-growing military expenditure. But if we would copy America or England,
we would have to increase the burden tenfold.
Do we first want to copy the
Western nations and then in the dim and distant future, after having gone
through the agony, retrace our steps? Or do we want to strike out an original
path, or rather retain what to me is our own predominantly peaceful path and
there through win and assert our freedom?
We are restrained from violence
through our weakness. What is wanted is a deliberate giving up of violence out
of strength. To be able to do this requires imagination coupled with a
penetrating study of the world drift. Today the superficial glamour of the West
dazzles us, and we mistake for progress the giddy dance which engages us from
day to day. We refuse to see that it is surely leading us to death. Above all
we must recognize that to compete with the Western nations on their terms is to
court suicide. Whereas if we realize that notwithstanding the seeming supremacy
of violence, it is the moral force that governs the universe, we should train
for non-violence with the fullest faith in its limitless possibilities. If we
are to be saved and are to make a substantial contribution to the world's
progress, ours must emphatically and predominantly be the way of peace.[5]
Military Programme
George Joseph has been one of my
dearest comrades. When I was having rest in Yeravda, he was editor of Young
India. Before that at my instance he was editor of the now defunct Independent.
He had sacrificed a lucrative practice for the sake of the country. He went to
gaol for the same cause. He is an earnest and honest worker. He is therefore
entitled to a respectful hearing, the more so when such a man differs from you,
and, rejecting the old, recommends with the fervour of a convert the adoption
of a new policy.
He condemns Khadi, he is
"quite satisfied that the removal of untouchability is not primarily a
problem of statesmanship." His programme in one simple sentence is
'Militarize India'. Here is an extract from the speech:
We cannot all become soldiers.
There is enough room for us. But it should be possible for us to set about the
idea of training about 5,000 men every year in this presidency in urban units.
The men will go to drill two or three times a week, go out to camp three weeks
in the year. Such training should be made available not only for the students
who are at college, but also for men of sufficient social and educational
status, the educational standard being the membership of the School Leaving
class. If you see in every street such people going about in khaki, there will
be a new element in our life. This kind of training would make people to stand
straight, to think straight, and to speak straight. It will be a great
enrichment of our life."
My experience teaches me differently.
I have known men in khaki rolling in gutters instead of standing straight. I
have seen a Dyer thinking crooked and speaking not straight but nonsense. I
have known a commander-in-chief being unable to think at all, let alone
thinking straight. Let those who are enamoured of military training have it by
all means; but to suggest it 'as a new constructive programme' betrays
impatience and hasty thinking. There is not much danger of 'the new programme'
taking root in the Indian soil. Moreover, it is against the new order of things
that is coming into being even in the West which has grown weary of the
war-god. The military spirit in the West bids fair to kill the very humanity in
men and reduce him to the level of the beast. What is wanted and what India
has, thank God, learnt in a measure undreamt of before is the spirit of unarmed
resistance before which the bayonet runs to rust and gunpowder turns to dust.
The vision that Joseph puts before us of an armed govern-ment bending a
minority to its will by a clatter of arms is a negation of the democratic
spirit and progress. If that is the promise of the new programme, we have the
armed coercion even now, not indeed of a mere minority but of an overwhelming
majority. What we want, I hope, is a government not based on coercion even of a
minority, but on its conversion. If it is a change from white military rule to
a known one, we hardly need make any fuss. At any rate the masses then do not
count. They will be subject to the same spoliation as now if not even worse.
When George Joseph has lived down his impatience, I know him to be too honest
not to retrace his steps and become the fine democrat that, to my great joy, I
had discovered him to be on the Madras beach in 1919.
Let us then turn to what he has
to say about Khadi: As long as I was within the fold of the Congress, the only
thing the constructive programme represented was khaddar, removal of
untouchability, and in later years prohibition. Now I must frankly tell you
that I have come deliberately to the conclusion that not one of these goes to
the root of the fundamental need of this nation. Khaddar does not. I think it
will not survive the creator of the movement, Gandhiji. I have come to that
conclusion because of the fundamental economic defect which is attached to
khaddar. It costs far too much to produce and to buy, and is, consequently,
unjust to the consumer. Khaddar which costs about a rupee a yard will not stand
against the cloth produced by the machine industries costing as. 6. My
experience of khaddar is that it results in injustice to the producer also. The
women, the spinners, who are at the root of khaddar, working for 10 hours a
day, have got to be content with a wage of as. 3. I suggest that an industry
based on the payment of as. 3 as wages to the fundamental producer thereof
cannot succeed, because it amounts to sweating of labour. The sweating of
labour consists essentially in paying to the labourer less than is sufficient
for her physical maintenance. It is no answer to say that the country is
stricken with famine, that there are millions of people without occupation, and
to say that for these as. 3 is better than no income whatever. I refuse to
accept that argument. That cannot be an argument which can appeal to any human
employer of labour, or any-statesman with a forward-looking view, in reference
to the affairs of his country. It is no consolation to be told that I shall be
right in offering as. 3 wages a day, when I know as a matter of economic
necessity that the wages would not be sufficient to maintain the worker, much
less her family. That is to my mind the hopeless, ineradicable and inexorable
vice that attaches to khaddar. That is why today, in spite of 7 or 8 years of
labour by Gandhiji, and 'n spite of lakhs of money poured like water into the
organization of the industry, the production of khaddar is infinitely small
compar-ed to the magnitude of the problem that has got to be solved, that JS to
produce clothing for the whole of India, and to put an end to the importation
of Rs. 60 crores worth of cloth every year."
Here George Joseph's impatience
for reform has betrayed him into lapse of memory. For he brings no new argument
in support of his summary rejection of Khadi, but quotes as facts what he
himself used to refute as fal-lacies. Arguments may be revised on further
consideration, but facts may not be unless they are proved to have been false.
Khadi as conceived for the use of millions does not cost more than foreign
cloth for the simple reason that the millions must, if Khadi is to be used by
them, be their own manufacturers and consumers. These pages have shown that in
Bardoli, Bijolia and several other places Khadi is being so manufactured and
consumed, even as in millions of homes people cook and eat their own food. It is
possible to demonstrate, in terms of metal, that rice or bread cooked in a few
factories would cost less than they cost today in the millions of homes. But
nobody on that account would dare suggest that the millions should cease to
cook and should send their raw rice and wheat to be cooked in centralized
factories.
Again it is not true to say that
women spinners work ten hours per day. Whatever spinning they do is done during
their spare hours, and what they get is not a day's wage but in the majority of
cases a substantial addition to their daily earnings from their daily
avocation. The earning from spinning is waste turned into wealth and not the
price of 'sweated labour' as Joseph puts it. And let me correct Joseph by
saying that no spinner even working for 10 hours per day can earn 3 as per day.
Spinning has never been conceived as a full-day occupation. Lastly, it is
untrue to say that "lakhs of money have been poured like water into the
organization of the industry." No organization on a nationwide scale has
been known to cost less in organizing than this has. What is true is that a
paltry 25 lakhs have been invested as capital for organi-zing this great and
daily growing cottage industry which brings water to thousands of parched lips.
Joseph must think cheap of his countrymen when he prophesies that an
organization which employs at least 1,500 willing work-ers in 1,500 villages,
an organization which brings daily relief to nearly 1,50,000 women, an
organization which commands the self-sacrificing labours of a Mithubai Petit,
the Naoroji Sisters, of a Banker, a Jamnalal, a Rajagopalachari, and Abbas
Tyebji, a Venkatappayya, a Pattabhi, a Gangadharrao, a Vallabhbhai, a
Lakshmidas, a Rajendra prasad, a Jairamdas, a Mahadev, a Kripalani, a Satish
Chandra Dasgupta, a Suresh Banerji, aye a Jawaharlal, and a host of others,
doctors, merchants and laymen too numerous to mention though known to fame,
will die after the death of one man. It will be a tragic miracle, if all these
men and women find the morning after my death that Khadi was a 'huge blunder'.
And the pity of it all is that
Joseph does not suggest an alternative. Not even if every educated Indian was
dressed in khaki and knew how to shoot straight, would the problem of growing
poverty and the forced partial unemployment of millions of the peasantry be
solved with-out a special programme devised for the purpose. For better or
worse Khadi is that programme till a better is evolved.[6]
Superstitions die hard
Mr. Henry Eaton writes from
California: "In America many of us are sure that once Britain is out of
India, Russia will step in. We cannot visualize the India of the present, the
India with her caste system and her primitive methods of manufacture and
agriculture, defending herself against Western invasion. You have no national
organization for protection. There is no unity in India. Unity had been
essential to the rise of Western culture and civilization. There also seems to
be no progress, as we look on progress in the West, in India. You yourself advocate
the return to the old methods of weaving. Have you, with your great
intelligence, no realization of the inevitability of change, of moving forward?
You cannot go back from old age
to childhood. How then can you go back from enlightened methods of weaving to
unenlightened methods and hope to gain anything? While you work in the old way
that is hard, you realize that there is a new way that is easy, and you cannot
be satisfied with the old hard way. You see how Japan had risen to power by
adopting the new way and even China is awakening. India alone seems not to
realize the importance of the new ways of the world. How is it that you, her
great leader, do not preach progress to your people?"
This letter betrays two
superstitions. One of them is that India is unfit: to govern herself because
she cannot defend herself and is torn with internal dissensions. The writer
gratuitously assumes that, if Britain withdraws, Russia is ready to pounce upon
India. This is an insult to Russia. Is Russia's one business to rule over those
peoples who are not ruled by Britain? And if Russia has such nefarious designs
upon India, does not the writer see that the same power that will oust the
British from domination is bound to prevent any other domination?
Personally, I should rely more
upon the capacity of the nation to offer civil resistance to any aggressor as
it did last year with partial success in the case of the British occupier.
Complete success awaits complete assimilation of non-violence in thought, word
and deed by the nation. An ocular demonstration of the success of nationwide
Satyagraha must be a prelude to its worldwide acceptance and hence as a natural
corollary to the admission of the futility of armament. The only antidote to
armament, which is the visible symbol of violence, is Satyagraha, the visible
symbol of non-violence. But the writer is oppressed also by the fear of our
dissensions. In the first place, they are grossly exaggerated in transmission
to the West. In the second place, they are hardened during foreign control.
Imperial rule means divide et impera. They must, therefore, melt with the
withdrawal of the frigid foreign rule and the introduction of the warmth giving
sunshine of real freedom.
Lastly, I do not subscribe to the
belief that everything old is bad. Truth is old and difficult. Untruth has many
attractions. But I would gladly go back to the very old Golden Age of Truth.
Good old brown bread is any day superior to the pasty white bread which has
lost much of its nutritive value in going through the various processes of
refinement. The list of old and yet good things can be endlessly multiplied.
The spinning wheel is one such thing, at any rate for India.
When India becomes
self-supporting, self-reliant, and proof against temptations and exploitation,
she will cease to be the object of greedy attraction for any power in the West
or the East and will then feel secure without having to carry the burden of
expensive armament. Her internal economy will be India's strongest bulwark
against aggression.[7]
Theory and practice of
Non-violence
The bulk of the questions asked
at these meetings centred naturally round non-violence, and I (M. D.) summarize
them here, including therein some of the questions and answers at the Paris
meeting.
By way of introduction I shall
give his (Gandhiji's) distinction between the methods of violence and
non-violence: "In the method we are adopting in India, fraud, lying,
deceit, and all the ugly brood of violence and un-truth have absolutely no
room. Everything is done openly and above board, for Truth hates secrecy. The
more open you are the more truthful you are likely to be. There is no such
thing as defeat or despair in the dictionary of a man who bases his life on
Truth and Non-violence. And yet the method of non-violence is not in any shape
or form a passive or inactive method. It is essentially an active movement,
much more active than the one involving the use of sanguinary weapons. Truth
and Non-violence are perhaps the activest forces you have in the world. A man
who wields sanguinary weapons and is intent upon destroying those whom he
considers his enemies, does at least require some rest, and has to lay down his
arms for a while in every twenty-four hours. He is, therefore, essentially
inactive, for a certain part of the day. Not so the votary of Truth and
Non-violence, for the simple reason that they are not external weapons. They
reside in the human breast, and they are actively working their way whether you
are awake or whether you are asleep, whether you are walking leisurely or
playing an active game. The panoplied warrior of Truth and Non-violence is ever
and incessantly active."
How then can one be effectively
non-violent? By simply refusing to take up arms? Einstein had made the call to
the people not to take part in war. Was that enough ? Questions which were
raised again and again at various meetings and answered in a language inspired
by the audience and the occasion.
About Einstein's call he said
with a humour which no one could have mistaken: "My answer can be only one
that, if Europe can take up the method enthusiastically, nothing could be
better. Indeed, if I may say so about a great man, I would say that Einstein
has stolen the method from me. But, if you want me to elaborate the thing, I
would say that merely to refuse military service is not enough. To refuse to
render military service when the parti-cular time arrives is to do the thing
after all the time for combating the evil is practically gone. Military service
is only a symptom of the disease which is deeper. I suggest to you that those
who are not on the register of military service are equally participating in
the crime if they support the State otherwise. He or she who supports a State
orga-nized in the military way - whether directly or indirectly- participates
in the sin. Each man, old or young, takes part in the sin by contributing to
the maintenance of the State by paying the taxes. That is why I said to myself
during the war that, so long as I ate wheat supported by the army whilst I was
doing everything short of being a soldier, it was best for me to enlist in the
army and be shot; other-wise I should retire to mountains and eat food grown by
nature. Therefore all those who want to stop military service can do so by
withdrawing all co-operation. Refusal of military service is much more
superficial than non-co- operation with the whole system which supports the
State. But then one's opposition becomes so swift and so effective that you'
run the risk of not only being marched to jail, but of being thrown into the
streets."
Then may not one accept the
non-military services of the State? The statement of the position had moved
Pierre Ceresole deeply, and he asked this question in a way which was most
touching. "We represent our truth, you represent the truth. The argument
is often being advanc-ed here, and we should like to be enlightened by
you."
"Now," said Gandhiji,
"you have touched the tenderest spot in human nature. I was faced with the
very question as author of the non-co-operation movement. I said to myself,
there is no State either run by Nero or Mussolini which has not good points
about it, but we have to reject the whole, once we decide to non-co-operate
with the system. There are in our country grand public roads and palatial
educational institutions, said I to myself, but they are part of a system which
crushes the nation. I should not have anything to do with them. They are like the
fabled snake with a brilliant jewel on its head, but which has fangs full of
poison. So I came to the conclusion that the British rule in India had crushed
the spirit of the nation and stunted its growth, and so I decided to deny
myself all the privileges - services, courts, titles. The policy would vary
with different countries, but sacrifice and self-denial are the essential
points. What Einstein has said would occur only once a year and only with very
few people. But I suggest it as your first duty to non-co-operate with the
State."
But is there not a deep
difference between an inde-pendent nation and a subject nation? India may have
a fundamental quarrel with an alien government, but how can the Swiss quarrel
with the State?
"Difference there undoubtedly
is," said Gandhiji. "As a member of a subject nation I could best
help by shaking rid of my subjection. But here I am asked as to how best to get
out of a military mentality. You are en-joying the amenities on condition that
you render military service to the State. There you have to get State rid of
the military mentality."
But Pierre Ceresole still had his
doubts. The argument had irresistible appeal for him; but how did his own
particular mission fit in, if he was to pursue the method to its extreme logical
conclusions? A question was asked at the great meeting in Geneva about
Gandhiji's opinion regarding the work of the International Red Cross Society
organized in Switzerland and the thousands of lives of prisoners that it had
saved, and Gandhiji's answer to the question contained for Pierre Ceresole the
solution of all his difficulties and a message of cheer for the International
Service that he had organized. "I am ashamed to have to own that I do not
know the history of this wonderful and magnificent organization. If it has
saved prisoners by the thousands, my head bows before it. But having paid this
tribute, may I say that this organization should cease to think of giving
relief after the war but think of giving relief without the war? If war had no
redeeming feature, no courage and heroism behind it, it would be a despicable
thing, and would not need speeches to destroy it. But what I would suggest to
you is infinitely nobler than war in all its branches including Red Cross
organization. Believe me there are many more million prisoners slaves of their
passions and conditions of life, and believe me that there are millions wounded
by their own folly, and millions of wrecked homes on the face of the earth. The
peace societies of tomorrow would, therefore, have enough work cut out for them
when they take up international service, and may Switzerland give the lead to
the world in this great, task."
In answer to a similar question
at another meeting he said: "Non-co-operation in military service and service
in non-military matters are not compatible.
Definitely military service is an ill-chosen word. You are all the while
giving military service by deputy because you are support-ing a State which is
based on military service. In Transvaal and other countries some are debarred
from military service, but they have to pay money to the State. You will have
to extend the scope of non-co-operation to your taxes. There is no limit to
extending our service to our neighbours across our State-made frontiers. God never
made those frontiers."
Q. Since disarmament chiefly
depends on great powers, why should Switzerland, which is a small State and a
neutral State, be asked to disarm itself?
A. It is from the neutral ground
of your country that I am speaking to all other powers and not only to
Switzerland. If you won't carry this message to other parts of Europe, I shall
be absolved from all blame. And seeing that Switzerland is a neutral territory
and a non-aggres-sive nation, there is all the more reason why Switzerland
should not need an army. Secondly, it is through your hospitality and by reason
of your occupying the vantage ground that you have all nationals coming to you.
It should be possible for you to give to the world a lesson in disarmament and
show that you are brave enough to do without an army.
Q. How could a disarmed neutral
country allow other nations to be destroyed? But for our army which was
wait-ing ready at our frontier during the last war we should have been ruined.
A. At the risk of being
considered a visionary or a fool I must answer this question in the only manner
I know. It would be cowardly of a neutral country to allow an army to devastate
a neighbouring country. But there are two ways in common between soldiers of
war and soldiers of non-violence, and if I had been a citizen of Switzerland
and a President of the Federal State, what I would have done would be to refuse
passage to the invading army by refusing all supplies. Secondly, by re-enacting
a Thermopylae in Switzerland, you would have presented a living wall of men and
women and children, and inviting the invaders to walk over your corpses. You
may say that such a thing is beyond human experience and endurance. I say that
it is not so. It was quite possible. Last year in Gujarat women stood lathi
charges unflinchingly, and in Peshawar thousands stood hails of bullets without
resort-ing to violence. Imagine these men and women staying in rout of an army
requiring a safe passage to another country. The army would be brutal enough to
walk over them, you might say. I would then say, you will still have done your
duty by allowing yourself to be annihilated. An army at dares to pass over the
corpses of innocent men and women would not be able to repeat that experiment.
You may, if you wish, refuse to believe in such courage on the part of the
masses of men and women, but then you would have to admit that non-violence is
made of sterner stuff'. It was never conceived as a weapon of the weak, but of
the stoutest hearts.
Q. Is it open to a soldier to fire
in the air and avoid violence?
A soldier, who having enlisted
himself flattered himself that he was avoiding violence by shooting in the air,
did no credit to his courage or to his creed of non-violence. In my scheme of
things such a man would be held to be guilty of untruth and cowardice both -
cowardice in that in order to escape punishment he enlisted and untruth in that
he enlisted to serve as soldier and did not fire as expected. Such a thing
discredits the cause of waging war against war. The war-resisters have to be
like Caesar's wife - above suspicion. Their strength lies in absolute adherence
to the morality of the question.[8]
The Greatest Force
Three concrete questions were,
the other day, incidentally asked by friends:
» What could ill-armed Abyssinia
do against well-armed Italy, if she were non-violent?
» What could England, the
greatest and the most powerful member of the League, do against determined
Italy, if she (England) were non-violent in your sense of the term?
» What could India do, if she
suddenly became non-violent in your sense of the term?
Before I answer the questions let
me lay down five simple axioms of non-violence as I know it:
» Non-violence implies as
complete self-purification as is humanly possible.
» Man for man the strength of
non-violence is in exact proportion to the ability, not the will, of the
non-violent person to inflict violence.
» Non-violence is without
exception superior to violence, i.e. the power at the disposal of a non-violent
person is always greater than he would have if he was violent.
» There is no such thing as
defeat in non-violence. The end of violence is surest defeat.
» The ultimate end of
non-violence is surest victory - if such a term may be used of non-violence. In
reality, where there is no sense of defeat, there is no sense of victory.
The foregoing questions may be
answered in the light of these axioms.
If Abyssinia were non-violent,
she would have no arms, would want none. She would make no appeal to the League
or any other power for armed intervention. She would never give any cause for
complaint. And Italy would find nothing to conquer if Abyssinians would not
offer armed resistance, nor would they give co-operation, willing or forced.
Italian occupation in that case would mean that of the land without its people.
That, however, is not Italy's exact object. She seeks submission of the people
of that beautiful land.
If Englishmen were as a nation to
become non-violent at heart, they would shed imperialism, they would give up
the use of arms. The moral force generated by such an act of renunciation would
stagger Italy into willing surrender of her designs. England would then be a
living embodiment of the axioms I have laid down. The effect of such conversion
would mean the greatest miracle of all ages. And yet if non-violence is not an
idle dream, some such thing has some day to come to pass somewhere. I live in
that faith.
The last question may be answered
thus. As I have said India as a nation is not non-violent in the full sense of
the term. Neither has she any capacity for offering violence, not because she
has no arms. Physical possession of arms is the least necessity of the brave.
Her non-violence that of the weak; she betrays her weakness in many of her
daily acts. She appears before the world today as a decaying nation. I mean
here not in the mere political sense but essentially in the non-violent, moral
sense. She lacks the ability to offer physical resistance. She has no
consciousness of strength. She is conscious only of her weakness. If she were
otherwise, there would be no communal pro-blems, nor political. If she were
non-violent in the consciousness of her strength, Englishmen would lose their
role of distrustful conquerors.[9]
Now the talk centred on a
discussion which was the main thing that had drawn the distinguished members to
Gandhiji.
"Is non-violence from your
point of view a form of direct action?" inquired Dr. Thurman. "It is
not one form, it is the only form," said Gandhiji. "I do not of course
confine the words 'direct action' to their technical meaning. But without a
direct active expression of it, non-violence to my mind is meaningless. It is
the greatest and the activest force in the world. One cannot be passively
non-violent. Ahimsa means 'love' in the Pauline sense, and yet something more
than the 'love' defined by St. Paul, although I know St. Paul's beautiful
definition is good enough for all practical purposes. Ahimsa includes the whole
creation, and not only human. One person who can express Ahimsa in life
exercises a force superior to all the forces of brutality.
Q. And is it possible for any
individual to achieve this?
Gandhiji: Certainly. If there was
any exclusiveness about it, I should reject it at once.
Q. Is any idea of possession
foreign to it?
Gandhiji: Yes. It possesses
nothing, therefore it possesses everything.
Q. Is it possible for a single
human being to resist the persistent invasion of the quality successfully?
Gandhiji: It is possible. Perhaps
your question is more universal than you mean. Isn't it possible, you mean to
ask, for on single Indian, for instance, to resist the exploitation of 300
million Indians? Or do you mean the onslaught of the whole world against a
single individual personally?
Dr. Thurman: Yes, that is one
half of the question. I wanted to know if one man can hold the whole violence
at bay.
Gandhiji: If he cannot, you must
take it that he is not a true representative of Ahimsa. Supposing I cannot
produce a single instance in life of a man who truly converted his adversary, I
would then say that it is because no one had yet been found to express Ahimsa
in its fullness.
Q. Then it overrides all other
forces?
Gandhiji: Yes, it is the only
true force in life.
Forgive now the weakness of this
question," said Dr. Thurman, who was absolutely absorbed in the
discussion. "Forgive the weakness, but may I ask how are we to train
individuals or communities in this difficult art?"
Gandhiji: There is no royal road,
except through living the creed in your life which must be a living sermon. Of
course, the expression in one's own life presupposes great study, tremendous
perseverance, and thorough cleaning of one's self of all the impurities. If for
mastering of the physical sciences you have to devote a whole lifetime, how
many lifetimes may be needed for mastering the greatest spiritual force that
mankind has known? But why worry even if it means several lifetimes? For, if
this is the only permanent thing in life, if this is the only thing that
counts, then whatever effort you bestow on mastering it is well spent. Seek ye
first the Kingdom of Heaven and everything else shall be added unto you. The
Kingdom of Heaven is Ahimsa.
Mrs. Thurman had restrained
herself until now. But could not go away without asking the question with
which, she knew, she would be confronted any day. "How am I to act,
supposing my own brother was lynched before my very eyes?"
"There is such a thing as
self-immolation," said Gandhiji. "Supposing I was a Negro, and my
sister was ravished by a White or lynched by a whole community, what would be
my duty? - I ask myself. And the answer comes to me: I must not wish ill to
these, but neither must I co-operate with them. It may be that ordinarily I
depend on the lynching community for my livelihood. I refuse to co-operate with
them, refuse even to touch the food that comes from them, and I refuse to
co-operate with even my brother Negroes who tolerate the wrong. That is the
self-immolation I mean. I have often in my life resorted to the plan. Of course
a mechanical act of starvation will mean nothing. One's faith must remain
undimmed whilst life ebbs out minute by minute. But I am a very poor specimen
of the practice of non-violence, and my answer may not convince you. But I am
striving very hard, and even if I do not succeed fully in this life, my faith
will not diminish."[10]
Negro's the Same Problem
Readers of Harijan will perhaps
remember how the central topic of the members of the Negro delegation who saw
Gandhiji about a year ago was non-violence. Two Negro gentlemen, who came for
the recent world's meeting of the committees of the Y. M. C. A., also had the
same question to discuss, which shows how remarkably similar are their problems
to ours: I am going to take up Dr. Tobias' questions first, though he saw
Gandhiji later and on his day of silence. For the long discourse with Prof.
Mays was a kind of commentary on the brief replies given in writing to Dr.
Tobias, and both together make up one of the interesting talks Gandhiji often
gives on the subject of non-violence.
"Your doctrine of
non-violence has profoundly influen-ced my life," said Dr. Tobias.
"Do you believe in it as strongly as ever?"
"I do indeed," said
Gandhiji. "My faith in it is grow-ing."
"Negroes in U. S. A. - 12
million - are struggling to obtain such fundamental rights as freedom from mob-
violence, unrestricted use of the ballot, freedom from segre-gation, etc. Have
you, out of your struggle in India, a word of advice and encouragement to give
us?"
"I had to contend against
some such thing, though on a much smaller scale, in South Africa. The
difficulties are not yet over. All I can say is that there is no other way than
the way of non-violence - a way, however, not of the weak and ignorant but of
the strong and wise."
"Travancore indicates that
your full identification with the untouchables is bearing fruit. Do you think
Travancore's example will be followed by other States in the near future?"
"I shall be surprised if it
is not."
"What word shall I give to
my Negro brethren as to the outlook for the future?"
"With right which is on
their side and the choice of non-violence as their only weapon, if they will
make it such, a bright future is assured."
A Misnomer
"Passive resistance,"
said Gandhiji, "is a misnomer for non-violent resistance. It is much more
active than violent resistance. It is direct, ceaseless, but three-fourths
invisible and only one-fourth visible. In its visibility it seems to be
ineffective, e. g. the spinning wheel which I have called the symbol of
non-violence. In its visibility it appears ineffec-tive, but it is really
intensely active and most effective in ultimate result. This knowledge enables
me to detect flaws in the way in which the votaries of non-violence are doing their
spinning. I ask for more vigilance and more untiredness. Non-violence is an
intensely active force when properly understood and used. A violent man's
activity is most visible, while it lasts. But it is always transitory. What can
be more visible than the Abyssinians done to death by Italians? There it was
lesser violence pitted against much greater. But if the Abyssinians had retired
from the field and allowed themselves to be slaughtered, their seeming
inactivity would have been much more effective though not for the moment
visible. Hitler and Mussolini on the one hand and Stalin on the other are able
to show the immediate effectiveness of violence. But it will be as transi-tory
as that of Ghenghis ' slaughter. But the effects of Buddha's non-violent action
persist and are likely to grow with age. And the more it is practised, the more
effective and inexhaustible it becomes, and ultimately the whole world stands
agape and exclaims, 'a miracle has happened.' All miracles are due to the
silent and effective working of invisible forces. Non-violence is the most
invisible and the most effective."
Can Masses be Trained?
"I have no doubt in my mind
about the superiority of non-violence," said Prof. Mays. "But the
thing that bothers me is about its exercise on a large scale, the difficulty of
so disciplining the mass mind on the point of love. It is easier to discipline
individuals. What should be the strategy when they break out? Do we retreat or
do we go on?"
"I have had that
experience," said Gandhiji, "in the course of our movement here.
People do not gain the training by preaching. Non-violence cannot be preached.
It has to be practised. The practice of violence can be taught to people by
outward symbols. You shoot at boards, then at targets, then at beasts. Then you
are passed as an expert in the art of destruction. The non-violent man has no
outward weapon and, therefore, not only his speech but his action also seems
ineffective. I may say all kinds of sweet words -to you without meaning them.
On the other hand I may have real love in me and yet my outward expression may
be forbidding. Then outwardly my action in both cases may be the same and yet
the effect may be different. For the effect of our action is often more potent
when it is not patently known. Thus the unconscious effect you are making on me
I may never know. It is, nevertheless, infinitely greater than the conscious
effect. In violence there is nothing invisible. Non-violence, on the other
hand, is three-fourths invisible, and so the effect is in the inverse ratio to
its invisibility. Non-violence, when it becomes active, travels with
extraordinary velocity, and then it becomes a miracle. So the mass mind is
affected first unconsciously, then consciously. When it becomes consciously
affected there is demonstrable victory. In my own experience, when people
seemed to be weakening there was no consciousness of defeat in me. Thus I was
fuller of hope in the efficacy of non-violence after the renuncia-tion of civil
disobedience in 1922, and today I continue to be in the same hopeful mood. It
is not a mere emotional thing. Supposing I saw no signs of dawn coming, I
should not lose faith. Everything has to come in its proper time.
"I have discussions here
-with my co-workers about the scavenging work we are doing. 4 Why can't we do
it after Swaraj?' they say. 'We may do it better after Swaraj.' I say to them,
'No. The reform has to come today, it must not wait for Swaraj; in fact the
right type of Swaraj will come only out of such work.' Now I cannot show you,
as perhaps I cannot show some of my co-workers, the connection between Swaraj
and scavenging. If I have to win Swaraj non-violently, I must discipline my
people. The maimed and the blind and the leprous cannot join the army of
violence. There is also an age-limit for serving in the army. For a non-violent
struggle there is no age-limit; the blind and the maimed and the bed-ridden may
serve, and not only men but women also. When the spirit of non-violence
pervades the people and actually begins to work, its effect is visible to all.
"But now comes your poser.
There are people, you say, who do not believe in non-violence as you do. Are
you to sit quiet? The friends ask: 'If not now, when will you act?' I say in
reply: 'I may not succeed in my lifetime, but my faith that victory can only
come through non-violence is stronger than ever. When I spoke on the cult of
the spinning wheel at Faizpur, a newspaper correspondent imputed astuteness to
me. Nothing could be farther from my mind. When I came to Sevagram I was told
the people might not co-operate and might even boycott me. I said: 'That may
be. But this is the way non-violence works. If I go to a village which is still
farther off, the experiment may work better. This thing has come in my search
after the technique of non-violence. And each day that passes makes my faith
brighter. I have come here to bring that faith to fruition and to die in the
process if that is God's will. Non-violence to be worth anything has to work in
the face of hostile forces. But there may be action in inaction. Arid action
may be worse than inaction. "
Violence in a Spirit of Love?
"Is it ever possible to
administer violence in a spirit of love?"
"No. Never. I shall give you
an illustration from my own experiment. A calf was lame and had developed
terrible sores; he could not eat and breathed with difficulty. After three
days' argument with myself and my co-workers I put an end to its life. Now that
action was non-violent because it was wholly unselfish, inasmuch as the sole
purpose was to achieve the calf's relief from pain. Some people have called
this an act of violence. I have called it a surgical operation. I should do
exactly the same thing with my child, if he were in the same predicament. My
point is that non-violence as the supreme law of our being ceases to be such
the moment you talk of exceptions."
"How is a minority to act
against an overwhelming majority?" asked Prof. Mays.
"I would say that a minority
can do much more in the way of non-violence than a majority. I had an Engli-sh
friend called Symonds. He used to say: 'I am with you so long as you are in a
minority. After you are in a majority we are quits.' I had less diffidence in
handling my minority in South Africa than I had here in handling a majority.
But it would be wholly wrong for that rea-son to say that non-violence is a
weapon of the weak... The use of non-violence requires greater bravery than
that of violence. When Daniel defied the laws of the Meads and Persians, his
action was non-violent."
Consequences to the Enemy
"Should the thought of
consequences that might accrue to the enemy as a result of your non-violence at
all constrain you?"
"Certainly. You may have to
suspend your movement X did in South Africa when the Government was faced with
the revolt of European labour. The latter asked me to make common cause with
them. I said 'no'."
"And non-violence will never
rebound on you, where-as violence will be self-destroyed?" interposed the
Professor.
"Yes. Violence must beget
violence. But let me tell you that here too my argument has been countered by a
great man who said: 'Look at the history of non-violence. Jesus dies on the
cross, but his followers shed blood.' This proves nothing. We have no data
before us to pass judg-ment. We do not know the whole of the life of Jesus...
The followers perhaps had not imbibed fully the message of non-violence. But I
must warn you against carrying the impres-sion with you that mine is the final
word on non-violence. I know my own limitations. I am but a humble seeker after
truth. And all I claim is that every experiment of mine has deepened my faith
in non-violence as the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. Its use is
not restricted to individuals merely, but it can be practised on a mass
scale."[11]
Our Failure
It is my conviction that the
phenomenal growth of Congress is due to its acceptance and enforcement, however
imperfect, of the policy of non-violence. Time has arrived to consider the
nature of Congress non-violence. Is it non-violence of the weak and the helpless,
or of the strong and the powerful? If it is the former, it will never take us
to our goal and, if long practised, may even render us or ever unfit for
self-government. The weak and helpless are non-violent in action because they
must be. But in reality they harbour violence in their breasts and simply await
opportunity for its display. It is necessary for Congress-men individually and
collectively to examine the quality of their non-violence. If it does not come
out of real strength, it would be best and honest for the Congress to make such
a declaration and make the necessary changes in its behaviour.
By this time, i. e. after
seventeen years' practice of non-violence, the Congress should be able to put
forth non-violent army of volunteers numbering not a few thousands but lakhs
who would be equal to every occasion where the police and the military are
required. Thus, instead of one brave Paslhupatinath Gupta who died in the
attempt to secure peace, we should be able to produce hundreds. And a non-violent
army acts unlike armed men, as well in times of peace as of disturbances. They
would be constantly engaged in constructive activities that make riots
impossible. Theirs will be the duty of seeking occasions for bringing warring
communities together, carrying on peace propaganda, engaging in activities that
would bring and keep them in touch with every single person, male and female,
adult and child, in their parish or division. Such an army should be ready to
cope with any emergency, and in order to still the frenzy of mobs should risk
their lives in numbers sufficient for the purpose. A few hundred, may be a few
thousand, such spotless deaths will once for all put an end to the riots.
Surely a few hundred young men and women giving themselves deliberately to mob
fury will be any day a cheap and braver method of dealing with such madness
than the display and use of the police and the military.
It has been suggested that when
we have our independence riots and the like will not occur. This seems to me to
be an empty hope, if in the course of the struggle for freedom we do not
understand and use the technique of non-violent action in every conceivable
circumstance. To the extent that the Congress ministers have been obliged to
make use of the police and the military, to that extent, in my opinion, we must
admit our failure. That the ministers could not have done otherwise is
unfortunately only too true. I should like every Congressman, I should like the
Working Committee, to ask themselves why we have failed, if they think with me
that we have.[12]
Peace Brigade
Some time ago I suggested the
formation of a peace brigade whose members would risk their lives in dealing
with riots, especially communal. The idea was that this brigade should
substitute the police and even the military. This reads ambitious. The
achievement may prove impossible. Yet, if the Congress is to succeed in its
non-violent struggle, it must develop the power to deal peacefully with such
situations.
Let us, therefore, see what
qualifications a member of the contemplated peace brigade should possess.
He or she must have a living
faith in non-violence. This is impossible without a living faith in God. A
non-violent man can do nothing save by the power and grace of God. Without it
he won't have the courage to die without anger, without fear and without
retaliation. Such courage comes from the belief that God sits in the hearts of
all, and that there should be no fear in the presence of God. The knowledge of
the omnipresence of God also means respect for the lives of even those who may
be called opponents or goondas. This contemplated intervention is a process of
stilling the fury of man when the brute in him gets the mastery over him.
This messenger of peace must have
equal regard for all the principal religions of the earth. Thus, if he is a
Hindu, he will respect the other faiths current in India. He must, therefore,
possess a knowledge of the general principles of the different faiths professed
in the country.
Generally speaking this work of
peace can only be done by local men in their own localities.
The work can be done singly or in
groups. Therefore no one need wait for companions. Nevertheless one would
naturally seek companions in one's own locality and form a local brigade.
This messenger of peace will
cultivate, through personal service, contacts with the people in his locality
or chosen circle, so that when he appears to deal with ugly-situations, he does
not descend upon the members of a riotous assembly as an utter stranger liable
to be locked upon as a suspect or an unwelcome visitor.
Needless to say, a peace-bringer
must have a character beyond reproach and must be known for his strict
impartiality.
Generally there are previous
warnings of coming storms. If these are known, the peace brigade will not wait
till the conflagration breaks out, but will try to handle the situation in
anticipation.
Whilst, if the movement spreads,
it might be well if there are some whole-time workers, it is not absolutely
necessary that there should be. The idea is to have as many good and true men
and women as possible. These can be had only if volunteers are drawn from those
who are engaged in various walks of life but have leisure enough to cultivate
friendly relations with the people living in their circle and otherwise possess
the qualifications required of a member of the peace brigade.
There should be a distinctive
dress worn by the members of the contemplated brigade so that in course of time
they will be recognized without the slightest difficulty.
These are but general
suggestions. Each centre can work out its own constitution on the basis here
suggested.[13]
How to combat Hitlerism
Whatever Hitler may ultimately
prove to be, we know what Hitlerism has come to mean. It means naked ruthless
force reduced to an exact science and worked with scientific precision. In its
effect it becomes almost irresistible.
In the early days of Satyagraha
when it was still known as passive resistance, The Star of Johannesburg,
stirred by the sight of a handful of Indians, wholly unarmed and incapable of
organized violence even if they wished it, pitting themselves against an
overwhelmingly armed government, had a cartoon in which the latter was depicted
as a steam-roller representing irresistible force, and passive resistance was
depicted as an elephant unmoved and com-fortably planting himself in his seat.
This was marked immovable force. The cartoonist had a true insight into the
duel between the irresistible and the immovable forces. It was then a
stalemate. The sequel we know. What was depicted and appeared to be
irresistible was success-fully resisted by the immovable force of Satyagraha -
call it suffering without retaliation.
What became true then can be
equally true now. Hitlerism will never be defeated by counter-Hitlerism. It can
only breed superior Hitlerism raised to nth. degree. What is going on before
our eyes is a demonstration of the futility of violence as also of Hitlerism.
Let me explain what I mean by
failure of Hitlerism. It has robbed the small nations of their liberty. It has
compelled France to sue for peace. Probably by the time this is in print
Britain will have decided upon her course. The fall of France is enough for my
argument. I think French statesmen have shown rare courage in bowing to the inevitable
and refusing to be party to senseless mutual slaughter. There can be no sense
in France coming out victorious if the stake is in truth lost. The cause of
liberty becomes a mockery, if the price to be paid is wholesale destruction of
those who are to enjoy liberty. It then becomes an in-glorious satiation of
ambition. The bravery of the French soldier is world-known. But let the world
know also the greater bravery of the French statesmen in suing for peace. I
have assumed that the French statesmen have taken the step in a perfectly
honourable manner as behaves true soldiers. Let me hope that Herr Hitler will
impose no humiliating terms but show that, though he can fight without mercy,
he can at least conclude peace not without mercy.
But to resume the thread of the
argument. What will Hitler do with his victory? Can he digest so much power?
Personally he will go as empty-handed as his not very remote predecessor
Alexander. For the Germans he will have left not the pleasure of owning a
mighty empire but the burden of sustaining its crushing weight. For they will
not be able to hold all the conquered nations in perpetual subjection. And I
doubt if the Germans of future generations will entertain unadulterated pride
in the deeds for which Hitlerism will be deemed responsible. They will honour
Herr Hitler as a genius, as a brave man, a matchless organizer, and much more.
But I should hope that the Germans of the future will have learnt the art of
discrimination even about their heroes. Anyway I think it will be allowed that
all the blood that has been spilled by Hitler has added not a millionth part of
an inch to the world's moral stature.
As against this imagine the state
of Europe today if the Czechs, the Poles, the Norwegians, the French and the
English had all said to Hitler: "You need not make your scientific
preparation for destruction. We will meet your violence with non-violence. You
will, therefore, be able to destroy our non-violent army without tanks,
battleships and airships." It may be retorted that the only difference
would be that Hitler would have got without fighting what he has gained after a
bloody fight. Exactly. The history of Europe would then have been written
differently. Po-ssession might (but only might) have been then taken under non-violent
resistance, as it has been taken now after perpetration of untold barbarities.
Under non-violence only those would have been killed who had trained
them-selves to be killed, if need be, but without killing anyone and without
bearing malice towards anybody. I dare say that in that case Europe would have
added several inches to its moral stature. And in the end I expect it is the
moral worth that will count. All else is dross.
I have written these lines for
the European Powers. But they are meant for ourselves. If my argument has gone
home, is it not time for us to declare our changeless faith in non-violence of
the strong and say we do not seek to defend our liberty with the force of arms,
but we will defend it with the force of non-violence?[14]
Democracy and Non-violence
Q. Why do you say,
"Democracy can only be saved through non-violence"? (The questioner
is an American friend.)
A. Because democracy, so long as
it is sustained by violence, cannot provide for or protect the weak. My notion
of democracy is that under it the weakest should have the same opportunity as
the strongest. That can never happen except through non-violence. No country in
the world today shows any but patronizing regard for the weak. The weakest, you
say, go to the wall. Take your own case. Your land is owned by a few capitalist
owners. The same is true of South Africa. These large holdings can-not be
sustained except by violence, veiled if not open. Western democracy, as it
functions today, is diluted Nazim or Fascism. At best it is merely a cloak to
hide the Nazi and the Fascist tendencies of imperialism. Why is there the war
today, if it is not for the satisfaction of the desire to share the spoils? It
was not through democratic methods that Britain bagged India. What is the meaning
of South African democracy? It's very constitution has been drawn to protect
the white man against the coloured man, the natural occupant. Your own history
is perhaps blacker still, in spite of what the Northern States did for the
abolition of slavery. The way you have treated the Negro presents a
discreditable record. And it is to save such democracies that the war is being
fought. There is something very hypocritical about it. I am thinking just now
in terms of non-violence and trying to expose violence in its nakedness.
India is trying to evolve true
democracy, i.e. without violence. Our weapons are those of Satyagraha expressed
through the Charkha, the village industries, primary education through
handicrafts, removal of untouchabilitv, communal harmony, prohibition, and
non-violent organi-zation of labour as in Ahmedabad. These mean mass effort and
mass education. We have big agencies for con-ducting these activities. They are
purely voluntary, and their only sanction is service of the lowliest.
This is the permanent part of the
non-violent effort. From this effort is created the capacity to offer
non-violent resistance called non-co-operation and civil disobedience which may
culminate in mass refusal to pay rent and taxes. As you know, we have tried
non-co-operation and civil disobedience on a fairly large scale and fairly
successfully. The experiment has in it promise of a brilliant future. As yet
our resistance has been that of the weak. The aim is to develop the resistance
of the strong. Your wars will never ensure safety for democracy, India's
experiment can and will, if the people come up to the mark or, to put it
another way, if God gives me the nece-ssary wisdom and strength to bring the
experiment to fruition.[15]
The doctrine of the Sword
I do believe that, where there is
only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus
when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when
I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and
seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could
and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend
me even by using violence.
But I believe that non-violence
is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment.
Forgiveness adorns a soldier. But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is
the power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a
helpless creature. A mouse hardly forgives a cat when it allows itself to be
torn to pieces by her. I therefore appreciate the sentiment of those who cry
out for the condign punishment of General Dyer and his ilk. They would tear him
to pieces, if they could. But I do not believe India to be helpless. I do not believe
myself to be a helpless creature. Only I want to use India's and my strength
for a better purpose.
Let me not be misunderstood.
Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable
will. An average Zulu is any way more than a match for an average Englishman in
bodily capacity. But he flees from an English boy, because he fears the boy's
revolver or those who will use it for him. He fears death and is nerveless in
spite of his burly figure. We in India may in a moment realize that one hundred
thousand Englishmen need not frighten three hundred million human beings. A
definite forgiveness would, therefore, mean a definite recognition of our
strength. With enlightened forgiveness must come a mighty wave of strength in
us, which would make it impossible for a Dyer and a Frank Johnson to heap
affront on India's devoted head. It matters little to me that for the moment I
do not drive my point home. We feel too down-trodden not to be angry and
revengeful. But I must not refrain from saying that India can gain more by
waiving the right of punishment. We have better work to do, a better mission to
deliver to the world.
I am not a visionary. I claim to
be a practical idealist. The religion of non-violence is not meant merely for
the Rishis and saints. It is meant for the common people as well. Non-violence
is the law of our species as violence is the law of the brute. The spirit lies
dormant in the brute, and he knows no law but that of physical might. The
dignity of man requires obedience to a higher law - to the strength of the
spirit.
I have therefore ventured to
place before India the ancient law of self-sacrifice. For Satyagraha and its
off-shoots, non-co-operation and civil resistance, are nothing but new names
for the law of suffering. The Rishis, who discovered the law of non-violence in
the midst of violence, were greater geniuses than Newton. They were themselves
greater warriors than Wellington. Having themselves known the use of arms, they
realized their uselessness, and taught a weary world that its salvation lay not
through violence but through non-violence.
Non-violence in its dynamic
condition means cons-cious suffering. It does not mean meek submission to the
will of the evil-doer, but it means putting of one's whole soul against the
will of the tyrant. Working under this law of our being, it is possible for a
single individual to defy the whole might of an unjust empire to save his
honour, his religion, his soul, and lay the foundation for that empire's fall
or its regeneration.
And so I am not pleading for
India to practise non-violence because she is weak. I want her to practise
non-violence being conscious of her strength and power. No training in arms is
required for realization of her strength. We seem to need it, because we seem
to think that we are but a lump of flesh. I want India to recognize that she
has a soul that cannot perish, and that can rise triumphant above every
physical weakness and defy the physical combination of a whole world. What is
the meaning of Rama, a mere human being, with his host of monkeys, pitting
him-self against the insolent strength of ten-headed Ravana surrounded in
supposed safety by the raging waters on all sides of Lanka? Does it not mean
the conquest of physical might by spiritual strength? However, being a
practical man, I do not wait till India recognizes the practicability of the
spiritual life in the political world. India considers herself to be powerless
and paralyzed before the machine guns, the tanks and the aeroplanes of the English,
and takes up non-co-operation out of her weakness. It must still serve the same
purpose, namely, bring her delivery from the crushing weight of British
injustice, if a sufficient number of people practise it.
If India takes up the doctrine of
the sword, she may gain momentary victory. Then India will cease to be the
pride of my heart. I am wedded to India because I owe my all to her. I believe
absolutely that she has a mission for the world. She is not to copy Europe
blindly. India's acceptance of the doctrine of the sword will be the hour of my
trial. I hope I shall not be found wanting. My reli-gion has no geographical
limits. If I have a living faith in it, it will transcend my love for India
herself. My life is dedicated to the service of India through the religion of
non-violence which I believe to be the root of Hinduism.[16]
'One step enough for me'
Mr. Stokes approves of
non-co-operation, but dreads the consequences that may follow complete success,
i.e. evacuation of India by the British. He conjures up before his mind a
picture of India invaded by the Afghans from the North-West, plundered by the
Gurkhas from the Hills. For me I say with Cardinal Newman: 'I do not ask to see
the distant scene; one step enough for me.' The movement is essentially
religious. The business of every god-fearing man is to dissociate himself from
evil in total disregard of consequences. He must have faith in a good deed
produc-ing only a good result: that, in my opinion, is the Gita doctrine of
work without attachment. God does not permit him to peep into the future. He
follows truth although the following of it may endanger his very life. He knows
that it is better to die in the way of God than to live in the way of Satan.
Therefore, whoever is satisfied that the Government represents the activity of
Satan has no choice left to him but to dissociate himself from it.
However, let us consider the
worst that can happen to India on a sudden evacuation of India by the British.
What does it matter that the Gurkhas and the Pathans attack us? Surely we would
be better able to deal with their violence than we are with the continued
violence, moral and physical, perpetrated by the present Government. Mr. Stokes
does not seem to eschew the use of physical force. Surely the combined labour
of the Rajput, the Sikh and the Mussalman warriors in a united India may be
trusted to deal with plunderers from any or all the sides. Imagine, however,
the worst: Japan overwhelming us from the Bay of Bengal, the Gurkhas from the
Hills, and the Pathans from the North-West. If we do not succeed in driving
them out, we make terms with them, and drive them out at the first opportunity.
This will be a more manly course than a helpless submission to an admittedly
wrong-ful state.
But I refuse to contemplate the
dismal outlook. If the movement succeeds through non-violent non-co-operation -
and that is the supposition Mr. Stokes has started with - the English, whether
they remain or retire, will do so as friends and under a well-ordered agreement
as between partners. I still believe in the goodness of human nature, whether
it is English or any other. I therefore do not believe that the English will
leave in ' a night.
And do I consider the Gurkha and
the Afghan being incorrigible thieves and robbers without ability to respond to
purifying influences? I do not. If India returns to her spirituality; it will
react upon the neighbouring tribes; she will interest herself in the welfare of
these hardy but poor people, and even support them, if necessary, not out of
fear but as a matter of neighbourly duty. She will have dealt with Japan
simultaneously with the British. Japan will not want to invade India, if India
has learnt to consider it a sin to use a single foreign article that she can
manufa-cture within her own borders. She produces enough to eat, and her men
and women can, without difficulty, manufacture enough cloth to cover their
nakedness and protect themselves from heat and cold. We become prey to
inva-sion, if we excite the greed of foreign nations by ealing with them under
a feeling of dependence on them. We must learn to be independent of every one
of them.[17]
[1] Young
India, 13-9-1928
[2] Let
us give our generation peace and tranquility. If the men of the later days are
such fools as to come to blows, they will learn wisdom after a few years of
fighting and will then live at peace with one another.' "
[3] Young
India, 14-2-1929
[4] Young
India, 14-2-1929
[5] Young
India, 22-8-1929
[6] Young
India, 19-12-1929
[7] Young
India, 2-7-1931
[8]
Young India, 31-12-1931 M. D.
[9] Harijan,
12-10-1935
[10] Harijan,
14-3-1936
[11] Harijan,
20-3-1937 M. D.
[12] Harijan,
26-3-1938
Later on a correction appeared in the Harijan, that
though Shri Gupta was seriously injured, he did not die. - Ed.
[13] Harijan,
18-6-1938
[14] Sevagram,
18-6-'40 Harijan, 22-6-1940
[15] Sevagram,
13-5-'40 Harijan, 18-5-1940
[16] Young
India, 11-8-1920
[17] Young
India, 29-12-1920
No comments:
Post a Comment