For Global Peace with Social Justice in a Sustainable Environment

Ahimsa and Mahatma Gandhi- V

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- V

The friend next asked me for a definition of a sanatani Hindu and say: “Could a sanatani Hindu Brahmin inter-dine with a Hindu non-Brahmin although the latter may be a non-vegetarian?” My definition of a sanatani Brahmin is: He who believes in the fundamental principles of Hinduism is a sanatani Hindu. And the fundamental principles of Hinduism are absolute believe in truth (satya) and ahimsa (non-violence). The Upanishads proclaim, the Mahabharata proclaims from the housetop: “Put in one scale all your rajasuyas, all your ashvamedhas and all your merits and put truth in the other scale, the scale in which truth is thrown will outweight everything else.” Therefore use truth as your anvil, non-violence as your hammer and anything that does not stand the test when it is brought to the anvil of truth and hammered with ahimsa, reject as non-Hindu. For a fuller definition of sanatani Hindu I must refer the friends and those who have similar doubts to the pages of Young India. I have said repeatedly that inter-dining and intermarriage have no connection whatsoever with the removal of untouchability, for inter-dining or intermarrying is a matter of choice and should be so too with every human being. It is an indulgence, whereas untouchability is a refusal to serve our fellow beings. And truth and ahimsa demand that no human being may debar himself from serving any other human being, no matter how sinful he may be. 1

Gandhiji: Does this imply that Lalan can ply the spinning-wheel only if he makes no such claim to practise ahimsa to the utmost limit? I have not understood in what way it involves the renunciation of the dharma of ahimsa. It is understandable that unlike a householder, a sadhu should do nothing which would promote his self-interest; but surely he may ply the spinning-wheel for the welfare of others. Let us take one instance. A sadhu may not go out at night. Supposing, however a neighbour’s house is on fire, if a sadhu stays at home and does not help his neighbour with water, it would, I think, amount to violence rather than non-violence. Similarly, if during a famine, those who are stricken by it are given food only after they do some set work; it becomes their dharma to do what is assigned to them. If people are dying of thirst, but no one is ready to dig with spade and hoe, a sadhu has no choice but to set an example by taking up these tools. It is not enough to ask others to dig Even when you do not wish to drink a drop of water, nevertheless, if you get ready with a spade and a hoe and are content only after you have quenched the thirst of others, than can be called ahimsa.

There is not harm if you drink water even if you do not wish to do so after having quenched the thirst of others. In this way, a sadhu may do many things for the welfare of others; it becomes his duty to do so. Similarly, when there is widespread starvation in India today, when the spinning-wheel enables the poor to be fed, when it has become one’s dharma to make every idle person take to spinning, how can a sadhu be permitted not to spin and advice others of do so? Why should people do something that sadhus do not regard as worthwhile? It becomes the dharma of the sadhu, therefore, to sit down with a spinning-wheel and silently work at it. He should not answer if anyone comes to him and seeks his advice; even if he is asked a second time, he should keep silent; finally, he should break his silence and say that besides doing this he has no other advice to give. Hence this alone is the dharma of the sadhu who is attentive and vigilant. There is a risk of the sadhu turning selfish in this work; in that case, his downfall is but proper. Instead of remaining idle and being a burden to society, he will become industrious and work for his livelihood. I accept the state of extreme non-violence. What, however, is the nature of that state? As a matter of fact, today, and sadhus eat and drink like householders, they wear and same kind of clothes, they live in the apasaras that have been built for them by the people; they must therefore take part in public life. They must participate in that work which is the greatest public service today.

Munishri: It would then be an apaddharma.

Gandhiji: No, it is not that, but the dharma of the age. Today, the dharma of our times is to spin and so long as the sadhu is dependent on society for his daily needs, he must spread the dharma of the age by practising it. Today, you eat the rice grown and cooked by the people, and wear the clothes produced by them. It is a different matter, however, if he eats left-overs lying around, does not care to cover him, and lives in some unapproachable and unseen cave away from society. He is then free not to observe the dharma of the age. Otherwise, I would say the very same thing today even to the sannyasi who lives and moves in society. In Travancore, I have told the sannyasi who is the guru of the Thiyas not to accept anyone as a disciple unless he comes to him dressed in khadi, so that it would also put an end to overcrowding there. I would ask this of you also. It is possible that this would encourage hypocrisy; but then were there no hypocrites surrounding Shri Rajchandra? It is not we who are harmed by such hypocrisy but the hypocrites themselves.

Munishri: I have not gone into this matter in such detail. I shall discuss it with you after doing so I do. 2

Believe that I have a modicum of ahimsa. What I am saying proceeds from love, it is one hundred per cent gold. No one should lose self-control while speaking to him. Those who raised their hands in my favour are under a double obligation to tolerate even this friend. I have said all this to restrain your anger, and also to win over a little to my side those who oppose me. But, how can I expect to succeed in this in one evening? All I shall say is, we shall not secure swaraj till we have made our hearts like the pure ocean. 3 I shall, however, tell you something about ahimsa in order to strengthen your faith in it. A student at Dacca told me that he would more willingly face the gallows than ply the wheel which afforded no excitement. I have no doubt that he believed neither in ahimsa nor brahmacharya For the wheel is an emblem of peace and ahimsa, and I have pinned my faith to it, because ahimsa is not a policy with me, but a creed, a religion. Why do I regard it as such? Because I know that it is not himsa or destructive energy that sustains the world, it is ahimsa, the creative energy. I do admit that the destructive energy is there, but it is evanescent, always futile before the creative which is permanent. If the destructive one had the upper hand, all the sacred ties—love between parents and child, brother and sister, master and disciple, rulers and the ruled, would be snapped. Ahimsa is like the sun whose worship, as the symbol of God, our rishis immortalized in the Gayatri. As the sun “keeps watch over man’s mortality”, going his eternal rounds and dispelling darkness and sin and gloom, even so does ahimsa. Ahimsa inspires you with love than which you cannot think of a better excitement. And that is why my faith in the wheel, which is a symbol of peace and love, is increasing as I grow older. And that is why I do not think I am committing an impropriety in spinning whilst I am talking to you. As I am turning the wheel, I am saying to myself: “Why does God give me my daily bread, whilst He starves multitudes of men? Let Him starve me also, or enable me to do something to remove their starvation.” And as I turn it, I am practising ahimsa and truth which are the obverse and reverse of the same coin. Ahimsa is my God, and Truth is my God. When I look for Ahimsa, Truth says, ‘Find it out through me.’ When I look for Truth, Ahimsa says, ‘Find it out through me.’ So the rhapsody easily became one on charkha and ahimsa instead of that on ahimsa alone. 4

They are all under the vow of ahimsa, and as ahimsa is love, I can show them where they can concentrate all their energies with love as their weapon. Let them plead with the men who corrupt themselves and these women, let them open these men’s eyes to the bestial, diabolical character of their offence, and wean them from their evil ways. Let them form a Ladies Volunteers League for the reclamation of fallen women and work through them. You have said in your address that Madaripur has been marked out by Government as the chief among revolutionary centres. Well, nothing short of a revolution is needed amongst the women of India to fight this evil and may Madaripur lay the foundation of that revolution. 5

When I drew up the rules for the guidance of the Ashram at Sabarmati, I circulated copies among friends for advice and criticism. One was sent to the late Sir Gurudas Banerjee. In acknowledging his copy he advised me to add humility to the vows mentioned in the rules. In his letter he said that young workers lacked humility. I told the late Sir Gurudas that whilst I valued his advice and fully recognized the necessity of humility, the mention of it as a vow would derogate from its dignity. It must be taken for granted that those who cultivate truth, ahimsa, brahmacharya, must be humble. Truth without humility would be an arrogant caricature. He who wants to practise truth knows how hard it is. The world may applaud his so-called triumphs. Little does the world know his falls. A truthful man is a chastened being. He has needed to be humble. A man who wants to love the whole world including one who calls himself his enemy knows how impossible it is to do so in his own strength. He must be as mere dust before he can understand the elements of ahimsa. He is nothing if he does not daily grow in humility as he grows in love. A man who would have his eye single, who would regard every woman as his blood sister or mother, has to be less than dust. He stands on the brink of a precipice. The slightest turn of the head brings him down. He dare not whisper his virtue to his very own for he knows not what the next moment has in store for him. For him “pride goeth before destruction and haughtiness before a fall.” Well has the Gita said, “Passions subside in a fasting man, not the desire for them. The desire goes only when man sees God face to face.” And no one can see God face to face who has aught of him. He must become a cipher if he would see God. Who shall dare say in this storm-tossed universe, ‘I have won’? God triumphs in us, never we.

The cultivation of these higher virtues is its own reward. He who cashes anyone of them loses his soul. Virtues are not to trade with. My truth, my ahimsa, my brahmacharya are matters between myself and my Maker. They are not articles of trade. Any young man who dares to trade with them will do so at his peril. The world has no standard, no means, wherewith to judge these things. They defy scrutiny and analysis. Let us workers, therefore, cultivate them for our own purification. Let the world be asked to judge us only by our work. An institution or an Ashram that claims public support must have a material object, e.g., a hospital, a school, spinning and khaddar propaganda. The public have the right to know the worth of these activities and if they approve of them, they may support them. The conditions are obvious. There must be honesty and ability about the managers. An honest man who knows nothing of pedagogy has no claim to public support as a teacher. These public institutions must keep proper and audited accounts which should be subject to inspection by the public. These are the tests which conductors have to satisfy. Their private character must not obtrude itself upon public attention for admiration and patronage. 6

The young men who have gathered together to do honour to the memory of that great patriot should remember this one lesson from his life that, even at his time of day, he has lost nothing for having been courteous. On the contrary, we are enabled to treasure his memory because he never lost sight of the fact that a man, who has to deal with opponents, and who has to wring freedom from unwilling hands, has still need to be gentle and courteous. May I translate it in my own language and say that fearlessness is only true when combined with it is non-violence. I have summed up all these gentle virtues in that one word which we have inherited from the rishis of old. If it be true that our religion, Hinduism, is saturated with ahimsa, then, in every walk of life, it is the one thing that we must exhibit most prominently. 7

A man who owns land which is haunted by wild beasts will be able to excuse himself for shooting them. It would be classed as inevitable himsa. It will be justified on the ground of necessity, but there is no doubt that, if one has a full perception of ahimsa, it would be well for him to let his land be overrun by wild beasts or be himself killed by them. Ahimsa is not a mechanical matter, it is personal to everyone. Moreover, possession of property against the whole world is inconsistent with ahimsa. A man who will follow the principle of non-violence to its uttermost limit has nothing in this world he can call his own. He must merge himself into the whole, which includes snakes, scorpions, tigers, wolves, etc. There are instances on record of innocent men whose innocence even wild beasts have recognized. We must all strive to reach that stage. The same remark applies to your second question. It is himsa to kill the germs and the insects, but even as we commit himsa by taking vegetable food (for vegetables have life) but regard it as inevitable, so must we treat the germ life. You will recognize that the doctrine of necessity can be stretched so as to justify even man-eating. A man who believes in ahimsa carefully refrains from every act that leads to injury. [My] argument only applies to those who believe in ahimsa. The necessity that I have in mind is a universal necessity, hence it is not permissible to take ahimsa beyond a limit. That is why the Shastras of custom only permit himsa in certain cases. It is not only lawful but obligatory upon everyone to make the least use possible of the permission and relaxation. It is unlawful to go beyond the limitation. 8

People keep asking me which acts may be termed violent and which non-violent and, what is one’s duty at a particular time. While some of these queries reveral the ignorance of the inquirers, others serve to bring out the difficult dilemmas involved. A Punjabi gentleman has put a question the answer to which is worth giving here. It is as follows: What should be done when tigers, wolves and other wild beasts come and carry away other animals or human beings? Or, what should be done about germs in water? In my humble opinion the simple answer is that where there is danger from tigers, wolves and so on, and then killing them becomes inevitable. The germs that water contains must also be inevitably destroyed. Violence which is inevitable does not therefore cease to be so and become non-violence. It has to be recognized as violence. I have no doubt that it would be best if we could contrive to survive without destroying tigers, wolves, etc. However, who could do so? Only he who is not afraid of these animals and can regard them as friends, he alone could do so.

Anyone who refrains from violence because he is afraid is nevertheless guilty of violence. The mouse is not nonviolent towards the cat. At heart, he always has a feeling of violence towards the cat. He cannot kill the latter because he is weak. He alone has the power to practise the dharma of ahimsa that although fully capable of inflicting violence does not inflict it. He alone practises the ahimsa dharma who voluntarily and with love refrains from inflicting violence on anyone. Non-violence implies love, compassion, forgiveness. The Shastras describe these as the virtues of the brave. This courage is not physical but mental. There have been instances of physically frail men having indulged in grave acts of violence with the help of others. There have also been cases where those as physically strong as Yudhishthira have granted pardon to such persons as king Virata. Hence, so long as one has not developed inner strength, one can never practise the dharma of ahimsa. The non-violence practised by the Banias today does not deserve the name; one finds in it cruelty sometime and ignorance all the time. It was because I know this weakness of ours that during the War I went all out to recruit soldiers in Kheda And, it was for this very reason that I said at that time that perhaps the most brutal act of the British Government was to have disarmed and thus emasculated the Indian people. I hold the same view even today. If anyone afraid at heart cannot, while remaining unarmed, rid himself of that fear, he should certainly arm himself with a stick or an even more deadly weapon. Ahimsa is a great vow; it is more difficult than walking on the edge of a sword. Complete adherence to it is almost impossible for one who has a physical form. Severe penance is required for its practice. Penance should be taken to mean renunciation and knowledge. Anyone who desires to possess land cannot practise ahimsa. A peasant necessarily has to protect his land. He must guard it against tigers and wolves. A peasant, who is not prepared to punish these animals or thieves, etc., should always be prepared to abandon his field. In order to be able to practise the dharma of ahimsa, man must abide by the limits laid down by the Shastras and custom. The Shastras do not enjoin violence.

But they permit certain acts of violence by regarding them as unavoidable at particular times. For instance, it is believed that the Manusmriti permits the slaughter of certain animals. Such slaughter has not been ordained. Thereafter, with progress in thinking, it was decided that this would not be permitted in the Kaliyuga. Hence it is customary today to regard certain forms of violence as pardonable, while some of the forms of violence allowed by Manusmriti are forbidden. It is obviously wrong to argue that we can go beyond the concessions allowed by the Shastras. There is dharma in self-control and, adharma in indulgence. Anyone who does not make use of the latitude given by the Shastras deserves to be congratulated. Ahimsa knows no limits because there are none to self-control. The latter has been welcomed by all the scriptures of the world, while opinions differ widely regarding indulgence. A right angle is the same everywhere, while there is no end to the number of other angles. Non-violence and truth together form, as it were, the right angle of all religions. Conduct which does not fit into that angle should undoubtedly be given up. Imperfect conduct may, perhaps, be permitted. Anyone who practises the dharma of ahimsa should increase his inner strength by being always on the alert and progressively restricting the latitude that he has allowed for himself. There is certainly nothing religious about indulgence. Renouncing through knowledge the worldly life this is the attainment of moksha . Such absolute renunciation is not to be found even on the peaks of the Himalayas. The true cave is the one in the heart. Man can hide himself within it and thus protected can remain untouched by the world even though living and moving freely in it, taking part in those activities which cannot be avoided. 9

References: