For Global Peace with Social Justice in a Sustainable Environment

Ahimsa and Mahatma Gandhi-III

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

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 him as an enemy. Anyone who wants to see General Dyer hanged, or Sir Michael O’Dwyer burnt alive, is neither a Jain, nor a Vaishnava, nor a Hindu. He is nobody and nothing. The very essence of ahimsa lies in burning our anger and in cleansing the soul. Who am I to judge General Dyer? I know that I am myself full of ill will. How many persons I may be murdering in my mind! What right has I to judge General Dyer? I have, therefore, resolved not to retaliate if anyone attacks me with a sword. This is the path of compassion and the underlying principle of the non-co-operation movement. 10

Not only did I offer my services at the time of the Zulu revolt but before that at the time of the Boer War and not only did I raise recruits in India during the late War, but I raised an ambulance corps in 1914 in London. If therefore I have sinned, the cup of my sins is full to the brim. I lost no occasion of serving the Government at all times. Two questions presented themselves to me during all those crises. What was my duty as a citizen of the empire as I then believed myself to be and what was my duty as an out and out believer in the religion of ahimsa non-violence? The next point that of ahimsa, is more abstruse. My conception of ahimsa impels me always to dissociate myself from almost every one of the activities I am engaged in. My soul refuses to be satisfied so long as it is a helpless witness of a single wrong or a single misery. But it is not possible for me, a weak, frail, miserable being, to mend every wrong or to hold myself free of blame for all the wrong I see. The spirit in me pulls one way, the flesh in me pulls in the opposite direction. There is freedom from the action of these two forces, but that freedom is attainable only by slow and painful stages. I cannot attain freedom by a mechanical refusal to act, but only by intelligent action in a detached manner. This struggle resolves itself into an incessant crucifixion of the flesh so that the spirit may become entirely free. I was again an ordinary citizen no wiser than my fellows, myself believing in ahimsa and the rest not believing in it at all but refusing to do their duty of assisting the Government because they were actuated by anger and malice. They were refusing out of their ignorance and weakness. As a fellow-worker, it became my duty to guide them aright. I therefore placed before them their clear duty, explained the doctrine of ahimsa to them and let them make their choice which they did. I do not repent of my action in terms of ahimsa. For under swaraj too I would not hesitate to advise those who would bear arms to do so and fight for the country. 11

We should not entertain violent thoughts even towards thieves and dacoits. Ahimsa should be our sole mode of conduct. 12 As I proceed in my quest for Truth, it grows upon me that Truth comprehends everything. I often feel that ahimsa is in Truth, not vice versa. What is perceived by a pure heart at a particular moment is Truth to it for that moment. By clinging to it, one can attain pure Truth. And I do not imagine that this will lead us into any moral dilemma. But often enough, it is difficult to decide what ahimsa is. Even the use of disinfectants is himsa. Still we have to live a life of ahimsa in the midst of a world full of himsa, and we can do so only if we cling to Truth. That is why I can derive ahimsa from truth. Out of Truth emerge love and tenderness. A votary of Truth, one who would scrupulously cling to Truth, must be utterly humble. His humility should increase with his observance of Truth. I see the truth of this every moment of my life. I have now a more vivid sense of Truth and of my own littleness than I had a year ago. 13

It may be asked, if we can render greater service in this manner, why not go and live in a jungle. The answer is simple. To go and live in a jungle suggests moha for it implies desire on our part. To a Kshatriya whatever comes unsought is dharma. The peace of jail life which one gets without seeking may do one good. How wonderful is God! I purified myself thoroughly in Bardoli, did not allow any impurity to enter into me in Delhi, but on the contrary, purified myself still further by putting before the people the same thing in a language which would appeal to them, for I showed thereby my tenderness together with my firmness. Even afterwards, through Young India and Navajivan, I carried on self-purification. I wrote an article on ahimsa and another entitled “Death Dance” Thus when the process of self-purification had reached the highest point, I offered myself for arrest, singing the song of Vaishnavajana. If this does not constitute the good, what else can? 14 There is no dharma greater than truth. Ahimsa is the supreme dharma. 15

“Non-violence” Mahatmaji “non-violence” is conceived on a very much higher plane than what I have agreed to adopt owing to the compelling necessity of the case. The doctrine of ahimsa with all its implications and logical deductions has not been and cannot be adopted by the Congress which professes to include men of all religions and creeds in the world within its fold. Islam does not recognize it as an invariable and inflexible rule of life and there are many Hindu castes and sects with which the judicious use of violence is an accepted article of faith. Whilst Mahatmaji would not resort to violence under any circumstances whatever in thought, word or deed, many true Congressmen would, under certain conditions, consider it their highest duty to resort to actual physical violence. In fact, I hold that it would be doing violence to the highest and noblest feelings implanted in man if we ruled out violence in any shape or form under all conceivable circumstances. If I see a bully ill-treating or assaulting a person weaker than himself, I would not merely interpose my body between the assailant and the victim and thus enable him to have two victims instead of one, but try to knock him down and thus save both his victim and myself. Again if I were assaulted, I would defend myself, if necessary, by inflicting violence on my assailant and that violence may under certain circumstances extend even to the causing of the assailants’s death.

I need not give other illustrations of a similar nature which can easily be conceived. As for non-violence in thought, it is obvious that one who is prepared to resort to actual violence on certain occasions cannot be entirely free from the thought of it. By joining the movement of non-violent non-co-operation all I have undertaken to do is, to refrain from inflicting or even contemplating violence of any kind in carrying out the programme of non co-operation against the Government. This is what I take Mahatmaji to mean, when he speaks of “non-violence in its full sense, but restricted as the cause for which it was taken”. If a government official chooses to behave to me like the bully of my illustration in matters wholly unconnected with the Congress programme, he shall receive exactly the same treatment as I would give to the bully. The doctrine of nonviolence has, so far as I am concerned, a limited application for the very special purpose for which I have adopted it. Mahatmaji says entry into the Councils is “tantamount to participation in violence”.

I understand this to refer to the fact that the Councils are established by a Government which is based on violence. I maintain that no one living under such a Government can help participating in violence in that sense. The very act of living and adopting the most essential means of sustaining life under such a government would be “tantamount to participation in violence”. Whether or not going into the Councils is a more direct participation in violence than merely living under a Government based on violence is only a question of degree and depends on the object with which one goes into the Councils. Mahatmaji has been pleased to doubt the accuracy of the statement that “nobody takes the extreme view of non-violence that I do and that most Congressmen confine the definition of non-violence to mere abstention from causing physical hurt to the opponent”. There may be some who take the extreme view in theory, but I do not know a single follower of Mahatmaji who acts upon it. It is true that nonviolence even in the limited sense that I give to it must relate both to word and deed and cannot be confined to abstention from causing physical hurt only. But nonviolence in thought must be ruled out entirely as impracticable. Otherwise, we shall be weaving a cobweb of casuistry around us from which it would be impossible to extricate ourselves. 16

References: