For Global Peace with Social Justice in a Sustainable Environment

Ahimsa and Mahatma Gandhi- XVII

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- XVII

The very existence of body stands in the way of total ahimsa. And without complete ahimsa one is unable to see Truth. But one who has rid himself of passions comes very near to Truth. We should be content with this. 1 An indefinite fast may be the highest expression of ahimsa and it may even be folly. I believe that my fast was the former. The outcome also seems to indicate that it was so. Fasting has a place, and an important one, in the tapascharya enjoined in Hindu dharma. Thus there is a difference between Arjuna’s case and [mine].2 I don’t wish to suggest by this that I have more knowledge than Arjuna. I only wish to point out that in this instance it was not a question of ignorance in me. Is this clear? 2 Decide upon the central core of the Gita. Then put into practice that interpretation of each verse which applies to one’s life. This would be the best commentary on the Gita, and the truest study of it. There can be no doubt that non-attachment is the central core of the Gita. I am certain that there is no other inspiration behind the composition of the Gita. And I know from my own experience that observance of truth or even ahimsa is impossible without nonattachment. Undoubtedly non-attachment is difficult of attainment. But what is so strange about it? For the realization of Satyanarayana some effort is necessarily called for and this realization without nonattachment. 3

A serious obstacle in the way of those treading the path of truth is the difficulty of deciding what to accept as Shastras. What is a man of simple faith to do when he comes across a plethora of books written in Sanskrit and passing for Smritis and also utterances that contradict them? For this reason I have chosen for myself the most universal doctrine of Hinduism, namely, that any conduct that is contrary to truth and ahimsa is to be eschewed and any book that violates these principles is not a Shastra. 4 My fast ought not to disturb you. It is part of discipline. It is a privilege earned by hard spiritual toil. It is a most powerful weapon in the armory of a worshipper of truth and ahimsa. It has therefore to be used sparingly. Not everyone can use it. You should therefore rejoice that I can use it. This assumes that with me it is spiritually used. If I am self-deceived, Heaven help me and all you who have faith in me. But if you grant its spirituality in my case, then coercing fast of mine should be a thrill of joy and a source of strength for you. It must move all those who have love for me but that movement should mean a spur to greater performance of duty. I know you can have no difficulty in grasping what I have written. You shall no longer therefore grumble when you learn about my fast in future. Who knows when the next fast will come! 5

Only then shall we be able to follow truth and ahimsa and observe brahmacharya. Try and overcome this deficiency in you. Do not answer me, nor think in your mind, do that A, B and C in the Ashram spend more than you do. The path of dharma is for him who chooses to follow it. 6 Our efforts will be rewarded with success only if we continue the experiment as long as we do not see any error in it. The path is like the flame of the sacrificial fire and, therefore, we should offer ourselves and our children as oblation in it with a smiling face. Unless we act thus in all spheres of our activities, we shall not get a vision of perfect truth, ahimsa or brahmacharya, or we shall arrive at the conclusion that one or both of those principles are wrong. There are a good many schools of thought which regard ahimsa as a wrong ideal, and we see before our very eyes how the numbers of those who look upon brahmacharya as a sin keep growing. If, despite that, we wish to demonstrate that the ideal of brahmacharya is the right one and that those who oppose it are mistaken, we shall have to learn to sacrifice a boy like and a girl like. We cannot sacrifice the children of others. We should give that privilege to our own children. But you say that our children, too, can be regarded to have passed the test only if they remain above the waves when they are thrown into the sea of life outside. I agree with you, and that is why we have made the Ashram an arm of that sea. If we do not sink in it, we can hope to be able to swim even in the great ocean of life. 7

You will sympathize with my reasoning, even if you may not agree with it, when you realize that ahimsa is a fundamental creed with me and enforceable under every conceivable circumstance. That I may fail miserably in reducing my creed to practice on all occasions does not detract from the creed, and is irrelevant to the discussion; and my non-violence would not permit me to do violence to the feelings of a single devotee who has been accustomed to visit a particular temple. I would also ask you to remember that, whatever may be said to the contrary, for me the whole of this campaign against untouchability is a purely religious campaign. It is a movement of a big reform in Hinduism which, as I have said so repeatedly, must die if untouchability as we know it today is not eradicated. I must also confess that I have a profound reverence for the Hindu Shastras as I have conceived them; but I cannot impose my conception upon others by force. I must let it work its way in the midst of competing interpretations and conceptions. Therefore wherever possible, my attitude would be to make provision for all other conceptions and interpretations. 8

You may derive what consolation you can from the fact that has harassed me more than he has done you. And he has crossed all bounds in his behaviour to me this time. All the same, we should go on doing our duty by him. I may even have made a mistake in permitting him to join the Ashram. I also doubt whether he really suffers from tuberculosis. However, I never regret such mistakes. Anybody who tries to follow ahimsa is bound to commit them. How can we judge a man’s worth? 9 Be firm in talking with Ramji also. Discuss his problem with all the others, and call him when you do so. We should act towards him in the same way as you would towards me or I towards you in similar circumstances. The path of ahimsa is like a razor’s edge. Everybody in the Ashram should realize that the institution does not exist for him or her, but that it exists in order to train all the inmates for service, to teach them to offer themselves as sacrifice in the yajna of self-purification. There can be no room in it for selfish objectives. 10

In Christian parlance, does He not bear easily the humanly intolerable burden of the world’s sins? This contradiction is unnecessary for our purpose, but I thought I would draw your attention to what I think is a clear slip. My fast was certainly right so long as I hold the belief truthfully that it was prompted by God. But even under God’s shelter I cannot claim immunity from a fast which may be designed to compass unknowingly an immoral thing. Therefore, the motive behind must be right, the end in front must be equally right, and the act itself propelled by the motive should also be right. Hence in this chain the intermediate act, if it is violent, would vitiate both the motive and the end. Hence the necessity for unadultered ahimsa non-violence in thought, word and deed. And since the Gita says “Man can really only control his acts”, if they are right he may safely leave the rest to God, and whether he willingly and wittingly does so or not, God alone controls the rest. 11

Tell Parasaram firmly what your decision is. I am writing to him. If he wants to leave despite your being straightforward in dealing with him, let him do so. If he wishes to stay in spite of it, no objection need be made. There is no room for charity in the sphere of dharma. It would be easy to acquiesce in it if we transgress the proper limit of ahimsa. But it becomes difficult to do so when in the name of ahimsa one shows undeserved compassion and is thereby guilty of a subtle form of violence. Just as we do not indulge an invalid’s fancies so also we need not indulge the fancies of a person who violates the rules. This is the way to put an end to Parasaram noisy complaints. 12

When we perform natural functions involving uncleanness or have unclean diseases, we are untouchable till we have become clean. The extent of untouchability and the methods of becoming clean no doubt varied among the nations, but the practice of such untouchability, be its extent ever so small, is common to all, including the so-called savage nations. It is a sound hygienic rule when it is intelligently observed. But it was reserved to modern Hinduism to brand a person as untouchable by birth and call him an offspring of sin. It is a most tragic spectacle that a religion which boasts that ahimsa is the highest thing in life should carry vindictiveness into the other world. It is against this insane untouchability that I have invited all Hindus who are proud of their faith and jealous of its purity to wage relentless war. 13 You need not worry over the poor comprehension that your girls have shown of ahimsa. I do not wonder. There is no response to ahimsa from the atmosphere. They have never been taught to attach the slightest value to it, and probably they have been taught to despise it. You cannot expect them all of a sudden to understand the value of ahimsa in an atmosphere so hostile as yours. 14

I have just read your article about ahimsa. Your ideas are good as far as they go. But the article is not worth printing. You should go still deeper into the subject. Ahimsa does not seem to me to be a simple thing to write about. Instead of trying to write an article about it, it would be better to describe the thoughts which arise and the difficulties which are experienced while putting the principle into practice. Your statement that as an ethical principle ahimsa is universally accepted is also not true, though to a certain extent it is so accepted. Many people regard it as dharma to kill deadly animals or creatures. Others regard the killing of sinful men as dharma. 15 The Jains have always regarded ahimsa as their exclusive virtue but its real form has been completely hidden. Kindness towards living beings other than human beings has always assumed an acute form and the Jains do not hesitate to enforce that even by compulsion. If ahimsa in its pure form were alive among the Jains, there would have been no trace of untouchability in their midst, every Jain would be an embodiment of love and thousands of men and women social workers would have come forth from amongst them. 16

The problem you have raised is not new, and because we are surrounded by death and destruction on all sides we have the positive word “himsa”, and yet every religion that is known to mankind insists upon life as the law, but conduct prescribed has been designated by a negative word, that is, “ahimsa” or nonviolence. That can only exist for a bodied life as an ideal to be reached, not to be realized in action in physical existence. Nevertheless if we recognize the law of ahimsa we would always shape our conduct so as to approach it as near as possible and therefore we would resort to as little violence as it is humanly possible, whereas if himsa was the law of our being, we would naturally do as much destruction as we could and rejoice in it. But we do not find many people rejoicing in doing violence, whereas we do find many people apologizing for what violence they did. To say that there is double law working, namely, violence and non-violence would be to argue that two contrary laws can co-exist. 17 Take ahimsa One person will be satisfied with its mere observance with the non-killing of man and beast. Another will extend it to the insect life, yet others to the vegetable and so on. We do not consider it an unpardonable crime to kill a snake or a scorpion. Take non-possession. Even you and I have no common line. I may possess a fountain pen, you may discard it. I may possess ten yards of khadi, you may have twenty. There is no such thing as full and equal observance of these other vows which admit of a physical expression. They subserve the one and only grand purpose and ideal, Truth. Kusum lying on her deathbed (maybe) and requiring hundreds of things I may not want, as fully lives up to the Ashram ideal as I, if both of us think, speak and act truthfully. 18

What I meant was that the ultimate stage, whether in the quest of truth or in the path of ahimsa, must be a fast by every seeker, and that the changes about food, etc., which were introduced in the Ashram in connection with my fast should be understood as a preparation for this. It is necessary to understand this. Those who do not see the truth of this need not adopt those changes. I did not intend that everybody should join in the chain of fasts or leave the Ashram. I welcome your intention to come here as soon as I pick up a little strength. You can come on any day during the next week. I will not talk much, but I shall be strong enough to explain my ideas and answer your doubts. Nobody need feel troubled. My dharma is limited to explaining truth as I understand it. All of you may accept what you can from my suggestions. I don’t wish to create a new world. 19 You are quite right we ought to be able to find a solution. The European countries have found it by killing the dogs beyond their wants. India would not tolerate that solution and yet has not found an ideal solution in terms of ahimsa. The society for the care of animals takes charge of stray dogs, etc. Unfortunately, these societies are not well-organized. However, the Ashram is in touch with one such society and very often there is a clearance. Ask Narandas how it is that dogs have not been cleared by the society N. 20

In my opinion, it would have been disastrous if, in the existing circumstance, civil disobedience had been altogether withdrawn. The technique of Satyagraha, as I have known it, requires continuance even by one person so long as such continuance does not defeat the ends of truth and ahimsa. It may not be given up either because of the weakness of the people taking part in it or (which is the same thing) the seeming victory of the opponent the greater the repression the greater the strength of a true civil resister. The continuance of civil resistance, even by one person, insures its revival by those who might have given it up through despair or weakness. 21

Jamshed Mehta, a true servant of humanity, sends me a rendering, received by him from a friend, of a discourse on ahimsa in Jnaneshwari Gita. I have taken the liberty of further condensing it and putting it in a form perhaps more easily to be understood, without in any way marring the sense of the original. Those who still harbour untouchability in their bosoms will do well to test it on the touchstone provided by the great saint of Maharashtra. Is untouchability compatible with his definition of ahimsa? Let the extract speak for itself: Before considering what real ahimsa is, it is necessary to see what it is not. In order to secure a good rainfall, people perform what they call sacrifices in which they kill animals. This is not ahimsa. Is it not like cutting off one’s own hands so that they may be cooked and served as food? Is it wise to cut off all the branches of a tree, in order to put a fence round it, with those branches? Then, again, to save many people from diseases, people cut away whole trees, or take out all the bark, or make extracts of living animals and take out secretions from other creatures. Is it not like pulling down a house in order to build a verandah or shed for the house, and burning your clothes in order to have a fire to warm yourself? Real ahimsa or love originates in one’s heart and is known by one’s conduct even as gold is known by its qualities. A man who is full of love never forgets that the world is full of life like his and takes great care that he does not harm any living thing. He sees his love reflected in the eyes of those whom he meets. He is the friend of all. As a cat holds her kittens between her teeth without hurting them, so does a man of love deal with all with whom he comes in contact. He walks gently and noiselessly lest his footsteps may disturb the sleep of others. He always makes room for those who need it. He so regulates his voice as not to jar on others. He is silent when he need not speak. His speech is never intended to offend anyone. He does not want to up-set other people’s plans or to frighten them. He never utters words which lead to discussions and disputations, or which hurt the feelings of others. There is no deceit in his talk, no doubt not ambiguity. He never stares lest his stare may offend people. He does not move his hands aimlessly as he has no desire to harm even a mosquito. He does not carry even a stick, not to speak of other weapons. His hands are used only for salutation or service. These are but the outward signs of the inner abiding love as a plant is of the seed that has borne it. His mind is the Master of all the organs. Thus, real ahimsa is an attitude of the mind expressed through the different sense organs. He alone who is filled with love for all that lives and whose mind, speech and action are in full union is truly noble. 22

References: