The Kodaikanal Gandhi Prize 2021
First Prize
(shared)
Janhavi Desai
Fravashi International Academy, Nashik
Lawyer, anti-colonial nationalist, political ethicist, nonviolent protestor, hero, poster child for peace and love, and “Father of the Nation” once declared, “An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind”.
“I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary” – these aren't just empty words, social activist and writer Mahatma Gandhi once expressed. These words weren't forgotten after they were conveyed. Gandhi ji's actions, his reactions to crises, his temperament, his being, his whole existence released the vital essence of nonviolence that most people associate him with even today. In situations where he could've lost his temper and caused a great deal of damage (to those around him irrespective of whether they were responsible or not), Bapu chose to stay calm. He used nonviolence, a powerful and just weapon that cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals, and, to some, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was the wielder of this sword.
Mr. Gandhi understood nonviolence from its Sanskrit root, “Ahimsa”. Ahimsa is just translated to mean nonviolence in English, but it implies more than just avoidance of physical violence. Ahimsa implies total nonviolence, no physical violence, no passive violence. Gandhi ji translates Ahimsa as love. But does it seem realistic to live in a world where only “Ahimsa” exists? Is it even possible? Can love and peace fix everything? Even the damage that has been done? Is it against Gandhi ji's principles to stand up for yourself? Is it a sin to want to stop discrimination? Is it violent to fight for your rights? Is it damaging to want to defend yourself against attack? What is violence?
Even though Gandhi ji is almost always affiliated with the prevention of violence, he ironically never gives a concise definition of violence. Without an appropriate description, it is diffcult to ascertain which actions fall under the category of violence. Hence, to understand (and answer questions about) Gandhi ji's nonviolent approach to violence, I will refer to his theories and his writings (and of course, I will summarise and simplify - mainly because I am not an evil literature professor who forces students to read lengthy and bothersome texts).
Questions about Gandhi ji's nonviolent approach to violence often pose the most significant challenges to Gandhi ji's theory of nonviolence. Because Gandhi ji frequently referred to nonviolence in terms of forms of violence, it is difficult to understand his theory of nonviolence without his theory on violence. This is an incredibly complex series of statements. But, allow me to break the argument down for you. As with much of Gandhi ji's thought, he did not present his views on violence systematically. My essay attempts to synthesize Gandhi ji's theory on violence (which is implicit and explicit in his various statements and his compositions) and tries to justify its feasibility in the 21st century.
So, what is violence? According to the World Report On Violence And Health (a credible report by the United Nations World Health Organisation), violence is “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.” (A relatively straightforward definition for such a complex and subjective word!)
Gandhi ji appears to have a contradictory view of violence. He asserts that violence exists within the social order, between individuals, and also results from external phenomena like floods or tornadoes. He believes that we cannot eradicate violence; it will always be a part of everyday life. Violence was, is, and will always be at the root of all acts of living and can never be eliminated. Gandhi ji stated that “None can be completely free from himsa while they are in the flesh” and that every seeker of truth must ... continue to work to decrease the circle of himsa (which means to injure or harm, the opposite of Ahimsa).
On the other hand, Gandhi ji often says, “I object to violence”, which seems to contradict his belief that violence is inevitable. It is easy to see that he uses violence in different ways, so the apparent contradiction between violence being a permanent fact and violence being a moral blight disappears. Understanding Gandhi ji's moral theory of nonviolence requires understanding his views on the causes of different types of violence and the reasons that he gives to object to specific classes. Gandhi ji does not condemn the type of violence that is inevitable. To determine the morality of a particular act of violence, he relies on the motivations and intentions of the actor. To analyze the violence of any action, it is essential to consider attachment, desire, and self-interest. Unavoidable violence is the first and most objectionable type of violence. Gandhi ji believes that violence is inherent in the physical body. The main difference between Gandhi's conception of unavoidable violence and the Jains” (as mentioned in his literature) is that the Jains claim that violence of any kind, even inevitable, is morally unacceptable. He claims that this definition of violence is only appropriate for monks and does not apply to ordinary citizens. It is okay to use minimal violence to meet the needs of necessity and prevent famine or death. Gandhi ji does not believe in the use of unnecessary violence. So the question is, what is the acceptable limit of unavoidable violence?
Gandhi ji acknowledges that it is difficult to set these limits, and they may not be the same for everyone. Over-accumulation is, in Gandhi ji's opinion, an act of violence that causes unavoidable violence to become avoidable. Understanding the motivations behind his views on the morality and justifiability of violence is key to understanding the categories. According to the Gita (which seems to be where Gandhi ji derived his most essential teachings), root causes of violence are psychological. Based on the Gita's emphasis upon psychology, Gandhi ji defines the rightfulness of violence by how attachment- and desire-motivated it is. He stated: Violence is when we cause suffering to others because of our selfishness, or for the sake of doing it [being violent]. Gandhi ji's moral theory holds that violence can only be excused if it is motivated by selflessness, if non-violent means are impossible under the circumstances and if avoiding violence leaves one with only the option of committing a greater evil. These are the criteria Gandhi ji uses to justify violence. If the violence is unpremeditated and spontaneous, or if there is no training or courage to use nonviolent means of defending oneself, it can be excused. It is clear that nonviolence is the best way to respond to injustice. Gandhi ji believes that nonviolence is the best option, but it's better to use violence to fight for a just cause rather than to avoid acting out of fear. Even though there are instances of exonerating violence, the principle that nonviolence is superior to violence still applies. Gandhi ji's main thrust is to defend [stand] against violence.
So, now that we've looked at what violence is and Gandhi ji's implications and beliefs about it, let us ask: does Gandhi ji's active form of resistance work? Is nonviolence really effective?
A large number of some of the most potent protests that have changed the course of history are actually nonviolent protests! The George Floyd Protests, The Farmers Protest, Stop Asian Hate, the Berlin Wall Protests, the Me too movement, Fridays for Future and, last but never the least, The Dandi March are a few (out of the abundance) of nonviolent movements across the world that almost every single person has heard of. These serve as perfect examples for the fact that arms, ammunition, mass killings, and unleashing unrest does not mean power. Being loud isn't power.
If this wasn't enough evidence, Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan collected and analyzed data on over 300 violent and nonviolent major political campaigns in the last decade. Chenoweth's study suggested that between 2000 and 2006, 70% of nonviolent campaigns succeeded, five times the success rate for violent ones. Looking back over the 20th century, she found that nonviolent campaigns succeeded 53% of the time, compared with 26% for violent resistance. They found that nonviolent campaigns had been twice as effective as violent campaigns!!
“Never assume that loud is strong and quiet is weak” were Buddha's indispensable words that are still very much relevant today. As beautiful as they may be, these words still make me contemplate whether nonviolence is REALLY effective in all situations...
I thought long and hard about it. Just imagine, you're walking down the street, minding your own business, and a person suddenly punches you in the face for no reason at all, and it seems like his intention to keep doing so (if there isn't any help available), won't you punch him back? Or, at least try to defend yourself in some way. I don't think any sane person would just stand there and take the hits in the name of nonviolence. To me, it seems justified to try and respond to the physical violence with violence if you are being hurt. I mean ... there IS a difference between nonviolence and self-destruction, after all, right?
To some, violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys communities and makes brotherhood impossible. Violence ends up defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers. Overall, violence is almost never the right answer because it brings in more violence, affects younger generations negatively, and always has alternative responses. Learning to act and respond in nonviolent ways can not only ease a conflict but even save lives. I agree with these beliefs, but isn't it better to be the flame and not the moth?
I believe that the most plausible justification of violence is when it is perpetrated in return for other violence. It is one's right to protect oneself. “The right of self-defence never ceases. It is the most sacred and alike necessary to nations and to individuals.” (James Monroe)
Rama had killed Ravana. Krishna had killed Kansa. There was violence in the Mahabharata against atrocities. Those people tried to come to terms with that violence because it was for the greater good. Even in recent history, Shivaji had fought to oust Afzal Khan. Guru Gobind Singh, Rana Pratap, they all fought for something more than revenge. They wanted to protect and serve their motherland and its people. Unfortunately, for Gandhi ji, violence was a sin (For example, when Gandhi ji states that he objects to violence, he refers to specific categories of violence such as murder and war). Still, Gandhi ji mentions several times that violence is far more acceptable than cowardice. So does this mean that the ghosts of Shivaji Maharaj and Guru Gobind Singh ji can rest in peace? Absolutely! Does this mean that they can be forgiven (since it seems that they haven't sinned)? Without a doubt! They fought bravely till the very end!
Violent acts are sometimes necessary to protect other people's human rights (Gandhi ji does not condemn the use of violence in situations where it is unavoidable. If lives are at stake, it is undoubtedly not avoidable). Examples throughout history illustrate how civil movements have brought about change and better access to people's human rights.
Enough about history and the deceased, fast forward to the 21st century (let's pick up where we left of (apologies, but history isn't nearly as fascinating as the modern era)). Social justice issues like racial injustice, wage gap, voting rights, climate justice, refugee crisis and healthcare have successfully been combated by spreading awareness through extremely successful nonviolent protests (as mentioned earlier in paragraphs 11 and 12 ). Without the use of weapons and brute force, “Black Lives Matter” was a viral protest (An estimated 15 million to 26 million people participated in the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests in the United States, making it one of the most significant movements in the country's history.). Just imagine if it was an organized, armed movement instead of a peaceful protest, mass bloodshed, destruction, pain, and irreparable damage would've been caused. The protest would've turned into a civil war (an intense armed conflict between states, governments, societies, or paramilitary groups such as mercenaries, insurgents, and militias. It is generally characterized by extreme violence, aggression, destruction, and mortality, using regular or irregular military forces). None of this would've changed anything at all. The massacre wouldn't bring back George Floyd; it wouldn't bring back Breonna Taylor, Daunte Wright, Andre Hill, Manuel Ellis, Rayshard Brooks, Daniel Prude, or Atatiana Jefferson. Instead, it would ruin everything else. You can't love someone back to life, and nonviolence didn't bring the victims of police brutality back to life either. But nonviolence didn't damage whatever we had left. It was nonviolence that was capable of making tremendous reforms in the flawed justice system of the United States of America. All in all, violence was not required to get the point across in this situation.
But, today's situation in Afghanistan makes me indecisive about the effectiveness of nonviolence. In a country that is struggling and dying, its residents are fleeing with their families and children, fighting frantically for their lives, not caring about their money or their houses, violence seems justifiable. The Taliban cruelly reduce women and girls to poverty; they continue to worsen their health and deprive them of their right to an education, and many times the right to practice their religion. Their regime systematically represses all sectors of the population, not just women and children, and denies even the most fundamental individual rights. Is it violence when external forces from other countries send in their troops to eliminate the destructive Taliban? Women are imprisoned in their homes and are denied access to basic health care and education. Food sent to help starving people is stolen by their leaders. The religious monuments of other faiths are destroyed. Children are forbidden to fly kites or sing songs. Is it really violent to eliminate the culprits of such gross human rights violations who have ruined tens of thousands of lives? Nonviolence against insurgent groups is like wearing a bicycle helmet to protect yourself from an attack by a military tank. The only way to stop the attack of a military tank is to use a much larger, heavier tank to block it, drive over it or use more vital defence strategies (like more potent weapons). Hence, the only way to stop violence, in this case, is a threat from a brutal, much more intimidating force.
In conclusion, like Gandhi ji says and countless historical events have proven, violence is unavoidable. Some situations escalate to the point where it seems only sensible to use violence to retaliate, or you risk losing everything. It seems like the best course of action to use brute force in situations like these (rather than submission or cowardly acts). Of course, in cases where violence is avoidable, matters should be sorted out peacefully (but never at the cost of sovereignty and integrity). We should avoid violence as much as possible because it always causes irreparable damage, keeping in mind that nonviolence can cause damage too (mostly self-destruction). We can use nonviolence and violence as the situation demands. They are both subjective and must be used wisely; only then will the maximum effectiveness be observed. One must keep in mind that anything in excess is poison, which could apply to both nonviolence and violence.
Citations
1. “Ahimsa v. Compassion” Navajivan, 31 March 1929.
2. “The Fiery Ordeal” Navajivan, 30 September 1928.
3. Letter to Bhogilal, Sabarmati Sangrahalaya (SN), 11811.
4. “The Fiery Ordeal” Navajivan, 30 September 1928.
5. A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy, Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan and Charles A. Moore, eds., (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1989), p. 259.
6. "Religion v. No Religion," Harijan, 9 June 1946.
7. Ibid.
8. "Letter to a Friend," in Raghavan Iyer, The Moral and Political Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. 11 (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1989), p. 266.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. "Religion v. No Religion," Harijan, 9 June 1946.
12. Gandhi states: "An armed conflict between nations horrifies us. But the economic war is no better than an armed conflict... An economic war is prolonged torture. And its ravages are no less terrible than those depicted in the literature on war properly so called." "Non-violence - The Greatest Force," The Hindu, 8 November 1926.13. Gita, 2:62-64.
14. "Problem of Nonviolence," Navajivan, 6 June 1926. 15. "Ethical religion," Indian Opinion, 5 January - 23 February, 1907.
16. "What is Non-violence?" Harijan, 19 December 1936.
17. "Force or Restraint?" Navajivan, 13 July 1924.
18. Navajivan, 30 September 1928.
19. Gandhi did not advocate euthanasia for human beings (or animals) unless the following conditions apply: "1. The disease from which the patient is suffering should be incurable. 2. All concerned have despaired of the life of the patient. 3. The case should be beyond all help or service. 4. It should be impossible for the patient in question to express his or its wish." "More about Ahimsa," Navajivan, 28 October 1928.
20. "A Letter," The Moral and Political Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. 11, p. 286-287.
21. Collected Works, (New Delhi, India: The Publications Division, Ministry of In formation and Broadcasting, Government of India, 1984), LXXXVI, p. 27.
22. "Chaos v. Misrule," Young India, March 1928. 23. A good example is the statement: "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent." "On the verge of it," Young India, 21 May 1925.
Edited by the Out of Print team
