Question Box and Mahatma Gandhi-XXIII

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Senior Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, 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

 

Question Box and Mahatma Gandhi-XXIII

 

Q. We Muslims believe that the Prophet’s life was wholly directed by God and truly non-violent, though not in your sense of the term. He never waged an offensive war, and he had the tenders regard for the feelings of others, but when he was driven to a defensive war he drew his sword for a holy war, and he permits the use of the sword under conditions he has laid down. But your non-violence is different. You prescribe it under all conditions and circumstances. I do not think the Prophet would permit this. Who are we to follow- you or the Prophet? If we follow you, we cease to be Muslims. If we follow the Prophet, we cannot join the Congress with its creed of extreme non-violence. Will you solve this dilemma?

A. I can only answer that, since you notice the difference, you should unhesitatingly follow the Prophet, not me. Only I would like to say that I claim to have studied the life of the Prophet and the Koran as a detached student of religions. And I have come to the conclusion that the teaching of the Karon is essentially in favour of non-violence. Non-violence is better than violence; it is said in the Koran. Nonviolence is enjoined as a duty; violence is permitted as a necessity. I must refuse to sit in judgement on what the Prophet did. I must base my conduct on what the great teachers of the earth said, not on what they did. Prophet Hood came not from the wielding of the sword; it came from years of wrestling with God to know that truth. Erase these precious years of the great life, and you will have robbed the Prophet of his prophet hood. It is these years of his life which made Mohammed a prophet. A prophet’s life, after he is acknowledged as one, cannot be our guide. Only prophets can weigh the works of prophets. If a civilian can judge the merits of a soldier, a layman of a scientist, an ordinary man may judge a prophet, must less imitate him. If I handled a motor-car, I should surely run it and me into the danger zone and probably into the jaws of death. How much more dangerous would it be then for me to imitate a prophet! When the Prophet was asked why, if he could fast more than the prescribed times, the companions also could not, he promptly replied: “God gives me spiritual food which satisfies even the bodily wants: for you He has ordained the Ramadan You may not copy Me.” quote from memory.

Q. I am a teacher. I try to follow the principle of non-violence in dealing with my schoolboys and my own children. I am successful to a great extent in case of the school children, excepting a bully whom I would send to the Head Master. But in case of my own children I often feel like beating, though I successfully restrain myself. I find that these are readily obedient to my uncle who, unlike me, believes in the old saying: ‘Spare the rod, spoil the child. What should I do with my own children? How should a non-violent Head Master deal with a bully?

A. I am quite clear that you must not inflict corporal or other punishment on your children or pupils. You can punish yourself, if you like and are qualified, in order to melt your children’s or pupils’ hearts. Many mothers are known to have corrected their children in this manner. I have on many occasions. I had to deal with wild boys in South Africa, Muslims, Christians, Hindus and Parsis. With one exception, I do not remember ever having punished a single boy. The nonviolent method invariably succeeded. When a bond is established between a teacher and his pupils, the latter will generally yield before their teacher’s suffering for their sake. In the case of your ‘bully’, if he has no respect for you, you can non-co-operate with him by sending him away from your school. Non-violence does not compel you to keep in your school a student who does not carry our disciplinary rules.

Q. You often refer to the Sermon on the Mount. Do you believe in the verse, “if any man will take away the coat, let him have thy cloak also”? Does it not follow from the principle of non-violence? If so, then do you advise the weak and poor tenant of a village to submit gladly to the violent encroachment of the zamindar on his ‘abadi land’ or tenancy rights, which so often occurs in a village these days?

A. Yes, I would unhesitatingly advise tenants to evacuate the land belonging to a tyrant. That would be like giving your cloak also when only the coat is demanded. To take what is required may be profitable; to have more given to you is highly likely to a burden. To overload a stomach is to court slow death. A zamindar wants his rent; he does not want his land. It would be a burden on him when he does not want it. When you give more to a robber than he needs, you spring a surprise on him; you give him a shock although agreeable. He has not been used to it. Historical instances are on record to show that such non-violent conduct has produced a wholesome effect upon evil-doers. These acts cannot be done mechanically; they must come out of conviction and love or pity for the other man. Nor need you work all the apparent implications of my answer. If you do, you will come across blind alleys. Suffice it to say that in the verse quoted by you Jesus put in a picturesque and telling manner the great doctrine of non-violent non-co-operation. Your non-co-operation with your opponent is violent when you give a blow for a blow, and is ineffective in the long run. Your non-co-operation is non-violent when you give your opponent all in the place of just what he needs. You have disarmed him once for all by your apparent co-operation, which in effect is complete non-co-operation. A girl, who rather than give her living body to a would-be ravisher presents him with her corpse, confounds him and dies a heroine’s death. Here is a stout heart in a frail body.

Q. I am a worker in the Rajasthan branch of the A. I. S. A. I believe in prayer but some of my colleagues do not. Still they have got to join in prayer under the rules of the Sanstha. They are afraid that, if they refuse, they would lose their job. My view is that the Sanstha pays wages to its workers for their eight hours’ work. What right has it to insist upon including compulsory participation in prayer by their workers into the bargain?

A. There can be no such thing as compulsory prayer. A prayer to be prayer must be voluntary. But nowadays people entertain curious ideas about compulsion. Thus, if the rules of your institution require every inmate-paid or unpaid-to attend common prayer, in my opinion you are bound to attend it as you are to attend to your other duties. Your joining the institution was a voluntary act. You knew or ought to have known its rules. Therefore your attendance at prayer I would regard as a voluntary act, even as I would treat your other work under the contract. If you joined the institution merely because of the wages it offered, you should have made it clear to the manager that you could not attend prayer. If in spite of your objection you entered the institution without stating your objection, you did a wrong thing for which you should make expiation. This can be done in two ways - by joining the prayer with your heart in it, or by resigning and paying such compensation as may be necessary for the loss caused by your sudden resignation. Everyone joining an institution owes it to obey the rules framed by the management from time to time. When any new rule is found irksome, it is open to the objector to leave the institution in accordance with the provisions made for resignation. But he may not disobey them whilst he is in it.

Reference:

Harijan, 13-7-1940