Was Veer Savarkar a Nazi?

(2206)

Shukla Yajur Veda 20.25

The ancient Vedic seers provided different teachings for different levels and temperaments of human beings. They recognized an organic order to society, in which various individuals and classes perform different functions for the benefit of the whole. This is just like the various organs of the body in which the hands perform one function and the feet another. A healthy society, like a healthy body, must have a place for all its different members and honor all their different functions. It cannot make one function, however important, exclude or denigrate the others.

The sages sought to spiritualize society through emphasizing the ultimate goal of liberation (Moksha), but at the same time they recognized that the evolution of souls takes place over many births and in a number of ways. They did not try to impose an artificial spiritual standard upon everyone, trying to turn all people into monks and renunciates, but formed an organic social order that allowed for all necessary types of human experience. While much of this system in time degenerated into mere caste by birth, it was based on a great and important idea that is universal and must once more be considered.

Unfortunately, this comprehensive Hindu Dharma has been misunderstood in modern times and there has been an attempt to impose certain practices appropriate for one group of society on all groups. Particularly the role of the Kshatriya, the political or warrior class has been misunderstood. Most obvious in this regard is the absolute non‑violence taught by Mahatma Gandhi.

Gandhi rejected the traditional Kshatriya role in society by teaching that it is wrong for Hindus to use force under any circumstances, even to defend themselves. Gandhi took the non‑violence appropriate to monks and yogis and tried to impose it upon the political and military classes of the country, and on the population of Hindus as a whole. He opposed any use of force by Hindus and was against India even having an army. While non-violence can be a useful political tool in certain circumstances, Gandhi turned it into an article of faith for Hindus, a dogma not to be questioned but to be applied mechanically in all situations.

We must admit that this strategy of non‑violence may have been appropriate against the British, who had some refinement of feeling. It was employed at a time when Hindus did not have much military strength or knowhow as an alternative. We can admire the Mahatma for the decisive way in which he used non‑violence, demonstrating an admirable courage in standing up to the British and not hesitating to criticize their wrong actions.

Similarly his stance against the Christian missionaries and their conversion policies was strong and fearless. Certainly he was an intellectual Kshatriya at least, using the word as a weapon against oppression. We must also remember that Gandhi himself fought in the British army when he was young and in South Africa and was a recruiter for the British army and may have been reacting against his own past and the kind of false Kshatriya he saw among the British.

However, this emphasis on absolute non‑violence has weakened the Kshatriya Dharma in India and created a situation in which many Hindus feel that it is against their religion to have any warrior spirit at all. It has caused Hindus to abandon the political field to people of different and often anti‑Hindu sentiments. Hindus have forgotten the warrior voices both in the modern Indian independence movement, notably Sri Aurobindo, and in India’s illustrious past of great kings and princes.

If a Dharmic Kshatriya is not created through the force of Brahma or spiritual knowledge, then the likelihood is that an adharmic Kshatriya will come to fill in the vacuum. This is exactly what occurred in modern India. After the excessive emphasis on non‑violence in the Indian independence movement no genuine Kshatriya was enabled to rule country.

This left the country prey to a false Kshatriya, based mainly upon Marxist ideals, mixed with warlord temperaments, such as in communist countries, who misled the people and prevented the real growth of the nation. The decline of a Kshatriya Dharma in India weakened the character of the nation and resulted in a situation that would have probably horrified Gandhi himself. His own Congress party, which he wanted to dissolve once independence was achieved, has now become so riddled with corruption that it has nearly lost all credibility, not to mention integrity.

Vedic Non-Violence

We should contrast the Gandhian view of non-violence with that of the older Hindu tradition, particularly the teachings of Sri Krishna and the Mahabharata. This great epic contains many chapters on the role of the Kshatriya class and its need to apply force in order to uphold right behavior in society. Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita taught several levels of teaching, not only the way of renunciation but also the Yoga of works, and always honored the Kshatriya Dharma.

Sri Krishna worked throughout his life to create a Dharmic Kshatriya, an order of noble souls who could establish and sustain a Dharmic social order. He was willing to promote a great battle, a civil war among the Kshatriya themselves, to allow his hand picked Dharmic Kshatriya followers to gain power. He purified the Indian Kshatriya with the blood of a Dharmic war.( Dharma Yudh )

Because of his great achievement a Kshatriya order was established in India that maintained a Dharmic society for many centuries. This example should not be lost on us today. The Kshatriya of India today, its social and political leaders, require a similar Dharmic purification, perhaps not a Kurukshetra in the literal sense but a purification from false values and egoistic practices that are rampant everywhere.

Sri Krishna repeatedly encouraged Arjuna and his brothers to fight, though they were reluctant to do so. He never asked them to suppress their Kshatriya spirit. He raised up the spirit of Arjuna on the battlefield to fight his own kinsmen and gurus for the sake of Dharma.

One cannot imagine a more difficult battle than this. Should there be any doubt that absolute non‑violence is always better, this would have been the ideal situation in which to employ it. But it was Krishna himself who made the Pandavas go through with this terrible battle.

After the war when Yudhishthira lamented the loss of life in the battle, with so many friends and kinsmen slain, Krishna and the sages came to point out the value of such a Kshatriya role in spite of the dire consequences involved. This section of the text, Raja Dharma Parva, on the role of Kings, is worth much study in this context.

There is an entire chapter on the greatness of the Raja Danda or royal use of punishment (Shanti Parva XV.7), which states, “They sink into blinding darkness, if the Danda (rod of punishment) is not employed.” When Yudhishthira wanted to leave the world and become a monk he was told not to and taught, “The Danda (rod) is the Kshatriya Dharma, not shaving one’s head (becoming a monk, XXIII. 47).” The same section of the text teaches skill in battle and a righteous war as the duty of the Kshatriya and the foundation of a healthy society. It says that the Kshatriya Dharma is the basis of spirituality because without the protection of a dharmic Kshatriya, Brahmins, monks and yogis themselves will have no protection or support.

Even Buddhism was not the non-violent movement that it is portrayed today. Not only all Hindu but all Buddhist and Jain kings had their armies. Ahimsa as referring to the rejection of any use of force or employment of weapons was not traditionally employed as a state policy in Buddhism either but only as a policy of personal spiritual practice. Even the great Buddhist King Ashoka did not disband his armies or stop the policing of his borders.

Absolute and Relative Non-violence

We must discriminate between what we could call “absolute non-violence” and “relative non-violence.” Absolute non-violence means not even raising a hand even to defend oneself from unjust attack. Relative non-violence means only using violence to defend oneself and one’s community.

Relative non-violence is appropriate for communities and for those who have not renounced the world, and above all for the Kshatriya or noble class of people who cannot idly stand by in the face of oppression. Absolute non‑violence – that is, not resorting to force even to defend one’s life and property – is a Dharma in Hinduism for Sannyasins or those who have renounced the world, and therefore have nothing to defend.

Yet even Swamis can use force to protect their country should they choose to do so when their country is attacked. We note that in the course of Indian history that many monks and Brahmins found it necessary to resort to violence to defend their country against invaders. A number of monastic orders had militant sides to protect the Dharma.

The Indian independence movement received much impetus from Swamis and Yogis in Bengal around the turn of the century, including such figures as Sri Aurobindo and Sister Nivedita, the fiery Irish woman disciple of Vivekananda, who advocated the use of force to overthrow the British. Freedom fighters who advocated the use of force against the British, included Tilak, Aurobindo, and Savarkar. These figures also followed the teachings of Yoga and Vedanta and were not less spiritually minded than Gandhi.

Such dharmic warriors followed a long tradition including Shivaji, Ranjit Singh, Rana Pratap, and such avatars as Rama and Krishna, who took up arms to defend the Dharma. Sri Aurobindo also supported the allied cause against Hitler in World War II and the American cause against the communists in the Korean War. Gandhi meanwhile launched his Quit India movement in 1942, interfering with the British war effort, in spite of what was known about Hitler’s actions.

This different view than Gandhi was not because Sri Aurobindo’s mentality was unspiritual. He knew the circumstances in which non-violence could work and those in which it would be self-defeating. Gandhian non-violence, however idealistic, like his asking of the Jews to offer themselves to Hitler’s furnaces in order to melt Hitler’s heart, lacked at times even common sense.

Absolute non‑violence is no more appropriate for everyone than are monastic rules like celibacy. Gandhi tried to impose celibacy upon his workers as well, which similarly, given human nature, did not work.

Like other monastic rules, non‑violence was never turned into a general rule of social conduct in the older Hindu Dharma. Historically Hindu, Buddhist and Jain Kings of India, Tibet and China were allowed to use force to protect their kingdoms, and to punish criminals, even though their religions teach non-violence as a spiritual discipline.

To impose an artificial standard of non-violence on a society as a whole undermines the Kshatriya Dharma, or the political Dharma, and can damage the social order. It can undermine the will of a people to defend itself and weaken its sense of community identity. Those who have families and homes have a natural instinct to defend them when attacked. To tell such people that it is wrong for them to defend their loved ones is to make them feel guilty and confused.

It weakens their self‑esteem and vitality, which only makes them prey to violence from the outside. It invites attack and thereby leads to more bloodshed than if people were allowed to defend themselves in the first place.

When we try to artificially impose a standard of absolute non-violence upon ordinary people, or make it the policy of a nation, we are acting in violation of the natural order. Such an impossible standard can only undermine the social order. In fact, the imposition of non-violence on everyone is itself a form of violence, the imposition of an artificial standard on our natural instincts that must cause suffering.

The great Swamis of India did not seek to undermine the Kshatriya Dharma. Adi Shankaracharya accepted the value of Kshatriya Dharma as he did a Vedic order for Hindu society. Let us also look at the example of the great Swami Vidyarananya of Sringeri (fourteenth century), an Advaitin (non-dualist) and a Mayavadin, who yet inspired two Hindu Kshatriyas who had become Muslims to reconvert to Hinduism and found the great Hindu kingdom of Vijayanagar to protect the Dharma. He did not ask for these Kshatriya rulers to follow absolute non‑violence.

One might ask that if all is Maya or illusion, why would a great Swami start a kingdom? Such a question shows a profound misunderstanding of Hindu Dharma. One can only transcend the world by fulfilling one’s Dharma, and even if one has done this, one still has the duty to others to teach, guide and raise the world. Let us also look at the example of Samartha Ramdas, who inspired the great King Shivaji of the Marathas and his successors, whose armies were the main factor behind the defeat of the Mogul Empire.

What is particularly strange is that Mahatma Gandhi’s policies have become accepted by people East and West as representing the original teachings of Hinduism, which is not the case. Gandhi took solace in the Bhagavad Gita as the main holy book in his life, though the Gita promotes the Kshatriya Dharma and honors a defensive war.

It could be argued that Gandhi did not understand the yogic principle of non‑violence – a point that Sri Aurobindo made.[1] Gandhi’s non‑violent resistance is not the same as the non‑violence outlined in traditional texts like the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, which is not a form of resistance employed on a social level but a spiritual principle applied in individual sadhana.

Gandhi put people, including himself, in situations where they would draw the violence of others upon themselves. This was done in order to make the British rulers feel guilty about the violence they were forced to perpetrate upon passive victims, so that their bad conscience would force them to change their ways. Such “passive resistance” is a political weapon and can be a very useful one. But it should not invalidate the instinct for self‑defense and the nobility of fighting for truth.

Non‑violent resistance in the political sphere is particularly useful for a large group dealing with a superior, preferably less numerous enemy who has a conscience. But such non‑violent resistance is not useful in all circumstances. An enemy who has no conscience, like Hitler, would not be moved by it, but would exploit it to his own advantage, using it to disarm his opponents.

When the enemy has no real conscience the only recourse is the force of arms, which requires a true Kshatriya class trained in fighting. Yet Gandhi encouraged the Jews to follow such absolute non-violence and passively offer themselves to Hitler.

Ahimsa has a different meaning in a Kshatriya context. It means protecting people and reducing the violence directed against them by outside invaders or by criminals. This was the type of violence that Krishna and the Pandavas engaged in to defend the Dharma. Yet this type of Kshatriya expression of ahimsa was not followed or promoted by Gandhi.

The Need for a Kshatriya Revival

To want to fight unrighteous people who are invading your country, or falsely ruling over your people, is the appropriate instinct of the Kshatriya, to deny which is to deny their vitality. Once the vitality of the Kshatriya – who represent the vital or energetic aspect of society – is weakened then the whole society can become devitalized. This dogmatic emphasis on non‑violence has set in motion a one‑sided teaching and a distortion that has weakened modern India.

Rather than defending themselves, Hindus turn on other Hindus who try to defend themselves against unjust attacks, even if it means being sympathetic with those enemies who are attacking fellow Hindus.

If Hindus criticize non‑Hindus, even truthfully, it is Hindus themselves who protest. Whereas if non‑Hindus attack or criticize Hindus, other Hindus try to look upon the attack with equanimity, tolerance, or even try to make the Hindus who are attacked responsible for it.

To insist that all Hindus follow absolute non‑violence in their social life is to effectively destroy any real Kshatriya class or instinct. Owing to the self‑effacing view so created, true Kshatriyas in India doubt themselves and are ashamed of their instincts to protect the country.

Hindus often feel that to be real Hindus they could never use any weapon, nor should they defend themselves, their country or their family. They hesitate to defend their religion against distortions in the media or in the textbooks of their own country. Such apparent non‑violence or tolerance is more cowardice than the expression of peace.

The integral teaching of original Hinduism honors the Kshatriya Dharma and the place of the warrior. A nation can only be built up and ruled by Kshatriyas. That is their appropriate role in society. Please note that I am not speaking about caste here, but about the mentality and instincts of a person.

True Kshatriyas may come from any so-called caste today and are to be known by their character and their actions. Should there not be an adequate Kshatriya class in a country, all the other classes must take up a Kshatriya activity, even the Brahmins. In fact a true Brahmin must have learned the value of Kshatriya Dharma in order to be really able to go beyond it.

Governing a country requires strong leadership, including a well‑trained army and police force, not as forces of tyranny but for protection. There are many people in society who contain the gunas (qualities) of rajas and tamas, aggressive and obstinate tendencies which, if not controlled through clear laws and punishments, will wreak havoc.

Sattvic (spiritual) methods like non‑violence work only if there is enough sattva in people to respond to these, which unfortunately is not always the case. For this reason traditional Hindu teachings like the Mahabharata emphasize the importance of danda or the use of punishment to maintain law and order (Dharma).

The nations of the world are not sattvic or spiritual entities but worldly, commercial and military entities that are neither sympathetic nor conscious of spiritual values. They must be dealt with first by the right diplomacy, which is the role of intellectual Kshatriya. But a good army must be there as well. This does not mean that India should not be idealistic or naive in dealing with the nations of the world who follow their own principles that may not be not rooted in any Dharmic tradition.

Some fear that encouraging a Hindu Kshatriya would create a militant Hindu fundamentalism. They imagine paramilitary Hindu groups, Hindu terrorists, or Hindu Jihads, as is the situation in Islam today. However, Hinduism is a pluralistic religion quite unlike exclusive monotheistic religions that can easily create a fundamentalism of One God, One Savior and One Book. There is no history of Hindu Jihad, nor of any Hindu terrorist activity to conquer the world.

There is similarly no comparable Hindu missionary aggression as that of the Christians. The fear of Hindu militancy is more a fear of Hindu activism by groups that profit from a lack of Hindu political activity, mainly leftist and communist groups in India. On the contrary, it is leftist youth gangs who attack Hindu sadhus in Bengal, and it is Hindu workers who are murdered in Kerala by similar groups.

The idea that Hindu activism has to be avoided so as to prevent Hindu militancy, is like saying a person who has been beat up should not be allowed to stand up on his feet again because he is likely to become an aggressor like the person who trampled him down in the first place. Only Hindus seem to be willing to accept this politics of masochism. But they should at least recognize that no other group in the world does, nor did Hindus in classical India.

When the true Kshatriya spirit is not honored, a false Kshatriya takes power, which is what has happened in modern India. Gandhian politics has been replaced by socialist, communist and simply opportunistic policies of an adharmic nature. Had the true Kshatriya spirit not been already weakened, this would likely not have happened.

To awaken spiritually and culturally, India needs to reclaim its Kshatriya spirit, which is an integral part of its traditions. It needs to honor its Ramas, Arjunas, and Shivajis, who maintained their nobility and spirituality, though they had to resort to force to protect the Dharma. There is perhaps no other country so unappreciative of its great Kshatriyas, though there is perhaps no other country that has had Kshatriyas of such spiritual greatness.

The key to the revival of India lies in its Kshatriya spirit, which is integral to its spiritual heritage. The idea of the spiritual warrior and the warrior as a Dharmic force must arise again, not as apart from spiritual knowledge but as its manifestation.

A New Kshatriya

Should Hindus take a more active Kshatriya role, other political and social groups may raise the image of Mahatma Gandhi against them, though they themselves do not lead Gandhian lives. It is not service to the nation that motivates these people, or defense of the country, but their personal agendas and the politics of vote banks. No doubt the possibility of assertive Hinduism scares the leftists in India and they will try to discredit it with the image of Hindu militancy, if not fascism.

Hindus must be willing to gain strength from it rather than feel apologetic, which will only weaken their resolve. As the Mahabharata states, the heart of a Kshatriya should be strong and unshakable like the thunderbolt, not weak and hypersensitive. Can anyone honestly say, even those who are not Hindus, that Hindus are suffering from an excessive Kshatriya spirit?

Who then are these Kshatriyas? They are Hindus engaged in traditional Kshatriya activities like army, police, government, legal system, and all forms of political and social activism. They must strive to follow a true Dharmic Kshatriya spirit, rather than the convenient corruption and obsequiousness that is common in India today. A Kshatriya of some sort is going to exist because these social roles must be filled by someone, the question is whether it will be Dharmic or not.

Let us remember the true Hindu Kshatriya ideal and its spiritual roots. A true Kshatriya is not violent in mind, but will only use force to protect Dharma against violent people when there is no other alternative. He will not be motivated by greed, fame or sectarian interests but will work selflessly for the universal good. Above all he is never a hypocrite, he will do what he says and say what he really does.

He will stand firm against all odds, even if it means to fight against a superior enemy. He will not quit without a fight, though he will not resort to violence unless he has no other choice. Such was the warrior spirit of Arjuna and this is what the nation of India really needs today, in fact all countries need it in this era of corruption and showmanship

     ^[1] Note India’s Rebirth, Institute De Recherches Evolutives, Paris, pp. 160-162, 210-211 etc.

(23409)

The post-World War 2 era of world history saw the dramatic end of colonialism all around the world. The first and most devastating blow to colonialism was the freedom of India, in which over night 1/5^th of humanity were freed. Despite the sad events that accompanied Independence (i.e. the partition of India and the accompanying massacres), Independence Day is a happy event, celebrated by over a billion people every year. India was the first country to free herself, and her freedom gave impetus and hope to the freedom movements of so many other countries spread out over. Asia and Africa. This section is dedicated to the sacrifice of all of the freedom fighters who struggled against European colonialism.

Many of the most prominent freedom fighters were inspired by the Bhagavad Gita. Many even went to the gallows and were executed with the Gita in their hands. The Swadeshi movement of Bengal in 1905 began with a gathering of 50,000 people on the streets on the streets of Calcutta, each with the Gita in their hands. The crowds proceeded to the Kali Temple where they vowed to boycott British goods and drive the British from their lands. The following are very brief biographies about some of the many great leaders and freedom fighters that drew inspiration from the Gita:

Lokmanya Tilak (1856-1920) was known as the “Father of Indian Unrest”. He was the very first person to demand full independence from Britain in the Congress sessions. He explained: “The most practical teaching of the Gita, and one for which it is of abiding interest and value to the men of the world with whom life is a series of struggles, is not to give way to any morbid sentimentality when duty demands sternness and the boldness to face terrible things.” And “It is my firm conviction that it is of utmost importance that every man, woman and child of India understands the message of the Gita.” He write a commentary on the Gita called “Gita Rahasya”, which even today is one of the best books written on the Gita

Bankim Chandra Chatterji (1858-1930) – Bankim Chandra was not a freedom fighter, but through his writings he sparked of an intense freedom struggle and breathed a new passion and life into the nation, particularly his native region of Bengal, which became kindled with religious, nationalistic and artistic fervour after being infused with the powerful visions contained in his writings. Virtually all of you will have heard the famous slogan “Vande Mataram” (I bow to the Mother). The poem and song by this name was first written by him in his famous novel “Anandamath”. The Anandamath story is set in 18^th century India, when a group of warrior sannyasis mounted a guerilla war against Muslim rule (based on a true historical attempt by sannyasis to do precisely this). It was a riveting story line with amazing characters and meaningful dialogues. Yet more importantly, hundreds of thousands of Indians took the story as a metaphor for their own present day situation, understanding it as a call to arms to drive the new tyrants (the British) away from the sacred soil. “Vande Mararam” became the slogan of the freedom struggle. Bankim Chandra drew deep inspiration from the Gita. He wrote a commentary on the Gita, which was only three quarters complete when he died, and an inspiring life sketch of Krishna based on historical and literary research, titled Sri Krishna Charitra.

Mahatma Gandhi’s (1869-1948)  role in the freedom movement of India needs no explanation. His very name invokes images of India’s Independence. He was a kshatriya who fought his battle with unique weapons. He drew great inspiration and courage from the Gita, “I find a solace in the Bhagavad-Gita that I miss even in the Sermon on the Mount [Gandhi felt that the Sermon was the most deep and meaningful dialogue in the Christian teachings]. When disappointment stares me in the face and all alone I see not one ray of light, I go back to the Bhagavad-Gita. I find a verse here and a verse there , and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming tragedies — and my life has been full of external tragedies — and if they have left no visible or indelible scar on me, I owe it all to the teaching of Bhagavad-Gita.”

Sri Aurobindo Ghose (1872-1950) was one of the greatest revolutionaries in the early phase of the Indian freedom struggle, and is recognised throughout the world as a great mystic, intellectual and visionary. He felt that India’s weakness had been due to a weak-minded and cowardly group of leaders, who did not have the nerves to face hardship and take risks for the better of the nation. He emphasised the necessity of the Gita in uplifting India as well as liberating humanity from the bondage of our lower nature into the bliss of divinity. He wrote a beautiful selection of essays on the Gita and its secrets. “A certain class of minds shrink from aggressiveness as if it were a sin.          It is an error, we repeat, to think that spirituality is a thing divorced from life…. It is an error to think that the heights of religion are above the struggles of this world. The recurrent cry of Sri Krishna to Arjuna insists on the struggle; “Fight and overthrow thy opponents!”, “Remember me and fight!”, “Give up all thy works to me with a heart full of spirituality, and free from craving, free from selfish claims, fight! Let the fever of thy soul pass from thee.”

Damodarpanth Chapekar (executed 1898) – In the late 1890’s, in the Maharashtra province of India, there was a devastating plague, which killed many people. The British colonial government was very unhelpful about relief for the suffering people. Indeed, the British agricultural policies (enforcing production of cotton rather than traditional food crops) seriously compounded the problem. The celebrations of Queen Victoria’s Golden Jubilee (50 year’s of rule) were held in the Poona city of Maharashtra. The celebration was carried out with such immense pomp and splendour, in a region where innumerable people were suffering. This sent a wave of resentment amongst the Indian populace, against the colonial government. It was at this time that the erstwhile limited freedom struggle against the British gained support and momentum. As a mark of the people’s resentment against the British administration, an important incident occurred which was to breath a hitherto unknown fire into the revolutionary freedom movement. Outraged by the countless miseries of the famine and plague stricken masses and the excesses committed by the British soldiers, Damodarpant Chapekar shot dead the British plague commissioner, Mr Rand, and the British officer Mr Ayerst on June 22, 1897, in Poona (the city which has been a cradle of heroes throughout history). He was later betrayed by two friends, and was sentenced to death. He embraced the gallows with the Bhagavad Gita in his hands on April 18^th 1898.

Madanlal Dhingra (1887-1909) was the assassin of Sir Cyrzon Wyllie, in London in 1909. He was executed in London on 17 August 1909. Bhagat Singh acknowledged Dhingra as his predecessor. A colourful and brave personality throughout his short life, he died with the Gita in his hands.

Khudiram Bose (1889-1906) was a young revolutionary from Bengal. He was brought up with a deep knowledge of the Hindu heritage, and he was constantly pained that a country which had once achieved so much was now bankrupt and under foreign yoke. He was arrested and hung at the young age of 17 for his part in an attack on British targets. He had the words “Vande Mataram” on his lips and the Bhagavad Gita in his hands when he died.

Hemu Kalani (1923-1943) was a freedom fighter from Sindh, who participated in all aspects of the freedom struggle, from the boycott of British goods, to Gandhi’s campaigns and revolutionary activities. He was caught in a plot to steal British munitions and supply it to Indians. While marching to the gallows, he consoled his distressed mother by quoting verses from the Gita regarding the indestructibility of soul. This shows the bravery and coolness that the Gita can inspire, even in the face of calamity. He said as he was about to be executed that he would like to be born again to finish the job of liberating India. He embraced the gallows with the Bhagavad Gita in his hands on April 18^th 1898.

(6314)

Gandhiji’s mistakes

Without attempting to approach completeness, we may sum up as Gandhi’s biggest political failures the following events:

(1) Recruiting Indian soldiers for the British war effort in 1914-18 without setting any conditions, in the vain hope that this unilateral gift to Britain would bring about sufficient goodwill in London for conceding to India the status of a self-ruling dominion within the British Empire, on a par with Canada or Australia. While it was already off line for a pacifist to cooperate in such a wasteful war (as contrasted with World War 2, to both sides a kind of holy war where fundamental principles were at stake), Gandhiji’s stance was also a glaring failure of political skill, since he neglected to extract any tangible gains for India in return for the thousands of Indian lives which he sacrificed to British imperial interests.

(2) Committing the mobilisation potential of the freedom movement to the Khil’fat agitation in 1920-22, again a non-negotiated unilateral gift. The Khilafat movement was a tragicomical mistake, aiming at the restoration of the Ottoman Caliphate against which the Arabs had risen in revolt and which the Turks were dissolving, a process completed with the final abolition of the institution of the Caliphate in 1924. It was a purely retrograde and reactionary movement, and more importantly for Indian nationalism, it was an intrinsically anti-nationalist movement pitting specifically Islamic interests against secular and non-Muslim interests. Gandhi made the mistake of hubris by thinking he could reconcile Khilafatism and Indian nationalism, and he also offended his Muslim allies (who didn’t share his commitment to non-violence) by calling off the agitation when it turned violent. The result was even more violence, with massive Hindu-Muslim riots replacing the limited instances of anti-British attacks, just as many level-headed freedom fighters had predicted. Gandhiji failed to take the Khilafat movement seriously whether at the level of principle or of practical politics, and substituted his own imagined and idealized reading of the Khilafat doctrine for reality.

(3) His autocratic decision to call off the mass agitation for complete independence in 1931, imposed upon his mass following and his close lieutenants against their wishes and better judgment, in exchange for a few puny British concessions falling far short of the movement’s demands. His reputation abroad didn’t suffer, but to informed observers, he had thrown away his aura as an idealist leader standing above petty politics; the Pact between Gandhi and Viceroy Lord Irwin amounted to the sacrifice of a high national goal in favour of a petty rise in status for the Congress. Also, every delay in the declaration of Independence gave the emerging separatist forces the time to organize and to strengthen their position.

(4) Taking a confused and wavering position vis-vis India’s involvement in World War 2. His initial refusal to commit India to the war effort could have been justified on grounds of pacifist principle as well as national pride (the Viceroy had committed India without consulting the native leadership), but it was a failure because his followers weren’t following. Indian recruits and business suppliers of the Army eagerly joined hands with the British rulers, thus sidelining Gandhi into political irrelevance. By contrast, the Muslim League greatly improved its bargaining positions by joining the war effort, an effect not counterbalanced by the small Hindu Mahasabha’s similar strategy. The pro-Partition case which the Muslim League advocated was bolstered while Gandhi’s opposition to the imminent Partition was badly weakened. Gandhi was humiliated by his impotence before the degeneration of his “Quit India” agitation into violence and by ultimately having to come around to a collaborationist position himself.

(5) Taking a confused and wavering position vis-vis the Partition plan, including false promises to the Hindus of the designated Pakistani areas to prevent Partition or at least to prevent their violent expulsion. He chose not to use his weapon of a fast unto death to force Mohammed Ali Jinnah into backing down from Partition, a move which cast doubt on the much-touted bravery of all his other fasts “unto death” performed to pressurize more malleable opponents. If acquiescing in the Partition could still be justified as a matter of inevitability, there was no excuse for his insistence on half measures, viz. his rejecting plans for an organized exchange of population, certainly a lesser evil when compared to the bloody religious cleansing that actually took place. Gentle surgeons make stinking wounds.

(6) Refusing to acknowledge that Pakistan had become an enemy state after its invasion of Kashmir, by undertaking a fast unto death in order to force the Indian government to pay Pakistan 55 crore rupees from the British-Indian treasury. Pakistan was entitled to this money, but given its aggression, it would have been normal to set the termination of its aggression, including the withdrawal of its invading troops, as a condition for the payment. Indeed, that would have been a sterling contribution to the cause of enduring peace, saving the lives of the many thousands who fell in subsequent decades because of the festering wound which Kashmir has remained under partial Pakistani occupation. Coming on top of Gandhi’s abandonment of the Hindus trapped in Pakistan in August 1947, it was this pro-Pakistani demand, as well as his use of his choice moral weapon (left unused to save India’s unity or the persecuted Hindus in Pakistan) in the service of an enemy state’s treasury, that angered a few Hindu activists to the point of plotting his murder.

Problems with pacifism

The common denominator in all these costly mistakes was a lack of realism. Gandhi refused to see the realities of human nature; of Islamic doctrine with its ambition of domination; of the modern mentality with its resentment of autocratic impositions; of people’s daily needs making them willing to collaborate with the rulers in exchange for career and business opportunities; of the nationalism of the Hindus who would oppose the partition of their Motherland tooth and nail; of the nature of the Pakistani state as intrinsically anti-India and anti-Hindu.

In most of these cases, Gandhi’s mistake was not his pacifism per se. In the case of his recruiting efforts for World War 1, there wasn’t even any pacifism involved, but loyalty to the Empire whether in peace or in war. The Khilafat pogroms revealed one of the real problems with his pacifism: all while riding a high horse and imposing strict conformity with the pacifist principle, he indirectly provoked far more violence than was in his power to control. Other leaders of the freedom movement, such as Annie Besant and Lala Lajpat Rai, had warned him that he was playing with fire, but he preferred to obey his suprarational “inner voice”.

The fundamental problem with Gandhi’s pacifism, not in the initial stages but when he had become the world-famous leader of India’s freedom movement (1920-47), was his increasing extremism. All sense of proportion had vanished when he advocated non-violence not as a technique of moral pressure by a weaker on a stronger party, but as a form of masochistic surrender. Elsewhere (Elst: Gandhi and Godse, Voice of India, Delhi 2001, p.120-121) I have cited four instances of his advice to the victims of communal violence which is simply breathtaking for its callousness in the face of human suffering. Two more instances follow.

During his prayer meeting on 1 May 1947, he prepared the Hindus and Sikhs for the anticipated massacres of their kind in the upcoming state of Pakistan with these words: “I would tell the Hindus to face death cheerfully if the Muslims are out to kill them. I would be a real sinner if after being stabbed I wished in my last moment that my son should seek revenge. I must die without rancour. (*) You may turn round and ask whether all Hindus and all Sikhs should die. Yes, I would say. Such martyrdom will not be in vain.” (Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol.LXXXVII, p.394-5) It is left unexplained what purpose would be served by this senseless and avoidable surrender to murder.

Even when the killing had started, Gandhi refused to take pity on the Hindu victims, much less to point fingers at the Pakistani aggressors. More importantly for the principle of non-violence, he failed to offer them a non-violent technique of countering and dissuading the murderers. Instead, he told the Hindu refugees from Pakistan to go back and die. On 6 August 1947, Gandhiji commented to Congress workers on the incipient communal conflagration in Lahore thus: “I am grieved to learn that people are running away from the West Punjab and I am told that Lahore is being evacuated by the non-Muslims. I must say that this is what it should not be. If you think Lahore is dead or is dying, do not run away from it, but die with what you think is the dying Lahore. (*) When you suffer from fear you die before death comes to you. That is not glorious. I will not feel sorry if I hear that people in the Punjab have died not as cowards but as brave men. (*) I cannot be forced to salute any flag. If in that act I am murdered I would bear no ill will against anyone and would rather pray for better sense for the person or persons who murder me.” (Hindustan Times, 8-8-1947, CWoMG, vol. LXXXIX, p.11).

So, he was dismissing as cowards those who saved their lives fleeing the massacre by a vastly stronger enemy, viz. the Pakistani population and security forces. But is it cowardice to flee a no-win situation, so as to live and perhaps to fight another day? There can be a come-back from exile, not from death. Is it not better to continue life as a non-Lahorite than to cling to one’s location in Lahore even if it has to be as a corpse? Why should staying in a mere location be so superior to staying alive? To be sure, it would have been even better if Hindus could have continued to live with honour in Lahore, but Gandhi himself had refused to use his power in that cause, viz. averting Partition. He probably would have found that, like the butchered or fleeing Hindus, he was no match for the determination of the Muslim League, but at least he could have tried. In the advice he now gave, the whole idea of non-violent struggle got perverted.

Originally, in Gandhi’s struggle for the Indians’ rights in South Africa, non-violent agitation was tried out as a weapon of the weak who wouldn’t stand a chance in an armed confrontation. It was a method to achieve a political goal, and a method which could boast of some successes. In the hands of a capable agitator, it could be victorious. It was designed to snatch victory from the jaws of powerlessness and surrender. By contrast, the “non-violent” surrender to the enemy and to butchery which Gandhi advocated in 1947 had nothing victorious or successful about it.

During the anti-colonial struggle, Gandhi had often said that oppression was only possible with a certain cooperation or complicity from the oppressed people. The genius of the non-violent technique, not applicable in all situations but proven successful in some, was to create a third way between violent confrontation between the oppressed and the oppressor, fatally ending in the defeat of the weak, and the passive resignation of the oppressed in their state of oppression. Rather than surrendering to the superior power of the oppressor, the oppressed were given a method to exercise slow pressure on their oppressor, to wrest concessions from him and to work on his conscience. No such third way was left to the minorities in Pakistan: Gandhi’s only advice to them was to surrender, to become accomplices in their extermination by meekly offering their necks to the executioner’s sword.

My point is not that Gandhi could and should have given them a third way, a non-violent technique that would defeat the perpetrators of Partition and religious cleansing. More realistically, he should have accepted that this was the kind of situation where no such third option was available. Once the sacrifice of a large part of India’s territory to a Muslim state had been conceded, and given previous experiences with Muslim violence against non-Muslims during the time of Gandhi’s own leadership, he should have realized that an exchange of population was the only remaining bloodless solution. The Partition crisis was simply beyond the capacity of Gandhian non-violence to control. If he had had the modesty to face his powerlessness and accept that alternatives to his own preferred solution would have to be tried, many lives could have been saved.

Robust pacifism

It cannot be denied that Gandhian non-violence has a few successes to its credit. But these were achieved under particularly favourable circumstances: the stakes weren’t very high and the opponents weren’t too foreign to Gandhi’s ethical standards. In South Africa, he had to deal with liberal British authorities who weren’t affected too seriously in their power and authority by conceding Gandhi’s demands. Upgrading the status of the small Indian minority from equality with the Blacks to an in-between status approaching that of the Whites made no real difference to the ruling class, so Gandhi’s agitation was rewarded with some concessions. Even in India, the stakes were never really high. Gandhi’s Salt March made the British rescind the Salt Tax, a limited financial price to pay for restoring native acquiescence in British paramountcy, but he never made them concede Independence or even Home Rule with a non-violent agitation. The one time he had started such an agitation, viz. in 1930-31, he himself stopped it in exchange for a few small concessions.

It is simply not true that India’s Independence was the fruit of Gandhian non-violent agitation. He was close to the British in terms of culture and shared ethical values, which is why sometimes he could successfully bargain with them, but even they stood firm against his pressure when their vital interests were at stake. It is only Britain’s bankruptcy due to World War 2 and the emergence of the anti-colonial United States and Soviet Union as the dominant world powers that forced Clement Attlee’s government into decolonising India.

Even then, the trigger events in 1945-47 that demonstrated how the Indian people would not tolerate British rule for much longer, had to do with armed struggle rather than with non-violence: the naval mutiny of Indian troops and the ostentatious nationwide support for the officers of Subhas Bose’s Axis-collaborationist Indian National Army when they stood trial for treason in the Red Fort.

So, non-violence need not be written off as a Quixotic experiment, for it can be an appropriate and successful technique in particular circumstances; but it has its limitations. In many serious confrontations, it is simply better, and on balance more just as well as more bloodless, to observe an “economy of violence”: using a small amount of armed force, or even only the threat of armed force, in order to avoid a larger and bloodier armed confrontation. This is the principle of “peace through strength” followed by most modern governments with standing armies. It was applied, for example, in the containment of Communism: though relatively minor wars between Communist and anti-Communist forces were fought in several Third World countries, both the feared Communist world conquest and the equally feared World War 3 with its anticipated nuclear holocaust were averted.

The ethical framework limiting the use of force to a minimum is known as “just war theory”, developed by European thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas and Hugo Grotius between the 13^th and 18^th century, but in essence already present in the Mahabharata as well. Thus, waging war can be a just enterprise when it is done in self-defence, when all non-violent means of achieving the just objective have been tried, when non-combatants are respected as such, when the means used are in proportion to the objective aimed for, etc.

One of the less well-known criteria for just warfare which deserves to be mentioned here in the light of Gandhi’s advice to the Hindus in Pakistan is that there should be a reasonable chance of success. No matter how just your cause, it is wrong to commit your community to a course of action that only promises to be suicidal. Of course, once a group of soldiers is trapped in a situation from which the only exit is an honourable death, fighting on may be the best course remaining, but whenever possible, such suicide should be avoided. This criterion is just as valid in non-armed as in armed struggle: it was wrong to make the Hindus stay among their Pakistani persecutors when this course of action had no chance of saving lives nor even of achieving certain political objectives.

As the Buddha, Aristotle, Confucius and other ethical guides already taught, virtue is a middle term between two extremes. In this case, we have to sail between the two extremes of blindness to human fellow-feeling and blindness to strategic ground realities. It is wrong to say that might makes right and that anything goes when it comes to achieving victory, no matter what amount of suffering is inflicted on the enemy, on bystanders or even on one’s own camp. It is equally wrong to strike a high moral posture which haughtily disregards, and hence refuses to contain or subdue, the potential for violence in human confrontations and the real pain it causes. In between these two extremes, the mature and virtuous attitude is one which desires and maintains peace but is able and prepared to fight the aggressor.

Limiting the use of force to a minimum is generally agreed to be the correct position. In this case, disagreeing with Gandhi is not an instance of Communist or Hindu-chauvinist extremism, but of the accumulated wisdom of civilized humanity. Excluding the use of force entirely, by contrast, may simply whet the aggressor’s appetite and provoke far more violence than the achievable minimum.

This is a mistake which an overenthusiastic and inexperienced beginner can forgivably make, but in an experienced leader like Mahatma Gandhi during his time at the head of the freedom movement, it was a serious failure of judgment. The silver lining in the massacres which his mistakes provoked, is that they have reminded us of the eternal wisdom of “the golden mean”, the need for a balanced policy vis–vis the ever-present challenge of violence and aggression. It has been known all along, and it is crystal-clear once more, that we should avoid both extremes, Jinnah’s self-righteousness and Gandhi’s sentimentalism.

(13653)