Pacifists and Mahatma Gandhi

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

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- [e-mail];

[e-mail]                                    

Mailing Address- C- 29, Swaraj Nagar, Panki, Kanpur- 208020, Uttar Pradesh, India

 

Pacifists and Mahatma Gandhi 

 

As a pacifist by religion I heartily endorse all that my correspondent says about compulsory military training in the universities. But the argument seems to be sound even from the purely utilitarian and national standpoint. Not only can there be no security against the use being made of university corps for purposes antagonistic to the national interest, but whilst the Government retains its anti-national character there is every likelihood of these corps being used against the nation on due occasions. What, for instance, could prevent a future Dyer from using these university men for enacting another Jallianwala Bagh? May not young men themselves offer their services for an expedition against the innocent Chinese, or the equally innocent Tibetans when their subjection is felt necessary in the interests of imperial commerce? Some of the young volunteers who served during the War justified their action by saying that thereby they gained experience in the art of war, just the reason which consciously or unconsciously prompted some of the Frontier expeditions. Those who run empires successfully have an instinctive knowledge of human nature.

It is not deliberately bad or wicked. It acts excellently under a high impulse. And thousands of young men, who, before they join any corps, must take the oath of allegiance and must on scores of occasions salute the Union Jack, will naturally want to give a good account of their loyalty and willingly shoot down their fellow men upon receiving from their superiors orders to fire. Whilst, therefore, even as an out-and-out believer in ahimsa, I can understand and appreciate military training for those who believe in the necessity of the use of arms on given occasions, I am unable to advocate the military training under the Government of the youth of the country so long as it remains utterly irresponsive to the needs of the people, and I should be against compulsory military training in every case and even under a national government. Those who do not wish to take military training should not be debarred from joining public universities. Physical culture stands on a different basis altogether. It can be and should be part of any sound educational scheme even as many other subjects are. 1

I know how difficult it is for you to combat it in England. You have to approach the problem with faith and determination even though you may be very few. I would recommend the study of Richard Gregg’s book on the practice of non-violence. A true pacifist refuses to use the fruit of arms peace and order. So long as we eat a single grain of wheat grown under the protection of arms we participate in violence. When one realizes this one has to be an exile in one’s own country and a rebel. But everything has to be done according to the measure of one’s strength. A few people with the courage of their convictions can become perfect nuisances to the whole State. How far it is possible to reduce the whole thing to practice is for each individual to judge. 2

In my opinion non-violence is not passivity in any shape or form. Non-violence, as I understand it, is the activist force in the world. Therefore, whether it is materialism or anything else, if non-violence does not provide an effective antidote it is not the active force of my conception. Or, to put it conversely, if you bring me some conundrums that I cannot answer I would say my non-violence is still defective. Non-violence is the supreme law. During my half a century of experience I have not yet come across a situation when I had to say that I was helpless, that I had no remedy in terms of nonviolence. Take the question of the Jews on which I have written. No Jew need feel helpless if he takes to the non-violent way. A friend has written me a letter objecting that in that article I have assumed that the Jews have been violent. It is true that the Jews have not been actively violent in their own persons. But they called down upon the Germans the curses of mankind, and they wanted America and England to fight Germany on their behalf. If I hit my adversary, that is of course violence, but to be truly non-violent, I must love him and pray for him even when he hits me. The Jews have not been actively non-violent or, in spite of the misdeeds of the dictators, they would say, ‘We shall suffer at their hands; they knew no better. But we shall suffer not in the manner in which they want us to suffer.’ If even one Jew acted thus, he would save his self respect and leave an example which, if it became infectious, would save the whole of Jewry and leave a rich heritage to mankind besides. What about China, you will ask. The Chinese have no designs upon other people. They have no desire for territory. True, perhaps, China is not ready for such aggression; perhaps, what looks like her pacifism is only indolence. In any case China’s is not active nonviolence.

Her putting up a valiant defence against Japan is proof enough that China was never intentionally non-violent. That she is on the defensive is no answer in terms of non-violence. Therefore, when the time for testing her active non-violence came, she failed in the test. This is no criticism of China. I wish the Chinese success. According to the accepted standards her behaviour is strictly correct. But when the position is examined in terms of non-violence, I must say it is unbecoming for a nation of 400 millions, a nation as cultured as Japan to repel Japanese aggression by resorting to Japan’s own methods. If the Chinese had non-violence of my conception, there would be no use left for the latest machinery for destruction which Japan possesses. The Chinese would say to Japan, ‘Bring all your machinery, we present half of our population to you. But the remaining two hundred millions won’t bend their knee to you.’ If the Chinese did that, Japan would become China’s slave. 3

The other two arguments are practical. The pacifists may not do anything to weaken their own Governments so as to compel defeat. But for fear of so doing they may not miss the only effective chance they have of demonstrating their undying faith in the futility of all war. If their own Governments go mad and make martyrs of war resisters, they (the Governments) must, suffer the consequence of the unrest of their own creation. The democracies must respect the liberty of individual non-violent conscience however it may be. From that respect there will spring hope for the world. This means that they put their conscience and truth before their country’s so-called interest. For regard for one’s conscience, if it is really such, has never yet injured any legitimate cause or interest. Therefore, it comes to this that a pacifist must resist when he feels strongly that, whether so-called democracies live or die, the tug of war will never end war and that it will only end when at the crucial moment a body of pacifists have at any cost testified their living faith by suffering, if need be, the extreme penalty. I know the point for me to consider is not how to avoid the extreme penalty but how to behave so as to achieve the object in view. Where the very disturbing but potent factor of faith is part of one’s conduct, human calculations are of no avail. A true pacifist is a true satyagrahi. The latter acts by faith and therefore is not concerned about the result, for he knows that it is assured when the action is true. 4

The non-co-operation that may come would be non-violent. Mental violence has no potency and injures only the person whose thoughts are violent. It is otherwise with mental nonviolence. It has potency which the world does not yet know. And what I want is non-violence of thought and need. Such non-violent support can be available to Britain only if her cause is demonstrably just, even though from a pacifist standpoint her means are violent and therefore bad. Her cause will not be just if she is not just to India, i.e., if of her own accord and without reference to the parties in India she does not wash her hands clean of the imperialist exploitation of India. Therefore, non-violent India’s prayer will be for Britain’s victory when she declares in unequivocal terms that India is a free nation in action now, and in law as soon as possible, maybe even during the war. This she will do from the heart only when she begins to rely more on the efficacy of the moral support of non-violent India than on her own strong arm. If England can take this step, the war will end in peace through moral force, rather than through superiority of arms. 5

It is a difficult question. If you mean pacifist Americans in India, they can do precious little. But in America they should, I suppose, be able to do a great deal. But it is a question really outside my depth, and I must not say anything more about it. 6 I am a pacifist. But if the national government is formed and takes power on the basis of giving military help to the Allied nations, I obviously cannot obstruct and will not obstruct. I cannot directly participate in any act of violence. But Congress is not pacifist in the manner as I am. And I naturally would not do anything to obstruct the execution of the Congress intention. 7

 

References:

 

1. Young India, 24-9-1925
2. Harijan, 12-3-1938
3. Harijan, 24-12-1938
4. Harijan, 15-4-1939
5. Harijan, 20-1-1940  
6. Harijan, 13-7-1940
7. Shadow of the Mahatma, pp. 263