The gospel of non-violence as propounded by Gandhi ji is more of a rigid mental doctrine based on certain moral ideas of right and wrong. It has the ring more of a Christian piety where one ties oneself to certain dogmatic principles and believes that it is ordained by God. At best it can be a religious teaching and not a spiritual one. A spiritual teaching moves in a vaster light as we see in the Gita, the dharma as enunciated in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata that are very different from this pseudo moralistic teaching of non-violence which becomes in the end the cause of much worse violence than if one had taken up arms and stayed the aggressor. The idea that an opponent will change his heart if you do not engage in violence even if he continues to loot and torture and plunder is a unique way of encouraging all that is evil in the world. As it is rightly said that the world suffers much more from the silence of the good than by the actual action of evil. Recognising this truth, the more catholic Indian thought had kept a place even for violence as a path to spiritual progress. The Gita speaks of the Kshatriya dharma or the warrior soul that must engage in a righteous war thrust upon it. The Buddha, who is the ultimate symbol of the power of immobility and Lord Mahavira both accepted that one can engage in aggression in just self defence. The Sikh Gurus and several others put this larger teaching as we find in the Gita into practice.
Still one may admit that as an individual practice it is alright since each one progresses along his own unique path. But the danger with Gandhi was of turning it into a national policy. It was perhaps under this influence and also a misunderstanding of Buddhism mixed with strong Christian influence that prompted Nehru to give away portions of Kashmir, to lower all guards against China, to give up the Veto power in favour of China and to hold the Hindus responsible each time the Moslem community engaged in violence against the Hindus. A similar policy was adopted by Gandhi whose adverse results we continue to reap. So much blood of innocent civilians and chivalrous soldiers has been lost, women widowed and children orphaned due to the policy of these two stalwarts of ‘non-violence’. We don’t know on whose hands will this bloodshed be written. That is why Sri Aurobindo explains at great length in The Essays on the Gita. The Mother summarizes it beautifully.
‘Violence is necessary as long as men are ruled by their ego and its desires. But violence must be used only as a means of defense when you are attacked. The ideal towards which humanity is moving and which we want to realize is a state of luminous understanding in which each person’s needs as well as the harmony of the whole are taken into account.
The future will have no need of violence because it will be governed by the Divine Consciousness, in which all things are harmonized and complement each other.
For the moment, we are still in a stage where weapons are necessary. But it should be understood that this is a transitory stage, not a permanent one, and we must strive for the other one.
Peace… peace and harmony will be a natural outcome of the change of consciousness.
You see, in India there reigns the Gandhian concept of nonviolence which has replaced physical violence with moral violence, but it’s far worse!
But if you dare speak against Gandhi, everyone will immediately… oh!
You don’t need to mention his name, you can explain to the children that replacing physical violence with moral violence is no better. Lying down in front of a train to stop it running is a moral violence that can ultimately cause more disorder than physical violence.
There would be a lot to say…. It depends on each case. I myself very much encouraged the practice of fencing because it gives you skill, control over your movements and discipline in violence—I very much encouraged fencing at one time. I learned how to shoot; I used to shoot with a rifle, because it gives you steadiness and skill and a very good eye; and it forces you to remain calm in the midst of danger. All these things are…. I don’t see why one should be hopelessly nonviolent, it only makes a spineless character.
Turn it into an art! An art for cultivating calm, skill and self-control. There’s no need to cry out indignantly as Gandhi would. It’s useless, useless, absolutely useless—I am not at all in favor of it! One should master the means of self-defense, and one should cultivate them in order to do so.
Above all, make them understand that moral violence is just as bad as physical violence. It can even be worse, that is, at least physical violence forces you to become strong and control yourself, whereas moral violence is…. You may be like this [apparently quiet] and harbor the worst moral violence in yourself.’
Affectionately,
Alok Da
