Ahimsa and Mahatma Gandhi-III

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Senior Gandhian Scholar, Professor, Editor and Linguist

Gandhi International Study and Research Institute, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09404955338, 09415777229

E-mail- [e-mail];

[e-mail]

Mailing Address- C- 29, Swaraj Nagar, Panki, Kanpur- 208020, Uttar Pradesh, India

 

 

Ahimsa and Mahatma Gandhi-III 

 

 

 

We seem to understand the words ahimsa, politics and religion differently. I shall try my best to make clear my meaning of the common terms and my reading of the different religions. At the outset let me assure Sir Narayan that I have not changed my views on ahimsa. I still believe that man not having been given the power of creation does not possess the right of destroying the meanest creature that lives. The prerogative of destruction belongs solely to the Creator of all that lives. I accept the interpretation of ahimsa, namely, that it is not merely a negative state of harmlessness but it is a positive state of love, of doing good even to the evil-doer. But it does not mean helping the evil-doer to continue the wrong or tolerating it by passive acquiescence—on the contrary, love, the active state of ahimsa, requires you to resist the wrong-doer by dissociating yourself from him even though it may offend him or injure him physically. Thus if my son lives a life of shame, I may not help him to do so by continuing to support him; on the contrary, my love for him requires me to withdraw all support from him although it may mean even his death. And the same love imposes on me the obligation of welcoming him to my bosom when he repents. But I may not by physical force compel my son to become good in my opinion is the moral of the story of the Prodigal Son. 1

No other English term can express all the meanings of ahimsa which the word innocence expresses. Hence ahimsa and innocence may be re-garded as equivalents. It is my faith that everything will be well with the man who follows the path of non-violence. The weapons at the disposal of the votary of non-violence are much more potent than those available to the votary of violence. I may describe organized violence as a barbarous thing. It is most certainly beastly. Only a perfect practitioner of non-violence can display perfect courage. Even one man ready to live a life of non-violence to perfection will be able to subdue the entire world. Let me say, in all humility, that, if I have, with this broken body of mine, some little strength to conduct a struggle of such great magnitude, it is because of my practice of non-violence. If the Hindus understand their religion and follow it, they are bound to produce an impact on the world. The day, on which India accords primacy to violence, my life will have been emptied of its meaning. 2

Mahatma Gandhi then rose amidst deafening cheers and said that he did not want to detain them longer. After the speech of Maulana Mahomed Ali there was nothing left for him to say. Whatever had fallen from his lips was right, well and good. His path was the path of non-violence, of ahimsa. He would not kill one who considered himself to be his enemy. His brother Maulana Mahomed Ali believed in the contrary faith. But in spite of this difference they were living like the sons of one mother. Wherever they went, whatever side they turned, the three (himself, Maulanas Mahomed Ali and Shaukat Ali) preached only non-violence. If they did not maintain non-violence they were sure to lose their case. In them there was no strength left for taking to the sword. He believed that he would be able to win swaraj, in other words what he called Ramarajya or Dharmarajya, through non-violence alone. He condemned strongly the action of those who take to abusing and coercing, hat looting, etc., and said that if the attainment of swaraj was being delayed it was because they had not learnt well the lesson of non-violence or ahimsa. 3

I adhere to my opinion that where non-co-operators are in a majority, none who has not fully non-co-operated should hold office. The Congress Committee has not rejected the proposal. I do not know that practicing lawyers presented me with any address in Surat. But I would no hesitate to receive one even from them so long as I was free to wean them from the error of their ways. So far as my association with the Ali Brothers is concerned, I consider it a proud privilege. But in South Africa, I had as my associates murderers and thieves, men who had certainly suffered imprisonment for attempts to murder or steal. Only they carried out their compact as to non-violence as honorably as any other satyagrahi. I see no difference between the old Gandhi and the new, except that the new has a clearer conception of Satyagraha and prizes the doctrine of ahimsa more than ever. Nor, I promise The Times of India writer, is there any self-deception in this belief. But time must show who is right. Precedent is on my side. 4 

I know that unlawful use is being made of my name in many places, but this is the most novel method of misusing it. It is generally known that I am a staunch vegetarian and food reformer. But it is not equally generally known that ahimsa extends as much to human beings as to lower animals and that I freely associate with meat-eaters. 5 In spite of my firm faith in absolute ahimsa, i.e., innocence, I could reconcile myself to Kheda recruiting. My ahimsa is a teacher me that I cannot carry the world with me by force of arms. I will not cut off the hands of my children for fear of their hurting others. A man is innocent when he is able to do harm and refrains. India’s soldiers must have arms so long as they believe in violence. I invited, during the recruiting campaign those who believed in violence to join the battle and not to keep away, because they had a grievance against the Government, as they were inclined to do. I was against bargaining with the Government as I am against bargaining at any time. I do not anticipate a time in India or the world when all will be followers of ahimsa. Police there will be even in Satya Yuga. But I do contemplate a time, when in India we shall rely less on brute force and more on soul-force, when the Brahman in man will hold supremacy. 6

In peaceful non-co-operation compulsion is forbidden. One who interferes with people eating what they choose to eat commits a crime before all men. This kind of coercion will do great harm to our cause. I hope, therefore, that no one will, in my name or in the name of ahimsa, cause obstruction to people eating and drinking as they want or will advocate taking away from people their meat and fish. Seizing of animals by force in a fair is forbidden.  7 Who can deny that God is working a wonderful change in the hearts of every one of us? Anyway it is the duty of every Congress worker everywhere to befriend the untouchable brother, and to plead with the un-Hindu Hindus, that Hinduism of the Vedas, the Upanishads, Hinduism of the Bhagavad Gita and of Sankara and Ramanuja contains no warrant for treating a single human being, no matter how fallen, as an untouchable. Let every Congressman plead in the gentlest manner possible with orthodoxy, that the bar sinister is the very negation of ahimsa. 8 

I believe implicitly in the Hindu aphorism, that no one truly knows the Shastras who has not attained perfection in innocence (ahimsa), truth (satya) and self-control (brahmacharya) and who has not renounced all acquisition or possession of wealth. I believe in the institution of gurus, but in this age millions must go without a guru, because it is a rare thing to find a combination of perfect purity and perfect learning. But one need not despair of ever knowing the truth of one’s religion, because the fundamentals of Hinduism as of every great religion are unchangeable, and easily understood. Every Hindu believes in God and his oneness, in rebirth and salvation. But that which distinguishes Hinduism from every other religion is its cow-protection, more than its varnashrama. 9

The way to protect is to die for her. It is a denial of Hinduism in and ahimsa to kill a human being to protect a cow. Hindus are enjoined to protect the cow by their tapasya, by self-purification, by self-sacrifice. The present-day cow-protection has degenerated into a perpetual feud with the Mussulmans, whereas cow-protection means conquering Mussulmans by our love. A Mussulman friend sent me some time ago a book detailing the inhumanities practiced by us on the cow and her progeny How we are bleed her to take the last drop of milk from her, how we starve her to emaciation, how we ill-treat the calves, how we deprive them of their portion of milk, how cruelly we treat the oxen, how we castrate them, how we beat them, how we overload them. If they had speech, they would bear witness to our crimes against them which would stagger the world. By every act of cruelty to our cattle, we disown God and Hinduism. I do not know that the condition of the cattle in any other part of the world is as bad as in unhappy India. We may not blame the Englishman for this.

We may not plead poverty in our defence. Criminal negligence is the only cause of the miserable condition of our cattle. Our pinjrapoles, though they are an answer to our instinct of mercy, are a clumsy demonstration of its execution. Instead of being model dairy farms and great profitable national institutions, they are merely depots for receiving decrepit cattle.  Though it is true that bugs and other insects should not be killed, that is not all that the spirit of compassion means. That is only the first step. During some past age, the belief must have come to prevail that there was no sin in destroying insects to save human life. A sage may have then arisen who must have laid stress on protection of insects and proclaimed: “O fool! Do not destroy insects for preserving the transient body. Pray fervently, rather, that it may perish today rather than tomorrow.” From this sentiment arose ahimsa. But the man, who beats his wife or child, though he shrinks from killing a tiny bug, is not a Jain, nor a Hindu, nor a Vaishnava. He is a cipher. On this sacred day of the Poet’s anniversary, let us give up the narrow meaning of compassion and interpret the word in the broadest sense. It is a sin to hurt the feelings of a single person or to regard