For Global Peace with Social Justice in a Sustainable Environment

Ahimsa and Mahatma Gandhi- XXVII

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- XXVII

This does not mean that I have had or even today have a full vision of truth and ahimsa. But I do believe that my vision of truth and ahimsa is becoming clearer every day. Therefore it would not be correct to say that my views on Varnashrama are the same as they were in the past. I have said that the varnas and the ashrams are the gifts of Hinduism to the world, and I still adhere to that view. But today neither the varnas nor the ashrams of my conception are in existence anywhere. They should form a part of our religion. But it can be said that these days the ashrams have disappeared altogether and varnas are found in the form of privileges. The claim of being a Brahmin, a Kshatriya, a Vaishya connotes pride. How can there be pride where there is religion? And the Shudras are not taken into consideration at all! Shudras are low and the Ati-Shudras are the lowest of the low. This is not religion but a negation of it. 1 In order to know a man’s nature we must learn to tolerate his weaknesses as we expect the world to tolerate ours. If the world did not tolerate our weaknesses it would kill us. This applies to all, but it applies especially to the Manager who has embraced ahimsa. 2

We regard constructive work as a symbol of ahimsa while others look upon it as a means of furthering their work and that only to the extent that if they can do without it they will do so. Even if the intention is good I find lack of wisdom in such an attitude. 3 Religion is not religion if it expects others to follow it. For example, the religion of ahimsa (non-violence) can manifest itself only in the face of himsa (violence). 4 At the most we can say it is Neti, Neti. The truth that we see is relative, many-sided, and plural and is the whole truth for a given time. There is no scope for vanity in it and the only way of reaching it is through ahimsa. Pure and absolute truth should be our ideal. We can reach the ideal only by constantly meditating on it, and reaching it is attaining moksha. For the last sixty years I have been experiencing what I have said above. I am still experiencing it. 5

Non-violence cannot be divided into compartments. Nonviolence is an inherent attribute of man or, at any rate; it should be an attribute of man during his waking hours. Devotion to non-violence is the highest expression of his conscious state. If we thus conceive ahimsa we should satisfy all our necessities by the labour of our hands. If we do not do this we shall have to depend upon other powers and as long as such condition persists we shall be unable to realize a state of fearlessness. Another danger in making more and more use of machinery is that we have to make great efforts for the protection of it, that is to say, we shall have to keep an army as is being done today elsewhere in the world. The fact is that even if there is no danger of aggression from outside we shall be slaves to those who will be in control of the big machinery. Take the case of the atom bomb. Those nations who have atom bombs are feared even by their friends. If we take a wise view, we shall be saved from the working of machinery. If ahimsa includes destruction of others’ property, boycotting Government servants, going underground and so on, then, we can neither awaken the crores of people nor give them the correct training in fearlessness. If we want to work non-violently, then it is necessary to accept the restrictions lay down by me. But if we do away with these restrictions then there will be no other alternative for us but to abandon nonviolence and to train the people for violence. That this way is totally futile for us has been proved by this barbarous war. At any rate by openly accepting the way of violence we save ourselves from deceiving our own people and the world at large. 6

Gandhiji reiterated his conviction that India had lost nothing, but on the contrary had gained in every way as a result of the adoption and practice of truth and nonviolence during all these years. If they had not attained the goal which they had set before themselves, the fault lay not in truth and ahimsa, but in themselves. For instance, if they had fully imbibed the principle of ahimsa, they would be completely free from the feeling of discrimination against the votaries of religions other than their own and regard them and serve them all with equal love. It had pained him to learn that, in the Mahishadal area, Harijans were still not being admitted in the temples. He hoped they would completely rid themselves of the taint of untouchability. It would be a big advance in ahimsa. Referring to the song that had been sung, he pointed out that, in it, the devotee prays to God to purge him of the cowardice which springs from doubt, as well as the cowardice that results from fear of misfortunes. To harbour doubt is to insult God. To shrink from misfortune, is to run away from Him. He, therefore, prays for spiritual as well as physical courage, so that he might be completely rid of all fear. 7

If you were to tell me that you have lost faith in non-violence as a means for the attainment of swaraj, I would agree that the charkha or constructive work have no use for you. Nor would you have any use for me in that event but since you have discarded faith neither in ahimsa nor in me, your indifference to charkha and constructive work a sign only of your laziness and inertia. It is my conviction that the phenomenal awakening that has taken place in India during the last 25 years is entirely due to the adoption of non-violence and the charkha as its symbol. To the extent to which we have neglected the charkha and constructive work we have failed in the attainment of our goal. With due deference to the framer of the question let me say that I fail to understand it. If millions of Hindus regarded non- Hindus as their blood-brothers and sisters and treated them as such without the slightest tinge of a political motive, it must result in the complete political unity of India. Is it a ‘long-term’ effect? The framer of the question does not seem to know how ahimsa works. What I have deprecated in the present poisoned state of our communal relations is the attempt on the part of Congressmen to draw non- Hindus into the Congress fold, as it would only accentuate the existing mistrust. But supposing I make friends with Badshah Khan how does it widen the gulf between the communities? On the contrary, it immediately eases communal tension to that extent. Multiply this picture a million fold and it will be seen that the difficulty posed in the question is altogether chimerical. 8

If you have understood my point, then the place of khadi is not third, but it remains first. I have made khadi or the spinning-wheel the symbol of ahimsa. Ahimsa is a unique thing. You can make anything its symbol. I made the charkha its symbol and not the rosary after due thought. If we spin just one length all the time taking the name of God, then the spinning-wheel itself becomes our rosary. Spinning itself becomes sacrificial work. 9 The workers, Gandhiji said, were possessed of real wealth, for wealth really was not money but the capacity to produce goods. Money alone could produce no goods, only labour could. He wanted the workers to realize their strength and work for progress on the lines of truth, ahimsa and unity. He was confident that he carried with him their good wishes and sympathy in his pilgrimage to Madura. Addressing the women in the gathering, Gandhiji said that during the days of the Salt Satyagraha Campaign, women gave proof of their patriotism and showed themselves as not a whit behind men. They should represent in themselves the essence of truth and ahimsa. 10

Granted that India produced sufficient arms and ammunition and men who knew the art of war, what part or lot will those who cannot bear arms have in the attainment of swaraj? I want swaraj in the winning of which even women and children would contribute an equal share with physically the strongest. That can be under ahimsa only. I would, therefore, stand for ahimsa as the only means for obtaining India’s freedom even if I were alone. 11 See what is happening in Bombay the Bombay where I have passed so much time, which has given the public causes so much money, and which I had thought had fairly imbibed something of ahimsa. Will it prove the burial ground of ahimsa? 12

To write a treatise on the science of ahimsa is beyond my powers. I am not built for academic writings. Action is my domain, and what I understand, according to my lights, to be my duty, and what comes my way, I do. All my action is actuated by the spirit of service. Let anyone who can systematize ahimsa into a science do so, if indeed it lends itself to such treatment. In the event of my inability, the correspondent has suggested three names in order of preference for this task: Shri Vinoba, Shri Kishorelal Mashruwala, and Shri Kaka Kalelkar. The first named could do it, but I know he will not. Every hour of his is scheduled for his work and he would regard it as sacrilege to take a single moment there from for writing a Shastra. I would agree with him. The world does not hunger for Shastras. What it craves, and will always crave, is sincere action. He who can appease this hunger will not occupy his time in elaborating a Shastra. 13

From the above it may be concluded that there is no need at present for the treatise in question. Any such during my lifetime would necessarily be incomplete. If at all, it could only be written after my death. And even so let me give the warning that is would fail to give a complete exposition of ahimsa. No man has ever been able to describe God fully. The same holds true of ahimsa. I can give no guarantee that I will do or believe tomorrow what I do or hold to be true today. God alone is omniscient. Man in the flesh is essentially imperfect. He may be described as being made in the image of God, but he is far from being God. God is invisible, beyond the reach of the human eye. All that we can do, therefore, is to try to understand the words and actions of those whom we regard as men of God. Let them soak into our being and let us endeavour to translate them into action, but only so far as they appeal to the heart. Could any scientific treatise do more for us? Both commit violence. So do those who eat vegetables. This kind of violence is inherent in all embodied life, therefore, in man too. It is in this condition, and in spite of it, that we have to practise nonviolence as a duty. I have often indicated how we may do so. Then man who coerces another not to eat fish commits more violence than he who eats it. Fishermen, fish-vendors and fish-eaters are probably unaware of any violence in their action. Even if they were, they might look upon it as unavoidable. But the man who uses coercion is guilty of deliberate violence. Coercion is inhuman. Those who quarrel among themselves, those who will stoop to anything in order to amass wealth, those who exploit or indulge in forced human labour, and those who overload or goad or otherwise torture animals, and all these knowingly commit such violence as can easily be stopped. I do not consider it violence to permit the fish eater to eat fish. It is my duty to suffer it. Ahimsa is the highest duty. Even if we cannot practise it in full, we must try to understand its spirit and refrain, as far as is humanly possible, from violence. 14

In eating, sleeping and in the performance of other physical functions, man is not different from the brute. What distinguishes him from the brute is his ceaseless striving to rise above the brute on the moral plane. Mankind is at the cross-roads. It has to make its choice between the law of the judge and the law of humanity. We in India deliberately adopted the latter twenty-five years back but, I am afraid, that whilst we profess to follow the higher way, our practice has not always conformed to our profession. We have always proclaimed from the house-tops that non-violence is the way of the brave, but there are some amongst us who have brought ahimsa into disrepute by using it as a weapon of the weak. In my opinion, to remain a passive spectator of the kind of crimes that Bombay has witnessed of late is cowardice. Let me say in all humility that ahimsa belongs to the brave. Pritam has sung: “The way of the Lord is for the brave, not for the coward.” By the way of the Lord is here meant the way of nonviolence and truth. I have said before that I do not envisage God other than truth and non-violence. If you have accepted the doctrine of ahimsa without a full realization of its implications, you are at liberty to repudiate it. I believe in confessing one’s mistakes and correcting them. Such confession strengthens one and purifies the soul. Ahimsa calls for the strength and courage to suffer without retaliation, to receive blows without returning any. But that does not exhaust its meaning. Silence becomes cowardice when occasion demands speaking out the whole truth and acting accordingly. We have to cultivate that courage, if we are to win India’s independence through truth and non-violence as proclaimed by the Congress. It is an ideal worth living for and dying for. Every one of you who has accepted that ideal should feel that inasmuch as a single English woman or child is assaulted, it is a challenge to your creed of non-violence, and you should protect the threatened victim even at the cost of your life. Then alone you will have the right to sing: “The way of the Lord is for the brave, not for the coward.” To attack defenseless English women and children, because one has a grievance against the present Government, hardly becomes a human being. 15

If your interpretation of ahimsa is correct, what could I achieve by living up to 125? For India would have to bear the load of my ignorance for about 50 years more still. However, so long as my ignorance seems to me to be knowledge, may I not hope to live up to 125 and go on serving up to the end? You say, moreover, that ahimsa will work in dealing with friends, but not in dealing with enemies who do not believe in it; and, in support of you argument, you cite the example of Rajputs and stories from the Puranas. Let us, for the moment, leave aside the examples. If ahimsa was limited to loving those who love us, how could it be described as the supreme dharma? Even dacoits and robbers do that. How great was the love of Alibaba’s forty robbers for one another? Does not the aphorism describing the distinguishing characteristics of ahimsa say that in the presence of ahimsa all ill-will subsides? If this is true, ahimsa can be tested only against an enemy. Does not the well-known couplet of Shamaldas, “For a bowl of water give a goodly meal,” [etc.], teach the same lesson in simple but sweet words? Besides what do the illustrations cited by you prove? The bravery of the Rajputs cannot be denied. If nothing could ever be achieved through violence, would it have acquired the powerful spell that it has? Are the successes of falsehood, too, and the less impressive? We often see falsehood occupying seats of power and truth wandering in rags, but are you impressed by this fact? And what do the Puranas, etc., suggest, if not that God alone may do as He wills? He who creates may destroy, for even through destruction He creates. Prahlad and others displayed pure ahimsa in their lives. He incurred the displeasure of his demon father, but did not give up Rama’s name till the last. 16

If this is true, then it is incorrect to say that ahimsa is of no avail before a murderer. It can certainly be said that to experiment with ahimsa in the face of a murderer is to seek self-destruction. But this is the real test of ahimsa. He who gets himself killed out of sheer helplessness, however, can in nowise be said to have passed the test. He who when being killed bears no anger against his murderer and even asks God to forgive him is truly non-violent. History relates this of Jesus Christ. With his dying breath on the cross, he is reported to have said: “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” We can get similar instances from other religions but the quotation is given because it is world-famous. It is another matter that our non-violence has not reached such heights. It would be wholly wrong for us to lower the standard of ahimsa by reason of our own frailty or lack of experience. Without true understanding of the ideal, we can never hope to reach it. It is necessary for us, therefore, to apply our reason to understand the power of non-violence. 17

I do not want to enter into the question of whether silence becomes me or not. If the rowdyism is not a forerunner of what the future holds, it will be wrong to take note of it. Such sporadic clashes should not worry us. The education of the masses in ahimsa can make way gradually. It may be that it will develop from the lessons learnt from such happenings. But it may be that this rowdyism is symptomatic of an epidemic. Many people imagine that they alone are right and everyone else wrong, and they do not consider that there is anything unworthy in forcing their point of view down others’ throats. This error has to be rectified. If we are in the right we must have infinite patience. Just now we seem unable to see our own mistakes. Those who lack the faculty of reason, or who desire to live for the sake of enjoyment can never see the error. If there are many such, then we must conclude that our non-violence has been a weapon of the weak, himsa masquerading in the guise of ahimsa. If this weakness continues we shall have to go through rivers of blood once the British rule goes. We may even come under the sway of some other foreign power or it may be that with internecine warfare the weaker side will have to submit to the one that has the mightier weapons. If we are unfortunate enough to witness such streif, believers in non-violence will joyfully die in the effort to stop it and thereby live. My hope is that the masses have sufficiently imbibed the spirit of ahimsa and that when the British go there may be a little fight here and there and then we shall settle down as brothers giving a lesson of peace to the world. Only those who fought in Bombay know what good they achieved by fighting. I am ignorant of who fought and what the fight was about and what the gains if any were. 18

My ahimsa is my own. I am not able to accept in its entirety the doctrine of non-killing of animals. I have no feeling in me to save the lives of animals which devour or cause hurt to man. I consider it wrong to help in the increase of their progeny. Therefore, I will not feed ants, monkeys or dogs. I will never sacrifice a man’s life in order to save theirs. 19 Finally ahimsa is one of the world’s great principles which no power on earth can wipe out. Thousands like me may die in trying to vindicate the ideal but ahimsa will never die. And the gospel of ahimsa can be spread only through believers dying for the cause. 20

References: