APOLOGY FOR QUIETISM

A Sotto Voce Symposium Part 4

Jeffrey M. Perl, W. Caleb McDaniel, Hanne Andrea Kraugerud, Bjørn Torgrim Ramberg, Christophe Fricker, Sidney Plotkin, Pink Dandelion, Martin Mulsow

Introduction: Mezza Voce Quietism? A set of questions not posed before in this symposium is raised in the following group of articles. How should we arrive at criteria for application of the terms quietist and quietism beyond their use in naming Christian mystics and forms of mysticism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? To what and whom should these terms be (and not be) applied? W. Caleb McDaniel argues here that John Brown, the abolitionist whom Lincoln called a “misguided fanatic,” should be regarded as a quietist.1 Brown is said to have met the first criterion of Christian Quietism: he did God’s will against his own. This thought experiment of McDaniel’s is significant, because we all experience the words “John Brown, Quietist” as counterintuitive, which must mean that the kinds of use to which we put the term are seriously at odds. With figures of political history, our tendency is naturally to apply political criteria — the quietist is apolitical, or politically

1. See W. Caleb McDaniel, “John Brown, Quietist,” Com- mon Knowledge 16.1 (Winter 2010): 31 – 47.

Common Knowledge 16:1 DOI 10.1215/0961754X-2009-058 © 2010 by Duke University Press

22

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/common-knowledge/article-pdf/16/1/22/234048/CK161_04_Perl.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 on 26 September 2021 by guest Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/common-knowledge/article-pdf/16/1/22/234048/CK161_04_Perl.pdf by God.” by seen being of fortune good incomparable the have to me of front in table this enable to enough be would it soul, own my from withdraw to how knew I If when, blindfold, I feel the table by means of its point mefor is “To pencil entails: the what be quietism SimoneofWeil true atwhat the pressing.Would and be to agree unaddressed questions quietist a remain there radically. differ might assessments two the And well. as in some cases, including Brown’s, we could assess their careers in religious terms then, he was an activist politically. But Gandhian activism was then, he not activism politically. was But an activist Gandhian terms. such in well as Gandhi rethink we may then quietist, a considered be may relative weight of pacifismandGandhi’s in activism career, surely if John Brown identified Whatever misidentified). may conclude,the about (orwe balance, on often are pacifism and quietism out, points McDaniel as and, century last the and itsymposium, is not to difficult see why. theHe was mostfamous pacifistof passive resistance discussion is to a degree paradoxical, but the test case I propose is oxymoron:an quietists who concern themselves actively with injustice. Each of the cases under here to locate forms of activist quietism or quietist activism and to make room for ably, between the extremes. Several attempts are made in the articles that follow and ofa presum midpoint, quietisms there then is a plausibly spectrum quietists, called to press a point and a sword called on If Brown to kill? and Weil are both pencil a Between sword? selfless a and pencil selfless a between difference No quality or kind between the instruments that Weil and Brown envisioned being? etc.” industries, key of nationalisation . development. . industrial planning, as such . . . activities ofgovernmental “expansion He favored the secularist. a and crat, demo a statist Educated a was technocrat, at sciences, Nehru the Cambridge in professed ideas, and had by morea far of activists. background typical progressive uncommitted, or politically uninvolved, or contemptuous of politics of contemptuous or uninvolved, politically or uncommitted, ism.” Gandhi had indeed had ism.” Gandhi of quiet antithesis very “the mentor been had his one of quietism,” essentially is habitmind of Indian the “while that, argue to atpains was Nehru and suspect, itwas ( 2 posium introduction, “ introduction, posium 87 Knowledge 195 .

– Simone Weil, Simone 88 2 wrath 3 ; Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, Press, Nebraska of University Lincoln: ; An activist of An description this was bound to findGandhi’s kindirregular . I discussed this passage also in a previous sym

Evenhowever, ifwe grant, Brown that was“called” will, his to actagainst Hyperbolically, it is said that Gandhi brought down an empire; by definition, —

15 normative activism at normativeGandhi’s time. the activism protégé pursued Nehru aims, 2 of God? And would a quietist’s God God quietist’s a would And God? of Is this Christ of Christ Weil’s Is this the same as Brown’s? Is there no difference in . 2 (Spring Gravity and Grace and Gravity . Gandhi’s name has come up several times in the course of this this of course the in times several up come has name Gandhi’s . 2009

‘The Need for Repose’,”‘The Common ): ): 157 – 58 , trans. Arthur Wills Wills , Arthur trans. . 1997 ), ), - 3 vember vember be .

wrathful? Recall the rapture Quotation taken from comments of Nehru’s, on No on Nehru’s, of comments from taken Quotation

— 21

to be that for . Christ. . . , 1945 , to Sir Benegal Rau. Benegal Sir to , — whatever whatever else

—

though though - - -

- Perl • Apology for Quietism: Part 4 23 on 26 September 2021 by guest Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/common-knowledge/article-pdf/16/1/22/234048/CK161_04_Perl.pdf Gangal, “Gandhi and Nehru: A Love-Hate Relationship,” Relationship,” Love-Hate A Hindu Nehru: and “Gandhi Gangal, dead for fiveyears Gandhi described Nehru memoirs, his ter Pearson, then of foreign minister Canada, in reports June (accessed 5 .in/looking-back-at-the% www.congress.org Congress, National Freedom,” Indian 4 . . Common Knowledge 24 Privately, two years earlier, in a conversation that Les that a conversation in earlier, years two Privately, Jawaharlal Nehru, “Looking Back at the Battle of Battle the at Back “Looking Nehru, Jawaharlal , November 28 November , 9 , affairs.” national or international in Gandhian or “pacifist not was government Indian the that Conference Commonwealth a inform to need feltthe minister, prime (letter of (letter October people’sgreat in confusion present”to the act in inability an in resulting minds questions” midst “fundamental ofthe raise in upheavalpolitical could “produce In personal correspondence, however, Nehru told thatGandhi his continuing to shell. quiescent his from emerge to began he up and was shaken of The peasant ofnew the gospel action. messengers of innumerable activity the with hummed countryside the and villages, the to us sent He people. Indian the of quietism the change and fight to knew I anyone than more done had He others. drove but himself been a demon a of and hustler, action, a energy who man not drove only Gandhi’s list of Western influences on his thought includes books by romantic- by books includes thought his on ofWesterninfluences list Gandhi’s Transcendentalist writings, American and addition toworksof In John Ruskin Appendices. the in mentioned are books the of some reference For ready masters. above-named the of works the in it find will chapters, following the in submitted views the of roboration been has Tolstoy philosophy. to a see who cor want Those Indian of for a years. one number of my of teachers masters the besides writers other humbly to endeavoured follow Tolstoy, and Emerson Thoreau, Ruskin, in expressed views the Whilst like adjectives with interchangeable be should or that argued RudolphLloyd have especially and Green Martin like no which day,historians with own our In kind associated. be a to afford of could nation’sgovernment were pacifism, notably which, of some notations, In to paradoxically, inaction. works that today we would, as Rudolph notes, regard as countercultural. In In words: Gandhi’s countercultural. as regard notes, Rudolph as would, we today that works Age 2009 — as “an awful old hypocrite.” See S. C. old hypocrite.” as “an awful . , 6 1995 ). Hind Swaraj Hind tract early his (in readings of favorite list Gandhi’s Gandhian 20 5 . battle-of% was by midcentury, then, an adjective with established con 20 9 — , freedom.php 1945 who had been been had who ). It appears that Gandhi’s “gospel of action” could lead, HindSwaraj 1957 - , many years after Gandhi’s death, Nehru, now Swaraj, in Gandhi,” “Postmodern Rudolph, I. Lloyd See bibliographies. and writings, research, his on ally liber draw to consent for and essay this preparing in 6 7 Continuum, Green, Press, Chicago of versity - Uni Hoeber Rudolph by (Chicago: Rudolph and Susanne Home at and World the in Gandhi Essays: Other and Gandhi . . “Appendices” start on p. p. on start “Appendices” I am grateful to Lloyd Rudolph for his generous help help generous his for Rudolph Lloyd to grateful am I are held by me, I have but 7 4 with twenty entries under I (“Some Authorities”). I (“Some under entries twenty with (New York: (New Revolution Age New a Voice of Gandhi: 1993 ). postmodern 2006 120 of Parel’s edition of edition Parel’s of ): ): , 3 - – utopian 59 . See also Martin Martin also See . Gandhian

) comprises , and , Postmodern Postmodern New New Hind Hind is is - - ,

on 26 September 2021 by guest Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/common-knowledge/article-pdf/16/1/22/234048/CK161_04_Perl.pdf 8 piness: Tolstoy, Schopenhauer, Tolstoy, Schopenhauer, piness: Knowledge Mahatma Gandhi and Leo Tolstoy Letters 9 send you this book.” The book was Joseph Doke’s biography of Gandhi. of biography Doke’s Joseph was book The book.” this you send pathyIthought it that am would not I consideredbe byyou out of way the for me to which with struggle sym and interest the active your on engage to anxious very am I As . . . bearing connected. a so has it far so in life, my with connection in . . . friend a by written Tolstoy sentbook London a of copy in “a still while the Indians who have enslaved themselves?” On November On themselves?” enslaved have who Indians the responded, on September September on responded, nonviolence Tolstoy’sof principle “Letter” key the that says Gandhi translation, his to ter” and his recognition of as his heir.spiritual Gandhi Moreover, in the preface “Let the of Tolstoy’s separates writing year a Just Gandhi. was “Letter” the 1905 violent the in movement the aparticipant Das, toTaraknath against nominally latter was influenced profoundly bythe former. Tolstoy’s“Letter” was addressed of version Gujarati initial the Tolstoy’s translated wrote and Gujarati into Hindoo” ato Gandhi “Letter that on Gandhi’s thinking. influence non-Indian main the been have to seems who and symposium this in Fully six of the approved texts are by Tolstoy, “Socrates”). (plus whoCarpenter Edward has and been Maine, discussed as Henry a Dutt, quietist C. R. Mazzini, Giuseppe as such writers, and mystical-socialist Indian-influenced, nationalist, in in sciousness. Is it not clear con oflevel new a toward move must Tolstoyhumanity view.Instead, argued, conquerors’world the to yielding be would violence with resist to lently, since Indian Opinion Indian in versions English and Gujarati published then printed, had Tolstoy “Letter.” Gandhi the When publish agreed, and late to wrote again Tolstoy, from Gandhi England, to Africa trans permission asking October On London. in Gandhi to copy lutionary circles in Paris; and in in and Paris; in circles lutionary revo Indian in circulating been had Hindoo” a to “Letter context, the describes before his death on November 20 November on death his before ing to Tolstoy to in ing . .

Caleb Thompson, “Quietism from the Side of Hap of Side the from “Quietism Thompson, Caleb For this and other exchanges between them, see them, between exchanges other and this For Hind Swaraj Hind partition of Bengal, but Rudolph argues that the genuine addressee of of addressee genuine the that argues Rudolph but Bengal, of partition It was on his return trip from England to South Africa in November in Africa South to England from trip return his on Itwas The “Letter” in effect told Gandhi that Indians must resist Britain nonvio Britain resist must Indians that Gandhi told effect in “Letter” The

15 . 3 (Fall — was likewise his own. Gandhi initiated their relationship by writ by relationship their initiated Gandhi own. his likewise was

— 2009

that “it is not the English who have enslaved the Indians, but Indians, whohavethe enslaved “itEnglish not is the that 1908 ): ): 395 8 on the occasion of his eightieth birthday. –

— 411 War and Peace 7

he asked, in words that wouldGandhi go on to quote , . 1910 Hind Swaraj Hind , ed. B. Srinivasa Srinivasa B. ed. , 1909 : , in what may have been the last letter written whatletter written last havemay,in beenthe ,” ,” Pranjivan Mehta, who was Paris, in sent a Common Common 1 . Gandhi said that the writing of the ofthe writing the that said Gandhi . of year, that for before South sailing - the the tion appeared in in appeared tion 10 198 Publications, Beach Long CA: Beach, (Long Murthy .

7 London Indian Chronicle Indian London The ofversion in The Doke’sfirst was published biography ). 1919 11 , . 1909 20 9 As Rudolph As , 000 in in 10 , Gandhi Gandhi , . Tolstoy Tolstoy 1909 copies 1909 ; the first Indian edi Indian ; first the — ------

- Perl • Apology for Quietism: Part 4 25 on 26 September 2021 by guest Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/common-knowledge/article-pdf/16/1/22/234048/CK161_04_Perl.pdf 125 House, Publishing Navajivan India: (Ahmedabad, Gandhi to According Gita the or Action, 11 1989 Eliot in physics,” Enmity of chapter This presuppositions.” it the realized realized the it make to as world [one’s] the of version adjusts so that tion

. Common Knowledge 26

– See Gandhi, introduction to to introduction Gandhi, See (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, ), ), 34 55 was published in its first version with Andrew Andrew P. with version first its in published was . For. , where Skepticism and Modern Enmity: Before and After and After Before Enmity: and Modern Skepticism moksha nirvana moksha ritual. described as quietistic, could be proven in practice they shared. What needs further discussion activ is how Tolstoy’s Gandhian to philosophy, “work,” plausibly Gandhi’s ism, as “the most to of weighty a philosophy practical proof” that believed the two blessing Tolstoy’s gives it that is Hindoo” In the context of a symposium on quietism, what matters most in the “Letter to a world. the of peoples the all but which weshare and with must not participate, Christians only the worldnow the can which proof in practical weighty most the supplying to us, and ofmost the important our world, is yet most the fundamental Your to seems which be work away far center the from in Transvaal, the is the “discipline of action” toward leading disciplines ing.” Gandhi was a self-declared karma yogi, which means he believed that, of the [Tolstoy’s]follow. . . to it, we understood as far so teach and possible, as “sofar newly established,ashram, he that had named Tolstoy Farm. There he pledged, it could meeting unjust force with counterforce would in itself be unjust. Tolstoy’s “teach Tolstoy’s unjust. be itself in would counterforce with force unjust meeting aggressive resistance meets force with force is obvious; but it is debatable whetherend. That an to injustice bring to potential the have genuinely they resistance, circumstance. Yet such campaigns are maximalist in the sense that, unlike violent every nonviolent in tactics its and focused, are aims its that sense the in malist is (andmini required campaign globally). rather than locally always A satyagraha that one must, by definition, act where action is required but never more than is meant he which by maximum,” the is minimum “the motto, a coined Gandhi efforts to control social change or harness nature. For the work at Tolstoy Farm, precludewholesale must uncertainty and certainty; precluded under oftruth standing Gandhi’s him. like be to pretending and God envying to tantamount was laws universal and truths objective know to science, and rationalism Western is not the same as knowing truth. knowing as same notthe is truth pursuing so God, knowing as same not the is God seeking God”: as is just , see Jeffrey M. Perl, “Foreign Meta “Foreign Perl, M. Jeffrey see , . . . . salvation is the freedom from from freedom the is salvation . . . . revolu as is defined “anepistemic Gandhi launched his first satyagraha campaign in SouthAfrica from an 11 His reasoning begins, as Rudolph shows, from the premise that “truth “truth that Rudolphpremise as the shows,from begins, reasoning His — by acts of mass resistance to political injustice. to political resistance of mass acts by Skepticism and Modern The Gospel of Selfless Selfless of Gospel The , ed. Mahadev Desai Desai Mahadev ed. ,

moksha — 1929

greater than the paths of knowledge, devotion, and ), ), - - (spiritual or epistemic liberation), greatest the 12 Gandhi 12 of definition this recall, I As coauthor. as philosophy, Indian in Tuck,specialist a Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bhavan, Vidya Bharatiya 165 House, Publishing Navajivan India: (Ahmedabad, way Godly the and God-realization, God, on Bearing Gandhi ed., Gandhi held that the claim, encouraged by by encouraged claim, held the that Gandhi . . See Anand T. Hingorani, ed., ed., T. Hingorani, Anand See Truth Is God: Gleanings from the Writings of Mahatma Mahatma of Writings the from Gleanings God: Is Truth , vol. vol. , 1 of Gandhi for the 21st Century

—

as Tolstoy told Gandhi that moksha 1998 was Tuck’s. was ), ), 30 God Is Truth by M. K. , and R. K. Prabhu, Prabhu, K. R. and , (Mumbai: (Mumbai: 1955 ), ), - - - - - on 26 September 2021 by guest Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/common-knowledge/article-pdf/16/1/22/234048/CK161_04_Perl.pdf power, habitrather encourage this of mind. completeaimplyto ofrenunciation surface seemonthe which anarchism, and pacifism like Creeds power.. for . . appetite an nothaving and having between the “distinction that really matters is not between violence and non-violence but Tolstoy regarding writes James Wood that “nicely Orwell pugilistic,” that calls of essay an In Tolstoy’sGandhi’s. and nonviolence between to approach themselves.” “enslaved had Indians The why?But unjust. be would violence Indian with violence British meeting since “its motive was religious. was motive “its since Westernpacifists,” most of notthat was attitude “Gandhi’s that concludes and translation of Satyagraha” (in Gujarati, “the word means ‘firmnessin the truth’ of essay an tianity, featured no specifically “humanist” element. “humanist” no specifically featured tianity, as well, but Gandhi’s though byreligion, influenced Sermon onthe MountChris ing” to Indians ing” lutions,” lutions,” 13 broth. side of chicken this on well is limit the and alive, remain to order in do will we what to limit some be says, he must, There . . . doctor. the by prescribed food animal administer on [Thus] . . . than rather die child a or person. wife his let to willing was he occasions three individual any to preference one’s give cannot one [Moreover,] . . . another”. one on react “friends because dangerous, are says, Gandhi friendships, [Even] . . . desire. sexual master to effort ous continu a but chastity complete only not means which brahmacharya, of vow the took [Gandhi] thirties, middle his in . . . humanity. or God either to serve if one wanted . . . indispensable which heand considered himself on imposed Gandhi which disciplines the considering worth is It from. escaped be to illusion an is objects solid of world the that . . . assumption the on only sense make They . . . earth. this on living worth life make to is job our that . . . belief the with squared be cannot Wood discusses and quotes is Orwell’s “Lear, Tolstoy, and and Tolstoy, “Lear, Fool”( the Orwell’s is quotes and discusses Wood Gandhi’s was a “manipulative, insidious power” of the kind exercised by a “tyran a by exercised kind brain. your the of rearranging atwhile you murmurs lovingly who mother power” nical insidious “manipulative, a was Gandhi’s made famous by psychoanalysis). Orwell may have thought, in other words, that fied Tolstoy’s idea of “passivewith resistance”“passive aggression”the sense (in .html (accessed June June (accessed .html www.george-orwell.org/Lear,_Tolstoy_and_the_Fool/ 1 4 . .

James Wood, “A Fine Rage: George Orwell’s Revo Wood, “Fine Rage,” It was on this point that George Orwell proposed a useful distinction distinction useful a proposed Orwell George that point this on was It “Gandhi’s teachings,” Orwell writes, Orwell teachings,” “Gandhi’s New Yorker New 1947 1949 ), in in ),

— The Complete Works of George-Orwell of Works Complete The , Orwell notes that “Gandhi objected notes ,Orwell “Gandhi that to ‘passive resistance’ a as , April April , 10

, which Gandhi hoped he had“understood” rightly Gandhi which 2009 57 . 13 ). , 2009 , 5 ” 4 15 . The essay that that essay The . The motive of Tolstoy’s pacifism was religious 16 ” 0 1 - 3 , Wood suggests that Orwell identi Orwell that suggests Wood published in in published 15 16 June (accessed -Orwell print.com/work- . .

George Orwell, “Reflections on Gandhi,” originally originally Gandhi,” on “Reflections Orwell, George Orwell, “Reflections on Gandhi.” on “Reflections Orwell, Partisan Review Partisan 1260 -

/Reflections-On-Gandhi-George 9 , 2009

—

, January January , was that that was ). ” 1947 1 4 In In

”) ”) - - - 1949

, www.read

Perl • Apology for Quietism: Part 4 27 on 26 September 2021 by guest Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/common-knowledge/article-pdf/16/1/22/234048/CK161_04_Perl.pdf World’s Crossroads Fischer, Louis from 17

. Common Knowledge 28

Orwell, “Reflections on Gandhi.” Internal quotations quotations Internal Gandhi.” on “Reflections Orwell, dhi’s view,” expressed in 1938 in dhi’s view,” expressed avoiding.”in specialize pacifists Western “most Orwell, to according that, questions” “awkward many inconsistency or cavil without could answer belief, Gandhi underlying from.”escaped Given this sev among one only was saying, is eral made on Orwell the basis of Hindu belief that the physical nonviolence, world to is “an illusion to be commitment Gandhi’s is quoted as observing how Tolstoy had “attempted to realize his ideal only in in only ideal his Tolstoyhowrealize to “attempted had observing as quoted is Heidelberg,”Weber in Weber where “Max memoir Honingsheim’s Paul to us Tolstoy Rudolph practice. (forhad than life)points in been of mosthis himself the only alternative to modernization as Tolstoyan impor in tendency but more radical question only the live?’ we howshall and do,we question, shall ‘What us: our to tant to answer no gives it because meaningless Confession”:words: Scienceis the “Tolstoi simplestanswer,with the given has in this believes was: Who was year the Since this?” in believes “Who perfection, human and mastery, progress, of ideas to regard science was disastrous. In his lecture “Science as a Vocation,” Weber asked, with of truths useful benignly and unconditional, absolute, universal, certain, the in belief that and delusional was future the shape to ability human in belief that inconsistent andradical. insufficiently thus Like Tolstoy, Weber was convinced was nonaggression to Tolstoy’s even commitment that Weber,concluded had temptation. a continual innocent the of defense armed renders pacifists Christian to beings human of centrality one’sown look aggression experiencethan aggressive, possessive, or controlling feelings of any Thus followedGandhi his convictions deaths. [Indian] million several cost [ofa invasion Japanese India], he against was ready to it that admit might in way. some other in lost When, be to lives for prepared be often must you life, take to prepared not are youIf honest. being merely was Gandhi . . . significantly. died have well as might and anyway, killed been had Jews the himself: justified he war the After violence.” Hitler’s to Germany of people the and world the aroused have “would which suicide, collective commit to ought Jews German the that was view Gandhi’s Fischer, Mr. to According (London: Gollancz, Gollancz, (London: living thing), better to endure injustice than bring about any, better to over to about any, better bring than injustice endure to better thing), living Gandhi and Stalin: Two Signs at the the at TwoSigns Stalin: and Gandhi In support of this conclusion, Orwell cites Louis Fischer’s record of “Gan of record Fischer’s Louis cites Orwell conclusion, this of support In Even before Gandhi appeared on the scene, at least one acute observer, Max

—

with no exceptions made for the rescue of human innocents. The The innocents. human of rescue the for made exceptions no with 1948 ). anymore 1918 , on the fate of “the German Jews”: German of “the fate the on , 1942 , we may suppose that the force of the question question the of force the that suppose may we , 17 ? For his answer, Weber turned to Tolstoy’s “A , he urged non-violent resistance resistance non-violent urged he ,

—

better to suffer causethan suffering (to ” Weber came to imagine imagine Weber to ” came - - - - on 26 September 2021 by guest Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/common-knowledge/article-pdf/16/1/22/234048/CK161_04_Perl.pdf human mastery; and at the time Britannia ruled the waves and much else, unchal else, much and waves the ruled lenged. Britannia time the at and mastery; human power. dominant the to superiority and for of pity demonstrations were they oftures sympathy and patience, even if genuine, were also given unnerving, that ges Such heat. the to accustomed less over Europeans advantage unfair an have sus were campaigns that report pendedholidays Witnesses onand often, Christian simply, at midday, when would Indians welfare. moral and being well physical opponent’s the for concern feel to satyagrahi the he urged Indeed them. weaken must not his coerce opponents order advantage in or of disabilities take their to the atomic age tion that Gandhi undertook and undertook encouraged tion that Gandhi ofeduca forms basic The education. moral a comprised they dhi’sperspective, whereas apparently, Gan from resistance, of have as acts been political regarded strikes, and hunger strikes hunger and strikes, disarmament.” and pacifism of merits the proclaim and Mount the on Sermon the invoke can weeks last Tolstoy as his in lives whodid man the Only beggar. wandering a as the last period of lifehis when lefthe estatehis actually and and lived family his 18 greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world “oursaid, “As beings,” triumph. human Gandhi mutual in satyagrahis the with converting the British, at enabling them to see the truth, then to act on itrepeatedly, at emphasized and joinGandhi as but, empire British the atdefeating aimed not were type the of others and campaign India Quit the hand, other the On “quiescenta in shell.” cringing, and submissive not did live, Gandhi ofmind”). nottermisif the meant meant Nehru as it (with contempt for habit “the Indian certainly wouldNo by a quietist, suchbehim. undertaken campaign disqualify moreand momentously would quo,seemAfrica India, South to in in status the what way future. the for hope new brought Tolstoy himself Gandhi’sdevelopment appears, moreover, South in Africa of satyagraha to have asuch figure theGandhi ason horizon or, more accurately, “noninjury”). each as exemplary of the principle of (usuallyahimsa translated as “nonviolence” guin, guin, ings Publishers, Publishers, Weber . , trans. Jane Kentish (Harmondsworth, U.K.: Pen U.K.: (Harmondsworth, Kentish Jane trans. , See See Leo Tolstoy, , ed. Alan Sica (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Transaction NJ: Brunswick, (New Sica Alan ed. , 1987 As a teacher, Gandhi was dedicated to freeing humanity from belief in in belief from humanity freeing to dedicated was Gandhi teacher, a As Whether Whether we consider as Gandhi a quietist 19 ), and Paul Honingsheim, Honingsheim, Paul and ), His efforts to free the British from the illusion of their own mastery mastery own their of illusion the from British the free to efforts His 2000

—

depends on our interpretation of against campaigns His satyagraha. ), ), 18 207 — In this passage, Rudolph concludes, Weber appears to anticipate A Confession and Other Religious Writ Religious Other and Confession A as as in being able to remake ourselves.” He that satyagra insisted .

— The Unknown Max

were drawn from Hindu tradition, and he chose chose he and tradition, Hindu from drawn were 20 Even then, Gandhi was wary of action, any wary was Even Gandhi then,

—

a figure more Tolstoyanthan Tolstoy. - - — work cessation, emigration, sit-in work emigration, cessation,

19 20 Pennsylvania State University Press, Press, University State Pennsylvania and Gandhi in Their Historical Settings Common Knowledge Common Asceticism,” Jain in Non-Ethics as Non-Action Karma: and “Quietism Kripal, J. Jeffrey and Jain R. Andrea see — . .

and if so, to what degree or in See Martin Green, Green, Martin See For more on ahimsa in the context of this symposium, For symposium, of in the context more this on ahimsa

—

that is the myth of

15 . 2 (Spring The Origins of Nonviolence: Tolstoy Tolstoy Nonviolence: of Origins The 2009 1986 ): ): (University Park: Park: (University 203 ------). .

Perl • Apology for Quietism: Part 4 29 on 26 September 2021 by guest Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/common-knowledge/article-pdf/16/1/22/234048/CK161_04_Perl.pdf Ambedkar, the “father” of the Indian Constitution. Indian of the “father” the Ambedkar, 21

. Common Knowledge 30

According to Rudolph, these are the words of B. R. R. B. of words the are these Rudolph, to According Molinos, who died prison in moil and clamor. most Like teachers of quietism of tur free worldbe to ever is the if taught be must quietism yet and activist; an sense, a in is, teacher Every quietism. pupils of sets both teaching was Gandhi that say could One ways. metropolitan their prefer to taught had British the externally,toward British, the and internally, whomtoward Nehru, like Indians wheel? spinning at his fasting) (while assiduously working loincloth his in Mahatma the of seen we have images Howmany campaigns. satyagraha ism.” communal and narrow-mindedness, ignorance, ofden a localism, of “asink as development, including wholesale urbanization. They regarded rural life in India capablestate top-down of planned wantedcentralized, a Assembly Constituent the in allies his and Nehru situation, political the Rudolph describes As them. broughtwith had British the that ideas, progressive or goods material whether welcomebut would India thatmodern also the asalien intrusions “gifts,”refuse notGandhi only that the British were uninvited guests who had overstayed their limits. human to appropriate humility a with along manners, but morals only not occupiers the teaching was he that had was taken rude, base, intrusive, and therefore unacceptable. One might say His preferred actions brought to the occupiers’ attention that some measure they practices. aggressive, andintrusive assertive, own to their ofsuperiority ahimsa the moral and acknowledged minds their changed having first without yieldto such as a fast of unlimited duration, that would bring pressure on the British the the to theUnioninstitutions and state governments autonomousas a “third tier” in add to Assembly Constituent the in Gandhians by efforts blocking and and ably These were ways of rural life that theproperty. activists and of modernnature India of found ownership) intoler than (rather stewardship the and groups, small of self-rule the self-rule, individual as such culture, Indian traditional in found be could precedents which for arrangements institutional preferred He ization and the commodificationswrought bymarket economiesas pathological. — unforgiving. be to likely is of serenity teacher the to ous

Jeffrey M. Perl M. Jeffrey 1950 quietistic backward 21 In Gandhian practice, satyagraha was an educational tool directed both both directed tool educational an was satyagraha practice, Gandhian In Moreover, it is important to recognize, the slogan “Quit India” meant for Nehru’s contingent ledand, wherever the way marginalizing in possible, Constitution.

—

—

but of which Gandhi made a public display in the course of his his of course the in display public a made Gandhi which ofbut in Nehru’s vocabulary, an adjective synonymous with with synonymous adjective an Nehru’svocabulary, in 22

As Rudolph makes clear, Gandhi regarded state central state regarded Gandhi clear, makes Rudolph As

—

Gandhi learnedGandhi that the response of the vocifer 22 was Gandhi’s term for village self-government. village for term Gandhi’s was . “Third . . . tier” is Rudolph’s expression; Rudolph’s is expression; tier” . . . “Third — beginning with Fr.with de Miguel beginning gram swaraj gram gram swaraj gram quiescent - - - - -