Translator’s Note
Here is a stimulating 1940 polemic against
non-violence by none other than the Chairperson of the Drafting Committee of
the Constituent Assembly that was responsible for lending to India the formal
status of a sovereign, democratic republic. Aimed at the very “father of the
nation,” Mahatma Gandhi, this happens to be what may be noted as just one of Dr.
Ambedkar’s less known diatribes against the yet not quite questioned icons of
our hierarchical society. Endearingly referred to in his native State as Bābāsāheb, one may find the
barrister at his best here in an imagined court which could decide some of the
basic principles for the strategy and tactics to be adopted to realize the real
Dream India, that is, for the emancipation of our country and of its
enslaved/semi-enslaved countrymen and women.
This could perhaps be the first-ever English
translation to come out of the editorial that he wrote for the August 10, 1940
issue of his Marathi weekly, Janatā,
under the title: Ahimséché atirék
kimva déshāché dhindhavdé?
I was motivated to make this translation
available to the “world outside” through a letter by my friend Vira Sathidar, a
senior activist from one of Maharasthra’s radical left streams within the anti-caste,
working class movement, the Republican
Panthers, and also associated with the Marathi periodical, Vidrohi edited by Sudhir Dhawale, and
various progressive publications. About a year ago I sent Vira this translation
prepared from his own 2013 reprint of the August 20, 1940 Janatā editorial in a Republican
Panthers booklet which also contained a Programme for Revolution in Marathi penned in jail by
Shaheed-e-azam Bhagat Singh shortly before he was martyred in 1931, and a Preface explaining the contemporary context
of that compilation. For reasons beyond my control, this translation, though
done by January 2014, shortly after I was put into the Naxal barrack at Nagpur Central
Jail where I was detained for a year, could not be readied for publication
until I was released on bail 3 months ago.
- Prashant
Rahi
-BHIMRAO
AMBEDKAR
In our last
issue, we had advanced our viewpoint on a resolution on the war (the then
ongoing Second World War) adopted by the Congress Working Committee. In this
issue, we shall elaborate upon what we wrote earlier about that CWC resolution
which had dealt with the question of non-violence. Last year (1939), on June 21,
the CWC had proclaimed its stand on non-violence. Naturally, therefore, it was
felt by a number of people that there was no particular need for such a
resolution on the question non-violence. Yet, it had come out, and the specific
circumstances in which the CWC had taken its stand came to light in the course
of a speech by Maulana Azad at the Pune meet of AICC. As disclosed by the
Maulana, Gandhi had suggested in September, 1938 that the CWC take a position
on the issue. However, with the Munich Pact soon following suit, the matter had
remained in abeyance. Then in the month of November, when the war was already
underway, Gandhi had raised the issue once again, only to be rebutted and
defeated by Maulana Azad himself. Gandhi pitched in again last June, now
obstinate about a decision on the issue. Thus it was that the CWC was compelled
to take a stand.
It was in
the year 1920 that the concept of non-violence first found its way into the
politics of our land. Since then, it has been hailed time and again from
platforms of the Congress. However, there was no agreement on this between
Gandhi and the Congressmen at large. Gandhi was well aware that while he talked
in terms of non-violence as the cornerstone of all practice, the others meant
it to be only a matter of policy. Even so, for 20 long years he did not bother
to take this issue to a head. In doing so now, at this particular juncture, he
had created a rather awkward situation. Congressmen, who at the onset of the
war seemed to dig in their heels to face up to the British, now appeared to be
at loggerheads with each other; indeed just short of being foes. The earlier unity
with which Gandhi and the CWC were seen taking up cudgels against the British was
now dislodged by a scenario wherein Gandhi and the CWC engaged in bouts of
hair-splitting acrimony. Viewed from one angle, the culmination of their debate
into a vain mal-agreement may seem regretful, but from another it would appear
that it was better that things came to such a head. It cannot be said that in
Gandhi’s political engagement, his ideas on violence versus non-violence were
merely a question of principles. Today, it has become a question of the very means
to secure our independence and the nation. Viewed in this light, it would be of
prime importance to decide once and for all what opinion our people should hold
on the question of non-violence. In this sense, it was good that Gandhi raised
this issue once again, and created a situation where everyone was bound to come
out in the open with their views on the subject.
It is essential that we understand
what Gandhi meant by non-violence. Gandhi’s open letter of 6 July to the people
of England on what course they should take in the event of a German aggression upon
England provides a fair understanding. In that letter, he had offered the
people of England the following advice: “The people of England should decide to
resist Germany without the use of arms. Even before Hitler or Mussolini may
launch an aggression on the soil of England, let it be known to them that they
could come and take whatever they wanted. And in the event that Hitler actually
launches an attack, let him take whatever he may want. What would Hitler and
his soldiers want to take away? Copper from your homes? Then you should vacate
your homes for them to take over, and should there not be any place for you to
stay and should Hitler not let you flee the country, then you should be
prepared to die at his hands. You should under no circumstance use arms for the
sake of self-defence.” It is well known that the Gandhi scheme of self-defence
was modestly rejected by the people of England. However, the scheme did provide
a fair idea about Gandhi’s non-violence.
Gandhi did
not stop at preaching non-violence to the British alone. He went on to add that
should our own country also be subjected to foreign rule, not only should all
options other than accepting such a fate be ruled out, but our country should,
while making a declaration to that effect, also claim the credit for setting an
example for the whole world to follow. Finding such unarmed resistance based on
non-violence an impractical proposition for the defence of our country, the CWC
had then refused to accept what Gandhi insisted. While clarifying its stand on
the issue, the CWC sought to make an unfortunate distinction between opting for
violence in a particular situation against the enemy and non-violence in
another. This stance of preference to non-violence vis-à-vis the British,
leaving the violent options for domestic and foreign matters would occur to us
as a vital exposure of the CWC’s deceitful policies. If we leave aside such nuances
and concentrate upon the main issue, however, it remains without doubt that a
major difference of opinion has now surfaced between Gandhi and the CWC on how
to defend India from foreign occupation.
Those who
stand with Gandhi in the debate on violence versus non-violence may cite his
honesty as the rationale for their support. However, this in itself would not make
Gandhi’s view acceptable. In our view, honesty cannot be a consideration in
arriving at a position on such questions. What ought to be considered should be
how useful the concept of non-violence may be for the life of human beings.
Taking somebody’s personal traits, such as honesty or the lack of it, into
consideration would serve no purpose in such matters. One should not miss the point
here that a person who may be honest could also be naïve, or even insane. The
matter should rest not upon Gandhi’s honesty, but on whether his non-violence
or passive resistance could indeed be an acceptable proposition. Two commonly
found standpoints have to be considered before taking up this issue. The first
is that non-violence or unarmed resistance is proposed not out of any apathy or
non-seriousness. We generally come across two different approaches to the
question of war. We do have a set of people who are inclined to apathy. To
them, politics is always bad. All nations being essentially self-centered, none
could be free of bad, self-motivated politics; therefore there is no point in hankering
over war or peace. So they feel. Thus, they hold that a wise person should stay
put, taking war as just another catastrophe, akin to natural calamities,
something one cannot do anything about.
The other
standpoint is that wars are inevitable. Not just inevitable, but also
desirable. Those who think so consider the nation as an entity to be revered, a
divine entity. Should it be necessary to engage in war in order to add to the
nation’s prestige, magnificence and expanse, then, far from avoiding it, all of
us ought consider it a great calling, and be ready to go to war for the glory
of the nation. Regardless of whether or not the war may lead to the destruction
of wealth worth cores, and with it, the nation’s whole divine property! For
them, ‘everything is fair in war.’ Those, who have seen, heard or experienced
how the use of brute force during wars leads to disastrous consequences, need
not be told what a terrible catastrophe war is for the human race. If we leave
aside the mentality of such a ruthless apparition as Hitler, as also that of
those in our country who take pride in Aryan culture, we may not find even a
single, reasonable person anywhere in the world who would see anything positive
in brute force and war. At the same time, such apathy that leads people to think
that wars are something destined, that it would be futile to oppose them, and
to profess: ‘let what has to happen, happen,’ is not uncommon. Nevertheless, we
do come across a number of people today, more than ever before, who are
immersed in thoughts about how war can, on the contrary, be averted.
The scheme
of non-violence or unarmed resistance certainly does not arise out of any apathy
or non-seriousness. Nor is it so simple a matter as whether a scorpion that may
have made its way to the sacred alter during one’s prayers ought to be killed
or not. It is also not as if the advocates of the scheme of non violence or
unarmed resistance could be naïve or insane. From the ongoing discourse on this
subject, it would appear that some people may be under the impression that the
unarmed resistance scheme is Gandhi’s alone. This also is not true.
On the face
of the earth, there have been a number of people who, while opposing brute
force, honestly believed in the benefits of unarmed resistance. If only to cite
an example, the renowned professor, Bertrand Russell is one.
A
distinguished thinker, Professor Bertrand Russell had made the same proposition
as Gandhi’s in the August 1915 issue of an American monthly named Atlantic Monthly. He had proposed
therein that should the people of England proclaim to offer unarmed resistance,
the Germans would have no moral courage to attack. With neither an army, nor
armour, an unarmed British populace would leave the Germans with no rhyme, nor
reason to attack, and in case the Germans did invade, then with no fear of
facing armed resistance, they would do so with a very small and weak army.
Should they go on to decide to rule the land, and the British stage up
non-cooperation, then in the first place, it would become impossible for them
to conduct the affairs of governance; to fill up every little post, they would
have to bring in men from Germany. First of all, they would, out of shame, stop
short of aggression, but in case they did choose to attack the unarmed
populace, then non-cooperation by the masses would make it impossible for them
to rule and they would be compelled to retrace their footsteps before long. In
this way, it would be possible to successfully defend the nation from foreign
occupation by resorting to unarmed resistance.
Gandhi’s
scheme happens to be no different from Professor Bertrand Russell’s. The only
dissimilarity was that Professor Russell had sought some time-period, that of a
generation, before actually implementing his scheme. He had been practical
enough to add in the condition that his proposal may be brought into effect
only after one whole generation would have been imbued with the principles of
unarmed resistance. Far from waiting over a period of a generation, Gandhi
appears unwilling to spare even a single moment. He seems to believe that his
plan of unarmed resistance could be successfully carried out this very minute.
On account of this distinction between the two, Gandhi stands liable to be
accused of a tyrannical or extremist standpoint on the issue. Meanwhile, it
would also make us wonder as to why, of all the countries in the world, we
Indians alone should bear the sacrifice to provide the world with a lesson.
Even so, it would appear not too easy to reject the scheme for its infirmities,
backed as it has been by so practical a man as Prof. Russell.
It may be
rather difficult to assess the utility of the Gandhi scheme of unarmed
resistance for the human race. However, if we take a comparative view, weighing
the benefits of unarmed resistance against the losses caused on opting for
brute force, it should not be too difficult to arrive at an amicable position.
On being
asked about the benefits of unarmed resistance, its advocates insist that
unarmed resistance would engender a non-antagonistic frame of mind, and a
person whose very conscience may be imbued with a non-antagonistic outlook
would not only refrain from resorting to brute force against others, but the
use of any force whatsoever would then be ruled out.
That is the
thinking of Gandhi, and it is precisely this ideology that has to be examined
here. That if everyone were to purify their minds and imbibe the principles of
non-violence, it would solve everything. This thinking appears to have mainly
two flaws. The first is that in the event of war, the main question thrown up
before us would be whether to participate in the war or not. Instead, the real question
is how to save our people from the war. If we harp the tune of forsaking one’s
own self-interest for the sake of others, it might, admittedly, create a
non-antagonistic frame of mind, but it would not ensure that this would really serve
the interests of the others. Once wars ensue, it is the lives of people that
are attacked. Lives are endangered. The threat of destruction looms large. All
this cannot be averted by simply saying that we do not want destruction, and by
doing nothing about it. Moreover, establishing just the principles of justice the
world over would not do. There would be no solution unless those principles would
be put into practice, unless one actually entered the arena of war and resisted
one instance after another of assault upon justice. Being inclined towards
justice by itself does not prove to be of use to anyone else, other than one’s
own self, for when one may begin to act in accordance with justice, it would turn
out that practice does not produce the desired result unless it is backed by an
element of force.
From the above, we may infer that
merely imbuing a non-antagonistic attitude bears no fruit. One indeed needs to
act according to one’s inclinations (towards justice), but further when it
comes to action, the use of force would become indispensable.
When advocates of unarmed resistance
would have us believe that they did not use force at all, it would actually be an
illusion. However, when they go on to explain that theirs was a moral force,
not brute force, then that would be true. This now raises the questions as to
how different is brute force from moral force, and whether it can always be
said that moral force would be less brutal than brute force?
That brute force may lead to
terrible destruction is quite obvious. Indeed that is why many people have an
aversion to brute force. However, that moral force could also be equally
destructive, and equally brutal, may not be as obvious. This is, nevertheless,
true. This can be proved by a few examples. Take the case of a woman delivering
a child which may not appear to be as handsome to her as she wished. A
particular woman might in this eventuality find herself so disgusted that she
may refuse to co-operate with the child. Instead of resorting to the brute act
of strangulating the child to death, she may simply stop breast-feeding. Not offering
her breast to feed may not seem to be as brutal an act as strangulating. From
the point of view of the effect, however, it would be difficult to tell the
difference between strangulating and refusing to offer a breast. Let us
consider one more example. Suppose there happens to be a man in a village who
chooses to live his life differently, with a different set of ideas than the rest
of villagers. The villagers may opt not to kill him. Instead, they may not
allow him to take water, not let him have access to the market and impose a
total boycott on him, thus rendering it virtually impossible for him to live.
Arguing that imposing the boycott was far apart from killing the man, someone
could opine that the boycott was no brute force. However, if we pose the
question this way: did boycotting the man not amount to killing him? The answer
would be, yes, indeed.
The next question may be as follows.
If moral force proved insufficient and the war would not be averted by it, should
one still not resort to brute force? Those in favor of unarmed resistance may
pin their hopes for success on some moral force inherent within the invading
enemy. They might anticipate that on demonstrating their moral force, the enemy
would feel ashamed, soften up, and beat a retreat, untoward events thus being
averted. Prof. Bertrand Russell’s proposition was based on precisely such
expectations. However, that does not answer our question.
What if an enemy turns out to be utterly
shameless, and if abandoning all morality, he resorts to brute force against
the unarmed masses? How long would the moral force generated by unarmed
resistance then last? If our failure would appear to be imminent, then should
we still not resort to brute force? If not to encroach upon the enemy, then should
we not do so even for the sake of our defence? If such an option be ruled out,
then what would be the difference between getting killed by the impact of the
enemy’s brute force and opting for suicide? We may also come across some who seek
to explain that the success of the unarmed resistance scheme depends not only
on arousing the enemy’s conscience by moral force, but on two other factors:
the moral strength of those offering unarmed resistance and the non-cooperation
staged against the enemy. As a matter of fact, the basis of Professor Russell’s
proposition was precisely this.
We, in India, need no illustration
to explain how far non-cooperation by the unarmed masses can work as a form of
resistance. It is far too easy to talk about its efficacy, but the practice of
non-cooperation turns out to be quite another thing. The people of our country
have gathered enough experience over the last twenty years to arrive at the conclusion
that when non-cooperation is put into practice, it has not an iota of impact
upon the opponent. Should our people speak out with all honesty, they could
reveal to the whole world the real worth of non-cooperation. Should moral force
or a combination of moral force and non-cooperation have really borne fruit, no
one would have been so unreasonable as to insist upon resorting to brute force.
The point here is: what if undesirable outcomes are not averted by
non-cooperation? Should brute force not be resorted to even then?
The third question is: what if the
objective of non-violence – that of exterminating brute force once and for all –
remains unfulfilled on staging unarmed resistance? Should brute force not be
employed still? This question may appear to be the same as the previous one. However,
it is not so. The previous question pertained to what should be done in the
event of an attack in the form of brute force. The present one pertains to
doing away with brute force altogether. If the programme of the advocates of
non-violence be to ensure that all attacks in the form of brute force be always
met with unarmed resistance alone, then unarmed resistance would indeed be
seriously problematic.
Adopting unarmed resistance with
this understanding would mean that the world will never be able to break free from
the grip of brute force. If the benefit of unarmed resistance adopted by one
generation would not go to the next, then it would not be possible to break
free from the grip of brute force, and the principle of non-violence would
never succeed. Should the incidences of brute force not end once and for all,
then unarmed resistance would appear to be of no more value than a child’s
pranks. If the objective, that is, the elimination of brute force, cannot be
achieved by unarmed resistance, then the question as to why not to resort to
brute force becomes significant.
Now then, the following question
would need to be examined: if brute force be used at one time, could there be
some guarantee that no brute force would ever raise its head again? The answer
to this is that following their victory through brute force, if the victors
would use their victory not for the sake of some vested interests, but to
create a new world, then the elimination
of brute force after the use of brute force could be a possibility. The
question to ponder over is whether the use of brute force with such a purpose
may be called just.
The above reasoning would help
derive the following principles for practice:-
The first principle would be that it
would be unwise to suggest that brute force should never be resorted to. On the
contrary, we are of the opinion that to insist that no brute force should ever
be resorted to would amount to being insensible. The Negroes (Afro-Americans) in
America, we know, remained under the yoke of slavery for years together. A
great war, involving full-fledged brute force, had to be fought in order to
ensure their emancipation. Had that struggle for emancipation relied upon mere
moral force, it is indeed doubtful whether the Negroes (Afro-Americans) would
have been free of slavery even to this day. We are, in fact, quite sure that it
would be hard to find even a single sane person to whom the use of brute force
in securing freedom from slavery for the Negroes (Afro-Americans) may appear to
have been morally incorrect on the part of the American nation. Several nations
in the world today are under the scourge of enslavement. They have all got to
win their independence. To suggest that although they could secure their
independence through moral force, yet brute force must nevertheless be adopted
would, of course, make no sense. By the same token, to insist that brute force
should not be employed even if their independence be unattainable by moral
force would be most foolish. Force is the means, independence the end. If the
end be noble and pure, then no philosophy of morality could be allowed to come
in the way of the use of even extremist means to serve that end. If a philosophy
of morality happens to come in the way, then one can safely conclude that it must
be a phony philosophy. Non-violence is the means, not an end in itself, and the
first of all principles would be that the means should be considered just if
the end is just. The flawed, extremist ideas that one may come across in the
discourse on non-violence could have arisen on account of not paying due
attention to what constitutes the means and what the end. Non-violence, under
no circumstance, can be considered an end in itself. Beyond doubt, it is one of
the possible means that may be used. If the means of non-violence would suffice
to attain an end, then there should be no need to resort to brute force.
However, should non-violent means not be sufficient to achieve an end, and if the
end would suffer on this account, then only a fool would insist that no other
means but non-violence should be adopted.
The second principle would be that
it would indeed be a sin to use brute force as a means to do injustice to
someone, but there would be nothing sinful about using brute force to put an
end to brute force. Indeed, it would be quite moral. The advocates of
non-violence would appear to have messed up their ideas quite a bit on this
issue. On the one hand, they opine that brute force should never be used to
clinch a decision, but on the other, when someone adopts brute force against
you, they would not let you restrict that brute force. They, unfortunately,
fail to see the contradictoriness in their ideas in this regard. To not
restrict a certain brute force would amount to letting that force have a free
hand, rather it amounts to helping clinch the decision (in favour of that brute
force).
The following guidelines may be
derived from the above. Should brute force be employed against you by an
opponent, you may, if need be, resist it with brute force. However, having
clinched the issue in your favor by defeating the opponent, then, as a victor,
you may not make use of the position that you have secured through brute force
to perpetrate injustices upon your vanquished opponent.
Imposing one’s rule upon others
after having employed brute force is a different matter. The two are two
distinct matters, and it is precisely because this difference is often not
grasped well enough that there is a profusion of mistaken ideas. In our view,
it is essential to use brute force against brute force. Not only is this
essential, but such a response would also be a just one. Should one’s brute
force be the only way to destroy another’s brute force, and if the destruction
of that brute force be desirable, then the use of brute force would be
justified. Most people fail to realize that the world’s injustices were created
not by the use of one brute force against another, but by the imposition of
undesirable conditions by the victor against the vanquished. Instead of crying
foul against the use of brute force, if the pacifists would vent their ire
against the injustices meted out to the vanquished nations through brute force by
the victorious ones in the course of their wars, then the world’s injustices
could lead to an end; if the injustices could come to an end, then there would
no more be any war; and if there would be no war, then the need to take
recourse to brute force would be no more. That, according to us, is an
important principle to be followed in order to lead to a reign of non-violence.
The third principle is that as the
path of unarmed resistance is taken by a single nation alone, with the other
nations not doing so, the means of unarmed resistance is bound to fail. It
would be baseless to believe that if one nation takes recourse to unarmed
resistance, the others would follow suit. A new path generally finds acceptance
provided it may seem to be an easier option, not if it may seem tougher than
usual. The other aspect is that methods are not generally found acceptable in
isolation. For instance, if socialism be practiced by a nation all by itself,
then the socialist system would not be implemented by all nations in general.
However, if socialism be adopted by all nations together, it could be implemented
for sure. The same would apply to unarmed resistance. There is a major
difference between running a system and espousing it as a cause for a start.
Often, the espousal of a cause may only end up in sacrifice alone, with the
main objective of running a system with those ideals remaining elusive. Taking
upon oneself, as a lone nation, the responsibility of carrying out a risky
proposition, such as unarmed resistance, could be a chivalrous gesture, but not
a wise decision. Indeed, unarmed resistance may turn out to be effective if carried
out by all nations as a sort of spontaneous outburst. There could also be an international
organization towards this end, with every nation willingly accepting
non-violence as a principle. It cannot, however, be a measure to be adopted by just
a nation or two all by themselves.
The principle of non-violence has
been in existence in ancient India. As for the Aryans, they tended to violence
as the objective as well as in practice. Yadnya
was the very basis of their religion. In their yadnyas, violence and wine used to be essential constituents.
Violence was put into practice in such extreme ways that some of the Aryan
people grew sick of it. Mahavir was one of them. He detested the violence in
Aryan religion and went on to found Jainism. The philosophies of these two
religions, however, had their respective excesses. The extreme non-violence of
Jainism as opposed to the extreme violence of the Aryan religion! Both were
impractical. It was hence that Gautama Buddha founded another religion. Doing
away with the two extremes, Buddhism was an attempt to take the middle path.
‘As far as possible, non-violence. If necessary, violence.’ This became the
Buddhist dictum. Had Buddhism survived in our country till this day, there
would have been no ground for the emergence of the non-violence discourse. Our
Brahmin brothers, in their lascivious bid to outwit Gautama Buddha as a means
to hold the masses in subjugation, aroused as the masses were against violence,
seized upon the banner of non-violence, and to substantiate their new-found
belief, gave up eating cow’s meat, and went on to become even vegetarians.
Buddha’s ideology was thus relegated to the background, and non-violence came
to be ingrained into the Hindu psyche. Over thousands of years, our people,
having internalized such a mindset, came to be driven to docility, hence also lost
their self-confidence. One may daresay, therefore, that he who strives to take
the people towards that familiar path of extremist non-violence would, in our
opinion, be our enemy rather than friend.
We do agree that all human existence
ought to have some foundation in the form of moral principles. This should,
admittedly, apply not to our personal lives alone, but also to the sphere of
politics. In the past, there was a debate on this question in 1920 between
Gandhi and Tilak. Tilak’s view was to abide by shatham pratishathyam (eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth) in
politics. Later, perhaps out of embarrassment over the raw crudity of such an
expression, he sought to cloak it with the allusion that his words had been
misconstrued. Offering an explanation, he expressed agreement with the Gita’s ye yathaa maam prapadyante taamsthaiva
bhajaamyaham (do unto others as others would unto you) as the principle to
be followed in politics, disagreeing with Gautam Buddha’s akrodhen jine krodham asaadhum saadhana jine, kadariye daanen sachchen
lokavaadina (strive to win over the
other’s anger with pacification, villainy with sublimity, and falsity with
truth). Gandhi, on the contrary, held that the teaching of the Buddha was
superior to that of the Gita’s. Here, we are in agreement with Gandhi. We see
no difference between the above principle from the Gita and Nana Fadnavis’ ‘An
eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth.’ All the same, in spite of Gandhi’s
leaning towards this particular Buddhist principle, there still remains a huge
difference between Gautama Buddha and Gandhi on the outlook towards
non-violence. Gautama Buddha looked upon non-violence as a matter of principle,
not as a rule. Gandhi however preaches non-violence as a rule. A rule is
different from a principle, and this difference is a major one. A principle is
meant to be followed, whereas rules have got to be obeyed. Once a rule is
decided upon, man becomes a slave of that rule. As for a principle, once it is
adopted, we do hold it in reverence, but do not become its slave. Having lost
sight of this difference, a number of societies have paid the price. With principles,
one is flexible in practice. Rules, on the other hand, are strict; they are not
to be broken. Rules can and do cause pressures and fissures in the society.
While rules are a must for an ignoramus, principles are meant for the wise. No
progress would be hindered by principles, but rules may impede it. Gandhi, it
would appear, failed to comprehend these important distinctions.
Incidentally, it would be worthwhile
to find out whether Gandhi’s thoughts on the crucial issue of non-violence
underwent some changes over a period of time. To understand the views he held
in the past, we could take a look at some passages from his earlier articles.
In Young India, dated March 2, 1922, Gandhi wrote as under:
‘I am sorry that I find a nervous fear among some Hindus and
Mohammedans that I am undermining their faith and that I am even doing
irreparable harm to India by my uncompromising espousal of non-violence.
‘I may be bold to say that violence is the creed of no religion
and that, whereas non-violence in most cases is obligatory in all, violence is
merely permissible in some cases. The non-violence that I have preached from
Congress platforms is non-violence as a policy.
If they do not believe in the expedient of non-violence, they must
denounce it, but not claim to believe in the expedient, when their heart
resists it. How disastrous it would be if, not believing in violence even as an
expedient, I joined, say a violence party and approached a gun with a perturbed
heart. The reader will believe me if I may say that I have the capacity to kill
a fly. But I do not believe in killing even flies. Now, suppose I joined an
expedition for fly-killing as an expedient. Will I not be expected, before
being permitted to join the expedition to
use all the available engines of destruction whilst remained attached to
the army of fly-killers? If those who are in the Congress and the Khilafat
Committees will perceive this simple truth, then they shall certainly either
take the struggle this year to a successful end, or be as sick of non-violence
as to give up that pretention and set about some other programme.’
Thereafter, in the issue dated March
9, 1922, he spelt out his ideas more clearly, as follows:
‘A correspondent from Lahore writes:
‘“So far as the facts about the Bardoli decision have come to
light, it appears that the decision was arrived at either under the influence
of Pandit Malaviya under some far-fetched notions of non-violence. In the
former case, the act is most unworthy and in the latter case most unwise. Is
not the ideal of the Congress swaraj, and not non-violence?”
‘It is impossible to withhold sympathy for the writer. His letter
is typical of the attitude I saw reflected in Delhi. I have already given the
assurance that Pandit Malaviya had nothing to do with the Bardoli decision. Nor
have any far-fetched notions of non-violence anything to do with it. The
correspondent’s letter is the best justification for it. To me the Bardoli
decision is the logical outcome of the national pledge of limited non-violence.
‘I entirely endorse the opinion that swaraj is the nation’s goal,
not non-violence. It is true that my goal is as much swaraj as non-violence,
because I hold swaraj for the masses to be attainable save through
non-violence. But have I not repeatedly said in these columns that I would have
India to become free even by violence rather than she would remain in bondage?’
In an article on Hindu-Muslim
“riots” in the Young India issue of
May 29, 1924, he wrote on the subject as follows:
‘What I see around me today is, therefore, a reaction against the
creed of non-violence. I feel the wave of violence coming. The Hindu-Muslim
tension is an acute reflection of this trend.
‘I have never presented to India the extreme form of non-violence,
if only because I do not find myself fit enough to redeliver that ancient
message. Though my intellect has fully understood and grasped it, it has not as
yet become part of my whole being. My strength lies in my asking people to do
nothing that I have not tried repeatedly in my own life. I am asking my
countrymen today to adopt non-violence as their creed only for the purpose of
regulating the relations between the different races, and for the purpose of
attaining swaraj. Hindus and Musalmans, Christians, Sikhs and Parsees must not
settle their differences by resorting to violence and the means to attain swaraj
must be non-violence. I do not say, ‘eschew violence, resort to non-violence’
in your dealing with robbers and thieves, or with nations that may invade India.
But in order that we are better able to do so, we must learn to restrain
ourselves. It is not a sign of strength but of weakness to take up the pistol
on the slightest pretext. Mutual fisticuffs are training not in violence but in
emasculation. My method of non-violence can never lead to loss of strength, but
it alone will make it possible, if the nation wills it, to offer disciplined
and concerted violence in time of danger.’
It needs no elaboration to
understand how Gandhi’s earlier views, as expressed in the above passages, were
different in comparison to his current opinions. To probe further, it would be
most revealing if we try to understand why and how his opinions changed. One of
the major reasons for this change appears to be that he may have developed a
feeling that his stature as a ‘leader of India’ was not tall enough. Of late he
may have developed an ambition to be known as a ‘reformer of the world.’ Many
of Gandhi’s disciples may disagree with us about his craving for fame and
prestige, but this is, nevertheless, a well-known fact. Gandhi looks upon
himself as the father of unarmed resistance, considered as a ‘priceless
treasure’, and ‘panacea for all troubles.’ He now aspires to magnify it into a
principle to be put into practice for the salvation of not India alone, but for
the salvation of the whole world. By applying this principle to India, he
apparently desires to prove its efficacy to the whole world. If that could be
done, then it would invariably establish Gandhi as second to none in the world.
That is the position he seeks for himself
Leader
of India or Reformer of the World?
In the course of the in-fighting
within the Congress, Gandhi’s urge to don the cloak of a world reformer may
have grown ever more intense. In the process, his views pertaining to
non-violence underwent a transformation.
Evidence to this effect can be found
in the February 23, 1922 issue of the Young
India, in his article entitled, ‘No end to my sorrow.’ In his talk with a
gentleman named, Paul Richard, on the Bardoli decision to break the law, Gandhi
said:
‘I do not work for the freedom of India. I work for non-violence
in the world, and that is the difference between me and Tilak. Mr. Tilak was
telling me, “I would sacrifice even the truth for the freedom of my country,”
but I am ready to sacrifice even freedom for the sake of truth.’
Making this
explosive disclosure from his above-motioned interview with Gandhi, Mr. Richard
commented that Gandhi’s thirst was not going to be quenched by his stature as
leader of India; he now aspired for the stature of a world reformer. ‘Was this
true?’ The editor of Lokmanya, the
newspaper which carried this comment, had asked of Gandhi, to which the latter had
replied as above under the title, ‘No end to my sorrow.’ He was constrained to
add therein that, ‘It is not possible to deny the substance (of the words which
Mr. Richard put in my mouth).’
Gandhi’s excesses of non-violence
are but some of the many irreparable damages which he has done to our country.
It is commonplace that men, given to drinking, commit brutalities upon their
wives. However, a leader that brutalized the country which he led is one we would
never find anywhere else in the world. Nowhere except in India. This may seem
to have happened in a state of inebriation. One does get intoxicated on
consuming alcohol, but alcohol is not the only way to get intoxicated. That the
lust to be a Mahatma can also get you intoxicated was a fact that Gandhi has
proved. █
