| Satyagraha
and the Mysterious Power of Gandhi’s Non-violence Part 2. By Paul Sinclair (One World One People) 11/9/06 and revised on 29/9/10 Welcome back as we waste no time is shining the torch straight back on the past and see what interesting things are revealed. How do we produce soul force and who is qualified to use it? Returning to the words of Gandhi himself:
‘Man and his deed are two distinct things.’…‘ “Hate the sin and not the sinner” is a precept which, though easy enough to understand is rarely practiced, and that is why the poison of hatred spreads in the world.’ ‘In its positive form, ahimsa (non-violence, positively the practice of love) means the largest love, greatest charity. If I am a follower of ahimsa I must love my enemy. I must apply the same rules to the wrong-doer who is my enemy or a stranger to me, as I would to my wrong-doing father or son.’ ‘Non-violence to be a potent force must begin with the mind. Non-violence of the mere body without the cooperation of the mind is non-violence of the weak or the cowardly, and has therefore no potency.’ ‘The essence of violence is that there must be a violent intention behind a thought, word, or act, i.e., an intention to do harm to the opponent so-called.’ ‘At every step he (the exponent of non-violence) has to use his discrimination as to what is ahimsa and what is himsa (violence).’ And what of emotions like anger that make the deliberate practice of non-violence very difficult?
‘Non-violence presupposes ability to strike. It is a conscious, deliberate restraint put upon one’s desire for vengeance…Forgiveness is higher still…The desire for vengeance comes out of fear of harm, imaginary or real. A man who fears no one on earth would consider it troublesome even to summon up anger against one who is vainly trying to injure him.’ ‘…I believe that non-violence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier.’ ‘A man cannot practice ahimsa and be a coward at the same time. The practice of ahimsa calls forth the greatest courage.’ ‘Non-violence is the summit of bravery.’ ‘No matter how weak a person is in body, if it is a shame to flee, he will stand his ground and die at his post.’
‘The strength to kill is not essential for self-defence; one ought to have the strength to die. When a man is fully ready to die, he will not desire to offer violence.’ Gandhi goes into depth in many of his writings to explain that there are exceptions that allow for the use of violence, but qualifies this: ‘Perfect non-violence is impossible so long as we exist physically…Perfect non-violence whilst you are inhabiting the body is only a theory like Euclid’s point or straight line, but we have to endeavour every moment of our lives.’
‘The principle of non-violence necessitates complete abstention from exploitation in any form.’ Finally, are their limits to the situations where non-violence can be successfully applied? Gandhi explains:
‘…One who hooks his fortunes to ahimsa, the law of love, daily lessens the circle of destruction, and to that extent promotes life and love; he who swears by himsa, the law of hate, daily widens the circle of destruction, and to that extent promotes death and hate.’ What relevance does the science of non-violence have to modern times and the current conflicts raging throughout our world? Many clues can once again be found in his own words. It seems human beings may change but the laws of nature do not. ‘My experience, daily growing stronger and richer, tells me that there is no peace for individuals or for nations without practicing truth and non-violence to the uttermost extent possible for man. The policy of retaliation has never succeeded.’ ‘…my study of history has taught that hatred and violence used in however noble a cause only breed their kind and instead of bringing peace, jeopardize it.’ ‘I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.’ ‘From violence done to the foreign ruler, violence to our own people whom we may consider to be obstructing the country’s progress is an easy natural step. Whatever may have been the result of violent activities in other countries and without reference to the philosophy of non-violence, it does not require much intellectual effort to see that if we resort to violence for ridding society of many abuses which impede our progress, we shall add to our difficulties and postpone the day of freedom. The people unprepared for reforms because unconvinced of their necessity will be maddened with rage over the coercion, and will seek the assistance of the foreigner in order to retaliate.’ Finally he warns of the folly of weapons of mass destruction and the arms race: ‘…The moral to be legitimately drawn from the supreme tragedy of the atom bomb is that it will not be destroyed by counter bombs, even as violence cannot be by counter violence. Mankind has to go out of violence only through non-violence. Hatred can be overcome only by love. Counter hatred only increases the surface, as well as the depth of hatred.’ I did not move a muscle, when I first heard that an atom bomb had wiped out Hiroshima. On the contrary I said to myself, ‘Unless now the world adopts non-violence, it will spell certain suicide for mankind.’
See also:
|
©
One World One People, 11 September 2006
This Web page may be linked to any other Web sites. Contents may not be altered
This Web page may be linked to any other Web sites. Contents may not be altered