The Gandhi Project by Nashid Fareed-Ma’at

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 381, excerpt from Harijan, March

17, 1946.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 384, excerpt from The Nation’s

Voice, 1947, p. 109 - 110, Part II.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 134, excerpt from Young India,

August 11, 1920.

101

“It [Satyagraha] is the weapon that adorns the strong. It can never

adorn the weak. By weak is meant the weak in mind and spirit, not

in body.”

“Non-violence is a weapon of the strong. With the weak it might

easily be hypocrisy. Fear and love are contradictory terms.”

I will be bold enough to say there are plenty of hypocrites in the contemporary community

organizing, peace, and social justice fields. Being bound to fear (including fearing the loss of

possessions, wealth, and status), we cannot embody the qualities of love, which include a strong

will rooted in the search for Truth. Instead of embodying the courage necessary to stand as an

emissary of Truth, such hypocrites hold up facades that often prove as harmful to the people as

an oppressor’s destructive actions. Having a strong will rooted in (the pursuit of) Truth enables

us to stand with courage, a fundamental of Satyagraha that I will address later in the chapter.

But without a morality based in a genuine search for Truth, people are bound to be weak

cowards despite what facades they use to appear otherwise.

Gandhi placed strength clearly in soul / spiritual terms:

“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.”

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 439.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 381, excerpt from Harijan, March

17, 1946.

102

The strength of the soul over the body doesn’t mean that we must surrender the body to achieve

the strength of the soul; although the willingness to surrender our bodies for the sake of the soul

fits within Gandhi’s understanding of sacrifice, a topic addressed later in the chapter. But for too

many people in Gandhi’s time, and even today, there was a tendency to place the importance of

the body over the soul. This equates to rendering the fate a stronger entity to a weaker entity that

is not even capable of protecting the stronger entity. Many spiritual and religious teachings

proclaim the body is not capable of protecting the soul; in fact, the body is often a factor in the

eventual destructive fate of many people’s souls. Satyagraha places a higher priority on the soul,

which is actually capable of protecting the body and so much more. For Gandhi, it was not an

“either / or” proposition: his practice engaged cultivation of both the soul and body. But he was

inclined to view situations within the context of his soul before considering any implications for

his body -- even at times incurring great damage to his bodily health. This approach requires

strength. For the weak, it is likely that concern for their bodies, among other things (i.e.,

property, social status, public image), will prevent them from placing their soul before these

other things.

Satyagraha is not only based on a soul-based strength, it calls for the continued

cultivation and deepening of such strength for those who walk the Satyagraha path. To this

point, Gandhi wrote: “The end of a Satyagraha campaign can be described as worthy, only when,

it leaves the Satyagrahis stronger and more spirited than they are in the beginning.”

Remember, the journey to Truth is long (if not unending) and, therefore, requires a great amount

of strength to reach the destination. If we are not growing stronger in the quest, we need to

seriously examine what we are doing to move beyond such stagnancy of progression.

Holding to the soul-strength or “soul-force” of Satyagraha makes us unconquerable.

Upon this fundamental, Gandhi boldly professed: “Satyagraha is always superior to armed

resistance. This can only be effectively proved by demonstration, not by argument.”

He saw

Satyagraha as a better alternative than violence and spent endless efforts living the proof of this

virtue.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 56, excerpt from Young India,

April 27, 1921.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 34, excerpt from Young India,

November 3, 1927.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 3, excerpt from Young India,

March 23, 1921.

103

A MORE POWERFUL ALTERNATIVE TO VIOLENCE

“the slightest use of violence often defeats a just cause.

Satyagraha excludes the use of violence in any shape or form,

whether in thought, speech, or deed.”

“Indeed, violence is the negation of this great spiritual force

[Satyagraha], which can only be cultivated or wielded by those

who will entirely eschew violence.”

Some may be surprised by the following fact: Gandhi wasn’t completely opposed to

violence even as he embraced a more effective and powerful method in Satyagraha, which

clearly rules out violence. He asserted Satyagraha “excludes the use of violence because

[humanity] is not capable of knowing the absolute truth and, therefore, not competent to

punish.”

Following this line of thought suggests that if humans were capable of attaining

absolute truth, we would be in a justifiable position to use violence and punish others.

(Hinduism and other religions have deities and other spiritual entities that use violence in such a

manner.) In fact, this premise has been cited (or wrongly cited) by many humans in states of

delusion claiming such justification for their acts of violence -- from child rearing to waging war.

But Gandhi saw this as fallacy: as someone who progressed farther along the path to Truth than

those in delusion, he realized anything less than reaching the destination of Truth had the

possibility of error and was, thus, not absolute. And a single violent thought, word, or deed

committed in error can unleash cycles of violence that can eventually result in mass violence,

including unending wars. This realization can be profound when you realize that even the

contemporary modern age of endless wars and widespread violence began with a single instance

of violence -- whether it was a thought, word, or deed. This violence has become so widespread

and accepted that we don’t even consider that the present state of the world, where violence is

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 132 - 133, excerpt from Young

India, August 11, 1920.

This is because when Satyagrahis engage in protest, they embrace a vow of sacrifice that surrenders the

right to such self-defense and encompasses a willingness to suffer. I will address sacrifice and suffering later in the

book.

104

now “normal,” began with a single instance of violence and is continued by other single acts of

violence. In fact, to the extent that more individuals choose to not commit a single act of

violence, the amount of violence in this world will reduce drastically. Therefore, Gandhi found

it better to completely abstain from violence.

Yet if given the choice between cowardice and violence, Gandhi would clearly choose

violence. He wrote:

“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. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-

called Zulu rebellion [in South Africa] and the late War [World

War 1]. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who

believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India

resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she

should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless

witness to her own dishonour.

“But I believe that non-violence is infinitely superior to violence,

forgiveness is more manly than punishment.”

(emphasis mine)

The above quote indicated that Gandhi saw a valid use of violence in limited circumstances.

Self-defense in unprovoked situations falls within such limitations. But he explicitly forbid the

use of “self-defense” in situations one creates, such as a protest -- even if opponents (i.e. police)

respond in an overly brutal manner.

Also, since Satyagraha was still in an experimental stage

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 320, excerpt from Harijan, May 6,

1933.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 132, excerpt from Young India,

August 11, 1920.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 466.

105

throughout Gandhi’s life, he didn’t rule out the need to use violence (i.e. in a war) even as he

advocated what he felt was a better method in Satyagraha (non-violence). He chose Satyagraha

over violence because he felt it was more efficient and powerful than violence, but he did not

completely rule it out. Thus, he stated, “Satyagraha has been designed as an effective substitute

for violence. This use is in its infancy and, therefore, not yet perfected.”

Perhaps if he

perfected the spiritual science of Satyagraha in his lifetime, he would have moved to a point of

completely ruling out violence for everyone. Instead his prohibitions against violence were

limited to Satyagrahis and their supporters. But I emphasize that he saw Satyagraha as a better

choice than violence, some of the reasons to be explored in the following paragraphs.

Gandhi acknowledged that the world, during his lifetime (and even now), was in an age

of violence in which the majority of humans accepted it as a viable means to achieve desired

goals. He wrote:

“In this age of the rule of brute force, it is almost impossible for

any one to believe that any one else could possibly reject the law

of the final supremacy of brute force.”

He even had sympathy for those who embrace violence in this way, acknowledging that most

who engage in violence do so to achieve an aim that goes beyond violence. In other words, most

people who commit violence do so for a desired outcome, not just to commit violence. Gandhi

felt if people had another, more effective means than violence, they would use this instead. This

led him to declare that “The people are not by nature violent but peaceful.”

And based on this

natural inclination, non-violence is preferred by humans over violence. Think about it: if a

country seeking to defend itself in a war could do so without violence, which includes the risk of

its citizens’ and their opponents’ lives, it would most likely do so. The same can be said of a

thief who robs to provide for one’s self, or persons seeking to protect their reputations (or

positions) with violent words. Such realizations led Gandhi to say:

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 133 - 134, excerpt from Young

India, August 11, 1920.

106

“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.”

Thus, the challenge lays in educating those who only know the law of the brute about the soul /

spirit and its corresponding laws that guide humans to genuine strength (an indomitable will).

This process of education, which will be explored in a Chapter 8, was prevalent throughout

much of Gandhi’s organizing work. Yet it differs in some key aspects from contemporary

approaches to education: it is not enough to lecture or present curriculum items that talk about

genuine human strength; teachers of this strength must be non-hypocritical living examples of

such strength.

Gandhi also realized that violent means usually laid a heavy toil on all involved: from

those who committed and survived the violence, to those who were harmed and lost their lives.

(Chapter 3 on ahimsa explored the imprint of violence.) Perhaps this toil would be worth it if it

brought an end to violence, but it doesn’t: past acts of violence usually serve as kindling fodder

for present and future fiery outbursts of violence. Wants for revenge, to seek retribution for past

wrongs, to protect or expand the spoils won from past aggression are all reasons that resurrect

and continue ongoing cycles of violence. Gandhi realized that committing acts of violence only

further cycles of violence in ways that keep these cycles going, along with ongoing harm and

loss of life and property. The path of Satyagraha (non-violence) would, at times, result in similar

levels of harm and loss, yet a significant factor is that Satyagraha does not kindle the fodder of

violence but instead extinguishes it:

“I say what I mean and think. And I have been saying for the last

fifteen years in India and outside for twenty years more [in South

Africa] and repeat now that the only way to conquer violence is

through non-violence pure and undefiled. I have said also that

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 275, excerpt from Young India,

May 8, 1930.

107

every violent act, word and thought interferes with the progress of

non-violent action.”

The use of violence has a common inherent flaw: that by committing violence on others a

person often thinks she or he can get what she or he wants without also being harmed. Some

even fall for the delusional trap of thinking that just because an instance of violence reaps a prize

that there is no negative effect accrued by the process of attaining such a prize. Chapter 3 on

ahimsa revealed this is not so, that we are negatively affected by the harm we commit -- even if

we have become accustomed to accepting certain harms willingly or are unconscious of them. It

can be difficult to realize the truthfulness of this fact within delusion, which is one of the reasons

Gandhi constantly encouraged others to seek Truth and, thus, be able to realize this fact for

themselves. But once a wrong (such as violence) has been committed, corrective action is called

for to bring the wrong (and its cycle of effects) to an end. (And a mere acknowledgment of a

wrong, sometimes cloaked as forgiveness, doesn’t equate to corrective action.) This corrective

process is rarely achieved instantly, and may require more harmful consequences until the cycle

of the wrong has been completely ended. For example, the choice to end (stop fighting) a war

that has been waged for some time may require more deaths and injuries to bring the war’s

termination, via withdrawal of the military, to fulfillment. Even then, mere withdrawal of the

military would rarely end the continuing violent thoughts and words from the war, which could

lead to future outbursts of violent acts. Satyagraha, in many respects, seeks to be a corrective

process that shifts people from continuing and supporting a wrong into embracing and sustaining

a process of beneficence. But even this approach may require bearing harm to complete the

transition.

Let’s use an example to explore the above point. Imagine, within this age of brute force,

that you and another country are in a conflict escalating to the point of physical violence and

open warfare. Even if you are willing to respond nonviolently, your opponent may not be

willing to do so which will result in mass deaths whether you respond nonviolently or with

violence. Each choice would require your citizens to risk their lives; and Gandhi would

automatically rule out running away since this is an act of cowardice. Each war has a threshold

of destruction that, once reached, usually brings an (temporary) end to the physical violence. For

the sake of simplicity, let’s say this threshold is a hundred thousand deaths; and for this example

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 202, excerpt from Harijan, April

15, 1933.

108

I will ignore all other types of loss that accompany physical violence, such as massive injuries,

destruction of property and material assets, immorality, the negative impact on children and

women (i.e., rape and domestic abuse), redirection of resources from social programs to war,

national debt, etc. The question becomes: are you willing to engage in physical violence to see

how many of these deaths you can inflict upon your opponent to gain “victory?” Inherent in the

choice of physical violence is the acceptance that you will lose lives on your side even if you

win. Also inherent is the risk of losing (in which you endure the majority of the hundred

thousand deaths) or a truce (with relatively equal deaths, both sides choose to suspend physical

violence). Based on what was said earlier, you know this choice will not end the cycle of

violence: it will continue on surely with violent thoughts and words that will sustain the very real

potential of resurrecting physical violence. In fact, Gandhi wrote: “And often the evil thought or

the evil word may, in terms of Satyagraha, be more dangerous than actual violence used in the

heat of the moment and perhaps repented and forgotten the next moment.”

Even in supposed

victory, your country will live in the threat of physical violence occurring again and having to

wager another hundred thousand lives to bring that episode of physical violence to another

temporary end. This will also affect how other countries view their relations with you. Even

with allies there will be an undertone of potential violence if your relationship goes astray since

you demonstrated you are willing to deal with conflicts through physical violence. And certainly

any countries that regard you as an “enemy” will deal with you in the context of the very real

possibility of violence (words, thoughts, and actions). Thus, all your relations, even with

friendly countries, are undercut with a potential of violence. Also, living with such potential

does take a harmful toil on your country, even if your citizens willingly accept such harm as a

preferred “lesser evil” that is supposedly necessary for “national security.” These harms can

include: the stress and fear of living within the threat of another war; less openness to forming

beneficent relationships with others, especially foreigners from “enemy countries;” less

resources being devoted to social and domestic programs instead to fund defense and national

security efforts; etc. And there is nothing within this path of continuing violence that will bring

an end to this cycle of violence. Understanding the far reaching parameters of the path of

physical violence, the myth of fighting a war to end all (future) wars can finally be laid to rest as

simply that: an illusionary myth.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 386, excerpt from Harijan, April

13, 1940.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 385. excerpt from Harijan, April

13, 1940.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 385, excerpt from Harijan, April

13, 1940.

109

Another option to the war question lays in responding to the conflict nonviolently and

accepting the potential of losing all the hundred thousand lives upon your country without

seeking to afflict any such deaths on your opponent. Gandhi explored this choice in responding

to a question posing if India attained independence through Satyagraha, could it use Satyagraha

to respond to acts of war? He replied:

“If the worst happens, there are two ways open to non-violence.

To yield possession but non-co-operate with the aggressor. Thus,

supposing that a modern edition of Nero descended upon India, the

representatives of the State will let him in but tell him that he will

get no assistance from the people. They will prefer death to

submission. The second way would be non-violent resistance by

the people who have been trained in the non-violent way. They

would offer themselves unarmed as fodder for the aggressor’s

cannon. The underlying belief in either case is that even a Nero is

not devoid of a heart. The unexpected spectacle of endless rows

upon rows of men and women simply dying rather than surrender

to the will of an aggressor must ultimately melt him and his

soldiery. Practically speaking there will be probably no greater

loss in men than if forcible resistance was offered; there will be no

expenditure in armaments and fortifications. The non-violent

training received by the people will add inconceivably to their

moral height. Such men and women will have shown personal

bravery of a type far superior to that shown in armed warfare.”

Now Gandhi conceded that he may not have been best suited to answer the question because he

had “not mastered the whole technique of non-violence.”

And as he realized, “The nature of

the experiment [of Satyagraha] requires one to be satisfied with one step at a time,”

he was

110

more focused on attaining Swaraj (Indian independence) than pondering the challenges of an

independent India. But even his answer provided some powerful points. The first choice of non-

cooperation was explored in depth in the Chapter 4: if aggressors don’t get what they want they

are apt to leave and seek it elsewhere. So Gandhi would allow an aggressor into his country

without violent resistance but would have the people withhold all cooperation from the

aggressor. An aggressor, in testing such non-cooperation, may kill a hundred thousand before

leaving, but remember this total amounts to no more than would be risked in the choice to go to

war. But the number of deaths is much likely to be less if the people embody a pure morality, as

will be addressed below. Yet this approach adds no fodder to the flames of the cycle of violence

and sends a clear message to other aggressors of the pointlessness of attacking such a country.

Gandhi’s second choice of nonviolent resistance is also powerful. Note, that he spoke of

those trained in non-violence (Satyagraha) being the ones to offer themselves as sacrifice to the

“aggressor’s canon.” Upon first reflections, some may doubt that the death of a hundred

thousand such persons will turn away an aggressor willing to commit violence for a desired

objective. But remember, these hundred thousand trained persons will behold the tenets of

Satyagraha: including seeking Truth, embodying purity, and knowing the strength of their soul.

The death of such persons will have a more profound effect than the death of soldiers, just as

many who subscribe to the validity of war are more troubled by the death of “innocent civilians”

than enemy soldiers. But the sacrifice will even be more impactful than the death of innocent

civilians killed against their will. The willingness of pure Truth seekers to face death is

profound and has been celebrated in many historical figures. In contemporary world religions,

this principle is glorified in Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and many other traditions.

Unending praise has been shed on the courage of figures such as Jesus Christ, Muhammad, the

historical Buddha, Arjuna (from the Bhagavad Gita), and other notable spiritual figures for their

willingness to face death for the purity of their cause. Even the willingness of “ordinary”

humans to risk their lives (and sometimes die) for political and social stances is memorialized

throughout history. Imagine a hundred thousand persons of pure moral character willingly

standing before guns, unarmed, to face another’s aggression. Or even a hundred such persons,

what would be the impact of this? Even if a soldier kills one such person, how many more could

she or he kill before being moved to refrain from such killing? And how many of these affected

soldiers could an army bear before it is rendered into an ineffective fighting force: that even if

they do not put down their arms, they refuse or find it difficult to kill more nonviolent persons?

Countless soldiers are disturbed when they (unintentionally) kill civilians in battle, how much

more will be distressed by killing nonviolent persons who willingly stand before armed soldiers?