Relevance of Gandhi (continued)

Rev. Abhi Janamanchi

October 2, 2005

Having considered his faith and his commitment to moral freedom, self discipline, and simple living, let me dwell for a bit on his philosophy of non-violence (Ahimsa). Gandhi believed deeply that ahimsa was essential to the pursuit of Truth. In his words, Ahimsa and Truth are so intertwined that it is practically impossible to disentangle, and separate them. They are like two sides of a smooth unstamped metal disc. Who can say, which is the obverse, and which the reverse? Nevertheless, ahimsa is the means, Truth is the end.

Gandhi’s notion of non-violence implied, besides a refusal to do physical harm, a determination not to violate another person’s essence [and] to respect the truth [in another]. Gandhi recognized that violence against the adversary and violence against the self are inseparable. In fact, because our individual glimpses of Truth are fragmentary, it would be truly presumptuous to impose our particular truth fragment upon others. This principle applies whether we be Hindu, Muslim, religious liberal, or atheist.

Here, I need to point out that Gandhi's concept and use of non-violence were more sophisticated - less absolute and more elaborate - than many people realize. His concept of ahimsa was not a passive one, the turn-your-other-cheek concept taken to an extreme.

He said:

“In life it is impossible to eschew violence completely. The question arises, where is one to draw the line? [For instance] to allow crops to be eaten up by animals in the name of ahimsa while there is a famine in the land is certainly a sin. Evil and good are relative terms. What is good under certain conditions can become an evil or a sin under a different set of conditions.”

The mistaken idea that he was absolutely non-violent is due to the fact that in extreme cases - such as rape and the brutalities of the British and their native agents in India - his precept entails an extreme and yet in its way basic form of self-discipline, namely, to overcome one's instinctive fear of death.

As for the elaborateness of his use of non-violence: he wouldn't just stage a political protest and let it go at that. (People sometimes make that mistake when they try to use his method.) In his most telling campaigns he would integrate a carefully chosen, well organized, and very well disciplined public gesture of protest (with media coverage, but never one of those loosely organized rallies where a few people grab the headlines by their violence and discredit the whole thing) - he would integrate the protest into a well deliberated campaign of striving to correct something wrong. The campaign would include from the outset a lot of amicable communication with the antagonists; he never made secret plans for a surprise as in a war; the 'surprise' would be gradual and of a kind as to prompt the antagonists to reconsider their way of life. And after his cohorts had shown their mettle, then he would negotiate, he would warm up the friendship, he would settle for rather less, concretely, than had been demanded (which would be a relief to the other side), and he would tell his own people that if they went on behaving well, then their original demands, and more, would in time be met in a natural and amicable way. The modern term for this aspect of Gandhi's invention is 'win-win'.

Just as notable as the elaborate nature of Gandhi's political work was that his sense of moral purity went beyond non-violence. The challenge was to refrain not only from violence but also from deception, hatred, sarcasm and any extraneous pressure on the antagonist.

What you see is a pragmatic, critical, and compassionate mind at work here.

Gandhi’s first gift to us, then, and one source of his special aliveness, is his approach to religion as the pursuit of Truth, a Truth that is individual, experimental and partial. And because our individual glimpses of Truth are incomplete and tentative, Truth may only be pursued through the means of ahimsa or the non-violent respect for the essence and the truth of other persons.

Gandhi’s second prophetic gift to us is his melding of ideals and action. This is most clearly reflected in satyagraha, which he variously translated as soul-force, truth-force or love-force. He developed this method of non-violent resolution of conflict over the course of his twenty years in South Africa and refined it in hundreds of campaigns in India. It was never fully captured in a word-formula, but rather realized in practice.

In Gandhi’s satyagraha, dogma was exchanged for an open exploration of context. Non-violent action was taken not to assert propositions but to create possibilities. The method was designed to open new options and demand the opponent make a choice. This was done while participants continually examined their own motives. The whole process was pervaded by a spirit of giving the opponent the courage to change and releasing the hidden potential of mutual good will.

Behind satyagraha was Gandhi’s position, virtually unique among modern political thinkers, that the end can never justify the means. Instead, Gandhi saw that means were really ends-in-the-making or ends in process. Gandhi gave examples of what this meant. If one wishes to cross the ocean to visit family, one must use a boat, not a horse-cart. Using the wrong vessel (or means) will result in a drowning, not a reunion. Similarly, one cannot get a rose by planting a noxious weed. If one sows violence, one can only reap the same. Thus, a seeker of Truth will not permit himself or others to use foul means with the illusory justification that their continuation for a little while longer will end in some utopian future.

The method of satyagraha is not perfect. It does not always work. Each time, it must be tailored carefully to the immediate context. And we need to refine Gandhi’s satyagraha for use in the 21st century. But surely that task deserves as much effort hopefully more than the enormous resources now spent in ever greater refinements to the techniques and technology of violence.

And what can we say is Gandhi’s challenge to us, living most comfortably in post-modern America? I believe these words from Margaret Chatterjee make a fine start: For Gandhi what is wrong with us is not the inadequacy of our concepts, although they are, heaven knows, inadequate enough, but the weakness of our imagination, our inability to put ourselves in others shoes, the smallness of our hearts, and our unwillingness to translate beliefs into practice. I do not think it can be said better than that.

How might we achieve these ends: the strengthening of imagination, enlargement of hearts and discovery of the courage needed to put our beliefs into practice? Gandh’s answer to that, I believe, is simple. It is to pursue Truth, commit firmly to non-violence, search earnestly for ways to resolve conflict and focus the spotlight of attention on the growth of our own souls. And this we must do with all the heart we can muster.

REFERENCES:

Margaret Chatterjee, Gandhi’s Religious Thought

Erik Erikson, Gandhi’s Truth: On The Origins of Militant Non-violence

Louis Fischer, Life of Mahatma Gandhi

Homer Jack, editor, The Gandhi Reader

Mahatma Gandhi, My Experiments With Truth

Arun Gandhi, Non-violence: The Only Hope