MAHATMA

On Terrorism And War

Peter Rühe Jacket - front - inside: Introduction by Michael N. Nagler www.gandhimedia.org Jacket – front – inside:

Mahatma Gandhi - the Father of the Indian Nation, and the Apostle of . He worked for 's independence from the British rule. And gave us the awesome power of nonviolence. A social reformer, he taught the world the eternal values of love and truth. His fight for human rights, protection of environment and religious tolerance was mankind's finest hour. This book introduces the reader to the thoughts and writings of on nonviolence, terrorism and war. It also presents a report about Gandhi’s two visits to the nonviolent army of at the Afghanistan border. This army, called the Red Shirts, experimented with nonviolence to pacify this violence-stricken area in the 1940’s. The texts are supported by rare images of Gandhi from the archives of his family and associates.

Jacket - back - inside:

Peter Rühe specialized in the collection and conservation of visual material related to Gandhi. He presented multimedia events on Gandhi in many countries and has contributed to several TV productions. Rühe is the founder of the GandhiServe Foundation, Berlin and webmaster of the largest resource on Gandhi on the internet, GandhiServe’s Mahatma Gandhi Research and Media Service – www.gandhiserve.org Peter Rühe is the author of the book Gandhi – A Photo Biography, Phaidon Press, 2001. www.gandhimedia.org The writings by Mahatma Gandhi are published by permission of the Navajivan Trust, - 380 014 (India).

www.gandhimedia.org Dedicated to the Conscience of Humanity

www.gandhimedia.org C o n t e n t s

Contents

Preface

Introduction by Michael N. Nagler

My Writings

Gandhi on: Violence and Nonviolence War Terrorism

Gandhi’s visits to the Afghanistan border First visit: May 1, 1938 – May 8, 1938 Second visit: October 5, 1938 – November 9, 1938

Glossary

Literature

Index

Photograph Index

www.gandhimedia.org Preface

The world confronts an ever-widening increase of violence and the terrible loss of life in innumerable smaller and larger armed conflicts around the world. No region of the globe is exempt from the sourge of violence. The fear of different races, religions, nationalities, and ethnic identities continues to fan the flames of hatred and violence allover.

Mahatma Gandhi, known as the father of independent India and the apostle of nonviolence, offers the twenty-first century a way out. He worked for India’s independence from the British rule. And gave us the awesome power of nonviolence. A social reformer, he taught the world the eternal values of love and truth. His fight for human rights, protection of environment and religious tolerance was mankind’s finest hour.

This book introduces the reader to the toughts and writings of Mahatma Gandhi on nonviolence, terrorism and war. The selection of quotes have been carefully made from original sources. The book also documents Gandhi’s two visits to the nonviolent army of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan in the then North-West Frontier Provinces of India near the Afghanistan border. This army of 100.000 Pathans (Pashtuns), called the Red Shirts, experimented with nonviolence in order to pacify this most violent area of the Khyber Pass. This is a success story of heroism that comes when born fighters take to nonviolence. The Red Shirts exploded three myths: that non-violence can be followed only by those who are gentle; that it cannot work against ruthless repression; and that it has no place in Islam.

The rare photographs of this visit of Gandhi hail from the archives of Gandhi’s family and associates and – except a few – are published here for the first time.

May this book help to spread the message of nonviolence and create a better understanding of the personality of Gandhi about whom late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said: “If humanity is to progress, Gandhi is inescapable. He lived, thought, and acted, inspired by the vision of humanity evolving toward a world of peace and harmony. We may ignore him at our own risk.”

Peter Rühe Berlin, September 2006 www.gandhimedia.org Introduction

On April 8, 1929, a young man named Bhagat Singh entered the visitor's gallery of the Lahore assembly where many British and Indian officials were conferring, threw a bomb and began firing an automatic pistol. Singh, who had assassinated the British assistant superintendent of police at Lahore the previous December, was captured on this occasion and hanged in March of 1931.

Gandhi, who had utterly condemned both these "dastardly" acts of violence, warned after the perpetrator was finally done to death:

Bhagat Singh and his companions have been executed and have become martyrs. Their death seems to have been a personal loss to many. I join in the tributes paid to the memory of these young men. And yet I must warn the Youth of the country against following their example. We should not utilize our energy, our spirit of sacrifice, our labours and our indomitable courage in the way they have utilized theirs. This country must not be liberated through bloodshed. (Footnote: Find in Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi under New Delhi, March 23, 1931)

No one loathed terrorism more than Gandhi. He stood to lose everything he had worked for with a single bomb, for he knew full well how rulers seize on the chance to condemn non-violent movements for the slightest infraction (as today's media will ignore a highly disciplined non-violent demonstration for hours, to seize on the odd outbreak of sabotage). But Gandhi's aversion to terrorism went much deeper. Terrorism is in many ways the worst form of violence. Indeed, it is often tinged with a kind of cowardice, which is even worse than violence, if anything can be. As one who dedicated his whole life to showing weary humanity the way out of violence he could not possibly condone one of its worst forms.

Yet, as an American writer said recently, "terrorism cannot be condoned, but it can be understood." And therein lies both the subtlety and the contemporaneity of Gandhi's position.

www.gandhimedia.org The major difference between Gandhi's views and the prevailing U.S.-led reaction to terrorism is that no matter how much terrorism sickened him (I am not being hyperbolic; there are eye-witness accounts of Gandhi being physically revolted by open violence), he did not hate terrorists. For him, precisely because he was nonviolent, the doer was never identified with his deed. Thus we find him pleading in vain with the Viceroy for commutation of the sentence of death for Bhagat Singh and his accomplices in 1930, and not just because it might make the misguided patriot a martyr: in the Mahatma's eyes, violence is violence whether handed down by a legally constituted court or hurled by a lone assassin. All life is sacred; all violence to life is desecration. It was by the same reasoningthat while he hated "from the bottom of my heart the system of government that the British have set up in India" and the way they kept it set up, he "refuse[d] to hate the domineering Englishman," just as he refused to hate the domineering Hindu.

This refusal to dehumanize made it possible for Gandhi to, as we say, not condone but understand. He pleaded with the colonial government to listen to the voice, however hoarse and inarticulate, that was issuing from the deeds of their attackers: "Will you not see the writing that these terrorists are writing with their blood? Will you not see that we do not want bread made of wheat, but we want bread of liberty; and without that liberty there are thousands today who are sworn not to give themselves peace or to give the country peace." He did not ask that the terrorism be condoned (though he may have asked that the terrorist be spared); he asked most urgently that it be understood.

Gandhi probably knew that his pleas would not bring concrete results, but acted in the faith that on some level they must tell on his audience and anyone listening. Any form of , as he said elsewhere, will eventually “force reason to be free” whether or not we see that freedom in our own lifetime.

At the same time – this is also highly characteristic of nonviolence – no matter how strenuously he opposed the British overreaction he tried equally hard to hold back the overreaction of isolated Indians as youth, pariticularly in Bengal, ignored his advise and followed Bhagat Singh down the road of despair.

All this could not be more pertinent to our own situation. Condemn terrorism, by all means, he urges, but condemn it even-handedly. Terror is terror, he would say today, www.gandhimedia.org whether it comes strapped to the body of a suicide bomber or launched from thousands of miles out of range onto targets that may just turn out to be civilians.

If we are not to use violence to protect ourselves against such attacks, though, what on earth are we to use?

The answer is on one level very easy: nonviolence is the only possible alternative. Otherwise we only add violence to violence, thus making the cycle of destruction endless, as many have begun to suspect. But most of us still have only a vague idea what exactly nonviolence is; in the hundred years since Gandhi launched it in South Africa we have barely begun to exploit the vast power for positive change that it holds. The situation is oddly similar to the great breakthroughs in physics that occurred at very much the same time: a handful of theoretical and applied physicists work with the reality of quantum science while the general public remains unshaken in its literally superstitious belief that all reality is material and outside the observer. Similarly, a handful of specialists and a small (but fortunately growing) number of activists operate in a paradigm of principled nonviolence while the majority of us still try, with increasing hopelessness, to counter violence with more violence wherever we meet it. We need, urgently, to think about what exactly nonviolence is and how to apply it in such desperate conditions as our own.

That is the purpose of this collection. In it, Gandhi holds nothing back in his unstinting praise for this force which he has experimented with for fifty years, and, as a result of those tireless experiments, about which he makes two great claims: that nonviolence is “the greatest power humankind has been endowed with,” and that there is no situation in which it cannot be successfully applied. Terrorism It was cardinal for him that when an application of nonviolence seemed to fail, the error was to be sought in the actor (for example, himself) not in the principle. Just as violence fails when we make a mistake in how we use it, so nonviolence can seem to fail when we don’t understand the timing, the target or the exact form in which it should be applied — with the tragic difference that we never condemn violence itself when it doesn’t work.

While he knew that others might and often did have lower standards, for Gandhi Nonviolence, "the law of our being," was "not a policy but a creed." It is to be taken as a

www.gandhimedia.org law, not just a matter of convenience, and followed as such if we wish to benefit from its full power. The distinction between 'policy' and 'creed' is usually referred to today as strategic and principled nonviolence. The former is the mere abstention from (overt) violence and is undertaken for pragmatic considerations, often to be dropped as soon as those considerations no longer apply. Principled nonviolence, which I define as 'the power released by an inner struggle against destructive drives,' is a struggle which arises from, and in turn contributes to an attitude of genuine concern for the person or persons who oppose us (as distinct from their opposition, which we actively resist). This kind alone has power over bullies, gangsterism, rogue governments - or terrorists.

In it the centrality of human dignity – for which, if necessary, life itself can be sacrificed, becomes not only a “creed” but an extremely practical tool. Many a conflict can be resolved when once opponents come to respect each other — and the practice of courageous gains that respect. This and many other features of ‘nonviolence of my conception,’ as he often called it, are intuitively reasonable to most of us. One statement, however, requires comment. Gandhi does not hesitate to say that "in the last resort it does not avail those who do not possess a living faith in the God of Love." This can be a stumbling block for many today, after seven more decades of immersion in the mass media and the relentless march of materialism. Here is one way to think about it: Gandhi's God was very personal, the "God of Love." When shot without warning at point-blank range he would die with the name of his God () on his lips. Yet Gandhi would not have dreamed of saying that this was the only right way to conceive of God. Once, in fact, when he teased his devoted secretary, Nirmal Kumar Bose, a distinguished Bengali scientist, "Don't you believe in anything, Nirmal" and the latter answered "I believe in Truth." Gandhi was quick to reply "That will do." For “Truth is God” was precisely the conception that Gandhi himself reached as the definitive statement of his faith. In other words, we who may be averse to the notion of an "old man with a stick" (as a Buddhist writer said recently) ruling us and the rest of the universe from the sky somewhere are at liberty to interpret Gandhi's "God" impersonally, as the Supreme Reality. What Gandhi does mean to imply by this rule is that life has a discoverable meaning, that there is a Power which controls the Universe, including the human universe, according to a purpose which we flout only at our peril. That is a faith position from which he never wavered. What does it mean for those of us who wish to be non-violent today but may not share that position?

www.gandhimedia.org Possibly very little. There are, for example, twenty or so organizations worldwide, including one that is part of a national government (the German Civil Peace Service), that are now trying to put into practice various pieces of the old Gandhian dream of a "Peace Army" (usually called now Third Party Nonviolent Resistance, or TPNI). Some of these organizations are faith-based: Christian Peacemaker Teams or Michigan Faith and Resistance, Quaker Peace & Service, Witness for Peace. Others, like Peace Brigades International, are "secular." But they are doing exactly the same work. Actions always speak louder than words; and one could argue that in this age, when words about religion are so confusing, only actions speak. Volunteers who are willing to risk their lives to protect strangers are, to paraphrase Ben Franklin, "always and everywhere of the same religion" whether they profess adherence to a particular sect or none at all.

Be that as it may, it is very clear what Gandhi's position would be were he here to help us deal with the looming menace now facing us. Condemn terrorism, he would say, but not (except as the law provides) terrorists. We cannot afford to confound the doer and his deed; not only because it costs us something humanly when we do that, but because it closes the door to any possibility of changing the minds and hearts of those who hate us. To put this in modern terms, the worst thing we can do to think about terrorists is to dehumanize them - exactly what the mass media and political leaders have done in the wake of September 11 by calling them 'jackals,' 'varmints,' cave- dwellers and similar metaphors. Seen in this light, even the word "terrorist" is a dangerous mistake. You can communicate with a person (provided he's still alive) who has been driven by desperation to commit a heinous act against you; it's much harder to communicate with a "terrorist" who is cast beyond the pale of reason by that very designation.

A dozen years after Gandhi's passing, in May of 1960, a remarkable scene unfolded in one of the most lawless communities of India, the hereditary dacoits (bandits) of Madhya Pradesh. , a saintly man widely regarded as the Mahatma's spiritual successor, was passing through the region and was warned that the ravines were "infested" with dacoits. “No,” he quickly replied, they were “inhabited by human beings” — and he wanted to visit them. He wanted to visit them "to show affection. I assured them that they would be treated justly, without brutality, and that their families would not suffer." Large numbers of dacoits came to him, surrendered their costly

www.gandhimedia.org weapons and turned themselves in to face the punishment duly prescribed under the law. In many cases they received mild, humane treatment with an emphasis on rehabilitation and did in fact return to society to lead normal lives. Such is the power of stripping off labels and seeing the persons beneath them.

There is no reason this approach could not be taken not only by individuals but by states. Gandhi insisted that "nonviolence can be practiced by masses of mankind" (Footnote: see p. 00), in fact he declared it nothing short of "blasphemy" to believe that "nonviolence can only be practiced by individuals and never by nations which are composed of individuals" (Footnote: Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. 74, p. 194). In addition to de-labeling perpetrators we would have to change our view of a terrorist attack, namely from an act of war to a crime, which is after all more truthful. As one commentator recently pointed out, terrorism is a technique, not a country; the "war" against terrorism is only a metaphor – and not one that is helpful. But beyond that step, if we want to bring up the power of nonviolence, we would also shift our response to this kind of crime — or any other from what is called a retributive to a restorative justice. In other words, we would have to regard the perpetrators the way Gandhi regarded Bhagat Singh: as a seriously misguided human being, but a human being, and hold open the possibility that they could be won over, or at least won away from their extremely violent methods, and that even if that failed we could undertake real changes in policy to remove the worst of their grievances, and thereby most of their support.

Perhaps it bears repetition - such is the level of anxiety surrounding these acts - that no one, least of all a nonviolent person, is talking about condoning such attacks; nor is anyone talking about passivity (which is never the response of nonviolence to anything). We are speaking of responding in a manner that will not perpetuate the very offenses we're trying to eliminate. Just as the death penalty slightly increases the rate of homicide in a state that adopts it, harsh measures of retaliation only show the desperate that their desperation was justified. Even the mightiest superpower in the world cannot evade the law that violence begets violence.

Implicit in Gandhi’s response to terrorism in India and, more broadly, in his whole theory of nonviolence, are the outlines of an approach that would work with, rather than against, this unbreakable law. A nonviolent response to terrorism begins in an attitude www.gandhimedia.org of mind, namely a non-dehumanizing, non-labelling of those who use that method to attack us. Then a state victimized by terrorism would take its grievance to an international court (as the majority of world opinion, according to a recent poll, would have preferred that the United States had done). This would be the most realistic and most effective response, absent someone or some group with the trust and prestige of a Vinoba Bhave. And given that the 'peace army' concept is still in an early stage of development.

At the same time, however, it is the height of folly to wait until we have already been attacked and then react after the fact. Here is where Gandhi pleads, for our own safety, that we try to understandthe legitimate grievances of those who take to this drastic method. Repressive conditions in Saudi Arabia, where since 1943 United States presidents have guaranteed the security of the ruling family against external or internal threat, the devastation of Iraq, and the grinding hopelessness of Palestine are legitimate grievances, and they must be addressed. As Gandhi said, "Will you not see the writing that these terrorists are writing with their blood?"

Not condone their language, but read their message. The present approach means, as a high-ranking U.S. Army official recently said in Iraq, “We are creating terrorists faster than we can kill them.” The point is not to “eliminate” them (to use only one modern euphemism) but to take the wind out of the their sails By reasonably just behavior. We often hear the compelling objection, 'how can you reason with terrorists, who are no more rational than Hitler?' Because they are not terrorists but enraged people. We can change the conditions that give extremists their legitimacy — and the support system they need to do their ghastly work. Was WWII caused by a single madman, or by the fact that millions were willing to listen to him? In other words, was it caused by one demonic person (of whom there will always be some, almost anywhere, or the "Peace that passeth all understanding," the unscrupulous treaty of Versailles, that so enraged the German people that they were ready to take his raving seriously? Of course it requires emotional courage to face up to the legitimacy of grievances against oneself; but this way, and this way only leads to security.

"Nobody throws away his life without some motive behind," he says about the terrorists in Bengal; "have we the courage to ask what is that motive?" (Footnote: see p. 00) Have we? www.gandhimedia.org If reading that message is emotionally difficult for us, because no one wants to own responsibility for cruelties, taking the steps to correct them is also a challenge. The fact is, even to survive we will have to work deep changes in our way of life to support less cruel policies toward peoples and the planet as a whole. In the case of the United States, former President Jimmy Carter recently observed that the biggest problem in the world today is the huge and growing gap between the rich and poor, and if we could solve that problem "there would be fewer people willing to kill themselves to hurt an American" or whomever. And that is not all. Even to address changes toward a more reasonable style of life we in the West will even have to make changes in our culture. If Gandhi were physically alive today I believe that he would be spending most of his waking hours warning against, creating substitutes for and weaning people away from television, and the commercial mass media in general. These media and that worldview have made violence a way of thought and of life in the modern world. The two boys who planned a school massacre in Massachusetts recently, like the boys before them who actually such an act of terror in Colorado, were inspired by the mass media at many levels. One of the former had written on the wall of his room, "I hate the world," "Everyone must die," and "Kill everyone," but neither his parents nor anyone else noticed anything strange. That is our culture.

The challenge posed by our materialistic, and conswquently violent culture can no longer be put off, and perhaps in this sense the specter of terrorism is something we actually needed. Terrorism shows that security can never come from bomb-sniffing dogs and high-tech spy satellites; it can never be bought by the surrender of civil liberties. Security comes only from living in well-ordered relationships with other people, in a culture that does not disrupt such relationships with artificially-encouraged violence.

If it would be folly and cowardice to cave in to an extremist's demands: on this point all agree But it would equally be folly and cowardice to ignore that there is a in their hopeless fury. In their misguided way, these extremists are telling us that our way of life has become a way of death and that it must change if we are ever to enjoy security.

The “war on drugs” being waged particularly in the United States has been, and will continue to be a huge, expensive failure because the metaphor points us firmly in the

www.gandhimedia.org wrong direction. Any real remedy for the shockingly widespread culture of substance abuse must address the emptiness of life in a consumerist culture and the way it alienates us from others, our environment, and ultimately our deeper selves. The "war on terrorism" is the same mistake made worse. If one could end terrorism by killing terrorists, as some commentators have pointed out, Israel would be the most secure country in the world today. Let us learn from the failure of that state and of that policy; let us think of and work towards a world where no warlord or pathological hater or religious fanatic will be able to play upon the legitimate grievances of a people and seduce them into following his mad violence.

On September 11, 1906, Mahatma Gandhi launched what the world would soon come to know as Satyagraha, the power of ‘clinging to truth,’ in the old Empire Theater in Johannesburg. A bit under one century later on the same date, ironically, one spectacular terrorist attack showed us the cost of not following his experiment.

Michael N. Nagler Berkeley October, 2006

www.gandhimedia.org PEMG1942085008 - Mahatma Gandhi writing in Birla House, Mumbai, August 1942

www.gandhimedia.org My Writings

I flatter myself with the belief that some of my writings will survive me, and will be of service to the causes for which they have been written.

Harijan, May 27,1939

I would like to say to the diligent reader of my writings and to others who are interested in them that I am not at all concerned with appearing to be consistent. In my search after Truth I have discarded many ideas and learnt many new things. Old as I am in age, I have no feeling that I have ceased to grow inwardly or that my growth will stop at the dissolution of the flesh. What I am concerned with is my readiness to obey the call of Truth, my God, from moment to moment, and, therefore, when anybody finds any inconsistency between any two writings of mine, if he has still faith in my sanity, he would do well to choose the later of the two on the same subject.

Harijan, April 29, 1933, p. 2

www.gandhimedia.org Gandhi on Violence and Nonviolence

The means adopted (by India, P.R.) are not violence, not bloodshed, not diplomacy as one understands it nowadays, but they are purely and simply truth and nonviolence. No wonder that the attention of the world is directed toward this attempt to lead a successful bloodless revolution. Hitherto, nations have fought in the manner of the brute. They have wreaked vengeance upon those whom they have considered to be their enemies.

We find in searching national anthems adopted by great nations that they contain imprecations upon the so-called enemy. They have vowed destruction and have not hesitated to take the name of God and seek Divine assistance for the destruction of the enemy. We in India have endeavored to reverse the process. We feel that the law that governs brute creation is not the law that should guide the human race. That law is inconsistent with human dignity.

Broadcasted message to the United States, September 13,1931

Some of us believe that we can obtain our rights by such acts of terrorization, violence and arson. Satyagraha, on the contrary, holds that the rights so obtained should be rejected. I admit that of the two parties using brute force, the one possessing more of it than the other apparently gains its ends. My 40 years’ experience tells me that objects so attained do not permanently benefit the winner. There may well be two opinions on this point. But there can be no difference of opinion on the fact that so far as brute force is concerned, we are no match for the Government. Our physical force is as nought before theirs. I would dare say, therefore, that those who advise us to use physical force are sadly mistaken, and we should never listen to their advice. Expediency tells us that there is one and only one recourse for us and that is satyagraha or dharmabal (i.e., strength that comes from righteousness). Now dharmabal can spring only from suffering. Oppressing, harassing, or assaulting others cannot add to our spiritual strength. The events in Ahmedabad would have been impossible, had we but a true sense of dharma. It is one of our duties to prevent mischief. If the men and women of Ahmedabad could be brave, all mischief would cease. It is obviously a far greater thing to overcome mischief by spirit-force, than to do so by brute force. We have seen that www.gandhimedia.org