Problems of Non-Violence- 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

 

 

Problems of Non-Violence- Mahatma Gandhi

 

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.

 

Reference:

Navajivan, 9-8-1925