For Global Peace with Social Justice in a Sustainable Environment

Disarmament and Mahatma Gandhi

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- dr.yadav.yogendra@gandhifoundation.net;

dr.yogendragandhi@gmail.com

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

Disarmament and Mahatma Gandhi

British rule has certainly emasculated us. Disarmament has reduced our fighting power, and the policy of ‘divide and rule’ certainly succeeded for a time in keeping Hindus and Muslims apart. Common misfortunes have however made us brothers in distress. We need not fear foreign invasion, if we refuse to be foreign cloth and exchange with foreign nations only such produce or manufacture as we choose. South Africa has a poor standing army and no navy. It is true that every Boer is a fighter. But it is not the fighting quality that has made South African whites one nation. It is consciousness of oneness and ability to die for their country that has made them a nation. The consciousness of oneness is with us an ever-growing quality and with it must come the strength to die. This does not require training either in English schools or in Council halls, and, as I feel that India is realizing her unity with an undreamt of velocity, I believe there is every probability of evolving sufficient consciousness of unity and strength to make our demand for immediate swaraj irresistible. Let us not fear the bugbear of anarchy. In spite of a Pathan occasionally running amuck in a Bombay Street and a Mahant turning Satan in Nankana Saheb, we are essentially good and inoffensive by nature. And when the Sikhs, the Gurkhas, the Rajputs and the Pathans feel as one nation, we have, if we want it, fighting material enough to give battle to any number of bandits who may wish to despoil us without any cause sedulously instilled into us by our rules that makes my soul rise years. It in this belief of ours in our helplessness which makes the clock of progress goes to slow. It is strange that we are in bondage. It would be natural for us to feel free today. 1

As I said three years ago, this forcible disarmament of a people will be regarded by history as one of the blackest sins committed by the British Government against India. If people want to possess arms, they ought to have them without ado. But, in the case of the Sikhs, who have held kirpans without let or hindrance all these years, the crime is worse. The Secretary has no difficulty in proving that this war against the kirpan has synchronized with repressive measures adopted against this brave community. The reason too is obvious. The Sikhs have attained political consciousness. They are not content merely to kill at the bidding of their officers. They want to weigh the pros and cons of a cause in which they are called upon to fight. Above all, they want to know where they ‘come in’. They want to become equal partners. This is intolerable, and they must be put down. The bravest among them have, as the Government imagine, been silenced. I can only hope that, rather than surrender their sacred weapon, the Sikhs will court imprisonment. We cannot learn discipline by compulsion. We must learn not to use arms or to use them with responsibility and self-restraint, notwithstanding the right to possess them. 2

Let the revolutionary friend know that I have described the disarmament and consequent emasculation of a whole people as the blackest crime of the British. I have not the capacity for preaching universal nonviolence to the country. I preach, therefore, non-violence restricted strictly to the purpose of winning our freedom and, therefore, perhaps for preaching the regulation of international relations by non-violent means. But my incapacity must not be mistaken for that of doctrine of the non-violence. I see it with my intellect in all its effulgence. My heart grasps it. But I have not yet the attainments for preaching universal non-violence with effect. I am not advanced enough for the great task. I have yet anger within me, I have yet the dwaita bhava duality in me. I can regulate my passions. I keep them under subjection, but before I can preach universal non-violence with effect, I must be wholly free from passions. I must be wholly incapable of sin. Let the revolutionary pray with and for me that I may soon become that. But, meanwhile, let him take with me the one step to it which I see as clearly as day-light, i.e., to win India’s freedom with strictly non-violent means. And, then, under swaraj, you and I shall have a disciplined, intelligent, educated police force that would keep order within and fight raiders from without if, by that time, I or someone else does not show a better way of ealing with either. 3

It would be found that, before general disarmament in Europe commences, as it must someday unless Europe is to commit suicide, some nation will have to dare to disarm her and take large risks. The level of non-violence in that nation, if that event happily comes to pass, will naturally have risen so high as to command universal respect. Her judgments will be unerring, her decisions will be firm, her capacity for heroic self-sacrifice will be great, and she will want to live as much for other nations as for herself. I may not push this delicate subject any further. I know that I am writing in a theoretical way upon a practical question without knowing all its bearings. 4

Spiritually, compulsory disarmament has made us unmanly and the presence of an alien army of occupation, employed with deadly effect to crush in us the spirit of resistance, has made us think that we cannot look after ourselves or put up a defence against foreign aggression, or even defend our homes and families from the attacks of thieves, robbers and miscreants. 5 It has reduced us politically to serfdom. It has sapped the foundations of our culture. And, by the policy of cruel disarmament, it has degraded us spiritually. Lacking the inward strength, we have been reduced, by all but universal disarmament, to a state bordering on cowardly helplessness. 6 We have disarmament in India not voluntary, but superimposed. The Hindus and Muslims are living more in peace in what is called Princes’ India than in British India. There have certainly been a few riots, but my claim is that British arms are not strong enough to prevent these. If British army’s were removed, it would not mean “suicide” for India, as is sometimes stated. To take charge of our defence does not mean that we should do away with every British soldier and officer, if British soldiers or officers would be good enough to serve us. 7

I have placed two infallible tests: Is it or is it not a fact that India today is the poorest country in the world, having millions of people remaining idle for six months of the year? Is it or is it not a fact that India has been rendered emasculated not merely through compulsory disarmament, but also through being denied so many opportunities that members of a free nation are always entitled to? 8 I do not think it to be a dangerous ideal to sacrifice your own life and these precious lives will be sacrificed by a nation that is living in compulsory disarmament. I am afraid that our friend has not perhaps listened as carefully as I would have expected, or to speak chivalrously, I was not capable of making my meaning quite clear. India today is wedded to non-violence and therefore there is no question of taking someone else’s life. We do not consider our lives so cheap as to be given away for nothing, but we do not consider our lives to be dearer then liberty itself, and therefore, if we had to sacrifice a million lives, we would do so tomorrow, and God above would say nothing but ‘Well done my children’. We are trying to gain our liberty; you, on the other hand, have been an imperialistic-minded race. You have been in the habit of committing frightfulness and as the late General Dyer put it in answer to a question in Court: “Yes, I did this frightfulness deliberately.” I am here to say that General Dyer was not the only one capable of resorting to this frightfulness. You don’t want me to multiply these illustrations from your own history; therefore, I do not think anyone in this Hall would criticize us if we sacrificed ourselves in this attempt to gain our liberty. It is up to you, those who are trustees of the honour of the British nation, to prevent this disaster if you can. My purpose in making these contacts is to put before you the elementary position and say: ‘This is India’s right’. 9

As you are devoted to seeking avenues for peace, you should have no difficulty in recognizing the claim of the Congress. The history of the past fifteen months before the Delhi Pact tells you that these masses were at war with Government, but it was a peaceful war for the simple reason that the masses had taken the pledge to win freedom without shedding a drop of blood. In this struggle, thousands upon thousands of women and children received lathi blows. Tens of thousands were sent to jail. Women of India rose as if by magic. There was a phenomenal awakening on their part. Thousands of villages responded to the Congress message. I myself do not know why and how I was not prepared for such a splendid response to me. There must have been the hand of God behind. These villages and villagers were all unarmed, because remember, there is compulsory disarmament in my country. 10 In the first place, from this neutral ground of yours I am speaking to all powers and not only to Switzerland. If you want to carry this message to other parts of Europe, I shall be absolved from all blame and seeing that Switzerland is neutral territory and nonaggressive, Switzerland does not need this army. Secondly, it is through your hospitality and by reason of your occupying this vantage ground. Is it not better for you to give the world a lesson in disarmament and show that you are brave enough to do without an army? 11

Non-violence is not mere disarmament. Nor is it the weapon of the weak and the important. A child who has not the strength to wield the lathi does not practise not-violence. More powerful than all the armaments, non-violence is a unique force that has come into the world. He who has not learnt to feel it to be a weapon infinitely more potent than brute force has not understood its true nature. This non-violence cannot be “taught” through word of mouth. But it can be kindled in our heart through the grace of God, in answer to earnest prayer. It is stated that today there are one lakh of Khudai Khidmatgars who have adopted non-violence as their creed. But before them as early as 1920, Khan Saheb came to recognize in non-violence a weapon, the mightiest in the world, and his choice was made. Eighteen years of practice of non-violence have only strengthened his faith in it. He has seen how it has made his people fearless and strong. The prospect of losing a paltry job used to unnerve them. They feel different beings today. At three score and ten, my faith in non-violence today burns brighter than ever. People say to me, “Your programme of non-violence has been before the country now nearly for two decades, but where is the promised independence?” My reply is that although the creed of non-violence was professed by millions, it was practised by but a few and that, too, merely as a policy. But with all that the result that has been achieved is sufficiently striking to encourage me to carry on the experiment with the Khudai Khidmatgars and God willing it will succeed. 12

If you like, I am thinking over your suggestion. Should I again allow myself to become the laughing-stock, as has some-times been the case? Should I, but why not? Laughter is wholesome. Perhaps it may be a good thing. So take this as coming from me: I see from today’s papers that the British Prime Minister is conferring with Democratic Powers as to how they should meet the latest threatening developments. How I wish he was conferring by proposing to them that all should resort to simultaneous disarmament. I am as certain of it as I am sitting here, that this heroic act would open Herr Hitler’s eyes and disarm him. 13 As I have stated before I have not departed a little from my original position which was taken, as I then said, because I was an out-and-out believer in non-violence. In offering my sympathy (I did not use the word ‘support’) I had the same end in view that the Congress has. I put my position before the Working Committee. It could not honestly adopt it. Desiring independence, it could not take up any other attitude. The Congress position was as good from its own, as mine from my premises. The Congress had a perfect right to know British intentions, if the British Government desired its help in the prosecution of the war. As a subject nation, India, if she was resolved upon securing her liberty, could not be expected willingly to help the dominant nation without knowing where she stood.

If India was violently inclined and had the strength, she would be bound to take advantage of Britain’s difficulty and declare her independence and defend it with arms if she was resisted. And she would have commanded the admiration of the world including Britain for seizing the opportunity. But the Congress has chosen the better way the way of non-violence, however diluted it is. I own too that India is not ready for armed revolt. But this is not matter of credit either for Britain or for India. India is too weak for armed revolt. Britain’s connection has made her weaker. Her disarmament is a black chapter in British history. God has blessed me with the mission to place non-violence before the nation for adoption. For better or for worse the Congress has adopted it and, for the past nineteen years the Congress, admittedly the most popular and powerful organization, has consistently and to the best of its ability tried to act up to it. Hence the sting of forced disarmament has not been felt as it would have been otherwise. It is futile to guess what it would have done if it had not accepted non-violence as its chief means for the attainment of swaraj. The Congress has allowed itself to be judged from the non-violent standpoint. It is possible to question the propriety of the Congress attitude only from that standpoint. Judged according to the ordinary standard, the Congress stands fully justified in the attitude it has taken. 14

Have we got the power? Is India at ease without having up-to date arms? Does not India feel helpless without the ability to defend her against aggression? Do even Congressmen feel secure? Or do they not feel that for some years to come at any rate India will have to be helped by Britain or some other Power? If such is our unfortunate plight, how can we hope to make an effective contribution towards an honourable peace after the war or universal disarmament? We must first demonstrate the efficacy of non-violence of the strong in our own country before we can expect to influence the tremendously armed Powers of the West. 15 Disarmament of India though compulsory in origin, if it is voluntarily adopted by the nation as a virtue and if India makes a declaration that she will not defend herself with arms, can materially influence the European situation. Those, therefore, who wish to see India realize her destiny through non-violence, should devote every ounce of their energy towards the fulfillment of the constructive programme in right earnest without any thought of civil disobedience. 16

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the previous resolutions the A. I. C. C. affirms afresh its firm faith in the policy and practice of non-violence. It believes in the principle not only in the struggle for swaraj but also, in so far as this may be possible of application, in free India. The A. I. C. C. is convinced that world events demonstrate that complete world disarmament is necessary, and the establishment of a new political and economic order, wherein free nations co-operate with each other; if the world is not to revert to barbarism. A free India will therefore throw all its weight in favour of world disarmament and should she be prepared to give a lead in this to the world. Such lead will inevitably depend on external factors and internal conditions. But the State must do its utmost to give effect to this policy of disarmament. 17 It will now be seen that the fact that India is unarmed is no obstacle in the path of ahimsa. The forcible disarmament of India by the British Government was indeed a grave wrong and a cruel injustice. But we can turn even injustice to our advantage if God be with us, or if you prefer, we have the skill to do so. And such a thing has happened in India. Arms are surely unnecessary for training in ahimsa. In fact the arms, if any, have to be thrown away, as the Khan Saheb did in the Frontier Province. Those who hold that it is essential to learn violence before we can learn non-violence would hold that only sinners can be saints. 18

In view of certain misapprehensions that have arisen in regard to the Congress policy of non-violence, the A.I.C.C. desires to state this afresh and to make it clear that this policy continues, notwithstanding anything contained in previous resolutions which may have led to these misapprehensions. This Committee firmly believes in the policy and practice of non-violence not only in the struggle for swaraj but also in so far as this may be possible of application in free India. The Committee is convinced, and recent world events have demonstrated, that complete world disarmament is necessary, and the establishment of a new and juster political and economic order, if the world is not to destroy itself and revert to barbarism. A free India will, therefore, throw all her weight in favour of world disarmament and should she be prepared to give a lead in this to the world. Such lead will inevitably depend on external factors and internal conditions, but the State would do its utmost to give effect to this policy of disarmament. Effective disarmament and the establishment of world peace by the ending of national wars, depend ultimately on the removal of the causes of wars and national conflicts. These causes must be rooted out by the ending of the domination of one country over another and the exploitation of one people or group by another. To that end India will peacefully labour, and it is with this objective in view that the people of India desire to attain the status of a free and independent nation. Such freedom will be the prelude to the close association with other countries within a comity of free nations for the peace and progress of the world. Not in the slightest, for the simple reason that America does not believe with the Indian National Congress in non-violent action. I wish it did. Then America’s contribution to peace and help to Britain would be infinitely more substantial than any number of planes and any amount of material that America can supply to Britain. And if the weekly correspondence I receive from America and visits from Americans who come to see me is any index to American opinion, I expect America to take a leaf out of the Congress book and outrun the Congress in the race for the establishment of peace on earth through universal disarmament. 19

Disarmament is only possible if you use the matchless weapon of non-violence. There are people who may call me a visionary but I tell you I am a real bania and my business is to obtain swaraj. Speaking to you as a practical bania, I say; if you are prepared to pay the full price [of nonviolent conduct], pass this resolution, otherwise, do not pass it. If you do not accept this resolution I won’t be sorry for it, on the contrary I would dance with joy because you would then relieve me of the tremendous responsibility which you are now going to place on me. I want you to adopt non-violence as a matter of policy. With me it is a creed, but so far as you are concerned I want you to accept it as policy. As disciplined soldiers you must accept it in toto and stick to it when you join the struggle. 20

References: