Q. Then you will raise, if you can, a force ultimately hostile to the British?
A. Never. My love for non-violence is superior to every other thing mundane or supramundane. It is equalled only by my love for Truth which is to me synonymous with non-violence through which and which alone I can see and reach Truth. My scheme of life, if it draws no distinction between different religionists in India, it also draws none between different races. For me "man is a man for a' that." I embark upon the campaign as much out of my love for the Englishman as for the Indian. By self-suffering I seek to convert him, never to destroy him.
Q. But may not all this be your hallucination that can never come to pass in this matter-of-fact world of ours?
A. It may well be that. It is not a charge wholly unfamiliar to me. My hallucinations in the past have served me well. This last is not expected to fail me. If it does, it will but harm me and those who may come or put themselves under its influence. If my hallucination is potent to the authorities, my body is always at their disposal. If owing to my threatened action any Englishman's life is put in greater danger than it is now, the arm of English authority is long enough and strong enough to overtake any outbreak that may occur between Kashmir and Cape Comorin or Karachi and Dibrugarh. Lastly, no campaign need take place, if all the politicians and editors instead of addressing themselves to me will address themselves to the authorities and ask them to undo the continuing wrongs some of which I have inadequately described in these pages.
Young India, 20-2-'30
169. ON NON-VIOLENCE
Questions in Paris and Geneva
"In the method we are adopting in India, fraud, lying, deceit and all the ugly brood of violence and untruth have absolutely no room. Everything is done openly and above board, for truth hates secrecy. The more open you are the more truthful you are likely to be. There is no such thing as defeat or despair in the dictionary of a man who bases his life on truth and non-violence. And yet the method of non-violence is not in any shape or form a passive or inactive method. It is essentially an active movement, much more active than the one involving the use of sanguinary weapons. Truth and non-violence are perhaps the activest forces you have in the world. A man who wields sanguinary weapons and is intent upon destroying those whom he considers his enemies, does at least require some rest and has to lay down his arms for a while in every twenty-four hours. He is, therefore, essentially inactive, for a certain part of the day. Not so the votary of truth and non-violence, for the simple reason that they are not external weapons. They reside in the human breast and they are actively working their way whether you are awake or whether you are asleep, whether you are walking leisurely or playing an active game. The panoplied warrior of truth and nonviolence is ever and incessantly active."
"How then can one be effectively non-violent? By simply refusing to take up arms?"
"I would say that merely to refuse military service is not enough. To refuse to render military service when the particular time arrives is to do the thing after all the time for combating the evil is practically gone. Military service is only a symptom of the disease which is deeper. I suggest to you that those who are not on the register of military service are equally participating in the crime if they support the State otherwise. He or she who supports a State organized in the military way—whether directly or indirectly—participates in the sin. Each man old or young takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes. That is why I said to myself during the war that so long as I ate wheat supported by the army whilst I was doing everything short of being a soldier, it was best for me to enlist in the army and be shot; otherwise I should retire to the mountains and eat food grown by nature. Therefore, all those who want to stop military service can do so by withdrawing all co-operation. Refusal of military service is much more superficial than non-co-operation with the whole system which supports the State. But then one's opposition becomes so swift and so effective that you run the risk of not only being marched to jail, but of being thrown into the streets."
"Then may not one accept the non-military services of the State?"
"Now," said Gandhiji, "you have touched the tenderest spot in human nature. I was faced with the very question as author of the non-co-operation movement. I said to myself, there is no State either run by Nero or Mussolini which has not good points about it, but we have to reject the whole, once we decide to non-co-operate with the system. There are in our country grand public roads, and palatial educational institutions, said I to myself, but they are part of a system which crushes the nation. I should not have anything to do with them. They are like the fabled snake with a brilliant jewel on its head, but which has fangs full of poison. So I came to the conclusion that the British rule in India had crushed the spirit of the nation and stunted its growth, and so I decided to deny myself all the privileges—services, courts, titles. The policy would vary with different countries but sacrifice and self-denial are essential."
"But is there not a big difference between an independent nation and a subject nation? India may have a fundamental quarrel with an alien Government, but how can the Swiss quarrel with their State?"
"Difference there undoubtedly is," said Gandhiji. "As a member of a subject nation I could best help by shaking myself rid of my subjection. But here I am asked as to how best to get out of a military mentality. You are enjoying your amenities on condition that you render military service to the State. There you have to get the State rid of its military mentality."
In answer to a similar question at another meeting Gandhiji said: "Non-co-operation in military service and service in non-military matters are not compatible. 'Definitely' military service is an ill-chosen word. You are all the while giving military service by deputy because you are supporting a State which is based on military service. In Transvaal and other countries some are debarred from military service, but they have to pay money to the State. You will have to extend the scope of non-co-operation to your taxes."
"How could a disarmed neutral country allow other nations to be destroyed? But for our army which was waiting ready at our frontier during the last war we should have been ruined."
"At the risk of being considered a visionary or a fool I must answer this question in the only manner I know. It would be cowardly of a neutral country to allow an army to devastate a neighbouring country. But there are two ways in common between soldiers of war and soldiers of non-violence, and if I had been a citizen of Switzerland and a President of the Federal State what I would have done would be to refuse passage to the invading army by refusing all supplies. Secondly, by re-enacting a Thermopylae in Switzerland, you would have presented a living wall of men and women and children and invited the invaders to walk over your corpses. You may say that such a thing is beyond human experience and endurance. I say that it is not so. It was quite possible. Last year in Gujarat women stood lathi charges unflinchingly and in Peshawar thousands stood hails of bullets without resorting to violence. Imagine these men and women staying in front of an army requiring a safe passage to another country. The army would be brutal enough to walk over them, you might say. I would then say you will still have done your duty by allowing yourself to be annihilated. An army that dares to pass over the corpses of innocent men and women would not be able to repeat that experiment. You may, if you wish, refuse to believe in such courage on the part of the masses of men and women, but then you would have to admit that non-violence is made of sterner stuff. It was never conceived as a weapon of the weak, but of the stoutest hearts."
"Is it open to a soldier to fire in the air and avoid violence?"
"A soldier who having enlisted himself flattered himself that he was avoiding violence by shooting in the air did no credit to his courage or to his creed of non-violence. In my scheme of things such a man would be held to be guilty of untruth and cowardice both—cowardice in that in order to escape punishment he enlisted, and untruth in that he enlisted to serve as soldier and did
not fire as expected. Such a thing discredits the cause of waging war against war. The War Resisters have to be like Caesar's wife—above suspicion. Their strength lies in absolute adherence to the morality of the question."
Young India, 31-12-'31
170. WHAT ARE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
An esteemed correspondent, who has for years been following, as a student, the non-violent action of the Congress and who ultimately joined the Congress, expresses certain doubts with lucid argument. Whilst the argument is helpful to me it is unnecessary to reproduce it here. He lays down three basic assumptions and argues that India is hardly able to satisfy these assumptions under all circumstances.
The suggested basic assumptions are:
"1. Complete unity of the people in their desire and demand for freedom;
"2. Complete appreciation and assimilation of the doctrine in all its implications by the people as a whole with consequent control over one's natural instincts for resort to violence either in revenge or as a measure of self-defence; and (this is the most important of all).
"3. Implicit belief that the sight of suffering on the part of multitudes of people will melt the heart of the aggressor and induce him to desist from his course of violence."
For the application of the remedy of non-violence complete unity is not an indispensable condition. If it was, the remedy would possess no special virtue. For complete unity will bring freedom for the asking. Have I not said repeatedly in the columns of Young India and these columns that even a few true Satyagrahis would suffice to bring us freedom? I have maintained that we would require a smaller army of Satyagrahis than that of soldiers trained in modern warfare, and the cost will be insignificant compared to the fabulous sums devoted by nations to armaments.
Nor is the second assumption necessary. Satyagraha by the vast mass of mankind will be impossible if they had all to assimilate the doctrine in all its implications. I cannot claim to have assimilated all its implications nor do I claim even to know them all. A soldier of an army does not know the whole of the military science; so also does a Satyagrahi not know the whole science of Satyagraha. It is enough if he trusts his commander and honestly follows his instructions and is ready to suffer unto death without bearing malice against the so-called enemy.
The third assumption has to be satisfied. I should word it differently, but the result would be about the same.
My friend says there is no historical warrant for the third assumption. He cites Ashoka as a possible exception. For my purpose, however, Ashoka's instance is unnecessary. I admit that there is no historical instance to my knowledge. Hence it is that I have been obliged to claim uniqueness for the experiment. I have argued from the analogy of what we do in families or even clans. The humankind is one big family. And if the love expressed is intense enough it must apply to all mankind. If individuals have succeeded even with savages, why should not a group of individuals succeed with a group, say, of savages? If we can succeed with the English, surely it is merely an extension of faith to believe that we are likely to succeed with less cultured or less liberally-minded nations. I hold that if we succeed with the English, with unadulterated non-violent effort, we must succeed with the others, or which is the same thing as saying that if we achieve freedom with non-violence, we shall defend it also with the same weapon. If we have not achieved that faith our non-violence is a mere expedient, it is alloy, not pure gold.
Harijan, 22-10-,38
171. BELIEF IN GOD
In his inaugural address before the annual conference of the Gandhi Seva Sangh at Brindavan (Bihar), Gandhiji had said that belief in God was one of the indispensable qualifications of a Satyagrahi. One of the members asked if some of the Socialists and Communists who did not believe in God could not be Satyagrahis.
"I am afraid not. For a Satyagrahi has no other stay but God, and he who has any other stay or depends on any other help cannot offer Satyagraha. He may be a passive resister, non-co-operator and so on, but not a true Satyagrahi. It is open to you to argue that this excludes brave comrades, whereas it may include men who profess a belief in God but who in their daily lives are untrue to their profession. I am not talking of those who are untrue to their profession, I am talking of those who are prepared in the name of God to stake their all for the sake of their principle. Don't ask me again why I am enunciating this principle today and did not do so 20 years ago. I can only say that I am no prophet, I am but an erring mortal, progressing from blunder towards truth. 'What about the Buddhists and Jains, then? 'someone has asked. Well, I will say that if the Buddhists and Jains raise this objection themselves, and say that they would be disqualified if such a strict rule were observed, I should say to them that I agree with them.
"But far be it from me to suggest that you should believe in the God that I believe in. Maybe your definition is different from mine, but your belief in that God must be your ultimate mainstay. It may be some Supreme Power or some Being even indefinable, but belief in it is indispensable. To bear all kinds of tortures without a murmur of resentment is impossible for a human being without the strength that comes from God. Only in His strength we are strong. And only those who can cast their cares and their fears on that immeasurable Power have faith in God."
Other Conditions of Satyagraha
But someone may not be a khadi-wearer and yet his heart may be fired with patriotism. He may even have given up his legal practice and yet may not be a khadi-wearer. What about him?
"Such a one may be an estimable man. But why should he do civil disobedience? There are various ways of service. Millions need not be civil resisters. The field of constructive work is open to them. Some special rigid discipline is necessary for civil resisters. The privilege of resisting or disobeying a particular law or order accrues only to him who gives willing and unswerving obedience to the laws laid down for him. This may exclude men who may be otherwise far worthier than the common men who observe the Satyagrahi's code. Those others may perform worthier tasks, but not civil disobedience."
On another occasion speaking on the same topic and in the same strain he said: "You know that word Himalayan blunder which has now passed into the English language and is flung at me on all occasions. It was coined by me to translate a Gujarati word. I had to condemn my own blunder in placing civil disobedience before the people in Kheda and Ahmedabad in 1919. In Kheda the proportion of crime is greater than in any other district. These people with cries of Mahatma Gandhiji ki jai on their lips pulled out rails and derailed trains and, but for a lucky accident, would have killed hundreds of soldiers. The mill workmen in Ahmedabad did likewise. A false rumour was spread that Anasuyabehn was arrested or assaulted. They attacked police stations, seized an English sergeant, killed him and burnt him on the streets; they burnt telegraph offices and did much other damage. I realized that I had committed a Himalayan blunder in placing civil disobedience before those who had never learnt the art of civil disobedience. The art comes instinctively to those who are by nature law-abiding. I was by nature law-abiding. In South Africa I was neither desirous of registering the births of my children nor of getting them vaccinated. But I obeyed the laws. Then I became a confirmed anti-vaccinationist. In jail it was no easy thing to defy the rule regarding vaccination. But they respected my conscientious objection, because they knew that I had systematically respected all the civil and moral laws of the State. It is from this obedience that the capacity for civil defiance springs, and therefore my civil disobedience sits well upon me."
There were still more questions. "There is one who believes in ahimsa and truth, satisfies other conditions, but is compelled by circumstances, say, to sell foreign cloth. Would he come under the ban?"
"Of course. We cannot be too strict in this matter."
"And what is the scope of freedom from bad habits? Is tobacco-smoking a bad habit? Or pan{13}-chewing?"
"I may not fix the limit. It must be understood that all intoxicants warp or cloud a man's intellect, and he who allows his intellect
to be warped or clouded cannot offer Satyagraha. But I will not be judge in this matter. Ganja, bhang, opium, etc. are recognized intoxicants and come under prohibition. Not so tobacco, though I cannot quite understand how men can bear to foul their mouths with smoking and tobacco-chewing."
"Is it permissible to offer Satyagraha in jail against inhuman treatment?"
Non-Violent Resistance Page 37