Not too long ago I had a discussion with Asaf precisely on this topic - why I think Ghandi is one of the greatest men who ever lived. It was just after I had seen the movie about Ghandi’s life for a second time. I was gratified to read this article by Niranjan Ramakrishnan, which expresses so well why I admire Ghandi so much:
“Complete liberty, for Gandhi, was the first and last goal. India’s freedom from Britain, to him, was only an objective along the path, and a rather insignificant one at that. Far more important was the ability of each individual to seek out his own freedom. ‘Real Swaraj (freedom) will come, not by the acquisition of authority by a few, but by the acquisition of the capacity by all to resist authority when abused’, he wrote.”
“It is also in the context of liberty that ahimsa, his creed of non-violence, must be understood. It was not out of some sense of piety that he espoused peaceful means. He held non-violence to be essential because it afforded the only democratic means of struggle. It was available to everyone–not only to those who owned weapons. Secondly, a violent victory, even a just one, would only prove that violence triumphed, not necessarily justice. A violent solution would mean that the fate of the unarmed many would be mortaged to the benevolence of the armed few. This was contrary to liberty as seen by Gandhi.”
This message is so relevant to both sides of the conflict in Israel/Palestine. After the Holocaust, nearly all Jews accepted the equation that Zionism means the absolute need for Jews to acquire armed power, so that the horrors of the Holocaust shall never again be repeated. But by going down this path, the Jewish people have mortgaged our collective spirit to a Spartan state that, ironically, has become the most dangerous place in the world to be a Jew. As I have asked here many times, is Israel today really what we believe a Jewish state should be?
The Palestinians, too are following the same path. Even if they are victorious and achieve their goal of independence, their victory “would only prove that violence triumphed, not necessarily justice.” What kind of society will they be able to create with such a “victory?”
The path of satyagraha does not mean sitting on your hands and doing nothing, or turning the other cheek. Nor is the non-violent person a coward. Ghandi was an incredible activist and a fearless man: “Fearlessness is the first attribute of spirituality. Cowards can never be moral,” he said. Nor can the lazy, either, It takes far more effort and intelligence to create change through non-violence.
i strongly agree with Ramakrishnan’s conclusion: “Gandhi is not merely relevant–he is central.”
As an aside, many Jews view of Ghandi are influenced by George Orwell charicature of him:
…Gandhi’s view was that the German Jews ought to commit collective suicide, which “would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler’s violence.” After the war he justified himself: the Jews had been killed anyway, and might as well have died significantly.”
Some Jews go beyond Orwell and call Ghandi an anti-Jewish Nazi sympathizer. Orwell just thought him stupidly naive. While I am a great admirer of Orwell, he of all people should have been careful not to use propagandistic techniques to discredit a view he was not sympathetic to. Ghandi would never call on anyone to commit suicide. You can read the full letter Ghandi wrote in 1938 on the subject here.
After saying the Nazi persecution of the Jews “seems to have no parallel in history,” he says “If there ever could be justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany, to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race would be completely justified. But I do not believe in any war. A discussion of the pros and cons of such a war is therefore outside my horizon or province.” And so, consistently, he councils the path of non-violent resistance:
“If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German may and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon. I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment. And for doing this, I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance but would have confidence that in the end the rest are bound to follow my example. if one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now.”
Non-violent resistance means a willingness to die in the act of resistance, but it is not about committing suicide. The hope is that by resisting with dignity and calling on the opressor’s conscience, the latter might eventually be won over without having to sacrifice life on either side. It is violent resistance that is more akin to suicide, as we can see explicitely in the case of the Palestinian suicide bombers. But any resister who takes up a gun against overwhelming odds, will also almost surely die. The difference between him and the non-violent resistor is that the armed resistor will wreak “vengeance” by killing some of the oppressor. And precisely this killing will give those in power more excuses to perpetrate violence against the oppressed population.
In the context of 1938, before the outbreak of the war and before the Nazi regime had actually begun implementing the “final solution,” Ghandi’s advice is not at all far-fetched. While the Nazi leadership were totally heartless and would not be moved by Jewish resistance, the German people as a whole were not yet totally caught up in the Nazi war machine. The Holocaust was not inevitable. Who knows if a Jewish Ghandi had arisen, what the effect might have been?
We do know the price that was paid by the end of the war because the path of violence was chosen by all sides. Tens of millions of people died and the Nazis were able to use the cover of war to implement the policy of extermination of the Jews. Ghandi said after the war that while many might have died if the path of non-violence had been followed, perhaps the overthrow of the evil regime could have been achieved with far less loss of life. And the ultimate victory would have been more just.
Many Jews are also offended by Ghandi’s views on the Israel/Palestine conflict. How prescient he sounds to me in these words written 65 years ago:
“And now a word to the Jews in Palestine. I have no doubt that they are going about it the wrong way. The Palestine of the biblical conception is not a geographical tract. It is in their hearts. But if they must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or, the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs.”
“They should seek to convert the Arab heart. The same God rules the Arab heart who rules the Jewish heart. They can offer satyagraha in front of the Arabs and offer themselves to be shot or thrown into the Dead Sea without raising a little finger against them. They will find the world opinion in their favour in their religious aspiration. There are hundreds of ways of reasoning with the Arabs, if they will only discard the help of the British bayonet. As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them.”
“I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non- violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.”
Another interesting analysis of this letter and Gandi’s views on Zionism may be found here.
One final note. The term “Satyagraha” means the “Force which is born of Truth and Love,” what I have elsewhere referred to as compassionate justice.
Tags: Activism, Feature, Holocaust, Non-violence
