(Talk given in the National Conference held at St. Aloysius’ College, Jabalpur – November 2004.)
“When in despair I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won; there have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall.”
M.K. Gandhi
1. Dynamics of Terrorism
Four Days before the US presidential election, a new videotape of Osama
Bin Laden surfaced on Friday, 29th October 2004, with the AI-Qaeda
leader admitting responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks for the
first time, and threatening new strikes against America. As justification to
this deadly act of terrorism and violence, Osama Bin Laden said, “While I was
looking at the destroyed towers in Lebanon (in the 1982 Israeli-led invasion),
it came to my mind to punish the
oppressor the same way and destroy towers in the US.” Since the September 11,
2001 strikes on World Trade Centre in New York and subsequent tragic events in
India—attacks on Jammu and Kashmir Assembly, on Indian Parliament (13 December)
and growing trend to cross-border terrorism, the threat to international peace
and stability, of South Asia in particular has assumed a dangerous proportion. Thousands of innocent men, women and children were being
blown to bits in Iraq and Palestine and an estimated 50,000 children die every
year because of sanctions that are imposed – and it hasn't moved any of us to
compassion. To get rid of Sadam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, many cities of
Iraq and Afghanistan have been bombed because they have harbored terrorists and
in the process we will help create a thousand other Bin Ladens. We
should reflect on the rise of global terrorism—its strategic, geopolitical,
socio-economic and ideological roots. This would bring into sharp focus how
global terrorism has developed into a pyramid with various layers. To demolish this
pyramid it is not enough to look at its hard surface of terrorist actions
including human bombs. The hard surface needs to be demolished. However, from
the long-term point of view socio-economic, political and ideological roots of
this have to be destroyed. This requires a determined political will.
Terrorism has no creed. It is a religion in itself as manifested once
again, in the Akshardham temple massacre. If terrorism had a gender, it should
have been surely be given the ‘Man of the Century’ award two years ago. In a
century of discoveries and development, this menace singularly threatened the
very existence of humankind. Thirty summers ago, in the Olympic village of
Munich, terror struck its first major blow, shocking the international community.
That was perhaps the first time the global community asked, why kill innocent
people? The only sin the athletes did was to be born Israelis. That question
has been asked over and over. Why kill innocent? We asked this, last year,
during the terror attack on America. And now after the shocking attack on
devotees in the Akshardham temple, we ask ourselves. What did those hapless
people do to deserve such a brutal and abrupt ending to their lives?
1.1 Terrorism: Definition and Explanation
Terrorism has been a worldwide phenomenon with international links
between terrorist organizations and groups.
They exchange weapons; they are engaged in joint operation planning;
they use each other’s training areas; and they provide each other with
administrative and logistic support.
International links between different countries can be well understood
by the fact that the terrorist group which carried out the massacre at Lord
Airport in Israel belonged to Japan, were trained in Korea, purchased arms from
Italy with money raised in West Germany and had the sympathy and support of
several Arab countries. The most
important development is that the international terror is aided, protected and
financed by a number of governments, who provide safe havens for terrorists and
false passports.
What is terrorism? Who are the
terrorists? Why do terrorists act? How do the victims and society react? What methods should be used in hostage
negotiations? What are the best government policies for responding to or
preventing terrorism? What constitutes
terrorism? This is unquestionably the
most controversial issue that divides individuals, groups, societies, nations
and ideologies. No two well known dictionaries agree on the term. Even big powers do not agree on the
definition of the term “terrorism”.
Walter Laqueur who invested his lifetime’s research effort in exploring
this phenomenon expressed how difficult it is to define it. Leonard B. Weinberg and Paul B. Davis have
pointed out that terrorism is a weapon of the weak employed against a powerful
opponent not intended to defeat but to conjure up an all-powerful and all
good-force to change the balance of power; and, an element of frustration, a
sense that their views, although correct to them, were not shared or
appreciated sufficiently by others whose caused the groups sought to
champion. According to Grant Wardlaw the
use of terror in itself does not constitute terrorism because terror may be
employed for criminal or personal ends.
In political terms, terrorism is the employment of terror as a weapon of
psychological warfare for political ends.
It includes its use as a deliberate method of guerrilla warfare to serve
military ends.
Political terrorism is a systematic use of murder and destruction and
the threat of murder and destruction, to terrorize individuals, groups,
communities or governments into conceding to the terrorists’ political
aims. It is important for terrorists
that people and governments accept their perspective by terror, if not by
reason.
Encyclopedia of Social Sciences defines “Terrorism” as a term used to
describe the method or the theory behind the method whereby an organized group
or party seeks to achieve its avowed aims chiefly through the systematic use of
violence. Terroristic acts are directed against persons who are individual agents
or representatives of authority interfering with the consummation of the
objectives of such a group.
Insurgency and terrorism are not the same; they are significantly
different from each other. The objective of insurgency is invariably political;
it is a revolt against authority.
Terrorism is merely a strategy to obtain certain objectives. When terror is used against the State or a
political authority to change the power structure or wrest political authority,
or to secede from a politico-territorial configuration, it is an act of
insurgency as well.
Sociologists have tried to explain the reasons behind terrorism. One
theory has it that terrorism is born out of denial of justice. We have several
films based on such theories that show the victim-turned-avenger. Although
several terrorist outfits justify their black deeds with this theory. It need
not necessarily be true always. Terrorism can be best defined as a movement led
by persons who have a destructive bend of mind, fuelled by hatred and, sometimes,
driven by lunatic idealism. Such persons
are usually very intelligent and have the capability of brain washing several
gullible innocents into being his servants to carry out his missions. They are
told of the lofty ideals that would be achieved and the greatness of sacrifice
of self for the greater benefit of several fellow beings. The leaders of these
outfits, it can be seen, seldom sacrifice their lives themselves and often end
up leading a luxurious and perverted life and building his own belief.
It is the calculated or premeditated use or threat of uses of larger
collectivity in such a manner that the target is rendered physically
defenseless against that attack or against the effects of the violence. What
makes this a form of political terrorism distinguishing it from say, criminal
terrorism (murder) is that the act is harnessed to some political intent or
purpose and carries a political meaning.
The defenselessness can be the result of (a) surprise outside of a
battle-or war-zone; (b) the nature of the target chosen, e g, its civilian
status; (c) the nature of weapons used; (d) enormous disproportion in the
violence exercised between the two sides even within a battle-or war-zone, i e,
a gross violation of the principle of minimal or reasonable force. The agents
of the terrorist act can be the individual, the combat group, or larger
entities like the state.
1.2 Patterns of Global Terrorism
Why does the terrorist commit his act?
Terrorism manifests itself in political, religious and socio-economic
inequalities and exploitation. It
thrives on grievances, real or imaginary when the State or the ruling oligarchy
fails to redress injustices, infringement of rights or oppression. Terrorism has been used by political,
religious, nationalistic and ethnic groups and by government themselves. Terrorism is a worldwide phenomenon and is a
chronic disease in a democracy.
Terrorism was adopted as virtually a State policy, though an
unacknowledged one, by such totalitarian regimes as those of Nazi Germany under
Adolph Hitler and the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. The terror which overtook the Jews under
Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Russia was the worst example of State terror in the
history of modern world. The total count
of mass murders will never be known. In
these States, arrest, imprisonment, torture and execution were applied without
legal guidance or restraints to create a climate of fear and to encourage
adherence to the national ideology and the declared economic, social and
political goals of the State.
When Mao got into power in China on 1 October 1949 he made use of
terror on a bigger scale than Stalin.
Historians differ in the estimates but, perhaps, 5 million landlords
were killed. Their removal cleared the
way for a new order. Between 1950 and 1953 as many as 10 to 20 million people
were liquidated, perhaps, several times more than the numbers of Stalin’s
victims. Deng Xiao-Ping brought Mao’s
reign of terror to an end just as Khrushchev brought to an end Stalin’s reign
of terror. Deng ripped open the terror
of the Cultural Revolution.
Terrorism’s public impact has been greatly magnified by the use of
modern communications media. Any act of
violence is certain to attract television coverage, which brings the event
directly into millions of homes and exposes viewers to the terrorists’ demands,
grievances or political goals. Modern
terrorism differs from that of the past because its victims are frequently
innocent civilians who are picked at random or who merely are caught into
terrorist situations. Many groups of
terrorists of Europe hearken back to the anarchists of 19th century in their
isolation from the political mainstream and the unrealistic nature of their
goals. Lacking a base of popular
activities. Such acts include kidnappings, assassinations, hijackings, bombings
and aircraft hijackings.
2.
Terrorism and Gandhian response
Gandhi said that terrorism and
deception are weapons not of the strong, but of the weak, ( Mahatma: Vol. II,
P.20.) “I am as convinced as I have ever been that terrorism is the worst kind
of action that any reformer can take up”, Speeches and Writings of Mahatma
Gandhi: P.870. “Terrorism must be held to be wrong in every case. In other words, pure motive can never justify
impure or violent action,”- Young India: Dec.18, 1924.
“Terrorise yourself, search within, by all means resist tyranny
wherever you find it, by all means resist encroachment upon your liberty, but
not by shedding the blood of the tyrant” Speeches and Writings of Mahatma
Gandhi: P.311.
His message in all kinds of conflicts has always been that we need to
find peaceful solutions to the conflict. Unfortunately, we have over so many
generations always chosen to deal with conflicts violently and suppress them
and so they are temporary solutions. They just keep coming back again and again
because you can't suppress a conflict; you have to resolve it. And resolutions
are only through nonviolent means. He wasn't the first one to teach us this
lesson, there were many others. There was Christ Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, all
of these leaders who talked about religion, who talked about uplifting our way
of living and standard of living. We have consistently either assassinated them
or discounted them, put them up on a pedestal, worshipped them but we don't want
to change our lifestyle. It's not that we can't do it, it's that we don't want
to do it. How can individuals in today's world apply the
principles of nonviolence to their daily lives?
I think first of all, we need to understand what we mean by nonviolence.
Generally today everybody thinks that non violence is non-use of physical
force, that as long as we are not going out and beating up people we are
nonviolent or as long as the nation is not at war with somebody, we are living
in peace. That's only a small fraction of the philosophy of nonviolence. The
actual philosophy of nonviolence is about many other things--all the different
forms of violence that we practice knowingly and unknowingly every day of our
lives, all the passive violence. Now we find so much violence consuming us at
every level that we look at the newspapers every morning and we see everybody
killing each other in all parts of the world. It makes it important that we
look at the situation and do something about it before it destroys us all
together. We can see now killing has become so much easier and we don't feel
the pangs of it. We are getting desensitized by the killing. That is dangerous.
When life doesn't mean anything and people can be killed and destroyed and
don't feel anything about it, then we are losing our own humanity.
Even without the war on
terrorism, we have other challenges with hunger, disease, and environmental
degradation. How does nonviolence help us address those issues? Nonviolence helps us to understand what all
of these things are. We have a lot of conflicts in various different
fields--economic, cultural, social, religious, political and all of that is
because we have adopted for ourselves a lifestyle that is based on self-interest
and selfishness. Gandhi often said, “There is enough in this world for mans
need; but not enough for mans greed.”
We are constantly trying to see what we can gain from everything and it
doesn't matter what the consequences of that would be. And when we are
motivated by such negative thoughts and greed and selfishness, then conflicts
arise from that. And we have to deal with those conflicts. Nonviolence teaches
us to shun the negativeness within us and become more positive. And positive
means that we have to build relationships that are based on positive
aspects--on respect, understanding, acceptance, appreciation and not on
negative relationships. Terrorism: what would Gandhi do?
No one loathed terrorism more than Mahatma Gandhi. The Mahatma, stood
to lose everything when that kind of violence marred the otherwise nonviolent
freedom struggle in Bengal during the 1930's. Yet to the then British rulers of
India he made this plea: "Today you have to fight the school of terrorists
which is there with your disciplined and organized terrorism, because you will
be blind to the facts or the writing on the wall. Will you not see the writing
that these terrorists are writing with their blood? Will you not see that we do
not want bread made of wheat, but we want bread of liberty; and without that
liberty there are thousands today who are sworn not to give themselves peace or
to give the country peace. I urge you then to read that writing on the wall.
Nobody throws away his life without some motive behind."
Force, however, is the one thing
they will not listen to. How is the person so consumed by hatred that he will
kill himself to make a point going to be frightened by the threat of
punishment? Criminals must be brought to justice, no doubt, and international
criminals should be brought to international justice, ideally in the
International Criminal Court but that has nothing to do with our security. Most
of our attention, as Gandhi indicates, should be on the conditions that have
brought terrorism into existence in the first place. To cite an experienced
U.S. diplomat who served under President Carter, "if we are to truly end
the threat of terrorism against us, we must also eliminate the reasons why so
many people support it." And those reasons will be found on two levels.
The first would be the policies that have directly or indirectly led to poverty
and the suppression of liberties in various parts of the Third World,
especially the Middle East - policies which would be repudiated by the great
majority of the American people if they were fully aware of them. Second would
be the extremely high levels of violence in the mass media, which cheapen life
and causes otherwise healthy people to scorn it. Let us remember that the two
boys who carried out the Columbine High School massacre tell us, in their
'suicide video,' that they really wanted to highjack a commercial plane and
plow it into New York, "killing as many people as [we] could"! In
other words, the culture of violence that we have unwittingly, gradually
created, mainly through the powerful mass media, have created a climate in
which life is cheap and its destruction a form of excitement which substitutes
for meaning. How can we expect others to respect the lives that we ourselves
seem so willing to throw away? "Terrorism cannot be condoned,"
someone wrote, "but it can be understood." Anyone who understands
terrorism - or any form of violence - can tell you that even if we have
"eliminated" Osama Bin Laden, ten more will rise up to replace him.
On the other hand, if we eliminate the real grievances against us, even people
who are drawn to his ghastly way of thinking will find themselves deprived of
support. It is the latter path alone that leads to real security.
To
quote Mahatma Gandhi: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world
blind." Also from Gandhi: "War will only be stopped when the
conscience of mankind becomes sufficiently elevated to recognize the undisputed
supremacy of the Law of Love in all walks of life."
2.1 Non-violence is not a Strategy but a Response
First, we must understand that nonviolence is not a strategy that
we can use in times of peace and discard in a moment of crisis. Nonviolence is
about personal attitudes, about becoming the change we wish to see in the
world. Because, a nation's collective attitude is based on the attitude of the
individual. Nonviolence is about building positive relationships with all human
beings – relationships that are based on love, compassion, respect,
understanding and appreciation. Nonviolence is also about not judging people as
we perceive them to be – that is, a murderer is not born a murderer; a
terrorist is not born a terrorist. People become murderers, robbers and
terrorists because of circumstances and experiences in life. Killing or
confining murders, robbers, terrorists, or the like is not going to rid this
world of them. For every one we kill or confine we create another hundred to
take their place. What we need to do is dispassionately analyze both the
circumstances that create such monsters and how we can help eliminate those
circumstances. Focusing our efforts on the monsters, rather than what creates
the monsters, will not solve the problems of violence. Justice should mean
reformation and not revenge.
2.2 How do we respond nonviolently to terrorism?
The consequences of a military response are quite evident. Never
ending violence, revenge, retaliation, hatred and loss of life and
property. For years to come innocent
people live in fear, anxiety and suspicion. Many thousands of innocent people
will die both here and in the country or countries we attack. Militancy will
increase exponentially and, ultimately, we will be faced with other more
pertinent moral questions: What will we gain by destroying half the world? We must acknowledge our role in helping to
create monsters in the world, find ways to contain these monsters without
hurting more innocent people, and then redefine our role in the world. I think
we must move from seeking to be respected for our military strength to being
respected for our moral strength.
The developed nations are in a position to play a powerful role in
helping the “other half” of the world attain a better standard of life not by
throwing a few crumbs but by significantly involving ourselves in constructive
economic programs. Glaring unequal distribution of wealth, resulting in utter
poverty and social inequality has been instrumental in dividing the world into
North and South, first and third world, developed and underdeveloped. Their
foreign policies should be based on what is good for the world and how can we
do the right thing to help the world become more developed and peaceful.
Poverty and underdevelopment in any part of the world will
affect the entire world order.
2.3
The Power of Non-Violence
Non-Violence
in its dynamic condition means conscious suffering. It does not mean meek
submission to the will of the evildoer, but it means the pitting of one’s whole
soul against the will of the tyrant. Working under this law of our being, it is
possible for a single individual to defy the whole might of an unjust empire to
save his honour, his religion, his soul and lay the foundation for that
empire’s fall or its regeneration.
The
non-violence of my conception is more active and more real fighting against
wickedness than retaliation whose very nature is to increase wickedness. I
contemplate a mental and, therefore, a moral opposition to immoralities. I seek entirely to blunt the edge of the
tyrant’s sword, not by putting up against it a sharper-edged weapon, but by
disappointing his expectation that I would be offering physical resistance. The
resistance of the soul that I should offer instead would elude him. It would at
first dazzle him, and at last compel recognition from him, which recognition
would not humiliate him but would uplift him. It may be urged that his again is
an ideal state. And so it is. The propositions from which I have drawn my
arguments are as true as Euclid’s definitions, which are nonetheless true
because in practice we are unable to even draw Euclid’s line on a blackboard.
But even a geometrician finds it impossible to get on without bearing in mind
Euclid’s definitions. Nor may we…. Dispense with the fundamental propositions
on which the doctrine of Satyagraha is based.
I
admit that the strong will rob the weak and that it is sin to be weak. But this
is said of the soul in man, not of the body. If it be said of the body, we
could never be free from the sin of weakness. But the strength of soul can defy
a whole world in arms against it. This strength is open to the weakest in body.
Non-
violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than
the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.
Destruction is not the law of the humans. Man lives freely by his readiness to
die, if need be, at the hands of his brother, never by killing him. Every
murder or other injury, no matters for what cause, committed or inflicted on
another is a crime against humanity. Non-violence is like radium is its action. An infinitesimal quantity of is
embedded in a malignant growth acts continuously, silently and ceaselessly till
it has transformed the whole mass of the diseased tissue into a healthy one.
Similarly, even a little of true non-violence acts in a silent, subtle, unseen
way and leavens the whole society.
2.4
Matchless Bravery
An
armed soldier relies on his weapons for his strength Take away from him his
weapons- his gun of his sword, and he generally becomes helpless. But a person
who has truly realized the principle of non-violence has the God given strength
for his weapon and the world has not known anything that can match it. A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their
mission could alter the course of history. Non-violence of the strong is any day stronger than that of the bravest soldier
fully armed or a whole host. My experience teaches me that doing violence can never propagate truth. Those
who believe in the justice of their cause have need to possess boundless
patience and those alone are fit to offer civil disobedience who are above
committing criminal disobedience or doing violence. I object to violence because, when it appears to do well, the good is only
temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
It
is an unshakable faith with me that a cause suffers exactly to the extent that
it is supported by violence. I say this in spite of appearances to the
contrary. If I kill a man who obstructs me, I may experience a sense of false
security. But the security will be short-lived. For I shall not have dealt with
the root cause. In due course, other men will surely rise to obstruct me. My business, therefore, is not to kill the
man of men who obstruct me, but to discover the cause that impels them to
obstruct me, and deal with it. I do not believe in armed risings. They are a remedy worse than the disease
sought to be cured. They are a token of the spirit of revenge and impatience
and anger. The method of violence cannot do good in the long run.
2.5
The Way of Ahimsa
Ahimsa
is one of the world’s great principles, which no power on earth can wipe out.
Thousands like myself may die in trying to vindicate the ideal, but Ahimsa will
never die. And the gospel of Ahimsa can be spread only through believers dying
for the cause. Ahimsa is the highest ideal. It is meant for the brave, never for the cowardly,
to benefit by others’ killing, and delude oneself into the belief that one is
being very religious and non-violent is sheer self-deception. No power on earth can subjugate you when you
are armed with the sword of Ahimsa. It ennobles both the victor and the
vanquished. The proper way to view the present outburst
of violence throughout the world is to recognize that the technique of
unconquerable non-violence of the strong has not been at all fully discovered
as yet. Not an ounce of non-violent strength is ever wasted.
There
come to us moments in life when about some things we need no proof from
without. A little voice within us tells us, ‘ You are on the right track, move
neither to your left nor right, but keep to the straight and narrow way. There are moments in your life when you must act, even though you cannot carry
your best friends with you. The ‘still
small voice’ within you must always be the final arbiter when there is a
conflict of duty. Having made a ceaseless effort to attain self-purification, I have developed
some little capacity to hear correctly and clearly the ‘still small voice
within’. I shall lose my usefulness the moment I stifle the still small voice within.
For
me the voice of God, of Conscience, of Truth, or the Inner Voice or ‘the Still
Small Voice’ mean one and the same thing.
I saw no form. I have never tried, for I have always believed God to be without
form. But what I did hear was like a Voice from afar and yet quite near. It was
as unmistakable as some human voice definitely speaking to me, and
irresistible. I was not dreaming at the time I heard the Voice. The hearing of
the Voice was preceded by a terrific struggle within me. Suddenly the voice
came upon me. I listened, made certain it was the Voice, and the struggle
ceased, I was calm. The determination was made accordingly; the date and the
hour of the fast were fixed….
3. Mahatma Gandhi's Nonviolent
Revolution: It’s relevance
But recently the question of Gandhian relevance is being posed anew,
yet not directly or explicitly, by a series of political movements that have
emerged under quite diverse conditions, that suggest a major turn toward
nonviolent forms of struggle by those advocating transformative change. This
turn seems complex and contradictory, and it may not be sustained. Aside from
its adherence to nonviolent practice, its general political line is essentially
tactical, seeking to turn weakness into strength by engaging the enemy in a
manner that minimizes the advantages of the militarily stronger side and
maximizes its vulnerability to moral/spiritual challenges. Its relevance has
been most evident in the struggles of civic movements of resistance against
various forms of oppressive rule that rely on arbitrary and brutal violence and
on its control over the mechanisms of violence.
Proceeding on the basis of a Gandhian ethos of nonviolence, how is the recent experience to be evaluated? There are two broad possibilities, with many variations in between. The first view would take an optimistic line, regarding these occasions of tactical reliance on nonviolent approaches to be exhibiting a trend away from a blind assumption about the efficacy of violence. Gandhi was himself a realist who viewed his own life as a series of explorations relating to truth-bearing (ahimsa) and courage, as well as an appreciation that where choices are so difficult that reliance on a degree of violence can be understood, and even affirmed. Gandhi's lifelong connection with the Bhagavadgita, and its complex view of war and duty, suggests the degree to which Gandhi understood the difficulty of taking a pure stand on violence, despite his own evolution in that direction. Gandhi's own approach stressed active engagement on behalf of justice, scorning passivity as being often a greater evil than violence.
I think that part of the distinctiveness of the Gandhian phenomenon
lies in its embrace of an unconditional reliance on nonviolence to challenge,
dismantle, and transform an entire structure of power and authority, and to do
so on an uncompromising basis of mass mobilization on the part of unarmed
people, many of whom were trained to endure severe violence without striking
back. Indeed, in this respect, Gandhi’s core achievement in India has never
been duplicated elsewhere.
"Gandhi continues what the Buddha began. In the Buddha the spirit
of love set itself the task of creating different spiritual conditions in the
world; in Gandhi it undertakes to transform all worldly conditions."said,
Albert Schweitzer. In Gandhi’s own words, "Nonviolence is the law of our
species as violence is the law of the brute. The spirit lies dormant in the
brute, and he knows no law but that of physical might. The dignity of man
requires obedience to a higher law - to the strength of the spirit." How true what Gandhi said, "If man will
only realize that it is unmanly to obey laws that are unjust, no man's tyranny
will enslave him."
Science of war leads one to dictatorship pure and simple. Science of nonviolence can alone lead one to pure democracy." - Mahatma Gandhi
Science of war leads one to dictatorship pure and simple. Science of nonviolence can alone lead one to pure democracy." - Mahatma Gandhi
4. Conclusion: You be the Change
One of Gandhiji's most famous
sayings is, "We must be the change we wish to see." In what context
did he say that and what does it really mean? He mentioned this because people kept saying
to him that the world has to change for us to change. He said, "No, the
world will not change if we don't change." So we have to make the
beginning ourselves. It has always been our human nature to blame someone else
for everything that is happening. It's never us. We are never at fault. And he
tried to make us realize that we are just as much in the fault as anybody else.
Unless we change ourselves and help people around us change, nobody will change
because then everybody will be waiting for the other person to change.
Although the memory of Gandhi is revered everywhere, the life and ways
of Gandhi have not been treated as influential in relation to subsequent
patterns of political practice, either within states or at a global level.
Instead, there has been a widespread belief that what Gandhi achieved was
unique to his time, place, and person. In this sense, the persisting importance
of Gandhi, outside of the efforts of academic programs devoted to peace studies
and scattered activists and visionaries, has been historical in two senses: as
preoccupied with the extraordinary role played by Gandhi in liberating India
from the British Empire without reliance on guns and violence; and as a method
for dealing with a specific set of events in the past that became almost a
closed book as far as political life is concerned as soon as Gandhi himself
passed from the scene.
Gandhian pacificism is admired in the abstract today, but in practice
it is widely dismissed not only as too idealistic, but even as morally
irresponsible. Gandhian pacificism is misunderstood as refusal to resist evil
or oppose violence, when, in fact, it spawned some of the most powerful acts of
resistance of the 20th century. Indeed, Gandhian nonviolence proved to be an
unstoppable force that led to political transformations around the globe, from
the United States (Martin Luther King Jr.), to Ireland (John Hume), to the
Philippines (Corazon Aquino), to the Soviet Union (Lech Walesa). The movement
that recognized Gandhi as a founding hero was the greatest moral event of the
century and, equally, one of the most politically effective. Attenborough
captured the force of the literally revolutionary principle of nonviolent
resistance that Gandhi pioneered and championed, which would later inspire such
figures as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela. Faced with indomitable, oppressive British
imperial presence, Gandhi’s fellow countrymen have no viable military response
except terrorism. But Gandhi argues, with devastating logic that has only
become more inescapable over time, that terrorism not only further justifies
oppressive measures, even if it succeeds it liberates a country only to
terrorize it in turn. It’s a message that disgruntled societies and individuals
today ignore at their own peril.
Gandhi’s practice is predicated on the belief that moral authority, not
superior force, ultimately prevails in the court of public opinion. Literally
turn the other cheek, and if your attacker himself isn’t overcome with shame
eventually the conscience of others will become your ally. All that is required
is the courage and humility to be a true victim for your cause.
It seems naive — but it conquered the British Empire. First in South
Africa, where in one harrowing scene we see Indian protesters, attacked by
mounted police, actually lie down on the ground in front of the horses, out of
range of the policemen’s batons, relying on the horses’ aversion to treading on
people to avoid being trampled. Then in India, where Gandhi’s celebrity and
penchant for punitive fasting when displeased gives him the clout to unite
Hindus and Muslims behind his principle of nonviolent resistance. And finally
throughout the world, where other colonial peoples were inspired by Gandhi’s
success to seek their own independence, ultimately replacing the British Empire
of yesterday with the Commonwealth of today.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is
that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.
Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder
the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through
violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence
merely increases hate.
Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper
darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out
darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do
that." — Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Things undreamt of are daily being seen, the impossible is ever becoming
possible. We are constantly being astonished these days at the amazing
discoveries in the field of violence. But I maintain that far more undreamt of
and seemingly impossible discoveries will be made in the field of
nonviolence." —M.K. Gandhi "Nonviolence is the constant awareness of
the dignity and humanity of oneself and others; it seeks truth and justice; it
renounces violence both in method and in attitude; it is courageous acceptance
of active love and goodwill as the instrument with which to overcome evil and
transform both oneself and others. It is the willingness to undergo suffering
rather than inflict it. It excludes retaliation and flight." —Wally Nelson
"Forces that threaten to negate life must be challenged by courage, which
is the power of life to affirm itself in spite of life's ambiguities. This
requires the exercise of a creative will that enables us to hew out a stone of
hope from a mountain of despair." —Martin Luther King, Jr.
Books and References
1 V.D. Chopra “Global Challenge of
Terrorism” Gyan Pub., 2002, xvi, 324 p., ISBN 81-212-0805-X.
3 YI, 8-10-1925,
p. 346 (Young India: (1919-1932)
4 YI, 6-5-1925,
p. 146 (Young India: (1919-1932)
5 H, 20-7-1935,
pp. 180-1 (Harijan: (1933-1956)
6 H, 12-11-1938,
p. 327 (Harijan: (1933-1956)
7 H, 19-11-1938,
pp. 341-2 (Harijan: (1933-1956)
8 ibid, p. 343
(Harijan: (1933-1956)
9 H, 12-5-1946,
p. 128 (Harijan: (1933-1956)
10 YI, 28-4-1920,
p. 8 (Young India: (1919-1932)
11 YI, 26-2-1931, p. 1 (Young India: (1919-1932)
12 YI, 9-6-1920, p. 3 (Young India: (1919-1932)
13 H, 17-5-1946, p. 140 (Harijan: (1933-1956)
14 H, 9-6-1946, p. 172 (Harijan: (1933-1956)
15 ibid, p. 174 (Harijan: (1933-1956)
16 H, 11-1-1948, p. 504 (Harijan: (1933-1956)
17 L, 25-12-1916 The Leader: Daily newspaper published
from Allahabad.
18 YI, 4-8-1920, p. 3 (Young India: (1919-1932)
19 EF, p. 34 The Epic Fast: Pyarelal; Mohanlal Maganlal
Bhatt; Ahmedabad, 1932.
20 YI, 3-12-1925, p. 422 (Young India: (1919-1932)
21 H, 8-7-1933, p.4
(Harijan: (1933-1956)
22 Martha Crenshaw. “The Causes
of Terrorism” as reprinted in Edward Moxom-Browne, ed. European Terrorism. New York: G.K. Hall & Co., 1994.
23 Christopher Hewitt. The Effectiveness of Anti-Terrorism Policies.
Lanham, MD: University Press, 1984.
24 Goldie
Shabad and Francisco José Llera Ramo. “ Political Violence in a Democratic
State: Basque Terrorism in Spain,” in Martha Crenshaw, ed. Terrorism in Context. University
Park, PA.: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995.
25 Joshua Cooper Ramo. “In Hot
Pursuit.” Time. October 8,
2001.
26 Davis George “Dynamics of Power: The Gandhian
Perspective”, Frank Bros. & Co. Ltd. 2000 238p., ISBN 81-7170-503-0.
