Gandhian NonViolence IS only THE REMEDY

The assassination of Ms. Benazir Bhutto was sought to be avenged by waging violence against innocent citizens of Pakistan. Innocent lives were lost and crores of rupees worth property was lost in the ensuing street violence in Pakistan .In India similar type of violence was let loose in Orissa in the name of avenging the attack on a religious leader belonging a particular community. The concerned authorities while condemning Ms. Bhutto’s assassination reiterated their resolve to intensify their war against terrorism without realizing that, this age old resolve of theirs has rather succeeded in increasing incidents of terrorist violence and increasing the intensity of these incidents all over the world. In India 2007 witnessed spurt in all sort of caste, ethnic, communal, and gender based violence. At the same time, the instances of violence in educational institutions and road rage were also in the news. This raises the basic question whether this reiteration of curbing violence by violence is the scientific and most appropriate way of tackling the increasing incidences of violence. In view of the past experience the answer is no. In such a situation Gandhi’s experiments of non violence provide the only ray of hope. In this article an attempt would be made to explain how Gandhi viewed violent incidents and how he tried to contain them.
In the first instance,let us see how Gandhi visualized the violence waged by the people against anti people government. In in chapter 15(on Italy and India) of his illustrious albeit contentious book Hind Swaraj Gandhi Noted that, “At the time of the so called national war, it was a game of chess between two rival kings with the people of Italy as pawns…. Mazzini has shown conclusively that Italy did not become free. (in the national war with Austria)… The working classes in that land are still unhappy. They, therefore, indulge in assassination, rise in revolt, and rebellion or (sic) their part is always expected. What substantial gain did Italy obtain after the withdrawal of the Austrian troops? The gain was only nominal. The reforms for the sake of which the war was supposed to have been undertaken have not yet been granted. The condition of the people in general still remains the same.(italics added) Gandhi did not want the Indian people after the attainment of Swaraj suffer the same fate.
In reality today the condition of marginalized people all over the world in general and in the two third of the world (known as the third world) in particular is worsening day by day. For Gandhi the happiness of millions of Indians was more important than attainment of anti-people self rule by the native vested interested. In the same chapter he asserted that, “ My patriotism does not teach me that I am to allow people to be crushed under the heel of Indian princes …. “By patriotism I mean the welfare of the whole people, and if I could secure it at the hands of the English, I should bow down my head to them. If any Englishman dedicated his life to securing the freedom of India, resisting tyranny and serving the land, I should welcome that Englishman as an Indian.”
The political rulers all over the world today are as anti people as the native princes then. To day in the name of combating terrorism draconian laws have been enacted in countries like the Great Britain and the USA which proclaimed themselves as torchbearers on individual liberty, equality, fraternity and social justice. The much declared war on terror after 9/11 incident, the power appropriated by the state by means of draconian measures, and the devastation of Afganistan and Iraq has not succeeded in curbing violence. On the contrary the states are now competing with private vested interests in perpetuating violence. The reason for the state machinery all over the world joining hands with the private vested interests in perpetuating violence against common people is the anti-poor people pro capital(national capital complementing foreign one)nature and character of the leaders holding reins of power all over the world. Gandhi blamed the Italian leaders for the dismal plight of Italian poor people. He said, “ the difference between Mazzini and Garibaldi is worth noting. Mazzini ambition was not and has not yet been realized regarding Italy. Mazzini has shown in his writings on the duty of man that every man must learn how to rule himself. This has not happened in Italy. Garibaldi did not hold this view of Mazzini’s. Garibaldi gave, and every Italian took arms…. Garibaldi simply wanted Italy to be free from the Austrian yoke…. Mazzini has shown conclusively that Italy did not become free. …According to… Garibaldi, Italy meant the King of Italy and his henchmen. According to Mazzini, it meant the whole of the Italian people, that is, its agriculturists…. The Italy of Mazzini still remains in a state of slavery.(italics added) Similar situation is prevalent today all over the world. The so called popularly elected government bound to govern according to the provisions of the constitutions have in fact evolved a multilateral international system which legitimizes their flouting of pro poor people constitutional provisions and laws enacted earlier to facilitate implementation of these pro people provisions. This implies that only leaders sensitive to peoples’ needs and aspirations can facilitate enactment of laws adopting policies protecting people’s interests. Gandhi was emphatic in saying that, “Those who will rise to power by murder will certainly not make the nation happy.” Only pro-people leaders believing in peaceful means of governing the country were favoured by him.
In the absence of such pro people leaders, the present holders of power at least can take some lessons from Gandhi’s personal experiences and from the experiences of other satyagrahis in restoring peace. Dr. Sucheta Kripalani, who had accompanied Gandhi on his peace mission to Noakhali narrated the two incidents given below to Prof. Madhu Dandwante.
During his peace mission Gandhi went from village to village in east Bengal. He carried holy books with him. He appealed to all the men and women, Hindus as well as Muslims, to ensure peace. They offered prayers and Gandhi made them take a pledge that they will not kill each other. He stayed in each village for a few days to see that the residents kept their words.
There was a moving incident at one village. Gandhi visited that village. He asked the Hindus and Muslims to come out of their hutments for a common prayer and a common pledge for peace. No elderly person turned up. He waited for half an hour, not even one Hindu or Muslim turned up. Gandhi was very ingenious. He had carried a ball with him and then addressing children from the village he said: “Small kids from this village, your parents are frightened of each other but what fright you can have? Elderly Hindus and Muslims might be frightened of one another. But children are innocent. You are children of God. I am inviting you to play the game of ball.” The Hindu and Muslim children started moving towards the dais where Gandhi was sitting. Gandhi threw the ball at them. Boys and girls threw it back. He played for half an hour and then he told the villagers: “You have no courage but if you want that courage, induct it from your children. A child belonging to the Muslim community is not afraid of the child belonging to the Hindu community and so also, a Hindu child is not frightened of a Muslim child. They have come together, they were playing with me for half an hour. Please learn something from them. If you have no inner courage, try to emulate it from your children.” And one after another elders - both Hindus and Muslims - started coming. A big gathering assembled. He made them take a pledge that they will not kill each other. He stayed there for sometime. Then he went from village to village and brought peace to Noakhali. Today similar situation is prevalent at Nandigram . Unfortunately the political leaders instead of applying balm to cool the strained nerves are trying to fish in this troubled waters.
The second incident is--- in one village Gandhi’s prayer was going on, all of a sudden a Muslim person pounced on him. He caught his throat. Gandhi almost collapsed. While falling down Gandhi recited a beautiful quotation from the Quran. Hearing the words of Quran, the Muslim, instead of throttling Gandhi, touched his feet and with a feeling of guilt he said: “I am sorry. I was committing a sin. I am prepared to remain with you to protect you. Give me any work, entrust to me any task, tell me what work I should do?” Gandhi had a sense of humour and compassion. He said: “Do only one thing. When you go back home, do not tell anyone what you tried to do with me. Otherwise there will be Hindu-Muslim riots. Forget me and forget yourself.” That man went away with a feeling of repentance.
Gandhi explained the difference between his method and the method of a terrorist in these words . A terrorist, though guided by patriotic motives, hides himself behind the people. He remains away from the people. “But mine is a weapon”, said Gandhi, “in which you have not to kill others by remaining in hiding, but, if need be, be prepared to be killed in an open non-violent revolt.”
Similarly William Robert Miller reported an incident narrated to him by a Negro civil-rights activist who was leading a nonviolent demonstration. He found the gathering of an undisciplined Negro mob. White bystanders and police were also present, and a riot was clearly in the making. To prevent violence the nonviolent -Negro leader had without losing time to address the unruly masses, but he could not make himself heard above the tumult. He approached the police captain who had an electrically amplified megaphone “bullhorn”, explained that he was the leader of the demonstrators and asked politely for the use of the bullhorn. The officer ignored him . The Negro leader became angry, shouted at the captain: “You’d better give me that bullhorn, you stupid, or there’s going to be hell to pay”- and seizing the bullhorn from the startled officer’s hand began addressing the crowd, which soon quietened and dispersed.
The use of satyagraha carries with it many and varied implications. The man who adopts the weapon has to direct it against the evil, not the evil-doer, a very difficult thing to do without a continuous process of self-purification. At the same time, he has to see that it does not inflict violence on the other side, but is content to invite suffering on himself. Suffering, deliberately invited, in support of a cause which one considers righteous, naturally purges the mind of the satyagrahi of ill-will and removes the element of bitterness from the antagonist.
Comenting on Gandhi’s technique of Satyagraha K.M. Munshi wrote that The efficacy of satyagraha depends upon the tenacity to resist evil which, while it abjures force, develops in the satyagrahi the faculty to face all risks cheerfully. Thus, the emphasis is transferred from aggression by force to resistance by tenacity. It is only when these requirements are met that non-violent satyagraha becomes a mighty weapon of resistance both in the struggle for freedom as well as in self-realisation. The results are reached by slow degrees, it is true, but the resultant bitterness is short-lived.
Gopa Joshi,