THE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

OF

ivmnA iMA GANDHI

BY
GOPINATH DHAWAN

NAVAJIVAN PUBLISHING HOUSE

AHMEDABAD-14
First Edition (Popular Book Depot, Bombay), 1946
Second Revised Edition, Copies 2,000, February, 1951
Third Revised Edition, Copies 3,000, September, 1957
Reprint, Copies 3,000, August, 1962
Rupees Six

© The Navajivan Trust, 1946

Printed and Published by Jivanji Dahyabhai Desai,

Navajivan Press, Ahmedabad-14
 TO
THE MEMORY OF MY BROTHER
 PREFACE
TO THE FIRST EDITION

This book is an attempt to study Mahatma Gandhi’s Political

Philosophy including his technique of resisting injustice and
abuse of power and of effecting social change. The study is in
the context of his philosophy of life. The history of the move¬
ments of non-violent resistance led by Gandhiji and others is
outside the scope of this book. I have also omitted any detailed
account of the historical setting in which Gandhiji developed
his theory. This has been necessary because of considerations
of space, but this omission has, I trust, the saving grace of
letting Gandhiji’s Political Philosophy stand out in relief. My
desire not to overburden the treatment with historical details
has been also due to the conviction that the circumstances of
the time of the birth and growth of the theory are not neces¬
sarily the test of its validity.
I wrote the book as a thesis for the Ph. D. degree during
1939-41 and am grateful to the authorities of the Lucknow Uni¬
versity for permitting me to publish it. In revising it for publi¬
cation I have made use of Gandhiji’s writings and other relevant
literature published after 1941. For encouragement and
valuable suggestions I am deeply indebted to Sir S. Radha-
krishnan, Dr. V. S. Ram, Professor and Head of the Department
of Political Science, Lucknow University, and Dr. E. Asirvatham,
Head of the Department of Politics and Public Administration,
Madras University. I am grateful to Mr. V. K. N. Menon, Reader
in Political Science, and Mr. D. P. Mukerji, Reader in Economics
and Sociology, of the Lucknow University. Both of them gave
me generously of their time, read the MSS. with minute care
and suggested many valuable clarifications of thought and
expression. I am obliged to Mr. P. G. Narayana, formerly Head
of the Department of English in the Lakhaoti College, for his
keen interest in the book and for many improvements which he
suggested. I also wish to express my gratitude to Syt. K. M.
Munshi for very kindly making arrangements for the publica¬
tion of the book. For help given through books and literature
IV
 PREFACE V

I am thankful to Dr. M. Ruthnaswamy, Prof. N. K. Chaddha

of the Bareilly College and Syt. Radha Krishna Agarwal, M.L.A.
There are also many others, friends and colleagues aj, well as
students of mine, to whom I am indebted for help during the
preparation and printing of the book.
G. N. DHAWAN

POSTSCRIPT, dated December 1950:

For valuable suggestions regarding the revision of the book
for the second edition and for other help, I am greatly indebted
to Shri K. G. Mashruwala, Shri Pyarelal, Prof. Nirmal Kumar
Bose, Shri M. Chalapathi Rau and Shri D. G. Tendulkar.
G. N. D.
 CONTENTS

Chapter Bage
PREFACE ...... iv
INTRODUCTION .3
I. FORERUNNERS
India ...... 8
Islam . . . . . .21
China ...... 22
Greece . . . ... .23
Judaism ...... 23
Christianity ...... 24
Mediaeval Europe ..... 28
Quakers ...... 29
Doukhobors ...... 30
Thoreau ...... 30
Ruskin ...... 31
Tolstoy ...... 32
Tucker ...... 35
Contemporary Pacifism . . . .36
II. METAPHYSICAL BASES
Gandhiji’s Conception of God and Soul . * .38
Bases of His Belief in the Primacy of Spirit . . 46
Karma and Rebirth ..... 49
Freedom of Will ..... 50
The Problem of Evil . . . . .51
III. ETHICAL PRINCIPLES—THE END AND THE MEANS
The Ultimate End ..... 53
The End and the Means . . . .54
Truth ...... 57
Non-violence ..... 60
IV. ETHICAL PRINCIPLES (contd.)—THE DISCIPLINE OF
THE SATYAGRAHI LEADER
Brahmacharya ...... 76
Control of the Palate . . . . .81
Fearlessness ...... 82
Non-stealing and Non-possession . . .83
Trusteeship ..... 85
Bread-labour ..... 90
Swadeshi ...... 92
Removal of Untouchability . . . .97
Equal Respect for Religions ... .99
Humility ...... 100

VI
 CONTENTS VI]

V. PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND PRACTICA¬

BILITY OF*ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
Human Nature . . . . .103
Practicability of His Ideal . . ' . 107
Suffering—Its Rationale . . . .110

VI. THE DECISION OF THE SATYAGRAHI LEADER

Public Opinion, Reason, and Faith . . .117
Autonomy of the Group . . . .121
Non-violent Resistance and the Leader . . .122
Pre-conditions of the Leader’s Decision Being Correct 123

VII. SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE

Meaning of Satyagraha . . . .126
Satyagraha and Passive Resistance . . .127
Importance of Satyagraha in Personal Relations . 128
Satyagraha and Dyadic Conflicts . . .132
Issues Involving Social Good . . . .133
Aim . . . . . . .133
Persuasion and Efforts for Compromise . .135
Voluntary Suffering—Its Working . . .139
Non-co-operation . . . . .144
Fasting ...... 146
External Help . . . . .153
Satyagrahi and Crime . . . . .154
Self-defence . . . . . .160
Possibility of the Non-violent Way of Life . . 161

VIII. SATYAGRAHA AS CORPORATE ACTION—THE

LEADER, ORGANIZATION AND PROPAGANDA
Need of Corporate Satyagraha . . . .165
Leader ...... 166
Ashrams ...... 167
Democracy and the Indian National Congress . .168
Volunteers and Discipline . . . .179
Propaganda . . . . . .184
The Constructive Programme . . . .190
Appendix I—His Last Will and Testament . . 209
Appendix II—Volunteer’s Pledge . . .211

IX. SATYAGRAHA AS CORPORATE ACTION—THE

TECHNIQUE
Occasion for Corporate Satyagraha . . .214
Suspension . . . . . .217
The Issue ...... 218
Open Dealings ..... 222
Sabotage ...... 224
Numbers and Money ..... 224
viii CONTENTS

Non-co-operation . . . . .227
Hartal .229
Social Ostracism ..... 230
* Picketing . . . . . .231
Civil Disobedience . . . . .238
Hijrat ....... 247

X. SATYAGRAHA AS CORPORATE ACTION—NON¬

POLITICAL CONFLICTS AND CRITICISM
Social Conflicts ..... 249
Religious Conflicts . . . . .251
Economic Conflicts ..... 252
Satyagraha and Loosening of Social Bonds . . 257
Is it Un-constitutional? . . . .258
Satyagraha and Coercion .... 262
Universal Practicability of Satyagraha . . . 266
Satyagraha in India . . . . .270
Satyagraha and Violence as Techniques of Revolution 274

XL THE STRUCTURE OF THE NON-VIOLENT STATE

Gandhiji’s “One-step-enough-for-me” Principle . 279
The Stateless Democracy . . . .282
Social Cohesion in the Stateless Society . . . 286
The Non-violent State . . . . .291
The State—A Means ..... 293
Sovereignty ...... 294
Parliamentary Democracy . . . .294
Elections and Franchise . . . .298
Majority and Minority .... 300
Functions of the Non-violent State . , .301
Crimes and Jails ..... 304
Police and Military . . . . .310
Justice . . . . . .310
The Socio-economic Structure and Economic Functions 312
Education . . . . . .318
Rights and Duties . 323
Non-violent Nationalism . . . .325
Foreign Policy of the Non-violent State . . .327
CONCLUSION .337
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . .346
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS . . . .352
INDEX ......
THE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
OF
MAHATMA GANDHI
 INTRODUCTION
In 1909 in Hind Swaraj, Mahatma Gandhi characterized
modem civilization as “a disease” and “a nine days’ wonder”,
for it “takes note neither of morality nor of religion.”1 Moral
purity and spiritual stamina, he held, are of incomparably
greater survival value to civilizations than physical might and
material prosperity. But the warning was mistaken for the
mystic effusion of an oriental saint strayed into politics and
accordingly went unheeded. Today, however, amidst the
carnage and devastation left behind by one world war and the
preparations going on for the next, modern civilization seems
to be moving to a terrible anti-climax.
The evils associated with modern civilization touch practi¬
cally every aspect of life. Due to the progress of science and
technology the last hundred years have given man greater
mechanical mastery over nature than the rest of history. But
this achievement, far from making man wiser or happier, has
been his greatest misfortune. The bewildering complexity of
life resulting from advances in “machine mastery” has made
understanding and self-control progressively difficult. Thus
material progress has spelt moral ruin.
This moral lag expresses itself in man’s inordinate love of
wealth and power. The profit-motive which lies at the root of
capitalism has blinded him to the ideal of service. Love of
power has been one of the most important causes of war and its
increasing destructiveness.
Obviously democracy cannot go hand in hand with capital¬
ism and war preparations. The latter require a high degree of
total and centralized control and it is, indeed, no wonder that
most of the ‘civilized’ States are today tamely submitting to the
tyranny of dictators of one kind or another. Nationalization of
conscience and regimentation of intellect are fast becoming
ordinary features of life in the modem State.2 This blind
1 Hind Swaraj^ pp. 20-22 and 92.
2 For incidents illustrating how freedom of the Press is becoming illu¬
sory in a country like England see the chapter on Propaganda in Where
Stands Democracy ? by Laski and others, and The Press (Penguine Series) by
W. Steed, specially the Post-script.

3
T INTRODUCTION

worship of wealth and violence cannot go on indefinitely without

the human race relapsing into savagery.
But “Civilization,” Gandhiji holds, “is not an incurable
disease,”3 though it requires a drastic, revolutionary remedy.
This remedy is, according to him, the cultivation of non-violence
in all spheres of life.
For centuries war and violence have been tried as a means
of achieving peace and prosperity. Today they threaten the very
existence of the human race, and the conviction has been
growing among the saner sections of mankind that non-violence
is the only way of averting the catastrophe.
pandhiji’s philosophy of Satyagraha deserves to be studied
because it embodies the lifelong researches of the greatest expo¬
nent of non-violence. His philosophy is also important because
it is the most original contribution of India to political thought
and political practice>Moreover, it forms the philosophical back¬
ground of the present-day nationalist movement in India where
it has moved the masses and won tremendous popularity. ’*
The popularity of the philosophy of Satyagraha is also
partly due to Gandhiji’s unique personality.NHe has been com¬
pared to the Buddha and the Christ, though he repeatedly dis¬
claimed a prophetic role. “. . .a purer, a nobler, a braver and a
more exalted spirit,” said Gokhale in 1909, “has never moved on
this earth.”4 To millions of people in India and outside he is the
highest embodiment of India’s genius and of her eternal will to
non-violence. One of the greatest revolutionary leaders of the
world, he liberated through non-violent means his people from
the domination of the mightiest empire known to historv and
tried to revolutionize the existing social order. During the last
months of his life, single-handed he brought under control out¬
bursts of intense communal violence in several parts of India.
His philosophy is concerned with the perennial problems
of man’s ultimate goal and the way he should live to advance
towards this goal. The philosophy of Satyagraha is essentially
practical. It does not resemble those systematic fancies spun out
by acadeniic theorists which are often too neat and logical to be
true to life. [Gandhiji is a karmayogin, a practical idealist, and
3 Hind Swataj, p. 22. ,
* D* G. Tendulkar, Mahatma, Life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhu I,
n 1Q7 9 9
 INTRODUCTION 5

his philosophy has grown out of his own experience, his experi¬
ments with truth and non-violence. He teaches only what he
has himself practised and what he considers to be practicable
for everybody making the necessary effort. Though a man of
religion, he makes no false distinction between the religious and
the mundane, the spiritual and the temporal. To him religion is
meaningless unless it provides a moral basis to all activities
of life. He insists that an ideal must prove itself here and now
and the highest ethics must also be the highest expediency.
Being practical, the philosophy of Satyagraha concerns it¬
self primarily with the means. It does not ignore the end, but
as the end grows out of the means, the progressive use of the
nonTviolent way is everything to the Satyagrahi.
• To Gandhiji the end is “the greatest good of all55. He is a
philosophical anarchist because he believes that this end can be
realized only in the classless and Stateless democracy of auto¬
nomous village communities based on non-violence instead of
coercion, on service instead of exploitation, on renunciation
instead of acquisitiveness and on the largest measure of local
and individual initiative instead of centralization. Non-violent
nationalism will be co-operative and constructive and will be an
integral part of universal humanity instead of being exclusive,
competitive and militant; and conflicts will be resolved not on
the physical plane of brute force but on the spiritual plane of
love. Gandhiji is, however, not a visionary; and as the non-vio¬
lent society is yet an ideal, remote and uncertain, his philosophy
is mainly concerned with the individual who will live and die
for the ideal and with the non-violent way that will lead him to
it. He does not bother about the details of the distant goal. He
has discovered the right path, and one clear step, he believes,
should lead to another till in die fulness of time the efforts grow
into achievement. To the extent, however, that the method has
developed, the broad outlines of the non-violent society of
Gandhiji’s conception are discernible.
The non-violent technique that he has evolved during more
than half a century of his public life seems to be the only hope
and the most sensible strategy of the poor, the 'backward’ and
the downtrodden. For the first time in the history of the world
he has shown how even unarmed nations can make war—of
course, non-violent war—to win freedom. He has thus given to
6 INTRODUCTION

the world what has been a desideratum for long, “a mora

equivalent of war55.5
, In Gandhiji’s philosophy stress is always laid on the indi¬
vidual as the starting point of social regeneration. To him the
problem of the group is essentially the problem of the indi¬
vidual. The reason for this emphasis is that man is above al
the soul, and the progress of society depends on the soul-force
of the average individual. Unlike Marxists and Fascists who
work from the outside and work to the inner, Gandhiji starts
from the soul within and works his way out to the environment.
But though in his plan of social reconstruction he attaches great
importance to the individual with whom lies the first step, he
also makes the institutional approach. Thus Satyagraha works
from the individual to the social order and also from the social
order back to the individual.^
But Gandhiji does not take a partial view of man. He does
not neglect the demands of man’s lower nature. His well-known
letter to Tagore, entitled “The Great Sentinel”,6 is an irrefutable
vindication of the minimum legitimate physical needs of man.
But man is not a mere physical being conditioned by stimuli.
The real being in man, the central truth in him, is the spirit.
The spirit is one in all, and to realize this great truth “one has
to lose oneself in the continuous and continuing service of all
life.”7 Thus the individual must live for social service and live
increasingly by self-direction rather than by mere habit.
Another feature of his philosophy—and this is a source of
diffidence to the student—is that it continued to grow as long
as he was alive and so it may not be possible to evaluate it pro¬
perly for a long time to come. In his own words, “Non-violence
in politics is a new weapon in the process of evolution.”8 “I am
myself daily growing in the knowledge of Satyagraha. I have no
text-book to consult in time of need. . . .Satyagraha as conceived
by me is a science in the making.”9 “I have no set theory to go
by. I have not worked out the science of Satyagraha in its
5 The Nation's Voice, p. 234.
6Speeches, pp. 607-13.
7 Contemporary Indian Philosophy edited by S. Radhakrishnan and J. H.
Muirhead, Gandhiji’s article.
8H., Oct. 23, 1937, p. 308.
*H., Sept. 24, 1938, p. 266.
 INTRODUCTION 7

entirety.”10 He turned down requests to write a treatise on the

science of ahimsa, as his domain was action and not academic
writings. He wrote in 1946, “Any such (treatise) during my life¬
time would necessarily be incomplete. If at all it could only be
written after my death. And even so let me give the warning
that it would ever fail to give a complete exposition of ahimsa.
No man has ever been able to describe God fully. The same
holds true of ahima.”n
Gandhiji insisted that loyalty to truth rules out fixed modes
of thought and action, rigidity of attitude and claims to finality.
Truth as known to man is relative. Its seeker must be willing
to learn from facts and to evolve and mould his principles ac¬
cording to changing circumstances and situations.
The message of Satyagraha abides. But we cannot, on that
account, postpone the systematic study of this sovereign remedy
for the ills that afflict the modem world. The impossibility of full
treatment is no peculiarity of the science of Satyagraha. It is
the characteristic of every science. Besides, Gandhiji’s long pub¬
lic life devoted to experiments with truth and non-violence has
already become a part of history and he himself provides ample
material for a study of their results.
Even during his lifetime when his philosophy was living
and evolving its prominent contours could be discerned. The
evolution was more in the nature of filling in of details or
making slight changes in the superstructure rather than any
alterations in its foundations. Thus referring to Hind Swaraj,
he says, “But after a stormy thirty years through which I have
since passed I have seen nothing to make me alter the views
expounded in it.”12
10 H., May 27, 1939, p. 136.
11H., March 3, 1946, pp. 28-29.
12 Aryan Path, Sept. 1938.
 CHAPTER I
FORERUNNERS
Non-violence has been preached and practised in practi¬
cally every country and by people in every stage of culture.
Many leaders of thought and founders of great religions of the
world have taught that violence cannot be overcome by violence
and evil cannot be overcome by evil.
In no other country of the world has the tradition of non¬
violence been so deep-rooted and continuous as in India. Non¬
violence is rightly considered to be India’s greatest contribu¬
tion to world-thought. All the important Indian religions preach
non-violence as the greatest duty. Indians have believed from
early times in the doctrine of spiritual immanence expressed in
the well-known aphorisms Soham (I am He) and Tat tvamasi
(Thou art That). The conviction that all life is one has led to the
extension of non-violence even to subhuman creation.
Vamashramadharma,1 the social organization of the
Hindus, the earliest reference to which occurs in the famous
Purusha Sukta of the Rig Veda, aimed at training people in
this supreme virtue. Its goal was to make all men, even the
shudras, brahmanas. A brahmana filled with peaceful joy, born
of communion with the Universal Soul, represented the highest
of which human nature is capable and was expected to refrain
spontaneously from resisting evil by force. The kshatriya was
no doubt permitted, as a concession to his weakness, to employ
force in order to resist aggression. But it was recognized that
the law of love practised by the brahmana is higher than the
law of brute force employed by the kshatriya. Vamashratna-
dharma also laid down that the kshatriya should fight in a spirit
of brotherliness, without hate and out of a sense of duty and
not in a vindictive mood. The kshatriya would, if he acted in
this spirit of humanity, rise spiritually and rely less and less on
brute force until he became a brahmana incapable of injuring
any living being. Thus “Though violent resistance is allowed,
JFor the relation between non-violence and Vamashramadharma see
S. Radhakrishnan, Heart of Hindustan, pp. 22-24 and 44-45 and The Hindu
View of Life, pp. 117 f.

8
 FORERUNNERS 9

the end is to transcend it.’5 At any rate Vamaskramadharmd

restricted fighting to only a small section of the entire popu¬
lation, i.e., the kshatriyas.
Hindu ethics since the time of the Upanishads has always
laid stress on the virtue of ahimsa or non-injury to all living
beings, human or otherwise. According to Rhys Davids ahimsa
is expressly mentioned for the first time in the Chhandogya
Upanishad (III, 17) “where five ethical qualities, one being
ahimsa, are said to be equivalent to a part of sacrifice of which
the whole life of man is made an epitome.5’2
Patanjali, whose Togasutras Gandhiji studied in 1903 at
Johannesburg, included ahimsa in his pancha yamas, i.e., the
five cardinal disciplines which have since had the pride of place
in the Hindu technique of spiritual advancement. As we will
discuss later (chapters III and IV), Gandhiji has elaborated
these yamas and made them an integral part of the discipline
of the Satyagrahi. Patanjali lays down that ahimsa is not merely
a negative doctrine in the sense of avoidance of violence; it also
implies goodwill towards all creatures.3
The tradition of ahimsa was further developed in the epics
of India. The Ramayana? and the Mahabharata, the guides of
millions in India, are apparently stories of wars. But the object
of these poets, Valmiki and Vyasa, is not the mere historical
narration of wars. Gandhiji is of the opinion that the epics,
though probably some of the figures they deal with are histo¬
rical, are allegories which describe the eternal duel that goes on
within man between the forces of light and darkness.5 In the
Ramayana the moral grandeur of the acts of peace eclipses the
war. The author of the Mahabharata has demonstrated the
2T. W. Rhys Davids in the Article on “Ahimsa” in The Encyclopaedia of
Ethics and Religion. The relevant text of the Chhandogya is
3rq-
TrPTt m
cU 3 I
3S. K. Maitra, Ethics of the Hindus, pp. 220-21.
Patanjali’s famous aphorism on ahimsa is: I
(As soon as ahimsa is perfected all enmity around ceases.)
4 Gandhiji’s first acquaintance with the Ramayana of Tulsidas dates
back to his childhood when he was 13 years of age. He considers it to be
“the greatest book in all devotional literature”. Autobiography, I, p. 83.
5References to Gandhiji’s views on ahimsa in the epics are: H., Oct. 30,
1936, p. 266; Sept. 5, 1936, p. 236; Nov. 11, 1939, p. 330; August 18, 1940,
p. 250; T. II, p. 937; and The Gita According to Gandhi.
10 FORERUNNERS

futility of war and violence. He has given an empty glory to the

victors, for seven only were left alive out of the millions that
engaged in the titanic conflict. “He has made the victors shed
tears of sorrow and repentance, and has left them nothing but a
legacy of miseries.” He has made the blind king Dhritarashtra
and the queen Gandhari listen to the agonizing details of the
terrible carnage of their sons and nephews as it goes on from
day to day. He also shows that in a violent war the contending
parties are certain to stoop to meanness and trickery. Even the
great Yudhishthira had to resort to untruth to save the battle.
The Mahabharata also directly advocates ahimsa. Indeed,
by the time of the Mahabharata ahimsa had come to be regarded
as the highest duty. Vyasa extols satya> ahimsa and other non¬
violent values at several places in the Mahabharata. The wounded
Bhishma thus exalted ahimsa in his discourse to Yudhishthira,
“Ahimsa is the highest religion. It is again the highest penance.
It is also the highest truth from which all duty proceeds.”6 In
the Shantiparva Kapila considers kindliness, forgiveness, peace¬
fulness, ahimsa, truth, straightforwardness, absence of pride,
modesty, forbearance and tolerance as the ways to attain
BrahmanJ In the Vanaparva we read “The hard and the soft
yield alike to the soft; in fact there is nothing impossible for the
soft, hence the soft is more powerful than the hard.”8
In regard to the Gita there has been a controversy as to
whether it advocates ahimsa or himsa. The Gita is the

6 srfpT TOTT spf: srfpT m: I

srifST TOT <Tcft SPT: II
Amshasanaparva (edited by P. P. S. Sastri), CIV, 25. For emphasis on ahimsa
see also Anushasanaparva, CV, 23-45. Similarly for Truth see Shantiparva
(P. P. S. Sastri), CLXXXVIII, 61-74.
7 srnr^r srm sirfon: srf^rr \

Shantiparva (P. P. S. Sastri), CCLV, 39-40.

8

fti’Nd; *T§: 11
Vanaparva (P. P. S. Sastri), XXIV, 30.
 FORERUNNERS 11

quintessence of the Upanishads and is considered by many to

be the brightest gem in Indian philosophical literature.
Of the books that have moulded Gandhiji the Gita easily
comes the first. Gandhiji’s first acquaintance with it was in Eng¬
land in 1888-1889 when he studied, along with two English
friends. Sir Edwin Arnold’s translation. Later on he studied
most of its important commentaries. For long he read the Gita
daily and endeavoured to live up to its teaching for an unbroken
period of sixty years. He regarded it as “the spiritual reference
book”.9 In his well-known address to Christian missionaries in
Calcutta on July 28, 1925, he acknowledged his attachment to
the Gita thus:
<c. . .Though I admire much in Christianity, I am unable to
identify myself with orthodox Christianity. . . .Hinduism as I
know it entirely satisfies my soul, fills my whole being, and I
find a solace in the Bhagavadgita and the Upanishads that I
miss even in the Sermon on the Mount. . .when doubt haunts
me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and when I see
not one ray of light on the horizon, I turn to the Bhagavadgita,
and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile
in the midst of overwhelming sorrow. My life has been full of
external tragedies, and if they have not left any visible and -,■
indelible effect on me, I owe it to the teachings of the
Bhagavadgita.”10
The Gita,11 like the Mahabharata of which it is the most
valued part, is not a treatise on non-violence, which was “an
accepted and primary duty even before the Gita age”. Nor was
it written to condemn war which was not considered inconsis¬
tent with ahimsa then.12 Similarly it does not advocate violence
either. j^The theme of the Gita is self-realization and its means.
The second and eighteenth chapters give us the central teaching
of the Gita regarding the way to self-realization—the ideal of
anasaktiyoga or nishkamakarma (action without desire for the
result). “But renunciation of fruit in no way means indifference

9 The Gita According to Gandhi, pp. 122-23.

«r. II, pp. 1078-79.
11 References to Gandhiji’s views on ahimsa ‘in the Gita are: The Gita
According to Gandhi; Y. II, pp. 907, 927-40; hT., Jan. 21, 1939, p. 430; and
Oct. 3, 1936, p. 257.
12 The Gita According to Gandhi, p. 129; Diary I, p. 126.
12 FORERUNNERS

to the result. In regard to every action one must know the result
that is expected to follow, the means thereto, and the capacity
for it. He, who being thus equipped, is without desire for the
result, and is yet wholly engrossed in the due fulfilment of the
task before him, is said to have renounced the fruits of his ac¬
tion.” According to Gandhiji this central teaching of the Gita is
against any line of demarcation being drawn between salvation
and worldly pursuits and implies that “religion must rule our
worldly pursuits55 and “that what cannot be followed out in day-
to-day practice cannot be called religion.”13 The last nineteen
verses of the second chapter, which, says Gandhiji, “contain for
me all knowledge” and “are the key to the interpretation of the
Gita\14, explain how the balanced state of mind can be achieved
by killing all passions and by renouncing desires rather than
objects. The $thitaprajna9 the ideal man of the Gita9 is humble
and merciful, free from joy and sorrow, fear and hatred and un¬
concerned with good or bad results. He is essentially a non-vio¬
lent man, for violence has for its basis the desire to enjoy the
results of one’s action. As Gandhiji once said to Dr Kagawa, “It
is not possible to kill your brother after having killed all your
passions.”15 On another occasion he wrote, “The result of this
selfless detachment must be uttermost truth and non-vio¬
lence.”16 Conversely, this supreme state of non-attachment can¬
not be fully achieved without the practice of non-violence.
No doubt Arjuna who had refused to fight was convinced
of his mistake after the discourse and agreed to join battle. But
Arjuna was no conscientious objector. His pacifism was born of
a temporary infatuation, a disinclination to kill his own kith and
kin due to false pity. He was not worried over the problem of
killing as such. His hesitation was due to the persons whom he
was intended to kill. “The religious answer to this attachment
would be that there is no kinsman and no no-kinsman. . . .If
therefore it is lawful to wage war at all, it makes no difference
whether it is kinsmen who are concerned or strangers.” Thus
Arjuna’s infatuation was cowardice and killing and being killed,
Krishna taught, is far better than cowardice.
13 The Gita According to Gandhi, pp. 128-29.
14 T. L, II, p. 935.
15 H., Jan. 14, 1939, p. 430.
16 Barr, p. 14.
 FORERUNNERS 13

It may be argued that Krishna, in spite of his detachment,

was not neutral in the battlefield of Kurukshetra. He was on the
side of right and truth. Though he refrained from fighting, he
was an expert in war. His advice and expert knowledge were
availed of by the Pandavas, and it is wrong to suppose that his
support was only moral. But the Krishna of the Gita is a liberat¬
ed soul, who has attained perfect mental equilibrium and risen
above violence and non-violence. Only such a person can kill for
the good of all without the least attachment and is non-violent
even while killing.17 For the ordinary mortal treading this solid
earth the practice of akimsa seems essential for attaining the
state of non-attachment.
In spite of the emphasis on ahimsa in the religious and
philosophical literatures, ahimsa was regarded as the virtue of
sages and seekers and animal sacrifices continued to be prac¬
tised in India. Jainism and Buddhism were revolts against the
elaborate ritual, caste rigidity and sacrificial violence of the
Brahmanical faith.
Ahimsa is the leading tenet of the Jaina philosophy. The
Jainas believe that the entire world is literally packed with an
infinite number of embodied souls, their bodies being either
gross and visible or subtle and invisible. All the elements are
animated with souls. The embodiment of the spirit in the mate¬
rial body is the cause of misery. So life means pain even to souls
with invisible bodies. To become a muktatma, a soul liberated
from the bonds of the body, the individual must complete the
process of nirjara, i.e., get rid of karmas. For this there are
three means (iriratnas), right knowledge [samyak jnana), right
insight (samyak darshana) and right conduct (samyak chari-
trya). Right conduct consists in five vows (vratas) of which non¬
killing {ahimsa) is the first, the other four being truthfulness,
non-stealing, non-possession and celibacy. Monks have to ob¬
serve them rigidly and laymen so far as they can.
The Jainas lay excessive emphasis on ahimsa. To give some
instances of their extreme scrupulousness, the Jaina ascetics do
not drive away vermin from their clothes or bodies, carry a
filter and a broom to save minute insects in the water they
drink or on the ground where they sit. The world being filled

17 The Gita, XVIII, 17.

14 FORERUNNERS

with embodied souls experiencing pain, all activities involve

violence. So Jainism insists that the follower of ahimsa should
engage in the fewest possible activities. Jainism, thus, en¬
courages asceticism for its own sake. With Jainas ahimsa
became synonymous with refusal to take the life of even the
smallest insect. This is, indeed, the extreme application of the
negative aspect of a vital principle, and as such it has become,
in the words of Mr Andrews, “a burden to humanity almost
impossible to bear55.18 According to Gandhiji, this extreme appli¬
cation is based on an assumption which'Ks not always true, i.e.,
the agony of death is more severe than^that of life. This assump¬
tion is rooted in ignorance and has led to the distortion of
ahimsa on account of undue emphasis being placed on the
sacredness of subhuman life in preference to human life.19 (All
the same Jainism has been an important factor in sustaining
and deepening the tradition of non-violence in India.j
In no other province of India is the hold of Jainism on the
life of the people greater than in Gujarat where Gandhiji was
bom and brought up. In his childhood, his father, though a
Vaishnava, frequently associated with Jaina monks.2(^In spite
of this early Jaina influence, Gandhiji, unlike the Jainas, lays
due emphasis on the positive aspect of ahimsa J
i Buddhism avoids the extreme view of ahimsa taken by
Jainism.21 Buddha’s teaching, it has been said, begins with
purity and ends with love, and is distinguished by the emphasis
on the ethical rather than on the metaphysical element. His
ethics is the practical application of the ethics of the
Upanishads.)
The Buddha, although bom a man, is as Tathagata (True-
Come) inconnumerable, “beyond all ways of telling”. He is the
Dhamma, the Eternal Law, the Truth.

18C. F. Andrews, Mahatma Gandhi’s Ideas, p. 132.

19 Diary, I, p. 148; H., June 9, 1946, p. 172.
20 Autobiography, I, pp. 56, 57 and 84.
21 It is interesting to note that though the Buddha forbids the monks
knowingly to make use of meat killed for them, yet he allows them fish and
meat, “if they have not been seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on
purpose for a monk.” The Buddha’s last meal is said to have included a
dish of port Edward Conze and others (ed.) Buddhist Texts Through the
4?«, pp. 22-23. Anand K. Goomaraswamy, Buddha and the Gospel of Buddhism,
 FORERUNNERS 15

Regarding the place of ethics in the Buddha’s teaching it

may be pointed out that the objective of the Bodhisattva in his
search for Enlightenment was essentially ethical, that is, to put
an end to suffering.22 The Bodhisattva’s transcendent virtues
were his effective body-guard against the onslaught and tempta¬
tion of Mara (Death). He withstood the last and the subtlest
temptation of Mara which was to remain a solitary Buddha
enjoying by himself the fruit of Enlightenment. Instead the
Buddha set out to preach, during his ministry of forty-five years,
the Way to attain the ultimate purpose of life. The Buddha is,
of course, beyond ethics, uncontaminated by vice as well as
virtue, both of which imply the notion of oneself and others,
even as he is beyond all categories. So would be any man who
sheds ignorance, works out his liberation from the law of causal
origination and attains immortality. Until then there are things
he ought and things he ought not to do.23
The Buddha enjoins good moral habits as being essential
for the achievement of the ultimate goal of life, but they are not
enough. Wrong moral habits are fraught with peril to the indi¬
vidual. Nirvana, however, is beyond good and evil both of which
bind the individual.24 To attain purity the individual must by
an effort of will eradicate the notion of T and ‘mine5, rise above
name and aspect, see clearly the causal origination of all things
and “plunge” into the “Immortal”.25
The four cardinal truths of Buddhism are suffering or ill,
its cause, its suppression and the Way or the Walk by which
^Explaining a Bodhisattva’s perfection of morality the Buddha says,
“He himself lives under the obligation of the ten ways of wholesome acting,
and also others he instigates thereto.”
“A Bodhisattva resolves: I take upon myself the burden of all suffering.
. . .At all costs I must bear the burdens of all beings. I have made a vow to
save all beings. , . .The world of living beings I must rescue from the terrors
of birth, of old age, of sickness, of death and rebirth. ...” Edward
Gonze and others, cited above, pp. 135, 131-32 {Panchvimsatisahasrika,
194-95, Sikshasamuccaya, 280-81).
23Anand K. Coomaraswamy and I. B. Horner, The Living Thoughts of
Gautama, the Buddha, p. 15.
24 “Purity cannot be attained by virtue—nor without it (Suttanipata,
839); purity is not only from vice but also virtue.” Ibid., p. 36.
25“The means that are actually resorted to are notin themselves means
to Nirvana, but means to the removal of all that obscures the vision of
Nirvana. . . .” Ibid., p. 17.
16 FORERUNNERS

the cause can be suppressed. The problem of suffering with

which the Buddha is primarily concerned is “the problem. . .of
the corruptibility of all things, bom, composite and mutable,
their liability to suffering, disease, inveteration and death.”26
This liability has a cause. Ignorance, the primary evil, is the ulti¬
mate origin of all suffering and bondage.27 The Aryan eightfold
Way, the moral code of self-discipline has been called by Rhys
Davids “the very essence of Buddhism”.28 The Way is for those
whose wants are few and not for those whose wants are many;
for “pleasures of senses have been likened by the Lord to a bare
bone, of great suffering, of great tribulation, wherein is further
peril.”29 In fact, it is a gospel of self-mastery meant for the
bhikkkus who forsake “the dark state of life in the world”. The
Way rejects the two extremes of self-mortification and self-
indulgence and is essentially non-violent. Ahimsa again is the
first among the ten precepts for the order (sikhapadani) as well
as among the five rules of conduct for laymen {panchasilani)
which correspond to the first five of the precepts.
(The Buddha teaches ahimsa both as love and avoidance of
injury to self and others. \ He enjoins the renunciation of
onslaught on creatures, taking what is not given, lying, mali¬
cious speech, greed, angry blame, wrathful rage, and self-con¬
ceit.30 Even the householder is to refrain from war and violence
towards all living creatures. War, strife and violence settle no
issues.) They breed fear and lead to similar counter-measures.
The Buddha averted a war between Kalyas and SakyasJ Accord¬
ing to Buddha. Victory breeds hatred, for the conquered
is unhappy.”31 )
26 Coomaraswamy and Homer, cited above, p. 13, “Precisely this do I
teach, now as formerly: ill and the stopping of ill.” Conze and others, cited
above, p. 11 {Majjhima-Nikaya, I, 140).
27 “Whatever is not knowing concerning ill, its arising, its stopping, the
course leadmg to its stopping—this, monks, is called ignorance.” Coomara¬
swamy and Homer, cited above, p. 146. (Samyutta-Mkaya, II, 4). “When
ignorance has been got rid of and knowledge has arisen, one does not grasp
after sense-pleasures, speculative views, rites and customs, the theory of
sdf. Craze and others, cited above, p. 76 (Majjhima-maya, I, 67).
.”™e. Way co™hts of riSht concept, right doing, right
modeof living, right exertion, right mindfulness and right contemplation.
Coomaraswamy and Horner, cited above, d 122
30Ibidp. 122.
31 Anand Coomaraswamy, Buddha and the Gospel of Buddhism, p. 178 n.
 FORERUNNERS 17

“The slayer gets a slayer in his turn;

The conqueror gets one who conquers him;
Th’ abuser wins abuse, th’ annoyer fret
Thus by the evolution of the deed
A man who spoils is spoiled in his turn.1,32
Regarding any deed of body, speech and thought his teach¬
ing is: “If you know that it does conduce to the harm of self
or to the harm of others or to the harm of both and that it is
wrong, then, Rahula, a deed such as this should not, as far as
you are able, be done by you.5’33
Regarding harsh speech there is a passage of the
Ruru-deer Jataka which, writes Coomaraswamy, is perhaps
unique in all literature in its extreme tenderness and courtesy:
“For who—the Bodhisattva asks—would willingly use
harsh speech to those who have done a sinful deed, strewing
salt, as it were, upon the wound of their fault ?”33
Positively ahimsa should find expression in love, pity, ten¬
derness and impartiality (metta, karuna, mudita, upehha). The
love that the Buddha teaches is the deliberately radiated well-
wishing love towards all living things whatever. He wanted
monks to suffuse with a heart of love all creatures, all breath¬
ers, all beings and everything. This love is unsullied by motives
of sense desire, passion or hope of a return. According to the
Buddha even when one’s body is dismembered, one should
radiate goodwill towards all beings, remain patient for the sake
of deliverance even of those that dismember it and do them no
injury even in thought.
Impartiality is a subjective state of patience or detachment
in regard to whatever pleasant and unpleasant things befall an
individual. Mudita or sympathy has for its basis charity, kind
speech, doing a good turn and treating all alike.34 Karuna or
compassion is the fruit of insight which enables an individual
to see all beings as on the way to their slaughter.35
The Metta Suita brings out clearly the Buddha’s ideal of
ahimsa:
32 Coomaraswamy and Horner, cited above, pp. 114 and 77.
33 Coomaraswamy, cited above, p. 111.
34 Coomaraswamy and Homer, cited above, pp. 32, 116 and 136;
Conze and others, cited above, pp. 180 and 136.
35 Conze and others, cited aboye, p. 127.

P. G.-2
18 FORERUNNERS

“As a mother, even at the risk of her own life, protects her
son, her only son, so let there be goodwill without measure
among all beings. Let goodwill without measure prevail in the
world, above, below, around, unstinted, unmixed with any feel¬
ing of differing or opposing interests. If a man remain stead¬
fastly in this state of mind all the while he is awake, whether
he be standing, walking, sitting, or lying down, there is come to
pass the saying, ‘Even in this world holiness has been found.5 5536
The Buddha’s well-known teaching is:
“By no wrath should he conquer ■fcorath;
unworth by worth should he overcome;
he should o’ercome the stingy by a gift,
by truth him who doth falsely speak.5’37
The way of the Buddha is primarily for his monastic order
unattached to social activities and unbound by social ties. It
is not directly concerned with the order of the world. In the
words of Coomaraswamy, “It will be most inappropriate to give
him the title of democrat or social reformer. It was not his
purpose to establish order in the world or redress social in¬
justice.” So Buddhism never formulated the ideal of a social
order. Even when dealing with matters referred to him for
decision and expounding lay morality the Buddha confined him¬
self mostly to mutual duties of children and parents, man and
wife, master and servant, friends and the duty of ministering
to the bhikkhus and brahmanas. Because good government
cannot lead to Nibbana (Dying Out) which is the sole concern
of his Gospel, Buddhism is not concerned with government at
all and has no faith in it. To Buddhism the road of political
wisdom is ‘an unclean path of falseness5.38 The Buddha’s teach¬
ing of non-violence therefore, is mostly confined to personal
relations. All the same his doctrine of avoiding all violence,
returning love for hatred and compassion for all life is no doubt
one of the greatest steps forward taken by mankind.
Asoka occupies a unique place in the history of non¬
violence. To him alone belongs the distinction of making efforts
to administer one of the biggest empires known to history on
the principles of ahimsa. Intensely disgusted with the carnage
36Ananda Coomaraswamy, cited above, p. 102.
37 Coomaraswamy and Homer, cited above, p. 113.
38 Coomaraswamy, cited above, pp. 117, 119 and 176.
 FORERUNNERS

and cruelties of the Kalinga war, he gave up animal food, t

royal hunt and the tours of pleasure and placed before the woi
the ideal of universal peace and brotherhood of all living ere
tures. In the words of Mr. Wells, “He is the only milita
monarch on record who abandoned warfare after victory.”35
To his unsubdued borderers his message was, “The ki
desires that his unsubdued borderers, the peoples on J
frontiers, should not be afraid of him but should trust him, a]
would receive from him not sorrow but happiness.” (Kalin
Rock Edict II). He declared, “The chiefest conquest is the cc
quest of Right and not of might.” (R. E. XIII). Dharmavijcv
won by love (priti) and expressed in social service and moi
propaganda, was the positive aspect of his non-violent forei,
policy which was based on the principles of liberty, equali
and fraternity of all States, big and small.
Inside the empire his government vigorously devoted its
to social service among the masses. It also made arrangemei
for the moral instruction of his people in those cardinal prin
pies of morality which are acceptable to every creed. Aso
has on this account been called humanity’s first teacher
Universal Religion.40 He had his principles of policy a
morality inscribed on rocks and pillars and ahimsa forms t
subject of the first, second and fourth of his Rock Edicts.
But Asoka did retain the army and his moral princip
were enforced among the people by the usual methods of puni
ment and coercion. This gives to his rule the character of pat
nal despotism.41
(Both Buddhism and Jainism laid stress on ahimsa bei
organically related to truth, non-stealing, non-possessi
and celibacy. But later on when monasticism degenerated th<
virtues were disregarded and the tradition of ahimsa weaken*
Later religious sects and teachers in India, especially 1
devotional saints who preached the bhakti-marga, continued

39 H. G. Wells, The Outline of History (1932), p. 400.

40 R. K. Mukerjee, “The Greatness of Asoka’s Conquest” in Prabudi
Bharat, Dec. 1939, p. 585. See also his Asoka, p. 76. The Dhamma proclain
by Asoka, though distinctly Buddhist, dwells exclusively on ethics and on
all reference to the analytic aspect of the Buddha s teaching. Thus,
Coomaraswamy points out, Afibbana is not even mentioned. Cooma
swamy, cited above, p. 179.
41 Coomaraswamy, cited above, p. 181.
20 FORERUNNERS

extol compassion, truth, charity, humility and other gentle

virtues. So the tradition of ahimsa persisted down the centu¬
ries.42^ No distinctive contribution was, however, made to the
evolution of the ideal after Asoka. Moreover, in the hands of
the teachers of the cult of devotion, who drew a distinction bet¬
ween the life of the world and self-realization, non-violence
came to be looked upon as inapplicable to secular matters.
(All through this long period the people of India have been
familiar with certain non-violent methods of resisting evil.
Dharna (sitting down at the door of the oppressor with the
resolve to die unless the wrong is redressed), prayopaveshana
(fasting unto death), ajnabhanga (civil disobedience), desha-
tyaga (giving up the country) are instances. Before Gandhiji’s
entry into Indian politics these non-violent methods had been
occasionally resorted to by individuals and, in rare instances,
even by small groups. But these methods of resistance were
usually forms of passive resistance as distinguished from satya-
graha.43 Bishop Heber describes non-co-operation by three lakhs
of the people of Banaras against the British Government long
before Gandhiji’s time.44 Similarly in 1830 the entire population
of Mysore practised non-co-operation against the tyranny of the
ruler.45 Gandhiji tells us in his autobiography how his father,
the Dewan of Rajkot, practised passive resistance successfully.
An Assistant Political Agent spoke insultingly of the Thakore
of Rajkot. His father protested. The Agent was angry, asked
him to apologize and on refusal had him arrested and detained
for some hours. The town meanwhile grew excited. In the end
the Agent ordered him to be released.46
Non-violence is, however, not the peculiarity of any one
race, creed or country. Being the expression of love, it is a

42 It may be incidentally mentioned that a hymn (entitled “Vaisknava-

jana to tone kahiye”, i.e., he should be called the true Vaishnava) of one of
the teachers of this school, the poet-saint Narsinha Mehta (15th century),
was a special favourite of Gandhiji.
43 For the difference between passive resistance and satyagraha see
Ch. VII infra.
44 The Rev. J. J. Doke refers to this instance in his M. K. Gandhi, An
Indian Patriot (Natesan), p. 87.
45 Bart de Ligt refers to this instance in Ch. VII of his Conquest of
Violence.
46 Autobiography, I, p. 17; J. J. Doke, cited above, p. 16.
 FORERUNNERS 21
universal virtue. Before dealing with the contribution of other
countries and peoples we may briefly study the place of non¬
violence in Islam.
Unfortunately Islam has become associated in the common
mind with violence and coercion. But Gandhiji regards Islam
as a religion of peace in the same sense in which Christianity,
Buddhism and Hinduism are. The followers of Islam have occa¬
sionally been too free with the sword, but that is due not to the
teaching of the Quran but to the environment in which Islam
was bom. According to Gandhiji the chief contribution of Islam
has been the brotherhood of man.47
But the Prophet’s was essentially a message of kindness and
consideration, peace and love, love not only for human beings
but also for the sub-human creation. The Quran prefers non¬
violence to violence. The very word Islam means ‘peace’,
‘safety’, ‘salvation’. The common Muslim salutation ‘As-
salamalaikum’ means ‘peace be on you’.
In his personal life the Prophet was extremely gentle,
humane and “more modest than a virgin behind her curtain”.
To his inferiors he was most indulgent, and scarcely ever
rebuked his servant Anas. He loved children and never
cursed.48
He enjoined upon his followers to treat well women and
slaves, two of the suppressed classes in Arabia at that time. He
also insisted on the rights of animals and considered wanton
destruction of life reprehensible. He said, “There is no beast on
earth nor bird which flieth with its wings, but same is a people
like unto you (mankind). Unto the Lord shall they return.”49
The Prophet forbade the use of living birds as targets for marks¬
men and remonstrated with those who ill-treated animals.
No doubt the Quran permits defensive war and war against
the wrongdoer.50 The Prophet himself fought defensive wars
and forgave his defeated enemies. Besides, there are passages
in the Quran which show that he considered non-violence a

47 T. Ill, pp. 43-44; Barr, p. 119; and Conversations, pp. 30-31.

48 P. D. L. Johnstone, Muhammad and His Power, p. 149.
49 The Quran, VI, 38.
50 ibid., XXII, 39 and II, 190-93.
22 FORERUNNERS

better method of conquering evil than violence. He said, “Turn

aside evil with that which is better.5’51
He did not permit forcible conversion. He said, “Let there
be no compulsion in religion; the right way is in itself distinct
from the wrong.”52 “But if thy Lord had pleased, verily all who
are in the world would have believed together. Wilt thou then
compel men to become believers? No soul can believe but by
the permission of God.”53 The only method he advocated was
preaching.54 The Prophet also taught the principle of religious
toleration55 and the ideal of the brotherhood of all humanity
irrespective of differences of race, sect, colour, etc.
China, too, has had a long tradition of non-violence. For
thousands of years the strike has been a well-known weapon,
and disarmament proposals can be traced as far back as
B.C. 546.56 The three Chinese religions, Confucianism, Taoism
and Buddhism are pacific.
Confucious (about 551-478 B.C.) avoids the mistake, made
by many other thinkers, of admiring military heroism and
martyrdom. To him an integrated, harmonious life is preferable
to mere courageous death. The golden rule of Confucious, the
basis of all relations, was the principle of reciprocity, i.e., men
should not do to others as they do not want done to themselves.
Confucious was, however, not opposed to group violence,
for he considered a military equipment as the third requisite of
government.57 He also repudiated Lao Tse’s principle of return-
ing good for evil and proposed to repay injury with justice.58
Thus though he forbade revenge in personal relations, he did
not preach the principle of overcoming evil by love.
Lao Tse, a contemporary of Confucious, who has been
called "anarchist, evolutionist, pacifist and moral philosopher”,
and whose teachings later developed into modern Taoism, marks
an advance on Confucious. He laid emphasis on the positive
aspect of non-violence in personal reaction to injuries, i.e., on
51 The Quran, XXIII, 98; see also V, 127; XVII, 127; and XXIII, 196.
52 Ibid., II, 256.
53 Ibid., X, 99, 100.
54 Ibid., Ill, 19.
55 Ibid., VI, 108; XVI, 38; XXV, 22; XIII, 8; XXII, 41 etc.
55 A. G. F. Beales, The History of Peace, p. 16.
57 G. M. Case, Non-violent Coercion, p. 14.
58 Ibid, p. 19.
 FORERUNNERS 23
conquering evil by love. Tao means the Way and, according to
Lao Tse, the highest duty of man consists in learning and imi¬
tating the Tao, the eternal cosmic principle, the principle of
non-assertion, the opposite of egotism and violence. Non-asser¬
tion means self-effacement and returning good for evil. For the
first time in China Lao Tse clearly enunciated the doctrine of
non-resistance, but his teaching was confined to personal rela¬
tions, and he did not work out the social application of the
doctrine.
In the recent past China several times used the economic
boycott against Britain and Japan. Though by no means a paci¬
fist country today, she has been free from the aggressive type
of nationalism.
In ancient Greece Socrates was a satyagrahi who preferred
the poison-bowl to giving up his pursuit of truth and resisting
by non-violent means the superstitious beliefs of his people.
His disciple, Plato, asserted that “the creation of the world
(i.e., the Cosmos) is the victory of persuasion over force”. Vio¬
lence, according to Plato, makes for Chaos; the “divine persua¬
sion” makes for Cosmos.59 In his Republic he puts the warrior
class second to philosophers.
Among the stoics, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius clearly
formulated the doctrine of non-resistance to evil in personal
affairs. The doctrine was, however, not applied to war or
punishment of crime.60
Early Rome (5th century B.C.) also provides us with a
memorable example of non-violent non-co-operation. The
exploited plebeians forced the patricians, by an organized non¬
violent exodus, to grant them political and economic rights.61
As for Judaism, the Old Testament abounds in passages
that are looked upon as the heirloom of the non-violent move¬
ment. Thus the Pentateuch says, “If thou meet thy enemy's ox
or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him
again.”62

59 Reference by Mr. G. F. Andrews in his article on “The Divine Persua¬

sion9 ’ in Harijan, August 13, 1938, and also in his address on Ahimsa pub¬
lished in Review of Philosophy and Religion, April, 1939.
60 C. M. Case, cited above, pp. 34-41.
61 B. de Ligt, cited above, pp. 106-07.
62 Exodus, XXIII, 4.
24 FORERUNNERS

“If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat, and if

he be thirsty, give him water to drink.”63
“Rejoice not when thine enemy faileth, and let not thine
heart be glad when he stumbleth.”64
“Hatred stirreth up strifes; but love covereth all sins.”65
The later scriptures of Judaism, for example, the Mishna,
its commentary and the Talmud, kept up this tradition.
Professor W. E. Hocking writing about the early Jewish
community observes, “In its case, a tenacious religious faith
made possible a direction of public affairs uniquely informal
and non-coercive. And while that faith cannot be reproduced, a
moral equivalent is conceivable.”66 Lord Acton writes, “The
government of Israelites was a federation, held together by no
political authority, but by the unity of race and faith and
founded not on physical force, but on a voluntary covenant.”67
In spite of the importance attached to non-violence in their
scriptures, the Jews did not show, during their long history7 of
cruel persecution, much of an inclination to accept the doctrine
of non-violent resistance. Israel’s attitude towards the neigh¬
bouring States has been militant, and occasionally aggressive.
Christianity is Jewish in origin and Jesus said that his doc¬
trine was nothing but the teaching of the Old Testament pro¬
phets, i.e., the law of love. Jesus, however, makes the law
revolutionary and transforming by raising it from the level of
reciprocity to that of non-retaliation and creative purpose.68 The
oft-repeated words of Jesus, “Ye have heard how it hath been
said by them of old. . .but I say unto you,” bring out the trans¬
forming effect of his teaching.
Jesus and his teachings are an important source of
Gandhiji’s philosophy of satyagraha. Gandhiji once told the
Rev. J. J. Doke that it was the New Testament, especially the
Sermon on the Mount, which really awakened him to the right¬
ness and value of satyagraha. The Gita deepened the impression

63 Proverbs, XXV, 21.

64Ibid., XXIV, 17.
63 Ibid., X, 12.
66 W. E. Hocking, Man and the State, p. 93.
67 Lord Acton, History of Freedom, p. 4 (quoted by Prof. Hocking, cited
above, p. 93).
68 J. Macmurray, The Clue of History, p. 66; Y. I., Dec. 31, 1931, p. 429.
 FORERUNNERS 25
and Tolstoy’s The Kingdom of God is within Tou gave it a
permanent form. Later he was also influenced by Ruskin,
Thoreau and the passive resistance movement in England.
Gandhiji calls Jesus the Prince of satyagrahis and says that he
would not hesitate to call himself a Christian if he had to face
only the Sermon on the Mount and his own interpretation of
it.69 The Sermon is according to Gandhiji, “the whole of
Christianity to him who wanted to live a Christian life”. He saw
no difference between the Sermon and the Gita. “What the
Sermon describes in a graphic manner the Bhagavadgita redu¬
ces to a scientific formula. . . .Today supposing I was deprived
of the Gita and forgot all its contents, but had a copy of the
Sermon, I should derive the same joy from it as I do from the
GitaT According to him “Christianity’s particular contribution is
that of active love. No other religion says so firmly that God is love
and the New Testament is full of the word. Christians, however,
as a whole have denied the principle with their wars.”70
No doubt certain incidents and sayings of Jesus as recorded
in the Gospels do not look like strict non-violence. The instances
are the use of a whip to expel the money-changers from the
temple (John, II, 15), the destruction of the Gadarene swine
(Luke, VIII, 26-34), the injunction to buy a sword (Luke, XXII,
36), the parable of a strong man armed (Luke, XI, 21), and his
saying, “It were better for him that a mill-stone were hanged
about his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea”
(Matthew, XVIII, 6).
But his utterances may have suffered in the process of
editing by his disciples, and as against these isolated, ambi¬
guous, pro-violence extracts, we have numerous instances where
the Prince of Peace condemned the use of physical force and
preached the law of love or non-resistance. Besides, much more
important than what Jesus said is what he did by his life and
death. His life is the story of intense suffering for the love of
humanity. From the beginning of his ministry, when he reject¬
ed worldly power and refused to do homage to Satan, to the
betrayal, the trial and the supreme redemptive act, the cruci¬
fixion, “the grand consummation of his career”, the Christ bore
69 G. F. Andrews, Mahatma Gandhi9s Ideas, p. 93.
70 r. Dec. 31, 1931, p. 429; Dec. 22, 1927, p. 425; and Barr, cited
above, p. 119.
26 FORERUNNERS

witness to the power of love and non-resistance—the Christian

way of overcoming evil.
The entire teaching of the Christ logically follows from
his conception of the universal, loving fatherhood of God, and
brotherhood of man. Jesus quotes two commandments of the Old
Testament, “Thou shalt love thy God,” and “Thou shalt love
thy neighbour as thyself.” The two commandments, says Jesus,
are like one another and on them hang all the law and the pro¬
phets.71 And Jesus makes his valuable contribution to these
commandments when he says, “Ye have heard that it hath been
said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
“But I say unto you. Love your enemies, bless them that
curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them
which despitefully use you and persecute you;
"That you may be the children of your Father that is in
Heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good
and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.”72
Jesus thus raises love from the level of natural impulse
to that of deliberate intention.73
Love rules out the use of force in all its forms. And it is said
that Jesus “when he was reviled, reviled not again, when he
suffered, threatened not”.74 His decision to reject force is
brought out on the occasion of his arrest. When Peter wishing
to defend him drew his sword and cut off the right ear of the
high priest’s servant, Jesus rebuked him saying, “Put up again
thy sword into its place; for all they that take the sword shall
perish with the sword.”7s
And we read in the Sermon:
“Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye and
a tooth for a tooth;
But I say unto you, that you resist not evil; but whosoever
shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
“And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy
coat, let him have thy cloak also.

71 Matthew, XXII, 37-40.

72 Ibid., V, 43-45.
73 J. Macmurray, cited above, p. 68.
74 Peter, II, 23.
73 Matthew, XXVI, 52.
 FORERUNNERS 27

“And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with

him twain.”76
We get the supreme instance, the model, of non-violent
resistance in Jesus on the Cross as he prays, “Father, forgive
them, for they know not what they do.”77
It is wrong to think that Jesus concentrated upon the
achievement of an inward morality which left the world to
Caesar. He did not eschew all politics, nor did he advocate non¬
violent resistance only in personal as against group affairs. “I
am the Way, the Truth and the Life,” said he, and the true way
must necessarily make itself felt in every aspect of life, political,
social, moral and spiritual. The records of the Baptism, the
Temptation, the entry into Jerusalem and the trials before
Caiaphas and Pilate make it clear that Jesus regarded himself
as the Messiah. This, indeed, was the charge against him and he
admitted it before Pilate.
According to the traditional Hebrew conception the
Messiah was a national leader and King, who would overthrow
the Roman overlord and restore Jewish liberty. Jesus, no doubt,
strove to fulfil his nationalistic mission, but he said that his
kingdom was not of this world. He preached the revolutionary
doctrine of an altogether different kingdom, the Kingdom of
Heaven. His plan was that the Jews should give up ideas of vio¬
lence and convert enemies into friends by his technique of love
and non-violence and thus help in realizing the kingdom of his
vision. His technique, it appears, included co-operation with
the temporal power of the Roman Empire so far as it worked for
the welfare of the people. Thus he asked Simon to pay the tribute
money “for me and thee”. This again seems to be his meaning
in “Render unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto
God the things which be God’s.”78 This does not mean with¬
holding from God what is His due and Jesus revolted against
the tyranny of the State as well as tradition, for according to
him Sabbath was made for man and not man for Sabbath. In
touching words he expressed his disappointment at the refusal
of the Jews to accept the non-violent method of action.79

76 Matthew, V, 38-42.
77 Luke, XXIII, 34.
78 Ibid., XX, 25.
79 See, for example, Luke, XIII, 34, and XXIII, 28-30.
28 FORERUNNERS

As H. G. Wells points out, the opposition to him and the

circumstances of his trial and execution show clearly that to his
contemporaries his doctrine stood for a transformation of
human life in all its aspects.80 Jesus thus lived and died for a
universal gospel, and to deny that his way is meant for all, col¬
lectively as well as individually, is to deny the basic truth of his
doctrine.
Though the Christ and his disciples said nothing on the
subject of war, the Cross is obviously incompatible with the
sword. Early Christians condemned violence and, by their refu¬
sal to join the Roman legions, courted severe punishments. But
the principle of military service was soon condoned by the
Church. In the beginning of the fourth century Constantine
patronized the Church, delivering it from prolonged persecu¬
tion. In 314 A.D. the grateful Church made desertion from impe¬
rial armies liable to excommunication and it became the com¬
mon practice for the Christian priests to accompany the armies.
The tradition has lived up to our day in so far as priests are
expected to act morally as recruiting-sergeants by blessing the
army. It is significant that this moral degradation of the Church
started when it acquired a political status.
In the Middle Ages the Christian Church glorified the cru¬
sades. At the same time many medieval sects, e.g., Albigenses,
Vaudois, Lollards, Paulicians, Manicheans, Weldenses, Menno-
nites, stood uncompromisingly against all war and violence.
In the beginning of the 16th century Erasmus condemned
the whole concept of violence and put forward persuasion as the
alternative.
Thoreau, Tolstoy and many others were profoundly influ¬
enced by a mid-sixteenth century essay entitled Of Voluntary
Servitude written by Etienne de La Boetie. He maintained that
the authority of the rulers depends on the submission of the
people and that it is more moral than physical in character.
“It Tests less on violence than on respect, that is, on the belief
in the right to govern of those in power.”81
Meanwhile various Anabaptist sects—Mennonites, Simo-
nians, Socinians, Brownists, Dunkers—continued uncompro-

80 H. G. Wells, cited above, pp. 531-32.

81 Quoted by B. de Ligt, cited above, p. 105.
 FORERUNNERS 29
misingly to condemn resort to violence under any circum¬
stances. Many of these sects were non-litigants and “political
non-participants”, i.e., they were opposed to any participation
in State activities which are, according to them, essentially vio¬
lent. These sects suffered intensely for their convictions and
many of them expired, some emigrating to America.
In 1660 was founded the famous Quaker Society of Friends
by George Fox. Fox, Barclay and William Penn were the well-
known 17th century exponents of Quaker pacifism. To the Qua¬
kers pacifism and non-resistance have for their basis the funda¬
mental belief that each man’s life is guided by an inner light
which transcends even the Bible and which rules out any right
to constrain men.82 But unlike most Anabaptist sects, the
Quakers are not against participation in politics. On the other
hand, like Asoka, they take a positive attitude—the attitude of
spiritualizing politics, curing it of all its violence and conducting
the State on non-violent lines. In regard to war, too, the
contribution of the Quakers has not only been negative, i.e.,
refusal to support the military establishment, but also positive
in the form of efforts for peace and arbitration.83
The Quaker State in Pennsylvania was set up on the basis
of Penn’s treaty 'with the Red Indians concluded in 1682. Penn
said to the Red Indians, “No advantage shall be taken on either
side but all shall be openness and love. . . .We are the same as if
one man’s body were to be divided into two parts: we are all one
flesh and blood.”84 The disputes between the colonists and the
Red Indians were to be decided by an arbitral tribunal. The
State lasted for seventy years and its failure was due partly to
the influx in the colony of other whites who reduced the Qua¬
kers to a minority and partly to the fact that troubles with the
French on the Indian frontier led the Governor to take military
measures inconsistent with the Quaker philosophy.85 But the
Quakers in Pennsylvania as well as other colonies continued to
enjoy immunity from violent attacks of the Red Indians. The
unique success of the Quaker experiment in administering the
State without any military defences whatsoever will stand as a

82 A. C. F. Beales, History of Peace, p. 31.

83 G. M. Case, Non-violent Coercion, pp. 92-93 & 97.
84 Quoted by A. G. F. Beales, cited above, p. 32.
85 B. de Ligt, cited above, p. 45 and G. M. Case, cited above, p. 102.
30 FORERUNNERS

source of encouragement to those striving for peace and non¬

violence.
The Doukhobors are a Russian peace sect. They observe
ascetic rules of conduct, are strict vegetarians, are opposed to
all forms of violence and deny allegiance to any authority that
is not divine. Aylmer Maude calls them “essentially anar¬
chistic”.86 During two hundred years of their existence they
have suffered intensely for their pacific convictions. In the
nineties of the last century they were harshly persecuted for
their refusal to serve in the army. Many of them migrated to
Canada in 1899 and have come into conflict with the Govern¬
ment there also. In Russia, too, the new communist regime had
to persecute them for their stem refusal to enlist in the army
and their dogged resistance to coEective farms on the ground
that these serve man rather than God.
Coming to the middle of the nineteenth century, the French
revolutionary, Anselm BeUegarigue, anticipated to some extent
Gandhiji’s political technique. He believed that aU government
was based on violence and hence was an evil and preached the
“theory of calm” to overcome the government by a refusal of
assistance, i.e., by “abstention and inertia”.87
'Jj-andhiji was influenced by the words and actions of
Henry David Thoreau, the weE-known American anarchist who
refused to pay his taxes as a protest against slavery in America.
He was the first to use the term ‘civil disobedience5 in one of his
speeches in 1849. Gandhiji, however, did not derive his idea of
civil disobedience from the writings of Thoreau. The resis¬
tance to authority in South Africa was wefl advanced before he
got the essay of Thoreau on civil disobedience. The movement
was then known as Passive Resistance. Gandhiji began to use
Thoreau’s phrase to explain the struggle to the English readers,
but he found that even ‘civil disobedience5 failed to convey the
fuU meaning of the struggle. So he adopted the phrase ‘civil
resistance5.88 1
Thoreau s theory may be summed up as the maximum of
co-operation with aU people and institutions when they lead
towards good and non-co-operation when they promote evil.
86 A. Maude quoted by C. M. Case, cited above, p. 115.
87 B. de Ligt, cited above, pp. 109-10.
88 Gandhiji’s letter to Kodandarao, dated Sept. 10, 1935.
 FORERUNNERS 3

Unlike Gandhiji, however, Thoreau justified not only passive,

but also active (violent) resistance to the American Govern¬
ment in the struggle against slavery. He believed in man’s natural
impulses to goodness, argued for the supremacy, under all
conditions, of conscience and held up the ideal of a future
society without any government.
John Ruskin’s Unto This Last has also been one of the
transforming influences that have shaped Gandhiji’s views. He
has been especially influenced by Ruskin’s ideal of manual
labour. jjGandhiji read this book in South Africa and drew from
it three lessons. These are:
1. That the good of the individual is contained in the
good of all.
2. That a lawyer’s work has the same value as the
barber’s inasmuch as all have the same right of earning
their livelihood from their work.
3. That a life of labour, i.e., the life of the tiller of the
soil and the handicraftsman is the life worth living.89
Ruskin’s Crown of Wild Olives is also one of Gandhiji’s
favourites.
j Gandhiji resembles Ruskin in several respects. Both preach
the supremacy of the spirit and trust in the nobleness of human
nature; to both character is more important than intelligence;
both seek to moralize politics and economics; both emphasize
the priority of social regeneration to mere political reform; both
greatly distrust machinery and plead that, if employed at all, it
should be so used as to free and not enslave men; both insist
that the capitalist should adopt a wise paternal attitude in
relation to his employees. \
Unlike Gandhiji, though like his own master, Carlyle, who
equates Manhood suffrage with “Horsehood, Doghood, ditto”,
Ruskin distrusts the populace. His ideal, like that of Carlyle, is
the rule of the wisest.90 Ruskin believes not in democracy but in
“the eternal superiority of some men to others, sometimes even

89 Autobiography, II, pp. 107-08.

90 “You have no more business with politics,” he said to the Glasgow
undergraduates, “than you have with rat-catching. . .but I hate all liberal¬
ism as I do Beelzebub, and with Carlyle I stand, we two now alone in England,
for God and the Queen.” The Works of Ruskin (lib. ed.), Vol. XXXIV,
pp. 548-49.
32 FORERUNNERS

of one man to all others” and upholds “the advisability of

appointing such persons or person to guide, to lead or on occa¬
sions even to compel and subdue, their inferiors according to
their own better knowledge and wiser wilh 93 Ruskin thus does
not stand for non-violence in principle. All the same he is
against vengeance and retribution and urges the workers not
to take part in armament industries. Unlike Gandhiji again,
Ruskin favours the extension of the sphere of State inter¬
ference.92
r Gandhiji’s views are more akin to those of Tolstoy than to
those of Ruskin.
Tolstoy’s philosophy, which has been called Christian anar¬
chism, is the application of the teaching of the Sermon on the
Mount to the solution of modern social and political problems.
The core of the Christ’s teaching and the one adequate solution
for human problems is, according to Tolstoy, love.jLove is at
the basis of Tolstoy’s principles of non-resistance and non-co-
operation which, as Aylmer Maude points out, are identical.93
According to Maude the source of Tolstoy’s doctrine is the
Gospel text, “Resist not him. . .cloak also.”94
Tolstoyan non-violence is rooted in the conception that it is
a crime to impose one’s will on any creature, to force it in any
way. To quote from Tolstoy’s famous letter to Gandhiji, dated
Kocheti, September 7, 1910, “The renunciation of all opposition
by force. . .means the law of love unperverted by sophistries.
Love, or in other words, the striving of men’s souls towards
unity and the submissive behaviour to one another that results
91 Quoted by E. Barker in Political Tkougktfrom Spencer to Today, p. 193.
Another similar passage disparaging majorities is: “In every vital moment
the right opinion is in the minority of one. . .see only that you set over
every business vital to you, one man of sense, honour and heart.” The Works
of Ruskin (lib. ed.), Vol. XXXI, p. 505.
92 R. H. Wilenski, John Ruskin, pp. 296-98.
93 A. Maude’s article on “Gandhi and Tolstoy” reprinted in the Leader,
June 18, 1930. According to Tolstoy the only way to make the world happy
is to bring about a condition of the world wherein all beings could love
others more than they love themselves. This is how he defines his law of
happiness for all beings: “That I love others more than I love my own
self.” His letter to Romain Rolland, dated 4th Oct., 1887, published in the
Modem Review, January, 1927, p. 88 (translated by Dr. Kalidas Nag from the
original French).
94 Quoted in this chapter on p. 26.
 FORERUNNERS

therefrom, represents the highest and indeed the only law c

life. . .any employment of force is incompatible with love as the
highest law of life and. . .as soon as the use of force appears
permissible even in a single case, the law itself is immediately
negatived.5’95
Tolstoy believes that the Christian civilization, because it
claims to be Christian and permits defence by means of force,
has grown up on this strange contradiction, and as the law of
love does not prevail, for it admits of no exception, there
remains no law but that of the strongest/Tolstoy condemns the
State96 and its machinery, law courts, police and military, pri¬
vate property and capitalism, even the schools, as all these
offend against the law of love. He is opposed to the use of force,
payment of taxes, and compulsory military service. Organized
society, he holds, should be replaced by informal co-operation,
though he does not^ bother about giving the details of the ideal
non-violent society/
As regards the method of bringing about such co-operation,
Tolstoy is against violence and in favour of love, non-resistance
and non-co-operation. (jHe lays great stress on the moral re¬
generation of the individual.4^ He urges a return to land and
preaches the dignity of manual work. Tolstoy is also against
legitimate marriage which he calls “domestic prostitution”, for
marriage leads men and women to use each other as instru¬
ments of pleasure. In the Kreutzer Sonata he maintains that
sexual love is the worst of sins and pleads that the relation
between man and wife should be transformed into brotherly and
sisterly affection.
The Rev. J. J. Dote calls Gandhiji a disciple of Tolstoy.97
Gandhiji also considers himself “a devoted admirer who owes
much in life to him55.98 He writes, £cNext to the late Raja-
chandra, Tolstoy is one of the three moderns who have exerted
the greatest spiritual influence on my life, the third being

95 Leo Tolstoy, Recollections and Essays, pp. 435-36.

96 To Tolstoy, in his own language, “the words, a Christian State resem¬
ble the words hot ice. The thing is either not a State using violence or it is
not Christian.” Quoted by Milford Q. Sibley in his article on “Modem
Religious Pacifism” in American Political Science Review, June 1943.
97 J. J. Doke, cited above, p. 3.
98 r. I, p. 652.
P. G.-3
34 FORERUNNERS

Ruskin.55" Gandhiji read The Kingdom of God is within Ton

fifty years back in South Africa when he believed in violence
and was passing through a crisis of scepticism. “Its reading/*
he says, “cured me of my scepticism and made me a firm
believer in ahimsa.55100 )
There are striking similarities between the doctrines of
these two great modern exponents of non-violence. Both are
ever vigilant seekers after truth and uniquely steadfast in its
rigorous practice. “The heroine of my writings/3 wrote Tolstoy,
“she whom I love with all the forces of my being, she who
always was, is, and will be beautiful, is Truth.53101 Both denounce
modem civilization as based on force and exploitation and
pandering to the senses and so inherently immoral. Both are
opposed to violent methods of fighting evil. Both lay stress on
the reform of the individual, his inner self-perfection, as the
first step towards social regeneration. Both concern themselves
with the purity of means rather than the details of the ideal
society. Again, both advocate an ascetic morality and preach
extreme simplicity of life, bread-labour and virtual celibacy as
being essential for the moral growth of the individual.
Gandhiji is, however, not a thorough-going Tolstoyan. The
difference between their doctrines seems to be due to two
reasons. Firstly, Gandhiji is far more practical than Tolstoy.
Ever in close touch with life, Gandhiji is essentially a man of
compromise in non-essentials. The need for compromise, he
thinks, arises due to the relative nature of truth as perceived
by man. Though scrupulous about his method, unlike Tolstoy,
he is ever ready to adapt his actions to the demands of the
changing world. The ideal is impossible of complete realization
and we must try to approach it, he holds, as far as possible.

T. I., Ill, P. 843.

. ^ Th.e poet-jeweller Rajachandra was a distinguished Jain reformer
of Bombay. Gandhiji came into closest association with him on his return
influenced Gandhiji by his moral earnestness
and deep religious nature and acted on many occasions as his guide and
helper. In particular he helped Gandhiji in the study of the Hindu religion.
Autobiography, Vol. I, Part II, Ch. I and pp. 323 'and 475 ff. Dr J N
Farquhar gives a brief account of his views and work in his Modem Religious
Movements, pp. 327-28.
101 Quoted by Mahadev Desai in an article in T. Ill, p. 830.
 FORERUNNERS 35

Secondly, Gandhiji’s conception of non-violence is slightly diffe¬

rent from that of Tolstoy. To the latter non-violence means avoi¬
dance of force in all its forms, the former lays emphasis on the
motive and defines ahimsa as avoidance of injury or pain to any
creature out of anger or from a selfish motive. In certain
circumstances, however, even killing may be ahimsa according
to Gandhiji.102 As life involves some amount of violence, Tolstoy
turns away from it; Gandhiji, on the other hand, follows the
Gita ideal of action without attachment and eagerly participates
in life. Due to this vital difference, Gandhiji excels Tolstoy in
working out the non-violent technique and in devising ways to
remove social evils which Tolstoy so brilliantly exposes and so
passionately denounces.
The cult of peace and non-violence has gathered great
strength since the time of Tolstoy. This is negatively due to the
tremendous increase in the destructiveness of war which has
almost reached perfection and has become a far greater threat
to mankind than ever before.
Benjamin Tucker, the American anarchist, bases his philo¬
sophy on the ground of the intelligent individual’s natural self-
interest. He recommends passive resistance to the oppressed
masses for the reason that modern governments, though they
can easily crush violent revolts, cannot overcome passive resis¬
tance by military force. If one-fifth of the people, he argues,
refuse to pay their taxes, it would cost more to try to collect
them than what the rest would pay into the treasury. He advo¬
cates the elimination of political authority from society. The
State has, according to him, always invaded the principle of
liberty. He defines government as “the subjection of the non-
invasive individual to an external will’5.103 To him democracy is
nothing but an invasion upon one man by all other men. Tucker
would, therefore, replace the State by voluntary .associations,
the members of which would retain the right to secede' at will.
He, however, recognizes the right of defensive associations to
employ, against invasive individuals, all repressive and punitive
measures now employed by the State. The necessity for such
repression will immensely diminish, for when men eliminate the

102 See Ch. Ill infra.

103 Quoted by F. W. Coker in Recent Political Thought, p. 198.
36 FORERUNNERS

State as well as the inequitable economic system which the State

maintains, crimes will naturally disappear.
Since 1915, and particularly since 1919, there has also been
growing a movement to eliminate war. Before the last war the
War Resisters’ International of which the Peace Pledge Union
was the British section, extended practically into all the coun¬
tries of the world. The schemes of peace organizations centred
on five fundamentals: arbitration and arbitration treaties, an
international authority, codification of international law, sanc¬
tions, and disarmament. Comprehensive anti-war propaganda
was conducted by peace societies, though there was a lack of
agreement among them on defensive war and on the place of
non-violence in personal life. It is significant that the establish¬
ment of the League of Nations was taken as the fulfilment of
many of the aspirations of the peace movement. The present
international situation is ample evidence that wars between
nations, against which the peace movement has been crusading,
cannot be eliminated unless efforts are also made to banish
violence from our individual and group life.
Many pacifist thinkers, e.g., Meijer-Wichmann, Roland
Holst, Charles Naine, Aldous Huxley, Gerald Heard, etc., insist
on the need of harmony between the end and the means. They
expose the tragedy of modem socialism—the contradiction bet¬
ween its aim and its method. Its aim is essentially humanitarian
—social regeneration and elimination of all forms of violence.
But to achieve this aim it uses war, violence, and dictator¬
ship. The use of these tactics develops qualities opposite of those
envisaged in the socialist regime and thus the object is defeated.
The last war and the aggression leading to it were a severe
blow to pacifism in the West. Even some of the leading thinkers
recanted their faith in pure pacifism and supported military
collaboration of well-armed States against aggressor States. To
this group belonged C. E. M. Joad, Bertrand Russell and Romain
Rolland. But at present efforts are being made by pacifists
to give a positive and dynamic form to their belief and to
devise ways of moulding individual and group life according to
the principles of non-violence.
There have been during the last hundred and fifty years
numerous instances of the use of non-violent resistance by indi¬
viduals and groups. It is unnecessary to give details of these
 FORERUNNERS 37
instances or even to mention all of them.104 Labour strikes have
become the common feature of'modem economic life. Besides
these, non-violence has had its victories in other spheres of life
also. Some of the outstanding instances outside India are the non¬
violent movement of Hungary in the middle of the 19th century
under the leadership of Francis Deak, the prevention of a war
between Norway and Sweden by socialists of the two countries
by means of non-violent direct action in 1905, the heroic non¬
violent straggle of the people of Western Samoa against the
New Zealand Government (1920-1936), the predominantly non¬
violent resistance of the Norwegian people to the Quisling
regime and the German occupying force during the World
War II, and the passive resistance of the people of Finland
(1898-1917) against the Russian attempt to Russianize the
country and damage her autonomy. But group-resistance has
mostly been of the passive resistance type.
' Gandhiji renovates the age-old philosophy of ahimsa. His
great distinction consists in his researches in the possibilities of
ahimsa in all walks of life and its application to large mass
movements. Satyagraha, he is convinced, is the only way to
solve the problems of mankind.' "Non-violence is a universal law
acting under all circumstances.' Disregard of it is the surest way
to destruction.”105 But satyagraha is inseparable from the non¬
violent outlook on life. To be a real, effective satyagrahi the
individual must comprehend the metaphysical and ethical
principles in which satyagraha is rooted.
104 Some of the references for these instances are: Fenner Brockway, Non-
co-operation in Other Lands; R. B. Gregg, The Power of Non-violence, Ch. VII;
C. M. Case, Non-violent Coercion; and A. Huxley (ed.), An Encyclopaedia of
Pacifism, article on “Non-violence”; Visva Bharati Quarterly (Gandhi Memo¬
rial Peace Number).
i°5tf., July 15, 1939, p. 201.
 CHAPTER II

METAPHYSICAL BASES
“Most religious men I have met,” Gandhiji once remarked
to Mr. Polak, “are politicians in disguise; I, however, who wear
the guise of a politician, am at heart a religious man.”1 “My bent
is not political but religious,” he wrote in a letter to Dr. Arun-
dale in 1929.2 These statements provide a key to Gandhian
philosophy. In all his thought and action he takes his stand on
the principles of religion and morality. These are the very
breath of his being. He says, . .at the back of every word that
I have uttered since I have known what public life is, and of
every act that I have done, there has been a religious conscious¬
ness and a downright religious motive.”3
His political philosophy and political technique are only
corollaries of his religious and moral principles. .For him poli¬
tics bereft of religion is a death-trap because it kills the soul, for
politics like other human activities must be governed either by
religion or irreligion. Without the moral basis supplied by reli¬
gion life would be a mere maze of ‘sound and fury signifying
nothing5 6.
By religion, however, he means, not any particular creed—
not, for example, Hindu religion, but that which underlies and
harmonizes all religions, that “which changes one’s nature,
which binds one to the truth within and which ever purifies. It
is -the permanent element in human nature which counts no cost
too great in order to find full expression and which leaves the
soul utterly restless unless it has found itself, known its Maker,
and appreciated the true correspondence between the Maker
and itself.”4 In short, religion means “belief in the ordered moral
government of the universe”.3 It is identical with morality and
truth is the substance of morality.”5 It is essentially practical

1 Speeches, Appendix II, p. 40.

2 Quoted in Vishd Bharat (Hindi), October, 1938, p. 401
3 r.Ill, p. 350.
4 Speeches, p. 807.
5H., Feb. 10, 1940, p. 445.
6 Ethkal &Ugion, pp. 23-24; Autobiography, I, pp. 5 and 87.

38
 METAPHYSICAL BASES 39
and in no way world-denying. “There is no such thing as the
other world. All worlds are one. There is no ‘here5 and no
‘there5.557 He believes that the spiritual law does not work on a
field of its own, but expresses itself only through the ordinary
activities of life. Thus ^religion provides a moral basis to all acti¬
vities. Gandhiji does not know religion apart from human acti¬
vity; nor does he consider religion “as one of the many activities
of mankind55.8
■ Politics is concerned with the control and use of State
authority which is essentially coercive. So Gandhiji looks upon
politics as an unavoidable evil. “If I seem to take part in politics,
it is only because politics today encircle us like the coils of a
snake from which one cannot get out no matter how one tries.
I wish to wrestle with the snake. . . .1 am trying to introduce
religion into politics.559 Thus it is religion that compels him not
io eschewv politics. The goal of life is self-realization which,
Gandhiji believes, cannot be achieved unless he identifies him¬
self with the whole of mankind and tries to advance the greatest
good of all. This necessarily involves taking part in politics: For
the whole gamut of man’s activities today constitutes one in¬
divisible whole, and social, economic, political and purely reli¬
gious work cannot be divided into water-tight compartments.10
Political evils, for example, political subjection, unsuitable poli-
v tical institutions, etc. are great hindrances to the realization of
the greatest good of all, which is possible only in a non-violent
State. Political freedom is essential for the emergence of this
State. He has, therefore,.no doubt whatsoever that “those, who
say that religion has nothing to do with politics, do not know
what religion means.5’11' “. . .he who does not know .what
patriotism or feeling for one’s country is does not know his true
duty or religion.5’12
A living, unshakable faith in God, an insistence on the pri¬
macy of spirit, is the core of his philosophy. So immovable is his

7 if., July 26, 1942, p. 248.

8 if., Dec. 24, 1938, p. 393; Diary, I, p. 185.
9 Speeches, p. 807; Romain Rolland, Mahatma Gandhi, p. 98.
10 if., Dec. 24, 1938, p. 393.
11 Autobiography, II, p. 591.
12 £C Gandhiji *s African Jail Experiences*9 in J. H. Holmes, Mahatma
Gandhi, The World Significance, p. 83.
 METAPHYSICAL bases
40
faith that he feels that he may live without air and water but not
without God,13 and that even if he were cut to pieces, God
would give him the strength not to deny Him.14 He is definitely
of the opinion that the fullest life is impossible without such faith
and that one is not competent to offer satyagraha unless one has
a living faith in God.15 It is necessary, therefore, to discuss in
some detail the reasons why he considers faith in God indispen¬
sable for the satyagrahi and also his views about God and soul.
Satyagraha is based on the fundamental truths that the
soul remains unconquered and unconquerable even by the
mightiest physical force,' and that every human being, however
degraded, has in him the divine spark, i.e., limitless potentiality
for growth and is capable of responding to kind, generous treatment.
Unless one has a living faith in God and in soul-force, he
cannot resort to satyagraha whole-heartedly, with entire confi¬
dence and to the best advantage. Non-violence apart from God
is without any potency. “God is life. Therefore goodness and all
it connotes is not an attribute. Goodness is God. Goodness con¬
ceived as apart from Him is a lifeless thing and exists only
whilst it is a paying policy. So are all morals. If they are to live
in us they must be considered and cultivated in their relation
to God. We try to become good because we want to reach and
realize God.”16 “Mere mechanical adherence to truth and ahimsa
is likely to break down at the critical moment. . . .God is a living
Force. Our life is of that Force. That Force resides in, but is not
the body. He who denies the existence of that great Force, denies
to himself the use of that inexhaustible Power and thus remains
impotent. He is like a rudderless ship which, tossed about here
and there, perishes without making any headway.”17 “This
(living faith in non-violence) is impossible without a living faith
in God. Without it he won’t have the courage to die without
anger, without fear and without retaliation. Such courage comes
from the belief that God sits in the hearts of all and that there
should be no fear in the presence of God. The knowledge of the
omnipotence of God also means respect for the lives of even

13 H., May 14, 1938, p. 109.

14 r. /., Ill, p. 504.
15II; June 3, 1939, p. 146.
16 H., Aug. 24, 1947, p. 285.
17 H., July 20, 1947, p. 240.
 METAPHYSICAL BASES 41
those who may be called opponents or goondas”1* “As a matter
of fact in ahimsa it is not the votary who acts in his own
strength. Strength comes from God.”19 “With the knowledge
that the soul survives the body, he (the satyagrahi) is not im¬
patient to see the triumph of truth in the present body. Indeed
victory lies in the ability to die in the attempt to make the oppo¬
nent see the truth which the satyagrahi for the time being
expresses.”20 To Gandhiji, therefore, “The first and the last
shield and buckler of the non-violent person will be his un¬
wavering faith in God.”21 “The only weapon of the satyagrahi
is God, by whatsoever name one knows Him. Without Him the
satyagrahi is devoid of strength before an opponent armed with
monstrous weapons. But he who accepts God as his only protec¬
tor will remain unbent before the mightiest earthly power.”22
On the.other hand dismissal or negation of God from com¬
mon affairs gives rise to a feeling of helplessness and induces
people to put their faith in violence. Thus Gandhiji wrote in
1921, “We have become atheists for all practical purposes. And
therefore we believe that in the long run we must rely upon
physical force for our protection.”23
Let this not be dismissed as the irrational superstition of
a mystic. God is not a mere escape or an idle fiction. God is the
integrating principle, the central truth of man. The finite can¬
not be understood unless we know it as rooted in the Infinite.
.^Without faith in God man can have faith neither in himself nor
in others.*'! It is significant that the non-violent resisters of the
past have almost always been firm believers in God.24 On the
other hand communism, socialism and capitalism are rooted in
materialism.
Gandhiji does not mind how one defines God; for he is
conscious that “there are innumerable definitions of God,

18 if., June 18, 1938, p. 152.

19 if., Aug. 18, 1940, p. 256.
20 Speeches, p. 504.
21 H., Oct. 13, 1940, p. 318.
22 if., Oct. 19, 1940, p. 319.
23 r. I, p. 720.
24 Many Western pacifist thinkers would agree with Gandhiji. Max
Plowman of the Peace Pledge Union insists that for a pacifist it is essential to
believe in God as 4'the symbol of supreme value” and “incarnate in every
individual”. Quoted in Harijan, June 25, 1938, p. 163.
42 METAPHYSICAL BASES

because His manifestations are innumerable.5’25 -“God is indes¬

cribable and impenetrable, because he is in everybody and in
everything. . . .He is in everything. . .so no description of Him
is adequate.5’26 As for himself, Gandhiji describes Him as pure
undefiled consciousness, an undefinable mysterious power that
pervades every thing, purest essence, etc. He specially identifies
Him with the dumb poor millions, Love and above all Truth.
“The word Satya (Truth) is derived from sat which means
being. And nothing is or exists in reality except Truth.” That
is why Satya or Truth is the most important name of God. In
fact it is more correct to say that Truth is God than to say that
God is Truth.27 Nobody, not even the atheist, demurs to the
necessity or the power of Truth. Besides, “God is Truth, but
God is many other things also.”28 That is why Gandhiji prefers
to say that Truth is God,28 -and calls it the most perfect definition
of God so far as human speech can go.29
God or Truth, he believes, is not only the immanent reality
but is also transcendent; He is not only in us but also out of us,
not only the life of the Universe, but also beyond it as its
Creator, Sustainer and Judge.30
The Hindu conception of God is so subtle and compre¬
hensive that it is not easy to specify it. Infinity, perfection, abso¬
luteness are constantly predicated of Him, but at the same time
it is clearly maintained that God is beyond all predications. In
fact all predications are given only to be rejected as inadequate.
While the conception of God is transcendental, the equation of
the human soul and God is also a well-known doctrine. The
popular Hindu idea of God as the Supreme Person with three¬
fold aspects or powers of creation, preservation and destruction
cannot therefore be ruled out as unrooted in tradition. In fact
the determinate or the theistic conception of God may be
25 Autobiography, I, p. 7.
26 Barr, p. 100.
27 Teravda Mandir, p. 1.
28 H., May 25, 1935, p. 115.
29 Diary, I, p. 106. Gandhiji had in his youth chosen “truth” as most
truly defining God. He had then said, “God is truth”. But in 1929 he
advanced another step and began to say, “Truth is God”. Bapu's Letters to
Mira, p. 189. See also H., Aug. 18, 1946, p. 268, “His Last Article”.
30 Nov. 14, 1936, p. 314; Jan. 20, 1937, pp. 407 and 410; T. II,
p. 497.
 METAPHYSICAL BASES 43
regarded “as the traditional vehicle of man’s profoundest meta¬
physical insights”.31
Gandhiji is conscious that God is, strictly speaking, not a
person, but Truth, His own Law,32 yet he believes that God is
the personal God to those who need His touch, and a devotee
can, through prayer and purification, establish personal commu¬
nion with Him* In his writings we find far greater stress on love
of God than on His functions of srishti and laya (creation and
destruction).
God is the Creator, the Ruler and the Lord of the Universe
and not a blade of grass moves but by His will.33
God is our judge, but He is long-suffering and patient and
issues warnings to us.34 He is also terrible. “He metes out the
same measure to us that we mete out to our neighbours. . . .
With Him ignorance is no excuse.”35 On numerous occasions,
when Gandhiji felt that he had made a mistake, he also felt that
God had warned him, and he retraced his steps. Even natural
calamities, he believes, are no mere divine caprice but come to
mankind as just retribution for their sins.36
God is also the guide and the help of the helpless. A true
Vaishnava., Gandhiji was conscious of God every minute of his
life whether asleep or awake.37 He pined “to see God face to
face” and often had “had faint glimpses of the Absolute Truth,
God”.38 It was an unbroken torture to him that he was far from
Him.39 He felt the sense of entire dependence on Him, humbly
sought His guidance and found that His voice had been
increasingly audible as the years rolled by.40 In the darkest

31 Ananda K. Coomaraswamy cited in Joseph Campbell, The Hero with

a Thousand Faces, p. 382.
32 H., March 23, 1940, p. 55.
33 H., Nov. 14, 1936, pp. 407 and 410.
34 r. Ill, p. 178.
33 T. I, p. 497.
36 H., Feb. 2, 1934, pp. 1 and 14. Gandhiji discusses the reasons for this
belief of his in Harijan, April 6, 1934, p. 61 and June 8, 1935, p. 135.
37 T. II, p. 65. “With my hand on my breast, I can say that not a
minute in my life am I forgetful of God.”
38 Autobiography, I, pp. 4 and 8.
39 Ibid,, p. 11.
40 H.3 May 6, 1933. Once in answer to a question if he had any mystical
experience he said, “If by mystical experience you mean visions, no. . . .But
I am very sure of the voice which guides me.” Barr, p. 120.
44 METAPHYSICAL BASES

despair, in the most terrible trial, at the last moment His

help never failed Gandhiji, and this help was, to him, “the
visible finger of the invisible God”.41 Often in the name of God,
in answer to His voice, he undertook fasts. And he had real
mystic experiences. Here is one of these in his own words:
“It relates to my 21 days’ fast for the removal of un-
touchability. I had gone to sleep. . .at about 12 o’clock in the
night something wakes me up suddenly and some voice. . .
whispers, ‘Thou must go on a fast.’
‘How many days?’ I ask.
The voice again said, ‘Twenty-one days.’
‘When does it begin?’ I ask.
It says, ‘You begin tomorrow.’
. . . .That kind of experience has never happened in my life
before or after that date.”42 “. . .My mind was unprepared for it,
disinclined for it. But the thing came to me as clearly as any¬
thing could be.”43 On another occasion he described the experi¬
ence in these words, “I saw no form. . . .But what I did hear was
like a Voice from afar and yet quite near. It was as unmistakable
as some human voice definitely speaking to me, and irresistible.
I was not dreaming at the time I heard the Voice. The hearing
of the Voice was preceded by a terrific struggle within me.
Suddenly the Voice came upon me. I listened, made certain it
was the Voice and the struggle ceased. I was calm. . . .The deter¬
mination was made accordingly, the date and the hour of the
fast was fixed. . . .’,44
Though he sometimes uses the language of a theist,
Gandhiji is, in his ideas about God, extremely catholic. We
have seen how he identifies God with Truth. He also identifies
Him with Love, Ethics and Law, Conscience, etc. God, he once

41 Autobiography, II, p. 432.

42 H., Dec. 10, 1938, p. 373.
43 May 14, 1938, p. 110. The short-sightedness of modem scientific
outlook may rule out as mere delusion such uncommon spiritual experiences.
But according to the Indian tradition, if a seeker has integrated his per-
sonahty and risen to the level of what the Gita describes as buddhi-yoga
49^nd,51’ X’ 10’ XVIII> 57)> he can have an insight into Reality
and discern Truth. Undoubtedly for the last 60 years of his life the one
constant endeavour of Gandhiji had been progressive self-integration and
the ofspintual discipline essential for the stMtaprajna.
44 H., May 6, 1933.
 METAPHYSICAL BASES 45
said, is “faith in oneself multiplied to the nth degree55,45 “You
believe in some principle, clothe it with life, and say that it is
your God. . . .1 should think it enough.5546
To Gandhiji there is no antithesis between God and man.
The soul is the only reality in man as well as in the lower order
of creation. It transcends time and space and unifies all appa¬
rently separate existents. “I believe,55 he writes, “in absolute one¬
ness of God and therefore also of humanity. What though we
have many bodies we have but one soul.55 “I believe in advaita,
I believe in the essential unity of man and for that matter of all
that lives.5347 Gandhiji also subscribes to the belief that human
beings are working consciously or unconsciously towards the
realization of spiritual identity.48 The relation between God and
the individual soul is that if the individual shatters the chains of
egotism and melts into the ocean of humanity he shares its
dignity; on the other hand if he feels that he is something, he
sets up a barrier between God and himself. . .to cease feeling
that we are something is to become one with God.5349
This great truth, the fundamental unity of all life, a
principle far higher than that of the mere brotherhood of man,
makes man not the lord but servant of God's creation.50 The
unity of soul and its nature lead to another conclusion of great
significance to his philosophy. The soul is the Godhead within
man; it is self-acting; it persists even after death; its existence
does not depend upon the physical body. Hence whatever hap¬
pens to one body must affect the whole of matter and the whole
of spirit.51 That is why if one man gains spiritually, the whole
world gains with him, and if one man falls, the whole world
falls to that extent.52

45 H., June 3, 1939, p. 151.

46 if., June 17, 1939, p. 167.
47 T. II, p. 421. The famous texts Tat twamasi (Thou art That) and
Soham (I am He) and the statement of Jesus, ST and My Father are one”
and the Biblical statement, “So God created man in his own image, in the
image of God created He him.” express this very idea of consubstantiality
of the spirit in man and God.
48 Gandhiji9s Correspondence with the Government, p. 82.
49 Teravda Mandir, p. 46.
50 H., Dec. 26, 1936, p. 365.
51 H.y Nov. 12, 1938, pp. 326-27.
52 r. II, p. 421.
 METAPHYSICAL BASES
46
There is obviously no comparison between soul-force and
physical force. “Great as the other forces of the world are. . .
soul-force is the greatest of all.”33 He identifies soul-force with
non-violence and points out that imperfect man cannot grasp
the whole of that Essence—he would not be able to bear its full
blaze_but even an infinitesimal fraction of it, when it becomes
active within him, can work wonders.34
But what is the basis of his belief in the existence of God
and soul? The question is vital to Gandhiji’s political philosophy,
for Gandhiji identifies Truth with God, and so the way of appre¬
hending spiritual reality indicates how in ethically baffling
situations, the satyagrahi determines the right course of action.
According to many thinkers reality cannot be apprehended
either by the senses or by reasoning. Sense perception cannot
go beyond the external qualities of objects. Many Western
philosophers, e.g., Hegel, Bosanquet, etc., hold that the ultimate
nature of the universe can be grasped by thought or reason.
According to them the real is rational. Thus Bosanquet defines
reality as the object affirmed by thought. But intellect, it has
been pointed out, cannot grasp the self, the knower, the condi¬
tion and the pre-supposition of all knowledge. Thus ‘I am5 does
not depend on T think’, for then the latter will have to be proved
and so on to an infinite regress. Consciousness of self cannot
come by reasoning. Even as regards external objects discursive
intellect confines itself to the discernible aspects. Thus concep¬
tual knowledge about a thing is only the appearance of a thing,
it is not the reality.
Gandhiji also considers the senses and reasoning as inade¬
quate media of apprehending the Absolute Reality. God, says
he, “is indescribable, inconceivable and immeasurable”. God
transcends the senses and the intellect. “We must ever fail to
perceive Him through the senses because He is beyond them.
We can feel Him, if we will but withdraw ourselves from the
senses. The divine music is incessantly going on within our¬
selves, but the loud senses drown the delicate music.”53 “The
intellect, if anything, acts as a barrier.”36 So realization must be
33 if., August 22, 1936, p. 220.
34 if., Oct. 30, 1937, p. 326.
53 if., June 13, 1936, p. 141.
56 if., June 18, 1938, p. 153.
 METAPHYSICAL BASES 47
outside the senses and intellect, it must have for its basis a
living faith. The source of faith is the heart. “God cannot be rea¬
lized through intellect. Intellect can only lead to a certain extent
and no further. It is a matter of faith and experience derived
from that faith. . . .Full faith does not feel the want of expe¬
rience.3557 “. . .That which is beyond reason is surely not un¬
reasonable. . . .To ask anybody to believe without proof what
is capable of proof would be unreasonable. . . .But for an expe¬
rienced person to ask another to believe without being able to
prove that there is God is humbly to confess his limitations and
to ask another to accept in faith the statement of his
experience. . .without faith this world would come to naught
in a moment. True faith is appropriation of the reasoned expe¬
rience of people whom we believe to have lived a life purified
by prayer and penance. Belief, therefore, in prophets or incar¬
nations who have lived in remote ages is not an idle superstition
but a satisfaction of an inmost spiritual want. The formula
. . .for guidance is rejection of every demand for faith where
a matter is capable of present proof and unquestioned ac¬
ceptance on faith of that which is itself incapable of proof
except through personal experience.3358 “Soul or God is not the
object of knowledge. He is Himself the knower and so He is
beyond the intellect. There are two stages in knowing God.
The first is faith and the second and the ultimate stage is ex¬
perience-knowledge arising from it (faith).3559 Thus “Faith does
not contradict reason but transcends it. Faith is a kind of sixth
sense which works in cases which are without the purview of
reason.5’60 “Faith is nothing but a living, wide awake conscious¬
ness of God within.3561
But though God transcends the intellect, “it is possible to
reason out the existence of God to a limited extent.3362 What
Gandhiji means by this statement seems to be that though in¬
tellect has its limitations, it leaves us free, as Kant also held,
to believe in the existence of God.

57 H., Aug. 4, 1946, p. 249.

58 r. L, III, p. 143.
59 Gandhiji’s letter quoted in Diary I, p. 135.
60 H., March 6, 1937, p. 26.
61 r. II, p. 1116.
® r. Ill, p. 870.
48 METAPHYSICAL BASES

One of the arguments that Gandhiji gives is that the uni¬

verse cannot be interpreted without postulating a transcendent
reference. To quote him . .there is orderliness in the
universe, there is an unalterable Law governing everything
and every being that exists or lives. It is not a blind law; for
no blind law can govern the conduct of living beings and, thanks
to the marvellous researches of Sir J. G. Bose, it can now be
proved that even matter is life. That law then which governs
all life is God. Law and the law-giver are one.”63
Moreover, the method of religion, Gandhiji points out, is
not far different from that of science. Scientific truths can be
verified only by following the prescription given for compre¬
hending the facts which are taken for granted. Thus we cannot
understand electricity except by the galvanometer test.
“Precisely in that manner speak the rishis and the prophets.
They say anybody following the path they have trodden can
realize God.”64- To reject the testimony of the scriptures of the
world and the experience of an unbroken line of rishis and
prophets is to deny oneself.65
Further, our denial of God and His law will not liberate
us from its operation, whereas humble and mute acceptance
of divine authority makes life’s journey easier.66
It is unnecessary to enter into a discussion of these reasons.
Kant has shown that understanding is incapable of compre¬
hending the noumenal order and that all arguments employed
to prove the existence of God are defective. Gandhiji himself
believes that realization is impossible through the senses and
reason. Reason can only demonstrate the rationality of the
conviction about the existence of God when this conviction arises
through faith.
To sum up, Gandhiji insists that the Divine is the central
truth in man, that firm faith in the1 Divinity or God is indis¬
pensable for good life as well as for the use of non-violent
resistance, and that other allegiances and obligations are binding
in so far as they are consistent with the basic loyalty to truth.
No one will, we hope, dispute that Gandhiji is extremely catholic
 METAPHYSICAL BASES 49
in his conception of God. God is to him only another name for
the Reality, the Truth, the Law, the Harmony that pervades
the universe. His view that belief in God and soul is a matter
of faith has the support of saints and prophets.
Gandhiji believes in the doctrines of karma and rebirth.
According to him, “The law of karma is inexorable and impossi¬
ble of evasion.’ There is thus hardly any need for God to interfere.
He laid down the law and as it were retired.3367 “We are the
makers of our own destiny. We can mend or mar the present
and on that will depend the future.3368
As for the doctrine of rebirth, he writes, “I believe in
rebirth as much as I believe in the existence of my present body.
I therefore know that even a little effort is not wasted.3369
These two doctrines are no mere unproved dogmas; they
are laws of life deduced by the Indian seers from spiritual
insight and verified by experience. The law of karma has been
called the moral law or the law of moral continuity. It is the
law governing human growth. According to Indian tradition
our actions, i.e., those that are motived, leave behind samskaras.
These are dynamic and causal factors and determine our future
not only in this life but also in subsequent lives. According to
this law our future will grow out of the present even as the
latter is the outcome of our past. However, the emphasis is not
so much on retribution as on continuity. The doctrine of karma
is the only rational explanation of human inequality, at least
if we admit a purposive Reality behind the universe.
As for the theory of rebirth, which has been current among
the Hindus since the time of the Rig Veda, it stands to reason
that so far as man has not fully realized himself he should con¬
tinue to have opportunities for self-development, and death
should not put an end to these opportunities.
The acceptance of the law of karma,, however, does not
mean to Gandhiji that our life and activities are completely
67 Autobiography, I, p. 563. The Christian scriptures also refer to the
law. Thus, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man
soweth, that shall he also reap.59 Galatians, VI, 7. Jesus said on the Mount,
“Judge not that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete it shall be measured
to you again.99 Matt., VII, 1-2.
6« H.., June 8, 1947, p. 176.
® T. /.,ai, p. 1204.

P. G.-4
50 METAPHYSICAL BASES

determined. Such determination paralyzes moral effort and

cuts at the very root of ethics. It also denies creativeness to the
human spirit and deprives man of the privilege of establishing
his own government. There is no antithesis between the law
of karma and the freedom of will. In fact, the doctrine of karma
implies freedom, for it lays down that man is the architect of
his own destiny. Continuity with the past implies creative
freedom of the individual. No doubt our previous karmas limit
the range for the exercise of our free will. “The free will we
enjoy is less than that of a passenger on a crowded deck.”70 But
the little freedom that we have is real in the sense that we are
free to choose how we use that freedom.71 God, the greatest
democrat the world knows, Gandhiji points out, “leaves us
unfettered to make our own choice between evil and good.”72
The right to err, which means the freedom to try experiments, is
the condition of progress.
But though our will is free, “we cannot command results;
we can only strive.”73 Besides, “Man can change temperament,
can control it, but cannot eradicate it. God has not given him
so much liberty. If the leopard can change his spots then only
can man modify the peculiarities of his spiritual constitution.”74
According to him man can counteract the effect of past mistakes
by attaining complete detachment.75 But “In spite of the
greatest effort to be detached, no man can altogether undo the
effect of his environment or of his upbringing.”76 Thus Gandhiji
does not believe in complete freedom which might enable man
to sever himself from or transcend nature. Such freedom will
mean chaos.

70 H., March. 23, 1940, p. 55.

71 T. I., II, p. 497. Many thinkers hold that the present, though condi¬
tioned by the past, is not determined by it and that man uses the posited
future to control his behaviour. See, for example, David L. Miller, “The
Calendar Theory of Freedom”, in Journal of Philosophy, XLI, 12, pp. 320 ff.
The well-known postulate of modem social thought that cause implies
a statistical probability of the occurrence of the effect rather rb^-r, abso¬
lute control over it, also rules out absolute determinism.
72 T. I., March 5, 1925, p. 81.
73 H., May 6, 1939, p. 112.
74 Satyagraha in South Africa, p. 219.
75 H., April 7, 1946, p. 72.
 METAPHYSICAL BASES 51
Due to his belief in the spiritual nature of man, Gandhiji
rejects the commonly accepted view that man is entirely the
creature of his milieu. He does not, however, underrate the
influence of the latter: “The majority of people are controlled
by their environment.9377 But he holds that man should try to
live by self-direction, i.e., by the exercise of his will, rather than
by mere habit.78
Closely connected with the problem of free will is the pro¬
blem of evil. Gandhiji says that he “cannot account for the
existence of evil by any rational method.”79 Evil, however, is
real only from the limited human standpoint. For God there
is nothing good, nothing evil.80 But the conception of rela¬
tivity of good and evil is not acceptable to him, for its
application to problems of actual life would lead us morally
astray.81 “Good and evil are, for human purposes, from each
other distinct and incompatible, being symbolic of light and
darkness. . . .”82 “Good was self-existent, evil was not. It was
like a parasite living on and round good. It would die of
itself when the support that good gave was withdrawn.”83 “Evil
in itself is sterile. It is self-destructive, it exists and flourishes
through the implication of good that is in it. Science teaches us
that a lever cannot move a body unless it has got a resting point
outside the body against which it is applied. Similarly in order
to overcome evil one must stand wholly outside it, that is, on
the firm solid ground of unadulterated good.”84 Thus purity of
means is essential for minimizing evil. But while insisting on
the purity of means he is conscious that “What is good under
certain conditions can become an evil or a sin under a different
set of conditions.”85
He is not oblivious of the place of evil in the scheme of pro¬
gress. Evolution, he points out, is always experimental, and all

77 r. Ill, p. 314.
78 N. K. Bose, Studies in Gandhism, p. 203.
w T. I., Ill, p. 872.
8® H., Sept. 2, 1935, p. 233.
T. I, p. 680.
82 H., Feb. 20, 1937, p. 9.
83 H., Sept. 14, 1947, pp. 323-24.
84 r. I., I, pp. 225-26.
85 H., June 9, 1946, p. 172.
52 METAPHYSICAL BASES

progress is gained through mistakes and their rectification.

Besides, the principles of karma and rebirth suggest that through
a gradual process man will be able to minimize evil.
Gandhiji is, however, concerned not so much with philoso¬
phical explanation of evil as with the specific kinds of evil,
political, social and economic. “I know too,” he wrote in 1928,
“that I shall never know God if I do not wrestle with and against
evil even at the cost of life itself.”86 All through his long public
life his preoccupation had been a relentless war against evil.
In this crusade he did not neglect the milieu. He devised a new
moral strategy. His philosophy deals with the method of regu¬
lating, along non-violent lines, group-life in its political,
economic, national and international aspects. But nearest his
heart, in the centre of his consciousness, is the individual. The
first step lies with the individual whose moral regeneration is the
primary concern of Gandhiji’s philosophy. He discusses the goal
of human life and the way the individual should live to realize
this goal. These ethical principles are an integral part of
Gandhiji’s political philosophy, for a man can become a good
citizen and a true satyagrahi only by disciplining his life accord¬
ing to these principles.

86 T. L, III, p. 872.
 CHAPTER IH

ETHICAL PRINCIPLES—THE END AND THE MEANS

The ultimate object of man’s life is, according to Gandhiji,
self-realization. Self-realization means seeing God face to face,
realizing Absolute Truth, attaining moksha or knowing oneself.
He believes in the principle of spiritual unity. So the immediate
service of human beings becomes a necessary part of the endea¬
vour, because the only way to find God is to see Him in His
creation and to be one with it. The individual must work not
only for his own spiritual freedom but also for that of his fellow
beings. Thus Gandhiji reconciles self-realization with service to
society. The conception that salvation can be sought in the
seclusion of solitude is not acceptable to him. Self-realization to
him means realization of “the greatest good of all”.1 “The
greatest good of all”, or, as he calls it in Gujarati, sarvodaya, also
includes political progress, for political degeneration is a great
hindrance to moral and spiritual regeneration. Politics, however,
is only a part of this aim. Gandhiji also insists that the best way
to sene all is to serve one’s own country, for one’s countrymen
are one’s nearest neighbours.2
He rejects the utilitarian doctrine of “the greatest good of
the greatest number” as the end of life. For “it means in its
nakedness that in order to achieve the supposed good of
51 per cent the interest of 49 per cent may be, or rather, should
be sacrificed. It is a heartless doctrine and has done harm to
humanity. The only real, dignified, human doctrine is the
greatest good of all, and this can only be achieved by uttermost
self-sacrifice.”3 In 1926 he wrote, “He (the ahimsaist) will strive
for the greatest good of all and die in the attempt to realize the
ideal. . . .The greatest good of all inevitably includes the good
of the greater number, and therefore he and the utilitarian will
converge at many points in their career but there does come a
time when they must part company, and even work in opposite
1 T. II, p. 956.
2 H., Aug. 29, 1936, p. 226. For a detailed discussion of Gandhiji’s empha¬
sis on the neighbourhood see Ch. IV infra.
3 Diary I, p. 201.

53
54 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

directions. The utilitarian to be logical will never sacrifice

himself. The absolutist will even sacrifice himself.”4
Closely connected with the ultimate end is the problem of
means. Communists, Fascists as well as most practical politicians
believe in the maxim, “the end justifies the means.” That is, if
the end is desirable, even means like cunning, deceit and violence
are justified, if they help us to achieve the end.
In Gandhian philosophy means and ends are convertible
terms.5 The two are inseparable and should be equally pure.
That the end is high and laudable is not enough for him, the
means too must be moral. In fact, the means are, to him,
everything.6
This emphasis on means is partly due to the fact that
man can only strive, he cannot command results. We can control
the means but not the end. Besides, the end grows out of the
means. To quote Gandhiji, “As the means so the end.”7 “The
means may be likened to a seed, the end to a tree; and there is
just the same inviolable connection between the means and
the end as there is between the seed and the tree.”8 The Gita
doctrine of nishkania karma (action without attachment) also
teaches us that a good deed produces only a good result.9 So
Gandhiji believes that “if one takes care of the means, the end
will take care of itself,”10 and that realization of the goal is in
exact proportion to that of means.11 To him, “the attempt made
to win swaraj is swaraj itself.”12
Further, Gandhiji has personal experience of how, whenever
he compromised the means, progress on the path of truth and
non-violence received a setback. The Rajkot affair is an instance.
By seeking the intervention of the Paramount power—a sign of
impatience which is a form of violence—he failed to convert the
opponent.

4 r. I., II, p. 956.

5 Ibid., p. 435.
6 Ibid., p. 364.
7 Ibid., p. 364.
8 Hind Swaraj, p. 60.
9 T. I., I, p. 714.
10 H., Feb. II, 1939, p. 8.
11 r. I., II, p. 364.
12 Speeches, p. 720.
 THE END AND THE MEANS 55
Gandhiji’s theory seems to be the only correct view of the
relation between the end and the means. The opposite theory
that the good end justifies all means, even violent means, is
dangerous in practice and unsound ethically. The theory permits
recourse to violence, fraud, untruth, opportunism, etc., provided
the end is just. But these means, instead of helping us to
advance on the path of progress, lead us to regard human beings
as means rather than ends, deaden our finer feelings and result
in oppression and cruelty. Besides, there can generally be no
certainty that a violent action is always motivated only by a
good end. The tyrant and the terrorist invariably plead laudable
ends when perpetrating the most outrageous crimes. Further,
it is dangerous ethics to make the success of an action or policy
the criterion of its propriety. There is, moreover, all the
difference between what passes for success, quick results mosdy
short-lived, and real, enduring achievements that require a long
period of gestation. Violence and deception, terror and Machia¬
vellian diplomacy might seem to score for the time being over
truth and love, justice and open dealing. But the victory is partial
and transitory and the gains mere burdens. Good means alone
can lead us to lasting peace and progress. History as well as
contemporary experience teach us that violence engenders
violence, revenge leads to counter-revenge and a war sows the
seeds of further wars. The two world wars, ostensibly fought for
justice and democracy, bear ample testimony to the truth of this
argument.
If we believe in the ultimate aim stated above and in the
fundamental unity of life, good ends will mean, in the words of
Aldous Huxley, “a state of greatest possible unification3’. This
can be obviously achieved by intrinsically unifying, i.e., good
means and not by separative or divisive, i.e., bad means.13
According to Tolstoy, “All that tend to unify mankind belong to
the Good and the Beautiful. All that tend to disunite are Evil
and Ugly.3’14
Gandhiji’s emphasis on the importance of means should not
be misconstrued as implying that the end is, with him, only a
secondary consideration. He believes that the means and the
13 A. Huxley, Ends and Means, pp. 320-21.
14 A letter of Tolstoy to Romain Rolland translated from the French by
Dr. Kalidas Nag. Modern Review, Jan. 1927.
56 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

end are inseparably connected and is eager that the means used
should in no way detract from the moral character of our end.
Hence his repeated insistence that our means must be as pure
as our end and that in regard to our means we must take our
stand on “the firm solid ground of unadulterated good55. His
effort to give concrete expression, in the form of satyagraha, to
this principle of moral approximation of the end and the means
is, perhaps, the most unique contribution of our times to the
philosophy and technique of revolution.
What then are the means that Gandhiji prescribes for the
realization of the ultimate end? Self-realization, he says, requires
self-purification.15 Self-purification requires an ethical discipline.
According to Gandhiji, . .he who is not prepared to order his
life in unquestioning obedience to the laws of morality cannot
be said to be a man in the full sense of the word.5516 This ethical
outlook is the backbone of Gandhiji’s political philosophy even
as his ethics has for its foundation his metaphysical principles.
To him the moral discipline of the individual is the most
important means of social reconstruction, and it is as vital to
his philosophy as the capture of political power and State machi¬
nery is to Socialism and Fascism. The content of the ethical
discipline also determines the structure of the non-violent State.
Gandhiji gives us the moral principles which should be
observed as vows by mankind in general. Most of these
principles, which he laid down in 1916 for being observed in
the Satyagraha Ashram, Sabarmati, are the maxims of life
enjoined for thousands of years by the Hindu shastras as being
indispensable for moral growth. The first five of these vows, i.e.,
satya (truth), ahimsa (non-violence), asteya (non-stealing),
aparigraha (non-possession) and brahmachaiya (celibacy), are
yamas or cardinal restraints. For long years before 1916 Gandhiji
had endeavoured to live up to these ideals, and he modified
and amplified them in the light of his experience.
Vows,17 Gandhiji thinks, are a moral discipline absolutely
necessary for self-realization. They are a source of strength, for
they mean unflinching determination to observe moral laws. In

15 Autobiography, II, p. 592.

16 Ethical Religion, p. 36.
17 According to Gandhiji, “To do at any cost something that one ought
to do constitutes a vow.” Teravda Mandir, p. 75.
 THE END AND THE MEANS 57
the absence of vows we may be unable to stand against tempta¬
tions and may bend before discomforts. The refusal to take
vows, moreover, is an indication of weakness and betrays a
subtle desire for the things to be avoided. Vows should, however,
be taken only on points of universally recognized principles.18
But “the taking of a vow does not mean that we are able to
observe it completely from the very beginning, it does mean
constant and honest effort in thought, word and deed with a
view to its fulfilment.5’19 When in doubt about vows, the seeker
should interpret them against himself, i.e., in favour of greater
restriction.20
Truth, the pole-star of his life and philosophy, comes first
among these vows.21
Gandhiji distinguishes between truth as a vow or means,
i.e., relative truth as perceived by finite individuals in relation
to a particular set of thoughts and circumstances, and Truth
as the summum bonum, i.e., Absolute, Universal, Infinite Truth
which exists beyond and unconditioned by space and time.
In the sense of Absolute Truth Gandhiji identifies Truth
with God. Truth or Satya, which means 'real existent5, is “the
only correct and fully significant name of God55. Truth in
perfection includes all Knowledge {Chit) and the latter is the
source of eternal Bliss (.Ananda). Hence we know God as
Sat-chit-ananda, one who combines in Himself Truth, Know¬
ledge and Bliss.22 Gandhiji worships God as Truth only; he is
devoted to none but Truth.23
The entire philosophy of satyagraha is based on the fact
that Truth alone can be victorious, for Truth is 'that which is\
while untruth means 'non-existent5. “If untruth does not so
much as exist its victory is out of the question. And truth being
that which is can never be destroyed.5’24

18 Teravda Mandir, pp. 9, 73 and 76. Autobiography, I, p. 481.

19* Teravda Mandir, p. 27.
20 Bapu’s Letters to Mira, p. 43.
21 Cf. Jesus, “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”
John, VIII, 32. Again, “To this end was I bom and for this cause came I
into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.” John, XVIII, 37.
22 Teravda Mandir, p. 2.
23 Autobiography, I, p. 7; H., May 25, 1935, p. 115.
24 Satyagraha in South Africa, p. 433.
58 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

But man, even if he is a great soul like Gandhiji can have

but faint, fleeting glimpses of Absolute Truth.25 “We cannot
through the instrumentality of this ephemeral body see face
to face Truth which is Eternal.”26
How then to realize Absolute Truth? According to
Gandhiji, to advance towards Absolute Truth, we should hold
by the relative truth, i.e., what we consider to be truth.27 To
realize satya one must be a satyagrahi. Devotion to satya as
we know it, being true to the light as we see it, is the road
to the realization of Eternal Truth. “What a pure heart feels
at a particular time is truth; by remaining firm on that, un¬
diluted truth can be attained.”28 “Truth is by nature self-
evident.” But man being imperfect surrounds it with
cobwebs of ignorance. Ignorance is the root of all evil. As the
purificatory discipline removes ignorance, truth .shines clear.29
To Gandhiji there is no religion higher than truth.30
The law of Truth does not refer merely to truth of speech,
it also refers to truth of action and, what is equally important,
truth of thought. Nor is truth a “cloistered virtue”. Truth has
reference to all spheres of life including politics. Search for
truth, which should be pursued through the service of all,
means ceaseless effort for regeneration in all spheres of life
and willingness to risk one’s all for the cause which one clearly
conceives to be true. If the individual fails to do so he departs
from the path of truth, denies the soul in himself, tries to
frustrate reality and, as a consequence, courts moral ruin.
Truth thus also means just social relations including political
freedom of one’s own country as well as of other countries.
Truth rules out prejudice, evasion, secrecy and deception
as well as exaggeration, suppression or modification of reality.
It requires that we should never be afraid of confessing our
mistakes or retracing our steps. Truth also implies mutual
toleration and avoidance of dogmatism and bitterness; for truth
as discerned by man is always relative and fragmentary. While,

23 Autobiography, I, p. 8; Autobiography, II, p. 590.

26 Teravda Mandir, p. 9.
27 H., May 25, 1935, p. 114; Autobiography, I, p. 8.
28 H., Nov. 27, 1949, p. 340.
29 r. I., II, p. 781.
30 Ethical Religion, p. 51.
 THE END AND THE MEANS 59
therefore, it is a good guide for individual conduct, imposition
of that conduct upon others ■will be an insufferable interference
with their freedom of conscience.31 Moreover, <cbittemess blurs
our vision and to that extent disables one from seeing even
the limited truth.5’32 Bitterness or harshness also offends
against the principle of the fundamental unity of soul; it
makes us forget the unity and is divisive and separative.
According to Gandhiji, therefore, “one had better not speak it
(truth) if one cannot do so in a gentle way. . . .Truth without
non-violence is not truth but untruth.5’33 But non-violent truth
or gende speech does not mean hypocrisy or circumlocutory
speech. “Harsh truth may be uttered courteously and gently,
but the words would read hard. To be truthful you must call
a liar a liar—harsh words perhaps, but the use is inevitable.”34
To illustrate the point Gandhiji gives the instance of Jesus:
“Jesus knew the generation of vipers, minced no words in
describing them but pleaded for mercy for them.”35 The
intention behind the words must not be to harm the opponent.
Gandhiji dedicated his life to the searching quest of truth
in its various aspects in his own life as well as in that of his
nation. The method of his researches is the usual scientific
method of observation, hypothesis and experiments. Whenever
he noticed some error he readily admitted it and varied the
experiment so as to discover the proper way of solving the
particular social problem. He always made the first test of an
hypothesis on himself, before he asked any one else to try it.36
In the words of R. B. Gregg “. . . .he is a great scientist, in the
realm of social truth. He is great because of his choice of
problems, because of his methods of solution, because of the
persistence and thoroughness of his search and because of the
profundity of his knowledge of the human heart.”37 Gandhiji
himself said in 1933, “The science of satyagraha. . .has come
to me. . .by scientific research. It is a result of the hardest labour

31 T. II, p. 1182~
32 ibid., p. 1286.
33 Ibid., p. 1295.
3*H., Feb. 6, 1937, p. 414.
35 H., Dec. 19, 1936, p. 362.
36 S. Radiiakrishnan (ed.), Mahatma Gandhi, p. 80.
37 Ibid., pp. 80-81.
60 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

a human being is capable of. I have applied to this research all

the skill of a scientist.”38
According to Gandhiji every man has the right and the
capacity to determine truth for himself,39 and it is this essential
virtue, viz., the ability to determine truth for himself, which
separates man from the brute. Undoubtedly for a person who
seeks to know truth by his own efforts, a high moral and
intellectual equipment is necessary. “Those who have made
experiments (with truth) have come to the conclusion
that. . . strict preliminary discipline is necessary to qualify a
person to make experiments in the spiritual realm.” But others,
who merely apprehend, accept and pursue this truth known by
developed souls and suffer in the pursuit of this truth, need
not be so highly developed. This is borne out by the history
of satyagraha movements in India and outside. Indians in South
Africa or the Pathans of the North-West Frontier Province who
suffered intensely for the sake of truth were people of ordinary
cultural and moral level. Gandhiji believes that the masses
have the capacity to suffer for truth, though this capacity, he
admits, may be under certain circumstances limited.
Independent search after truth demands an intensely moral
life. In Gandhijfs opinion, constant endeavour (abhyasa),
indifference to other interests of life (vairagya) and the vows
of truth, non-violence, brahmacharya, non-stealing, non-possession,
etc. are indispensable for the realization of truth. Only those who
undergo this moral discipline can properly claim to hear the
voice of conscience in regard to truth. Gandhiji holds that these
observances are deducible from Truth and are meant to
subserve it.40
Truth can be realized only by means of akimsa. Violence
which has its roots in divisive propensities like anger, selfish¬
ness, lust etc., cannot take us to the goal. Violence arises out of
ignorance. It is untruth (asatya), i.e., non-existent. If untruth
endured and nothing were true to itself and to others, if all
laws of life and nature were uncertain and undependable, the
universe would turn into chaos.

38 Conversations, p. 41.
39 For Gandhiji’s views given in this paragraph, see Y. I., I, pp. 34-36
and r. Dec. 31, 1931, p. 421.
40 Yeravda Mandir, p. 16.
 THE END AND THE MEANS 61

But why is violence untruth? For one thing truth as known

to man is relative and never absolute. People look at a thing
from different angles and conscience is not the same thing for
all. No man can claim to be absolutely in the right. Pursuit
of truth, therefore, does not admit of violence being inflicted
on one’s opponent who must be weaned from error by patience
and sympathy, i.e., by self-suffering.41 For even if the cause
is unjust, none else except the person pursuing it suffers.
Besides, violence attacks not only the sin and the evil but
also the sinner and the evil-doer. This is offending against the
great truth, the unity and sacredness of all being.42 Pursuit
of truth means realization of this unity through love and service
of all, i.e., willingness to suffer for all. Violence interferes with
the realization of this unity both in the case of the violent
man and his victim by arousing in them feelings of anger,
hatred, fear, etc.
Moreover, truth which is the object of our quest is not out¬
side ourselves but within. The more we take to violence in
dealing with those who create difficulties, the more we recede
from truth. For in fighting the imagined enemy without, we
neglect the real enemy within.43
Ahimsa is thus the practical application of the great truth
♦of spiritual unity or, as Gregg terms it, “the spiritual demo¬
cracy” of all life. In the words of Gandhiji, “The basic principle
on which the practice of non-violence rests is that what holds
good in respect of oneself equally applies to the whole
universe.”44
To Gandhiji ahimsa is the heart of all religion. The means
and the end are one,45 so ahimsa is truth itself, its very soul,
its maturest fruit. Truth and ahimsa are like the two sides of a
smooth unstamped metallic disc and are so intertwined that it
is difficult to disentangle and separate them.46
Nevertheless ahimsa is the means, truth is the end. That
is why Gandhiji is not so much the votary of ahimsa as he is

41 Y. I, p. 36; Y, II, p. 1182; Speeches, p. 501; Hind Swaraj, p. 69.

42 Autobiography, II, pp. 53-54.
43 Yeravda Mandir, p. 10.
44 If., Nov. 12, 1938, p. 327.
45 r. Ill, p. 154; r. II, p. 936.
46 Yeravda Mandir9 p. 14.
 62 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

of truth. He is capable of sacrificing ahimsa for the sake of

truth but not the latter for anything whatsoever.47 “The jewel
of non-violence,” he writes, “was discovered during the search
for and contemplation of truth.”48 His experience convinces
him that if he lets go his hold of truth he would never be able
to solve the riddle of ahimsa,49 To him truth is the highest law,
but ahimsa is the highest duty.50
Gandhiji considers truth rather than ahimsa to be the end,
because he believes that truth {satya, i.e., essential being) exists
beyond and unconditioned by space and time, but ahimsa exists
only on the part of finite beings.51 Ahimsa divorced from truth
would be demoralizing instead of liberating. In Gandhiji’s
words, “without truth there is no love; without truth it may
be affection as for one’s country to the injury of others; or
infatuation, as of a young man for a girl; or lctve may be un¬
reasoning and blind, as of ignorant parents for their children.”52
All the same “Ahimsa being the means we are naturally more
concerned with it in our daily life. It is ahimsa, therefore, that
our masses have to be educated in. Education in truth follows
from it as a natural end.”53
Like truth, ahimsa is also omnipotent, infinite and synony¬
mous with God.54 It is soul-force or the power of the Godhead
within us. Just as the soul can exist independently of the physical
body, similarly ahimsa also transcends time and space and can
act independently of physical aids. It is the greatest and the
most active force in the world, more positive than electricity,
more powerful than ether, a force superior to all the forces put
together, the only force in life.55
Like truth, again, it is a matter of faith and experience and
not of argument beyond a point. It "is not so much a mental

47 H., March 28, 1936, p. 49.

48 Gandhiji’s foreword to The Gandhian Way by J. B. Kripalani.
49 Autobiography, II, p. 476.
50 H., March 28, 1936, p. 49.
51 R. B. Gregg’s reference to a conversation of his with Gandhiji in his
Power of JSfon-violence, p. 276.
52 Speeches, p. 503.
53 HJune 23, 1946, p. 199.
54 H.9 May 1, 1937, p. 89.
55 H., March 14, 1939, p. 39.
 THE END AND THE MEANS 63
or intellectual attitude as a quality of the heart and soul.5’56
A living faith in the God of love and in the existence of the
soul as apart from the body is, therefore, indispensable for the
successful use of non-violence.57
Like Plato Gandhiji holds that the universe is governed
by ahimsa or love, for life persists in the midst of destruction*
He writes, “Though there is repulsion enough in Nature, she
lives by attraction. Mutual love enables Nature to persist. Man
does not live by destruction. Self-love compels regard for
others.”58 “We all are bound by the tie of love. There is in
everything a centripetal force without which nothing could have
existed. . .even as there is cohesive force in blind matter, sc
must there be in all things animate and the name of that cohesive
force among animate beings is love. . . .Where there is love there
is life; hatred leads to destruction.”59
Ahimsa is thus an all-pervasive eternal principle applicable
to every situation in life without any exception. That is why
Gandhiji insists, as a condition of complete success of non-vio¬
lence, that when it is accepted as the law of life, it must pervade
the whole being and must not be applied to isolated acts.60 For,
like Tolstoy, Gandhiji also believes that once we admit violence
into ahimsa we admit the insufficiency of the latter and thus
deny it as the law' of moral life. Thus ahimsa is the only thing
that matters. To Gandhiji it is the Kingdom of Heaven, and if
we seek it first, everything else shall be added unto us.61 He
writes, “For me. . .ahimsa comes before swaraj. . . Ahimsa
must be placed before everything else while it is professed.
Then alone it becomes irresistible.”62 Ahimsa is, according to
him, at the root of every one of his activities.
But what is ahimsa?

56 r. /., II, p. 1113.

57 See ch. II supra.
58 r. L, I, p. 284.
59 1\ I, p. 734. Gandhiji differs from those Darwinians who swear
by a ruthless struggle for existence as the determinant in evolution. But
some of the scientists, e.g., Kropotkin, lay stress on mutual aid and hold
that progress depends on the preponderance of intra-specific co-operation
over intra-specific competition.
60 H., Sept. 5, 1936, p. 237.
« H., March 14, 1936, p. 37.
62 H., June 24, 1939, p. 174.
 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
64
The words ‘ahimsa’ and ‘non-violence’ are seemingly nega¬
tive in form on account of the negative prefixes ‘a’ and ‘non’
respectively. Gandhiji suggests the reason why this highest reli¬
gion has been defined negatively. Himsa is an inherent neces-
sity for life in the body. Life lives upon life. Ahimsa means an
effort to abandon the violence that is inevitable in life.63 Ahimsa
stands for the ultimate deliverance of man from the bondage of
the flesh so that he may attain the state in which life is possible
without the necessity of a perishable body whose sustenance
inevitably involves destruction.
According to Gandhiji, the negative aspect of ahimsa con¬
sists in refraining from causing pain or killing any life out of
anger or from selfish purpose or with the intention of injuring
it. Thus “Ahimsa means avoiding injury to anything on earth
in thought, word or deed.”64
Ahimsa in its negative sense does not mean merely non-
killing. Other and more insidious forms of himsa, Gandhiji
points out, are harsh words and harsh judgments (i.e., those
intended to hurt), ill-will, anger, spite, cruelty, the torture of
men and animals, the starvation, wanton humiliation and
oppression of the weak, the killing of their self-respect, etc.65
According to Gandhiji, “Exploitation is the essence of vio¬
lence.”66 Thus ahimsa in the negative sense requires that we
may not harbour an uncharitable thought even in connection
with one who may consider himself our enemy.67
He is, however, not a literalist in his conception of ahimsa.
To him the test of himsa is a violent intention behind a thought,
word or deed, i.e., an intention to harm.68 Thus killing is not

Off., Sept. 1, 1940, p. 271.

64 If., Sept. 7, 1935, p. 234.
65 T. /., Ill, p. 860.R. B. Gregg defines violence thus: “Violence is any
act, motive, thought, active feeling, or outwardly directed attitude which is
divisive in nature or result. . that is to say, inconsistent with spiritual
unity. . . .It would include, for example, pride, scorn, contempt, anger, im¬
patience, grumbling, spite, indignation, as well as killing, wounding,
frightening, exploiting, deceiving, poisoning, tempting to evil, flattering,
deliberate weakening of character and similar wrong.” The Power of Non¬
violence,p. 282.
66 H., Nov., 4, 1939, p. 331.
67 Speeches, p. 320.
68 H., Dec. 19, 1936, p. 362.
 THE END AND THE MEANS 65
himsa when life is destroyed for the sake of those whose life is
taken.69 The destruction of the bodies of tortured creatures help¬
lessly suffering the pangs of a slow, certain death, is ahimsa.
He writes, “Should my child be attacked by rabies and there
was no helpful remedy to relieve his agony I would consider it
my duty to take his life/’70 As is well known, he once had a calf
in his Ashram poisoned because its intense, unbearable agony
was beyond remedy. Similarly, forcibly preventing a child from
rushing towards the fire and smacking a child bitten by a snake
to keep it awake are instances of non-violence, provided the
motive is not anger but the desire to save the child from
injury.71
Ahimsa is often mistaken for a purely negative doctrine.
Such, for example, is the opinion of Bernard Shaw.72 To
Gandhiji ahimsa is essentially a positive and dynamic force.
In its positive and active aspect non-violence means bene¬
volence or love in more comprehensive than the Pauline sense,
for ahimsa includes the whole creation and not merely human,
though St. Paul’s definition is good enough for all practical
purposes.73 Ahimsa thus also embraces sub-human life, not
excluding plants or flowers, noxious insects or beasts. “Non¬
violence is therefore in its active form goodwill towards all
life.”74 Refraining from himsa is only the form of ahimsa, love
is its very soul. All the same Gandhiji does not identify ahimsa
with love in order to distinguish this spiritual force from the
grosser aspects of the connotation of love. The love that is
ahimsa is not the mercenary affair which is based on the

II, p. 971.
70 T. II, p. 978. Gandhiji lays down four conditions the fulfilment of all
of which can warrant the taking of life of an ailing individual from the point
of view of ahimsa. These are:
{a) The disease should be incurable.
\b) All concerned should have despaired of the life of the patient,
(c) The case should be beyond all help or service.
\d) It should be impossible for the patient in question to express
his or its wish. (See T. Ill, p. 897).
71 Hind Swaraj, pp. 65-66; H.9 Feb. 6, 1937, p. 414.
72 Quoted in R. Fullop-Miller, Gandhi, the Holy Man, pp. 160-62.
73 H., March 14, 1936, p. 39.
74 r. II, p. 286.

P. G.-5
66 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

goodness of the object of love. It is the true love that is self-

effacing and demands no consideration.75
This is how Gandhiji defines true love, “True love con¬
sists in transferring itself from the body to the dweller within
and then necessarily realizing the oneness of all life inhabiting
numberless bodies.”76 “The real love is to love them that hate
you, to love your neighbour even though you distrust him. . . .
Of what avail is my love, if it be only so long as I trust my
friend? Even thieves do that.”77
Even tigers, snakes and other venomous beasts and reptiles
have kinship with us and, being God’s creatures like us, have
as much right to live as we. True, we do not know what part
the many so-called noxious creatures play in the economy of
nature. But if we believe God to be good and wise, loving and
merciful. He must not have created them for human destruction.
Gandhiji believes that our habit of killing fellow-men on the
slightest pretext has darkened our reason. We have not yet
learnt how to live peacefully with these fellow creatures. Due to
ignorance we fear them and destroy them. But we have no right
to destroy life that we cannot create, and the fullest develop¬
ment requires the largest love that sheds all fear and reaches
out even to these creatures.78 This, however, does not mean
that the satyagrahi should be kind to sub-human life in
preference to human life.79
Ahimsa thus means the largest love, love even for the evil¬
doer. It however does not mean meek submission to the will of
the evil-doer. On the contrary it means putting of one’s whole
soul against the will of the tyrant. Evil, Gandhiji holds, cannot
be overcome by evil, by violence and retaliation. To use vio¬
lence against the evil-doer is to deny spiritual unity with him.
To repeat the mistake of the evil-doer, to fight evil with its own
weapons, is like casting out Satan by Satan. It is to descend to
the level of the evil-doer, to collaborate with him in propa¬
gating evil and thus to move in a vicious circle.

75 r. I., II, p. 551.

76 Bapu’s Letters to Mira, p. 157.
77 H., March 3, 1946, p. 28.
78 H-> Jan- 9> 1Q37, p. 382; T. /., II, pp. 957-84.
19 H., June 9, 1946, p. 172
 THE END AND THE MEANS 67
Non-violence, on the other hand, seeks to conquer evil by
good. It stands for moral opposition to immorality, the resis¬
tance of soul against physical force. It goes to the very root of
the problem. It believes in the ultimate possibility, the essential
goodness of human nature and thus refuses to accept the evil¬
doer at his own valuation. The non-violent man seeks patiently,
by conscious suffering and the force of love, to convert the evil¬
doer, i.e., to make him conscious of his spiritual kinship with
the victim. “Love does not bum others, it bums itself.”80 The
non-violent man continues to suffer till the evil-doer under¬
stands his mistake and repents for his misdeeds.
Thus in its positive aspect ahimsa implies that subjectively
the ahimsaist must achieve “as complete self-purification as is
humanly possible”.81 He must develop internal strength by
waging a victorious conflict against his own feeling of resent¬
ment which might otherwise express itself in retaliation and
hatred. The strength, which expresses itself in self-discipline
and enlightened forgiveness, is not the strength of the body but
of the soul and is open to the weakest in body. Objectively the
ahimsaist must, after this self-conquest, seek to arouse in the
evil-doer a sense of justice.
In short, “ahimsa consists in allowing others the maximum
of convenience at the maximum of inconvenience to us.”82
Again, “every act of injury to a living creature and endorsement
of such act by refraining from non-violent effort, whenever
possible, to prevent it, is a breach of ahimsa.”83
Absolute ahimsa means perfect freedom from himsa, i.e.,
freedom from ill-will, anger and hate rooted in ignorance, and
an overflowing, understanding love for all. From the point of
view of complete ahimsa all violence in whatever form must be
eschewed. But such non-violence is a perfect state and is
reached only when mind, body and speech are in perfect co¬
ordination.84 All ahimsa is a power and such absolute ahimsa
is absolute power. But such absolute ahimsa is the attribute of
God alone. It is not given to imperfect man to grasp the whole

80 T. I., Feb. 2, 1930, p. 60.

81 H., Oct. 12, 1935, p. 276.
82 r. I., II, p. 984.
88 T. I., Ill, p. 812.
84 r. Oct. 1, 1931.
 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
68

meaning of non-violence or to practise it in full, even as it is not

possible for him to know Absolute Truth.
Man has his share of responsibility for violence committed
in society. Gandhiji says, “Because underlying ahimsa is the
unity of all life, the error of one cannot but affect all, and hence
man cannot be wholly free from himsa. So long as he continues
to be a social being he cannot but participate in the himsa that
the very existence of society involves.”85
Besides, life is bound in a chain of destruction and himsa
is an inherent necessity for the life of the body. So no one, while
in the flesh, can be entirely free from himsa?6 Thus the very
fact of his living, eating, drinking and moving about necessarily
involves some destruction of life be it ever so minute. Man has
to destroy some life not only for sustaining his own body but
also for protecting those under his care.87 This is, however, in¬
evitable himsa and it has been regarded as permissible.
Apart from himsa involved in eating, drinking, etc.,
Gandhiji gives in his writings other instances where himsa is un¬
avoidable. Some of these are putting to death rabid dogs and
stray dogs when the latter become a menace to society; killing
snakes, tigers, etc., in similar cases of emergency; destroying
plague-infected rats and fleas, mosquitoes etc.; frightening and
violently driving away or even killing monkeys “where they
became a menace to the well-being of man”; killing a murderer
who is about to kill one’s ward if the murderer cannot be prevent¬
ed otherwise; dealing violently with a madman run amuck,
etc. But these are instances of “duty in distress” arising out of
human imperfections. They are not exceptions that would dis¬
prove the validity of non-violence as the supreme law of life.
The greater the man’s progress towards perfection, the more
would be his knowledge of non-violent ways of dealing with
such situations, and the less the need to fall back on violent
expedients.
If the votary of ahimsa is to remain true to his faith, the
inevitable himsa that he has to commit must be spontaneous,
though not thoughtless, must be the lowest minimum, must be
rooted in compassion and must have discrimination, restraint
85 Autobiography, II, p. 229.
86 T. II, p. 960; Autobiography, II, p. 229.
87 r. I., II, p. 971; Diary I, p. 149.
 THE END AND THE MEANS 69
and detachment at its back.88 It must be committed after all
remedies to avoid it are exhausted.
A reference to both intent and deed is necessary finally to
decide whether a particular act or abstention can be classed as
ahimsa. The intent has to be inferred from a bunch of corre¬
lated acts. But though the crucial test of ahimsa, it is not the
sole test. “To kill any living being or thing save for his or her
or its own interest is himsa, however noble the motive may
otherwise be. And a man who harbours ill-will towards an¬
other is no less guilty of himsa because for fear of society or
want of opportunity he is unable to translate his ill-will into
action.”89
Ahimsa rules out all wanton himsa to the sub-human crea¬
tion, e.g., hunting, vivisection, non-vegetarian diet, etc.
Gandhiji considered vegetarianism as one of the priceless gifts
of Hinduism and stuck to the principle even in the face of risk
to health. Meat-eating, he thinks, clogs our moral and spiritual
sensibilities and is unsuited to those who would curb their
passions. He does not, however, attach unreasoning importance
to food and discourages that narrow attitude which sums up
religion in terms of diet.90 He says, “Ahimsa is not a mere
matter of dietetics, it transcends it. What a man eats or drinks
matters little, it is the self-denial, the self-restraint behind it
that matters.”91 Thus cultivation of non-violence is not confined
to vegetarians alone.
Similarly non-violence implies that one must engage in
occupations that involve the least violence. The occupations
that a non-violent man adopts should be fundamentally free
from violence and should involve no exploitation of others.
Occupations and industries based on body-labour minimize

88 r. II, pp. 971 and 983.

Causing pain or killing may be:
(c) ahimsa when it is the result of calm and clear judgment and
the intention is to benefit the victim and relieve his or its agony, rather
than to relieve the pain caused to the ahimsaist by this agony.
(b) permissible himsa when it is resorted to for sustaining one’s
body or protecting one’s wards; and
(c) himsa when life is taken out of anger, selfishness or ill-will.
89 T. Ill, p. 883.
90 r. II, pp. 1184-85.
91 2". /., Ill, p. 821; see also Barr, p. 145.
70 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

exploitation and are thus suitable for the satyagrahi. The work
of butchers, hunting, war and war preparations are obviously
ruled out.92
On the whole the freer a man makes himself from himsa,
the nearer he is to perfect ahimsa, i.e., to Absolute Truth or God.
But what is the use, it may be asked, of first exalting non¬
violence into an eternal principle and then admitting that it is
not possible for man to practise it fully in every situation of
life? Had we not better admit, as some pacifists do, that in cer¬
tain hard marginal cases non-violence is inapplicable and vio¬
lence works better? Gandhiji’s answer is that an ideal which
can be fully realized must be a poor ideal indeed, for it leaves
no scope for constant striving and ceaseless quest which are the
basis of all spiritual progress.93 It is dangerous, therefore, for
man to drag down, in his weakness and imperfection, the ideal
to the level of what is attainable. “It is much better for me,55 he
insists, “to say I have not sufficient non-violence in me than to
admit exceptions to an eternal principle. Moreover, my refusal
to admit exceptions spurs me to perfect myself in the technique
of non-violence."94
If absolute non-violence is not of this world and if each
man is left to decide for himself as to what extent he can prac¬
tise non-violence, the question arises: Where should one draw
the line between non-violence and violence? Is the non-violence
of the coward also superior to violence?
Gandhiji distinguishes between three levels of non¬
violence :
The highest of these is what he calls the enlightened non¬
violence of resourcefulness or the non-violence of the brave. It
is the non-violence of one who adopts it not by painful necessity
but by inner conviction based on moral considerations. This
non-violence is not merely political but pervades every sphere
of life. It is the non-violence without any mental reservation—
the non-violence which does not calculate, which never bends.
One adopts non-violence as the law of life, not because it will
serve the purpose, but because one has reached that level of
moral development at which violence is intolerable. It is such
92 H., Sept. 8, 1940, p. 272.
93 r. Ill, p. 1940.
94 H.s March 9S 1940, p. 31.
 THE END AND THE MEANS 71
non-violence that moves mountains, transforms life and flinches
from nothing in its unshakable faith. Those who accept non¬
violence as a creed would never surrender their sense of human
unity and brotherhood even in the midst of conflict of interests
and would ever try to convert and not coerce their adversary.95
Next to this is the non-violence adopted as a measure of
expediency and sound policy in a certain sphere of life. Gandhiji
calls it the non-violence of the weak or the passive non-violence
of the helpless; for it is weakness rather than moral convic¬
tion which rules out the use of violence. If pursued, not as a
cloak for cowardice, but honestly and scrupulously with real
courage so long as it is accepted as a policy, it is capable of
achieving results to a certain extent.96 It is, however, not as effec¬
tive as the thorough-going non-violence of the brave. Being
based on expediency rather than on the belief in the infinite
moral worth of the least among men, the non-violence of the weak
can, when necessary, permit the use of violence, i.e., it can
sanction the treatment of men as mere means.
Akimsa of the first type is difficult to cultivate in groups
which may find it hard to rise to the moral excellence necessary
for the practice of akimsa as a creed. The Indian National
Congress, for example,^.has been non-violent by expediency.
Gandhiji had always entertained doubts about the efficacy
of the non-violence of the weak adopted by India in her
struggle for freedom. Thus in 1931 he wrote “Policy is essen¬
tially a temporary expedient which one might alter as circum¬
stances altered. It is easy enough to follow truih and non-vio¬
lence so long as no suffering was involved. . . .”97
Towards the close of his life he was disillusioned by out¬
bursts of communal violence. He saw that India’s struggle was
based not on non-violence but on passive resistance which was
essentially a weapon of the weak and which changed into armed
resistance whenever possible. He realized that “There was no
such thing as non-violence of the weak. Non-violence and weak¬
ness was a contradiction in terms.”98 With the burden of subjec¬
tion lifted, the attitude of violence which is an essential

95 H., Aug. 31, 1947, p. 302.

96 r. I, p. 265.
97 r. March 26, 1931, p. 49.
98 i/., July 27, 1947, p. 253.
72 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

characteristic of the non-violence of the weak, made people fly

at each other’s throats when the question of the distribution
of power came up."
Non-violence as a policy can be efficacious only if people
pursue it courageously and grow out of it into the non-violence
of the brave.
Non-violence presupposes the ability, though not the
willingness, to strike. In fact Gandhiji lays down, as an axiom
of non-violence, the principle that “man for man the strength of
non-violence is in exact proportion to the ability, not the will,
of the non-violent person to inflict violence.” But the real
strength behind such ability comes from fearlessness and an in¬
domitable will and not from mere physical capacity.100 Thus
non-violence is die quality of the brave and strong and is im¬
possible without fearlessness.101
The third type is the non-violence so called by mistake, the
passive non-violence of the coward and the effiminate. Fear and
love are contradictory terms. And so “cowardice and ahimsa
do not go together any more than water and fire.”102 Cowardice
flees from danger instead of facing it and is unmanly, un¬
natural and dishonourable. “Cowardice is impotence worse
than violence. The coward desires revenge but being afraid
to die, he looks to others, maybe the Government of the day,
to do the work of defence for him. A coward is less than
man. He does not deserve to be a member of a society of men
and women.”103
When there is a choice between cowardice and violence,
Gandhiji would advise violence. To him vengeance is any day
superior to passive, effiminate and helpless submission. “. . .It
is better to be violent if there is violence in our breasts than to
put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence.”104 The
coward has no faith in God and offends against truth when he
feigns non-violence. On the other hand the violent man is
courageous and true to his feelings. So “There is hope for

99 H., AugTil, 1947, p. 302.

100 Speeches, p. 790; Hind Swaraj, p. 40; T. I., I, p. 260.
101 r. /., II, p. 1113.
102 H., Nov. 4, 1939, p. 331.
103 H., Sept, 15, 1946, p. 312.
104 H., Oct. 21, 1939, p. 310.
 THE END AND THE MEANS 73

a violent man to be some day non-violent, but there is none for a

coward. I have therefore said more than once that if we do not
know how to defend ourselves, our women and our places of
worship by force of suffering, i.e., by non-violence, we must, if
we are men, be at least able to defend all these by fighting.”105
“Non-violence cannot be taught to a person who fears to
die and has no power of resistance. . . .Before he can understand
non-violence he has to be taught to stand his ground and even
suffer death, in the attempt to defend himself against the
aggressor who bids fair to overwhelm him. To do otherwise
would be to confirm his cowardice and take him further away
from non-violence. Whilst I may not actually help any one to
retaliate, I must not let a coward seek shelter behind non-vio¬
lence so called.”106
^ Ahimsa, being infinitely superior to violence, requires a '
higher kind of courage than does violence, the courage of dying
without killing. To him also who has not this courage Gandhiji
advises killing and being killed rather than shamefully fleeing
from danger in the name of non-violence.
The world often mistakes violence for real strength and
considers it indispensable for overcoming evil. This is partly
due to the fact that non-violence being natural is not noted,
while violence being an interruption of the course of nature is
striking and is noticed. Quarrels of millions of families in their
daily lives disappear before the exercise of the force of love and
nobody takes note of it. But if two brothers fall out and take up
arms or go to law, which, according to Gandhiji, is another form
of the exhibition of brute force, their doings will be immediately
noticed in the Press, they would be the talk of their neighbours,
and would probably go down to history.107
Besides, the non-violent man depends on soul-force and has
no outward weapon. Not only his speech but also his actions seem
ineffective. On the other hand violence is a crude force and has
its visible weapons and visible effect. The world is deceived by
appearance and is hypnotized by violence.
In reality non-violence is by far the most active force in the
world. It is self-acting and does not need physical force for its

ioTr. Ill, pp7222-23.

106 H> July 20, 1935, p. 180.
107 Hind Swaraj, pp. 68-69.
 74 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

propagation.108 Brute force is nothing as compared to it.

Gandhiji compares the working of the two forces thus: “A man
who wields sanguinary weapons and is intent upon destroying
those whom he considers his enemies, does at least require some
rest and has to lay down his arms for a while in every twenty-
four hours. . . .Not so the votary of truth and non-violence, for
the simple reason that they are not external weapons. They
reside in the human breast and they are actively working their
way whether you are awake or whether you are asleep; . . .The
panoplied warrior of truth and non-violence is ever and
incessantly active.”109
Again, soul-force affects the adversary unconsciously and
the unconscious effect is far greater than the conscious effect. To
quote Gandhiji, “It (non-violence) is direct, ceaseless, but three-
fourths invisible and only one-fourth visible. In its visibility it
seems to be ineffective. . .but it is really intensely active and
most effective in ultimate result. . . .A violent man’s activity is
most visible, while it lasts but it is always transitory. . . .Non¬
violence is the most invisible and the most effective.”110
So strong is the force of love, a force open to the weakest
in body, that unaided it can defy the whole world in arms
against it. It is this force in a frail mother that tames the brute
and the bully in the erring, defiant, strong-bodied son. This love
force is universal in its application.111 Indeed, love works even
in relation to animals. We have cases on record where men
whose fearless love travelled beyond their kind, approached
tigers, lions, snakes, etc. as friends without being harmed.
Thus non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of
mankind, mightier than the mightiest weapon devised by the
ingenuity of man.
“There is no such thing as defeat in non-violence. The end
of violence is surest defeat.” For “Hatred ever kills, love never
dies . .What is obtained by love is retained for all time. What
is obtained by hatred becomes a burden in reality, for it
increases hatred.” Further, being soul-force “Non-violence is
without exception superior to violence, i.e., the power at the

108 H., Nov. 12, 1938, p. 327.

109 r. I., Dec. 21, 1931.
110 H., March 20, 1937, pp. 41-42.
111 Y. L, II, p. 868.
 THE END AND THE MEANS 75

disposal of the non-violent person is always greater than he

would have if he was violent.”112- Besides, “There is* no time
limit for the satyagrahi, nor is there a limit to his capacity for
suffering. . . .The so-called defeat may be the dawn of victory.
It may be the agony of birth. . . .The hardest heart and the
grossest ignorance must disappear before the rising sun of
suffering without anger and without malice.”113 Again, “Non¬
violence has no limits. If a particular dose does not seem to
answer, more should be administered. It is a never-failing
remedy.”114
Non-violence, however, is not a cloistered virtue confined
to the hermit and the cave-dweller. Being soul-force, it is capable
:>f being practised equally by all, children, young men and
vomen, and grown-up people, by individuals as well as groups.
Even the masses can practise non-violence, “not with full know-
edge of its implications, but because it is the law of our
species.”115
Truth and non-violence are no new ideals. They are eternal
aws of life preached in various countries for thousands of years.
But these ideals lacked that vitality, fulness of meaning and
aniversality of application which they possess today. They had
:ome to be regarded as cloistered virtues, the almost exclusive
preserve of the ascetic or else a mere mask for the weak and
:he coward. They were conceded as correct ideals but dismissed
is being impracticable in the rough and tumble of life. Un-
;ompromising truth, it was held, has no place in trade and com-
nerce, in professions like law and specially in politics.
Similarly non-violence too was seldom regarded, even after the
ministries of the Buddha and the Christ, as an adequate method
)f resolving all kinds of conflicts and of organizing society and
■‘egulating individual and group relations. Its use was confined
mostly to isolated individuals and small groups.
Gandhiji has restated and reinterpreted these fundamental
aws in terms of modem life. He has experimented with them
m a larger scale than any one else and applied them in his ori¬
ginal way practically to every aspect of life. For applying them

112 H., Dec. 12, 1935, p. 276.

113 r. /., II, p. 846.
114 H.} Aug. 20, 1938, p. 226.
115 H., Nov. 4, 1939, p. 331.
76 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

he has also created suitable organizations and has trained

experts. He has preached and demonstrated that these ideals are
for all humanity to be practised in every situation of life. He
has also demonstrated to a sceptical world that truth and non¬
violence are the mightiest weapons in the hands of man, the
inexhaustible source of power. Thus he has enriched the content
of these ideals and breathed new life into them.

CHAPTER IV
ETHICAL PRINCIPLES (contd.)—
THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SATYAGRAHI LEADER
tTruth is the end and non-violence the way.
Non-violence is selfless, suffering love which is impossible
without purity of mind and body. So the satyagrahi must equip
himself by undergoing the purificatory discipline. Brahma-
charya is the most important of the vows which Gandhiji pres¬
cribes as being essential for the development of non-violence^
He regards this vow as important as Truth itself and is con¬
vinced that a leader of satyagraha must attempt and virtually
achieve brahmacharya.1
In common parlance brahmacharya means control over
sex-function. Gandhiji, however, takes this virtue in its most
comprehensive sense. Etymologically brahmacharya means the
discipline which leads to the realization of Brahman. “The
living force which we call God can be found if we know and
follow His law leading to the discovery of Him in us. . . .The
law may, in one word, be termed brahmacharya” So Gandhiji
defines brahmacharya as “that correct way which leads to
Brahman”.2 brahmacharya consists in the fullest control over
all the senses in thought, word and deed.)An impure thought or
anger is a breach of brahmacharya.3 (Thus brahmacharya means
self-control in all directions.^
(Brahmacharya is, according to Gandhiji, a mental condition.)
The outward behaviour of a man is the sign of the inner
1 if., July 23, 1938, p. 192; Gandhiji’s letter published in Sarvodaya
(Hindi), Oct. 1938, p. 35.
2 if., June 22, 1947, p. 200.
3 Teravda Mandir, p. 23; Autobiography, I, pp. 485-89; if., July 23, 1938,
 DISCIPLINE OF THE SATYAGRAHI 77

state. But “brahmacharya is not a virtue that can be cultivated

by outward restraints.” The vow demands the capacity to keep
pure even amidst the so-called temptations rather than abstain¬
ing from the other sex as being destructive of discipline. “The
discipline which can be observed only by abstaining from
companionship which is natural and is rooted in service is nei¬
ther discipline nor brahmacharya. It is renunciation without
non-attachment.” The real aids to brahmacharya are the rest of
the non-violent vows and not mere outward restraints, which
unlike the former, are not an integral part of brahmacharya and
are temporary.4
(_In his views on brahmacharya Gandhiji rejects the tradi¬
tional belief that women being more worldly are morally infe¬
rior to men and that one seeking to attain brahmacharya should
avoid contact with them.^ According to him, it is not woman
whose touch defiles man, but he is himself often too impure to
touch her. (He believes in the equality of the two sexes and holds
that woman, being mother, excels man in her capacity for
suffering.^ A satyagrahi observing brahmacharya shuns neither
man nor woman. Observance of this vow sublimates his sexual
energy, bums up his sexual desire and enables him to rise above
the consciousness of sex so that all women become mothers,
sisters and daughters to him. In 1938 he was not definite as to
the limitations a brahmachari should put upon himself regard¬
ing his contacts with women. Towards the close of his life he
felt that a brahmachari may, if occasion demands, even share
his bed with a woman out of a sense of duty.5 His resplendent
purity will communicate itself to her, strengthen her moral
fibre and help her to attain sexlessness.
■ Sometime before his death Gandhiji’s quest for perfection
led him to experiments in this direction.5 Some of his colleagues
expressed serious misgivings about these experiments which
being unconventional might slacken the established tradition
and unsettle popular notions of moral rectitude. Gandhiji was,
however, convinced that he should pursue his sadhana on the
lonesome way of truth and continue to explore the law of conti¬
nence undeterred by this disapproval. Any other course would

4 H., June 15, 1947, p. 192 and Diary I, p. 108.

5 For details see Pyarelal, Mahatma Gandhi—The Last Phase} I, Ch. 23.
78 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

be jettisoning truth and non-violence. But for his assassination

he would have shared the results of his experiments with the
public.
Strictly speaking, brahmacharya rules out marriage, for
the latter is not essential for self-realization. “Marriage is a ‘fall’
even as birth is a ‘fall’.”6
Gandhiji is conscious that absolute brahmacharya is the
ideal state that imperfect man cannot fully realize. All the same
the ideal after which we strive must be the correct ideal even as
children are shown perfect shapes of letters and required to
reproduce them as best they can.7 Gandhiji is, however, a prac¬
tical idealist and draws a line between self-control and subli¬
mation on the one hand and mere repression on the other, and
without lowering the ideal he suggests gradual self-control to
people of different moral grades.
Thus if progeny is wanted—and this is a natural desire—
marriage is essential. But marriage should be an instrument of
discipline and sublimation and not indulgence. “The ideal that
marriage aims at is that of spiritual union through the physical.
The human love that it incarnates is intended to serve as
stepping stone to divine or universal love.”8 The fundamental
law of the married state is that the sex act is justified only if it is
confined to the sole purpose of procreation. But divorced from
this deliberate purpose it is “a typical and gross form of dissi¬
pation and has therefore been specially and rightly chosen for
condemnation.”9 So confined the urge is a fine and noble thing
and nothing to be ashamed of.10 Gandhiji endorses the view of
the Hindu smritis that married people who observe this funda¬
mental law should be regarded as brakmacharis.11 He calls it the
ideal of married brahmacharya and, following the Manusmriti,
considers one child as dharmaja, bom of righteousness, others
being karnaja, bom of lust.
He is alive to the weakness and difficulties of the young and
warns us against hypocrisy and mere outward suppression.

6 Speeches, p. 829.
7 Mahatma Gandhi, Self-restraint a. Self-indulgence, I p. 75.
8 r. I., May 21, 1931, p. 115.
9 H., July 23, 1938, p. 192.
10 H-, March 28, 1936, p. 53; and April 25, 1936, p. 84.
» H., March 14, 1936, p. 36.
 DISCIPLINE OF THE SATYAGRAHI 79

Blessing two married couples in 1937, he remarked, “Don’t be

hypocrites, don’t break your health in the vain effort of
performing what may be impossible for you. Understand your
limits and do only as much as you can. I have placed the ideal
before you, the right angle. Try as best as you can to attain the
right angle.”12 He writes . .marriage is the most natural and
desirable state when one finds oneself even against his will
living the married life in his daily thought.”13 He believes that
“it is harmful to suppress the body if the mind is at the same
time allowed to go astray.”14 He is, however, against artificial
methods of birth-control, for they seek to enable ' people
escape the consequences of their acts and thus put a premium
upon vice.15
Gandhiji gives us the reasons why the satyagrahi leader
must virtually achieve brahmacharya or married brahrnaeharya..
If the leader is an almost perfect brahmachan practically
nothing would be impossible for him. For if the vitality
responsible for the creation of life is husbanded, instead of
being dissipated, it is transmuted into the creative energy of
the highest order. Sublimation of passions strengthens the
whole being of the individual, physical, mental and spiritual
and gives him power unattainable by any other means. Com¬
plete brahmacharya means complete control over thought.
“And since thought is the root of all speech and action, the qua¬
lity of the latter corresponds to that of the former. Hence
perfectly controlled thought is itself the power of the highest
potency and can become self-acting.”16 Again, “thought-control
means maximum of work with minimum of energy.”17 More¬
over, the realization of truth and non-violence which means the
realization of universal love through the service of mankind is
impossible except for a brahmachan. One cannot live both after
the flesh and the spirit. Indulgence tightens the bond of the
flesh and is the negation of self-control, selflessness and

12 H., April 24, 1937, p. 82.

13 r. II, p. 1234.
14 Teravda Mandir, p. 20.
15 In very exceptional cases however he would permit not only artificial
methods but also sterilization. Diary I, p. 24.
16 H.9 July 23, 1938, p. 192.
17 H., June 10, 1939, p. 160.
80 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

non-attachment without which one cannot be a satyagrahi.

Brahmacharya, even married brahmacharya, also saves the
satyagrahi engaged in public service from the distractions of
running a household.18
Gandhiji’s emphasis on brahmacharya, perhaps more than
any other principle of his, has been misunderstood and vehe¬
mently criticized. It has been said that contrary to the resear¬
ches of modem psychology and medicine he advocates
repression, that his ascetic principle has carried him too far,
that the sex act is not a purely carnal act but is a means by
which life is perpetuated and that, on the whole, his case is
weak.19
But Gandhiji in no way preaches repression. His writings
abound in passages bearing ample evidence that he is not in¬
different to the dangers of repression. It is hardly necessary to
add to the three passages already quoted.20
As we have pointed out while dealing with his views on
truth, he makes a distinction between those who seek truth
independently and those who merely accept and pursue it, bet¬
ween the leader and the follower, between one actively aspiring
and working for moral perfection and the common run of huma¬
nity.21 Of the former alone does Gandhiji demand virtual
achievement of brahmacharya. So far as ordinary persons are
concerned, he puts the correct ideal before them also, but he
Cf. Shri Ramaknshna Paramahamsa, “If a man remains absolutely conti¬
nent for twelve years he achieves supreme power. A new nerve develops
in him, called ‘the nerve of intelligence’. He can remember everything and
knows everything.” Quoted in R. Rolland, Life of Ramaknshna, p. 277. As
Romam Rolland points out, all the great mystics and the majority of great
idealists have clearly realized what formidable power of concentrated soul,
of accumulated creative energy, is generated by a renunciation of the orga¬
nic and psychic expenditure of sexuality. Ibid., p. 226.
18 Autobiography, II, p. 148; Yeraoda Mandir, pp. 16-17.
Cf. “He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord
how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things
that are of the world, how he may please his wife.” I Corinthians, VII, 32, 33.
19 S. Radhakrishnan (ed.), Mahatma Gandhi, pp. 18, 48, 105 & 191* The
Av>?Jat S®pt. 193?’ P; 452 ^ C- F- Andrews, Mahatma Gandhi’s ’ideas,
P* 10*’ sP*f***> introduction by C. F. Andrews; Spratt’s article, “Gandhiji
as a Psychologist” m the Indian Review, July, 1938.
20 See p. 79 above.
21 See p. 60 above.
 DISCIPLINE OF THE SATYAGRAHI 81

wants them to try to reach It to the best of their ability. But he

considers the sex act divorced from the purpose of procreation
as an act of indulgence and makes a strong case against it when
he says, “There can be no limit to the practice of an ideal. But
unlimited sex indulgence, as everybody would admit, can only
result in certain destruction of the individual or the race.”22
But Gandhiji does not consider brahmacharya to be an im¬
possible ideal. He refuses to set limits to the capacity of the
human soul- He believes that the soul is one for all, and the
positive reliable evidence of even one case of successful selt
control is decisive. Thus if brahmacharya is possible for
Gandhiji it is possible for any human being making the required
effort.23 He points out that some of the highest among mankind
in all climes have practised this high ideal. Human urges are
capable of immense redirection. The researches of late Dr. J. D.
Unwin show that the energy leading to the development of
society increases in proportion as society imposes pre-nuptial
and post-nuptial restrictions upon sexual opportunity.24 But,
as has been pointed out by Aldous Huxley, social energy and
human entropy resulting from compulsory sex-control promise
cultural refinement and not necessarily ethical refinement.25
Gandhiji’s ideal is, however, far superior to mere mechanical
celibacy and is, therefore, not open to this objection.
Of the various aids to brahmacharya Gandhiji has elevated
the control of the palate to the rank of an independent obser¬
vance. This vow means that we should be extremely simple in
our food, eating not to please our palate but to keep the body
in proper working condition.26 For the purpose of rooting
concupiscence out of mind, Gandhiji recommends dietetic res¬
trictions and avoidance of courses suited to a life of pleasure.
He also recommends fasting. But all this discipline is useful
only when the mind co-operates with the body, i.e., when it

22 H., March 20, 1937, p. 44.

23 H.y May 30, 1938, p. 125.
24 J. D. Unwin, Sex and Culture.
25 Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means, p. 318.
Human entropy is the tendency towards increased refinement and
accuracy.
26 Autobiography9 H,f P* 161.

P. G.-6
82 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

develops a distaste for the objects that are denied to the body”
Gandhiji also recommends ceaseless effort in the form of prayer,
for, according to him, perfection, i.e., freedom from error, comes
only through God’s grace.
For the development of truth and non-violence fearless¬
ness is indispensable. Fear lies at the root of untruth and vio¬
lence. Cowardice is born of fear. In the words of Gandhiji,
“Cowardice. . .is possibly the greatest violence, certainly far
greater than bloodshed and the like that go under the name of
violence. For it comes from want of faith in God and ignorance
of His attributes.”28 Truth and non-violence can be cultivated
only by the strong and “strength lies in absence of fear, not in
the quantity of flesh and muscle we may have on our bodies.”29
Despotism subsists only on the foundation of frightfulness.
Gandhiji lays very great stress on fearlessness, considers it the
sign of self-purification and defines swaraj as the abandonment
of fear of death.30
One of the objects of Gandhiji had been to instil into his
countrymen self-confidence and to rid them of their fear and
“oriental submissiveness”. He was undoubtedly successful in a
large measure in training the nation to cultivate and practise
the virtue of fearlessness. Viscount Samuel remarks, “He taught
the Indian to straighten his back, to raise his eyes, to face
circumstances with steady gaze.”31
According to Gandhiji, “Fearlessness connotes freedom,
from all external fear,—fear of disease, bodily injury and death,
of dispossession, of losing one’s nearest and dearest, of losing
reputation or giving offence, and so on.”32
But how to become fearless? “Let us fear God and we shall
cease to fear man.”33 “All the fears revolve round the body as
the centre and would therefore disappear as soon as one got rid
of attachment for the body.”34 To develop non-attachment we

27 Autobiography, III, p. 258.

28 r. I., Ill, p. 976.
29 Hind Swaraj, p. 29.
30 Speeches, p. 824; T. L, Jan. 7, 1932; T. I., I, p. 898.
Badhakrishnan (ed.), Mahatma Gandhi, p. 295.
32 Teravda Mandir, p. 43.
33 Speeches, p. 217.
34 Teravda Mandir, p. 45.
 DISCIPLINE OF THE SATYAGRAHI 83

must conquer our passions, the internal foes. Gandhiji empha¬

sizes the need of achieving the balanced state of mind or men¬
tal equipoise by means of control of passions. For the sthita-
firajna, who has conquered himself, external fears cease of their
own accord. But this state is possible to one who has had “a
glimpse of the atma that transcends the body”.35 Such an indi¬
vidual would acquire capacity for sacrifice of the highest type.
This is why Gandhiji believes that “That nation is great which
sets its head upon death as its pillow. Those who defy death are
free from all fear.”36 Gandhiji also lays stress on the need of
prayer and of unflinching obedience to dictates of conscience, for
the voice of conscience is the will of God and final judge of the
rightness of every deed and every thought.37 Determined and
constant endeavour and cultivation of self-confidence are also
necessary.38
In satya and ahimsa are also implicit the vows of asteya
(non-stealing) as well as aparigralia (non-possession) which
follows logically from asteya. The two along with the vows of
bread-labour and swadeshi determine the economic aspect of
Gandhiji’s philosophy.
Obviously one wedded to truth and universal love should
not steal. But to Gandhiji non-stealing means much more than
what it does in common parlance. Not only taking another per¬
son’s belongings without his permission or knowledge and
appropriating something in the belief that it is nobody’s pro¬
perty, but also receiving something which one does not need,
a father eating something secretly, keeping his children in the
dark, improper multiplication of one’s wants, coveting any¬
body’s belongings, bothering about things to be acquired in the
future, plagiarism, etc.,—all these are instances of physical or
mental offences against the vow of non-stealing.39 According to
him acquisitiveness divorced from need is theft. Gandhiji’s
economy is the economy of needs and welfare and not that of
acquisitiveness which is the characteristic of capitalism.

35 H., Sept. 1, 1940, p. 286.

36 Hind Swaraj, p. 73.
37 Ethical Religion, p. 41; T. Jan. 7, 1932.
38 Teravda Mandir, p. 44.
39 Ibid., pp. 31-35.
84 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

Non-possession is the extension of the meaning of stealing

to the possession of things we do not need in the immediate
present. Absolute non-possession, which is the corollary of abso¬
lute love, would mean total renunciation. This would demand
that man should have no house, no clothing and no stock of food
for the morrow, depending on God for his daily bread. The body
too is a possession and man should learn to use it for the purpose
of service so long as it exists, so much so that service, and not
bread, becomes the staff of life.40 So long as the body lasts it
calls for possessions some of which are unavoidable. As a
satyagrahi takes to non-violent vows his attachment to the body
will diminish and he will be able to reduce his wants and
possessions.41 As applied to thought non-possession implies that
the so-called knowledge which turns us away from the values
of inner life and from the service of mankind, is ignorance pure
and simple and should be eschewed.42 Non-possession thus
means non-dependence on material things. It implies total abo¬
lition of private property in all kinds of belongings, a view more
radical than that of extreme communists.
Absolute non-possession is an abstraction and is unattain¬
able in its fulness. In the words of Gandhiji, “To possess no¬
thing is, at first, not like taking your clothes off your body but
like taking your flesh off your bones.”43 “But if we strive for it,
we shall be able to go further in realizing a scale of equality on
earth than by any other method.”44
Gandhiji admits that a certain degree of comfort, physical
and cultural, is essential for the satyagrahi’s moral and spiri¬
tual advancement. But the satisfaction of these needs must not
go beyond a certain level, otherwise it will degenerate into
physical and intellectual voluptuousness and hinder the satya¬
grahi in his service of humanity.45 The aim of the satyagrahi

40 Yeraoda Mandir, pp. 38-39.

41 Ashram, p. 47.
42 Yeraoda Mandir, pp. 40-44.
43 Quoted by Maude Roy den in S. Radhakrishnan (ed.), Mahatma
Gandhi, p. 56.
44 N. K. Bose, Studies in Gandhism, p. 201.
45 H., Aug. 29, 1936, p. 226.
As R. D. Gillespie points out among cultures in which acquisitiveness
is accentuated it is linked to the needs for power and security. Gillespie
 DISCIPLINE OF THE SATYAGRAHI 85

should be not the multiplicity of material wants but rather their

restriction consistently with comfort. He should cease to think
of getting what he can. On the other hand, he should decline to
receive what others cannot get. In brief, the satyagrahi may
possess what he needs when nobody else stands in need of it,
and when possession does not involve violence and exploitation.
Non-possession implies the ideal of trusteeship in relation
to accumulated wealth, talents of people, and their earnings
beyond their immediate needs.
Gandhiji would dispossess every one of all his private pro¬
perty if this could be achieved non-violendy. People cannot
amass wealth without violence and without the co-operation
and help of other members of society. They have therefore no
moral right to use any of it for personal advantage and to
exploit others. So long as they are not prepared to give up
possessions beyond their immediate needs they should change
their attitude and act not as proprietors but as trustees, utilizing
the property for the benefit of the community.
Similarly some people with talents have the ability to earn
more than others. He would not cramp their intellect and
would allow them to earn more. But they should adopt the atti¬
tude of trustees and use the bulk of their greater earnings for
the good of the State. Apart from earnings, people should also
use even their talents for the good of the community. Thus he
stands for socialization of property as well as talents.
Trustees should act as owners not in their own right but in
the right of the community and should be given a fair
suggests that “by providing social security, by discouraging the cultivation
of power impulses and by shifting the basis of self-esteem from power and
material appearances to solid worth in the sense of co-operation in the
community, we should not be violating at any rate any strong inherent
need, and might eliminate the socially artifacted need for possessions, and
so remove one cause for the anxious reactions of the younger and the
depressive reactions of older people.’5 As foundations of the type of charac¬
ter which alone would make a better society possible he recommends,
“Anonymity within community to which one belongs. . .the acquisition of
skill and the development of gifts and abilities rather than material posses¬
sions; co-operativeness rather than competitiveness; realistic acceptance
of the foundations of freedom which implies taking of risks for freedom’s sake;
and the acceptance of self-sacrifice to the point of death if need be. . .
Psychological Effects of War on Citizen and Soldier, Chapters III and VII,
especially pp. 100 and 240.
 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
86
commission commensurate with the value of service rendered
to the society. The rate of the commission should be regulated
by the State.
The original trustee should have the right to nominate his
successor but the choice must be finalized by the State—an
arrangement which Gandhiji expected to put a check on the
State as well as the individual. Thus he is against inherited
riches and unearned income. According to him, A trustee has
no heir except the public.35 The misuse of the trust property
should be set right .by the State confiscating it with the mini-
mum use of violence. He is also in favour of death duties and of
riches being heavily taxed.
To bring about trusteeship he would depend on the effect
of the example set by the satyagrahi, persuasion, creating a
general atmosphere in favour of trusteeship and non-violent
non-co-operation. He expected that “If this truth was imbibed
by the people generally, it would become legalized and trustee¬
ship would become a legalized institution.35 As pointed out
above he is not against the State resorting to confiscation with
the minimum use of coercion when necessary. He, however,
distrusts the State and prefers voluntary non-violent action.
Critics often demur to the conception of trusteeship of
which, they think, the capitalists take advantage in relation to
their workers. To Gandhiji, however, the theory is a necessary
corollary of non-violence; for “It was in order to avoid confis¬
cation that the doctrine of trusteeship came into play, retaining
for society the ability of the original owner in his own right.33
He says, “My theory of trusteeship3 is no makeshift, cer¬
tainly no camouflage. I am confident that it will survive all
other theories. It has the sanction of philosophy and religion
behind it. That possessors of wealth have not acted up to the
theory does not prove its falsity; it proves the weakness of
the wealthy. No other theory is compatible with non-vio¬
lence.3346 He wished the ideal of trusteeship became a gift from

^References to Gandhiji3s views on trusteeship are: Teravda Mandir,

pp. 45-49; Nation's Voice, pp. 170-72; T. Ill, p. 124; H., March 31, 1937,
p. 197; Dec. 16, 1939, p. 376; Aug. 25, 1940, p. 260; Feb. 22, 1942, p. 49;
March8,1942,p. 67; April 12,1942, p. 116; March 31, 1946,p. 67; Feb. 16,
1947, p. 25; Feb. 23, 1947, p. 39; March 2, 1947, p. 47 and N. K. Bose, Studies
in Gandhism, “The Theory of Trusteeship".
 DISCIPLINE OF THE SATYAGRAHI 87

India to the world. If accepted by the world, he felt sure it

would remove exploitation and causes of wars from inter¬
national relations.
The conception of trusteeship seems to be implicit in the
communist ideal also. In the classless society, when violence
and profit-motive are eliminated, those in charge of productive
and other activities of society xviil not be salaried civil servants,
for the State itself will wither away. They will need for their
upkeep some money or its equivalent and unless, in the manage¬
ment of activities entrusted to their charge, they are inspired
by the ideal of selfless service and act as trustees, the very
existence of the classless and Stateless society will be endan¬
gered.47
Gandhiji’s critics also cavil at the ideal of poverty which is
inconsistent with the materialistic outlook of capitalism and
Marxism. But the vow of non-possession, it should be remem¬
bered, is the ideal of voluntary poverty, the poverty of divine
meekness that is capable of inheriting the earth, the poverty
that enriches, ennobles and elevates. It is not the involuntary,
demoralizing poverty of destitution, the poverty of despair and
inertia.48 Gandhiji does not preach voluntary poverty to a people
suffering from involuntary poverty. He realizes that the mate¬
rial condition of the Indian masses stands far below the economic
minimum indispensable for morally efficient life. 4‘They have
never known the pain of plenty to appreciate the happiness
of voluntary suffering, hunger or other bodily -discomfort.5549
The economic ruin and exploitation of the country under the
British Government was one of the important causes of his
determined hostility to it. According to him, “the economic
constitution of India, and for the matter of that the world,
should be such that no one under it should suffer from want
of food and clothing. In other words everybody should be able
to get sufficient work to enable him to make the two ends meet.
And this ideal can be universally realized only if the means of
production of elementary necessaries of life remain in the

47 Gandhivad: Samajvad (Hindi), edited by Kaka Kalelkar, pp. 52-58.

48 Vinoba distinguishes clearly between the two kinds of poverty in a
speech published in Harijan, May 16, 1936.
49 Mahatma Gandhi, The Wheel of Fortune (1922), pp. 75-76.
 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
88
control of the masses.”50 The activities of the All-India Village'
Industries and the All-India Spinners’ Association are a con-
expression of his great concern for the economic recon¬
struction of India’s life according to this basic principle.
Gandhiji’s own long, dedicated life had been a model of
non-possession. In spirit and letter he relentlessly followed the
vow, putting his body under severe ascetic discipline and re¬
ducing its needs to the narrowest limit.
Why does Gandhiji consider the conquest of man’s acqui¬
sitive propensities as an essential discipline for the satya-
grahi? This is due to his basic principles as well as practical
considerations. The theory of non-possession is a corollary of
his belief in soul-force. Soul-force transcends material media,
and spiritual progress, i.e., realization of spiritual unity, is not
possible unless we crucify the flesh and simplify our wants.51
Nature produces only what is needed for the moment and no
more.52 The principle of spiritual kinship demands that the
satyagrahi must try to remove poverty and inequality with
their attendant evils by possessing what is just enough for the
present and take no thought for the morrow.53 Besides, the
accumulation and defence of wealth inevitably involve the use
of violence.54
Gandhiji also explains the ideal in terms of his religious
beliefs. The Creator is the undisputed Master of all that we in
our ignorance call our property. Man is such an insignificant
atom that any idea of possession on his part seems ridiculous
and offends against God’s sovereignty. Nothing belongs to man,
not even his body. As His creature it behoves man to renounce
everything and lay it at His feet. This act of dedication, the
expression of a determination to live a life of service to our
fellow creatures, is the justification or the condition of the use
of things to the extent necessary for such a life. The experience
of saints and prophets who lived a life of voluntary poverty

50 r. /., Ill, pp. 923-24.

51 Yeravda Mandir, pp. 36-37; Speeches, p. 324; H., Dec. 10, 1938, p. 373.
See also Chapter V infra.
52 Yeraoda Mandir, p. 36.
53 Speeches, pp. 287 and 324; Yerasda Mandir, p. 37.
54 H., Feb. 16, 1947, p. 25.
 DISCIPLINE OF THE SATYAGRAHI 89

and contributed most to our heritage convinces us that this com¬

plete surrender to Him and an unshaken faith that our needs
shall be supplied shall not go unrewarded.55 Possession of things
which are not indispensable to us in the present is a sign of want
of firm faith in the goodness of Providence.
His experience of the baneful psychological and moral
effects of man’s love of wealth further strengthens his convic¬
tions. Jesus’ stem and well-known teaching on the subject of
riches,56 he thinks, gives us an eternal rule of life. Like Jesus
Gandhiji also believes that one cannot serve both God and
Mammon. He realizes how possession creates attachments and
tends to monopolize man’s thought and action to the utter
neglect and languishing of the soul. Thus the pursuit of truth
becomes impossible. Much of violence in the world can be
traced to disputes concerning possessions.
“It is my certain conviction based on experience,” said
Gandhiji to Dr. Mott, the American evangelist, in 1936, “that
money plays the least part in matters of spirit.”57 In another
conversation with Dr. Mott, summing up his views on the place
of money in the life of the satyagrahi, he said, cc. . . .1 have
always felt that when a religious organization has more money
than it requires, it is in peril of losing its faith in God and
pinning its faith on money. You have simply to cease to depend
on it. . . .The fact is, the moment financial stability is assured,
spiritual bankruptcy is also assured.”58
If the satyagrahi tries to live according to the vow of non¬
possession he will become fearless and his simple life will leave

55 Gandhiji’s speeches reported in Harijan, January 30, 1937.

56 “Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses nor scrip
for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves; for the
workman is worthy of his meat.9’ Matthew, X, 9-10. “It is easier for a camel
to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the
Kingdom of God.99 Matthew, XIX, 24.
57 Dec. 26, 1936, p. 368.
58 H., Dec. 10, 1938, p. 371.
This is how Mahadev Desai sums up Gandhiji5s views on non-posses¬
sion: “You may have occasion to possess or use material things, but the secret
of life lies in never missing them. Money will come for an object to which
you are prepared to give up your life, but when there is no money you will not
miss it, and the object will be carried on, perhaps, all the better for want of
it." H., Dec. 10, 1938, p. 371.
90 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

him ample time and energy for the pursuit of truth. The eco¬
nomic structure and economic relations of society will be
revolutionized. Voluntary poverty will train the satyagrahi for
suffering which is an essential part of the life of service. It will
also help to bring about a just distribution of reasonable com¬
forts of life among the masses.
Closely related to the above vows is the vow of physical
labour or bread-labour.59 It is a corollary of the principle of
non-stealing and a means of realizing non-possession.
The economics of bread-labour, which Gandhiji calls “the
living way of life”, means that every man has to labour with
his body for his food and clothing. ‘Bread’ is symbolic of the
unavoidable primary necessities of life. These require produc¬
tive labour and one who enjoys them without properly sharing
in the labour is a thief. The so-called civilized but really de¬
praved people who multiply wants and free themselves from
manual labour really exploit the labour of the poor people,
using the latter as mere means for their gratification. Gandhiji
feels that if people were convinced of the value and necessity
of bread-labour there never would be any want of bread and
cloth.60
Food is the first among these primary necessities. The ideal
form of body-labour, therefore, should be related to agriculture.
If that is not possible, body-labour should take the form of any
other productive manual work connected with some primary
need, e.g., spinning, weaving, carpentry, smithery, etc.
Gandhiji’s great love for the spinning-wheel is due to the fact
that spinning, even more than agriculture, deserves to become
the universal form of bread-labour. He writes, “A satyagrahi
occupies himself in productive work. There is no easier and
better productive work for millions than spinning.”6* Besides,

The first person to coin the term ‘bread-labour’ was the Russian
writer Bondaref. Later die idea was given wider publicity by Tolstoy and
Ruslan; and Gandhiji is indebted to these two for the principle. The princi-
ple is also supported by the well-known teaching of the Bible, “In the sweat
of thy brow shah thou eat thy bread.” According to Gandhiji the third
chapter of the Gtia “seems to show that sacrifice chiefly means body-labour
tor service. The Gita According to Gandhi, pp. 130 and 173-76
60 H., Sept. 7, 1947, p. 316.
61H., Dec. 2, 1939, p. 366.
 DISCIPLINE OF THE SATYAGRAHI 91
“No other village craft has the capacity that spinning and its
auxiliary processes have for putting so much money into the
pockets of the largest number of villagers with minimum of
capital outlay and organizational effort.”62 Due to its associa¬
tion with the satyagraha movement the spinning-wheel has
also become the symbol of social, political and economic freedom.
Bread-labour, however, does not include intellectual labour.
For “the need of the body must be supplied by the body. . . .
Mere mental, that is, intellectual labour is for the soul. It is
its own satisfaction. It should never demand payment.”63
Physical labour over and above that for earning bread as well
as intellectual labour should be the labour of love done solely
for the benefit of society.64 “Intellectual work. . .has an un¬
doubted place in the scheme of life. But what I insist upon is
the necessity of physical labour for all. No man ought to be free
from that obligation. It would serve to improve even the quality
of his intellectual output.”65
But bread-labour, which Gandhiji considers as the highest
form of social service,66 should be voluntary and not compul¬
sory. India’s millions today undoubtedly obey the law of bread-
labour for half the year. But they would shirk the law if they
could. Theirs is a compulsory obedience, a drudgery that
deadens their finer feelings and breeds poverty, disease and
discontent.
It may be difficult to practise the ideal in its entirety. But
even if without fulfilling the whole law people performed
physical labour enough for their daily bread, society should go
a long way towards the ideal.67 Even if people earn through
intellectual labour, their remuneration should be equal to that
of manual workers. Those who earn more than necessary for
their requirement must use the bulk of their greater earnings
for the good of the community. In other words, over-possession
should go with trusteeship.68

62 if., Dec. 16, 1939, p. 376.

63 if., June 20, 1935, p. 156.
64 if., June 1, 1935, p. 125; June 29, 1935, p. 156.
65 if., Feb. 23, 1947, p. 36.
66 if., June 1, 1939, p. 125.
67 if., June 29, 1935, p. 156.
6* r. Nov. 26, 1931.
92 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

If generally accepted the law will simplify life, facilitate

the observance of non-violent values and “co-ordinate the vision
of the inward eye with the work of the hands.” It will m^ke
men able-bodied and minimize disease. Educational psychology
has for long recognized that the use of hands profoundly helps
mental growth. It will eliminate large-scale production and
profit-motive and bring about virtual self-sufficiency of the
village and the country.69 It will be at once a levelling up and
a levelling down, a remedy for the exploitation of the poor
and the swelled head of the rich. Everybody will be his own
master and class distinctions will disappear.
Universally practised, non-possession and bread-labour
would lead to economic equality. Even if they were partially
observed and if people who earned more than their immediate
needs adopted the attitude of trustees, equitable distribution
would be brought about. Hence Gandhiji’s remark, “My ideal
is equal distribution, but so far as I can see it cannot be realized.
I therefore work for equitable distribution.”70
Swadeshi is another important vow and a key concept in
Gandhiji’s philosophy. Swadeshi means belonging to or made
in one’s own country. To Gandhiji it is “a religious discipline
to be undergone in utter disregard of the physical discomfort
it may cause to the individual.”71 He calls it the sacred law of
our being and thinks that the law “is engrained in the basic
nature of man”.72
The object of swadeshi is not political but spiritual, i.e.,
to enable the individual to realize his spiritual unity with all
life. As the body is a hindrance to the fullest realization of this
unity and is not the natural or permanent abode of the soul,
swadeshi, in its ultimate and spiritual sense, stands for the final
emancipation of the soul from its earthly bondage.73 So long
as this emancipation has not taken place the only way of
realizing this unity is the service of God’s creation. The law of

69 For a discussion of large-scale machine production in relation to

non-violence, see Chapters VIII and XI infra.
70 T. /., in, p. 124.
71 Speeches, p. 280.
72 Ibid., p. 325.
73 Yeravda Mandir, p. 89.
 DISCIPLINE OF THE SATYAGRAHI 93
swadeshi lays down the only correct method of serving it. This
is how Gandhiji defines the law:
“Swadeshi is that spirit in us which restricts us to the use
and service of our immediate surroundings to the exclusion of
the more remote.5’74 “Swadeshi was that spirit which dictated
man to serve his next-door neighbour to the exclusion of any
other. The condition, . .was that the neighbour thus served
had in his turn to serve his own neighbour.5’75
Swadeshi is an all-sided patriotism of an exalted spiritual
type. It implies that we must serve the country of our birth
in preference to others and that, inside the country, we must
serve the immediate neighbourhood in preference to remoter
places. It also demands that we must hold fast to indigenous
ideals and institutions. This does not mean a blind, unthinking
attachment to the familiar institutions, but a discriminating
regard for them with a readiness, where necessary, to reform
and borrow from others whatever is really healthy and benefi-
cient.
Purity of service is of the very essence of swadeskL
Swadeshi never countenances the advancing of illegitimate,
narrow, selfish interests of groups and the neglect of the interest
of the country or humanity. It only requires us to discharge
our legitimate obligation to our neighbours and to prepare them
to sacrifice themselves, when necessary, at the altar of national
and universal service.
The spirit of sacrifice underlying swadeshi should go
beyond a man’s own community and should embrace the whole
of humanity. “. . .the logical conclusion of self-sacrifice was
that the individual sacrificed himself for the community, the
community sacrificed itself for the district, the district for the
province, the province for the nation and the nation for the
world.”76 Thus a man can serve his neighbours and humanity
at the same time, the condition being that the service of the

74 Speeches, p. 275.
75 if., March 23, 1947, p. 79.
This seems to be the reason of the repeated assertion of Jesus that his
mission was to the Jews and of his forbidding his disciples to go to the Gentiles
or the Samaritans and sending them “to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel”.
76 Speeches, p. 281.
94 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

neighbours is in no way selfish or exclusive, i.e., does not involve

the exploitation of any other human being. “The neighbours
would then understand the spirit in which such service was
given. They would also know that they would be expected to
give their services to their neighbours.” This spirit of self-sacri¬
fice also implies that “A truly free India is bound to run to the
help of its neighbours in distress.” By implication the neigh¬
bours of India’s neighbouring countries are India’s neighbours
also.77
Gandhiji discusses the reason why swadeski, which he calls
“the acme of universal -service”,78 implies preference of the
nearest and the immediate. Our capacity for service, he says,
is limited by our knowledge of the world in which we live. So
we must, as our first duty, dedicate ourselves to the service
of our immediate neighbours—the nearest and the best known
to us.79 Pure service of one’s neighbour can never result in
disservice to those who are remotely situated. On the other
hand if one sets out to serve people in a distant place one is
doubly guilty. He is guilty of culpable neglect of his neigh¬
bours who have a claim on his service. His attempt would also
be an unintended disservice to the people of the distant place,
for in his ignorance he would very likely disturb the atmosphere
of the new place.80 Besides, it is an arrogance to think of serving
distant places when one is hardly able to serve even his imme¬
diate neighbours.81 Thus swadeski recognizes “the scientific
limitation of human capability for service”.82
Gandhiji believes that the teaching of the Gita, viz. “It is
better to die periorming one’s duty or swadkarma but
paradharma or another’s duty is fraught with danger,”
applies to swadeski also, for swadeski is swadkarma applied
to one’s immediate environment.83
The swadeski doctrine permeates the whole of Gandhiji’s
philosophy—his views on culture, his metaphysical and ethical

77 H-, March 23, 1947, pp. 78-79.

78 Teravda Mandir, p. 93.
79 H., Aug. 22, 1936, p. 217.
80 Teravda Mandir, pp. 89-91.
81 Speeches, p. 281.
82 H., March 23, 1947, p. 79.
83 Teravda Mandir, p. 91.
 DISCIPLINE OF THE SATYAGRAHI 95

ideas, his social and political theories, his views on education

and his economic outlook.
In his views on culture the concept of swadeshi finds
expression in GandhijTs meticulous attachment to the rural
civilization of India due to its unerring perception of spiritual
and non-violent values. Gandhiji is not an indiscriminate
despiser of everything Western,8* but he condemns in no uncer¬
tain terms the materialism and violence of modern civilization.
He distrusts it because he thinks that in its race after power
and pleasure it neglects the soul and its perfection. The tre¬
mendous development of the art of destruction and the horrors
of industrialism—greed, competition and exploitation, war and
imperialism—these hinder moral development and result in
“spiritual hardening55. To him modern civilization is “ephe¬
meral55 and “a civilization only in name55.85
His metaphysical and ethical ideas are firmly rooted in the
philosophical tradition of India. He has reinterpreted ancient
Indian ideals and applied them to conditions of modem life.
The principle of swadeshi again explains his attitude to¬
wards religion. “As for religion,. . .1 must restrict myself to
my ancestral religion. . .that is, the use of immediate religious
surrounding. If I find it defective I should serve it by purging
it of its defects.5586
In the social and political spheres he believes in making
use of indigenous institutions and curing them of their proved
defects. Thus most of his non-violent weapons, non-co-opera¬
tion, civil disobedience, fasting, picketing, etc. are the refined,
modernized forms of ancient Indian modes of political and social
protest. In the social sphere he upholds the varnashramadharma,
though not the caste-system as it exists today.
In the sphere of education, ever since his South African
days he had been insisting that education must be in keeping
with national traditions and be imparted through the mother
tongue.
84 “ . . .1 am humble enough to admit, that there is much that we can
profitably assimilate from the West. Wisdom is no monopoly of one conti¬
nent or one race. My resistance to the Western civilization is really a
resistance to its indiscriminate and thoughtless imitation. . . .” T. I., Ill,
p. 286.
85 Hind Swaraj, Chapters VI & XIII.
86 Speeches, pp. 273-74.
96 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

In the economic sphere Gandhiji stands for the self-suffi¬

ciency of the country and even of villages except for such
foreign things as are needed for the growth of the people.87 To
quote him, “The broad definition of swadeshi is the use of all
home-made articles to the exclusion of foreign things, in so far
as such use is necessary for the protection of home industries,
more specially those industries without which India will become
pauperized.”88 “To reject foreign manufactures merely because
they are foreign, and to go on wasting national time and money
in the promotion in one’s country of manufactures for which
it is not suited would be criminal folly, and a negation of the
swadeshi spirit.”89
Thus he is not against all international trade, though he
holds that imports should be limited to things which are neces¬
sary for our growth but which India cannot herself produce and
exports to things of real benefit to foreigners.90
Swadeshi demands the exclusion of all foreign cloth. India
can, as she once did, manufacture all the cloth of her require¬
ment. Besides, in an agricultural country like India khadi is a
universal subsidiary industry on which the semi-starved and
semi-employed peasants can depend to eke out their scanty in¬
come. Besides, khadi is the symbol of decentralized economy.
This is why Gandhiji considers khadi “a necessary and the most
important corollary of the principle of swadeshi” and “the first
indispensable step towards the discharge of swadeshi dharma
towards society.”9* He observed in 1947, “Immediately after my
return to India in 1915 I discovered that the centre of swadeshi
lay in khadi. If khadi goes, I contended even then, there is no
87 Gandhiji’s views on this aspect of swadeshi seem to have undergone
an evolution. A study of. his famous address on swadeshi delivered at the
Missionary Conference, Madras (1916), shows that he then stood for com¬
plete self-sufficiency of the country and its economic isolation from the rest
of the world. Referring to India’s external trade he said, “If not an article
of commerce had been brought from outside India, she should be today a
land flowing with milk and honey. . .she can live for herself only if she
produces and is helped to produce everything for her requirement within
her own borders.” Speeches, p. 278.
88 r. I., II, p. 797.
89 Yercmda Mandir, pp. 96-97.
90 r. II, p. 797.
91 Y. I., June 18, 1931.
 DISCIPLINE OF THE SATYAGRAHI 97
swadeshi. . .the manufactures in Indian mills do not constitute
swadeshi. To that belief I cling even today."92 But the economic
aspect of swadeshi does not end but begins with kkadL
Swadeshi implies a comprehensive preference of local manu¬
facture and the boycott of all foreign cloth and articles which
can be manufactured in one’s own country, though not of all
foreign goods.
India’s adoption of swadeshi through khadi does not mean
harming the British and other foreign mill-owners. They have
sinned in destroying India’s principal supplementary industry,
upsetting her economic system and bringing poverty and
starvation to her doors. The foreigners concerned would be the
gainers in so far as they would be free from this vice.93
Until 1931 Gandhiji distinguished between the economic
aspect of swadeshi and the economic boycott of foreign goods.
Swadeshi is a spiritual discipline, an invigorating and purifying
process and a constructive programme. On the other hand, until
1931 he considered the economic boycott of foreign goods as a
temporary punitive measure, a political weapon of expediency
which works as undue influence exerted to secure one’s purpose.
It is resorted to, he held, in order to compel the opponent coun¬
try by deliberately inflicting a loss on them and the spirit of
punishment is a sign of weakness and a form of violence.94
In the satyagraha movement of 1931-33, however,
Gandhiji acquiesced in the Congress vigorously undertaking the
boycott of British goods.95 Later on, in an interview with a
Chinese, he favoured the economic boycott of the aggrressor
nation.96 He seems to have come to believe that economic boy¬
cott need not be vindictive and violent and that it can be used
as a legitimate non-violent, non-coercive means of non-co-
operation.97
Gandhiji also recommends the vow regarding the removal
of untouchability which follows from the principle of spiritual
unity of all life. We are all sparks of the same fire, the children

92 H., June 29, 1947, p. 211.

93 T. I., June 18, 1931.
94 y. I, pp. 147 and 487-88.
95 See Gh. IX infra.
96 See Ch. XI infra.
9? See Ch. IX infra.

P. G.-7
98 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

of the same God. He, therefore, asks of every one to break down
the barriers between man and man and between the various
orders of being and to serve all life as one’s own self.98 To him
the removal of untouchability is a bigger problem than that of
gaining Indian independence.99 It is “an issue of transcen¬
dental value, far surpassing swaraj in terms of political
constitutions”. Such a constitution would be a dead-weight if it
was not backed by a moral basis in the shape of removal of
untouchability.100
Gandhiji’s views about social relations are based on the law
of varna which he calls true socialism and which was intimately
connected with non-violence.101 By vamashramadharma, how¬
ever, he does not mean the present-day hideous distortion of the
original varnas into countless castes with gradations of high and
low and rigid restrictions on marital and social relations. He is
convinced that the caste system and these restrictions ought to
go if untouchability is to be eradicated and that with the remo¬
val of untouchability the caste system will be purified and will
resolve itself into the true mrnadharma,102 Varna in its real
meaning, Gandhiji thinks, is extinct today. In its ideal sense
varna is not only for Hindus but for the whole humanity. “It is
natural to man in his regenerate state.”103 Gandhiji defines the
law of varna thus: “The law of varna means that every one
shall follow as a matter of dharma—duty—the hereditary
calling of his forefathers in so far as it is not inconsistent with
fundamental ethics. He will earn his livelihood by following
that calling. He may not hoard riches, but devote the balance for
the good of the people.”104 Gandhiji lays stress on functions
being hereditary, because heredity is a law of nature. But he
is not for exclusive, watertight divisions. Thus varna is inti¬
mately, but not indissolubly, connected with birth. “Varna is
determined by birth, but can be retained only by observing its

98 Teravda Mandir, p. 44.

99 Jan. 29, 1950, p. 412.
100 H., Feb. 11, 1933.
101 See pp. 8-9 above.
102 H., Feb. 11, 1933, and July 28, 1946, pp. 233-34.
103 Conversations, p. 61.
104 Sept 28, 1934, pp. 260-61.
 DISCIPLINE OF THE SATYAGRAHI 99
obligations. One bom of brahmana parents will be called a
brahmana, but if his life fails to reveal the attributes of a
brahmana when he comes of age, he cannot be called a
brahmana. He will have fallen from Brahmanhood. On the
other hand, one who is bom not a brahmana but reveals in
his conduct the attributes of a brahmana will be regarded as a
brahmana, though he will himself disclaim. the label.”105
Gandhiji explains why varna restricts man, for the purpose
of holding body and soul together, to the occupation of his
forefathers, “ Varnashramadharma defines man’s mission on
this earth. He is not bom day after day to explore avenues
for amassing riches and to explore different means of livelihood;
on the contrary man is bom in order that he may utilize every
atom of his energy for the purpose of knowing his Maker.”106
The fulfilment of the law which correlates calling to aptitude
should be spontaneous and no matter of honour or shame. The
law would mean equality of all callings and professions, all
property being held in trust for the community.107 The law
of varna rales out untouchability.
Gandhiji is undoubtedly concerned with untouchability as
it exists in India, but the principle is of wider application; for
we find similar barriers erected everywhere in the world. The
ill-treatment of Negroes, coloured races, primitive tribes, etc.
is the symptom of the same disease, the denial of equality of all
men irrespective of colour, creed, race or calling.
Gandhiji believes not only in the equality of men but also
in the equality of the principal religions of the world. Equality
of religions follows from the fact that truth as known to man
is always relative and never absolute.
Even as soul is manifested in many bodies, so there is one
true and perfect religion, but it becomes many as it passes
through the human medium. He wrote in 1934, I believe in the
fundamental truth of all great religions of the world. . .they
were at the bottom all one and were all helpful to one. an¬
other.”108 According to him each one of the religions embodies a

105 if., Sept. 28, 1934, pp. 260-61.

106 X. /., Ill, pp. 426-27.
107 H., Sept. 28, 1934, pp. 260-64.
108 H., Feb. 16, 1934, p. 6.
 100 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

common motivating force: the desire to uplift man’s life and

give it purpose. Men being imperfect, all religions are also im¬
perfect revelations of truth and liable to error. Thus there is
no religion that is absolutely perfect. All are equally imperfect
or more or less perfect.109 The imperfections of religions are
expressed in beliefs and practices rooted in tradition but un-
supportable by reason. The question of the comparative merit
of religions does not arise. A satyagrahi should, therefore,
honour and study all religions. This reverential study will help
him to grasp the basic unity of all religions and to cultivate
“equimindedness” towards them. He should be alive to defects
of his faith. But as all religions are defective he must not leave
his own. On the other hand, he should try to remove its defects,
adopting into it acceptable features of other faiths.110 Ac¬
ceptance of equality of religions necessarily prevents prosely¬
tizing.111 The satyagrahi should not have even a secret wish in
his mind that other people should be converted to his faith.
Equal respect for religions, however, does not mean toleration
of irreligion or being blind to the faults of other faiths.112
Humility is also essential for a satyagrahi or a seeker after
truth. “The existence of the body is possible only by reason of
the ego. The complete annihilation of the body is salvation (or
self-realization). He who has completely destroyed the cego’
becomes an embodiment of Truth.”113 It is, however, not an
observance by itself, for it cannot be directly cultivated. “To
cultivate humility is tantamount to cultivating hypocrisy.”114
If we are devoted to truth and fill our life with service, humility
will come of itself.
Humility is a sense of moral and spiritual proportion where¬
by all men are related to the infinite and eternal God and thus

109 if., March 6, 1937, pp. 25-26.

110 He does not object to any one electing his own faith, but he is
opposed to any organized attempt to impose one’s religion on others. All
the same he is against putting any legal hindrance in the way of anybody
preaching for the acceptance of his religion, if., Jan. 13, 1940, p. 413.
111 Mira, Gleanings, p. 4.
112 Teraoda Mandir, Ch. X; if., Sept. 28, 1935, pp. 260-61; Barr, p. 75.
113 if., Nov. 27, 1949, p. 340.
114 Teraoda Mandir, p. 67.
 DISCIPLINE OF THE SATYAGRAHI 101
assume their true place and relative position.115 It is the
consciousness of spiritual unity and equality of all men, indeed
of all life.116 It rules out lust of power and position and makes
the possessor realize that he is as nothing. Gandhiji writes, “I
must reduce myself to zero. So long as one does not of his own
free will put himself last among his fellow creatures there is
no salvation for him.”117 A humble person is not himself con¬
scious of his humility. Humility steers clear of the complex of
superiority as well as of inferiority, for both of these are signs of
separateness and not unity. Nor does true humility mean inertia.
“True humility means most strenuous and constant endeavour
entirely directed to the service of humanity.”118
Humility is indispensable for a satyagrahi because to be
lacking in humility is to separate oneself from the Universal
Soul and to court weakness. Obviously such a person cannot
properly practise the non-violent values. He is not non-violent,
for he does not have equal regard for all. His egotism is a denial
of the truth that all creatures are mere atoms in this universe.
It is too much to expect of a person who is not humble to admit
his mistakes. Nor can complete dependence on God, so essen¬
tial for a satyagrahi, be possible for a person who feels that he
is something.
Unobtrusive humility is an asset of inestimable value to
the satyagrahi leader during the course of non-violent resis¬
tance. He does not indulge in brag, bluff and bluster, but lets his
work speak for itself and relies for strength on the correctness
of his position. This wins supporters, converts the wavering
and disarms the opponent. Humility is, in such a campaign, a
key to sure success.
This is the ethical discipline that a satyagrahi must under¬
go. The discipline involves the control and sublimation of divisive
appetites and emotions, particularly those of sex, acquisitive¬
ness, pugnacity, fear and hatred. The discipline is, in the words

115 An article on “The Personality of Mahatma Gandhi” by R. B. Gregg

in the Indian Review, Feb. 1934, p. 84.
116 R. B. Gregg calls humility “a sort of spiritual equalitarianism”. (The
Power of Non-violence, p. 258).
117 Autobiography, II, p. 593.
118 Teravda Mandir, p. 69.
 102 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

of Mr. Andrews, “a singular blending of different inward acts

of conscience which issue in outward acts of observance.”11®
Gandhiji insists on mind, body and speech being in proper co¬
ordination, for “the mere outward observance will be simply a
mask harmful both to the man himself and others.”12® The
various observances being derived from truth are inter-related,
and we cannot disregard any of them without hurting the rest.
“. . .all the disciplines are of equal importance. If one is broken
all are. . . .It is essential that all the disciplines should be taken
as one.”121 Thus they are an essential part of satyagraha itself.
Though every one has within him the divine spark and the
potentiality to acquire this discipline, Gandhiji considers such
discipline essential for the leaders only who seek to evolve
truth by their own effort. But, “Mere discipline cannot makp
for leadership. The latter calls for faith and vision.”122
Discipline, of course, is expected even of a common volun¬
teer, but not the high level of moral excellence required of the
leader.123 In his earlier non-violent movements Gandhiji’s
emphasis, so far as the satyagrahi followers were concerned,
was on external acts of observance and not so much on motive.
Thus he wrote in 1921, "I confess that the motive of all non-co¬
operators is not love but a meaningless hatred. . . .1 call it
meaningless for the hatred of non-co-operators has no meaning
in the plan of non-co-operation. A man does not sacrifice him¬
self out of hatred. . .what does it matter with what motive a
man does the right thing ?”12< Even later on he continued to lay
great stress on external observances specially spinning which
he considered the test of non-violent discipline and the symbol
of identification with the poorest. But he insisted that in regard
to non-violence mere physical observance was not enough and
that even the masses must not harbour ill-will or anger against
the opponent.125 It does not matter if the belief of the masses in
119 C. F. Andrews, Mahatma Gandhi's Ideas, p. 111.
120 r. I., Oct 1, 1931, p. 287.
121H., June 8, 1947, p. 180.
mH., July 28, 1940, p. 227.
123 r. L, I, pp. 34-36.
mIbid., pp. 253-54.

125 SCC’ f°r “““Pk’ 1118 artfck entitled “Causes” in Harijan, Oct. 28
 PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS 103
non-violence is unintelligent. Their faith in the leaders must
be genuine. The belief of the leaders in non-violence must be
intelligent and they must try to live up to all the implications
of the belief.126
But is this discipline practicable? Does not Gandhiji expect
too much of human nature ? Besides, is it the correct ideal ? Will
it really lead to the greatest good of all? And even if the ideal
is sound, how to apply abstract principles to concrete situations
of life? We propose to deal with these questions in the next two
chapters.

chapter v
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
PRACTICABILITY OF ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
All political theories have a psychological basis, and the
validity of Gandhiji’s political philosophy depends partly on his
insight into the real nature of man.
His critics often point out that his philosophy expects the
impossible from human nature. Instead of taking a realistic
view, they say, he glorifies human nature and takes a very opti¬
mistic and roseate view of man and of his ability to achieve the
good.1
On the other hand, Gandhiji’s claim is that he is not a
visionary but a practical idealist and that he is “a fairly accu¬
rate student of human nature”, having studied it in all its
shades and casts.2 His long experience as a satyagrahi leader,
his intensive tours of India, his contact with large masses of
men, the intimate correspondence that he kept on for more than
half a century with a large number of men and women in India
and outside—all these gave him a profound grasp of psychology.
Gandhiji’s views about human nature are bound up in¬
dissolubly with his metaphysical and moral principles. He takes
into account not only man’s physical behaviour but also his real

126 H,, Nov. 4, 1939, p. 332.

1 S. Radhakrishnan (ed.), Mahatma Gandhi, p. 191; M. Ruthnaswamy,
The Political Philosophy of Mr, Gandhi, p. 16.
2 Y, I, p. 635; H,, Feb. 2, 1934, p. 16; Autobiography, II, p. 77.
104 PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS

nature, his true self, the spiritual element in him. He is not only-
concerned with human nature as it is, he also tells us how man
can train and mould his nature so as to become what he is
capable of becoming.
Gandhiji does not believe that man is all good, an angel, at
the beginning of his life. “Every one of us is a mixture of good
and evil. Is there not plenty of evil in us ? There is enough of it
in me. . .and I always pray to God to purge me of it. The diffe¬
rence that there is between human beings is the difference of
degree.”3
He admits man’s animal ancestry. “We were, perhaps, all
originally brutes. I am prepared to believe that we have become
men by a slow process of evolution from the brute.”4 Again,
"Man must choose either of the two courses, the upward or the
downward, but as he has the brute in him, he will more easily
choose the downward course than the upward, especially when
the downward course is presented to him in a beautiful garb
. . .the downward instinct is embodied in them (men). . .”5
Even the tallest trees do not touch heaven, and Gandhiji
believes that even the greatest of men, so long as they are .within
the frame of the flesh, have their imperfections. “There is no
one without faults, not even men of God. They are men of God
not because they are faultless but because they know their own
faults., .and are ever ready to correct themselves.”6 As for him¬
self he had been loud and frequent in admitting the weaknesses
which sometimes assailed him in subtle form. In his charac¬
teristic, humble strain he writes, “I wear the same corruptible
flesh that the weakest of my fellow beings wears and am,
therefore, as liable to err as any.”7
Social psychology has made us familiar with the idea that
as a member of a group man sometimes behaves worse than
when alone. With a sense of security and power which the
numerical strength of his companions may give him, he loses
his sense of responsibility, yields to the emotional appeal of the
group and participates in activities which he would normally

3 if., June 10, 1939, pp. 158-59.

4 if., April 2, 1938, p. 65.
3 if., Feb. 1, 1935, p. 410.
6 if., Jan. 28, 1939, p. 446.
7 T. I., I, p. 996.
 PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS 105
avoid. Gandhiji also places greater reliance on individuals than
on groups.8 The individual can be more amenable to reason
and more alive to moral considerations than the group. Thus
a satyagrahi group may not be as non-violent and truthful as
individual satyagrahis, because the emphasis in group action
tends to shift from inner purity to external conformity, and this
tells on the potency of soul-force. That is one of the reasons
why in 1933 when Gandhiji suspended mass civil disobedience
he still permitted individual civil disobedience. In the satya-
graha movement of 1940-41 also he avoided mass civil disobe¬
dience and confined himself to individual civil disobedience on
a large scale. Gandhiji does not distrust groups. “My faith in
the people is boundless. Theirs is an amazingly responsive
nature. Let not the leaders distrust. . .the people’s ability to
control themselves.” . .nothing is so easy as to train mobs
for the simple reason that they have no mind, no premedita¬
tion.”9 Given sincere, intelligent workers, masses could be
trained to practise mass satyagraha. But he lays great stress
on the need of faith in non-violence, adequate discipline and
efficient leadership.
Though he is duly conscious of the weakness of man as an
individual and as a member of a group, he does not look upon
man as a mere brute, naturally depraved. Sins and errors and
abuse of freedom are not man’s true self. Man is above all the
soul, and so Gandhiji has unshakable faith in human nature.
Even the most brutal of men cannot disown the spiritual ele¬
ment in them, that is, their potentiality for goodness. What
distinguishes man from the brute creation is the self-conscious
impulse to realize the divinity inherent in him. To quote
Gandhiji, “We were bom with brute strength, but we were
born in order to realize God who dwells in us. That indeed is
the privilege of man and it distinguishes him from the brute
creation.”10 “Man as animal is violent, but as spirit (he) is
non-violent. The moment he awakens to the spirit within he
cannot remain violent.”11

8 r. I, p. 635.
9 Ibid., p. 320.
10 H., April 2, 1938, p. 65.
11 H., Aug. 11, 1940, p. 245.
 106 PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS

We have discussed in the second chapter Gandhiji’s views

on the nature of the soul and its limitless potentialities for
progress. These views lead to some of his important conclusions
about human nature. Thus he believes in the godliness, the
inherent goodness of human nature. Godliness implies that it
is more natural for man to be good than to be evil, though
apparently descent may seem easier than ascent.12 It is his firm
faith that man is by nature going higher.13 That in mankind
moral qualities and social virtues, love, co-operation and the
like, preponderate over violence, selfishness, etc. is proved by
the fact that life exists amidst destruction. “I believe that the
sum total of the energy of mankind is not to bring us down but
to lift us up, and that is the result of the definite, if unconscious,
working of the law of love.”14 . .the humans are working
consciously or unconsciously towards the realization of that
(spiritual) identity.”15 In an article written in 1940 he pointed
out that the changes in the social life of man from cannibalism
to civilized stable life of agriculture are signs of progressive
ahimsa and diminishing himsa. Mankind has not only steadily
progressed towards ahimsa but it has also to progress towards it
still further. “Nothing in this world is static, everything is kinetic.
If there is no progression, then there is inevitable retrogression.”16
Gandhiji also believes that human nature is in its essence
one and that every man has the capacity for the highest possible
development. To quote him, “The soul is one in all. Its possi¬
bilities are therefore the same for every one.”17 “The ideals that
regulate my life are presented for acceptance by mankind in
general. I have arrived at them by gradual evolution. . . .1 have
not the shadow of a doubt that any man or woman can achieve
what I have, if he or she would make the same effort and culti¬
vate the same hope and faith.”18 “And I claim that what I prac¬
tise is capable of being practised by all, because I am a very

12if., March 25, 1939, p. 64; May 16, 1936, p. 109; and Sept. 7, 1935,
p. 234.
13 H., May 18, 1940, p. 254.
14 T. I., Nov. 12, 1931, p. 355.
15 Gandhiji’s Correspondence with Government, p. 82.
16 H., Aug. 11, 1940, p. 245.
 PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS 107
ordinary mortal open to the same temptations and liable to the
same weaknesses as the least among us.5’19 Again, “I have been
taught from my childhood, and I have tested the truth by
experience, that primary virtues of mankind are possible of
cultivation by the meanest of human species. It is this undoubted
universal possibility that distinguishes the human from the rest
of God’s creation.55-0 Gandhiji’s belief is supported by the
opinion of modern psychologists that human nature is not rigidly
fixed and that human behaviour has undergone and is capable of
undergoing immense changes.
He considers in detail human nature as it should be, i.e.,
the cardinal virtues which a man should develop in order to
integrate his personality. This is the ethical discipline which
we have discussed in the third and the fourth chapters. The
discipline means the control of our lower nature, especially the
appetites of sex, acquisitiveness and pugnacity and emotions
of fear and hatred. Positively it consists in the pursuit of truth
through love of all, that is, service of all. Thus developing con¬
scious non-violence is the path to perfection.
But though Gandhiji’s ideal is not a psychological impossi¬
bility, is it practicable ? Is it not too exacting to demand of man
the conduct of the highest ethical standard? Will the ideal
appeal to the common run of humanity? Besides, can it be fully
realized ?
His ideal is no mere logical abstraction or academic theory.
He is a man of action who never thinks of theories except in
terms of practice. He never teaches anything that he has himself
not practised. He emphatically denies the charge that he is a
mere visionary. He insists that his ideal is not for the chosen
few but for the whole humanity to be practised in every aspect
of daily life.
He does not expect the complete realization of the ideal.
He believes in the perfectibility, not the perfection, of human
nature. Man, so long as he is in the flesh, can, at the most,
approach the ideal, he can never fully realize it. “Let us be
sure of our ideal. We shall ever fail to realize it, but should
never cease to strive for it/521 . between the ideal and practice
19 r. Ill, p. 517.
20 H.y May 16, 1936, p. 109.
21 Speeches, p. 301.
 108 PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS

there must always be an unbridgeable gulf. The ideal wil]

cease to be one if it becomes possible to realize it.”22
To him an ideal state is a perfect state, and “being neces¬
sarily limited by the bonds of the flesh, we can attain perfection
only after the dissolution of the body.”23 Besides, “where would
be room for that constant striving, that ceaseless quest after the
ideal that is the basis of all spiritual progress, if mortals could
reach the perfect state while still in the body?”24 This is why
Gandhiji emphasizes the means rather than the end, effort rather
than its fulfilment. He believes in ceaseless striving.
Gandhiji also realizes how strenuous is the mental struggle,
how intense the suffering involved in controlling and changing
one’s nature, in erasing the almost indelible impressions with
which one is bom. He says “. . .it is not easy for all, at least
for me, to efface the old samskaras.”25 He knows it is an uphill
task, a difficult process to conquer evil in one’s own life and to
become truthful and non-violent. “It takes a fairly strenuous
course of training to attain to a mental state of non-violence.”26
Thus in a conversation with Dr. Thurman in 1936 Gandhiji
remarked, “The expression (of non-violence) in one’s own
life presupposes great study, tremendous perseverance, and
thorough cleansing of one’s self of all the impurities. If for mas¬
tering the physical sciences you have to devote a whole lifetime,
how many lifetimes may be needed for mastering the greatest
spiritual force that mankind has known? But why worry even
if.it means several lifetimes? For if this is the only permanent
thing in life, if this is the only thing that counts, then whatever
effort you bestow on mastering it is well spent.”27
The task has been rendered specially difficult by the moral
confusion created by modem civilization and its emphasis on
wrong values, on physical pleasures, acquisitiveness, competi¬
tion, and other self-regarding propensities.
Hc “ dulY conscious that his ethical discipline is a difficult
ideal and that the lure of material advancement and the
22 H., Oct. 14, 1939, p. 303.
23 H., April 17, 1937, p. 87.
24 r. /., HI, p. 940.
ZiUt°rbi°£ap^’ IT’ P’ 80’’ T- L> n, P- 1204.
£ T- L> Oct. 1, 1931, p. 287.
7 H., March 14, 1936, p. 39.
 PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS 109
tantalizing pleasures of the senses will, in the case of many, make
it difficult to undergo the discipline. So he does not expect
everybody to act on the ideal all at once. All the same he is
not a pessimist. He asks us not to take fright or give up the
effort in despair or degrade and cheapen the ideal and thus
practise untruth and lower ourselves.28
He does not ask too much of us. He knows nature changes
slowly by a gradual process through effort and pain. He only
asks us to keep the right ideal before us, to have hope and
faith, to understand our limitations and accordingly to try as
best we can without forcing the pace to approach the ideal.29
This, he believes, is the way of highest attainment. "In every
case,55 he once wrote to Mirabehn, "never go beyond your capa¬
city. That is a breach of truth.5530 Thus though he wants the
satyagrahi to be practical and prompt and not to leave things
to eternity, he is not impatient.31 He allows ample time for slow
steady growth. "If it takes time, then it is but a speck in the
complete time cycle.5532 Besides, moral progress made in this
life will be available to us in the future according to the doctrine
of rebirth. ". . .1 believe in rebirth as much as I believe in the
existence of my present body. I therefore know that even a
litde effort is not wasted.5’33 He also counts upon the infectious
effect, on the masses, of the example set by the leaders. To
quote from Hind Swaraj, "What a few may do, others will
copy, and the movement will grow like the coconut of the
mathematical problem. What the leaders do, the populace will
gladly follow.5’34 His emphasis is thus on the satyagrahi making
an earnest endeavour in the right direction.
The ideal of truth and love may scare away people today,
but what really matters in the long run is the soundness of the
ideal rather than the apparent impossibility of its being prac¬
tised by people in general. Were not people similarly sceptical
28 Teravda Mandir, p. 27.
29 “My mind goes in advance of my actions. I do not force myself and
therefore do not become a hypocrite.” Gandhiji quoted in Mira, Gleanings,
p. 14.
30 Bapu's Letters to Mira, p. 75.
31 Barr, pp. 170-71.
32 if., June 15, 1935, p. 138.
33 r. II, p. 1204.
34 Hind Swaraj, p. 86.
 PSYCHOLOGICAL. ASSUMPTIONS

t the giving up of slavery, cannibalism and many other

dees which seem so loathsome today? “Modem science is
te with illustrations of the seemingly impossible having
me possible within living memory. But the victories of
ical sciences would be nothing against the victory of the
Lee of Life, which is summed up in love which is the law
lt being/’35
It is hardly necessary to add that Gandhiji is conscious of
norbid and harmful effects of the forced repression of our
*e. He distinguishes between genuine self-control which
it brace one up93 and super-imposed or mechanical self-
*ol wThich “unnerves or saddens one” and approves of the
er only.36 In the last chapter we have quoted passages from
writings to show that he discourages repression. His ethical
Dline is essentially a process of redirection and consists not
of inward acts of conscience but also of corresponding out-
acts of observance. The vows of the control of palate,
i-labour, non-possession, etc. show the great importance
ihiji attaches to action as indispensable to redirection. He
ves that “success is there for the individual as soon as he
icted on the principles he holds.”37 As useful aids to subli-
m Gandhiji also recommends silence, prayer and fasting.38
To sum up, instead of confining himself to physical beha-
a mere fringe of man’s nature, Gandhiji takes into account
s real self, his essentially spiritual character. He tells us
man should mould his physical nature so that he may
ire mastery over it and realize the best in him. This requires
man should live not merely by habit but by self-direction,
by effort of will. It is Gandhiji’s firm conviction—a convic-
bom of faith in God—that human nature is not fixed and
iitable and that every man has limitless possibilities for
life. The whole conception of satyagraha rests on the
lological assumption that the innate goodness of the most
d opponent can be aroused by the pure suffering of a

,5 /f„, Sept. 26, 1936.

J6 Bapu’s Letters to Mira, p. 170.
*7 Quoted by P. Spratt in an article on Gandhiji in the Indian Review
uly 1938, p. 449.
For a brief discussion of these see pp. 123-25, infra.
 PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS 111
truthful man. Thus pursuit of truth, i.e., development of con¬
scious non-violence, is neither impossible, nor even impracti¬
cable, though it is a difficult ideal requiring constant effort and
ceaseless vigilance.
But though his ideal is not psychologically impossible nor
even impracticable, it has been criticized by Tagore and many
others as puritanical, ascetic, negative, incomplete and unsound.
Thus Gandhiji has been reproached for making life dull and
boring by his inordinate emphasis on tapasya and vairagya. It
has been said that he prescribes asceticism for its own sake and
leaves no room for art and colour and thus deprives life of a
good deal of its joy and significance. His ideal, it has been
pointed out, means “refusing experience and shrinking from
life”. The poet Yone Noguchi calls Gandhiji “A pilgrim along
the endless road of hunger and sorrow”. One of his critics, who
calls him “the high-priest of renunciation”, remarks, “Gandhi
belongs to the type of sannyasi who repress the flesh, consciously
reject sill the colour and warmth of life, denounce every thing
which is not necessary for bare livelihood, hasten the dissolu¬
tion of the body, so that the spirit imprisoned in it may the
more quickly be united with the divine.”39
Undoubtedly Gandhiji believes that the human body with
its lust for power and pleasure is a hindrance to the highest
flights of the soul.40 He believes that suffering and renunciation,
“the incessant crucifixion of the flesh”, are not incidental to life
but its central facts, indispensable for moral and spiritual
growth. Even during his student days in London renunciation
appealed to him greatly as the highest form of duty.41 In his
“Confession of Faith” he writes, “Increase of material comforts,
it may be generally laid down, does not in any way whatsoever
conduce to moral growth.”42 “High thinking,” he wrote in 1946,
“is inconsistent with complicated material life based on high
speed imposed on us by Mammon-worship.”43 It is his firm
39 R. FuUop-Miller, Gandhi, the Holy Man, p. 157; S. Radhakrishnan
(ed.), Mahatma Gandhi, pp. 191, 202, 250; Spratt’s article on Gandhiji in
Indian Review for July 1938, p. 451; A. R. Wadia’s article on “Mahatma
Gandhi and Machines” in Modem Review for July 1931, p. 88.
40 T. I., II, p. 1935.
41 Autobiography, I, p. 168.
42 Speeches, p. 770.
43 H., Sept. 1, 1946, p. 285.
2 PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS

rviction that “the strength of the soul grows in proportion

you subdue the flesh.”44 “It is not possible to see God face to
e unless you crucify the flesh. It is one thing to do what
ongs to it as a temple of God, and it is another to deny it what
ongs to it as to the body of flesh.”45 “The human body is
ant solely for service, never for indulgence. The secret of a
opy life lies in renunciation. Renunciation is life. . . .Indul-
ice spells death.”46 He holds that “After a certain stage the
h diminishes in proportion to the growth of the soul.”47
us according to him, “Civilization, in the real sense of the
ai, consists not in the multiplication, but in the deliberate
1 voluntary restriction, of wants. This alone promotes real
>piness and contentment, and increases the capacity for
/ice.”48 “Progress is to be measured by the amount of
fering undergone by the sufferer. The purer the suffering, the
ater is the progress.”49
But why does Gandhiji consider suffering essential for spiri-
1 growth ? Spiritual freedom means capacity to love all, that
to suffer for all. To rise to the highest reaches of the ideal of
bring love we must share the lot of the poorest and the
•liest. To that end we must limit our wants and discipline the
h to serve the spirit. Says Gandhiji, “There is no limit what-
/er to the measure of the sacrifice that one may make in
er to realize this oneness with all life, but certainly the
nensity of the ideal sets a limit to your wants... .”50 Indulgence
l multiplication of wants are ruled out “as these hamper
’s growth to the ultimate identity with the universal self.”50
iplification of life on the part of the satyagrahi is essential if
is to bring about economic equality through non-violence.51
There may be no limit to the suffering and sacrifice which
life of non-violence may involve. But mortification as a
ms to subdue the flesh has its own limits. Mortification is not
end itself and has no inherent merit as such. So when the
44 Y. L, II, p. 107.
45 H., Dec. 10, 1938, p. 373.
46 H., Feb. 29, 1946, p. 19.
47 T. I., II, p. 1203.
48 Terasda Mandir, p. 36.
49 r. I., I, p. 231.
50 H., Dec. 26, 1936, p. 365.
51H., March 31, 1946, p. 64.
 PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS 113
flesh comes under subjection and can be used as an instrument
of service, mortification becomes unnecessary and even harmful
in so far as it prevents one from making the full use of one’s body
for service.52 “Suffering has its well-defined limits. Suffering can
be both wise and unwise, and when the limit is reached, to
prolong it would be not unwise, but the height of folly.”53
By renunciation, however, he does not mean that other¬
worldliness which stands for ignoring the demands of our pre¬
sent life and retiring into the forest. “To do no work is no renun¬
ciation. It is inertia.”54 He wants us to develop the spirit of
renunciation which transmutes work into worship so that we
may be able to love and serve. He wants us to live a dedicated
life, to do everything in a sacrificial spirit, using all our abilities
for service.55 Thus he reconciles renunciation and self-develop¬
ment with obligations of social and political life. It is hardly
necessary to repeat that his ethical ideal implies a rational
asceticism and not unnecessary, unhealthy repression. Thus he
prescribes asceticism not for its own sake but as an indispen¬
sable means to realize the highest ideal known to man—the
ideal of love that is service.
Nor do suffering and renunciation, when undertaken in the
right spirit, frustrate our life and make it dark, dreary and joy¬
less. Gandhiji lived up to what he preached. Was he not one of
the happiest and most enlightened of men with an infinite capa¬
city for bringing humour into the grimmest situation?
“Suffering cheerfully endured,” he wrote in 1921, “ceases
to be suffering and is transmuted into an ineffable joy.”56 Joy,
Gandhiji points out, has no independent existence; it depends
on our attitude to life; it is a matter of national and individual
education.57 In the midst of the moral confusion created by
modem civilization he asks us not to forget the distinction made
by the seers of ancient India between preyas and shreyas,58 bet¬
ween a life of pleasures and the real happiness of life. The

52 H., Nov. 2, 1935, p. 299.

53 r. March 12, 1931, p. 30.
54 H., April 20, 1935, p. 75.
55 Teravda Mandir, pp. 82-85.
55 T. I, p. 900.
57 Teravda Mandir, p. 85.
58 For this distinction see Kathopanishad, II.

P. G.-8
114 PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS

source of real happiness is humility and self-sacrifice rather

than self-assertion; regulation and restriction of wants rather
than their indefinite multiplication. Real happiness is the fruit
of a balanced, purposeful, disciplined life, of sharing the
sorrows and bearing the burdens of others. From a distance the
discipline may look difficult and scaring, but when one actually
undergoes it and sheds all thought of self, one finds that, far
from being oppressive and cheerless, the discipline is liberating
and the burden light.
Nor does his ethical ideal exclude art, though he differs
from the commonly accepted views on aesthetic appreciation.39
Though he could do entirely without external forms in his own
life, he was alive to the value of productions of art. But accord¬
ing to him, human art is rather petty and inadequate as com¬
pared with the eternal symbols of beauty in nature, the
panoramic scenes of the starry heavens, the wonders of the sun¬
set, the beauty of the crescent moon—the beauties that remind
us of the greatest Truth, the Creator. He discerns beauty in the
practice of tree-worship as symbolizing “true reverence for the
entire vegetable kingdom, which with its endless panorama of
beautiful shapes and forms, declares to us as it were with a
million tongues the greatness and glory of God.” So far as works
of human art are concerned, Gandhiji values them by their
moral content and their utility as an aid to self-realization
rather than by the beauty of their outward form. Whatever em¬
bodies truth, whatever expresses or assists the upward urge, the
divine unrest of the soul, is true art. Thus he values music not
for the so-called artistic appreciation but as an aid to prayer and
moral development. To him “The outward forms have value
only in so far as they are the expression of the inward spirit of
man.” Truly beautiful creations are the expressions of right
perception, so Beauty should be seen in Truth or through Truth.
“Whenever men begin to see Beauty in Truth, true art will
arise.” If art is pursued for its own sake and not as an aid to
self-realization it may become an impediment and lead men
astray. Besides, Beauty should give pleasure apart from any
59 For Gandhiji’s views on art the references are: T. /., II, pp. 1025-36;
R. Fullop-MiUer, Gandhi, The Holy Man, pp. 60-64; Terasda Mandir, p. 85;
H., Feb. 19, 1938, p. 10; April 7, 1946, p. 66; Diary, I, pp. 16 and 215-16;
M. K. Gandhi, Hindu Dharma, pp. 78-79.
 PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS 115
idea of possession. He believes that man’s moral purity
expressing itself through right action is a higher expression of
art than the external forms like pictures, songs, etc. “A life of
sacrifice is the pinnacle of art.” True Beauty and art are not
independent of the purity of private life. “Purity of life is the
highest and truest art. The art of producing good music from a
cultivated voice can be achieved by many, but the art of produ¬
cing that music from the harmony of a pure life is achieved
very rarely.”
Gandhiji concedes that artists may be able to see Truth in
and through Beauty. But he thinks in terms of the millions. The
millions cannot be trained to acquire a perception of Beauty so
as to see Truth in it. They should be shown Truth first and they
will see Beauty afterwards. To him beautiful is that which can
serve the starving millions. Thus he lays stress on the aesthetic
value of khadi and other products of the non-exploitative
rural industries. In 1946 he said to Agatha Harrison, “We
have been taught to believe that what is beautiful need not
be useful and what is useful cannot be beautiful. I want to
show that what is useful can also be beautiful.”
It has also been pointed out that “Gandhiji lays all stress on
character and attaches little importance to intellectual training
and development,”60 and that character without intelligence is
not worth much. Gandhiji no doubt believes that intellect with¬
out character is dangerous. The tremendous development of the
art of destruction shows how man can misuse his intelligence
to his own undoing. Similarly he has little respect for the
modem ways of training the intellect, and considers right think¬
ing rather than intellectual training to be the core of non-vio¬
lence. He defines right thinking as the right conception of
fundamentals.61 He lays due stress on the importance of the
intellect in the pursuit of non-violence and holds that belief in
non-violence, specially in the case of leaders, should be intelli¬
gent and creative. “If intellect plays a large part in the field of
violence, I hold that it plays a larger part in the field of non¬
violence.”62 Again, “. . .true practice of akimsa means also, in

60 Jawaharlal Nehru, Jfawaharlal Nehtu, p. 509.

61 Mira, Gleanings, p. 24.
62 H., July 21, 1940, p. 210.
 116 PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS

one who practises it, the keenest intelligence and wideawake

conscience.”63 “In every branch of reform constant study
giving one a mastery over one’s subject is necessary. Ignorance
is at the root of failures, partial or complete, of all reform move¬
ments whose merits are admitted.”64 He, however, believes that
the conscious cultivation of non-violence will bring about the
intellectual development of the satyagrahi. “Truth and non-vio¬
lence are not for the dense. Pursuit of them is bound to result
in an all-round growth of the body, mind and heart. If this does
not follow. . .we are untrue.”65 Referring to harijan service he
wrote in 1936, “. . .possession of a pure character combined with
love of such service will assuredly develop or provide the requi¬
site intellectual and administrative capacity.”66
This rigorous discipline involving suffering and sacrifice is
an essential qualification for the satyagrahi leader. It brings
about the refinement of his moral sensibilities. Besides, satya-
graha always involves a good deal of suffering in the form of
imprisonment, physical hardship, beating, torture and even
death. This requires that satyagrahis should so train them¬
selves that their bodies might be proof against any injury that
might be inflicted on them by tyrants seeking to impose their
will on them. The satyagrahi leader cannot expect to inculcate
in his followers the ideals of service and sacrifice unless he
makes his own life an object-lesson.
The ideal of both Gandhiji and socialists is the non-violent
democracy. The essential prerequisite of such a society is the
refinement of the average man’s nature so that he can respond
adequately, without any coercion, to the demands of social
service. But for this uplift of the common man we need, above
all, the living witness of leaders and guides who are, as it were,
the incarnations of the ideals of love and self-sacrifice. Those
who live a life of indulgence and, instead of taking upon them¬
selves the suffering of others, use violence, i.e., impose
suffering upon others, cannot leaven society to the non-violent
stage.

63 H., Sept. 8, 1940, p. 274.

64 H., April 24, 1937, p. 84.
65 H., May 8, 1937, p. 98.
66 a, Nov. 7, 1936, p. 308.
 THE DECISION OF THE SATYAGRAHI LEADER 117
Gandhiji’s system of non-violent values does not, as is some¬
times wrongly believed, make life primitive. In his own words,
cc. . .it is not an attempt to go back to the ignorant, dark ages.
But it is an attempt to see beauty in voluntary simplicity,
poverty and slowness.”67 Complex, centralized political and eco¬
nomic life, which multiplies chances of exploitation, sacrifices
non-violent values. The non-violent life, i.e., the life of service, he
holds, must of necessity be simple, self-supporting and close to
the soil. This implies a rural culture of decentralized satyagrahi
communities and a new conscious life3 simple and free and rich
in opportunities.
The one way to advance towards such a society is the culti¬
vation of non-violence by the masses under the guidance of
satyagrahi leaders.

CHAPTER VI
THE DECISION OF THE SATYAGRAHI LEADER
The satyagrahi leader seeks truth through non-violent
methods. To him the cardinal ethical maxim is that what con¬
flicts with truth and ahimsa should be eschewed. Difficulties
arise when he proceeds to apply this maxim to concrete situa¬
tions of life and to determine what in a given case is in conflict
with truth and ahimsa. There is sometimes an inner conflict
between one duty and another. How should the satyagrahi faced
with the inner turmoil determine the path of duty? What should
serve as his ultimate moral guide? Should he be guided by
public opinion, or should he depend on himself? In the latter
case should he be guided by reason or by faith and conscience ?
Gandhiji’s life and the obiter dicta scattered through his
writings give us his views on the problem. He attaches due
importance to public opinion in a democracy. He believes that
the satyagrahi should yield to public opinion in matters which
do not involve departure from his personal religion or moral
code.1 But for ultimate moral guidance in matters of basic
importance, the ethically disciplined satyagrahi must depend

67 H., Oct. 14, 1939, p. 307.

1 T. I, pp. 207-08.
118 THE DECISION OF THE SATYAGRAHI LEADER

for true guidance on counsel from within. He must be a law

unto Tiimsplf His soul is the seat of moral authority. His con¬
science, the voice of God, is the final judge of the rightness of
every deed and thought.2
Usually reason plays a subordinate role in our decisions. In
the words of Gandhiji, “... .Ultimately one is guided not by the
intellect but by the heart. The heart accepts the conclusion for
which the intellect subsequently finds the reasoning. Argument
follows conviction. Man finds reason in support of whatever he
does or wants to do.”3 Gandhiji, however, attaches due impor¬
tance to reason. He holds that “On matters which can be
reasoned out that which conflicts with reason must be
rejected.”4 All the same he rejects the claim of reason to omni¬
potence. According to him there are spheres where reason
cannot take us far and there we have to depend on faith.
Spiritual Reality, as we have discussed in chapter II, can
be apprehended by faith and not by unaided reason. Similarly
for moral guidance the satyagrahi may depend upon reason so
far as it can take him. But the satyagrahi deals with soul-force,
and in regard to his profound judgments faith and conscience,
and not reason, must be his mainstay. Though reason cannot
usurp the place of faith and conscience it helps the satyagrahi
to scrutinize the soundness of the judgment and to communicate
it to others.
Gandhiji occasionally described how he made his important
decisions. His guidance came from God or conscience. But he
also reasoned out why the decision to which he was prompted
was correct. Thus:
“Rightly or wrongly, I know that I have no other resource
as a satyagrahi than the assistance of God in every conceivable
difficulty and I would like it to be believed that what may
appear to be inexplicable actions of mine are really due to inner
promptings.”5
“Whatever striking things I have done in my life I have
not done prompted by reason but prompted by instinct, I

2 Ethical Religion, p. 41.

3 Y. I., II, p. 934.
4 H., March 6, 1937, p. 26.
5 H., March 11, 1939, p. 46. See also South Africa, p. 5.
 THE DECISION OF THE SATYAGRAHI LEADER 119

would, say God.”6 In 1934 in a conversation with Mary Chesley

Gandhiji said that he believed his guidance came from God and
often, after seeing the way to go, he consciously reasoned out
why that was the best way. In answer to the question, “How do
you understand what is God’s guidance for you when it is a
question of choosing between two good things?” he replied, “I
use my intellect on the subject and if I don’t get any strong
feeling as to which of the two I should choose, I just leave the
matter, and before long I wake up one morning with the perfect
assurance that it should be A rather than B.”7
Similarly in 1941 he told Louis Fischer that though gui¬
dance in vital matters came from faith and instinct, he did not
follow it unless his reason backed it. He pointed out that even
in the case of fasts undertaken by him, before the fast began his
reason was able to back his instinct.8
All the famous decisions of Gandhiji, e.g., the Bardoli deci¬
sion in 1922, the one concerning salt satyagraha in 1930, the
decision to start the movement of 1940-41, were judgments
based on faith. Concerning the last decision he said, “It has not
come from my intellect. It has come from recesses of the heart
where dwelleth the Innermost. It is He who has given it.”9 In
1934 referring to his fasts he said, “I am not responsible for
these fasts. . . .These fasts are bearable only because they are
imposed upon me by a higher power and the capacity to bear
the pain also comes from that power.”
But imperfect man, even though morally disciplined, cannot
know truth in its fulness. He cannot, therefore, claim to have
infallible guidance.10 What he mistakes for inspiration may be
delusion, his intuition may be blind, his reason may miscarry.
His emotions, his hopes and desires may, once in a while, vitiate
his judgment. Why not, then, depend, even in regard to vital
matters, on public opinion, the collective wisdom of the com¬
munity?
Gandhiji gives us the reason why the satyagrahi who lives
for the moral regeneration of society must be guided by his own

6 H., May 14, 1938, p. 110.

7 Barr, pp. 114-15.
«H., August 4, 1946, p. 246.
9 H., Sept. 22, 1940, p. 289; Aug. 24, 1934, p. 223.
120 THE DECISION OF THE SATYAGRAHI LEADER

inner judgment rather than by external demands of public

opinion which may concern itself with conventional propriety:
“. . .man is a self-governing being and self-government neces¬
sarily includes as much power to commit errors as to set them
aright as often as they are made.”11 So “True morality consists
not in following the beaten path but in finding out the true
path for ourselves and in fearlessly following it.”12
Besides, “. . .often one learns to recognize wrong only
through unconscious error. On the other hand if a man fails
to follow the light within for fear of public opinion or any other
similar reason he would never be able to know right from wrong
and in the end lose all sense of distinction between the
two. . . .The pathway of ahimsa. . .one has often to tread all
alone.”13
Thus the satyagrahi leader must refuse to be led by the
masses in vital matters, otherwise he will drift like an anchor¬
less ship. Says Gandhiji, “I believe that mere protestation of
one’s opinion and surrender to mass opinion is not only not
enough, but in matters of vital importance, leaders must act
contrary to the mass opinion if it does not commend itself to
their reason.”14 “What must count with a public servant is the
approbation of his own conscience. He must be like a rudder¬
less vessel who, leaving the infallible solace of his own con¬
science, ever seeks to please and gain the approbation of the
public. Service must be its own and sole reward.”15
This, however, does not mean undemocratic leadership or
blind worship of authority. Gandhiji is conscious that unre¬
strained power corrupts. He writes, “I claim to be a democrat
both by instinct and training.”16 “I detest autocracy. Valuing
my freedom and independence, I equally cherish them for
others. I have no desire to carry a single soul with me, if I
cannot appeal to his or her reason.”17

11 T. /., Ill, p. 154.

12 Ethical Religion, p. 38.
13 T. /., Ill, p. 858.
14 r. /., I, p. 209.
15 r. /., April 6, 1931, p. 77.
16 H., May 27, 1939, p. 136.
17 r. /., I, p. 208.
 THE DECISION OF THE SATYAGRAHI LEADER 121
To him the moral autonomy of the individual also implies
the moral autonomy of the group. Gandhiji’s own life illustrates
the principle. His inner voice, the intuitive insight of one of
the noblest souls of all times, was his “mentor and monitor’5
from the early age of fifteen, revealing to him his path from
day to day. In his long career as a satyagrahi leader, though he
often yielded to public opinion in non-vital matters, in regard
to his cardinal principles he was always against a compromise.
At the same time he believed that groups have as much right
to experiment with truth and to err as the individual.18
Thus Gandhiji’s ideal rules out a weak, cringing, oppor¬
tunist leader who pawns his conscience to retain his leader¬
ship and follows instead of leading. In case of a conflict between
his basic principles and the opinion of his followers, the clear
duty of the satyagrahi leader is to be true to the dictates of his
conscience and to leave the group free to determine its own
path.
So far as loyalty of the followers is concerned, Gandhiji
is much in advance of the democratic practice as prevalent in
the West. He is against the leader being followed blindly out
of love and demands obedience based on deep conviction.19 That
is why in 1934, when he felt that the Congress intelligentsia,
though loyal and devoted to him, did not see eye to eye with
him on vital principles, he withdrew from the Congress so that
he might not act as a dead-weight upon the organization, pre¬
venting its natural growth and the free play of reason among
its members.20
Again, according to Gandhiji, the satyagrahi leader, even
though he has the backing of a clear majority, should not dis¬
regard any strongly felt opinion of a minority; for such disregard
based on mere numerical strength savours of violence.21

18 This is how Gilbert Murray describes the non-violent character of

Gandhiji’s leadership, cc. . .he utters no dogma, no command, only an
appeal, he calls to our spirits, he shows what he holds to be truth, but does
not exclude or condemn those who seek the light in some other way.” S.
Radhakrishnan (ed.), Mahatma Gandhi, pp. 197-98.
19 Speeches, p. 608.
20 gee his statement, dated Sept. 17, 1934, reproduced in History of the
Congress, pp. 922-32.
21 r. ii, p. 212. .
122 THE DECISION OF THE SATYAGRAHI LEADER

The principle of leadership in authoritarian States is a

striking contrast to Gandhiji’s ideal. The authoritarian principle
is, “arbitrary authority from the top down and unlimited obe¬
dience and responsibility from the bottom up.” The modem
militarist dictator is par excellence the propagandist leader.
Instead of seeking his mandate from the sober, rational judg¬
ment of his people, he depends on the coercion of dissentient
elements and a constant appeal to common fears and hatreds.
When a satyagrahi group engages in non-violent resistance
the leader has to be invested with dictatorial authority, the
internal democracy of the group has to be modified and a mem¬
ber’s right to private judgment comes under restrictions. The
members of a satyagrahi group may accept or reject the leader
and his plan of action as a whole. But the acceptance should
be without any mental reservation and the followers should
have the fullest faith in the judgment of the general. His word
is law and his followers should render implicit obedience to
his commands. Tennyson’s lines, “Theirs not to reason
why. . . .Theirs but to do and die”, apply to a satyagrahi army
also.
Both in satyagraha and military warfare the position of the
soldier in relation to the leader is very nearly the same: he
“may not remain a unit in his regiment and have the option
of doing or not doing things he is asked to do.”22 This is com¬
pulsion, no doubt, but it is not superimposed by the leader upon
the satyagrahi soldier against the latter’s will or with the object
of humiliating him and robbing him of his dignity as man. This
compulsion is self-restraint because the satyagrahi voluntarily
comes under discipline due to his own inner urge, and he is,
unlike the soldier in the army, free to leave the moment he likes.
In addition to the consideration that discipline is indispen¬
sable in group action, Gandhiji gives another reason why the
decisions of the leader of a satyagrahi fighting group should
not be under democratic control. With many satyagrahi soldiers
non-violence may be a matter of expediency and policy rather
than of faith. They have, therefore, a choice before them and
may be tempted to fall back upon violence.23 This is not so

22 r. ii, p. H9i.
23 r. I., Feb. 2, 1930.
 THE DECISION OF THE SATYAGRAHI LEADER 123
with the satyagrahi leader who is non-violent “not out of painful
necessity and weakness but out of choice and moral strength”.
The satyagrahi leader, however, should not unnecessarily
strain the loyalty of his followers. He should try to convince
them and to carry their heart and reason with him. But when
no conviction comes, the followers must fall back on faith.24
But to be guided aright by his conscience and to be able
to determine truth independently the satyagrahi leader must
acquire that purity which is, in Gandhiji’s words, “the ripe fruit
of strictest discipline”. For the satyagrahi to be a law unto
himself the invariable condition is that “he must then walk
in fear of God and therefore continuously keep on purifying his
heart.”25 In order to receive right guidance “one’s mind must
be attuned to the five necessary rules of love, truth, purity, non¬
possession and fearlessness.”26 Gandhiji also insists on self-
effacement or reducing oneself to zero as a pre-condition
of receiving God’s guidance.
We have already discussed in detail the purificatory disci¬
pline which Gandhiji prescribes. This discipline integrates the
life of the satyagrahi so that his ahimsa becomes dynamic and
compelling and his intuitions become sure. He is able to have
higher experiences and to apprehend the working of the
soul-force.
Gandhiji also recommends silence, prayer and fasting as
powerful factors in spiritual growth and as invaluable aids to
discerning truth. Silence is, according to him, a part of the
spiritual discipline of the satyagrahi. He felt as though he was
naturally built for silence. During the time of silence he could
best hold communion with God. It gave inward restfulness to
his soul. “In the attitude of silence the soul finds the path in
a clearer light.” Silence is also essential for the seeker to sur¬
mount a natural weakness of men, that is, proneness to exagge¬
rate, to suppress or modify truth consciously or unconsciously.27
Fasting and prayer help us to attain the supremacy of the
spirit over the flesh and clarify our vision. But they must not
be mere mechanical contrivances adopted for stage effect.

24 H., June 10, 1939, p. 158.

25 r. Ill, p. 154.
26 Baxr, p. 115.
27 H., Dec. 10, 1938, p. 373; Autobiography, p. 153.
124 THE DECISION OF THE SATYAGRAHI LEADER

. .prayer is the very soul and essence of religion, and there¬

fore prayer must be the very core of the life of man, for no man
can live without religion. . .without prayer there is no inward
peace.”28 Prayer is “a serious endeavour to remain. . .out of
the flesh.” Prayer is even more indispensable for the soul than
food for the body. “For one may have a surfeit of food but never
that of prayer.”29 “Prayer is not vain repetition, nor fasting
mere starvation of the body. Prayer has to come from the heart
which knows God by faith and fasting is abstinence from evil
or injurious thought, activity or food.”30 “A heart-felt prayer
. . .is a yearning from within which expresses itself in every
word, every act, nay every thought of man.”31 Fasting “puts
life into one’s prayer” and brings solace to the soul by putting
it “in tune with the Maker”.32 Indeed, fasting is “the sincerest
form of prayer”. “There is no prayer without fasting and fasting
which is not an integral part of prayer is a mere torture of the
flesh.” Such fasting is a penance and an intense spiritual effort.33
Thus Gandhiji describes his self-purification fast of 21 days
(beginning from 8th May, 1933) as “an uninterrupted twenty-one
days’ prayer”. Fasting to be an integral part of prayer “has to
be of the widest character possible”. Fasting of the body has to
be accompanied by fasting of all the senses. Gandhiji considers
meagre food, i.e., food just enough to sustain the body for
service, as a perpetual fast of the body.34
Gandhiji’s own life is a unique record of research in the
possibilities of prayer and fasting. He was an expert in fasting
which was a part of his being and which he had, to the best
of his light, reduced to a science.35 As for prayer, he calls it

28 T. /., Jan. 23, 1930, pp. 25-26.

^Nation’s Voice, p. 103.
30 H., April 10, 1937, p. 63. Gandhiji once told G. F. Andrews that
his fasts were a sort of outlet for him and whenever he felt he must burst
with indignation or sorrow at injustice or impurities, i.e., when he found
any sort of ill-will cropping up in himself, a fast took the feeling away
and transformed it into love. Barr, p. 77.
31 r. /., Ill, pp. 976-77.
32 His statement dated Oct. 23, 1944.
33 Mira, Gleanings, p. 9.
34 Bafiu’s Letters to Mira, pp. 241-42, 245 and 254.
33 His statement dated Sept. 21, 1932; History of the Congress, p. 923;
T. L, II, p. 123; Bapu’s Letters to Mira, p. 228.
 THE DECISION OF THE SATYAGRAHI LEADER 125
his greatest weapon.36 He said in 1931, “As time went on my
faith in God increased and the more irresistible became the
yearning for prayer. Life seems to me dull and vacant without
it.5337 There was not a moment when he did not feel the presence
of a witness whose eye misses nothing. No act of his was done
without prayer. He never found God wanting in response; he
found Him nearest at hand when the horizon seemed darkest.
When taking important decisions, he heard correctly and clearly
“the still small voice within53. This inner call was the voice
of God. Once it had spoken Gandhiji rendered ready obedience,
and for him there was no drawing back from the path ordained.
He had so attuned himself that he felt even his ordinary
activities were at the prompting of the spirit.38 Indeed, Gandhiji
is a mystic spying, as it were, upon the twilight movements of
the spirit.39 He does not get a full view of the Divine—who
does?—but the glimpses he succeeds in catching integrate his
outlook and entitle him to be ranked with the greatest of men.
To sum up, Gandhiji’s views on moral guidance give us
the ideal of democratic leadership. He is not oblivious of the
degenerating influence of unrestrained power. That is why he

36 #., Dec. 9, 1939, p. 371.

37 Nation9s Voice, p. 102.
38 Autobiography, II, pp. 61-62.
39 Gandhiji believes that the pre-condition for receiving higher inspira¬
tion is that “there must be a great crisis of the soul when you are literally
racked by ‘mental anguish and torture*. In that crisis the soul of the indivi¬
dual either soars higher towards the Infinite Soul; or else, unable to bear
the terrible strain, falls back and finds rest in a closer association with the
physical body. In the first alternative the voice of Truth is heard; in the
other, the individual gets identified with the world of matter, and shapes
his conduct accordingly.” Krishnadas, Seven Months with Mahatma Gandhi,
Vol. I, pp. 400-01. Concerning the decision about the satyagraha movement
of 1940-41 also he said, “It was bom at the end of infinite travail.” H.,
Sept. 22, 1940, p. 289.
Referring to his “experience of God” which rid him of fear of tempta¬
tions, he once remarked, “This experience of being ‘bom again* is what
the Christian speaks of in connection with his belief in Jesus, that is, not
the historical Jesus, but in a mystical relation which must be experienced
to be understood. This being ‘bom again* means knowing God as Father
and this excludes fear... .This ‘becoming* may be through great pain but
all the pain is forgotten afterwards in the joy of the new birth.** Barr, p. 108.
Gandhiji also holds that “the humility which feels itself nothing before
God is necessary for mystical experience.** Barr, p. 114.
 126 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE

imposes on the satyagrahi leader a two-fold 'check—internal

as well as external. He insists on a moral and spiritual clean¬
sing, a self-discipline which gives the leader a sense of moral
proportion and equips him for the fearless pursuit of truth and
the exercise of the mightiest of weapons, i.e., soul-force. He also
advocates rational obedience based on the private judgment and
the free conscience of the citizen. If the world is to be saved
from the triumph of authority over liberty and justice, if peace
and democracy are to prevail, leaders of unquestioned integrity
and a courageous, vigilant civic sense in the masses are indis¬
pensable.

chapter vn

SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE

The purificatory discipline discussed above aims at equip¬
ping the individual for the practice of satyagraha.
The term satyagraha was coined by Gandhiji to express
the nature of the non-violent direct action of the Indians in
South Africa against the Government there. He was specially
anxious to distinguish clearly this group action from passive
resistance.
In common parlance satyagraha is interpreted as non¬
violent direct action; but non-co-operation, civil disobedience,
fasting and other forms of non-violent direct action do not
exhaust the content of satyagraha. The literal meaning of satya¬
graha is “holding on to truth” or “insistence on truth”. Spiritual
unity is the highest Truth and the only way to realize it is to
be non-violent, i.e., to love all and suffer for all. That is why
Gandhiji identifies satyagraha with “love-force” or “soul-force”.
Thus satyagraha is the relentless pursuit of truthful ends by
non-violent means. It is the “vindication of truth, not by the
infliction of suffering on the opponent but on one’s own self.”1
It is nothing but tapasya for truth.2 In this comprehensive sense
it includes all constructive, reforming activities, all acts of
service. Satyagraha thus does not exclude constitutional

1 Speeches, p. 501.
2r.I., II, p. 838.
 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE 127

methods. As a matter of fact Gandhiji considers civil resistance

a constitutional right.3
Satyagraha, specially its two principal offshoots, non-co-
operation and civil disobedience, should not be confhsed with
the passive resistance movement in England in the beginning
of this century. In South Africa Gandhiji himself used the term
passive resistance in the sense of satyagraha. The seventeenth
chapter of Hind Swaraj which is entitled “Passive Resistance” is
really a description of satyagraha. But even in 1908 he was con¬
scious that “passive resistance” was a more popular though less
accurate description of satyagraha than soul-force or love-force.4
Later he drew a clear distinction between these two terms.
Both satyagraha and passive resistance are methods of
meeting aggression, settling conflicts and bringing about social
and political changes. However, the two differ fundamentally.
The difference between the two is due to the fact that passive
resistance5 as practised, for example, by suffragettes and non¬
conformists in England and by Germans in the Ruhr against
the French, is a political weapon of expediency, while satya¬
graha is a moral weapon based on the superiority of soul-force
over physical force. Passive resistance is the weapon of the
weak; while satyagraha can be practised only by the bravest
who have the courage of dying without killing. In passive re¬
sistance the aim is to embarrass the opponent into submission;
in satyagraha, to wean him from error by love and patient
suffering. In passive resistance there is hardly any place for
love for the opponent; in satyagraha there is no room for hatred,
ill-will and the like. Thus “satyagraha is dynamic, passive
resistance is static. Passive resistance acts negatively and suffers
reluctantly and infructuously; satyagraha acts positively and
suffers with cheerfulness because from love and makes the
sufferings fruitful.”6 Though always distinguished from and
generally avoiding violence which is not open to the weak,
3 See Ch. X infra.
4 Hind Swaraj, p. 65.
5 Passive resistance and non-resistance are generally interchangeably
used. According to G. M. Case, however, non-resistance is essentially an
attitude of submission and of passive suffering, while passive resistance
is a more active even aggressive attitude. G. M. Case, Non-violent Coercion,
p. 51.
6 ]y£ahadev Desai in a note in Harijan, June 25, 1938, p. 164*.
 128 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE

passive resistance does not exclude the use of violent methods

on suitable occasions; satyagraha, on the other hand, does not
permit violence in any form even under the most favourable
circumstances. Unlike satyagraha passive resistance can be used
as a supplement or preliminary to violent revolution. Passive
resistance lacks inwardness: it does not share the scruples of
satyagraha about the purity of means and ignores the moral
character of persons employing it. On the other hand, in satva-
graha there is an organic connection between the achievement
of the objective and the inner reform of the satyagrahi. Passive
resistance is not by its very nature universal in its application.
It cannot, for example, be directed against one’s dearest rela¬
tions as satyagraha can be. Passive resistance offered in a spirit
of weakness and despair is weakening morally; while satya¬
graha emphasizes all the time internal strength and actually
develops it. Satyagraha can thus offer more effective and deter¬
mined opposition to injustice and tyranny than passive resis¬
tance. All the same there is nothing passive about the latter
for resistance is always active.7 8
All the world over in every age non-violence has been the
method of settling family disputes. Gandhiji applied this
rule of domestic life to various spheres of group life. By his life¬
long researches he made satyagraha “the moral equivalent of
war” and the technique of solving group conflicts.
But satyagraha, being soul-force, is “the Way, the Truth
and the Life • It is applicable, in addition to conflicts, to all
other activities of life. Thus it can be used by individuals
in their daily life in relation to parents, children and
friends,, even, criminals and the sub-human creation. Says
Gandhiji, It is a force that may be used by individuals as well
as communities. It may be used as well in political as in domes¬
tic affairs. Its universal applicability is a demonstration of its
permanence and invincibility. ”8 “For me, the law of satyagraha,
the law of love, is an eternal principle. I co-operate with all
that is good. I desire to non-co-operate with all that is evil,
whether it is associated with my wife, son or myself.”9 ’

7 Autobiography, II p 154; T.I I, p. 222; Speeches, p. 501; South Africa,

Ck pi; H., May 14, 1938, p. Ill and June 25, 1938, p. 164
8 T. /., Ill, p. 444.
9 r. /., II, p. 1054.
 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE 129
In fact, he goes further and holds that if we want to make
organized non-violence in group conflicts really effective, we
must practise it in all aspects of our daily life.10 Our non¬
violence, if true, must be a part of our normal life, must be in
our thought, word and deed and must colour all our behaviour.11
Thus he wrote in 1935, “Non-violence to be a creed has to be
all-pervasive. I cannot be non-violent about one activity of mine
and violent about others.5’12 Non-violence in politics may be,
he feels, a virtue of necessity and a cover for cowardice. It is
only in relations other than those with the Government, e.g.,
in domestic and other social relations, when we have an equal
choice between violence and non-violence, that non-violence
could be said not to be a mere expedient.13 This is why, accord¬
ing to him, non-violence like charity must begin at home. He
says, “The alphabet of ahimsa is best learnt in the domestic
school, and I can say from experience that if we secure success
there, we are sure to do so everywhere. For a non-violent
person the whole world is one family.5’14 Gandhiji insists that
public satyagraha is only an extension of private or domestic
satyagraha and that every case of the former should be tested
by imagining a parallel domestic case.15
It is, indeed, futile to try to enthrone non-violence in inter¬
group and international relations unless it is also sought to be
enshrined in the hearts of individuals. Violence in the private
life of a satyagrahi is an indication of inadequate discipline.
It shows that he is blind to the basic law of satyagraha, the
principle of spiritual kinship with others. It is an unmistakable
sign that he has not yet reached that level of moral develop¬
ment and self-mastery which makes violence intolerable. Human
life being an indivisible whole, violence in the satyagrahi5 s pri¬
vate life must project itself into his behaviour as a member of
the satyagrahi group.
Acceptance of non-violence by an individual in public
affairs only means that his is the non-violence of the weak and

10#., June 29, 1940, p. 181.

11 H.,July 21, 1940, p. 210.
12 H.,Oct. 12, 1935, p. 276.
15 H.,Nov. 19, 1938, pp. 336-37.
14 H.,July 21, 1940, p. 214.
15 r. II, p. 821.
130 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE

that he accepts non-violence only as a policy which he may

change in face of heavy odds and overwhelming temptations.
This is a hesitant attitude which makes a poor soldier. “A sol¬
dier fights with an irresistible strength when he has blown up
his bridges, burnt his boats. Even so it is with a soldier of
ahimsa.”16 Gandhiji’s advice, therefore, is that “Ahimsa must be
placed before everything else while it is professed. Then alone
it becomes irresistible. Otherwise it will be only an empty hulk,
a thing without potency or power.”16
According to him, acceptance of non-violence as a weapon
of expediency, as distinguished from genuine thorough-going
non-violence, may bring about political freedom in a country
like India. But this will be “democracy as machinery” or
“parliamentary Swaraj” rather than real non-violent Swaraj or
“democracy as faith”. For “non-violence as expediency” mpar^
“non-violence so far as profitable and violence when necessary”.
Violence implies treating men as mere means. Non-violence of
the weak is thus the denial of the basic principle of democracy,
i.e., the least among men has infinite moral worth. On the other
hand, non-violence of the brave stands for the equality of all
persons. It never encroaches on the rights of others and leaves
them full scope for development. Swaraj won through a half¬
hearted non-violence will inevitably be followed by the usual
scramble for grabbing power. It will not bring freedom and
power to the weak and the poor and will not be a genuine demo¬
cracy. This is why Gandhiji was of the opinion that non-violence
of the weak will never take us to the goal of freedom, and “if
long practised may even render us unfit for self-government.”17
It is remarkable that in his earlier non-violent movements
Gandhiji did not insist on the satyagrahi accepting non-violence
as a creed. This was, perhaps, the price he paid to collaborate
with others to realize his ideal. He expected that the practice of
non-violence as a policy would gradually prepare people for its
acceptance as a creed. But this toning down is compromising
one s means. His experience brought home the mistake and later
he demanded of the satyagrahi firm, unshakable faith in the
principle.

16 H., June 24, 1939, p. 174.

17 H., July 13, 1940, p. 197.
 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE 131
Historically too the use of non-violence by isolated indi¬
viduals in their private life began long before its emergence as
a group technique. Even Gandhiji had acquired extensive expe¬
rience in the use of non-violence in various situations of personal
life before he used it as a political technique. The lessons of truth
and ahimsa were burnt into his soul in early childhood and he
began to mould his life according to these laws. The environ¬
ment in which he was brought up was saturated with Vaishnava
and Jaina traditions of ahimsa. His saintly mother was a model
of disciplined life reared on fasts and vows, and his excep¬
tionally brave, truthful father set him an object-lesson in non¬
violent resistance.18 Mrs. Gandhi also made her contribution by
practising non-violent resistance against him. This is how
Gandhiji pays his tribute to her, “I learnt the lesson of non¬
violence from my wife, -when I tried to bend her to my will. Her
determined resistance to my will on the one hand, and her quiet
submission to the suffering my stupidity involved on the other
hand, ultimately made me ashamed of myself and cured me of
my stupidity in thinking I was bom to rule over her; and in the
end she became my teacher in non-violence. And what I did in
South Africa was but an extension of the rule of satyagraha
which she unwillingly practised in her own person.”19
Gandhiji’s whole life is full of experiments which demon¬
strate how truth and love enable one to solve life’s complex
problems. With truth and love and silent suffering and, when
occasion demanded, by fearlessly walking into the very jaws of
hitnsa, he converted many an inveterate opponent, drawing out
the best in him. And whenever he noticed a mistake or a failing
on his part, he made a clean and prompt confession and ade¬
quate amends. His Autobiography and other writings are
replete with experiences of a most creative nature—experiences
that moulded his character and influenced his philosophy. The
father of satyagraha could not have nursed it up into the mighty
weapon capable of being wielded by large masses of men but for
his long experience, right from childhood onwards, in the working
of the law of love in his personal life.

18 See p. 20 supra.
19 Quoted by J. S. Holyland in Mahatma Gandhi edited by S. Radha-
krishnan. For an instance of resistance on the part of Mrs. Gandhi see
Autobiography, II, Ch. X, p. 138.
132 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE

Accepting non-violence as the law of life implies that the

individual must be non-violent in relation to others, parti¬
cularly when resisting evil and injustice. The test of a satya-
grahi’s non-violence comes in the stress and strain of conflict.
But before he proceeds to give battle to injustice emanating
from others he must try to root it out in his own self. “Non¬
violence begins and ends by turning the searchlight inward.”2®
Reforms in external conditions can come only after inner condi¬
tions are set right. The employment of satyagraha against
others must be preceded by its employment against oneself. This
means intelligent cultivation of non-violent values. This self-
discipline which includes control of thoughts and emotions
develops in the satyagrahi the inner strength, the soul-force
that becomes irresistible.
Gandhiji does not prescribe absolute ahimsa and complete
self-discipline. These are not of this world. Perfectibility rather
than perfection is his motto. He believes in ceaseless striving.
The satyagrahi must put before himself the ideal of the non¬
violence of the brave. He must not let his non-violence
degenerate into cowardice. For the rest he must try to approach
the ideal as best he can.
In human society there will always be important diffe¬
rences and sometimes conflicts. So far as the non-violent way of
settling conflicts and resisting wrongs is concerned there often
arise dreadful dilemmas rendering the path of the satyagrahi
difficult. The satyagrahi must have courage and patience,
initiative and resourcefulness, a spirit of research and readiness
to take risks. For guidance as to how exactly to deal with a
particular situation, he must depend on his own enlightened
conscience. But we may state in this -chapter Gandhiji’s views
on some general questions connected with satyagraha as indi¬
vidual action. No hard and fast line of demarcation can be
drawn between satyagraha in dyadic and group relations. The
principles of individual action also apply to corporate action
which in addition requires thorough organization and much
greater attention to discipline. The individual may employ non¬
violent resistance against individuals or groups.
The satyagrahi is essentially a man of peace. He does not
go about picking quarrels or planning struggles in advance.
20 H., April 20, 1940, p. 98.
 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE 133

“That is the beauty of satyagraha. It comes up to oneself, one

has not to go in search for it. That is a virtue inherent in the
principle itself. A dharma-yuddha, in which there are no secrets
to be guarded, no scope for cunning and no place for untruth,
comes unsought; and a man of religion is ever ready for it. A
struggle which has to be previously planned is not a righteous
struggle.5’21 The satyagrahi seeks his self-realization through
social service. Whenever he finds some hindrance in the way,
whenever his sensitive conscience perceives some injustice and
he feels the inner urge, he uses the weapon of satyagraha to
remove the obstacle. Satyagraha can be undertaken only for
social good and never for personal gain;22 for one who cannot
rise above considerations of personal gain and loss is unfit to
be a satyagrahi who has to be always ready to stake his all to
vindicate truth and justice. The desire to protect one’s self-
respect is however a “good cause”, for the society in which self-
respect is at a discount is morally in a bad way. Obviously ill-
gotten gains and immoral acts cannot be defended by satya¬
graha.23 Thus a capitalist cannot non-violently defend his capi¬
tal the accumulation of which always involves violence.24
Even in regard to issues involving social good the satya¬
grahi will decide upon non-violent resistance after taking into
consideration his own limitations and the nature and gravity of
injustice. Thus, as Gandhiji’s life bears out, he may on occasions
overlook a small injustice in order to conserve his strength for
bigger battles.25
The aim of individual as well as group satyagraha is not to
crush, defeat or punish the tyrant or break his will. It is not
even to harm or embarrass him, though the resistance and
suffering may, as a matter of fact, cause the wrong-doer
embarrassment. The satyagrahi loves the opponent as a human
being and aims at rousing him to a sense of equity by an appeal
to the best in him, i.e., at converting him. Conversion implies
that the opponent realizes his mistake, repents and there takes
place a peaceful adjustment of differences. As Gandhiji once

21 South Africa, p. 5.
22 r./., II, p. 1183.
2*H.} Sept. 5, 1936, p. 236.
24 H., Feb. 16, 1947, p. 25.
25 Autobiography, I, p. 345.
134 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE

remarked to Miss Agatha Harrison, “The essence of non-violent

technique is that it seeks to liquidate antagonisms but not the
antagonists.3 926 He wrote in 1940, “The end of non-violent ‘war9
is always an agreement, never dictation, much less humiliation
of the opponent.5927 Thus the satyagrahi fights with a view to
bilateral and not unilateral victory. He aims at the integration
and not suppression of legitimate differences.
The aim indicates the method. Negatively, the satyagrahi
should try to avoid violence in all forms. Violence seeks to des¬
troy the opponent or at least to injure him, and this is not the
way to convert or reform him. The satyagrahi should try to
avoid all intentional injury to the opponent in thought, word
and deed. Thus he should not harbour anger, hatred, ill-will,
suspicion, vindictiveness or other similar divisive feelings. As
regards speech, he should avoid all abusive, insulting, haughty,
or needlessly offensive language. In his actions he should not
rely on brute force, for to do so is to co-operate with the evil¬
doer and lend him support. In spite of all provocation the satya¬
grahi should not be intolerant and vindictive, and should not
frighten the opponent. If assaulted, he should not prosecute his
assailant, and he should not call in outsiders to assist him, for
either course would mean that he is depending on physical
force.
Positively, “A satyagrahi will always try to overcome evil
by good, anger by love, untruth by truth, himsa by ahimsa.9928
The satyagrahi, who is conscious of the working of soul-force
and of his own spiritual kinship with the opponent, should treat
the opponent as a member of his family. To wean the opponent
from his error he should use the domestic method which makes
the resolution of the conflict easy by minimizing differences and
emphasizing points of agreement. Says Gandhiji, “I must apply
the same rules to the wrong-doer who is my enemy as I would
to my wrong-doing father or son."29
This is how Gandhiji describes the domestic method:
“Family disputes and differences are generally settled according
to the law of love. The injured member has so much regard for the

26 April 29, 1939, p. 101.

27 March 23, 1940, p. 53.
28 T. August 8, 1929.
29 Speeches, p. 284.
 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE 135
others that he suffers injuries for the sake of his principles with¬
out retaliating and without being angry with those who differ
from him. And as repression of anger, self-suffering are difficult
processes, he does not magnify trifles into principles, but in all
non-essentials readily agrees with the rest of the family, and
thus contrives to gain the maximum of peace for himself with-
out disturbing that of others. Thus his action, whether he resists
or resigns, is always calculated to promote the common welfare
of the family.5330
The way to treat the opponent as a member of the family
is to give him the same credit for honesty of purpose which
the satyagrahi claims for himself.31 “If you want to convert your
opponent you must present to him his better and nobler side.
Work on, round, and upon that side. Do not dangle his faults
before him.5332 In 1940 he advised the Congressmen not to
concentrate on showing the misdeeds of the Government, “for
we have to convert and befriend those who run it. And after all
no one is wicked by nature. And if others are wicked, are we the
less so? That attitude is inherent in Satyagraha.5’33 He should
persistently trust the opponent even if he does not know him
or has come to regard him as untrustworthy.34 “Even if the
opponent plays him false twenty times, the satyagrahi is ready
to trust him the twenty-first time, for an implicit faith in human
nature is the very essence of his creed.3’35
The technique of satyagraha in dyadic relations, on the
analogy of domestic quarrels, includes persuasion and discus¬
sion, settlement of differences by one in whose judgment the
two parties repose trust, non-co-operation, civil disobedience of
the orders of the offender if he happens to be in exercise of
authority, suffering of hardships that come as a result of this
resistance, fasting, etc. All along the struggle should be clean
and the satyagrahi must scrupulously stick to truth and ahirnsa.
Devotion to truth demands that the satyagrahi should not
be blind to the best in the evil-doer. To do full justice to the

30 Speeches, p. 502.
31 T. L, II, p. 1319.
32 Mira, Gleanings, p. 17.
33 H., March 30, 1940, p. 71.
34 H., June 3, 1939, p. 150.
35 South Africa, p. 246.
136 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE

adversary he must try to keep his mind in a detached state,

understand the adversary’s point of view and, if necessary,
revise his judgment.36 The satyagrahi must always hold himself
open to conviction, and whenever he discovers himself in the
wrong he must confess his mistake at all costs and atone for it.37
“As a satyagrahi I must always allow my cards to be examined
and re-examined at all times and make reparation if an error is
discovered.”38 The strength of the satyagrahi consists in his
moral superiority over the opponent. Persistence in untruth
means bartering away real strength for a false sense of prestige.
“Confession of error,” writes Gandhiji, “is like a broom that
sweeps away dirt and leaves the surface cleaner than before. . . .
Never has man reached his destination by persistence in
deviation from the straight path.”39
The error of the opponent is due either to ignorance or
selfishness and ill-will—though selfishness and ill-will are ulti¬
mately due to ignorance. The first step that the satyagrahi takes
in a conflict, be it individual or collective, is persuasion, nego¬
tiation and discussion. If necessary he also agrees to arbitration
by a third party. Thus the satyagrahi launches upon the
extreme step not abruptly but only after gentler methods have
failed.
It is just possible that desire and readiness for discussion
may be lacking on the part of the adversary and so the stage of
negotiations may never be reached. But if it is not, it must not'
be for the fault of the satyagrahi.40 “The satyagrahi, whilst he
is ever ready for fight, must be equally eager for peace. He must
welcome any honourable opportunity for peace.”41 Even if the
preliminary negotiations fail, the satyagrahi is always willing
to utilize any opening for honourable settlement at every stage
of the struggle. Indeed, he may go out of his way to knock at
the adversary’s door, for he is not deterred by false notions of
prestige. Once in the non-violent struggle in South Africa
Gandhiji, even though he had the least hope for a compromise,

36 T. /., II, pp. 227 and 1320; T. /., Ill, p. 387.

^Autobiography, II, p. 232.
3SH., March 11, 1939, p. 44.
39 T. I., I, p. 996.
40 H., June 24, 1939, pp. 169-70 and 172.
41 r. /., March 19, 1931, p. 40.
 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE 137
thrust himself on General Smuts. The General relented and
Gandhiji’s last effort was successful. In 1939 during the course
of satyagraha for constitutional reforms in Travancore Gandhiji
advised satyagrahis to open direct negotiations with the
authorities instead of the two parries talking at each other
and thus widening the differences. He wrote, “It would
not do for a satyagrahi to argue that the approach must be
mutual. That assumes the existence of the spirit of satyagraha
in the authorities, whereas satyagraha is offered in respect of
those who make no claim to be satyagrahis. Hence the first and
the last work of a satyagrahi is ever to seek an opportunity for
an honourable approach.”42 But though the satyagrahi is always
ready for give and take and for a “voluntary surrender of non-
essentials”,43 he would never compromise on the basic moral
issues involved in the conflict. “My compromises,” Gandhiji
once remarked, “will never be at the cost of the cause or the
country.”44 “Any compromise on fundamentals is a surrender.
For it is all give and no take. The time for compromise can only
come when both (parties) are of one mind on fundamentals.”45
Critics in India found fault with Gandhiji for the great
importance he always attached to efforts for compromise with
the opponent. The policy of parleys and postponements, ac¬
cording to them, makes it appear that they are on the verge of
compromise, soothes the satyagrahis and exhausts their energy
so that when ultimately the conflict does come, the requisite
atmosphere is lacking for it.
To Gandhiji, however, eagerness for compromise is an inte¬
gral part of satyagraha. The satyagrahi, conscious of his spiri¬
tual kinship with the adversary, respects him as a human being
and aims at peace. The exploration by him of all the legitimate
avenues of peaceful settlement clearly brings out this objective
of his. It shows that the satyagrahi has been compelled to the
drastic step of direct action because there is left for him no
honourable way out. This gives to satyagraha its essentially
defensive character. It also wins for the satyagrahi the support
of public opinion.

42 H., June 10, 1939, p. 153.

43 r. Ill, p. 1058.
44 H.} March 30, 1940, p. 70.
45 Ibid., p. 72.
138 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE

Negotiation and compromise must come at some stage, at

the end of the conflict at any rate. A recourse to them in the
beginning may possibly save all concerned the strain involved
in the conflict. Besides, the very insistence on truth which men
always see in fragments and from different perspectives teaches
the satyagrahi the need for compromise. “I am essentially a man
of compromise,” Gandhiji once said to Louis Fischer, “because
I am never sure that I am right.”46 This is why to Gandhiji “full
surrender of non-essentials is a condition precedent to accession
of internal strength to defend the essential by dying.”47 So if
the satyagrahi precipitates battle or bangs the door on negotia¬
tions, he puts himself in the wrong.
Eagerness for compromise in group satyagraha should not
undermine the morale of satyagrahis. For all the time the leader
and his lieutenants keep in close touch with the rank and file,
educating them and explaining to them the significance of
persuasion and effort for compromise in the strategy of non¬
violence. The success of violent revolutions depends on the
working up of the divisive emotions of masses to a high tension
point so as to cause an outburst and any talk of peace would
be a fatal distraction to such a movement. But it is not so in
satyagraha which seeks to arouse constructive, unifying senti¬
ments, love for the adversary, non-retaliation and eagerness to
suffer in order to serve. If efforts for compromise lead to
demoralization, it is a sure sign of the absence of the real spirit
of satyagraha. Even if the adversary is insincere and uses
negotiations as a screen for his plans to consolidate his strength,
the satyagrahi need not be worried. Real strength is moral
superiority and, if all is well in the satyagrahi camp, the
preparedness of the adversary is immaterial.48
Besides, it is always assumed that in the event of failure
of negotiations the satyagrahi is ever ready to offer battle. “He
needs no previous preparation, his cards are always on the
table. Suspension or continuation of battle is one and the same
thing to him. He fights or refrains from fighting to gain
precisely the same end.”49

46 Louis Fischer, A Week with Gandhi, p. 102.

47 H., Nov. 10, 1940. p. 333.
48 H., Feb. 17, 1940, p. 2.
49 r. I., April 16, 1931, p. 77.
 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE 139
Persuasion and discussion are essential both in relation to
the adversary and public opinion. So the satyagrahi will in
addition to constantly approaching the adversary' also appeal to
public opinion, educate it and state his case coolly before every¬
body who wants to listen to him.50 Thus before resorting to
direct action he will exhaust all other peaceful means of
honourable settlement.
If the appeal to reason faiis due to the wrong-doer’s short¬
sightedness or selfishness, the only other way for the satyagrahi
is to appeal to the opponent’s heart. This the satyagrahi does
by undertaking voluntary suffering.
Gandhiji attaches very great importance to suffering. He
calls satyagraha “the law of suffering” and “tapasya for truth”.
He writes, “Nothing can shake me from the conviction that
given a good cause, suffering for it advances it as nothing else
has done.”51 “Progress is to be measured by the amount of
suffering undergone by the sufferer. The purer the suffering,
the greater is the progress.”52 “No country has ever risen with¬
out being purified through the fire of suffering. Mother suffers
so that her child may live. The condition of wheat-growing is
that seed grain should perish. Life comes out of death.”53
Purity implies discipline and Gandhiji points out that mere sacri¬
fice without discipline will be unavailing. The indication that one
has acquired adequate discipline is that suffering should
become a joy and the individual should begin to delight “in
plunging headlong into the mouth of himsa”.
There is no limit to the suffering that an act of satyagraha
may entail. The satyagrahi must exercise restraint under the
gravest provocation and cheerfully bear all sorts of losses and
inconveniences—assaults, beating, excommunication, loss of
property, even death. He must be willing to stake his all except
honour.54 And he must continue to stagger his opponent till his
suffering strikes a responsive chord in the latter’s heart and
gradually converts him.

50 r. I., Ill, p. 413.

51 r. II, p. 838.
52 r.i, p. 231.
53 Ibid., p. 230.
54 H.y Sept. 5, 1936, p. 236.
140 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE

Nothing is of greater importance than suffering so far as

the conversion of the opponent in vital matters is concerned.
It plays a far greater part than reasoning and persuasion. To
quote Gandhiji, “If you want something really important to be
done, you must not merely satisfy the reason, you must move
the heart also. The appeal of the reason is more to the head, but
the penetration of the heart comes from suffering. It opens up
the inner understanding in man.5’55 Again, “I have found that
mere appeal to reason does not answer where prejudices are
agelong. . . .Reason has to be strengthened by suffering and
suffering opens up the eyes of understanding.5556
But how does vicarious suffering redeem the evil-doer?
How does it melt his heart and open up the inner understanding
in him?
In a few passages scattered in his writings Gandhiji des¬
cribes the working of satyagraha on individual and group scale
and the way the conversion of the opponent is brought about
by the suffering of the satyagrahi.
When the satyagrahi practises ahimsa and suffers volun¬
tarily, his love, i.e., soul-force, develops tremendous potency,
and due to the principle of spiritual unity he affects and ele¬
vates the entire environment and all people around him
including the opponent. Says Gandhiji, “The more you develop
it (non-violence) in your being, the more infectious it becomes
till it overwhelms your surroundings and by and by might over¬
sweep the world.5557 “The greater our innocence the greater our
strength and the swifter our victory.5558 “True fasting,55 he
wrote in 1933, “generates a silent, unseen force which may, if it
is of requisite strength and purity, pervade all mankind.5559 In
a letter to a Delhi journalist who questioned the efficacy of non¬
violence in the modern materialistic world, Gandhiji wrote, “Do
you not realize that when non-violence reigns, materialism
takes a back seat, avenues are changed and in a non-violent war
there is no waste of efforts, property or moral fibre?5560
55 Nation's Voice, p. 235.
56 r./., II, p. 1320.
51H., January 28, 1939, p. 443.
58 Speeches, p. 639.
59 Mira, Gleanings, p. 94.
^Extracts from the letter published in the Hindustan Times, January
24, 1941. J
 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE 141
Thus the purification of the suffering satyagrahi also
cleanses and strengthens the spirit of the opponent. Similarly
his love-force acts on and wins the sympathy and support of
public opinion.
Gandhiji also explains the working of non-violence psycho¬
logically. “The strong in body in their insolence often mobilize
their chard fibre5. .. .But when that ‘hard fibre5 comes in contact
not with its like but with the exact opposite, it has nothing to
work against. A solid body can only move on against another
solid body. You cannot build castles in the air.5561 “The wrong¬
doer wearies of wrong-doing in the absence of resistance. All
pleasure is lost when the victim betrays no resistance.5162 Again,
“I seek entirely to blunt the edge of the tyrant’s sword, not by
putting up against it a sharper-edged weapon, but by disappoint¬
ing his expectation that I would be offering physical resistance.
The resistance of the soul that I should offer instead would
elude him. It would at first dazzle him and at last compel recog¬
nition from him which recognition would not humiliate him
but uplift him.5563 “It has been my invariable experience,55 he
wrote in 1924, “that good works good, evil, evil, and that
therefore, if the evil does not receive the corresponding res¬
ponse, it ceases to act, dies of want of nutrition. Evil can only
live upon itself. . . .The law acts with scientific precision.5564
A very important psychological reason that Gandhiji gives
for the effective working of satyagraha is that it affects the
adversary unconsciously, and the unconscious effect of our
actions is far greater than the conscious effect. “In violence
there is nothing invisible. Non-violence on the other hand is
three-fourths invisible and so the effect is in the inverse ratio
to its invisibility. Non-violence, when it becomes active, travels

61 Speeches, p. 711.
62 Ibid., p. 639.
63 r./., II, p. 864.
One of the secretaries of General Smuts said to Gandhiji towards the
end of the South African struggle, “I often wish you took to violence like
the English strikers, and then we would know at once how to dispose of
you. But you will not injure even the enemy. You desire victory by self¬
suffering alone and never transgress your self-imposed limits of courtesy
and chivalry. And that is what reduces us to sheer helplessness.” General
Smuts also expressed similar sentiments. South Africa, p. 492.
64 r. /., May 15, 1924, p. 161.
142 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE

with extraordinary velocity and then it becomes a miracle.”65

Thus the mind of the opponent is first affected unconsciously
and then consciously. Conscious effect means conversion.
Gandhiji pointedly compares the silent, subtle, unseen
working of non-violence to homoeopathic treatment. “Non-co-
operation is not an allopathic treatment. It is homoeopathic.
The patient does not taste the drops given to him. He is some¬
times even incredulous, but if the homoeopaths are to be
trusted, the tasteless drops or the tiny pills of homoeopathy are
far more potent than the ounce-doses or choking pills of allo¬
pathy. I assure the reader the effect of purifying non-co-operation
is more certain than the effect of homoeopathic medicine.”66
Further, satyagraha is an unfailing remedy against all
injustice and exploitation, for the latter presume the co-opera¬
tion between the victim and the evil-doer. When this co-opera¬
tion is withdrawn by the satyagrahi, the opponent is thwarted
and rendered powerless. Thus referring to the relation between
the tyrannical rulers and the satyagrahi ruled, Gandhiji remarked
in 1917, “They (the rulers) know that they cannot effectively
exercise force against the passive resister. Without his concurrence
they cannot make him do their will.”67
In short, the non-violence of the satyagrahi staggers the
violent opponent and upsets his moral balance. The satyagrahi
remains calm and unperturbed and does not retaliate. This
exhausts the brute spirit of the opponent for want of nutrition.68
His dynamic love and goodwill, his fearless interest in the
moral welfare of the opponent and his attempt to discover and
appeal to the best in him weaken the hostile feelings in the
opponent. Gradually the latter becomes weary and ashamed of
his violence, his generous emotions are aroused, he softens, res¬
ponds and repents. The satyagrahi’s eagerness for a just compro¬
mise makes the settlement of the dispute easy. If the wrong¬
doer is past remedy, he compasses his own end, for he finds
himself isolated.69

65 i/., March 20, 1937, pp. 41-42.

65 T. I., I, p. 988.
67 Speeches, p. 393.
66 T.I., I, p. 909.
69 H., Dec. 16, 1939, p. 376.
 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE 13:3

But though suffering is an essential part of satyagraha,70

there should be no eagerness on the part of the satyagrahi to be
demonstrative and to strive after stage effect. To do so is to miss
the very spirit of satyagraha and to take leave of one’s humi¬
lity. Gandhiji believes that the key to quick success is humility
expressing itself in “silent and undemonstrative action of truth
and love” and not showy performances.71
It is sometimes supposed that the satyagrahi forces the
oppressor to be brutal to the last extreme and manoeuvres the
opponent into being injurious.72 With Gandhiji, however, suffering
is merely a means to the conversion of the opponent and,
according to him, brutalizing the adversary can but make his
conversion the more difficult. Besides, due to the principle of
spiritual unity, brutalization of the adversary will drag down
the satyagrahi also. In fact, Gandhiji repeatedly insists that the
aim of the satyagrahi is to prevent the brutalization of the
opponent, and that the opponent should not be compelled to
inflict punishment. “The secret of satyagraha lies in not tempting
the wrong-doer to do wrong.”73 To the satyagrahi suffering,
even death, is welcome but it should come unsought. “Let us
all be brave enough to die the death of a martyr, but let no
one lust for martyrdom.”74 In 1924 Gandhiji expressed his
disapproval of Sikh satyagrahis inviting fire by resisting arrests.75
He explicitly warns the satyagrahi not to feed deliberately
the provocation of the opponent76 but to meet all the provo¬
cative and repressive measures of the opponent with exemplar}'
self-restraint even at the risk of being charged with cowardice.
He also feels that genuine satyagraha, being a spiritual exercise,

70 “Whilst we must try always to avoid occasions for needless suffering,

we must ever be ready for them. Somehow or other, those who will walk
along the right path cannot avoid suffering notwithstanding the attempt
to avoid it. It is the privilege of the patriot, the reformer and, still greater,
of the satyagrahi.” T. L, March 19, 1931, p. 41.
71 T.L, Aug. 8, 1929; T.I., I, p. 278.
72 See, for example, K. Shridharani, War without Violence, p. 265.
™ Nation’s Voice, pp. 148-49; Mira, Gleanings, p. 16; Conversations, p. 43;
H., April 15, 1939, p. 87.
74 r. Ill, p. 20.
75 T. II, p. 838.
76 H., March 2, 1940, p. 22.
144 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE

can never provoke reprisals. It can evoke the best, not the
worst, in man.77 By ‘the best5 obviously he does not mean good
temper. Indeed, in evoking the best the wrong-doer may have
to be ruffled.
One of the important offshoots of satyagraha, and a form
of suffering, is non-violent non-co-operation. It is “the expres¬
sion of anguished love55.78 Non-co-operation is always under¬
taken with a view to co-operation after the opponent has been
cured of his violence. Gandhiji once said to Miss Agatha Harrison,
“Although non-co-operation is the main weapon in the armoury
of satyagraha, it should not be forgotten that it is after all only
a means to secure the co-operation of the opponent consistently
with truth and justice.5579 He wrote in 1925, “Behind my non-
co-operation there is always the keenest desire to co-operate
on the slightest pretext even with the worst of opponents. To
me, a very imperfect mortal, ever in need of God5s grace, no
one is beyond redemption.5580
The idea that underlies non-co-operation is that even the
evil-doer does not succeed in his purpose without carrying the
victim with him, if necessary, by force, and that it is the duty
of the satyagrahi to suffer for the consequences of resistance
and not to yield to the will of the tyrant. If the victim continues
to tolerate the wrong by passive acquiescence, if he enjoys bene¬
fits accruing from the wrong or the wrong-doer directly or
indirectly, the victim is an accessory to the tyrant’s misdeeds.
Non-co-operation can be violent also. But violent non-co-
operation only multiplies evil. As evil can only be sustained by
violence, non-co-operation must be non-violent. Non-co-operation
also includes disobedience, in a civil manner, of the orders of
the tyrant. But civil disobedience plays its important part in
the corporate aspect of satyagraha and so we may postpone
it to the next chapter.
Non-co-operation is a universal remedy applicable to pro¬
blems of everyday life. It can be used even against intimate
relations. Gandhiji writes, “If my son lives a life of shame, I
may not help him to do so by continuing to support him. On

77 H.9 March 27, 1939, pp. 143-44.

78 r. I, p. 241.
79 #., April 29, 1939, p. 101.
80 r./., II, p. 517.
 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE 145
the contrary my love for him requires me to withdraw all support
from him although it may mean even his death. And the 'same
love imposes on me the obligation of welcoming him to my
bosom when he repents.”81
Similarly, “If a father does an injustice it is the duty of his
children to leave the parental roof. If the headmaster of a
school conducts his institution on an immoral basis, the pupils
must leave the school. If the chairman of a corporation is cor¬
rupt, the members thereof must wash their hands clean of his
corruption by withdrawing from it; even so, if a Government
does grave injustice, the subjects must withdraw co-operation
wholly or partially sufficiently to wean the ruler from his
wickedness. In each of the cases conceived by me there is an
element of suffering whether mental or physical. Without such
suffering it is not possible to attain freedom.”82
When the wrong-doer can do even without the satyagrahTs
co-operation, the object of satyagraha is self-purification. When
a friend gives up another and a servant his master, they practise
this mild variety of non-co-operation. On the other hand if
the evil-doer cannot do without the satyagrahi’s co-operation,
non-co-operation assumes a drastic form. A father’s giving up a
dependent son is an instance. The drastic type of non-co-
operation no doubt causes inconvenience and maybe even
injury to the opponent. But all the while the object of the non¬
co-operator should be conversion and his weapon love. The
drastic type of non-co-operation should be undertaken on grave
issues. The inconvenience of the opponent must cause pain to
the satyagrahi, and non-co-operation should bring to the satya-
grahi suffering of some sort.83 If the brunt of suffering has to be
borne by the opponent rather than by the satyagrahi the
presumption should be that it is a case of violent non-co-
operation. The satyagrahi seeks truth by imposing suffering not
on others but on himself.
Even while non-co-operating the satyagrahi must make the
opponent feel that he has a friend in the former. The satyagrahi

« T.I., I, p. 247.
82 Ibid., pp. 233-34.
Ibid., pp. 234 and 300.
146 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE

should also try to reach the opponent’s heart by rendering him

humanitarian service whenever possible.84
The ultimate and the most potent weapon in the armoury
of satyagraha is fasting. Gandhiji calls it a fiery weapon,85 and
claims to have reduced it to a science.86 Non-co-operation brings
passive suffering inflicted by the opponent; fasting is suffering
self-inflicted. As against non-co-operation, it is of strictly limit¬
ed application, and the distinction between its use and misuse,
between satyagrahi fasting and duragrahi fasting or hunger
strike, is discernible with much greater difficulty than in the
case of non-co-operation.
So delicate, indeed, is this spiritual weapon and so high the
level of moral sensitiveness that it requires in a satyagrahi that
even Gandhiji, the greatest authority on satyagraha, once made
a mistake in its use. Thus regarding his Rajkot fast, which was
in itself justified, Gandhiji later felt that he ought not to have
sought the intervention of the British Government. This
vitiated the fast as a means of converting the late Thakore of
the State whom Gandhiji regarded, due to his old family con¬
nections, his* son and whose breach of the plighted word had
occasioned the fast. Later Gandhiji renounced the advantages
gained as a result of this intervention.87
Fasting, as stated earlier, may be used as penance or puri¬
fication for fuller self-expression, i.e., for the attainment of
spirit’s supremacy over the flesh.88 It then refers to one’s own
mistakes and failings and is a great discipline and a most
powerful factor in one’s evolution. An instance is Gandhiji’s five-
day fast in February 1922 after Chauri Chaura violence, under¬
taken for personal cleansing, as a prayer so that he may
“become a fitter instrument able to register the slightest varia¬
tion in the moral atmosphere”. Another instance is the puri¬
ficatory fast of 21 days in May 1933 which Gandhiji described
as a “heart prayer for purification of myself and my associates
84 H., Nov. 12, 1938, p. 327.
85 H., Oct. 13, 1940, p. 332.
85 His statement to the Press, dated Sept. 21, 1932.
87 It is wrong to suppose that Gandhiji undertook the Rajkot fast to
obtain political rights for the people of Rajkot. Political rights would have
been secured if the Thakore kept his word. But ethically the two objects
stand far apart.
88 See pp. 123-24 supra.
 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE 147

for greater vigilance and watchfulness in connection with the

Harijan cause.5,89
Fasting is also a means of resisting injustice and converting
the evil-doer. As such it is “die highest expression of the prayer
of a pure and loving heart55. It is an appeal to the wrong-doer’s
better nature with the object of evoking the best in him. The
fast of a person like Gandhiji always exerts a tremendous
influence on public opinion. According to Gandhiji, as a tech¬
nique of influencing the masses its effectiveness is due to the
fact that the mass mind is influenced not through speeches and
writings but only by something which they understand well,
i.e., suffering, and “the best and most acceptable method is that
of fasting.55 “My repeated experience,55 he said in 1934, “here
and in South Africa has been that when well applied it has been
the most infallible remedy. . . .The only language they (the
masses) understand is the language of the heart; and fasting,
when utterly unselfish, is the language of the heart.5590
But this weapon cannot be lightly wielded. It can be resort¬
ed to on rare occasions and by one skilled in the art or under
expert guidance.91 If undertaken without previous preparation
and adequate thought it is not a satvagrahi fast but hunger
strike.
Gandhiji lays down the qualifications of the person who
can use this form of satyagraha and the occasion when it can be
properly resorted to.92 Mere physical capacity to fast is no quali¬
fication. The satyagrahi must possess spiritual fitness and a clear
vision. A living faith in God is indispensable. In a satya¬
grahi fast there can be no room for lack of faith, anger, im¬
patience, or selfishness.93 These make the fast violent. . . In

89 Bapvfs Letters to Mira, p. 260.

90 Conversations, p. 127.
« March 11, 1939, p. 46; July 7, 1942, p. 248.
92 Autobiography, II, p. 213; T.L, II, p. 1183; H.} March 18, 1939,
p. 56 and Ashram, pp. 15-18.
93 Thus a fast to wring money from a person or even to recover a debt
is an instance of coercive hunger strike undertaken for a selfish purpose.
Such misuse deserves to be firmly resisted, for, if fasting with a view to
recover money were encouraged, there would be no end to scoundrels black¬
mailing people by resorting to this means. See HSept. 9, 1933 and T.
II, p. 1183.
 148 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE

addition to truth and non-violence a satyagrahi should have the

confidence that God will grant him the necessary strength and
that, if there is the slightest impurity in the fast, he will not
hesitate to renounce it at once. Infinite patience, firm resolve
single-mindedness of purpose, and perfect calm must of neces¬
sity be there. But since it is impossible for a person to develop
all these qualities all at once, no one who has not devoted him¬
self to following the laws of ahimsa should undertake a satya¬
grahi fast.”94 According to Gandhiji, those intending to go in for
a satyagrahi fast should certainly possess some personal expe¬
rience of fasts for spiritual purification.95
It is obvious from the above that fasting, though it has a
place in individual as well as group conflicts, cannot be used
correctly and effectively by the masses. It can be resorted to
only by select and qualified individuals.
The mistake of the person or the group for whose reform
a fast is undertaken must have moved the satyagrahi to the
very depth of his being, and he must feel an inner urge, the
clear call of conscience. It cannot be undertaken against one’s
opponent; for it will be a kind of violence done to him The
satyagrahi invites penalty from the opponent for disobedience
of his orders, but he cannot inflict on himself penalties when
the opponent refuses to punish him.96 Fasting can be resorted
to only against one’s nearest and dearest and solely for his or
her good.97 “A satyagrahi should fast only as a last resort when
all other avenues of redress have been explored and have
failed.”98
The object of the satyagrahi’s love for whose reform he
undertakes a fast may be an individual or a group. Thus
Gandhiji s Rajkot fast was with a view to make the ruler repent
his breach of promise. His five-day fast at Bombay in November
1921 was directed against the people of that place, being a
94 H.t Oct 13, 1940, p. 322.
95 Ibid.
96 D. G. Tendulkar and Others, Gandhiji: His Ljfe and Work, pp. 368-69.
97 It would be a clear case of its misuse for an ordinary satyagrahi
volunteer indiscriminately to fast for imposing his opinion on his co-villagers
or neighbours and compelling them to withdraw co-operation from the
Government. T.I., I, p. 941; Y.I., II, p. 1183.
98 H., April 21, 1946, p. 93.
 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE 149

warning appeal to them to stop the riots that had broken out
on the occasion of the visit of the Prince of Wales to that city.
The fast of September 1932 was undertaken by him “to sting
Hindu conscience to right religious action95 and to pit his own
life against the efforts of the British Government to separate the
depressed classes from the caste Hindus by giving the former
separate electorates and thus ensuring their “bondage in perpe¬
tuity99.99 The Calcutta fast (September 1947) was an appeal to
Hindus and Muslims to stop communal violence and live in
peace. It was meant “to activize the better, peace-loving and wise
elements in society, to rescue them from mental sluggishness and
make goodness active.99 His last fast (January 1948) at Delhi
was for the protection of the Muslim minority in India and the
establishment of communal harmony. “My fast," he observed,
“is against no one party, group or individual exclusively and
yet it excludes nobody. It is addressed to the conscience of all,
even the majority community in the other Dominion." He called
it his greatest fast and said, “It will end when and if I am satis¬
fied that there is a reunion of hearts of all the communities
brought about without any outside pressure, and from an
awakened sense of duty.”100
Though Gandhiji holds that satyagraha in the form of
fasting cannot be undertaken against an opponent, this general
principle admits of exceptions. He himself fasted at least thrice
against the British Government and once he warned the
Government against a fast. On December 2, 1932, while a
prisoner, he went on a sympathetic fast to lend support to
Shri Patwardhan’s demand for scavenging work in jail.101 On
August 15, 1933, Gandhiji again started fasting against the
Government. He was a civil disobedience prisoner and, as a
99 His statement to the Press, dated Sept. 21, 1932. This fast of his no
doubt succeeded in attaining its immediate objective as well as in raising
a ferment in Hindu society. But it induced some of the Harijan leaders to
consent to the giving up of separate electorates against their will.
io° H., Sept. 14, 1947, p. 324; Jan. 18, 1948, p. 514; Bapu's Letters to
Mira, p. 385.
101 Shri Patwardhan was a satyagrahi prisoner fasting to enforce his
demand. The request had been previously rejected by the Government as
the jail rules forbade scavenging work being given to caste Hindus. But it
was conceded soon after Gandhiji’s fast began.
150 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE

gesture of unity with the depressed classes, demanded faci¬

lities for guiding, from inside the jail, the anti-untouchability
movement which he had made his sole concern after his fast
of September 1932. After about a week of fasting, the
Government released him unconditionally.
In 1932 he warned the then Secretary of State for India
that the Government terrorism had crossed the legitimate
bounds and was brutalizing and demoralizing the officials, that
this alarming state of affairs was agitating his fundamental
being and that as a protest he might, if there was a call from
within, sacrifice himself by fasting to a finish.102 Soon after this
warning Gandhiji threw himself into the movement for the
removal of untouchability and the ordeal of fasting to a finish
was avoided.
His twenty-one days5 “fast according to capacity55103 in the
Aga Khan’s palace at Poona in 1943 was Gandhiji’s protest
against the attitude of the British Government in India and “an
appeal to the highest tribunal55 for justice which he had failed
to secure from the Government. The Government held the
Congress, and particularly Gandhiji, responsible for the cam¬
paign of violence and revolutionary activity which broke out in
India on August 9, 1942. But the charges were never proved
before an impartial tribunal. Gandhiji laid the whole blame for
these happenings at the door of the Government whose tyran¬
nical policy drove the people to the point of madness. He invited
the Government to convince him that he was wrong and he
would make adequate amends. He also pleaded with them to
end the political impasse. The Government would do neither. In
fact, the Viceroy went to the length of imputing to him the
cowardly motive of attempting to find, by means of the fast,
“an easy way out55. This condemnation without trial made him
a helpless witness to what was going on in the country including
the privations of millions owing to the universal scarcity
102 His letter, dated the Yeravda Central Prison, March 11, 1932,
reproduced in full in History of the Congress, pp. 908-12.
*03 Gandhiji called it “a fast according to capacity” because instead of
taldng water with salts which he usually did during his fasts and which his
system refused those days, he decided to add juices of citrus fruit to make
the water drinkable. For his wish was not to fast unto death but to survive
the ordeal. See Gandhiji9s Correspondence with the Government, p. 40.
 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE 151
stalking the land and caused him intense agony. According to
him, the remedy prescribed by the law of satvagraha in such
moments of trial was to “crucify the flesh by fasting”.104
The above instances indicate that occasionally a wrong¬
doer’s misdeeds may so circumscribe the satyagrahi’s life and
freedom that the anguished soul may call for this last line of
■resistance.
One of these compelling conditions which would justify
satyagrahi prisoners employing the weapon is insulting, in¬
human behaviour towards them. Some instances of such
behaviour are throwing of the prisoners’ food at them,
depriving them of their religious liberty, using abusive lan¬
guage, etc. Its use would not be justified for securing release
from imprisonment.105
The method of fasting has been subjected to severe criti¬
cism. It has been characterized as terrorism against which “the
action of an opponent has no alternative between surrender and
the fasting individual’s suicide.” Thus fasting is exploiting
against an opponent his feelings of humanity, chivalry and
mercy.106
On the occasion of Gandhiji’s Yeravda fast Tagore called
it “the ultimatum of mortification to God for his scheme of
things”. To resort to it is, according to him, to refuse the great
gift of life wth all its opportunities to hold up till the last
moment the ideal of perfection tvhich justifies humanity.107
Some critics pointed out at the time of the Rajkot fast that
“democracy cannot be built” by the method of fasting,108 which
cannot be employed by the masses. Besides, one may make a
mistake about the imperative necessity of fasting and thus
abruptly terminate one’s power to further the cause of truth
and love. There is also the danger that it may be exploited by
some as a measure of coercion and intimidation.
104 Gandhiji’s Correspondence with the Government, p. 22.
105 South Africa, pp. 345-46; J. H. Holmes, Mahatma Gandhi, pp. 209-10
and 215; H., Aug. 19, 1939, p. 240 and April 23, 1938, p. 89.
106 George Arundale’s correspondence with Gandhiji published in
the Indian Press in March, 1939; Gandhiji’s Correspondence with the
Government, p. 73.
107 His letters to Gandhiji published in Hcirijan, July 1, 1933.
108 H.9 April 15, 1939, p. 88.
152 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE

Further, it is natural for people to fear lest the fasting

satvagrahi may fast to death and to yield to his demands. This
risk is especially great if the satyagrahi is a great man like
Gandhiji whose unique place in national life exerts an almost
irresistible pressure on the opponent. Fasting may thus inhibit
clear thinking and may lead to coercion instead of conversion.
This is a risk which fasting shares with all kinds of suffering.
The sight of suffering causes a sympathetic response in the
beholder. This response renders a dispassionate discussion of
the issue of the conflict difficult, at least for the time being. But
persuasion and gentler methods failing, undertaking suffering
to convert the opponent is far better than inflicting suffering
to suppress him. Besides, in the long run the issue is clarified
and truth prevails. As Gandhiji put it in his letter to Sir
Reginald Maxwell in 1943, “which is better, to take the oppo¬
nent’s life secretly or openly, or to credit him with finer feelings
and evoke them by fasting and the like ? Again, which is better,
to trifle with one’s own life by fasting or some other way of self-
immolation, or to trifle with it by engaging in an attempt to
compass the destruction of the opponent and his dependents?”109
According to him, it is the outbreak of violence which arrests
the growth of democracy. Being a technique of non-violent
resistance, it is rooted in the recognition of the principle of infi¬
nite moral worth of human beings. As such, it diminishes
violence and helps in the growth of democracy.110
Gandhiji is fully alive to the risks involved in fasting as a
method of satyagraha.111 This is why he insists on its being
very sparingly used and only by those or under the direction of

109 Gandhiji*s Correspondence with the Government, p. 74.

110 if., April 15, 1939, p. 88.
111 Gandhiji draws a distinction between satyagrahi fasting and suicide.
The will to live is natural and life has a purpose. Suicide defeats that pur¬
pose and is not justified. But if a person suffering from an incurable disease
feels that he has become a burden to others without being able to serve
them and that his life has become as much agony for those who have to
serve him as for himself, he may well dispose of his life. Being tired of
struggle or intense physical pain, however, does not justify this extreme
step. Similarly there is no justification for it so long as a man is capable of
any service through ideas, advice etc. Suicide by starving is better than
other forms because it tests one’s firmness and there is an opportunity to
revise one’s decision, if., June 10, 1940, p. 146 and Diary, I, pp. 194-95.
 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE 153

those who have mastered the science of satyagraha and ac¬

quired the necessary discipline.
But, though risky in practice, it is undoubtedly sound in
principle. The end of human life being self-expression, man may
stake it when there is available no other means of seeking
redress from an intolerable moral situation. Fasting has been
for ages, and will ever remain, an effective method of conver¬
sion. The ultimate strength of ahimsa lies in self-immolation
even as the ultimate strength of himsa consists in devouring the
opponent. Gandhiji’s own conclusion is that c Tasting unto
death is an integral part of satyagraha programme. . . ,”112
The satyagrahi’s mainstay is his inner strength, his soul-
force. He must not, therefore, depend on external help. For c\ . .
the strength of the spirit within mostly evaporates when a
person gets and accepts support from outside. A satyagrahi
must always be on his guard against such temptations.”113
Gandhiji supports the argument by referring to domestic
quarrels. If a satyagrahi wishes to remove untouchability from
his family, he will surely not invite friends to suffer with him
but will bear all the penalties his father inflicts on him and rely
on the law of love and suffering to melt his heart. The satya¬
grahi may invite the friends of the family to persuade the
father. But he may allow no one to share with him the privilege
and the duty of suffering.114 Gandhiji is against the satyagrahi
suing in the court or calling the police because these are exter¬
nal aids meant to coerce and not to convert.
According to Gandhiji, the non-violence of the satyagrahi
must be judged by its result. The satyagrahi’s ahimsa is pure
and his suffering adequate if the opponent’s heart is touched
and he comes round. *T hold it to be an axiomatic truth that true
ahimsa never fails to impress itself on the opponent. If it does,
to that extent it is imperfect.”115 “A non-violent action accom¬
panied by non-violence in thought and word should never pro¬
duce enduring violent reaction upon the opponent.”116 The
112 Gandhiji, His Life and Work, cited above, p. 370; H.s July 26, 1942,
p. 248.
113 South Africa, p. 286.
114 r. I., II, pp. 821-22.
il$ H., May 6, 1939, p. 112.
H6 H., June 24, 1939, p. 172.
154 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE

opponent should feel that resistance is not intended to do him

any harm and his attitude must soften. cc. . .ahimsa ought to
soften and not to stiffen our opponent’s attitude to us; it ought
to melt him; it ought to strike a responsive chord in his
heart.”117 “It is the acid test of non-violence/’ he wrote in 1938,
“that in a non-violent conflict there is no rancour left behind,
and in the end the enemies are converted into friends.”118 Again,
“genuine satyagraha should never excite contempt in the oppo¬
nent even when it fails to command regard or respect.”119
Satyagraha as the way of life implies that our non-violence
must extend to the criminal also. It is the criminals that suffer
most from violence in society. In fact, coercion is claimed as an
essential attribute of the State on account of the need to punish
crime for the maintenance of the system of rights. Non-violence,
it is said, may do when the conflict is between decent persons,
but it would be of no avail against a criminal. Gandhiji rejects
this line of thought and holds that “It is only when you meet
with resistance, as for instance, when a thief or murderer
appears, that your non-violence is put on its trial. . . .Living
among decent people your conduct may not be described as
non-violent.”120
According to Gandhiji, “The word criminal should be taboo
from our dictionary. Or we are criminals. . .in secret.”121 The
difference between criminals is only one of degree. “The rich,
moneyed man, who made his riches by exploitation or other
questionable means, was no less guilty of robbery than the thief
who picked a pocket or broke into a house and committed theft.
Only the former took refuge behind the facade of respectability
and escaped the penalty of law. Strictly speaking, all amassing
or hoarding of wealth, above and beyond one’s legitimate re¬
quirements, was theft.”122
“All crime is disease and should be treated as such.” The
disease is a product of the prevalent social system. The criminal

117 if., June 24, 1939, p. 72.

118 if., Nov. 12, 1938, p. 327.
119 if., May 6, 1939, p. 113.
120 if.. May 13, 1939, p. 121.
121 Bapu's Letters to Mira, p. 218.
122 if., Aug. 11, 1946, p. 255.
 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE 155
is thus a victim of the existing social system.123 The worst
diseases of the modern society are love of wealth and love of
power, both being rooted in ignorance. These vitiate our entire
social, economic and political life so as to favour the few at the
cost of the many.
The penal system also aggravates the malady. In actual
practice Governments still stick to retribution and deterrence.
On these is often super-imposed the object of reforming the
prisoner, but reform goes ill with retribution and the result is
the large figures of recidivism.
Gandhiji seeks to carry through an all-round revolution so
as to minimize violence and usher in the non-violent State. This
consummation will undoubtedly attack the problem at the root
and enormously diminish crimes.
In his ideal Stateless democracy based on non-violence
there will be no crime. But the ideal is unrealizable in its
entirety. In the predominantly non-violent State “there will be
crime but no criminals.”134 Grime will, no doubt, be minimized
but not eliminated. So the non-violent State of his conception
will not be a policeless and prisonless State. But the police and
the prison will be far different from what they are today, and
the criminal will be non-violently weaned from crime.125
But the first step lies with the individual. Unless the
average man adopts non-violence as a creed, the non-violent
State can never be realized. The satyagrahi who adopts non¬
violence as a creed should treat the criminal even as he treats
an ordinary opponent.
The way of non-violence rules out passive, cowardly
acquiescence in crime which makes the individual party to the
crime. Similarly non-violence is inconsistent with retaliation
or seeking police aid. “You cannot touch his (the criminal’s)
heart and win his confidence, if at the same time you are pre¬
pared to go to the police and inform against him. That would
be gross betrayal of trust. A reformer cannot afford to be an
informer.”126

123 H., May 5, 1949, p. 124; Aug. 11, 1946, p. 255.

124 H., May 5, 1946, p. 124.
125H., Aug. 11, 1946, p. 255.
126 For details see Chapter XI infra.
156 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE

As regards the non-violent way of dealing with crime, it

may be pointed out that most of the serious crimes either relate
to property, or are assaults on women. So far as property is
concerned, the satyagrahi is inspired by the ideals of non¬
possession and bread-labour and should own as little as possible.
In any case he should not possess more than what is necessary
for his moral, mental and physical wellbeing. To be rich amidst
grinding poverty is illegitimate and “Non-violence in the very
nature of things is of no assistance in the defence of ill-gotten
gains.”127 If the satyagrahi looks upon some property as his
own, he may keep it only so long as the world allows him to
own it.128
Besides avoiding all violent defence of property, he should
seek no outside help, endure thieves and burglars, treat them
like erring blood-brothers and apply non-violence intelligent¬
ly.129 Thus, doors may be left open and belongings so arranged
as to be easily accessible. Persuasion may be used, if there is
an opportunity. This uncommon kindness will, in an average
case, upset and agitate the thief. He will respond to the satya-
grahi’s love and reform his ways. To meet the menace of thieves
and dacoits the satyagrahi should also go among, and cultivate
friendly relations with, the communities from which thieves and
dacoits generally come.130 He should win their confidence by
loving and selfless service and help to rehabilitate them by teach¬
ing them honest ways of living.131
In case somebody seeks to deprive the satyagrahi of some
property which he holds as a trustee, his suffering will take a
different form. Instead of bearing the loss of property he will
put himself between the despoiler and his object and die, if
necessary, in the attempt to save it without using any violence.

127 if., Sept. 5, 1936, p. 236.

128 if., Aug. 18, 1940, p. 254.
129 T. II, pp. 867-68; Teravda Mandir, pp. 10-12; Hind Swaraj, pp.
63-65; H., July 13, 1940, p. 194; if., Aug. 11, 1946, p. 255.
130 if., July 21, 1940, p. 215. F. Mary Barr refers to a marauding
criminal tribe given to thieving and living in the neighbourhood of Sabar-
mati Ashram. It was won over by the active helpfulness of the askramites.
Barr, p. 38. See also Ashram, p. 39.
131 if., Aug. 11, 1946, p. 255.
 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE 157
When India was undivided Gandhiji often advised the
people of the Frontier Province to learn the art of non-violent
self-defence in relation to the trans-border tribesmen who
plundered and kidnapped the people of the province. According
to him, a non-violent approach to the problem involves trusting
and befriending the tribes and not regarding them natural
enemies. Efforts should be made to serve them and explain to
them things in a loving and sympathetic manner. People of the
Frontier Province should also try to raise these tribesmen above
penury by teaching them cottage industries and thus removing
the principal motive that leads them into the raiding.132
How should a woman behave if threatened with violation ?
And what would be the duty of the satyagrahi in whose pre¬
sence the assault took place? These questions were put to
Gandhiji scores of times. To him men and women are equal in
status, their functions, though different, being complementary.
Women, he believes, make even better satyagrahis than men,
because, being mothers, they have greater courage of the right
type and immeasurably greater spirit of self-sacrifice. Indeed
violence is against their nature. If non-violence is the law of
our being, the future is with women. On the other hand if
women ape men, forsake the hearth and shoulder the rifle for its
protection, “It is a reversion to barbarity and the beginning of
the end.”
But the way of satyagraha is only for the woman who
acquires the requisite self-control and lives a simple, natural
life. To be non-violent she has to avoid the modem craze of
dressing to attract attention and improving upon nature by
painting herself and looking extraordinary.133 If she tries to be
Juliet to half a dozen Romeos, she cannot develop the non¬
violent spirit in her. To be non-violent she must forget that she
ever was or can be the slave of man’s lust and extend her love
to the whole humanity.
If a woman thus revolutionizes her way of thinking and
living, she will find that purity is the best strength.134 Gandhiji

132 ff Oct. 22, 1938, p. 304; Oct. 29, 1938, p. 310; Nov. 5, 1938, p.
314; Jan. 28, 1939, p. 448; July 13, 1940, p. 208; T.I., I, pp. 719-23.
133 H., Dec. 31, 1938, p. 499.
134 For virtues which Gandhiji included in purity, see Manu Gandhi,
Bapu—My Mother, pp. 10-11.
153 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE

believes that “The veriest ruffian becomes for the time being
tame in the presence of resplendent purity.”135 He also holds
tha.t . .it is physically impossible to violate a woman against
her will. The outrage takes place only when she gives way to
fear or does not realize her moral strength.”136 Her purity mnl-es
her conscious of her strength. If perchance she finds herself in
danger, she should resist the lust of the assailant even to the
extent of immolating herself. Even if gagged or bound, the reso¬
lute will would give her the strength to die.137 Similarly the
satyagrahi relation or friend of such a woman should stand
between the assailant and his intended victim. He should then
either dissuade the assailant from his wicked purpose or face
death.
Even if a woman is attacked by a group of assailants, a part
of the group trying to carry away the woman and the other
isolating and beating her brother or relation, the plan of non¬
violent defence will remain the same. Non-violent self-defence
consists in being prepared to die bravely and with honour. The
satyagrahi woman would protect herself without caring or wait¬
ing for aid from her brother or sister and face death.138 Surrender
has no room in Gandhiji’s plan of life. A woman should tal-p
her own life rather than surrender. But behind Gandhiji’s
approval of suicide under such circumstances is the belief that
one whose mind is prepared even for suicide will have requisite
courage for such mental resistance and purity that her assailant
will be disarmed. If the choice is between taking one’s own life
and that of the assailant Gandhiji would prefer suicide.139
This method of defence by soul-force is far superior to
armed resistance. It will, in all probability, exhaust the assai¬
lant’s passion and awaken his soul. It will very likely steel the
heart of others to put an equally brave defence. Besides, death
in non-violent defence will not make the position even worse
as defeat in armed resistance will do. Defeat or death in armed
resistance, instead of stilling the fury or violence, feeds it by

135 r. /., II, P. 862.

!3<s H., Sept. 1, 1940, p. 266.
137 H., Dec. 31, 1938, pp. 408-09; T. I., II, pp. 861-62.
138 H-s Oct* 5> 1947, p. 354 and Sept. 15, 1946, p. 312.
139 H., Feb. 9, 1947, p. 9.
 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE 159

counter-violence. Even if the woman and her defender die in

the effort, it will be a glorious death, for they will have done
their duty.140
But this truly non-violent treatment of the criminal is not
possible unless it springs from a sincere belief that the criminal
and the satyagrahi are one and, therefore, it is better that the
latter die at the hands of the former than that the ignorant crimi¬
nal should die at the hands of the satyagrahi.141
To a Negro visitor’s question as to how one should act if
one’s brother was lynched, Gandhiji replied as under:
“. . .1 must not wish ill to these. . . .It may be that ordi¬
narily I depend on the lynching community for my livelihood.
I refuse to co-operate with them, refuse even to touch the food
that comes from them, and I refuse to co-operate with even my
brother Negroes who tolerate the wrong. That is the self-immo¬
lation I mean. Of course a mechanical act of starvation means
nothing. One’s faith must remain undimmed whilst life ebbs out
minute by minute.”142
It is unnecessary to give hypothetical cases and discuss how
to deal with them, or even to refer to actual instances in the life
of Gandhiji and others. Non-violence is the law of love, i.e.,
voluntary suffering and sacrifice of the highest type. It will not
be difficult to know how exactly to act in a particular situation
provided we are non-violent through and through. Says
Gandhiji, CT know that when we have real non-violence in us
a non-violent way out is bound, without effort, to occur to us
when we find ourselves in a difficult situation.”143 The sign that
one has developed real non-violence is that there must be within
him an upwelhng of love and pity towards the wrong-doer.
“When there is that feeling it will express itself through some
action. It may be a sign, a glance, even silence. But such, as it
is, will melt the heart of the wrong-doer and check the wrong.”144
But one does not become non-violent overnight for the mere
wishing. The highest form of ahimsa presumes a thoughtful
140 speeches,, pp. 385, 838-39; if., Nov. 19, 1938, p. 344; if., Sept. 1,
1940, p. 266.
141 if., June 29, 1940, p. 184.
142 H.} March 19, 1936, p. 39.
143 H., Feb. 17, 1940, p. 8.
144 if., March 9, 1940, p. 31.
160 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE

training spread over a fairly long period. What is one to do

before one has developed the courage of dying without killing?
There may also be people who accept ahimsa only as a political
expedient. What should be the attitude of such persons in face
of danger to honour, life and property?
In 1922 Gandhiji saw nothing wrong in satyagrahis using
violence in self-defence.145 Indeed, he did not ask them to eschew
violence in dealing with robbers or thieves or with nations that
might invade India.146 The Gaya Congress passed a resolution
permitting the Congress satyagrahis the use of force in self-
defence. But later on he did not countenance the “non-violence
of the weak”. To those, however, who had not yet learnt the
superior method of non-violent self-defence, he advised the use
of force in self-defence, i.e., killing and being killed rather than
shamefully fleeing from danger. In chapter III we have
discussed why Gandhiji preferred violence where the only alter¬
native was cowardice. On many occasions his advice to indi¬
viduals and groups was that, if they are incapable of non-violent
defence, i.e., self-immolation, and are face to face with oppo¬
nents bent on ruining their life, self-respect or honour, they
should, rather than submit to the wrong, use physical strength,
if necessary, to the point of killing the wrong-doer. This is the
advice he generally gave to people in cases of police excesses
and communal riots. In fact, he considers it the condition of
democracy that every citizen should know the art of self-
defence.147 For if a citizen cannot stake his life to defend his own
self-respect, he would be far less ready to stake it for the
defence of democracy against internal and external dangers.
Gandhiji also believes that spontaneous violent resistance
offered against overwhelming might in the full knowledge that
it means certain death is almost non-violent.148 Thus, if a man
fights with his sword single-handed against a horde of dacoits
armed to the teeth, or if a woman uses her nails and teeth in
defence of her honour, the conduct would be almost non¬
violent.149

145 Y.I., II, p. 1075; Speeches, p. 719.

146 r. /., II, p. 31.
147 H., Feb. 10, 1940, p. 446.
148 H., Sept. 8, 1940, p. 274.
149 H., Aug. 25, 1940, p. 261.
 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE 161

There would, however, be no occasion for violent self-

defence when police aid is available.150 Besides, 'when force is
used it should not be more than needed on the occasion. Self-
defence should never be cowardly, crude or secret.151 ccIt is in¬
variably a sign of cowardice and madness to use excessive force.
A brave man does not kill a thief but arrests him and hands him
over to the police. A braver man uses just enough force to drive
him out and thinks no more about it.” Of course, the bravest
man is he who can deal with the criminal non-violently.
The methods discussed in this chapter have their risks and
uncertainties due to the weakness and imperfections of satya-
grahis. Thus individual satyagraha may become duragraka in
two ways. Suffering may be coercive and violent from the very
start. It may be for stage effect or for some other unworthy
object. In such a case the resister will lack the moral strength
that truth alone gives and will in all probability not be able to
persevere for long. Another possibility is that the opponent,
instead of being converted, may be compelled to yield against
his reason because he has not the strength to stand hostile pub¬
lic opinion or the sight of suffering. And the dearer the satya-
grahi to the opponent, the greater is this risk. Gandhiji himself
writes referring to non-co-operation, “Its abuse is the greatest
in domestic relations because those against wrhom it is used are
not strong enough to resist the abuse. It becomes a case of mis¬
applied affection. Doting parents or wives are the greatest vic¬
tims. These will learn wisdom when they realize that affection
does not demand yielding to extortion in any form. On the con¬
trary true affection will resist it.”152 Still another possibility is
that the satyagrahi may tire of his suffering.
But every human device is liable to misuse. Satyagraha as
the way of life should be judged by its net results. It should be
borne in mind that efforts to eliminate violence from personal
life form an inevitable first step to the establishment of genuine
democracy and world peace and to the successful use of non¬
violent direct action on a mass scale. Besides, non-violence gives
to the individual character and strength. It is an invaluable
discipline for acquiring self-mastery or personal swaraj. As

150 H., July 20, 1935, p. 181.

151 H.} Sept. 8, 1946, p. 296.
152H, May 18, 1940, p. 133.
162 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE

Gandhiji puts it, . . .A perfect satyagrahi has to be almost, if

not entirely, a perfect man. Thus viewed satyagraha is the
noblest and the best education. . .the greater the spirit of satya¬
graha in us the better men we will become. . .it is a force which,
if it become universal, would revolutionize social ideals. . . .”155
Violence always leads to counter-violence and cannot be a
lasting solution of the conflict. The defeated nurses the grudge
and waits for a suitable opportunity to wreak vengeance. Vio¬
lence thus creates greater evils than it seeks to cure. It arouses
the beastliest passions of man and leads on from injustice to
injustice. Non-violence seeks to re-direct these divisive propen¬
sities into creative channels. It raises the conflict from the
destructive physical to the constructive moral level. Suffering
love paralyzes mere physical force, conciliates the opponent and
leads to a settlement satisfactory to both the sides and in
keeping with their self-respect. Gandhiji calls satyagraha an all-
sided sword; for “it can be used anyhow; it blesses him who
uses it and him against whom it is used.”154 It is available to
either side in the conflict and will vindicate truth and justice
on whichever side they are in a preponderating measure.155 It
thus carries its own automatic check against misuse. What will
happen, it may be asked, if two satyagrahis differ on a vital pro¬
blem? Most probably satyagraha would not reach the stage of
suffering, the differences being resolved at the preliminary
stage of persuasion. In any case truth will prevail in the end.
On the whole, the destructive method of violence is no
substitute for satyagraha. The latter may work slow, but it does
setde the conflict and establish the right even as the former
perpetuates antagonisms and, often enough, establishes the
wrong.
It has been suggested that non-violence is, so far as theo¬
retical merits are concerned, the most just and powerful weapon
conceivable in human affairs. In actual practice, however, it is
too idealistic and exacting to accomplish the everyday work of
the world, as it “demands a stronger self-control, a more endu¬
ring solidarity of purpose, a greater capacity for passive

155 T.I., III, p. 445.

154 Hind Swaraj, p. 72-
155 r. I., I, p. 52.
 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE 163

suffering, a higher ethical development than most human beings

have thus far attained/’156 This is an opinion very widely held
by people in India as well as outside.
Gandhiji, however, holds that “The weapon of ahimsa does
not require supermen and superwomen to wield it; beings of
common clay can use and have used it before this with suc¬
cess.5’157 It does presume a moral discipline, but this discipline,
as we have discussed in chapter V, is practicable. Besides, once
the desirability of satyagraha is conceded, it is too late in the
day to take one’s stand on imperfections of human nature. Few
will question the enormous malleability of man. Revolutions
bear testimony to the great plasticity of human nature. The long
list of evils like slavery, human sacrifice, infanticide, etc.,
which were once considered irremovable due to imperfections
of human nature and have now disappeared, should convince
the sceptics. If Fascist countries can train people en masse to
regard war as good in itself, surely peace-loving nations can,
with equal or even greater effort, educate people in the way of
peace.158 Perhaps it may take a very long time to convince
people and to induce them to change their outlook, but time is
not of the essence. What matters is conviction and sincere effort
in the correct direction. If just a few persons actually begin to
live non-violently, the non-violent way will spread among the
masses. Every possible means, it is true, should be explored
and utilized. Efforts should be made to reconstruct the entire
structure of society. Gandhiji is conscious that it is far easier
to educate children along proper lines than to change adults.
For the establishment of peace in the world and for the
elimination of war we have to begin with children. He attaches
very great importance to the elementary training of children in

156 C. M. Case, Non-violent Coercion, pp. 406-07.

157 H.s July 13, 1940, p. 198.
158 G. M. Stratton’s conclusion is that both violence and co-operation
are alike natural; that nature leaves undetermined the special acts by which
the two kinds of impulse shall be carried out; that the malleable violent
and co-operative activities are shaped and finished by social needs and pur¬
poses; and that common life requires that co-operation be steadied and
extended and that violence which obstructs co-operation be prevented from
disrupting or impeding it. See “Violence between Nations and Violence
within the Nation” in Psychological Review, 1944, 51, pp. 85-101 and 147-61.
164 SATYAGRAHA AS THE WAY OF LIFE

satyagraha preceding literary education.159 He believes that

even before literary education the child should be taught what
soul is, what truth is, what love is and how in the struggle of
life it can easily conquer hate by love, untruth by truth and
violence by self-suffering.160 In the scheme of Basic Education
he has tried to revolutionize the system of education and to give
it a non-violent bias.
Though Gandhiji does not neglect the social approach, the
first step is the transparently non-violent lives of those con¬
vinced, however small their number. Thus in 1936 when asked
by Dr. Thurman as to how to train individuals and commu¬
nities in this art, Gandhiji replied, “There is no royal road,
except through living the creed in your life which must be a
living sermon. Of course the expression in one’s life presumes
great study, tremendous perseverance, and thorough cleansing
of one’s self of all the impurities.”161
In theory, no doubt, Gandhiji is an absolutist, that is, his
non-violence does not stop at man but reaches out to the tiniest
creature living, and he believes that, ideally speaking, every
situation of life can be dealt with non-violently. “A fully non¬
violent person is by nature incapable of using violence or rather
has no use for it. His non-violence is all-sufficing under all
circumstances.”162 In actual practice, he is far from strict and
makes ample concessions to demands of human weakness. He
concedes himsa as unavoidable in certain conditions. Unlike
Tolstoy, the Quakers and many other pacifist Christian sects,
he permits the satyagrahi even to kill in certain situations. He
believes that every individual should determine for himself how
far he is willing to go in the practice of ahimsa. He prefers vio¬
lence to cowardice and slavery and advises people to fight like
sportsmen rather than run away in craven fear. Thus, in spite
of being an absolutist in theory, Gandhiji does retain a minimum
of coercion indispensable for individual life and social
cohesion.163

159 C. F. Andrews, Mahatma Gandhi’s Ideas, p. 200.

160 r. Ill, pp. 445-46.
161 H., March 14, 1936, p. 39.
162 H., March 9, 1940, p. 31.
163 For details see Chapters III, V and XI.
 CHAPTER VHI

SATYAGRAHA AS CORPORATE ACTION1

THE LEADER, ORGANIZATION AND PROPAGANDA

“Non-violence,” Gandhiji once remarked, “is not an indi¬

vidual virtue but a course of spiritual and political conduct both
for the individual and the community.”2 Group conflicts, like
conflicts in dyadic relations, are due to the relative nature of
truth as known to man as well as other human imperfections.
In group relations, even more than in individual life, conflicts
and violence have become chronic today and threaten the very
existence of civilized life. In satyagraha Gandhiji has given to
the world a technique for fighting, in a creative, constructive
way, aggression and exploitation in group relations.
Satyagraha as corporate action raises complicated ques¬
tions of leadership, organization, discipline, training and
strategy. Satyagraha is essentially a matter of quality rather
than quantity and its use even in group affairs would not be
difficult, if there could be found a few or even one perfect satya-
grahi. One perfect satyagrahi, Gandhiji has repeatedly said, is
enough to win the battle of right against wrong. He can “defy
the whole might of an unjust empire. . .and lay the foundation
for that empire’s fall or regeneration.”3 “Complete non-violence
. . .does not stand in need of organized strength. A man or
woman who is saturated with akimsa has only to will a thing
and it happens.”4 In the first article Gandhiji wrote for the
Indian Opinion he said that “if after all there was one true man
in South Africa he will cover all. He will build up the whole
structure from within.”5 This belief of Gandhiji follows from his
views about the limitless potency of soul-force. But such perfec¬
tion, such marvellous control over thought and wall is not
possible for man. Even if it were possible, its greatest utility
1 Gandhiji often terms satyagraha on group-scale as corporate non¬
violence.
2 H., Sept. 29, 1940, p. 299.
3 Y. I., I, p. 262.
4 H., August 18, 1940, p. 253.
5 H., May 19, 1946, p. 134.

165
166 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

would be as an instrument of educating the masses into satya¬

graha.6 7 8 “In this age of democracy, however, it is essential that
desired results are achieved by the collective effort of the people.
It will no doubt be good to achieve an objective through the
effort of a supremely powerful individual, but it can never make
the community conscious of its corporate strength.557 Besides,
“Anything that millions can do together becomes charged with
a unique power.558 As it is, mass movements are essential, and
with patience and perseverance masses have to be organized
and disciplined for the use of collective non-violent technique.
The leader is the very soul of mass satyagraha. Great move¬
ments need great leaders for the psychological reason that most
people find it easier to think in terms of personalities than of
ideas. They crave a personal leader even as they need a personal
God.9 A personal leader is even a greater necessity in satyagraha
than in other great movements. For it is only by the impact of
the dynamic personality of the leader, truth and non-violence
in flesh and blood, that ordinary human material can rise to
the level of ethical excellence necessary for the practice of mass
satyagraha.
The satyagrahi leader will try to live up to all the implica¬
tions of truth and non-violence. His transparent sincerity and
all-embracing love, culture and dignified bearing will win the
devoted affection and the unquestioning obedience of his
followers, disarm all opposition and endear him even to his
adversary. His control over all the senses will give him creative
energy of the highest order. It will give power to his word and
make his controlled thought self-acting.10 His complete selfless¬
ness bom of the pursuit of non-possession will make him proof
against self-seeking opportunism and enable him to feel one
with the humblest camp-follower. Firmly rooted in the soil of
his country and saturated with the spirit of swadeshi, he will
represent the best in the culture and tradition of his people. His
faith in God and his clear grasp of the basic moral principles
will make him a matchless general and an unfailing strategist.

6 Sarvodaya (Hindi), April 1940, p. 426.

7 if., Sept. 8, 1940, p. 277.
8 if., April 7, 1946, p. 72.
9 G. D. H. and Margaret Cole, A Guide to Modem Politics, pp. 348-49.
10 if., July 23, 1938, p. 192.
 THE LEADER, ORGANIZATION AND PROPAGANDA 167
The leader prepares the masses for the use of satvagraha
in the sense of direct action as well as in its constructive aspect.
The sure test of his success is that satyagrahis working under
him should take as much interest in the arduous and exacting
task of constructive activities as in the spectacular aspect of
direct action and should be able to change from the one to the
other with ease and effectiveness. The greatest tribute to the
success of the satyagrahi leader would be for some of his
followers to excel him in non-violence.11
A leader like Gandhiji asserts himself by sheer moral force.
But for training sub-leaders and workers the best means is an
ancient Indian institution, the ashram.12
Here due to the constant living contact between the
teacher and the taught over a long period in the ideal atmos¬
phere the message of non-violence is indelibly stamped on the
inmates. In the common life of the ashram the leader and his
disciples cultivate non-violent virtues. The way the leader lives
and deals with the day to day problems of the institution is a
concrete, living lesson in satyagraha that no mere written or
spoken word will ever supplant. Ashrams thus become the vital
nerve centres of the non-violent movement and the nuclei of the
new social order. Through them the message of non-violence
filters down to the masses. Ashrams serve as research institu¬
tions for the discovery of new applications of non-violence and
train people to die, if necessary, in the pursuit of truth.15
After the discovery of satyagraha Gandhiji fixed up his
abode in ashrams, pursuing his sadhana there and drawing his
inspiration from the natural setting of his surroundings.14 By
ashram Gandhiji means collective religious life. Ashram, in this
sense was a part of his nature. Ever since he set up an indepen¬
dent household, it had been like an ashram. Its purpose was
religion and not indulgence. And it included, besides the mem¬
bers of the family, some friend or other whose relation to the

u H., July 21, 1940, p. 210.

12 In ancient India ashrams were forest retreats where seers and sages
preached and practised the ways of self-realization.
13 Ashram, p. 61 and 89.
14 Mahadev Desai’s article, “How Does Mr. Gandhi Live?” in the
Illustrated Weekly of India, March 31, 1940.
168 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

family was religious in nature.15 Gandhiji once remarked:

“Whatever institution I touch, I end by converting it into an
ashram—I seem to know nothing else.”16 There has grown up
a large number of satyagraha ashrams in various parts of India.
These are in most cases run by Gandhiji’s disciples and have
been modelled after the Sabarmati Ashram which was dis¬
banded by Gandhiji in 1933.
A satyagraha mass movement requires not only the leader,
his co-workers and lieutenants but also an enduring organiza¬
tion. Gandhiji tried to mould the Indian National Congress
according to the requirements of satyagraha. But the Congress
is not what he liked it to be. We may briefly study how far
during his lifetime the Congress fell short of the ideal non¬
violent organization of Gandhiji’s conception.
Before Gandhiji’s entry into Indian politics the Congress
was an organization of upper middle class leaders with little
contact with the masses. It met once a year in some big town
and its politics ranged between resolutions and deputations of
prayers and protests. It was thus mainly a deliberative organi¬
zation concerned with the formation of opinion rather than with
action. Gandhiji transformed the Congress into a revolutionary
mass organization.
Under his leadership the object of the Congress had been
to identify itself with the masses, to educate and discipline them
and to fight non-violently for their rights. According to him, the
means of a non-violent organization should be truthful and non¬
violent. But, in spite of his repeated pleading, the Congress
stuck to the adjectives ‘peaceful’ instead of ‘non-violent’ and
‘legitimate’ in place of ‘truthful’. With Gandhiji non-violence
had always been a creed and not a policy. In 1919 under
Gandhiji’s advice the Congress accepted non-violence as a
policy only, i.e., for the restricted purpose of winning swaraj
and regulating relations between various religious and social
groups in the country. He had hoped that many would accept
non-violence as their creed after they had watched its
working.17 But, though he preached non-violence as a policy, he

15 Ashram, p. 3.
16 H., Sept. 1, 1946, p. 291.
17 H., July 23, 1938, p. 192; June 24, 1939, p. 175.
 THE LEADER, ORGANIZATION AND PROPAGANDA 169

insisted that “even policies require honest adherence in thought,

word and deed. . . .Non-violence being a policy means that it
can upon due notice be given up when it proves unsuccessful
or ineffective. But simple morality demands that, whilst a parti¬
cular policy is pursued, it must be pursued with all one’s
heart.5’18 He said, “Our non-violence need not be of the strong
but it has to be of the truthful.”19
In 1933 Gandhiji came to be convinced that non-violence
to be effective should be accepted not as a halting measure of
expediency but as a comprehensive principle. The Congress,
however, continued to lag behind Gandhiji’s standard. The diffe¬
rence came to a head in 1940 due to the last war. By its Delhi and
Poona resolutions (July 7th and 27th, 1940) the Congress ab¬
solved Gandhiji of his leadership and, going back on its past
professions of non-violence, promised to Britain its active co¬
operation in the war effort in case Britain recognized India’s
independence. But its offer was rejected. Thereupon by its
Bombay resolution (16th Sept. 1940) the Congress once again
accepted Gandhiji’s leadership and pledged itself to “the policy
and practice of non-violence not only in the struggle for
swaraj, but also, in so far as this may be possible of application,
in free India” and to give a lead to the world in disarmament.20
Non-violence was still a policy with the Congress which, how¬
ever, advanced from the earlier position and accepted it in a
more comprehensive sense than before. Gandhiji believed that
“so long as it (the Congress) clings to non-violence, it will be
uncrushable and unconquerable.”21 In independent India the
Congress functions as a political party in charge of the Govern¬
ment of the country. Having practised non-violence of the weak
for about three decades it has not been able to deal non-vio-
lently with communal disturbances in India and Pakistan s
invasion of Kashmir.
In the Congress organization Gandhiji welcomed the
existence of groups and well-informed, balanced criticism

18 r. /., I, pp. 282-83.

19 r. L, I, p. 288.
20 The A.I.C.G. resolution. Sept. 16, 1940. if., Sept. 22, 1940, p. 296.
Gandhiji’s reply to Congress Responsibility for the Disturbances, dated July 15,
1943.
21 H., Nov. 13, 1937, p. 33.
170 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

which he considered to be the “ozone of public life”.21* The

various groups within this organization, he held, should be
knit together by their common devotion to truth and non¬
violence. They should not be irreconcilables, and their diffe¬
rences should concern neither the end nor the means but the
details of the means employed on a particular occasion.
Decision in a non-violent organization should be taken in
the democratic way, and the opinion of the majority should
count. Gandhiji, however, did not accept the logic of counting
heads and forcing big minorities on important questions. Non¬
violence rules out the tyranny of the majority and requires that
minorities should be treated with all consideration. Thus in
regard to the Congress he wrote, “I have always held that when
a respectable minority objects to any rule of conduct, it would
be dignified for the majority. . .to yield to the minority. Nume¬
rical strength savours of violence when it acts in total disregard
of any strongly felt opinion of a minority. The rule of the majo¬
rity is perfectly sound, only when there is no rigid insistence
on the part of dissenters upon their dissent, and where there
is on their behalf a sportsmanlike obedience to the opinion of
the majority.”22 But this does not mean the divine right of the
minority to liberum veto. “Where there is no principle involved
and there is a programme to be carried out the minority has got
to follow the majority.”23
Thus ordinarily the policy should be decided by the majo¬
rity vote, but the dissent of the minority should be reckoned
with when the question voted upon is one of principle.24
As for a non-violent minority group, it should render full
co-operation and willing obedience to the organization. But if
it does not believe in the basic principles of the organization, it
should withdraw from it and try to convert people to its view
by patient service and sacrifice. Even when it withdraws, it
should continue to co-operate with the majority wherever
possible. Remaining in the group and yet pursuing a policy of
opposition and obstruction offends against the spirit of satya-
graha. Thus Gandhiji wrote in 1922, “If we are going to evolve

21tt H., Nov. 13, 1937, p. 33.

22 T.I., III, p. 212.
23 H., August II, 1940, p. 244.
24 T. I, p. 1017.
 THE LEADER, ORGANIZATION AND PROPAGANDA 171

the real spirit of democracy, we shall not do so by obstruction

out by abstention. . Mere obstruction is negative and destructive
and aims at capturing power by embarrassment and manoeuvr¬
ing while non-violence is positive and constructive and aims at
conversion through service.
On the occasion of elections or voting, the various groups
in the organization may adopt all honest means for influencing
voters, but undue, pressure should not be exercised and there
should be no criticism of the opposite groups as distinguished
from their policy.* In 1924 when there was a tussle in the
Congress between the Swarajists and the No-changers,
Gandhiji advised the latter not to be party-men. He remarked,
“Wherever No-changers cannot have a majority without a
bitter struggle, they must gladly and willingly and gracefully
yield to the Swarajists. If they have power or office, it must be
by virtue of service, not by manipulation of the vote. The vote
is there no doubt. But it must come, without the asking.5’26 He
said in 1939, “Non-violence does not seize power. It does not
even seek power—power accrues to it.5’27 *Thus there should be
no room, in a non-violent organization, for power-politics, for
manoeuvring for the capture of party-machinery or retaining
hold over it.
In this respect also the Congress often lagged behind
Gandhiji’s ideal. After 1937 the compactness and the homo¬
geneity of the Congress was unduly strained by the rise of
groups which had no faith in the creed and the constructive
programme of the Congress. Their presence in the Congress,
in spite of these differences, was due to the fact that association
with the Congress lent strength to their appeal to the masses.
These groups sometimes followed obstructionist policy, and
Gandhiji once expressed the opinion that if these groups did not
yield to persuasion the best course for the majority was to hand
over the Congress machinery to them and work the Congress
programme without using the Congress name.28
The Congress failed to rise to Gandhiji’s expectations in
regard to membership also, for it attached importance to

25 r. I.,II, p. 885.
26 Ibid.
27 Mira, Gleanings, p. 15.
28 H., Oct. 15, 1938, p. 287.
172 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

vastness at the cost of depth. Gandhiji believed that internal

corruption in the Congress had been an important cause of the
failure of satyagraha. "Stubborn and implacable resistance
against internal corruption,” he wrote as early as 1922, "is
enough resistance against the Government.”29 For about three
years before the anti-war satyagraha of 1940-41 corruption in
the Congress organization had been the burden of many of
Gandhiji’s speeches and articles. When the Congress accepted
office in the provinces in 1937, many of the risks associated
with its membership disappeared. Consequently many undesi¬
rables entered the Congress to exploit the influence and power
that had accrued to it. There began an unholy scramble for its
elective posts. Membership registers were disfigured by false
entries. Even violence was resorted to at the time of party elec¬
tions. In the excitement of legislative activity the constructive
programme was neglected, and discipline became lax. The
Congress had occasionally to take stern action against corrup¬
tion and indiscipline. Withdrawal of the Congress from the work
of administration and the launching of direct action in 1940
resulted in a large measure of clean-up, and by the beginning
of 1942 it regained its strength. Since 1946 there have again
been complaints of widespread corruption and indiscipline in
the Congress.
Before India became free the Congress worked in a twofold
capacity. It had some peace functions which related to its
internal growth and administration. For these it was as good a
democratic organization as any in the world. But for twenty-
five years the Congress had been engaged in a life-and-death
struggle with the mighty British Empire. Thus the Congress
was also a fighting organization, a non-violent army. War, even
war without violence, seriously impairs democracy. For in
times of war the ordinary democratic processes of persuasion,
discussion and counting of votes have to be subordinated to the
demands of quick action, discipline and unity of command.
The Congress continued to work as an army even during
the suspension of civil disobedience. For the suspension of civil
disobedience did not mean suspension of war. As a fighting
machine the Congress had to centralize control and guide every

29 r. I, p. 264.
 THE LEADER, ORGANIZATION AND PROPAGANDA 173

department and every Congressman, however highly placed,

and expect unquestioned obedience.30 Gandhiji wrote in 1939,
“The central authority possesses plenary powers enabling it to
impose and enforce discipline on the various units working
under it.5’31
During civil disobedience, according to Gandhiji, the will
of the Congress was expressed by its general whoever he -may
be. “Every unit has to tender him willing obedience in thought,
word and deed. Yes, even in thought, since the fight is
non-violent.5531
Thus whenever the Congress declared “war55 against the
Government, it invested Gandhiji with full powers of a dictator.
In 1930, Gandhiji gave an important reason why non-violent
direct action should not be controlled by a democratic organiza¬
tion like the Congress. The Congress consisted of people of a
variety of mentalities. To some non-violence was a matter of
policy and expediency, to others a creed. “The instinct of those,
therefore, with whom non-violence is a policy, when tempted
by violence, may fail them. That of those who have no remedy
but non-violence open to them can never fail them if they have
non-violence in them in reality. Hence the necessity for freedom
from Congress control.5’32
But this was dictatorship only in name. It lasted only for
the duration of civil disobedience. It was democratic in origin,
for it was voluntarily adopted by the Congress. Further, the
obedience of the rank and file was entirely voluntary and could
be withdrawn at their will. Besides, as the movement of civil
disobedience developed important leaders wrere imprisoned, and
the Congress was declared illegal. Congress committees ceased
to function and delegated their powers to local dictators. The
movement then became decentralized and self-regulated. In
fact, Gandhiji expected leadership to be so thoroughly decentra¬
lized that every satyagrahi should be both chief and follower.33
In a revolutionary movement a more democratic arrangement
is hardly possible. Thus the Congress combined effective

30 H., Aug. 6, 1938, p. 209.

31 H., Nov. 18, 1939, p. 344.
32 r. /., Feb. 2, 1930.
33 History of the Congress, p. 657.
174 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

leadership, concentration of power and fighting efficiency with

democracy.
This dictatorship, just because it was dictatorship, may be
mistaken for being Fascistic. But the two are poles apart.
Fascism is based on violence. The Congress, on the other hand,
was a non-violent organization. It did not impose its will on
others and had only moral sanctions. Thus as the only purely
non-violent organization of importance in the world the
Congress was the very antithesis of Fascism. The smallest
minority group in the Congress could resist the unjust majority
non-violently and thus safeguard its rights.
That the Congress did not believe in “leader-worship55 is
amply borne out by Gandhiji’s repeated withdrawal from the
Congress. In July 1940 the Congress went so far as to absolve
him of his leadership. Gandhiji’s influence over the Congress,
which was often exaggerated, was purely moral. “My opinion,55
he says, “prevails only to the extent that I carry conviction.
Let me give out the secret that often my advice makes no appeal
to the members.5’34
One reason why the Congress was sometimes mistaken for
being Fascistic is the discipline that it tried to maintain. We
have explained why the Congress had to resort to disciplinary
action against recalcitrants in order to root out corruption and
indiscipline. After all the existence of even a voluntary
organization presumes a minimum of allegiance to common
principles and modes of action.
Though only a part of India’s population was represented
on the Congress register, it claimed, by the right of service, to
speak for and aspired to represent the entire nation. In the past
it also aimed at being an all-inclusive organization. This was
due to its being the spearhead of Indian nationalism, a kind of
national front. As Gandhiji once remarked, “Absorption is in¬
evitable when a country is engaged in a struggle to wrest power
from foreign hands; it cannot afford to have separate rival poli¬
tical organizations. The entire strength of the country must be
used for ousting the third and usurping party.5’35
The Congress had its defects and failings. But it was in the
words of Gandhiji, “the only organization, however imperfect,
34 H., Aug. 12, 1939, p. 233.
 THE LEADER, ORGANIZATION AND PROPAGANDA 175

however wanting in faith as an organization, still the only

organization that stands defiantly for peaceful measures.3 5 36 No
other organization practised non-violent resistance on such a
large scale. Nowhere else was a dictatorship so democratic in
character, origin and working.
Gandhiji tried to mould the structure of the Congress so
as to make it a democratic revolutionary organization and to
bring within its orbit of service and influence the 7,00,000 of
India's villages. He believed that it had progressed from stage
to stage in its march towards democracy in the true sense of
the term.
In his conception of democracy Gandhiji was not obsessed
with large, unwieldy numbers that make for corruption and
hypocrisy. As he wrote in 1934, “True democracy is not inconsis¬
tent -with a few persons representing the spirit, the hope and
the aspirations of these whom they claim to represent/537 Let
not “the claim to represent33 sound undemocratic. In a non-vio¬
lent organization, which depended on voluntary obedience and
moral sanctions, the “claim to represent35 means no more than
the right to serve and to suffer for the common good. If Gandhiji
had his way, “the Congress would be reduced to the smallest
compass possible. It would consist of a few chosen servants
removable at the will of the nation but getting the willing co¬
operation of the millions in the programme they may put before
the nation/’38
In 1920 he gave to the Congress a new constitution. In
1934 he advocated important changes in the constitution, many
of which were accepted by the Bombay session of the Congress
(1934). The constitution of 1934 as amended from time to time,
particularly in 1939, determined the structure of the Congress
until 1948.
According to this constitution the Indian National Congress
comprised:
(1) Primary members enrolled in the Congress
Committees and paying annas four annually;
(2) Village, Ward, Town, Taluka (Tahsil or Sub¬
division), District or other local committees;

36 Gandhiji’s statement dated April 21, 1941.

37 Gandhiji’s statement dated Sept. 17, 1934.
38 H., Aug. 12, 1939, p. 232.
176 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

(3) Provincial Congress Committees;

(4) Annual Session of the Congress consisting of the
President of the Congress and the delegates for the year;
(5) All India Congress Committee; and
(6) Working Committee.
The delegates were elected by the primary members, each
district being entitled to elect one delegate for each lakh of its
population, provided that for every delegate to be elected there
were not less than 500 primary members enrolled during the
year.
The delegates of a province formed the Provincial Congress
Committee. They elected from among themselves one-eighth of
their number, as representatives of the province, to the All
India Congress Committee. In the presidential election held
every year the right of vote belonged to delegates only. The
Working Committee consisted of the President and fourteen
members appointed by the President from amongst the mem¬
bers of the All India Congress Committee. The Working
Committee was the executive authority of the Congress and
carried into effect the policy laid down by the A.I.C.C. to which
it was responsible.
Gandhiji was conscious that the Congress was becoming
a weedy and unwieldy growth. Towards the close of his life he
suggested how it might be reformed so that it might be able
to win “economic, social, and moral freedom” for the country
and not get lost into “ungainly skirmish for power”. These sug¬
gestions are embodied in a memorandum in Hindi given by
him to the Constitution Committee of the Congress on 1st
January 1946,39 in an article entitled “Congress Position”40 and
lastly in the draft constitution for the Congress which he wrote
on 29th January 1948 and which is known as his “last will and
testament to the nation”.41 We give the last of these as the first
appendix to this chapter. Gandhiji suggested that in its present
form, i.e., as a propaganda and parliamentary machine the
Congress had outlived its use. The existing Congress organiza¬
tion should disband itself and flower into a Lok Sevak Sangh.

39 For an English translation of this memorandum see N. V. Rajkumar,

Development of the Congress Constitution, Appendix II.
40 H., Feb. 1, 1948, p. 4.
 THE LEADER, ORGANIZATION AND PROPAGANDA 177

The Sangh should be a body of servants of the nation engaged

in constructive work, mostly in villages, to achieve social,
moral, and economic freedom. It should be organized demo¬
cratically from the bottom upwards. Five adult constructive
workers should form a unit. Two contiguous pamhayats should
elect a leader. Fifty first-grade leaders should elect a second-
grade leader and so on till they covered the entire country.
After Gandhiji’s passing away his suggestions could not be
accepted by the Congress leaders. The Congress adopted a new
constitution in 1948 which has been amended in important
respects since then. The aim of the Congress under the
present constitution, is “the establishment in India, by peaceful
and legitimate means, of a Socialist Co-operative Common¬
wealth based on equality of opportunity and of political, eco¬
nomic and social rights and aiming at world peace and fellow¬
ship.35 The Working Committee now consists of twenty mem¬
bers. Members of the Congress are of two kinds, i.e., primary
members as before and active members. The latter pay a higher
subscription and are required to devote regularly a part of their
time to some form of public service “otherwise than for personal
profit33. Active members alone can contest elections for
important posts in the Congress. Members of the Congress are
debarred from membership of any political or communal party
with a separate membership, constitution and programme. The
term of various Congress Committees is two years.
During Gandhiji’s lifetime the Congress was closely asso¬
ciated with several constructive organizations. The Gandhi Seva
Sangh, a body of nine satyagraha experts, was a research
organization for exploring the possibilities of ahimsa in all
walks of life, particularly for “the observation, study and
research in the subject of relation of constructive work to
ahimsa and of reaction of such work on the individual and
society.3342 The Sangh worked under Gandhiji’s guidance and
was independent of the Congress. The constructive work has
also other independent organizations of experts. The important
among these are the All India Spinners3 Association, the
Harijan Sevak Sangh, the All India Village Industries Association,

42 The resolution of the Gandhi Seva Sangh, 1940 session. H.} March 2,
1940, p. 24.
178 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

the Hindustani Talimi Sangh and the Goseva Sangh. In

1945 a Co-ordination Committee (Sammiliti Samiti) was formed
of live members representing these five constructive organiza¬
tions which owed allegiance to Gandhiji’s philosophy. The Corn-
mi liee which was an advisory body worked under the guidance
of Gandhiji. Its main function was to act as a watch and ward
committee in regard to constructive work and point out devia¬
tions from the principle of 11031-violence. It was also to guide
and cc-ordinale the activities of these organizations. The
Committee, however, could not work satisfactorily.43
In March 1948, representatives of eleven constructive
institutions decided to federate into ‘Akhil Bharat Sarva Seva
Sangh’. The Sangh was to guide and co-ordinate their acti¬
vities.44 Later on under the impact of the Bhumidan movement
the principal constructive institutions with their headquarter
at Wardha merged in the Sangh to work as its departments. In
March 1948, a conference of constructive workers was also held
at Sevagrain. It established the Sarvodaya Samaj “to strive to¬
wards a society based on truth and non-violence in which there
will be no distinction of caste or creed, no opportunity for
exploitation and full scope for development both for individuals
as well as groups.” It is a loose organization; the bond bringing
together units being common faith in the teachings of
Gandhiji. Any person who has faith in his teachings and tries to
give expression to them by engaging in some form of construc¬
tive work is eligible for the membership of the Samaj. It meets
annually to enable the members to exchange ideas and share
each other’s experiences.
In Gandhiji’s time the Congress had also its volunteer
organization named Qaumi Seva Dal. It had its periodical rallies
and training camps, its drill, uniform and national songs.
Volunteers, Gandhiji always insisted, should be recruited with
discrimination. In order to keep out all but men of sterling
character volunteers were required to sign a pledge and accept
the non-violent discipline.

43 H., March 6, 1949, p. 7.

44 These eleven institutions are: A.I.S.A., A.I.V.I.A., Hindustani Talimi
Sangh, Goseva Sangh, Harijan Sevak Sangh, Hindustani Prachar Sabha,
Kasturba Gandhi Memorial Trust, Navajivan Trust, Nature Cure Trust,
Hindustani Mazdoor Sangh and Western India Adivasi Workers9 Federation.
 THE LEADER, ORGANIZATION AND PROPAGANDA 179

Gandhiji held thai poor volunteers, devoting all their time

to national sendee, should accept a minimum allowance for
their maintenance/5 During 1933-53 he asked iLe volunteers
carrying on village work ic aepend ibr tltcir minimum require-
meats on the villages :h ry served, though the ideal of fcread-
labour required that cue ^hould be able to earn h; mwb own
needs and devote one’s y tore dme to national service.-'5 Dopen-
deuce of a village worke: on the village he serves is a sign* neat
his service is acceptable t the milage and that the latter repmes
its confidence in him and i: 'cady to meet his legitime,
In 1945 'with Gandhiji’'s approval the A.LS.A. dec idee', thu. in
view ol nign piice-ievci a worker engaging m t me tw-rcunci
village service {semagra gre: K^cad; should be paid -up to rupees
one liundred as monthly akovmnee according lO tl::e bizc m n:s
family. This allowance was :o be reduced by twenty uer cm: ner
annum. At the end of five yea n the worker was to become seL-
supporting and to depend for his maintenance on the support
of the village, his otvn physical labour and the modes: savings
from village industries starred by him in tne area.
The function of volunteers was co tram the masses tor
satyagraha. In times of direct action they formed the vanguard
of the non-violent forces and gave tone and discipline to raw
recruits. In peace time they served the masses by carrying on
constructive activities. They also organized and regulated
meetings, processions and hartals (suspension ot business..**7
As village workers their duty was to universalize khadi and
to reconstruct the village on the basis ol a handicraft civiliza¬
tion. This is how Gandhiji describes an ideal satvagrahi acting
as a village worker:
“He would be bound with the poorest in the village by ties
of service. He would constitute himseli the scavenger, Uie
nurse, the arbiter of disputes and the teacher of tne children oi
the village. . . .His house will be a busy hive of useful activities
centring round spinning.5548

45 r. II, p. 442.
46 H., June 15 1935, pp. 122 and 125; Nov. 12, 1935, p. 302 and Feb.

29, 1936, p. 18.

47 r.I, pp. 1145-46.
48 H.s Aug. 4, 1940, p. 235.
180 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

In 1938 Gandhiji advocated the enlistment of vounteers for

the formation of peace-brigades in cities and villages to deal with
communal riots. These volunteers must be out-and-out ahimsa-
ists and have a living faith in God and equal regard for all the
principal religions of the world. They must belong to the locality
and develop contacts with all the people in the locality through
personal, constructive service. They should also cultivate the
acquaintance of the so-called goonda element in their locality.
They should wear a distinctive dress so as to be recognized
without the slightest difficulty and should carry no weapons.
Each brigade should elect its own head and members should
know each other well. Gandhiji’s idea was that the brigades
should take the place of the police and the military to deal peace¬
fully with communal disturbances. The peace-brigade pro¬
gramme, he said, was “a programme of courting death in
preventing Hindu-Muslim clashes and the like. It is a programme
of dying to prevent violence.”49
At Gandhiji’s suggestion efforts were made after 1938 to
organize peace-brigades in some parts of the country.
By far the most important section of India’s non-violent
army consisted of Khudai Khidmatgars or Surkhposh popularly
known as Red Shirts.50
The founder of the movement is Khan Abdul Ghaffar
Khan.51 He started the movement outside the Congress in res¬
ponse to Gandhiji’s call to the nation to protest against the
Rowlatt Bill. Later the movement came very close to the
Congress and the two had coalesced long before the partition of
India.
In 1938 the Khudai Khidmatgars numbered over one lakh.
They got no monetary allowance and had to provide their own
uniform. They received training in semi-military drill and were
much better disciplined than volunteers in other parts of India.
49 H., June 18, 1938, p. 152; Oct. 21, 1939, p. 310; May 5, 1946, p.
113; March 17, 1946, pp. 45-46; and Sept. 15, 1940, p. 285.
50 Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan resented the name as being inappropriate.
Barr, p. 101.
51 None else among Gandhiji’s co-workers perhaps accepted non¬
violence in a more comprehensive sense than the Khan. In 1940 when the
Working Committee of the Congress offered conditionally to assist Britain
in the war he resigned his membership of that body on the ground that he
and his Khudai Khidmatgars stood for the non-violence of the brave.
 THE LEADER, ORGANIZATION AND PROPAGANDA 181

During the non-violent movement of 1930-33 nowhere else was

repression more severe and ruthless than in the Frontier
Province and nowhere else did the satyagrahis meet it more
bravely and non-violently.
As is well known, Gandbiji attached very great importance
to the movement. Apart from the numbers and the past record,
this movement was an experiment in the non-violence of the
brave.52 The people of the Frontier are among the most fero¬
cious and warlike people of the world. Violence and revenge are
the very breath of their being.53 Badala (revenge) forms a vital
part of the Pathan code of honour. Every Pathan, it is said,
counts his murders and remembers his foes. If non-vi:Ience
of the brave can be successfully developed even by these
Pathans, it will be conclusive evidence that non-violence can be
cultivated by all peoples irrespective of their past tradition.
Until 1938 the Khudai Khidmatgars fell short of Gandhiji's
ideal and confined themselves to the political aspect of non-vio¬
lence. But Gandhiji was hopeful that the Pathans, under their
gifted leader, would be able to evolve true non-violence. In
1938 in collaboration with their leader, Gandhiji worked cut a
plan for the reorientation of the movement:. In particular he
recommended that, for non-violence to become a living thing,
the Khudai Khidmatgars should go through a ligorous training
in constructive activities.
Later on Badshah Khan set up a centre at Sardaryab for
the training of Khudai Khidmatgars in constructive work. After
the partition of India to which he was opposed Badshah Khan
decided to extend the Khudai Khidmatgar movement to all the
provinces of Pakistan and to make it the volunteer corps of the
Pakistan People’s Party which wras started in 1948. He and his
co-workers have however been sentenced to long terms of
imprisonment and the Khudai Khidmatgars have been
subjected to severe repression.54

Aug. 28, 1940, p. 224.

53 The Khan Saheb holds that non-violence has appreciably diminished
the blood-feuds of the Pathans and made them even more courageous.
HJuly 21, 1940, p. 213.
54 The article entided “In the Frontier Province9’ in Harijan dated
October 22 and 29 and November 5, 12, and 19, 1938; Pyarelal, A Pil¬
grimage for Peace.
182 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

Gandhiji devoted much thought to the problem of the

discipline of satyagrahi soldiers. He believed that the success
of non-violent direct action depended on adequate discipline.
The aim of discipline is to develop, in the satyagrahi
soldier, non-violence, soul-force or moral force, i.e., to help him
to realize, in a concrete way, his moral and spiritual unity with
all human beings.55 The discipline requires “the will not to kill
even in retaliation, and the courage to face death without
revenge.5’56 It requires cultivation of the spirit of service, sacri¬
fice and renunciation. The best means to develop discipline
in the rank and file of the satyagrahi forces is organized
constructive work.
In 1921 Gandhiji drew up a pledge laying down the disci¬
pline required of every satyagrahi volunteer. In 1930 he laid
dowm a set of nineteen rules. We give as the second appendix
to this chapter both the pledge and the rules. In 1939 Gandhiji
briefly stated the qualifications of a satyagrahi thus:57
1. He must have a living faith in God.
2. He must believe in truth and non-violence as his
creed and, therefore, have faith in the inherent goodness
of human nature which he expects to evoke by his truth
and love expressed through his suffering.
3. He must be leading a chaste life and be ready and
willing for the sake of his cause to give up his life and his
possessions.58
55 The ideal of non-violence includes man’s relation to sub-human
life also, but in the case of a political organization like the Congress, at
the instance of Gandhiji, non-violence was limited to human beings. The
extension of non-violence to sub-human species would have excluded from
the membership of the Congress millions of people and thus cramped its
effort to substitute the law of love for that of brute force in society. H.,
Sept. 15, 1940, p. 285.
56 H., Sept. 8, 1946, p. 296.
57 H., March 25, 1939, p. 64.
58 As regards willingness to be deprived of one’s possessions, Gandhiji’s
attitude is determined by the ideal of non-possession. In 1920, it is said,
he did not object to satyagrahis alienating their property to avoid its attach¬
ment or sale by the Government. Not that he encouraged the practice, but
he left it to satyagrahis to fix the limit of their suffering. He also approved
of the Congress ministries restoring the land of satyagrahi sufferers which
had been vindictively disposed of at absurdly cheap rates by the preceding
Government in pursuance of their repressive policy. He was, however,
 THE LEADER, ORGANIZATION AND PROPAGANDA 183

4. He must be a habitual khadi-wearer and spinner.

5. He must be a teetotaller and be free from the use
of other intoxicants.
6. He must carry out with a willing heart all the rules
of discipline as may be laid down from time to tirr. j.
7. He should carry cut the jail rule; "jraets tlzev are
specially devised to hurt his self-respect.
The test of effective discipline is that there should develop
among the volunteers a spirit and an atmosphere of non-vio¬
lence which should affect all these that come in contact with
them. They should be able to exercise restraint in hw face of
the greatest provocation and to control the violent elements in
the locality.59 They should also be serious about the constructive
programme. Gandhiji dees not expect satyr nv.hi soldiers to
assimilate the whole science of satyagraha and strictly to live
up to all the implications of non-violence. According to him,
“There never will be an army of perfectly non-violent pecole.
It will be formed of those who will honestly endeavour to
observe non-violence.”60 Nor does he expect them to have the
resourcefulness of the general. It is enough if they faithfully
carry out his orders.61 But they must develop the capacity to
act even without the leaders, for the latter may be removed by
the Government any moment. This is why, according to
Gandhiji, in satyagraha “at a pinch every satyrgr ahi soldier has
also to be his own general and leader.”62
The volunteer need not have the Weatsm tvoe 0 ±
cf literary
*

education which is not much of an advantage: for its emnliasis

on material values makes it difficult for the individual to shed
attachment.63

against satyagrahis trying, in the event of their capturing the Stare machinery,
to cash their past sacrifices by claiming preference in Government appoint¬
ments, demanding reinstatement to dismissed posts, or seeking compensa¬
tion for losses. History of the Congress, p. 274. i?., Dec. 3, 1938, p. 354.
59 H., June 24, 193S, p. 175.
60 H., July 21, 1940, p. 214.
61 if., Aug. 25, 1940, p. 262.
62 H., July 28, 1940, p. 227.
63 This is an important reason why Gandhiji would much rather prefer
the unsophisticated common man to the modernized city-dweller. When
he was in England for the Round Table Conference it was suggested to
184 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

The leader, his lieutenants and the non-violent organiza¬

tion try to propagate the message of satyagraha among the
masses.
To propagate is to disseminate or diffuse some belief or
practice. Propaganda is a systematic scheme or concerted move¬
ment for the promotion of a doctrine or practice.64 In the
modem State propaganda is the instrument which a group
employs to control public opinion with a view to acquire, wield
and preserve the power of government. Both in international
warfare and political conflicts the object of propaganda is to
increase the morale of the propagandist and disrupt that of the
opponent. In the West the character and content of propaganda
is determined by the prevailing attitude of moral cynicism and
unscrupulous opportunism.
The modem propagandist is an expert psychologist, an
adept in symbol-making and phrase-coining, and a demagogue
who can, by subtle suggestion and mass hypnosis, evoke in the
people the desired emotional effect and behaviour. A very wide
range of instruments has been pressed into the service of
propaganda. Education and Press, parades and processions,
fraud and coercion, gold and patronage, the magic of slogans
and oratory, colour and pageantry, painting and music, drama
and sculpture—all these have their own place in the propa¬
gandist’s artistry. Indeed, propaganda is considered quite
different from accurate information and unbiased scientific
exposition.
In his views on propaganda Gandhiji differs vitally from
this Western attitude. He is against exploiting public opinion
and acquiring over it an illegitimate power. But he does believe
in propaganda in the sense of transmitting and disseminating
truth and educating public opinion along non-violent lines. It
him that rather than giving all his attention to the humble folk in the East
End he should use his opportunities to win the sympathy of the intellectuals
and the governing class also. He did not agree to the suggestion. “If I can
win the workers,” he pointed out, “the impression I make on them will
percolate upwards.” Mahatma Gandhi, p. 190.
64 The Oxford English Dictionary and A New English Dictionary edited
by Sir James Murray. E. H. Henderson defines propaganda as a process
which deliberately attempts through persuasion-techniques to secure from
the propagandee, before he can deliberate freely, the responses desired by
the propagandist. Journal of Social Psychology, 1943, XVIII, pp. 71-87.
 THE LEADER, ORGANIZATION AND PROPAGANDA 185

is not enough for the satyagrahi to follow the ideals of truth and
non-violence himself, he should also help others to comprehend
them and live up to them.
Ideally speaking, satyagraha or soul-force transcends mate¬
rial media and is self-propagated. Truth and non-violence, the
language of the soul, can be best represented by life itself and
noc by mere words spoken or written. “It is my profound
conviction that truth is self-acting. ... If we have Truth in us.
it will go out to them (people) without effort. . . .:"65 As Gandhiji
once remarked to some Christian missionaries, “. . .the moment
there is a spiritual expression in life, the surroundings will
readily respond. There is no desire to speak when one lives the
truth. Truth is most economical of words. There is thus no truer
or other evangelism than life.”66
The real propaganda for satyagraha, therefore, is the
satyagrahi living up to non-violent values. “Those who believe
in the simple truths I have laid down,” Gandhiji said in one of
his speeches, “can propagate them only by living them.”67 A
life lived according to the principles of non-violence is a life of
direct personal service of the people and service involves
suffering, both service and suffering producing the greatest
effect when silent and unadvertised. Says Gandhiji, “. . .the
silent and undemonstrative action of truth and love produces far
more permanent and abiding results than speeches or such
other showy performances.”68
A life lived according to non-violent values implies control
over thought, and fully controlled thought acquires the greatest
potency and never goes in vain. “Thought control means
mavimnm of work with minimum of energy. If we had that
control, we should not have to put forth the tremendous effort
we do. Non-violent action does mean much silent work ana
little speech or writing.”69
No doubt suffering love expressing itself in service
advances the cause of satyagraha as nothing else can, but the
satyagrahi, not having complete thought control due to human

65 Mira, Gleanings, p. 20.

66 H., Dec. 12, 1936, p. 353.
67 H., March 28, 1936, p. 49.
68 T. I., Aug. 8, 1929.
186 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

imperfection, also taps all legitimate means, the Press and the
platform, parades and processions, songs and other visual and
verbal symbols which can help in the education of the masses.
There is nothing intrinsically immoral or wrong in the use of
these means.
Though innocent in themselves, the usual modes of propa¬
ganda must be treated as hand-maids of the service of the
masses and must not supplant it. In 1936 the members of the
Gandhi Seva Sangh stressed the need of some kind of organized
propaganda in order to help the spread of Gandhiji’s teachings.
Gandhiji, while insisting that satyagraha can be demonstrated
only by the life of a satyagrahi, conceded that other methods
may also be utilized. He said, “You may say that books and
newspapers are needed in order to help workers and answer
critics. Well, I write as much as is needed in order to explain
the things I stand for. . . . Write, if you feel that you cannot do
without it. But let not your work suffer or the people’s
enthusiasm be damped because you fail to publish books.3'70
The Press and similar means of propaganda must never
offend against truth and non-violence, and the emphasis must
be* on quality rather than on speed and quantity.71 Thus it was
Gandhiji’s experience that touring on foot was better propa¬
ganda than a whirlwind campaign by car and aeroplane.
Gandhiji undertook many propaganda tours of the country, but
easily the two most impressive of these were the historic march
on foot to Dandi during the civil disobedience of 1930 and the
village-to-village peace mission pilgrimage in Noakhali during
1947.
Gandhiji distrusted undue enthusiasm and discouraged all
demonstrations and slogans that smacked of anger or in¬
tolerance.72 In satyagrahi meetings he always insisted on disci¬
pline, respect for opposite views, and speeches not being
punctuated with either marks of approval or disapproval of
the audience.73

70 H; March 28, 1S36, pp. 49-50.

71 “Speed is not the end of life.” Mira, Gleanings, p. 16.
72 For GandhijFs detailed instructions as to how processions, demons¬
trations, etc. should be non-violently managed see Y. I. I., pp. 314-29 and
442-44.
73 Speeches, pp. 444-56 and 544-45.
 THE LEADER, ORGANIZATION AND PROPAGANDA 187

In his speeches the satyagrahi must avoid any trace of

untruth and exaggeration and must not seek to arouse in the
audience violent feelings of anger or hatred. This does net mean
that satyagrahi addresses are unimpre.:sive. Nothing is more
impressive, nothing works as a more effective spell than truth.
The language of Gandhijrs speeches is Biblical its simplicity.
He utterly lacked the hypnotic mannerisms of delivery and
semi-hysteric shouting and shrieking which characterized
Hitler’s demagogic performances. All the same Gandhiji’s simple
utterances made an irresistible appeal.74
Indeed Gandhiji had a hair for using various msans of
propaganda to the best advantage. His Dana! March, the manu¬
facture of salt, the bonfire of certificates in South Africa75 and
of foreign cloth in India, and hartals76 are some of the instances
which bear testimony to his effectiveness in this respect. In his
Autobiography he distinguishes between an argumentative
speech and another that was intended to be a feeling appeal.77
Before the Congress accepted office in the provinces in 1937,
Gandhiji once expressed the opinion that the Congress regime
should be inaugurated with something that caught the imagina¬
tion cf die masses.78

74 Krishnadas describing one of Lis speeches delivered in English says,

4T knew not whether to call it a speech, or an inspired utterance pregnant
with celestial force... every single word came from the inner me si depth of
his heart and acted like a charm. Hence the mere sounds of his words
pierced and entered the hearts of its hearers. As he went on talking in solemn
strain, it seemed as though he was casting a hypnotic spell over the audience,
and irresistibly drawing all hearts to himself. I noticed that as he spoke
there was no emotion in his eves, nor was there the slightest movement of
the limbs/5 Seven Months Mahatma Gandhi, Yol. I, p. 91.
Preferring to his meetings in London at the time of the Round Table
Conference, Muriel Lester observes, “He would begin to talk in his low,
quiet voice, deliberate, objective and exact in every statement, as befits the
worshipper of truth, with ro shred of passion, piety or sentiment... no
oratory, no use of voice inflexions, no movement or gesture, none of the
usual concomitants of enthusiasm and persuasiveness/5 Walker, Sword cf
Gold. p. 127. See also Mahatma Gandhi, pp. 142-43.
75 South Africa, Ch. XXVII.
76 In his evidence before the Hunter Committee (1919) Gandhiji stated
that “Hartal was designed to strike the imagination of the people and the
Government.55 T. I., I, p. 23.
77 Autobiography, II, p. 537.
7« H., Jan. 8, 1938, p. 412.
188 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

The tremendous hold that Gandhiji acquired over the

masses in India is ample evidence of his being a great propa¬
gandist in the right and not the shady, disreputable sense of the
term. For three decades he dominated Indian politics and
represented the Indian masses as no other Indian leader did. He
revolutionized the outlook of the people, disintegrating con¬
ventions, upsetting outmoded standards, creating new symbols
and setting up new values.
His effectiveness as a propagandist was due to the fact that
he had been closely following what he had been preaching. His
devotion to truth and non-violence irrespective of where they
might lead, a devotion ringing so clear in his writings and
utterances, his all-sided self-control, his meekness combined
with the unbending and unbcndable strength of a true satya-
grahi, the bare body and the loin-cloth symbolizing his identi¬
fication with the poor and indicating the extent to which
he had divested himself of all possessions in order to serve them
—all these are indications of an unusually close approximation
of personal life to principles propagated. Thus the strength of
his appeal is primarily due to the force of his personality, his
soul-force.
Gandhiji is against the newspaper or the popular Press
which is a commercial concern and is controlled by financiers
and advertisers. He had such newspapers in mind when,
addressing some college students in 1925, he characterized the
craze for newspapers as “pitiable and terrible”, for “news¬
papers afford nothing of human interest. They offer nothing to
help the character.”79
But a properly conducted journal can act as a powerful
weapon in satyagraha. Writing about Indian Opinion, which he
published in South Africa, he observes, “Satyagraha could
probably have been impossible without Indian Opinion.”80 Per¬
haps Young India and Kavajivan and later Harijan weeklies
played no less an illustrious part in the movements of non-vio¬
lent resistance in India. These journals were a mirror of

79 T. I., II, p. 1208.

For similar criticism of English newspapers see Hind Swaraj, p. 17.
80 Autobiography, II, p. 76.
 THE LEADER, ORGANIZATION AND PROPAGANDA 189

Gandhiji’s non-violent life and a medium of educating the

reading public in the inner meaning of satyagraha.81
In order that journalism may play its legitimate part its
sole aim should be sendee, i.e., it should fearlessly express and
educate public opinion and expose popular defects and abuses
in the State. But no journal can realize the ideal of service so
long as it depends on the support cf the advertiser and permits
its pages to be soiled by indecent advertisements. So a newspaper
should be self-supporting, for this is the clearest proof that the
service that the paper renders is actually desired and appre¬
ciated by the community and is not imposed upon it by force.82
The profits, if any, should be utilized for some cons tractive
public activity.83 Newspapers, moreover, must weigh every word
they write and must not indulge in untruth or exaggeration cr
bitterness.84
In the course of a satyagraha campaign the Government
places serious restrictions on the freedom of the Press. In such
a case Gandhiji advises the newspapers either to cease publica¬
tion or to challenge the Government and brave all consequences.
In the past campaigns in India when the Government
suppressed the entire English and Vernacular Press openly
advocating the cause of satyagraha, under Gandhiji’s advice the
satyagrahis depended for carrying their message to the masses
on small handwritten unregistered newspapers. Those who
received the first copy of these recopy and thus the process of
multiplication is made to cover a large part of the country.
Besides, one copy passes from hand to hand and serves a
surprisingly large number. These handwritten sheets make a
deep impression of sincerity, eagerness to suffer and defy conse¬
quences, and exert far greater influence upon public opinion
than regular newspapers.
When the anti-war satyagraha of 1940-41 started there was
a fear that the Government might suppress the entire Congress
Press. Gandhiji advised the extensive use of oral news-carrying
as a substitute for the printed word. He wrote, “Let every one
become his own walking newspaper and cany the good news

81 Autobiography, II, Chapters 13 and 34; South Africa, Ch. III.

82 Autobiography, II, p. 77; South Africa, p. 222; 2. I, p. 3; 2. II, p. 5.
83 r. I, p. 1034; r. II, p. 6.
84 Autobiography, II, pp. 77-78.
190 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

from mouth to mouth. . . .The idea here is of my telling my

neighbour what 1 have authentically heard. This no Govern¬
ment can overtake, or suppress. It is the cheapest newspaper yet
devised, and it defies the wit of the Government, however clever
it may be. Let these walking newspapers be sure of the news
they give.5585
On the whole, the strength of the satyagrahi propaganda
lies in the universal appeal of its high moral objective and its
downright adherence to truth. This propaganda is primarily
conducted through service and suffering, and its efficiency is
also due to the fact that the usual means of propaganda, i.e.,
speeches, writings, etc., cannot move us as the sight of persons
living up to an ideal and suffering for it does. The suffering
satyagrahi moves our entire being, makes the ideal vivid, con¬
crete and living and induces in us an enduring heart-felt belief
which affects our conduct much more than a mere intellectual
conviction. Apart from the question of efficiency, the usual
means of propaganda are in the hands of the capitalist and the
exploiter and cannot be fully utilized by those seeking to
revolutionize the existing social, political and economic systems.
On the other hand service and sacrifice are open to all.
By far the best propaganda for satyagraha is the construc¬
tive programme. Truth and love are life-giving and even the
apparently destructive, but really cleansing, form of satyagraha,
i.e., non-violent direct action, is undertaken with a view to
remove obstruction in the pathway of reconstruction. Cleansing
is the means, construction the end. Constructive satyagraha is
nothing but “internal growth". It is the concrete expression of
truth and non-violence.
It was to facilitate non-violent reconstruction in India that
Gandhiji worked to destroy the existing political system by
means of non-violent direct action. But the work of construction
was not to wait till the State machinery was captured by non¬
violence. Gandhiji was a philosophical anarchist. He aimed at
reducing State action to the minimum and believed in reform
from within through private, i.e., non-governmental activities.
That is why constructive work was to precede direct action,
accompany it and follow it. According to him, the satyagrahi

85 H.} Nov. 10, 1940, p. 334.

 THE LEADER, ORGANIZATION AND PROPAGANDA 191

builds anew even as he struggles against an outmoded, unjust

social order.
But for this emphasis or. the construe:::ve programme,
Gandhiji believes, non-violent direct action is impwuble for
several reasons. To fight with the opponent smyagrahis must
generate internal strength through self-purifica,;:on by conscious
co-operative effort. Fighting against evils in others n: 'oour-
ing them in oneself is neither truth nor non-vlo
purification does not mean agiieuci: and deincnu
even the excitement of jail-going. 1c is quiet, solid, sub.;
worn—direct personal service of the masses, suf/erin thern,
organizing them, educating them in the ways of t cleuce
and thus bringing about a peaceful atmosphere ;demn
determination. Constructive work is thus collective pur* teatery
effew through service. It is mass effort and mass education.-
If the difficult, slow and exacting work of reconstruction is
too humble, dull and unattractive to satyagrahis, if they hunger
and diirst merely for joining battle with the adversary, cured
acdon will be destructive and violent. For it is a clear indication
that satyagrahis lack the spirit of service and non-violence and
still harbour violence. As Gandhiji once remarked, “Unaccom¬
panied by the spirit of service, courting imprisonment and
inviting beating and lathi charges, becomes a species of vio¬
lence/587 “Civil disobedience, without the backing cf the con¬
structive programme, is criminal and a vwiste of effort/ s: rn
1942 he wrote, “He who has no belief in the constructive pro¬
gramme has. . .no concrete feeling for the starved millions. He
who is devoid of that feeling cannot fight non-vioientlv/585
Describing the efficacy of the constructive programme
Gandhiji wrote in 1922, “It will steady and calm us. It will wake
our organizing spirit, it will make us industrious, it will make
us fit for Swaraj, it will cool our blood/590 The constructive
programme turns a raw satyagrahi recruit into a disciplined
soldier. Being a sure test of the earnestness of satyagrahis, it
weeds out moral weaklings, and opportunists.

86 H., May 18, 1940, p. 129.

87 H., March 25, 1939, p. 67.
88 Gandhiji’s statement, dated Oct. 30, 1941.
89 H., April 12, 1942, p. 112.
90 r. /., I, p. 404.
192 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

Success in a satyagraha campaign is impossible unless

satyagrahis have the sincere backing of and firm control over
the masses so that the latter would eschew all violence. The
only way to acquire this control is to win the heart of the masses
and to establish a living contact with them. This is impossible
unless satyagrahis “work for them, through them and in their
midst, not as their patrons but as their servants.”91 Constructive
work, as Gandhiji wrote in 1930, “must throw together the
people and their leaders whom they would trust implicitly.
Trust begotten in the pursuit of continuous constructive work
becomes a tremendous asset at the critical moment.” Construc¬
tive activities are not only an evidence of the sincerity of satya¬
grahis but also show to the masses, as no mere words can, the
potentiality of satyagraha for ending all exploitation and ele¬
vating their status. Constructive work also goes a long way to
convince the opponent of the non-violent intentions of the satya¬
grahis. To Gandhiji, “Constructive work, therefore, is for a
non-violent army what drilling etc., is for an army designed for
bloody warfare. Individual civil disobedience among an un¬
prepared people and by leaders not known to or trusted by them
is of no avail, and mass civil disobedience is an impossibility.”92
“Just as military training is necessary for armed revolt, training
in constructive effort is equally necessary for civil resistance.”93
In 1930 he called constructive work “our national ammunition.”94
Even the earliest satyagraha campaign in South Africa had
its positive constructive side, activities concerning “internal
improvement”.95 In 1920 Gandhiji presented the constructive
programme, through the Congress, to India. As time passed his
faith in the efficacy of the programme grew and he laid increas¬
ing stress on satyagrahis working the constructive programme
before non-violent direct action as the means of generating
moral strength and building up the morale, and after direct
action, as a means of consolidation and as an antidote to any
possible intoxication of a victory or depression of a set-back.

91 T.I., III, p. 69.

92 T. I., Jan. 9, 1930.
93 Gandhiji’s statement, dated Oct. 27, 1944.
94 T. I., Jan. 23, 1930, p. 23.
95 South Afiica, pp. 76-77.
 THE LEADER, ORGANIZATION AND PROPAGANDA 193
“Constructive programme.” Gandhiji wrote in 1930, “is
not essential for local civil disobedience for specific relief, as in
the case of Bardoli. A tangible common grievance restricted to
a particular locality is enough. But for such an indefinable
thing as Swaraj people must have previous training in doing
things of All-India interest.”96 But even in the case of Bardoli,
as Gregg points out, Gandhiji ascribed much of the success to
the fact that a constructive economic and social programme of
reform had been going on there for six or seven years
previous.97
The cleansing and constructive activities are the positive
and negative aspects of satyagraha, each being indispensable
to the other. Direct action to be non-violent should be rooted in
and lead to reconstruction, while in this imperfect world :he
latter is bound occasionally to meet with obstructions which
have to be removed by direct action. Constructive activities,
however, are more important than direct action. In fact
Gandhiji attaches far greater importance to constructive than
to political work. Thus he wrote in 1931, “. . .my work of social
reform was in no way less than or subordinate to political work.
The fact is, that when I saw that to a certain extent my social
work would be impossible without the help of poliiical work, I
took to the latter and only to the extent that it helped
the former. I must therefore confess that work of social reform
or self-purification of this nature is a hundred times dearer to
me than what is called purely political work.”98 Unlike direct
action, the constructive programme leaves no room for hypo¬
crisy, compulsion and violence.99 It does not provoke in the
opponent violent feelings which may be aroused by direct
action. Besides, the greater the cultivation of constructive non¬
violence, the less the need to offer civil disobedience.100 Gandhiji
considered the definite, intelligent and free adoption of this
programme as the attainment of the substance of independence
and believed that this would surely be followed by the transfer

96 r. Jan. 9, 1930.
97 The Power of Non-violence, p. 306.
98 Y. I., Aug. 6, 1931, p. 203.
99 H., June 1, 1935, p. 123.
100 r. /., II, p. 447; H.y Jan. 2, 1937, p. 376.
194 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

of power to the people.101 This is why he called the constructive

programme “the permanent part of non-violent effort”, “the
embodiment of the active principle of ahimsa” and “construc¬
tion of Poorna Swaraj”.102 In 1942 he wrote, “If we wish to
achieve swaraj through Truth and non-violence, gradual but
steady building up from the bottom upwards by constructive
effort is the only way.”103
In an earlier chapter we have pointed out how according
to Gandhiji non-violence of the brave is vital to true democracy
which he defines as “the art and science of mobilizing the entire
physical, economic and spiritual resources of all the various sec¬
tions of the people in the service of the common good of all.”10*
The constructive programme is the modus operandi of ideal
democracy.
As for its content, the constructive programme of Gandhiji
is the scaffolding on which will grow the structure of the non¬
violent State. It is an effort to recast the present social order so
as to eliminate exploitation and injustice and to revive and
refine the nation’s creative genius and culture by a voluntary
regress to simplicity and naturalness. Non-violent life neces¬
sarily implies decentralized cottage industries and self-sufficient
and self-sustaining satyagrahi rural communities.
In its methods the programme is individualistic. Gandhiji
believes that to revolutionize the entire country the satyagrahi
should concentrate his efforts on a particular area, a village or
town and there too on individuals. The particular and the indi¬
vidual is a definite, living, tangible entity, while the general and

101 Speeches, p. 843.

In 1944 Gandhiji observed, “...the constructive programme is the
non-violent and truthful way of winning Poorna-Swaraj. Its wholesale ful¬
filment is complete independence. Imagine 40 crores of people engaged
in the whole of the constructive programme which is designed to build up
the nation from the very bottom upward. Can anybody dispute the propo¬
sition that it must mean complete independence in every sense of the
expression, including the ousting of foreign domination?” His statement
dated Oct. 27, 1944.
102 if., May 18, 1940, p. 129 and June 3, 1939, p. 147. Constructive
Programme 3 p. 1.
102 if., Jan. 18, 1942, p. 4.
104 H., May 27, 1939, p. 143.
 THE LEADER, ORGANIZATION AND PROPAGANDA 195
universal is an invisible, indefinite, vague abstraction. The indi¬
vidual is essentially spiritual and rational and possessed of a
free will. There is no limit to his capacity for regeneration.
Every individual has his peculiar problems. His regeneration
will come through the performance of his specific duty—his
swadkarma—in the context of his unique life situation. The
fulfilment of swadkarma is the loving service of his neighbours.
Nor need the individual “wait for anyone else in order tc adopt
a right course.33 “It is possible for an individual to adopt this
(non-violent) way of life without having to wait for others to do
so. And if an individual can observe a certain rule of conduct,
it follows that a group of individuals can do likewise.33105 Thus
the reform of the individual will lead to that of the group. If a
few individuals in a village are affected by the example of the
satyagrahi and are converted to the new way of life the
regeneration of the locality will be facilitated. Similarly, once
the problems of a few villages are solved and a spirit of co¬
operation developed, it will not be difficult to solve the problems
of the entire district and so on. It is some such reasoning which
was responsible for Gandhiji’s stay at Sevagram. He also holds
that “in order to do full justice to constructive work it must be
treated on its own merits and not made an appendage to
political work.33106
The constructive programme in India is essentially village
work. The eighteen items which Gandhiji included in the pro¬
gramme were indispensable for the emancipation of the nation
through non-violence. These items are:
1. Communal unity;
2. Removal of untouchability;
3. Prohibition;
4. Khadi;
5. Other village industries;
6. New or basic education;
7. Adult education;
8. Village sanitation;
9. Service of backward tribes;
10. Uplift of women;

hw H., Aug. 25, 1940, p. 260.

106 New Horizons in Khadi Work, Pyarelal’s statement, March 28, 1945.
196 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

11. Education in hygiene and health;

12. Propagation of Rasktrabhasha;
13. Love of one’s language;
14. Working for economic equality;
15-17. Organization of kisans, labour and students;
18. Nature cure.
Of these Gandhiji attaches the greatest importance to the
economic items and particularly to khadi. Gandhiji considers
economic problems in terms of the moral wellbeing of man. His
economic outlook is determined by the ideals of non-possession,
non-stealing, bread-labour and swadeshi. The ideal of economic
equality is dear to him, as the co-existence of superfluities and
starvation means exploitation and frustration, want and squalor
and makes the realization of spiritual unity so difficult for the
rich and the poor. To Gandhiji working for economic equality
is the master key to non-violent independence; for a non-violent
State is an impossibility so long as the wide gulf between the
rich and the poor persists and the conflict between them is not
abolished.107 By economic equality Gandhiji means approxi¬
mate, and not absolute, equality. “Economic equality must
never be supposed to mean possession of an equal amount of
worldly goods by every one. It does mean, however, that every
one will have a proper house to live in, sufficient and balanced
food to eat, and sufficient khadi with which to cover himself.
It also means that the cruel inequality that obtains today will
be removed by purely non-violent means.”108 The goal that
society should try to reach is equal remuneration for all types
of work.109 The first step towards this goal is for the satyagrahi
to take to voluntary poverty. Says Gandhiji, “I shall bring
about economic equality through non-violence, by converting
the people to my point of view. . . .1 will not wait till I have
converted the whole society to my view but will straightaway
make a beginning with myself. . . .For that I have to reduce my¬
self to the level of the poorest of the poor.”110 Besides the
personal example, Gandhiji advocates both levelling down and

107 Constructive Programme, p. 18.

108 H., Aug. 18, 1940, p. 253.
109 H., March 16, 1947, p. 67; March 23, 1947, p. 78; and Aug. 10,
1947, p. 274.
110 H., March 31, 1946, p. 64.
 THE LEADER, ORGANIZATION AND PROPAGANDA 197

levelling up. For levelling down, he would so far as possible

avoid legislative expropriation and confiscation as these involve
violence. To induce the rich to accept the ideal of economic
equality and hold their wealth in trust for the poor, he would
depend upon persuasion, education, non-violent non-co-opera¬
tion and other non-violent means. According to Gandhiji, the
theory of the trusteeship of the wealthy for their superfluous
wealth lies at the root of the doctrine of equal distribution. The
only alternative to trusteeship is confiscation through violence.
But by resorting to violence society will be poorer “for, it wall
lose the gifts of a man who know's how to accumulate wealth.
Non-violent non-co-operation is the infallible means to bring
about trusteeship because the rich cannot accumulate wealth
without the co-operation of the poor in society.”111
For removing the abject, grinding poverty and unemploy¬
ment of the masses, his remedy is khadi and the revival of other
handicrafts and cottage industries, the revival being “an exten¬
sion of the khadi effort”. Gandhiji considers khadi as one of the
two most important of his activities, the other being removal of
untouchability.112 Khadi is to him the most effective substitute
for violent dispossession.113 His attachment to khadi is due
primarily to moral considerations.
Non-violence and centralized industry, he thinks, are in¬
compatible. Mass production is exploitation of nature as w^ell
as man and this is the very negation of non-violence. Conscious
adoption of handicrafts is an important step towards world peace
in so far as mass production, wThich can only subsist on the con¬
trol of large markets, is the mainspring of modem international
rivalries, imperialistic exploitation and wTars.
In national affairs large-scale industry vitiates democracy.
For it leads to concentration of economic power and this implies
corresponding concentration of political power and the ever
present possibility of the abuse of such powder.
Mass production degrades workers and deprives them of
their dignity and worth. It uproots them from the purity and
naturalness of domestic atmosphere in rural areas, baulks their
creative urge and turns them into mere statistical units.

111 HAug. 25, 1940, p. 260. See also Gh. IV above.

112 G. D. Birla, Bafiu (Hindi), p. 19.
113 H., Jan. 2, 1937, p. 375.
198 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

Large-scale production, offends against nature too. Increas¬

ing cost of coal and oil, the accumulated energy reserves of the
earth, and their gradually diminishing supplies have led some
thinkers to the conclusion that in order to balance the energy
budget of the world production should be carried on through
handicrafts. Handicrafts, unlike big machinery, depend on
human labour, i.e., energy obtained from vegetation, the current
source of energy supply on the earth’s surface.114 Further, mass
production requires much larger capital than handicrafts and,
instead of reducing unemployment, leads to its progressive
increase due to constant rationalization under limited markets.
Due to these defects Gandhiji considers industrialism to be a
curse for mankind, and industrial civilization a disease and an
evil.115 Decentralized, small-scale economic organization using
local raw materials and simple tools and implements is superior
to large-scale production in all these respects.116 Handicrafts
and cottage industries ensure equitable distribution of wealth
and spreading over of purchasing power and prevent unemploy¬
ment, urbanization, moral deterioration, exploitation by
capitalists or professional experts and other concomitants of
centralized production.117 Decentralization of production and
distribution means automatic regulation of economic life with
very little chance of fraud and speculation.118 Cottage industries
also mean employment in congenial occupations in the natural
setting of the worker’s own place of habitation, combined with
numerous physical, moral, material and other benefits that go
with such employment. They preserve the purity and compact¬
ness of domestic life, the artistry, skill and creative talent of the
people and their sense of freedom, ownership and dignity. They
are a move towards simplification of life and ruralization of
society. The conscious adoption of cottage industries will lead

114 R. B. Gregg, The Economics of Khaddar, Chs. I and II; Lewis Mumford,
Technics and Civilization, pp. 156-58.
115 r./., Nov. 12, 1931, p. 318; T. L, II, p. 1187.
116 For a discussion regarding machines in relation to decentralized
non-violent economic organization see pp. 203 and 313-15, infra.
117 It has been calculated that in the textile industry (mills) in India
the wage bill comes to only 22 per cent of the proceeds of products. In the
case of khadi the wages form about 60 per cent of the price. Gandhiji, His
Life and Work, cited above, p. 214.
118 H., Nov. 2, 1934, p. 302.
 THE LEADER, ORGANIZATION AND PROPAGANDA 199

to the economic self-reliance and self-sufficiency of the villages

and develop in the people the moral stamina tc stand square
against all oppression and injustice. Gandhiji believed that in¬
dustrialization, even if socialized, would not be free from the
evils of capitalism, c\ . .the evils are inherent in industrialism,
and no amount of socialization can eradicate them.”115
Before India became free, even in the absence of anv con¬
siderable State aid khadi occupied a prominent place in the
economy of the country and could claim to be a sound economic
proposition.1-0 No doubt khadi costs more than the mill-cloth
to tne consumer, but to the farmer the price is immaterial, for
he gets his khadi from his own yarn. By patient experimenta¬
tion, improvement of tools and application of scientific know¬
ledge khadi production can be made much more efficient.
After food cloth is the article most universal in demand. So
to Gandhiji khadi is one of the lungs of the nation, the other
being agriculture.121 He also calls khadi the sun of the solar
system of the village economy and likens other handicrafts to
planets.122 Agriculture is not the sun but one of the planets
because agriculture as it is cannot by itself develop the faculties
of mind as khadi can.123 The progress of khadi means voluntary
co-operation, skilful endeavour and honesty on the largest scale

if., Sept. 29, 1940, p. 299.

120 In 1946 the working capital of the A.I.S.A. stood at twenty-five
lakhs. It took twenty-five years to reach that figure. During that period
it had distributed over seven crores of rupees as wages among four and a
half lakhs of the poor spinners and weavers, principally spread over twenty
thousand villages of India, if., Aug. 25, 1946, p. 277. Since 1947 the State
has been trying as best it can to help in the development of khadi and other
village industries. With that purpose the Union Government set up the
All India Khadi and Village Industries Board in 1953. The development
expenditure of the Board on the khadi industry during 1953-56 was Rs. 11.43
crores. During this period the value of production and sales of khadi increased
by about 250 and 300 per cent respectively. During 1955-56 the total
production of khadi came to 2.48 crores of sq. yards, its value being Rs. 4.78
crores. Of this 50.3 lakh sq. yards worth Rs. 56.5 lakhs was under the self-
sufficiency scheme subsidized by the Board. During this year the value of
purchases of khadi by Government Department was Rs. 74.9 lakhs. All India
Khadi and Village Industries Board, Annual Report for 1955-56.
121 His statement, Sept. 17, 1934.
122 Y. L, III, p. 84.
123 New Horizons in Khadi Work.
200 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

known to the world. Khadi requires much more of honest co¬

operation than agriculture does.
With Gandhiji the spinning wheel represents a complete
philosophy of life and is the living symbol of non-violence.124 He
says, “Ahimsa must express itself through acts of selfless service
of the masses. I cannot think of a better symbol or medium for
its expression than the spinning wheel.”125 Khadi signifies simpli¬
city and, therefore, purity of life.126 It is a symbol of the eager¬
ness of the rich for the uplift of the poor. The wheel has thus
come to represent the new satyagrahi civilization. Since 1920
the wheel had been connected with India’s non-violent fight for
freedom. It has also had the pride of place in the constructive
programme.
It is wrong to think that Gandhiji’s message of khadi was
meant only for India’s poverty-stricken masses and not for the
entire world. “I do not believe,” he wrote in 1946, “that indus¬
trialization is necessary in any case for any country.”127 “I do
feel that it (the spinning wheel) has a message for the U.S.A.
and the whole world.” He hoped that the Western people, when
they accepted it, would apply their matchless inventive faculty
to make the spinning wheel a better instrument while retaining
its essential characteristic as a cottage industry.128
The reason why in satyagrahi discipline Gandhiji lays
greater stress on khadi than on any other item in the construc¬
tive programme is that “millions of people can take their share
in this work and progress can be arithmetically measured. Com¬
munal unity and the removal of untouchability cannot be thus
assessed. Once they become part of our daily life, nothing need
be done by us as individuals.”129
In 1945 Gandhiji effected a reorientation of the policy of the
A.I.S.A. After the August disturbances of 1942 the Government
pursued a policy of ruthless repression towards the Congress
and its ancillary organizations. Consequently the activities of the
A.I.S.A. suffered a severe set-back. The new policy adopted by

124 Charhha Sangh Paripatra (Hindi), I, (Dec. 5, 1944), p. 2.

125 H.} May 6, 1939, p. 113.
126 H.} May 27, 1939, p. 137 and Jan. 28, 1939, p. 449.
127 H., Sept. 1, 1946, p. 285.
128 T. Sept. 17, 1925, quoted in For Pacifists, p. 100.
129 H., Aug. 18, 1940, p. 252.
 THE LEADER, ORGANIZATION AND PROPAGANDA 201
the iruslees of the A.I.S.A. on the recommendation of Gandhiji
sought to deepen khadi work with a view to demonstrate how
the spinning wheel could be made the foundation of the non-vio¬
lent social order. According to the new policy the object of
khadi workers should be not merely to provide economic relief
to the poor but also to resuscitate self-reliance, initiative and
non-violent virtues in the people.130
To influence people so as to lay the foundations of the new
social order khadi workers must win the confidence of the veonle
and enter every aspect of their life. So khadi work was no longer
to be pursued as an isolated activity but as an integral part of
the programme for the regeneration and uplift of villages. It
thus became closely interwoven with such items as agriculture
(including cattle improvement), removal of untouchability,
realization of economic equality and above all education both in
moral and material values for which khadi stands.130 Thus the
A.I.S.A. stood for all-round village service (samagra gramaseva)
through the charkha.
Another important feature of the new policy was decentrali¬
zation. The experience of non-violent movements in India
clearly shows that the less decentralized a resisting or construc¬
tive non-violent organization, the easier it is for the Govern¬
ment to paralyze it. Gandhiji w’as anxious that non-violent
organizations should not be at the mercy of the Government. He
wanted completely to decentralize the production and sale of
khadi so that every consumer of khadi would be a spinner and
every one engaged in khadi production would be a khadi-
wearer. Ultimately khadi work now carried on through the
various branches of the A.I.S.A., would be left entirely to all¬
round village workers. But to start with the number of sale
depots and production centres was to be reduced. Sale depots
were to be turned into centres for imparting knowledge in all
the processes of khadi manufacture. In towns part of the price
of khadi sold in sale depots was to be paid in yam. The propor¬
tion of yam was to be gradually increased. In villages khadi
should be exchanged for yam alone, Gandhiji5s ideal being
every village producing just enough khadi for its own use.131

130 Charkha Sangh Paripatra (Hindi), I, Dec. 12, 1944, p. 2.

131 New Horizons in Khadi Work, cited above.
202 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

So long as this ideal was not realized khadi produced in a parti¬

cular place should be consumed there in the first instance. If
people in any place produced without any difficulty more khadi
than their requirement it could be supplied to the nearest place
in need. But even for this Gandhiji felt that a district, at the
utmost a province, should be the limit.132 Those who did not
spin for themselves could use the yam spun by their relations
or neighbours.
On the basis of yarn produced during the first five years at
the Basic School at Sevagram Gandhiji was convinced that
khadi could be introduced in the villages through Nayee Talim
very quickly; for “khadi produced by the children during the
period of their training would be sufficient to clothe the entire
village and it would be the cheapest cloth possible.”132
The A.I.S.A. tried to work out the new policy. But towards
the close of his life Gandhiji complained that the Congress had
given up non-violence when it accepted office and that khadi
no longer occupied the proud place of being the symbol of
ahimsa.l3Z After his passing away the rule regarding a part of
the price of khadi being paid in yam was removed. It is feared
that under the influence of increasing State aid greater atten¬
tion may be paid to the production and sale of khadi than to the
intensive efforts, as desired by Gandhiji, on the part of workers
to make khadi the foundation of the non-violent social order.134
Reconstruction of villages so as to make them self-reliant
requires the development not only of khadi but also of other

132 New Horizons in Khadi Work; R. V. Rao, Gandhian Institutions of

Wardha, pp. 45-46, 48.
133 if., Nov. 2, 1947, p. 389.
134 To achieve “the progressive expansion and modernization of rural
industry” the Second Five Year Plan of the Government of India contemplates
the expenditure of Rs. 200 crores during the Plan period on the rural and
small-scale industry. Out of this Rs. 48.4 crores will be devoted to khadi
and village industries. It is significant that the annual report of the All India
Khadi and Village Industries Board for 1955-56 suggests that “to achieve
a uniform standard (of colour) which is essential if Government purchases
of khadi were to increase the {khadi) centres have to equip themselves with
modern processing plants....” The khadi centres have neither financial
resources nor sufficient work for this expensive machinery. “The Board has,
therefore, requested the Government for the sanction of grants to the centres
for the installation of mineral dying plants.” (p. 121 of the report).
 THE LEADER, ORGANIZATION AND PROPAGANDA 203

existing, dying or dead cottage industries which are remunera¬

tive. Khadi and other cottage industries are interdependent.
"Without khadi, the other industries cannot grow, while turnout
the revival of other essential industries, khadi cannot make
satisfactory- progress.135 The development of village industries
will turn the villages from mere creators of raw produce into self-
sustained units and caterers for most of the requirements of the
cities and will end the exploitation of the ullages by the
cities.136 Gandhiji wanted such simple machines and tools to be
used in village industries as the villagers could make and afford
to use.137 In very- rare cases he would not object to even modern
machine power being used when the work involved was so
heavy that it would be cruel to use man-power and when
machinery was used under proper safeguards to make exploita¬
tion impossible.138
In 1945, the All India Village Industries Association decided
to appoint sanchalaks (directors or guides) who were, in the
areas committed to their charge, to interpret the policy of the
Association, survey the conditions of rural life and recommend
schemes for constructive work. They were to supervise the
work of village industries and educate the public about the
various processes of these industries. They were also to guide
and direct those carrying on the actual field work, i.e.. agents,
affiliated institutions, recognized producing centres and certified
shops. All of these were to be independent of the central
organization except for the supervision by sanchalaks.
Rural reconstruction would be incomplete without adequate
attention to education in health and hygiene and to village
sanitation. Gandhiji sought to develop in the country cca sense
of national or social sanitation55 and to turn Indian villages
which are no better than dung-heaps into models of cleanliness.
The importance that Gandhiji attached to prohibition was
due to the fact that people in villages and cities would be
135 if., Nov. 16, 1934, p. 317; Constructive Programme, cited above, p. 11.
136 if., Dec. 21, 1934, p. 356.
137 if., Aug. 29, 1936, p. 226.
138 “When Machine Power” by J. G. Kumarappa, if., March 15, 1942,
p. 76. In 1942 with Gandhiji’s approval the A.I.V.I.A. permitted certified
shops to sell hand-lifted paper from pulp produced by power. For the place
of machinery in the non-violent economic organization, see also pp. 313-
15, infra.
204 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

incapable of moral effort necessary for satyagraha so long as they

were in the grip of intoxicants. He felt that women and. students
had a special opportunity to advance this reform. By opening
recreation booths and by acts of loving service they could
acquire on addicts a hold which would compel them to listen to
the appeal to give up the evil habit.139
Communal unity implies “an unbreakable heart-unity” and
not mere political unity which may be imposed. Religious
bitterness is a sign of lack of non-violent atmosphere. Gandhiji
expected every Congressman to have the same regard for other
faiths as he had for his own and to cultivate friendship with
persons representing faiths other than his own.140
The last sixteen months of his life were devoted to the
eradication of communal violence which broke out in India as
a result of the decision to divide the country. Communal vio¬
lence was, according to him, fatal to freedom and democracy.
The majority community should constitute themselves into the
guardians of the minority and give to the latter full religious
and cultural freedom. The minority should be fearless and
should neither migrate in panic nor depend on the police and
the military for their protection. If attacked they should defend
themselves non-violently, i.e., they should know the art of dying
with self-respect. If they lacked capacity for non-violence they
should defend themselves even violently. He held that the only
way to ensure life with honour and safety to non-Muslims in
Pakistan was to ensure it for Muslims in India.
In the cold weather of 1946-47, he experimented with the
non-violence of the brave in pursuance of his “do or die”
mission in the villages of Noakhali. He distributed his trusted
disciples in the affected areas to work to bring about peace bet¬
ween Hindus and Muslims. Himself barefoot he pilgrimaged
from village to village staying as far as possible in Muslim
homes and expounding his message of the non-violence of the
brave. His Noakhali pilgrimage and his fasts of September 1947
and January 1948 allayed communal bitterness. He however
aroused the wrath of some people and died a martyr to the
cause of communal unity.

139 Constructive Programme, cited above, p. 7. See also pp. 317-18, infra.
140 Ibid., cited above, p. 4.
 THE LEADER, ORGANIZATION AND PROPAGANDA 2L‘5

Similarly social equality demands removal of untouchabi-

lity which is a denial of the spiritual unity of all men and the
law of varna.141. Gandhiji held that if'untouchabliny lived,
Hinduism and with it India would die. His efforts regarding the
removal of untouchability lightened the misery and restored the
self-confidence of the depressed classes. The age-eld prejudice
against them is on the decline and the State and volun¬
tary organizations are trying to root out the evil.
Non-violence rules out suppression of women also. “In a
plan of life based on non-violence, woman has as much ri^ht
to shape her own destiny as man has to shape his.5’14- He wants
the customary and legal status of women to be changed so that
they are placed on a footing of equality with and become true
helpmates of men in the mission of sendee. Independence would
be incomplete without the co-operation of women.
The Kasturba Gandhi Memorial Trust which collected
more than a crore and a quarter of rupees in 1946 aims at the
welfare and education of women and children in rural areas
only through the agency of wromen workers. The Trust has been
training women in basic education, health and sanitation, vil¬
lage industries, village service etc. Those who receive training
open centres for village work in some part of their owm district.
In some of the provinces the Trust has started maternity homes,
basic schools and dispensaries in rural areas.
If the constructive programme is to convert people to the
new way of life and to lay the foundations of the future non-vio¬
lent State, the education of children and adults must be conduct¬
ed along non-violent lines. Basic education aims at transform¬
ing children into model villagers. “It develops both the body
and the mind, and keeps the child rooted to the soil with a
glorious vision of the future in the realization of which he or she
begins to take his or her share from the very commencement of
his or her career in school.”143
By adult education Gandhiji means true political education
of the village adult by word of mouth which will open his mind
to the greatness and vastness of his country and make him

141 See pp. 97-99, supra.

142 Constructive Programme, cited above, p. 14.
143 Ibid., p. 13.
206 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

conscious of the power he possesses to remove foreign rule.

Side by s:dc with this education the adult should also be given
literary education. Until 1943 he occasionally expressed indiffe¬
rence co the three R’s. But from then onwards he regarded
them as a vital part of the service of illiterate people, as this
knowledge enables one to reach out towards further and further
development.144
According to Gandhiji, our love of the English language in
preference to the great languages of our country has caused a
deep chasm between the educated classes and the masses, has
cut off the latter from the modern developments and stood in
the way of India’s non-violent swaraj. Non-violent swaraj
implies that “every individual makes his own direct contribu¬
tion to the independence movement. The masses cannot do this
fully unless they understand even’ step with all its implications.
This is impossible unless every step is explained in their own
language.5’145 In addition to the cultivation of Indian languages
for the political education of the masses Gandhiji also advocates
the propagation of Hindustani as the Rashtrabhaska.
The constructive programme also includes work among
labour, kisans and students. As for labour Gandhiji considers
the non-violent organization of Ahmedabad to be a model for
all India to copy.146 The primary aim of labour work as a part
of the constructive programme should be the elevation of labour
to its deserved status. Labour should be “'master of the means
of production instead of being the slave that it is. Capital should
be labour’s servant, not its master. Labour should be made
conscious of its duty from whose performance rights follow as
a matter of course.” Labour should have its own unions. These
unions should run basic schools for workers’ children and night-
schools for the general and scientific education of workers. They
should teach the workers the science of conducting a successful
non-violent strike. They should also run a hospital, a creche
and a maternity home at every centre.
In a predominantly agricultural country like India the
masses mean the kisans.1*1 The proper method of organizing

144 Constructive Programme, pp. 13-14; Mira, Gleanings, pp. 20-21.

145 Ibid., p. 17.
146 For Gandhiji’s views on labour organization see Ch. X infra.
147 Constructive Programme, p. 22. See also Ch. X infra.
 THE LEADER, ORGANIZATION AND PROPAGANDA 207
kisar.s is indicated by Gandhiji’s kisan movements in Cham-
paran, Kheda, Bardoli and Borsad. Kisans should not be
exploited for political purposes outside dieir own personal and
felt grievances. He was in favour of co-operative farming and
co-operative cattle-keeping. He was also in favour of a decent
living wage being paid to the landless labourer.
Students, Gandhiji advocates, should avoid party politics,
political strikes, coercive and secret ways, and communalism.
They should take to spinning, use khadi and village products,
learn the national language and enrich their mother tongue.
They should harbour neither communalism nor uniouchability
in their hearts. They should be ready to quell riots by non-
violent conduct at the risk of their lives.148
Nature cure is not a course of treatment but a way of life.
It implies that a perfect mind is responsible for the perfect
health of the body. For this, conscious belief in God is essential.
Anything other than this living faith in God is contrary’ to nature
cure. . .realization of God. . .makes it impossible for an im¬
pure or idle thought to cross the mind. Disease is impossible
where there is purity of thought.55 This way of life demands
“the observance of all other nature’s laws hitherto discovered
by mom.55 Following this line of thought Gandhiji limits nature
cure to the use of the five elements, i.e., earth, sky, air, sunlight,
and water,149
The details of the constructive programme may differ from
country to country, but the main principles are not local or
temporary in character. The aim is the regeneration of society
by ridding it of violence, and this requires a decentralized econo¬
mic structure, social equality and the right kind of education.
The constructive programme of Gandhiji has often been
criticized as reformist and reactionary. The programme, it is
pointed out, is ameliorative and as such blunts the edge of
popular discontent and reconciles people to their lot. It thus
side-tracks the main issue and postpones the day of revolution.
Revolution, it should be remembered, is often taken to mean
violent change of political power from one group to another

148 Constructive Programme, pp. 23-25.

149 H.9 April 7, 1946, pp. 68-69; May 19, 1946, p. 148; June 9, 1946,
p. 171; Aug. 11, 1946, p. 257; June 15, 1947, p. 185.
208 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

Gandhiji, however, aims at a deeper revolution, a comprehen¬

sive change in values and symbols that control human activities
and institutions. The constructive programme is a vital element
in this non-violent revolution. The programme is not merely
conceived in terms of the immediate but also lays the foundation
of the future non-violent State.
To neglect the sufferings of the masses for the purpose of
deepening the discontent and thus hastening the revolution is
treating men and women as mere means. Besides, extreme
poverty, which reduces human life to mere physical existence
and deadens all initiative and resourcefulness, instead of hasten¬
ing revolution, stands in the way of widespread awareness of
social discontent.
The constructive programme carries the heartening
message of satyagraha to the Indian peasant and makes him self-
reliant and conscious of his rights and of how to achieve them
as no mere speech-making and demonstrations can. It provides
an opportunity to the rank and file of the satyagrahi army, in
fact, to every individual to take some part in the work of social
reconstruction. It is a common bond between satyagrahis and
those that do not believe in non-violent direct action. This uni¬
versality of its appeal is due to its comprehensive content. It
touches every important sphere of life, moral and religious, eco¬
nomic and social. It is significant that in spite of much severe
criticism no practicable alternative to the constructive
programme has yet been suggested.
 APPENDIX I TO CHAPTER Vm

HIS LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT

Though split into two, India having attained political Independence

through means devised by the Indian National Congress, the Congress in
its present shape and form, i.e., as a propaganda vehicle and parliamentary
machine, has outlived its use. India has still to attain social, moral and
economic independence in terms of its seven hundred thousand villages
as distinguished from its cities and towns. The struggle for the ascendency
of civil over military power is bound to take place in India’s progress towards
its democratic goal. It must be kept out of unhealthy competition with
political parties and communal bodies. Tor these and ether similar reasons,
the A.LC.C. resolves to disband the existing Congress organization and
flower into a Lok Sevak Sangh under the following rules with power to
alter them as occasion may demand.
Every panchayat of five adult men or women being villagers or village-
minded shall form a unit.
Two such contiguous panchayats shall form a working part;/ under a
leader elected from among themselves.
When there are one hundred such panchayats the fifty first grade leaders
shall elect from among themselves a second grade leader and so on, the
first grade leaders meanwhile working under the second erade leader.
Parallel groups of two hundred panchayats shall continue to be formed till
they cover the whole of India, each succeeding group of panchayats electing
a second grade leader after the manner of the first. All second grade leaders
shall serve for the whole of India and severally for their respective areas.
The second grade leaders may elect, whenever they deem necessary, from
among themselves a chief who will during pleasure, regulate and command
all the groups.
(As the final formation of provinces or districts is still in a state of flux,
no attempt has been made to divide this group of servants into Provincial
or District Councils and jurisdiction over the whole of India has been vested
in the group or groups that may have been formed at any given time. It
should be noted that this body of servants derive their authority or power
from service ungrudgingly and wisely done to their master, the whole of
India.)
L Every worker shall be a habitual wearer of kkadi made from self-
spun yarn or certified by the A.I S.A. and must be a teetotaller. If a Hindu,

209

P. G.-14
210 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

he must have abjured untouchability in any shape or form in his own person
or in his own family and must be a believer in the ideal of inter-communal
unity, equal respect and regard for all religions and equality of opportunity
and status for all irrespective of race, creed or sex.
2. He shall come in personal contact with every villager within his
jurisdiction.
3. He shall enrol and train workers from amongst the villagers and
keep a register of all these.
4. He shall keep a record of his work from day to day.
5. He shall organize the villagers so as to make them self-supporting
and self-contained through their agriculture and handicrafts.
6. He shall educate the village folk in sanitation and hygiene and take
all measures for prevention of ill health and disease among them.
7. He shall organize the education of the village folk from birth to
death along the lines of Nayee Talim, in accordance with the policy laid
down by the Hindustani Talimi Sangh.
8. He shall see that those whose names are missing on the statutory
voters9 roll are duly entered therein.
9. He shall encourage those who have not yet acquired the legal
qualification, to acquire it for getting the right of franchise.
10. For the above purposes and others to be added from time to time,
he shall train and fit himself in accordance with the rules laid down by the
Sangh for the due performance of duty.
The Sangh shall affiliate the following autonomous bodies:
1. A.I.S.A.
2. A.I.V.I.A.
3. Hindustani Talimi Sangh.
4. Harijan Sevak Sangh.
5. Goseva Sangh.
Finance
The Sangh shall raise finances for the fulfilment of its mission from
among villagers and others, special stress being laid on collection of poor
man’s pice.
M. K. G.
New Delhi, 29-l-948
(Harijan, 15-2-548)
 APPENDIX II TO CHAPTER Vm

VOLUNTEER’S PLEDGE

The pledge that Gandhiji drew up in 1921 is as under:

With God as witness I solemnly declare that,
1. I wish to be a member of the National Volunteer Corps.
2. So long as I remain a member of the Corps, I shall remain
non-violent in word and deed and shall earnestly endeavour to be non¬
violent in intent, since I believe that, as India is circumstanced, non¬
violence alone can help the Khilafat and the Punjab and result in the
attainment of Swaraj and consolidation of unity' among all races and
communities of India whether Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Parsee, Christian
or Jew.
3. I believe in, and shall endeavour always to promote, such
unity.
4. I believe in Swadeshi as essential for Indians economic, political
and moral salvation, and shall use hand-woven khaddar to the ex¬
clusion of every other cloth.
5. As a Hindu I believe in the justice and necessity of removing
the evil of untouchability and shall on all possible occasions seek per¬
sonal contact with, and endeavour to render sendee to, the submerged
classes.
6. I shall carry out the instructions of my superior officers and
all the regulations not inconsistent with the spirit of this pledge pres¬
cribed by the Volunteer Board or the Working Committee or any other
agency established by the Congress.
7. I am prepared to suffer imprisonment, assault, or even death
for the sake of my religion and my country without resentment.
8. In the event of my imprisonment, I shall not claim from the
Congress any support for my family or dependents.
In 1930 he elaborated the discipline embodied in the pledge
into the following 19 rules:
As An Individual
1. A Satyagrahi, i.e., a civil resister will harbour no anger.
2. He will suffer the anger of the opponent.
3. In so doing he will put up with assaults from the opponent,
never retaliate; but he will not submit, out of fear of punishment or the
like, to any order given in anger.

211
212 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

4. When any person in authority seeks to arrest a civil resister,

he will voluntarily submit to the arrest and he will not resist the
attachment or removal of his own property, if any, when it is sought to
be confiscated.
5. If a civil resister has any property in his possession as a trustee,
he will refuse to surrender it, even though in defending it he might lose
his life. He will, however, never retaliate.
6. Non-retaliation excludes swearing and cursing.
7. Therefore a civil resister will never insult his opponent, and
therefore, also, he may not take part in many of the newly coined cries
which are contrary to the spirit of ahimsa.
8. A civil resister will not salute the Union Jack, nor will he insult
it or officials, English or Indian.
9. In the course of the struggle if any one insults an official or
commits an assault upon him, a civil resister will protect such official
or officials from the insult or assault at the risk of his own life.
As A Prisoner

10. A civil resister will behave with due decorum towards prison
officials and will observe all such discipline of the prison as is not con¬
trary to self-respect. Whilst he will salute officials in due prison
discipline, he will not perform any humiliating task and refuse to cry
victory to sarkar. He will take cleanly cooked and cleanly served food,
which is not contrary to his religion, and will refuse to take food
insultingly served or served in unclean vessels.
11. A civil resister will make no distinction between an ordinary
prisoner and himself and will in no way regard himself as superior to
the rest; nor will he ask for any conveniences that may not be neces¬
sary for keeping his body in good health and condition. He is entitled
to ask for such conveniences as may be required for his physical and
spiritual well-being.
12. A civil resister will not fast for want of conveniences whose
deprivation does not invoke any injury to one’s self-respect.
As A Unit

13. A civil resister will joyfully obey all orders issued by the
leader of the corps, whether they please him or no.
14. He will carry out orders in the first instance, even though they
appear to him to be insulting, inimical or foolish, and then appeal to
higher authority. He is free to determine the fitness of the corps to
satisfy him before joining it; but after he has joined it, it becomes his
 THE LEADER, ORGANIZATION AND PROPAGANDA 213
duty to submit to its discipline, irksome or otherwise* If the sum total
of the energy of the corps appears to a member to be improper or im¬
moral, he has a right to sever his connection, but being within it, he
has no right to commit a breach of its discipline.
15. No civil resister is to expect maintenance for his dependents.
It would be an accident if any such provision is made. A civil resister
entrusts his dependents to the care of God. Even in ordinary warfare
wherein hundreds of thousands give themselves up to it, they are able
to make no previous provision. How much more, then, should such be
the case in satyagraha? It is the universal experience that in such times
hardly anybody is left to starve.
la Communal Fights

16. No civil resister will intentionally become cause of communa

quarrels.
17. In the event of any such outbreak, he will not take sides, but
he will assist only that party which is demonstrably in the right. Being
a Hindu he will be generous towards Mussalmans and others, and will
sacrifice himself in the attempt to save non-Hindus from a Hindu attack.
And if an attack is from the other side, he will not participate in any
retaliation but will give his life in protecting Hindus.
18. He will, to the best of his ability, avoid every occasion that may
give rise to communal quarrels.
19. If there is a procession of satyagrahis they will do nothing
that would wound the religious susceptibilities of any community, and
they will not take part in any other processions that are likely to wound
such susceptibilities. *
 CHAPTER IX

SATYAGRAHA AS CORPORATE ACTION

THE TECHNIQUE

Occasional group conflicts are inevitable. These should be

settled by collective non-violent resistance. But though satya-
graha can flourish in all places and at all times, even in a
violent atmosphere, non-violent direct action cannot. To quote
Gandhiji, “civil disobedience is not the law of life; satyagraha
is. Satyagraha therefore never ceases; civil disobedience can
cease and ought to when there is no occasion for it.”1 For the
launching and continuance of non-violent direct action external
and internal conditions, i.e., the condition of the enemy and the
satyagrahi must be favourable.
The non-violent direct action is no ordinary war of blood
and fire, thunder and devastation. It is a moral war in which
the usual process of fighting is reversed and the whole conflict
elevated to a higher plane. Its object being conversion and not
coercion, service and reformation and not defeat and destruc¬
tion of the enemy, it should not be applied against an enemy in
difficulty, specially when that difficulty is a matter of life and
death with him. In the words of Gandhiji “. . .we should not
embarrass an opponent who is in difficulty and make his
difficulty our opportunity.”1
The reason for this emphasis on non-embarrassment is that
taking advantage of the adversary’s difficulty irritates him and
makes him unsympathetic and revengeful. He feels that non¬
violence is merely a cloak and dissembling intended to harm
him and his conversion becomes difficult. Emphasis on
embarrassment makes the movement one of passive resistance.2
Gandhiji also believes that the satyagrahi should do no¬
thing that may brutalize the enemy and harden his moral
sense.3 This does not mean that civil disobedience should be
suspended merely because the opponent’s repression is

1H., Jan. 6, 1940, p. 404.

2 Conversations, p. 93.
3 See pp. 143-44 supra.
01 /L
 THE TECHNIQUE 215
intensifying and becoming brutal.4 In fact, if such suspension
were inherent in satyagraha it would be a serious limitation and
the opponent would have a powerful motive to be brutal in
order to bring about suspension.
Thus in 1930 when the Government started a regular reign
of terror to suppress the satyagraha movement, Gandhiji felt
that the correct way to fight the brutal repression of the Govern¬
ment was to intensify civil disobedience and to widen its scope
and thus to invite the Government “to disclose to the full the
leonine paws of authority55. “For according to the science of
satyagraha, the greater the repression and lawlessness on the
part of authority, the greater should be the suffering courted
by the victims. Success is the certain result of suffering of the
extremist character, voluntarily undergone.5'5
The eagerness of the satyagrahi not to embarrass the
adversary may be exploited by the latter to ruin the non-violent
group. But the satyagrahi must not exercise the virtue of self-
restraint to the extent of self-extinction or suicidal self¬
suppression, for then the virtue becomes a vice.6 In case non¬
embarrassment is exploited by the opponent it becomes the clear
duty of the satyagrahis to resist the aggressor non-violently and
defend themselves. Says Gandhiji, “Defensive civil disobedience
becomes a duty when insult or humiliation is imposed upon us
by an opponent. That duty would have to be done whether the
opponent is in difficulty or not.557
To sum up, when the enemy is in difficulty it is the duty
of the satyagrahi to do what is morally necessary, though he
must avoid what may not be morally indefensible but is
calculated to vex and embarrass the opponent.7

4 H., June 10, 1939, p. 159.

5 Quoted in History of the Congress, p. 665. In 1939 no doubt Gandhiji
advised the suspension of civil disobedience in some of the native States
where authorities were getting brutalized. But this suspension was due
partly to lack of adequate training on the part of satyagrahis and partly
to Gandhiji’s desire for a calm atmosphere in which he might think out a new
orientation of civil disobedience. If the satyagrahis had been thoroughly
disciplined presumably he would not have advised suspension. H., June 10,
1939, p. 159.
6 H, Sept. 22, 1940, p. 290.
7 H., Jan. 6, 1940, p. 404.
216 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

To the satyagrahi far more important than external condi¬

tions are internal conditions. In Gandhiji’s words, “external
difficulties need never frighten a satyagrahi. On the contrary,
he flourishes on external difficulties and faces them with
vigour.”8
As for satisfactory internal conditions, the satyagrahi
group should be well-disciplined. In the last chapter we have
discussed the implications of adequate discipline. In particular
satyagrahis should take a real, living interest in the working of
the constructive programme. Through this constructive
service they should acquire control over violent elements in the
masses so that they will remain at least passively non-violent
so long as the non-violent resistance lasts. Thus he wrote in
1939, “The first indispensable condition precedent to any civil
resistance is that there should be surety against any outbreak
of violence whether on the part of those who are identified with
civil resistance or on the part of the general public.”9 Besides,
there should be in satyagrahis enough faith and discipline
instinctively to await and obey the general’s word. The satya¬
grahi army “should be so well prepared as to make war
unnecessary.”10
The sign of full preparedness is that suspension should
never bring despondency and weakness in a satyagraha
struggle.10 Even if people are ready and suspension is ordered
through the miscalculation of the general, the movement should
not be affected adversely, for “suspension of civil disobedience,
if it resulted in accentuation of repression, would itself become
satyagraha in its ideal form.”11 On the other hand if suspension
leads to desertion and disbelief it shows that deserters were
only half-hearted satyagrahis and the movement would be the
better without them.12 If, however, satyagrahis survive the
depression of suspension it would be an unmistakable sign that
they have imbibed the message of non-violence.13

8 H., March 30, 1940, p. 69.

9 if., March 18, 1939, p. 53.
10 H., Dec. 2, 1939, p. 361.
11H., June 3, 1939, p. 147.
12 H., April 1, 1939, p. 72.
13 Speeches, p. 509.
 THE TECHNIQUE 217
In spite of all the precautions satyagraha on a mass scale
is a dangerous experiment and there is always the risk of an
outbreak of popular violence. But as against this the leader has
also to balance what is perhaps a greater risk—the certainty of
popular rage generated by tyranny and injustice bursting into
violence, or what is worse, moral degradation due to the absence
of an effective non-violent remedy in the face of a grave
injustice.14 Non-violent direct action avoids this violence as it
enables the people to give such expression to their feelings as
may compel redress. Thus opposition to immoral acts of the
opponent may often become a duty in spite of the internal weak¬
ness of satyagrahis. Stressing this logic of overwhelming neces¬
sity even amidst uncongenial surroundings, Gandhiji once
wrote, “If the Congress is goaded to it (civil disobedience;, the
science of satyagraha is not without a mode of application in
spite of internal weakness.5’15 Similarly in 1930 he pointed out
that the argument that in an atmosphere surcharged with vio¬
lence there is no scope for non-violence may be carried so far
that non-violence may be made wholly ineffective. If civil dis¬
obedience has to be employed even in an atmosphere surcharged
with violence, “it must be hedged in by adequate restrictions.
In satyagraha, it is never the numbers that count, it is always
the quality, more so when the forces of violence are
uppermost.”16
Whether or not the opportunity is suitable for starting
direct action is to be decided by the general. His decision would
be based on the justice of the issue that is the cause of conflict
and the state of the preparedness of the satyagrahis. So long as
his preparations are incomplete he refuses to be goaded into
precipitate action either by the pressure of the opponent, his
oppression and tyranny, or by the clamour of his followers.
Thus the satyagrahi general gives battle at the time and on the
ground of his own choice. He retains the initiative in his own
hands and never allows it to pass into those of the enemy.17
The leader retraces his steps and suspends direct action if
he has been guilty of any miscalculation, if he finds the required

14 Speeches, p. 509; H., July 1, 1939, p. 182.

15 HAugust 4, 1940, p. 234.
H., March 25, 1939, p. 64.
17 H.3 May 27, 1939, p. 143.
218 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

spirit of non-violence lacking in satyagrahis and the community

and there is a chance of demoralization.18 CCA wise general does
not wait till he is actually routed; he withdraws in time in an
orderly manner from a position which he knows he would not
be able to hold.5’19 Gandhiji’s Ahmedabad (1919), Bardoli (1921)
and Patna (1934) decisions are instances of suspension.^ By
the Patna decision civil disobedience was suspended for all
except Gandhiji. Suspension of civil disobedience is not the
suspension of satyagraha. It is merely changing the disposition
of the non-violent forces from the work of cleansing to construc¬
tion. Suspension is a strategic retreat for a more intensive
preparation of the satyagrahi forces.
Non-violent direct action can be employed only for social
good and not for immoral purposes. It cannot, for instance, be
used to conquer a foreign country or establish an empire. For
these violence is the only means.
The issue justifying direct action must be some serious
grievance of the community. The grievance should so far as
18 In 1922 Gandhiji was of the opinion that civil disobedience could be
stopped only by political and not by non-political violence. In 1930, however,
he relaxed and laid down that this time civil disobedience would continue
in spite of violence, though he insisted that “Every effort imaginable and
possible should be made to restrain the forces of violence.** No doubt non¬
violence of the brave can neutralize any amount of violence. But with the
Congress non-violence was only a policy. After 1934 his standard again went
up and he insisted on the absence of violence as a necessary condition for
the starting and continuance of civil disobedience. Violence, however, cannot
stop individual civil disobedience as a purely defensive measure. T. I,
p. 292; T. Jan. 23, 1930; Feb. 27, 1930. History of the Congress, p. 645; if.,
Dec. 2, 1939, p. 361 and March 30, 1940, p. 69.
19 H., Oct. 22, 1938, p. 304.
20 The suspension in 1919 was due to violence in Nadiad and
Ahmedabad. Similarly the Bardoli suspension was due to popular violence
at Chauri Chaura, in which Congress and Khilafat men were involved and
which had been preceded by other instances of political violence. Besides, in
1921 violence seemed to be on the increase and the discipline of the satya¬
grahis was too inadequate. The Patna (1934) decision was the recognition of
the fact that the civil disobedience movement, being the non-violence of the
weak, had weakened due to the severe repression of the Government. So as
the author and initiator of satyagraha Gandhiji advised Congressmen to
suspend civil resistance for swaraj as distinguished from specific grievances.
Civil resistance for swaraj was to be confined to him alone and was to be
resumed by others in his lifetime only under his direction. See Conversations,
pp. 46 and 48.
 THE TECHNIQUE 219
possible be simple, tangible, concrete and well-defined and not
abstract and complicated. Mixing up of motives is damaging in
satyagraha and an issue should not be a mere cloak for advanc¬
ing an ulterior objective.21 Gandhiji also advocates the satya-
grahi group fighting for the irreducible minimum. For the
satvagrahi this minimum, he says, is the maximum.22 The issue
also must be within the power of the opponent to concede.23
In all the civil disobedience movements conducted by him
or under his guidance Gandhiji always took care that the issue
of the movement should not be confused with something diffe¬
rent. In South Africa he refused to make common cause with
the European strikers whose strike -was not non-violent. In fact,
he suspended the satyagraha strike of indentured Indians lest
it be mistaken as being in alliance with that of the Europeans.
In Champaran he took care not to give to the affair political and
national colour.
Gandhiji’s various non-violent campaigns also illustrate
this double stress on concreteness and the restraint on demand,
i.e., limited objective. Local campaigns are bound to be concrete.
But the three all-India movements also bear out the principle.
The first movement was for the redress of the Punjab and the
Khilqfat wrongs, though in 1920 at the instance of Mr C. Vijaya-
raghavachariar and Pt. Motilal Nehru Gandhiji agreed to
include swaraj also in the demands.24 In the second movement
(1930-34) likewise, which he expected to be the final struggle for
complete independence, he reduced his demand for swaraj to
the well-known eleven points. Pt. Motilal Nehru criticized him
for thus lowering the national demand but soon realized that
conceding the eleven points would mean conceding the
substance of independence. He conducted the movement of
1940-41 to defend the right of free speech, which he called the
foundation-stone, the seed of swaraj?5 Speaking about the issue
he said, “This liberty is a concrete issue which needs no
defining. It is the foundation of freedom, specially when it has
to be taken non-violently. To surrender it is to surrender the

21 H., May 27, 1940, p. 144.

22 South Africa, p. 319.
23 Mahatma Gandhi, Constructive Programme, p. 26.
24 Autobiography, II, pp. 579-80.
25 H., Aug. 22, 1940, p. 291.
220 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

only means for attaining freedom.”26 This is not to deny that

the demand for swaraj can legitimately form the issue of a non¬
violent conflict, but Gandhiji would like to reduce the demand
to as concrete terms as possible. Even the Quit India resolution
of the A.I.C.C. (Aug. 8, 1942) put the demand for independence
in the concrete context of the peril of war. The resolution
demanded the immediate withdrawal of the British power from
India as an urgent necessity, because “The continuance of that
rule is degrading and enfeebling India and making her progres¬
sively less capable of defending herself and contributing to the
cause of world freedom.” The end of British domination, the
resolution asserted, was necessary for the success of freedom
and democracy, for only a free India could defend herself and
help China and Russia in their hour of need.27
His advice to the leaders of satyagraha movements in the
Indian States was also along these very lines. To give an
instance, in 1939 his advice to the leader of the Travancore
Congress was to forget for the time being swaraj, to concentrate
on the details of administration and to fight for the elementary
rights of the people. He said, “The authorities won’t be
frightened, and it will give you the substance of responsible
Government.”28
People sometimes object to this policy. Concrete particular
wrongs, they say, are but symptoms of a deeper malady. To
isolate them and to try to deal with them separately is a dis¬
service to the masses for it makes them lose sight of the real
objective.
Gandhiji’s view, however, is not only inseparably connected
with his basic principles but possesses great practical advan¬
tages also. Definiteness and concreteness, besides being in
consonance with truth, leave no ground for misunderstanding
and bring the problem within the comprehension of the masses
affected, thus winning their support. Keeping the demand at
the minimum convinces people of the bona fides of the satya-
grahi group. To some extent it also allays the suspicions of the

26 H., Aug. 22, 1940, p. 292.

27 The A.I.C.C. resolution in Congress Responsibility for the Distur¬
bances, pp. 52-55.
28 H., June 24, 1939, p. 175.
 THE TECHNIQUE 221
adversary. Aggression is violence and minimum demands are
i an indication of the essentially defensive character of satya-
graha. Further, if on a definite, limited issue the masses are
able to achieve success non-violently, the moral strength thus
generated will enable them to set right more widespread
grievances. Thus Gandhiji once remarked, “If I had only talked
of swaraj, I would have come a cropper. By attacking details
we have advanced from strength to strength.5’29
Once the fight begins, the satyagrahi group, even if its
strength increases, must not add to its demand without good
reason. Thus grievances which existed when the satyagraha was
launched and the removal of which was not included in the
demand should not be brought in to enlarge the objective. On
the other hand a breach of a promise or any other injustice
done by the opponent to the satyagrahi community during the
course of the struggle can legitimately give rise to new demands.
From this point of view* when the adversary prolongs a satva-
graha struggle by creating new difficulties for the satyagrahi,
it is the latter who stands to gain. By the law of progression
which applies to civil resistance there is a constant growth in
the result to which it leads.30
Regarding the form of resistance, the principles of indi¬
vidual action discussed in chapter VII apply to group action also
with necessary modifications. In satvagraha what is important
is the spirit of non-violence rather than the isolated acts through
which it is expressed. This is why Gandhiji insists on the satya¬
grahi leader being an out-and-out ahimsaist, for “without a
living faith in it, he will not be able at the crucial moment to
discover a non-violent method.5531 This also explains his great
emphasis on the thorough discipline of the satyagrahis. Again,
this is the reason why he is so particular about the beginning in
the non-violent campaign being well and truly made by purest
of men. Beyond this, Gandhiji believes, circumstances differ
from one instance of group satyagraha to another and even in
the same movement the situation keeps changing and assuming
new and unexpected aspects. Thus the satyagrahi general has
to improvise his response according to the exigencies of the

29 H., June 24, 1939, p. 175.

30 South Africa, Ghs. XXVII and XXXVIII.
31 r. Feb. 27, 1930.
222 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

situation, depending on the clarity of his vision and the keen-

ness of his intuition. Just as a general of the ordinary army may
alter his plans and orders according to the changing situation
and the tactics of the enemy, so also the satyagrahi general.
Over and above the situation outside, the latter has also to exa¬
mine himself and to listen to “the dictates of the inner self”.32
It is unnecessary and impossible to visualize and draw up any
detailed scheme of the resistance to cover all cases. To do so is
to reduce a life-process to a set of cut-and-dried logical steps.
Hence Gandhiji’s much-criticized “one-step-enough-for-me”
dictum. Thus he wrote in 1939, “Do not expect me to reveal how,
if ever, I shall launch civil disobedience. I have nothing up my
sleeve, and I will have no knowledge until the last moment. I
am not made that way. I knew nothing of the salt march until
practically the moment it was decided upon. This I know that
God has rarely made me repeat history and He may not do so
this time.”33 We propose, therefore, to confine ourselves to the
general principles of corporate resistance as inferred from the
past instances.
In chapter VII, we have discussed the object of non-violent
resistance, the test of the genuineness of resistance, and the
importance of persuasion, education of public opinion and
efforts for compromise preceding the actual outbreak of hosti¬
lities. These equally apply to non-violent resistance on a group
scale.
Gandhiji attaches great importance to open dealing in
satyagraha. Upton Close once called him “the world’s greatest
example of political straightforwardness, the only true follower
of the ideal of open diplomacy openly arrived at.”34 Pursuit of
truth at any cost is to him the only diplomacy and this rules out
secrecy of all kinds. He -wrote in 1931, “In the method we are
adopting, fraud, lying, deceit and all ugly brood of violence and
untruth have absolutely no room. Everything is done openly
and above board, for truth hates secrecy. The more open you
are, the more truthful you are likely to be.”35

32 H., June 10, 1939, p. 158.

33 H., December 2, 1939, p. 362.
34 Natesan, Mahatma Gandhi, The Man and His Mission, Appreciations,
p. 30.
33 r. L, Dec. 21, 1931.
 THE TECHNIQUE 223

Absence of secrecy guarantees purity of means, for un¬

cleanliness shuns light and seeks secrecy. Open dealing makes
satyagraha a clean, open battle of defiance regardless of conse¬
quences. It is a symbol of moral superiority and appeals to the
best in all concerned. It strengthens the morale of the satya-
grahi rank and file. It enhances their dignity in the eyes of the
public as well as the adversary whose mor?ie, therefore,
diminishes.
Open dealing also serves as an excellent propaganda. The
news spreads far and wide and to some extent neutralizes the
effect of subsequent censorship. Thus open dealing and
eschewing secrecy are a practical proposition also. Indeed, as
Gandhiji wrote in 1940, “No underhand or underground move¬
ment can ever become a mass movement or stir millions to mass
action.9’36
In all his campaigns in India as well as South Africa
Gandhiji always informed the Government of his plans of cam¬
paign in advance. He believed that non-violent direct action
would be morally defective if started without sufficient notice.
But never before was he so thorough-going in this respect as
in the individual civil disobedience movement of 1940-41.
Detailed information was sent to the Government several days
in advance by every satyagrahi about his contemplated civil dis¬
obedience. The Congress Committees were also forbidden to
keep secret books or funds.37
Secrecy on the other hand, carries the suggestion that the
satyagrahi is afraid of the adversary and wants to escape
punishment. “Secrecy aims at building a wall of protection
round you. Ahimsa disdains all such protection. It functions in
the open and in the face of odds, the heaviest conceivable.9’38 It
also shows the satyagrahi’s eagerness to achieve quick results
even by questionable means. “If once we begin doing something
underhand, even for a good cause, then many wrongs will
follow.”39 Secrecy, therefore, deprives satyagraha of its dignity,

36 Gandhiji’s statement dated Oct. 21, 1940.

37 April 13, 1940, p. 89.
38 HFeb. 10, 1946, p. 2.
39 Barr, p. 170.
224 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

reducing it to a mere battle of wits. It is thus fatal to

satyagraha.
In the second satyagraha movement (1930-34) when the
repression of the Government became very severe satyagrahis
fell back upon secret methods. But the movement began to
slacken and demoralization set in. Later Gandhiji held that the
secret methods were largely responsible for the demoralization
of the masses.40 In his speech before the A.I.C.C. on the 8th of
August, 1942, Gandhiji laid emphasis on the need of avoiding
secrecy and working openly in the coming non-violent struggle.
In 1944 he disapproved of underground activities and held that
the struggle would have led to greater progress if people had
shown the non-violent bravery of his conception.
He is also against sabotage in the form of destruction of
Government property as a part of the movement of non-violent
resistance. . .even a national Government will be unable to
carry on for a day if everybody claimed the right to destroy
bridges, communications, roads etc., because he disapproved of
some of its activities. Moreover, the evil resides not in bridges,
roads, etc., which are inanimate, but in men. It is the latter who
need to be tackled. The destruction of bridges, etc., by means
of explosives does not touch this evil but only provokes a worse
evil in the place of the one which it seeks to end. . .sabotage is
a form of violence.5541
Gandhiji is indifferent to money and numbers in satya¬
graha. He has repeatedly observed that the success of
satyagraha depends on moral and spiritual rather than material
resources.
It is not to suggest that he undervalues the co-operation of
the masses. In his evidence before the Hunter Committee in
1919 he remarked that if he got a million men ready to act ac¬
cording to the principles of non-violence he would not mind
enlisting them all.42 He admits that the movement of mass
satyagraha is impossible without mass discipline and mass
support.43 But numbers are a source of weakness when disci¬
pline is indifferent. Besides, satyagraha can achieve its object

40 His statement dated May 5, 1933.

41 H., Feb. 10, 1946, p. 2.
42 r. II, p. 17.
43 South Africa, p. 204.
 THE TECHNIQUE 225

even without assuming the mass aspect. And its success depends
not on the force of numbers but on the capacity of satyagrahis,
however small their number, to suffer for truth without ill-will
for the adversary. To quote Gandhiji, “I attach the highest
importance to quality irrespective almost of quantity. . . .Num¬
bers become irresistible when they act as one man under exact
discipline. They are a self-destroying force when each pulls Lis
own way or when no one knows which way to puli. I am con¬
vinced that there is safety in fewness so long as we have not
evolved cohesion, exactness and intelligent co-operation and
responsiveness.5344 Again, “Numbers do not matter in satya-
graha. Even a handful of true satyagrahis well organized md
disciplined through selfless sendee of the masses, can win
independence for India.3345
Gandhiji3s indifference to numbers is a corollary cf his
convictions regarding soul-force. The strength on which the
satyagrahi relies is not the strength of his narrow, isolated,
physical being but of his soul-force, which can defy the physical
combination of the whole world. When one has an unflinching
faith in soul and God one is self-sustained and gets the necessary
support from within.
His emphasis on quality is also due to the fact that quality
tends to multiply by its contagious example, while indifferent
quantity is self-cancelling. This is the law of growth in satya-
graha. It is by this logic of purity that in South Africa the
number of satyagrahis which stood at 16 at one time swelled to
6,000 towards the close of the struggle. According to him
sacrifice of quantity and insistence on quality are also essential
for training the masses in the way of non-violence.46
Moreover, to the satyagrahi victory depends not on
numbers but on withdrawing his co-operation from the evil¬
doer, on resisting him. So “for a fighter the fight itself is a
victory, for he takes delight in it alone. He believes that victory
or defeat. . .depends upon himself.3347 Further, “as a civil resis¬
tance army is or ought to be free from passion, because free

44 r. /., II, p. 503.

46 H., March 25, 1939, p. 67.
46 History of the Congress, p. 939.
47 South Africa, p. 394.
226 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

from the spirit of retaliation, it requires the fewest number of

soldiers.”4S
Closely similar are Gandhiji’s views on the place of money
in satyagraha. He raised crores for various causes and consi¬
dered'money “the sinews of war55.49 In 1921 he appealed to the
people to contribute to the Tilak Swaraj Fund as much as they
could. In 1927 he wrote, “The fund has served an immense
national purpose. The tremendous organization that came into
being all of a sudden could not have been created without this
great national fund. . . .”50 All the same Ganahiji is essentially
indifferent to money, his attitude being determined by the ideal
of non-possession. He believes that money plays the least part
in satyagraha.51 It cannot by itself help forward a satyagraha
movement. It is his conviction bom of long experience that the
satyagrahi must simply cease to depend on money, for no move¬
ment or activity which has at its helm true and good men ever
stops or languishes for want of funds.52 On the other hand
financial stability inevitably leads to spiritual bankruptcy.53
He is also against public institutions being run on borrowed
money or permanent funds. “A public institution means an
institution conducted with the approval of, and from the funds
of the public. When such an institution ceases to have public
support it forfeits its right to exist. Institutions maintained on
permanent funds are often found to ignore public opinion. . . .”54
It is hardly necessary to add that satyagraha is inconsistent
with pecuniary inducement to or hiring of volunteers. Adven¬
turers participating on the ground of such selfish hopes will
inevitably choke up the movement. There is, however, nothing
wrong in giving, wherever it is possible, bare maintenance to
poor volunteers and, when these volunteers are imprisoned or
killed, to their dependents.
It was largely due to Gandhiji that India’s struggle for
freedom was so very inexpensive and the Congress could boast

4* T. I., I, p. 935.
49 Speeches, p. 584.
5(3 T. Ill, p. 102.
51 Autobiography, II, p. 433.
52 South Africa, p. 202.
53 H., Dec. 10, 1938, p. 371.
54 Diary, I, p. 77; Autobiography, I, pp. 459-60.
 THE TECHNIQUE 2^7

of such a large number of honorary workers. Democracy which

has been rendered so very undemocratic by the corrupting
influence of wealth has much to learn from Gandkiji5s sane
attitude towards money.
Gandhiji holds that in a non-violent campaign the sau*a-
grahi leader should, so far as possioie, depend fer men and
money on the community or the area directly affected by the
grievances which occasion the conflict. In his Words, “It is the
essence of satyagraha that those who are suffering should alone
offer it.5’55
Gandhiji5s eagerness to localize satyagraha and to forbid
external assistance is due to the fact that “The idea underlying
satyagraha is to convert the wrong-doer, to awaken the sense
of justice in him, to showT him also that without the co-operation,
direct or indirect, of the wronged the wrong-doer cannot do the
wrong intended by him. If the people in either case are not
ready to suffer for their causes, no outside help in the shape of
satyagraha can possibly bring true deliverance.5555 Thus the
conversion of the wrong-doer can best be brought about by the
sacrifice of the local people, the victims of the v/rong-doer. The
sacrifice of outsiders interferes with the process of conversion
and increases bitterness. Besides, the principle of self-reliance
and local responsibility compels people to fight their own battle
and drawrs out the powers latent in them. The people become
conscious of their strength and are able to win their deliverance.
No amount of outside help can be a substitute for this self-effort.
The important weapons of corporate action are non-co-
operation, civil disobedience, fasting, hijrat, picketing, economic
boycott, and social ostracism.
Non-co-operation, besides being a matchless weapon in
dyadic relations, is also a sovereign political remedy.
Governments are neither infallible, nor do they have any
absolute right to misgovern. Gandhiji thinks that the mainstay
of a Government is neither force at its command, nor merely
the passive consent of the people but their active co-operation.
Withdrawal of co-operation and support by the people, there¬
fore, means complete paralysis and the end of the political
system. “Even the most despotic Government cannot stand

55 H., Dec. 10, 1938, p. 369.

228 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

except for the consent of the governed which consent is often

forcibly procured by the despot.” Immediately the subject
ceases to fear the despotic force, its power is gone.55
Ordinarily it is the duty of the citizen to be law-abiding
even as it is the duty of the Government not to flout the wishes,
the interests and the moral sentiments of the people. But this
obedience to the Government must not be uncritical and
indiscriminate, for that is a sign of slavery. If the Government
rides roughshod over popular feelings, if its ways are immoral
and unjust, it becomes the right as well as the duty of the people
to non-co-operate with the Government. Says Gandhiji, . .it
is a right recognized from times immemorial of the subjects to
refuse to assist the ruler who misrules.”57 What is true of
Governments also applies to other exploiting groups and
organizations.
When practised against a Government, “The primary
motive of non-co-operation is self-purification by withdrawing
co-operation from unrighteous and unrepentant Government.
The secondary object is to rid ourselves of the feeling of help¬
lessness by being independent of all Government control or
supervision, i.e., to govern ourselves in all possible affairs; and,
in fulfilling both the objects to refrain from doing or promoting
injury, or any violence, to individual or property.”58
This self-purification of satyagrahis means the growth of
tremendous moral strength which brings the Government to its
knees, compelling it to do justice. In case the Government
persists in its immoral ways and refuses all redress, non-co-
operation completely shatters the administrative machinery and
paralyzes the Government.
As the object makes it obvious, non-co-operation is not only
negative, it is not only a deliberate ‘no’ from the people to the
Government, it has also its positive side. Its external negative
success is in proportion to this inward positive growth, the
growth of co-operation among the people. This is why Gandhiji
lays such great stress on the political education of the masses.
But for their co-operation non-co-operation can neither be
thorough-going nor non-violent and in either case it will not be
56 T. L, I, p. 205.
57 Speeches, p. 205.
58 r. I, p. 42.
 THE TECHNIQUE 229

effective. In the absence of this inward growth, even if non-co-

operation were non-violent and effective, with the decline of the
Government it wxmld be impossible for non-co-cperators to
preserve the social order and the result wouM be anarchy. This
is why non-co-operation has to be practised by the people
consistently with their ability to preserve the social order.
That the chief motive behind non-violent non-co-operation
is not hatred or exclusiveness, but a constructive urge, is
brought out in the following passage from Toung India: “There
is no doubt that non-co-operation is an education which is deve¬
loping and crystalizing public opinion. And as scon as it is
organized enough for effective action, we have swaraj."59
But the growth of this inward, co-operative aspect of non-
co-operation must be voluntary. The satyagrahi must respect
others5 right of free opinion and free action and use only
persuasion and argument to wTean them from the -wrong path.
Forcing co-operation wTould be violence and violence only sus¬
tains and multiplies evil. Besides, voluntariness alone can be a
test of “popular feeling and dissatisfaction55,60 and so “those
who call themselves non-co-operators from fashion or compul¬
sion are no non-co-operators.5561 Non-co-operation to be non¬
violent, therefore, demands toleration of differences and due
regard for the dissentient’s liberty.
The non-violent methods which satyagrahis may employ to
develop the non-co-operation movement are hartal, social
ostracism, and picketing.
Hartal means cessation of business as a measure of
protest. The object of a hartal is to strike the imagination of the
people and the Government.62 But hartals should not be
frequent, otherwise they would cease to be effective.63 Besides,
hartals should be absolutely voluntary. Abstention from work
should be the result of persuasion and other non-violent
methods of propaganda. Employees should not be asked to leave
their work unless they receive permission from their employers.

59 Satyagraha, p. 24.
60 T. L, I, p. 149.
61 Satyagraha, p. 24.
62 T. I, p. 23.
63 Ibid., p. 258.
230 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

Much more liable to abuse than hartals is social ostracism.

Ostracism is violent or peaceful according to the manner in
which it is practised. Gandhiji feels that in social life it is im¬
possible to avoid ostracism to a certain extent, but it should
not be used, except in a very limited sense, against blacklegs in
a community who defy public opinion, and do not adopt non-
co-operation.
In India social boycott is a terrible and effective age-old
institution, an institution coeval with caste. It is based on the
notion that a community is not bound to extend its hospitality
to the excommunicated. It answered when every village was a
harmonious self-contained unit and the occasions of re¬
calcitrancy were rare. But in complex conditions of modern
India when opinion is divided on the merits of satyagraha, a
summary use of this weapon in order to bend a minority to the
will of the majority is, according to Gandhiji, a species of
unpardonable violence.64
Non-violent social ostracism may, however, be resorted to
in certain extreme cases “when a defiant minority refuses to
bend to the majority, not out of any regard for principle, but from
sheer defiance or worse.”65 But it “is applicable and effective
when it is not felt as a punishment and accepted by the object
of the boycott as a measure of discipline.” To be so accepted it
must be non-violent, i.e., it must be civilized and must not
savour of inhumanity. To be non-violent, “It must cause pain
to the party using it, if it causes inconvenience to its object.5’66
Social boycott must not mean depriving a person of
indispensable social services, e.g., asking his personal servant
to give him up, stopping his food and cloth supply, depriving
him of the services of a medical man, etc. To do so would
amount to coercion and violence. Again, it would be an
instance of violent ostracism if people in their impatience make
the life of a person unbearable by insults, innuendoes and abuse.
On the other hand, if a congregation refuses to recite prayers
after a priest, who prizes his title above his honour, it would
be an instance of peaceful ostracism. Similarly, there would be
nothing violent if a person, who defies strong, clear public
64 T. L, I, P. 299.
65 ibid., p. 298.
66 Ibid., p. 300.
 THE TECHNIQUE 231

opinion on vital matters, is denied social amenities and privi¬

leges as against social services. Thus attendance at dinner
parties and receiving of gifts are privileges which it is permis¬
sible to withhold. Even in this limited sense ostracism should
be employed on rare and well-defined occasions and one who
uses ostracism should, in every case, use it at his ov;n risk.67
Picketing, when employed as a non-violent technique,
should be only persuasive and never coercive. In the two non¬
violent movements of 1920-22 and 1930-34, Gandhiji. advocated
the picketing of liquor, opium and foreign-cloth shops. In the
second movement this was almost exclusively done by women,
Eut Gandhiji always discouraged picketing in the sense of
sitting dhurna68 or in the sense cf forming a living wall of
pickets in order to prevent the entry of persons into die
picketed places. Gandhiji considers these forms violent. The
object of peaceful picketing is not to block the path of a person
wanting to do a particular thing but to rely on the force of
public opprobrium and to warn and even shame the blacklegs.69
Picketing should avoid coercion, intimidation, discourtesy,
burning or burying of effigies, and hunger-strikes. Fasting has
a place in picketing, only when it is resorted to in case of a
breach of contract and when the parties respect and love each
other.70
Non-co-operation, to develop which civil re listers employ
the non-violent methods described above, culminates in civil
disobedience. Thus Gandhiji wrote in 1930, “A little reflection
will show that civil disobedience is a necessary part of non-
co-operation. You assist an administration most effectively by

67 T. I, p. 302.
68 Dhurna means sitting down or lying flat on the ground so as to block
the passage of those who defy public opinion and invite them to go to their
work by treading on the bodies of those sitting or lying. Dhurna is a coercive
method of social constraint. Gandhiji considers dhurna a barbarity and. a
species of violence. It is a barbarity, because it is a crude way of using coer¬
cion. It is even worse than violence, for ;‘If we fight our opponent, we at
least enable him to return the blow. But when we challenge him to walk over
us knowing that he will not, we place him in a most awkward and
humiliating position.” Satyagraha, p. 90.
69 H., Aug. 27, 1938, p. 234.
70 History of the Congress, p. 765 (see Gandhiji’s instructions regarding
picketing in 1931).
232 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

obeying its orders and decrees.5571 Even the worst State may
have some good points. But if the State is corrupt people
should reject the entire system.72
The details of this withdrawal of co-operation would vary
according to the peculiar situation of a country. What is essen¬
tial is the ability of the non-co-operators to endure, without
violence and malice, punishment and provocation coming from
the Government and the solid backing of the masses whose
collective pressure is an important requirement of success.
Any detailed history of Gandhiji’s non-co-operation move¬
ment of 1920-22 is outside the scope of this book. We may,
however, briefly notice the various items that he included in
this movement which is the first instance of the use of the
technique on a nation-wide scale.73
As originally planned by Gandhiji and accepted by the
Khilafat Committee, non-co-operation was to be practised in
“fixed, definite, progressive four stages55, i.e., giving up of
titles and resignation of honorary posts, calling out of Govern¬
ment servants, the withdrawal of the police and the military,
and the suspension of taxes.74 Later on the first stage was
elaborated to include the boycott of courts by lawyers and the
general public, of schools and colleges by teachers and
students, of legislatures by those elected and of elections by
voters. Another important item in the first stage was of promo¬
tion of swadeshi including the renunciation of all foreign cloth
in favour of the exclusive use of khadi. The first stage also
included resignations from nominated seats in local bodies,
refusal to attend Government levees, darbars and other official
or semi-official functions.
Every one of these negative steps was to be offset by its
positive, constructive aspect so that by the time the

71 r. /., March 27, 1930.

72 r. Dec. 31, 1931.
73 In an embryonic form the doctrine of non-co-operation is present in
Gandhiji’s Hind Swaraj. Thus, “We consider your (British) schools and
law-courts to be useless. We want our own ancient schools and courts to
be restored. We do not need any European cloth. We will manage with
articles produced and manufactured at home. . . .If you (the British) act
contrary to our will, we will not help you, and, without our help, we know
that you cannot move one step forward.” Hind Swaraj, pp. 90-91.
74 r. I, pp. 191-92.
 THE TECHNIQUE 922

Government was paralyzed die parallel satyagrahi Government

should be ready to Lake its place and keep intact the social
order. Thus Gandhiji wrote in 1920, c\ . .when v ? are ready tc
call out the military and the police on an extensive scale, we
shall find ourselves in a pcsidon to defend ourselves. If the
police and the military resign from patriotic motives, I would
certainly expect them to perform the same duty as national
volunteers. . . .The movement of non-co-operation is one cf
automatic adjustment. If the Government schools are emptied, I
would certainly expect national schools to conic into being. If
the lawyers as a whole suspended practice, they would devise
arbitration courts and the nation will have expeditious and
cheaper method of settling private disputes, and awarding
punishment to the wrong-doer.5’75 Again, “Swaraj by nen-vioient
means can, therefore, never mean an interval of chaos and
anarchy. Swaraj by non-violence must be a progressively peace¬
ful revolution such that the transference of power from a close
corporation to the people’s representatives ’will be as natural as
the dropping of a fully ripe fruit from a well-nurtured tree.5'75
In 1945 he said, “A non-violent revolution is not a programme
of "seizure of power’. It is a programme of transformation of
relationships ending in a peaceful transfer of power/’77
As for swadeshi, it automatically implies the boycott of
those foreign commodities which are of universal use in a
country and which must be locally produced. Foreign cloth is
one such commodity, the boycott of which is an essential nega¬
tive aspect of a non-violentlv planned economy. In 1920-22
Gandhiji advocated not only the boycott but also the destruction
of foreign cloth and himself inaugurated cloth-burning in
Bombay in July 192L78

_ '5^7., I, pp. 641-42.

™Ibid.3 p. 293.
77 H., Feb. 17, 1946, p. 14.
78 G. F. Andrews questioned the ethics of burning “the noble handiwork
of one’s fellowmen and women, one’s brothers and sisters abroad”. Such
burning seemed to him “something violent, distorted, unnatural 'which,
would lead the country back to the “old bad selfish nationalism of the racial
type so rampant in Europe”. T. L, I, pp. 555-58.
Gandhiji, however, defended the destruction as “a sound proposition
from the highest moral standpoint”. There was nothing racial or parochial
about it because his emphasis was on foreign cloth and not British goods.
234 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

Non-co-operation was a new movement of its kind in India.

There had been no adequate previous preparation for it in the
form of constructive work among the masses. The people had
no experience of sustained organized political action and had
not yet imbibed the message of non-violence. Besides, from the
very beginning violence seemed to haunt the movement at every
step. Naturally therefore Gandhiji was anxious “to take the
minimum risks and to call for the least sacrifice compatible with
the attainment of the desired object.3579
Due to this political inexperience of the masses the
beginning, Gandhiji said, should be made by the well-to-do
classes and the masses should come in when later stages were
reached. Besides, the first stage, with which the struggle com¬
menced, mostly concerned the classes. The earlier stage was a
way of preparing the masses for non-violent action. Gandhiji
depended on the classes making a good beginning and the
masses catching the spirit of non-violence and being led by the
classes. For later stages his hope lay with the masses and these
stages were to begin when the masses had been trained in non¬
violence. But the non-violence of the educated classes was only
skin-deep because they had adopted the non-violent technique
only as a measure of expediency. This was a serious handicap
to the movement, for the classes with their halting, hesitating
non-violence of the weak could hardly inspire the masses.
Being eager to avoid violence at any cost Gandhiji was
naturally very cautious and slow about the later stages of non-
co-operation. As regards calling out of Government servants he
insisted that no pressure should be put upon any person to with¬
draw from Government service. Government servants were not
to be called out until they were capable of supporting themselves
and their dependents or the nation was in a position to find

In fact, destruction was transferring racial ill-will of India from men to

things. Love of foreign cloth had brought foreign domination and economic
ruin and was therefore an emblem of slavery and a mark of shame. The
motive of burning was not hate but repentance for past sin. Burning struck
the imagination of the people as nothing else could and made them earnest.
It stood for the burning of India’s taste for foreign fineries and was like a
surgical operation necessary for the deep-seated disease. He would not
permit their being given to the poor in India, for such ill-conceived charity
would be against their patriotism, dignity and self-respect. T. L, I, pp. 553-62.
19 Speeches, p. 542.
 THE TECHNIQUE 235
occupation for such men. All classes were not to be called out
at once. Private employees serving the English were not to be
touched because the movement was not anti-Enghsh.S0
Gandhiji described the third stage, the withdrawal cf the police
and the military, a distant goal. The fourth, i.e., suspension of
taxes, he considered still more remote. The organizers were not
likely to embark upon it unless they could do so with the
assurance that there will be no violence offered ID CC. *
Later Gandhiji, the All India Congress Committee, end
the Working Committee invited Government servants even the
police and the military, to resign and to support themselves by
other occupations, spinning and weaving, for ins^ance.82 But
on the whole Gandhiji followed a very cautious policy in regard
to these two stages and intensive propaganda among the police,
the military and other services was never earned on, the
reasons being the inability of the Congress to support the
servants called out and the fear of violence.
But though these two stages remained unrealized, suspen¬
sion of taxes, in the beginning considered to be “still more
remote35, came very near being fulfilled. In 1921 the Govern¬
ment started intense repression to suppress the movement. As
a reaction to this there arose in various provinces a demand for
starting civil disobedience. In October 1921, the Working Com¬
mittee authorized civil disobedience by individuals who might
be prevented in the prosecution of the swadesrii propaganda.83
On 5th November, 1921, the All India Congress Committee
extended the scope of civil disobedience and permitted provin¬
ces on their own responsibility to undertake, in addition to
individual civil disobedience, also mass civil disobedience
including non-payment of taxes in selected districts or Ulisils
which conformed to the conditions concerning non-violence,
communal unity, the adoption and manufacture of khadi and
untouchability.84 The movement was to start on the #th
February, 1922, in Bardoli. In the Madras Presidency, 100

8<> T. I, p. 191.
si Ibid., p. 192.
82 ibid., p. 1030. Resolution of the All India Congress Committee
passed in July 1921; and the statement of the Working Committee dated
5th October, 1921. History of the Congress, pp. 361 and 366.
83 History of the Congress, p. 367.
84 ibid., p. 368.
 33 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

villr^et in Guntur would have followed suit and the movement

would have spread throughout the country.85 In fact, in Guntur
taxes had been withheld in anticipation of Gandhiji’s sanction
and not even five per cent of the taxes had been collected so
long as the Congress ban was operative.86 But the outburst of
violence at Cliauri Ghaura, which had been preceded by violent
scenes at Bombay, Madras and other places, led to the suspen¬
sion cf the mass civil disobedience. The sudden suspension dis¬
appointed the country, the Government intensified its repres¬
sion, Gandhiji and other leaders were sent to jail and the move¬
ment slackened. In November 1922, on the recommendation of
the Civil Disobedience Committee, the All India Congress Com¬
mittee passed a resolution that the country was not yet prepared
for civil disobedience. By then 30,000 non-co-operators had
gone to jail.87
The second civil resistance movement (1930-34 was
predominantly a civil disobedience movement and began where
the first movement (1920-22) had ended. This movement also
adopted some important items of the earlier non-co-operation
movement. Thus the boycott of schools, colleges and courts, of
foreign cloth and liquor, invitation to Government officials to
resign, calling out the legislators—all these were duly empha¬
sized. The boycott of foreign cloth was very intense, widespread
and effective. One noteworthy feature of this movement, so far
as the technique of non-co-operation is concerned, was that after
Gandhijfs arrest on May 4th 1930, the Congress undertook a
vigorous boycott of British goods as well as British banking,
insurance, shipping and other institutions.88

85 Gandhiji’s idea seems to have been that civil disobedience should be

adopted by district after district when it had succeeded in Bardoli and the
neighbourhood. Krishnadas reports him saying, “when the swaraj flag floats
victoriously at Bardoli, then the people of the taluq next to Bardoli,
following in the steps of Bardoli, should seek to plant the flag of swaraj in
their midst. Thus district after district, in regular succession, throughout
the length and breadth of India, should the swaraj flag be hoisted.55 Seven
Montks with Mahatma Gandhi, I, p. 374.
86 History of the Congress, pp. 390-91 & 398.
87 Brailsford puts the number at 50,000. See Mahatma Gandhi, p. 157.
88 Resolutions 11 and 12 of the Working Committee, May 1930, and
Resolutions 1 and 2 of the Working Committee, June 27, 1930. See History
of the Congress, pp. 673 and 683-84.
 THE TECHNIQUE 237
Gandhiji had never countenanced such comprehensive boy¬
cott before. As we have pointed out in chapter IV he considered
it punitive and, therefore, violent. This change was made in his
absence and, maybe, without his approval. But immediately
after his return from London, in January 1932, the Working
Committee once again sanctioned this extension and it seems
from some of his speeches and writings that Gandhiji agreed to
it.S9 Besides, the Committee could not have disregarded the
wishes of the general on the eve of the renewal of conflict. The
relevant resolution w'as: “Even in non-violent war boycott of
goods manufactured by the oppressors is perfect!}' lawful,
inasmuch as it is never the duty of the victim to promote or
retain commercial relations with the oppressor. Therefore, boy¬
cott of British goods and concerns should be resumed and
vigorously prosecuted.5’90
Gandhiji, it seems, had come to believe that the economic
boycott91 can and should be used as a non-violent non-cocrcivc
measure of non-co-operation with the tyrant, the emphasis
being on the moral aspect of the boycott. The difficulty arises
from the fact that the boycott to be effective requires unanimity
to achieve which the satyagrahi is tempted to use even ques¬
tionable means of social constraint. Thus ill-will is aroused: the
emphasis tends to shift from undertaking suffering to heaping
it on the opponent; and the high idealism of satyagraha is toned
dowrn. On the other hand to carry on trade with the evil-doer
is to co-operate with him and to be an accessory to his
immorality. Besides, ill-will and violence can be minimized if
satyagrahis are well disciplined.
Similarly by a resolution passed on June 27, 1930, the
Working Committee called upon “the people to organize and
enforce a strict social boycott of all Government officials and
others known to have participated directly in the atrocities com¬
mitted upon the people to stifle the national movement.9'92 This

89 See Nation's Voice, pp. 207, 208 and 211; Y. March 26, 1931, p. 37;
and April 2, 1931, p. 57.
90 History of the Congress, p. 870.
91 For his views on the use of boycott against international aggression
see Chap. XI infra.
92 Resolution No. 3 of the Working Committee, June 27, 1930, History of
the Congress, p. 684.
238 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

wr.s massed during Gandhiji’s absence in jail and was contrary

to his views on social boycott discussed earlier in this chapter.
0r his return from the Round Table Conference the Working
Committee modified its earlier instructions by reminding people
that, “Social boycott with the intention of inflicting injury on
Go- eminent officers, police or anti-nationalists should not be
undertaken and is wholly inconsistent with the spirit of
non-violence. ’593
Civil disobedience is the logical conclusion, the last stage,
the most drastic form of non-co-operation. Gandhiji calls it
“a complete, effective and bloodless substitute of armed
revolt.”94 The earlier stages of non-co-operation are a prepara¬
tion for it. The effective use of the less drastic stages of non-co-
operation against the Government is bound to bring the
satyagrahi in conflict with the laws of the State.
Civil disobedience, being a quicker and more drastic
remedy than the other stages of non-co-operation, is fraught
with greater danger and requires to be handled much more
cautiously. “By its very nature, non-co-operation is open to
children of understanding and can be safely practised by the
masses. Civil disobedience presupposes the habit of willing
obedience to laws without fear of their sanedons. It can there¬
fore be practised only as a last resort and by a select few in the
first instance at any rate.”95 Both these aim at paralyzing an
unjust, immoral, i.e., undemocratic Government which oppo¬
ses the declared will of the people and at replacing it by a
satyagrahi system. Almost complete unanimity is necessary for
the success of non-co-operation (i.e., its stages other than civil
disobedience); while civil disobedience can neither be expected
to be, nor need be, so widespread to be effective.
Gandhiji defines civil disobedience as “the breach of un¬
moral statutory enactments”.96 Civil disobedience, he says,
signifies “the resister’s out-lawry in a civil, i.e., non-violent
manner”.96 Civil disobedience is really a synthesis of civility
and disobedience, i.e., non-violence and resistance. Resistance
to bad laws is essential for man’s moral growth, while civility

93 History of the Congress, p. 869.

94 r. I., I, p. 938.
95 Ibid., p. 223.
96 Ibid., p. 22.
 THE TECHNIQUE 239

is the demand of a stable social order without which man's life

and growth arc not possible.
Disobedience is in itself destructive and anti-social. 3u:
obedience to an immoral law is even worse and can never be a
duty. A law to be worthy of obedience must be moral and demo¬
cratically formulated. Even in a democracy in extreme cases if
a citizen cannot get an immoral law repealed through constitu¬
tional means, he should disobey the law in order to be leva! to
his cwn conscience. This conflict of loyalty so rare in a demo¬
cratic State is the constant feature of a satyagrahi’s life in
undemocratic States and in countries under foreign subjection.
Disobedience to immoral laws of the State is really obedience
to a higher moral law, the law of truth and justice. Civil
disobedience is thus an effort to reconcile the demands of
freedom and law.
But civil disobedience is a risky, delicate weapon and should
be employed with the greatest caution and most sparingly. Says
Gandhiji, “. . .its use must be guarded by all conceivable restric¬
tions. Every possible provision should be made against an out¬
break of violence or general lawlessness. Its area as well as its
scope should also be limited to the barest necessity of the
case/'37
If its use is to be healthy and creative, greater emphasis
should be laid on the adjective civil than on the substantive dis¬
obedience.98 Civil is the very opposite of criminal, uncivil and
violent. Criminal disobedience is licence, lawlessness and death
even as civil disobedience is, freedom, growth and life. Civil
means strictly non-violent.99 “Disobedience to be civil must be
sincere, respectful, restrained, never defiant, must be based
upon some well-understood principle, must not be capricious
and above all, must have no ill-will or hatred behind it.5 5100
Civility does not mean “mere outward gentleness of speech
cultivated for the occasion, but an inborn gentleness and desire
to do the opponent good.5'101 Disobedience is not civil if the
object is embarrassment of the opponent or private material

97 r. I, p. 944.
98 H., April 1, 1939, p. 73; see also Barr, p. 58.
99 r. /., Jan. 2, 1930, p. 4.
100 r. I, p. 57.
101 Autobiography, II, p. 435.
240 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

::: place cf “self-suffering for securing relief”.102 It cannot

f;e civil naless the resiscer has disciplined himself and the
atr.:o>oh;re around is tranquil and non-violent. This means that
disobedience to be civil must have been preceded by civil obe¬
dience. As Gandhiji discovered in 1919 after Nadiad and
Ahmedabad outbursts of violence, it is a Himalayan blunder to
place the remedy of civil disobedience in the hands of those who
Iacj£ the habit of willing obedience to law without fear of their
sanctions. Those only attain the right to offer civil disobedience
who have known how to offer voluntary and deliberate
obedience to even irksome laws imposed by the State so long
as they do not hurt their conscience or religion.103 Over and
above this spontaneous and intelligent obedience to the law of
the State Gandhiji also demands of individuals and groups
intending to offer civil disobedience to undergo a rigorous
discipline through adequate practice of the constructive pro¬
gramme and acquire non-violent control over the general public.
Resisters must be ready quietly to bear all punishments and
stand all repression till the oppressor is tired and the object of
the satyagrahi gained. Lastly disobedience to be civil must also
be public and made especially known* to those interested in
arresting the satyagrahi.104
After the second civil resistance movement Gandhiji put
very great stress on the need of adequate discipline as the pre¬
condition of civil disobedience. According to him, quality should
be the prime consideration. Civil disobedience thus no doubt
becomes cca very dear commodity55. But such disobedience will
be, according to him, infinitely more effective and faster-moving
than the alloy which often passes for civil disobedience.
In civil disobedience if the beginning is properly made and
discipline is adequate, mass disobedience continues to be non¬
violent even in the later stages when leaders are all in jail and
the movement is largely self-regulated.
Disobedience may be directed either against some parti¬
cular unjust or immoral measures of a State or against the
laws of a State in general. The object of civil disobedience in
the former case is to compel a Government to withdraw an
102 r. I, p. 39.
103 Ibid., p. 932; Autobiography, II, Ch. XXXIII.
104 H., April 1, 1939, p. 72.
 THE TECHNIQUE 241

unjust law or order, in the latter to paralyze a corrupt Govern¬

ment and to set up a non-violent State in its place. When
directed against a particular wrong or evil civil disobedience
can also be offered without regard to effect, by way of self-
immolation to rouse local consciousness or conscience.105 Such
was the case in Champaran when Gandhiji offered civil dis¬
obedience without any regard to the effect and well knowing
that the people might even remain apathetic.105 The saiyagraha
of South Africa, Bardoli, and Kheda aimed at the relief of parti¬
cular grievances. The individual civil disobedience of 1940-41
was against the restrictions imposed by the Government on
freedom of speech in India. The movements of civil disobedience
in Rajkot, Travancore, Jaipur and many other native States had
as their object the wresting from the rulers5 unwilling hands
the right of self-government. The non-violent movements of
1920-22 and 1930-34 also aimed at destroying the British
Government in India and setting up parallel satyagrahi institu¬
tions. Similarly the object cf the non-violent mass struggle
contemplated in the A.I.G.G. resolution of August 8, 1942 was
the immediate withdrawal of the British power from India.
Whether the object be particular or general, law’s to be dis¬
obeyed have to be selected wdth great discrimination. The
satyagrahi may not break laws which lay down moral princi¬
ples. He may disobey those lawrs which are harmful to the
people. There are also law’s which are neither good nor bad,
moral nor immoral. These enable the Government to exercise
its authority and are obeyed by the people for the supposed good
government of the country. The breach of these will not harm
the people but will immensely increase the wrork of the admini¬
stration. It would be legitimate for the satyagrahi to disobey
these laws, for an unjust Government loses its right to die
obedience of the people. The laws selected should aiso foe such
that the largest number of people can participate in civil
disobedience. Thus the authority of the State should be
challenged in every way wThich does not involve violence or
moral turpitude.106 Gandhiji’s choice of the salt law for the civil
disobedience movement of 1930-34 wTas an ideal choice. Scores of

105 Mahatma Gandhi, Constructive Programme, p. 26.

106 Speeches, p. 458 and H.y March 18, 1939, p. 53.
 242 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

other hiir? can be disobeyed and thus the existence of a corrupt

Stct? ignored and its authority denied.
Civil non-payment of taxes is one of the quickest methods
of overthrowing a Government and holds out the temptation of
ready response. But it is fraught with the greatest possibility of
violence unless masses are “saturated with the principle of non¬
violence”. This is why Gandhiji considers it as the last stage
which should be tried only after other forms of civil disobe¬
dience. Civil non-payment is for those who have been in the
habit of paying taxes regularly, understand the reason and
virtue of civil non-payment, have acquired the necessary non¬
violent discipline and are prepared to stand, with ralm
resignation, the confiscation of their property.107
The selection of laws to be broken should be madp not by
each satyagrahi for himself but by the leader or some central
body of experts. But for this restriction on individual liberty in
the interest of discipline every satyagrahi may become a law
unto himself and the result may be anarchy or criminal
disobedience.108
Gandhiji draws a distinction between individual and
civil disobedience and offensive or assertive and defensive civil
disobedience. On February 25, 1922, the All India Congress
Committee defined these aspects of civil disobedience thus:
Individual Civil Disobedience is a disobedience of orders
or laws by a single individual or an ascertained number or
group of individuals. Therefore a prohibited public meeting
where admission is regulated by tickets and to which no
unauthorized admission is allowed is an instance of individual
civil disobedience, whereas a prohibited public meeting to
which the general public is admitted without any restriction is
an instance of mass civil disobedience. Such civil disobedience
is defensive when a prohibited public meeting is held for
conducting a normal activity, although it may result in arrest.
It would be aggressive if it is held not for any normal, acti-
vityT, but merely for the purpose of courting arrest and
imprisonment.”108

107 T. I., I, pp. 947-51.

108 Ibid., p. 18.
109 Ibid., p. 1019.
 THE TECHNIQUE 243
According to Gandhiji, “The chief distinction between
mass civil resistance and individual civil resistance is that in
the latter every one is a complete independent unit and his fail
does not affect the others; in mass civil resistance the fall of one
generally adversely affects the rest. Again in mass civil resis¬
tance leadership is essential, in individual civil resistance every
resister is his own leader. Then again, in mass civil resistance
there is a possibility of failure; in individual civil resistance
failure is an impossibility. Finally, a State may cope with mass
civil resistance, no State has yet been found able to cope with
individual civil resistance.”110 Gandhiji believes that civil dis¬
obedience is essentially an individual affair and so long as there
is even one civil resister offering resistance, the movement of
civil disobedience cannot die and must succeed in the end.110
“'Aggressive, assertive or offensive civil disobedience is non¬
violent, wilful disobedience of laws of the State whose breach
does not involve moral turpitude and which is undertaken as
a symbol of revolt against the State. Thus disregard of laws
relating to revenue or regulation of personal conduct for the
convenience of the State, although such laws in themselves
inflict no hardship, and do not require to be altered, would be
assertive, aggressive or offensive civil disobedience.”
“Defensive civil disobedience, on the other hand, is involun¬
tary or reluctant non-violent disobedience of such laws as are
in themselves bad and obedience to which would be inconsistent
with one’s self-respect or human dignity. Thus formation of
volunteer corps for peaceful purposes, holding of public
meetings for like purposes, publication of articles not contem¬
plating or inciting to violence in spite of prohibitory orders, is
defensive civil disobedience. And so is the conducting of peace¬
ful picketing undertaken with a viewr to wean people from things
or institutions picketed in spite of orders to the contrary.”111
The right to offer aggressive civil disobedience accrues
after severest discipline. The non-violent raids of 1930 on
Government salt depots at Dharasana and Wadala by thousands

110 Poona Statements (the correspondence between Mahatma Gandhi

and Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru), p. 11.
1111'. I., I, p. 983.
244 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

of jr.cyagrr.his are instances of aggressive as well as mass civil

disobedience.11-
Gandhiji calls offensive civil disobedience “a most
dangerous weapon'5.113 Defensive civil disobedience is forced on
the satyagrahi when he is not permitted to prosecute his ordi¬
nary peaceful activities or when insult and humiliation are
imposed upon him. So it cannot be postponed and is always
welcome. Indeed it is a duty which has to be done even if the
opponent is in difficulty, for “An opponent in difficulty' may not
expect people to obey unjust or humiliating laws or orders.5’11*
Aggressive civil disobedience, whatever the object of satya¬
grahis, embarrasses and vexes the opponent and should be
avoided if the latter is in difficulty.
But offensive civil disobedience obviously does not mean
launching an offensive without any serious grievances. That
would make disobedience criminal. Offensive civil disobedience
only implies the violation of some particular law not because
that law is in itself some striking provocation but because the
satyagrahis have rebelled against the Government. Even offen¬
sive civil disobedience is undertaken to set right some serious
injustice when all peaceful means have been exhausted and
when it is clear beyond doubt that there is no escape from
non-violent resistance.
Individual satyagraha when practised by a group is a
corporate technique. Even in mass satyagraha Gandhiji started
from a small beginning and gradually developed the movement.
Though he led several mass civil disobedience movements he
was conscious of the low moral tone of group behaviour. He
distiusted mass emotions of the moment which are susceptible
to suggestions inciting them to violence. Hence his great
emphasis on adequate discipline as the pre-requisite of mass
civil disobedience. In the absence of adequate discipline there
is a great risk of the magnitude and excitement of a maw con¬
flict^ leading resisters astray and of disobedience becoming
e “2The highest figure of satyagrahis in. these non-violent raids stood at
15,000 m the mass action at Wadala on 15th June, 1930. Mahatma Gandhi,
The Man and His Mission, cited above, pp. 134-35; Roy Walker, Sword of
Gold, pp. Ill and 113. According to Gandhiji the Dharasana salt raid was
a perfect thing of its kind”. H., June 23, 1946, p. 189
113 r. I., I, p. 987.
114 H., January 6, 1940, p. 404.
 THE TECHXIOCE 245
violent. The risk is increased by the fact that, unlike individual
civil disobedience which is often vicarious, for individuals under¬
go suffering to remove some grievance of the masses, mass civil
disobedience is often selfish in the sense that participants expect
personal gain from disobedience.315
In the anti-war satvagraha of 1940-41 Gandhiji evolved a
new technique of individual satyagraha. It was designed to
minimize violence and to bring into action the purest possible
form cf non-violence. He concentrated on quality and permitted
quantin' only so far as it did not compromise the former. The
issue of the conflict was “the right to preach against war as
war or participation in the present war”, i.e., “the right to
preach non-violence through non-violent means”.116
He started the movement in October, 1940, as representa¬
tive civil disobedience. In its original conception the movement
was limited to two or three persons.117 -It was to be symbolic.
In the middle cf November, 1940, it was extended to those who
held certain elective posts, i.e., the members of the Working
Committee, the All India Congress Committee and cf the central
and provincial legislatures. Then in January, 1941, in the third
stage, came the turn of the members of provincial and local
Congress Committees. After them any member cf the Congress
who had signed the satyagraha pledge could offer civil dis¬
obedience. But nobody was obliged to court imprisonment
merely as a matter of discipline.118 The name of the satyagrahi
had to be approved by Gandhiji and also the way cf his offering
civil disobedience.119 Thus all the Congressmen could jcin the

115 Speeches, p. 637.

116 JET., October 20, 1940, p. 330.
117 B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, Gandhi and Gandhism, I, p. 186 'Gandhijfs
letter dated Nov. 20, 1940). For an account of the movement, see Roy
Walker, Sword of Gold, pp. 184-85; and Rajendra Prasad, Mahatma Gandhi
and Bihar, pp. 112-14.
118 Gandhi and Gandhism, I, p. 187.
119 According to Gandhiji the best and the easiest way was to repeat the
following slogan to passers-by as the resister walked on in a particular
direction until he was arrested: “It is wrong to help the British war
effort with men or money. The only worthy effort is to resist all war
246 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

movement, though civil disobedience was to be offered not in

mrss formations but singly by specified individuals.
For offering satyagralia Gandhiji approved only the indi¬
viduals who subscribed to non-violence not only as a means of
winning the country's freedom and regulating relations between
religious and social groups in the country but also in its appli¬
cation so far as possible in free India, and who implicitly
followed the constructive programme as an integral part of
non-violence. The satyagrahis were required to be habitual
AvWf-wearers and regular spinners and had to give details of
spinning they had done. They were also required to be tvhole¬
time constructive workers and to keep a diary of their day’s
work. The selection of a candidate depended on the approval of
his diary by Gandhiji. After a certain stage there was automatic
selection: all the released satyagrahis offered satyagraha except
those who stayed out due to their inability to continue.
In this movement Gandhiji ruled out mass action and the
usual forms of non-co-operation in order not to embarrass the
Government. Even this symbolic disobedience was an em¬
barrassment to the Government, but Gandhiji held that .civil
disobedience in this case meant assertion of the right to speak
against participation in this war or all wars. “If I cannot do even
this much when the occasion demands it we might as well give
up non-violence. Civil disobedience is the assertion of a right,
which the law should give but it denies. If the performance of a
duty caused embarrassment it cannot be helped.”120

with, non-violent resistance.** The slogan was to be translated into the

language of the province in which civil disobedience was to be offered.
Gandh.iji*s preference for this method was due to the fact that it was harm¬
less, economical and effective and rivetted attention on the single issue of
war. Further the method reduced the movement to its simplest terms and
prevented it from lapsing into mass civil disobedience. Gandhiji also
advised the resisters to make it clear in their speech and action that they
were neither pro-Fascism nor pro-Nazism but that they were opposed either
to all war or at least to the war conducted on behalf of British Imperialism.
They sympathized with the British in their effort to live but they wanted
also to live themselves as members of a free nation and must not be expected
to help Britain at the cost of their own liberty. See the instructions issued
by Gandhiji to civil resisters in the movement of 1940-41, quoted in extenso
in Gandhi and Gandhism, I, cited above, pp. 182-84.
120 Gandhiji*s statement dated April 21, 1941. 23,223 satyagrahis
participated in the movement. In December 1941 the Government released
 THE TECHNIQUE 247
Gandliiji did not intend the movement to create an appre¬
ciable impression upon the war effort. The movement was a
moral endeavour to dissociate India from the war effort to
which she was never invited to be a party and a token of the
yearning of the Congress to achieve the freedom of the country
through non-violent effort.121 The excellence of the technique
lay in the fact that the masses could participate in the move¬
ment and yet the risks of violence were minimized even at a
time when feelings ran high.
As Gandhiji’s life shows civil resistance can be kept a: the
highest level of non-violence if it is confined to ‘'one person only
and that one being the most versed in the science55. This is why
in 1934 Gandhiji suspended civil resistance for Congressmen,
confining it to himself. This, he thought, would reduce the
possibility of the decay of the civil disobedience movement to
the minimum and make the movement stronger than before
and capable of being easily handled both by the people and the
Government.121 Gandhiji’s cDo or Die5 experiments in Xocikhali,
Calcutta and Delhi are also instances of how ncn-violence
becomes very effective when restricted to one satyagrahi who
is ‘the most versed in the science5.
Hijrat, which means voluntary exile, is another form of
collective as well as individual satyagraha. The emigration of
the Plebeians to secure rights from the Patricians of Rome, the
planned flight of the Israelites, Muhammad's flight from Mecca
to Madina, the emigration of Puritan Fathers from England and
of Doukhobors from Russia are some historic instances of hijraty
though all these are not cases of non-violent kijraL People of
Bardoli, Borsad and Jambusar in Gujarat employed the tech¬
nique of mass kijrat in 1930 as a protest against the inhuman
oppression of the Government directed against the nc-tax
campaign. These peasant satyagrahis migrated from the

the satyagrahis as a gesture of peace. Some observers suggest that rewards

xhe close of the year 1941 discontent grew among some sections of the
Congress. These stood for a more active opposition to the British Govern¬
ment. There had also been on the part of some released satyagrahis reluc¬
tance to court rearrest. Besides, the Japanese reached very near India’s
borders and the Congress became preoccupied with the problems cf self-
sufficiency and self-defence. So the movement was not revived.
121 Conversations, p. 97.
243 CORPORATE SATYAGRAHA

Bombay province to the territory of the neighbouring Baroda

smie.122
Gandhiji recommends kijrat to those who feel oppressed,
cannot live without loss of self-respect in a particular place and
lack the strength that comes from true non-violence or the
capacity to defend themselves violently.123
Thus if civil disobedience fires the blood-lust of the tyrant,
and his terror and oppression become unbearable and are likely
to make satyagrahis angry or weak, Gandhiji’s suggestion to the
latter is self-imposed exile from the tyrant’s territory even at
the cost of hearth and home and all other earthly belongings.
But such a step should not be taken thoughtlessly as a dramatic
gesture. It must be taken only when it so hurts the satyagrahi’s
moral being to submit to the tyrant’s wrongdoing that he would
rather die than lose his self-respect,124
Hijrat was his advice to the satyagrahis of Bardoli in 1928
and of Limbdi, Junagadh and Vithalgadh in 1939.125 In 1935, he
advised the Harijans of Kavitha to migrate, as the caste Hindus
of the place were regularly terrorizing over them and this had
caused extreme despondency among the Harijans.126
Obviously the bravest course for satyagrahis would be
cheerfully to suffer the worst repression and melt the heart of
the evil-doer. But this lacking, there is nothing wrong, dis¬
honourable, or cowardly in self-imposed exile. It is the non-vio¬
lent way out of an unbearable plight. As a form of non-co-opera¬
tion the technique is of a very limited value when employed
against a State. The State may not permit the migration of the
people en masse. Even if it does, approximate unanimity,
essential for the success of non-co-operation, is difficult in the
case of hijrat due to man’s innate love for his hearth and home.
Within big States, however, minorities in particular areas, dis¬
contented with the dominant social group, may seek relief by
intra-State migration.

122 History of the Congress, pp. 701 & 706.

123 if., February 3, 1940, p. 435; May 25, 1947, p. 162.
124 if., May 20, 1939, pp. 133-34.
125 ML, p. 133; r. L, III, pp. 1035-36.
126 if., October 5, 1935, p. 268.
 CHAPTER X

SATYAGRAHA AS CORPORATE ACTION

NON-POLITICAL CONFLICTS AND CRITICISE

The corporate technique discussed in die last chapter can

be employed not only in political conflicts but also again?:
economic, religious and social injustice.
All exploitation which is rooted in selfish, divisive ideas and
attitudes implies co-operation between the vie dm and the
victimizer. The responsibility for injustice lies not only on the
latter but also on the former. The way out for the victim is to
withdraw this co-operation and to appeal through voluntary
suffering to the heart and the head of the opponent and thus
help him to see his mistake and correct it. Gaiidhiji does not
accept the belief that the exploiter is beyond reform. To him
the exploiter, no matter whether a capitalist, a landlord or a reli¬
gious fanatic, is essentially a man who cannot shake himself free
of his spiritual nature and is always capable of conversion.
Violent means, besides being the monopoly of the exploiter,
would deepen antagonism and perpetuate exploitation. Exploi¬
tation and injustice can be ended only if the conflict is resolved
on the constructive moral plane where the appeal of integrating
suffering love can irresistibly act on the mistaken wrong-doer
and the public opinion.
In modem conditions a non-violent struggle against
exploiting economic or social groups will in all likelihood bring
the non-violent resisters in conflict with the State and the con¬
flict will assume political colour. Widespread social and eco¬
nomic injustice is a sure index of the undemocratic nature of
the State. An undemocratic political system can only live by
aligning itself with other exploiters in society. On a vital social
or economic issue an undemocratic Government will, as a mea¬
sure of self-preservation, try to keep down the non-violent
aggrieved. So in broad outlines the technique of resistance will
be the same whatever be the nature of the issue.
Gandhiji himself fought several non-violent battles on
social and economic issues. The issue of his earliest non-violent
direct action in South Africa was socio-economic in nature. It
was a successful effort of the small Indian population, consisting
249
250 NON-POLITICAL CONFLICTS

largely of labourers, to save itself from the tyranny of

the~ dominant social group, the Europeans. Similarly the satya-
— Iia at Vvkom (in the Travancore State) was also success¬
fully fought, under Gandhiji’s guidance, to remove the social
tvranny of the caste Hindus and vindicate the civil rights of
the untouchables.
For a social group subjected to an unjust discriminating
treatment the most effective way of redress is some form of
non-violent resistance. Gandhiji often explained how violent
social outbreaks, Hindu-Muslim riots and the like, could be
quelled non-violently. To deal non-violently with communal
disturbances he advocated, in 1938, the formation of peace
brigades, i.e., corps of volunteers pledged to non-violence in
thought, word and deed. In the case of a disturbance, if persua¬
sion fails, Gandhiji expects these satyagrahis to act as shock
troops and make an offering of themselves in the conflagration.
They should cheerfully bend their heads to receive violent blows
of the infuriated combatants and thus try to save the situation.
But to be successful these satyagrahis must have qualified for
this sacrifice by a long period of peace .propaganda and
of selfless constructive service of the various communities in the
locality. In this sendee there should be no distinction between
one’s own co-reiigionists and others belonging to different
faiths.1
Throughout his long public life in India Gandhiji strove
hard to bring about communal unity. On a number of occasions
he resorted to fasting to bring communal violence under control.
In Noakhali, his technique was village-to-village pilgrimage to
carry the message of peace and goodwill and fearlessness to the
people. But the success of his fasts and other non-violent ways
of establishing peace has to be understood in the context of his
life of utterly selfless service of the masses over a long period.
On several occasions he advised the Jews and the Negroes
to practise non-violent resistance against racial discrimination
and other forms of injustice.2

1 H., July 21, 1940, p. 215; July 13, 1940, p. 200; March 26, 1938,
p. 54.
2H., March 14, 1936, pp. 38, 40; Nov. 26, 1938, pp. 352-53; Dec. 17,
1938, pp. 381, 384; and May 27, 1939, p. 138.
 NON-POLITICAL CONFLICTS 251

Gandhiji believes that no issue is better suited for the

exercise of the spiritual weapon of satyagraha than the
religious.3
But satyagraha in pursuit of a religious as opposed to a
mundane object calls for greater discipline and precision than
ordinary satyagraha. In 1939, he laid down some conditions for
this kind of satyagraha. According to him religious satyagraha
should on no account be used as a cloak for advancing an ulte¬
rior political or mundane objective. The leader of this satya¬
graha should be a true man of God, preferably a bf&kmackan,
who will compel the reverence and love even of the opponent
by the purity of his life, the utter selflessness of his mission and
the breadth of his outlook.4 Everybody participating in the
movement must be a believer and practiser of the particular
religion the grievances of which are sought to be redressed.
Satyagrahis must have absolute belief in ahimsa and God and
must have equal respect and regard for the religious convictions
and susceptibilities of those who profess a different faith from
theirs. This satyagraha must not lay emphasis on numbers and
external aid and avoid aggressiveness, demonstrations and
show. It must above all be a process of self-purification.
During recent years there have been two instances of
religious satyagraha in India—the satyagraha of Akali Sikhs
(1921-24) in the Punjab and the Arya Satyagraha (1939) in the
Hyderabad State. None of these had the advantage of Gandhiji's
guidance. In fact Gandhiji disapproved of the methods, though
not the objective, of Arya Satyagraha5 which depended largely
on outside aid and was of the passive resistance type.
The Satyagraha of Akali (reformist) Sikhs (1921-24) had
the encouragement of Gandhiji. It was in the beginning a move¬
ment for the reform of gurdwaras which had large endow¬
ments. The Akalis came in conflict with the Government which
supported the established mahants who controlled these funds.
After a severe non-violent struggle the Government had to
yield and to recognize the right of Shiromani Gurdwara
Prabandhak Committee, elected by the Sikhs, to the possession
of the historic gurdwaras.

3 HApril 27, 1939, p. 143.

4 Ibid., p. 144.
5 H., August 19, 1939, p. 241
 NON-POLITICAL CONFLICTS

As for the economic sphere, non-violence and the related

principle of non-possession rule out exploitation, capitalism and
the rjr.nzndari system. The land should belong to the actual
cultivator and no cultivator should have more land than is
necessary to support his family on a fair standard of living.^
Production should be on the basis of cottage industries carried
on by individual or co-operative effort for the equal benefit of
all concerned. The indispensable large-scale production should
be nationalized and should be managed jointly by the State and
the representatives of workers.6 But this goal cannot be reached
in a day, and exploitation, capitalism and landlordism are hard
realities of modem economic life.
Gandhiji’s way to deal with economic conflicts is not class
struggle and the extermination of haves by have-nots but class-
collaboration and class-co-ordination as the first step towards
the classless democracy in which every one will perform some
form of productive physical labour and there will be no exploi¬
ters. He does not consider class-struggle to be inevitable and is
against the extermination of the capitalist and the zamindar
because no human being is beyond redemption even as “no
human being is so perfect as to warrant his destroying him
whom he wrongly considers to be wholly evil.” He does not
believe that the capitalists and landlords are all exploiters by an
inherent necessity and that there is irreconcilable antagonism
between their interests and those of the masses. In many of the
States of the Indian Union legislation has been enacted to
abolish the zamindari system. Gandhiji however held that there
would be no need to expropriate the zamindars if their menta¬
lity changed and if they worked as trustees of peasants, and
removed the terrible inequality between themselves and pea¬
sants.7 Trusteeship which is the negation of the right of private
property could be brought about by the method of non-violent
resistance which would either mend or else destroy the system
without harming the zamindars.8 “He (the peasant) has so to
work as to make it impossible for the landlord to exploit him.”9

6 H., April 20, 1940, p. 96. The article entitled “Jaiprakash’s Picture”.
7 H., April 23, 1938, p. 85.
8 T. November 26, 1931.
9 Gandhiji’s statement dated Oct. 27, 1944. In June 1942, Gandhiji
conceded that land must be confiscated without compensation, it being
 NON-POLITICAL CONFLICTS 253

The question of legislative expropriation assumed impor¬

tance only after India gained political freedom. But even for die
redress of serious agrarian grievances non-violent resistance is
an unfailing remedy in the hands of farmers. Champaran (1917),
Kheda (1918) and Bardoli (1928) are some of ihe instances of
successful non-violent direct action in the agrarian sphere. The
issue of Champaran satyagraha which Gandhiji considers as the
most perfect demonstration of non-violence10 vras the un¬
bearable hardships and oppressive exacdons to which the
peasants were subjected by indigo planters. In the end the
Government had to remove the grievances which had not been
redressed for a hundred years. The Kheda satyagraha was
undertaken by Gandhiji for getting the revenue assessment for
the year suspended due to crop-failure. The Bardoli satyagraha,
a model of intensive organization and thorough planning, was
undertaken by 88,000 peasants under the leadership of Sardar
Vallabhbhai Patel to protest against the Government’s arbitrary
unwarranted enhancement of land revenue. The Government
with all its mighty resources and in spite of a frightful reign of
terror failed to crush the no-tax campaign and had to yield to
practically all the demands of the satyagrahis. The Govern¬
ment had also to restore the forfeited lands of the satyagrahis
which had been sold out and to reinstate the village officials who
had resigned in protest.
Similarly Gandhiji believes that the capitalist can render
useful service to society if he can rise to real paternal or frater¬
nal attitude towards labour and raise the latter to the status
of co-proprietor of his wealth.11 Both labour and capital should
act as mutual trustees and trustees of consumers.12 If both these

financially impossible to compensate landlords. He also held that in a free

India peasants would seize the land and this process may even involve
some violence, (see Louis Fischer, AH eek with Gandhi, pp. 54, 90-91 . In 193**
also he had expressed the opinion that if it was unavoidable he would support
confiscation by the State with the minimum exercise of violence. (See X. K.
Bose, Studies in Gandhism, pp. 201-02). Ideally non-violence rules out forcible
ejection of landlords by peasants. (See Gandliiji's statement, Oct. 2/, 19*rL.
But Gandhiji was no doctrinaire and to him man and his happiness were
the supreme consideration.
10 H., April 4, 1939, p. 332.
11 T. Ill, p. 736.
12 H, June 25, 1938, p. 162.
254 NON-POLITICAL CONFLICTS

act as trustees and view their interests in the context of the

larger interests of the community, industrial conflicts will
become infrequent and lose much of their bitterness.
He held that as a rule labour discharged its obligations
more effectively and more conscientiously than the capitalists
and that it should leam how to impose its will on the capitalists
and to demand its own terms.13 Labour should have a right to
share in the administration and control of industry, and to
adequate leisure, wholesome conditions of life, a living wage
and full rights of citizenship.
For removing legitimate grievances labour should resort
to non-violent strikes to compel capital to submit to arbitration.
But the non-violent strike should not be confused with its
Western prototype. The latter is non-violent in appearance
rather than spirit. Hatred and the desire to subdue the opponent
make the Western type of strike an instance of what Gandhiji
calls passive resistance. Strikers in the West use the control
over labour supply to coerce the capitalist into submission. Some
Western critics of the strike, who question its ethical validity,
consider it a means of coercion rather than persuasion and
conversion. Thus to Dr John H. Holmes the strike “is revolt in
terms not of suffering but of conquest53. It is, according to him,
developing “into a weapon of violence used in the spirit and to
the ends of war33.14
The satyagrahi strike seeks, on the other hand, to be non¬
violent in spirit as well as method. It is voluntary, purificatory
suffering undertaken to convert the erring opponent. The
important conditions of a successful non-violent strike are as
under:15
(1) The cause of the strike must be just.
(2) Strikers should never resort to violence.16
(3) They should never molest blacklegs.
(4) They should be able to maintain themselves
during the period of strike without falling back upon union

13 Speeches, p. 785; H.y July 3, 1937, p. 161.

14 Quoted by C. M. Case in Non-violent Coercion, p. 297.
15 For the conditions see Autobiography, II, pp. 412-13 and T. I,
pp. 730-41.
16 Gandhiji permits non-violent picketing (discussed in Gh. IX above)
in the course of strikes.
 NON-POLITICAL CONFLICTS 255

funds and should therefore occupy themselves in some

useful and productive temporary occupation. They should
never depend upon alms.
(5) They should remain firm, no matter how long the
strike continues. Unless labourers find their own support
rather than depend on the resources of the union, the
strike cannot be prolonged indefinitely and “no strike
can absolutely succeed which cannot be indefinitely
prolonged.5517
(6) There should be practical unanimity among the
strikers.
(7) A strike is no remedy when there is enough
substitute labour to replace strikers. In that case, in the
event of unjust or inadequate wages or the like,
resignation is the remedy.
(8) Workers should on no account strike work
without the consent of their union.
(9) Strikes should not be risked without previous
negotiations with the millowners on the basis of an
unalterable minimum demand.
Gandhiji is against sympathetic strikes. He believes that a
non-violent strike should be limited to those who are labouring
under the grievance to be redressed. This is only the application
of Gandhiji5s principle of non-dependence on external aid to
economic conflicts. If the object is conversion and not embarrass¬
ment or coercion the only suffering that will be effective is self¬
suffering. In some rare instances, however, sympathetic strikes
do become a duty. Thus if the masters of one factory combine
with those of another in which workers are on strike due to a
legitimate grievance, it is the duty ot the workers in the former
factory to combine with the strikers.18
Gandhiji is also against labour strikes for political purposes
until labourers understand the political condition of the country
and are prepared to work for the common good. This should not
be expected of them unless they have bettered their own condi¬
tion and have learnt how to secure the redress of their own just
grievances. To precipitate labour, strikes from a political motive

17 Speeches, pp. 786-87.

18 T. I., II, p. 953.
256 NON-POLITICAL CONFLICTS

so long as labour is politically ignorant is to exploit labour and

to embarrass the Government and both are species of violence.
The politics of labour “should be of its own free choice and its
political activity should be in the service of a clearly understood
and consciously accepted purpose.”19
Ordinarily strikes should take place for the direct better¬
ment of labourers. When labourers have acquired the spirit of
patriotism, strikes may also take place for preventing profi¬
teering on the part of capitalists, regulation of prices and
the maintenance of proper proportion between prices, dividends
and wages.20 Strikes should be few and far between and as
labour becomes more organized arbitration should replace
strikes. In Ahmedabad Gandhiji demonstrated how the principle
of arbitration can work to the benefit of labour as well as capital.
Successful use of the methods of strike and arbitration
requires well-organized labour unions which will make workers
conscious of their strength. But this organization must be along
non-violent lines. It must be grounded in a firm faith in the
possibility of co-ordination between labour and capital. The
Ahmedabad Textile Labour Association, which worked under
the guidance of Gandhiji, is essentially a non-violent labour
organization. It has been the most powerful labour union in the
country. One of the objects of the Association is to secure the
nationalization of the textile industry in due course.21 Many
Western observers, e.g., Harold Butler, Brailsford, Tom Shaw,
Gilbert Slater, etc., have admired the indigenous character of
the Association and its system of joint arbitration and concilia¬
tion fostered by the influence of Gandhiji.
In the case of failure of arbitration the Constitution of the
Association provides for recourse to a strike. The Association
has conducted a number of strikes also and with gratifying
results in most cases. Gandhiji’s stress on the vital importance
of internal improvement in genuine social change finds expres¬
sion in comprehensive work of the Association for the welfare

G. L. Nanda, ‘‘Gandhian Way in the Labour Movement’5 in the Amrita

Bazar Patrika, Sept. 24, 1944.
20 r. I, pp. 737-41.
-1 This object was adopted by the Association in 1926 at the instance of
Gandhiji.
 NON-POLITICAL CONFLICTS 257

o: labour.22 To build up the non-violent strength of the v/: . her

the Association explores all the avenues of his uplift and I--reps
in close touch with almost every aspect of his life. Since 1S37
the Association has also been training its members in a supple¬
mentary occupation in addition to their principal cccupcnion
in the mills so that in case of a lock-out or strike cr Icm cf
employment otherwise they will have something fail buck
upon instead of being faced with the prospect of
If Gandhiji had his way he would regulate all ike labour
organizations of India after the Ahmedabad model.24
Satyagraha-as corporate action has been subjected to severe
criticism. It is sometimes decried as destructive of law and
order, unprogressive and unconstitutional.
Civil resistance would be destructive of social order raid
unprogressive if it were criminal law-breaking. But the Iw: are
poles apart. The criminal or the ordinary law-breaker breaks
the law surreptitiously and tries to avoid the penalty. The civil
resister is law-abiding not because he fears punishment but
because he considers the law good for social welfare. He openly
and civilly breaks a law if it is so unjust as to offend his moral
sense and if all his efforts to get it modified fail, and then he
quietly accepts the punishment. Indeed his disobedience itself
is rooted in the satyagrahi’s law-abiding nature which extracts
from him implicit obedience to the highest law, i.e., the voice of
conscience which overrides all other laws.25 Criminal disobe¬
dience no doubt leads to anarchy. But civil resistance, Though
it aims at destroying immoral laws and an unjust order, neither
creates lawlessness nor is unprogressive.
While fighting against injustice, untruth and exploitation
which give rise to disorders and conflicts civil resistance evolves
a superior, just social order based on truth and non-violence.
Thus it minimizes, instead of giving rise to, lawlessness.
22 According to Brailsford the Association was “the centre of workers’
social life, and it carried on a big range of activities which in Europe fall
to the Municipality or the State. . . .It published a we-kiy paper and ran a
cinema, a reading room, a circulating library, five gymnasiums end a choir.
It had a hospital, two dispensaries and no less than 23 schools.” Manila
Gandhi, p. 124.
23 H., July 3, 1237, p. 161.
24 Gandhiji, Constructive Programme, p. 21.
25 Speeches, pp. 457 and 504-05.

P. G.-17
25b NON-POLITICAL CONFLICTS

Besides, even if civil resistance caused a slight loosening

of social order, it is necessary to remember, as some social
thinkers point out, that phenomena like duelling, smuggling,
crime, litigation, evasion of unpopular taxes etc. are social
realities against which law is helpless and which form whole
blanks rather than single cases with which the Rule of Law is
interspersed.26 Some loosening of social cohesion is an essential
feature of transition to new and fuller forms of social life and
should not be confused with social dissolution and anarchy.
As for its being unconstitutional or otherwise, believers in
the theory of absolute sovereignty hold that laws of the State
are the highest arbiter of the conduct of the citizen irrespective
of the conformity of the laws to the general interests of the
community. They inculcate an -absolute obligation of submis¬
sion to the State and consider*as unconstitutional any claim of
moial right against its laws. The validity of the absolutist view
is questioned by pluralists and others. To many of these
thinkers the problem of political obligation is essentially moral;
the State possesses no peculiar merit; and its right to the alle¬
giance of the citizen is dependent on the moral adequacy of its
laws. “Our first duty,” Laski writes, “is to be true to our
conscience.”27
To Gandhiji also the question of political obligation is essen¬
tially moral and “disobedience to the law of the State becomes
a peremptory duty when it comes in conflict with the law of
God.”28 According to him, satyagraha will be unconstitutional
“when truth and its fellow self-sacrifice become unlawful.”29
He holds that “It is contrary to our manhood, if we obey laws
contrary to our conscience. . . .So long as the superstition that
man should obey unjust laws exists so long will their slavery
exist. "-0 “Submission to a State law wholly or largely unjust is
an immoral barter for liberty.”31

20 Carl Brinkman, Recent Theories of Citizenship and C. E. Merriam,

Political Power, Ch. VI.
27 H. J. Laski, The Grammar of Politics, p. 289.
28 Ethical Religion, p. 47.
29 r. Ill, p. 1043.
30 Hind Swaraj, pp. 70-71.
31 T. L, Nov. 10, 1921, quoted in HMarch 5, 1950, p. 11.
 NON-POLITICAL CONFLICTS 239
Gradhiji would consider the Governmental machinery itself
as unconstitutional if it is undemocratic and rooted in injustice
and exploitation. Civil resistance is the most constitutional and
sacred duty of the people towards such a Government.32
-Even from the point of view of absolutists persuasion to
educate public opinion is everywhere considered constitutional,
and non-violent direct action is the most effective form of
persuasion, being the appeal of the suffering love to the head
through the heart. In the words of Gandhiji, “Satyagraha, is the
greatest means of educating the public and awakening the
people."33 Even if the satyagrahi is mistaken, his resistance
harms none but himself, for he proceeds by self-suffering. His
opposition to the established order is moral and not physical. It
is an effort to convince the opponent rather than destroy him.
Further, every law gives the individual the option* either
to obey the law or in the alternative to suffer the penalty for
disobedience. In the case of immoral laws or if the Government
is corrupt the satyagrahi chooses the second alternative and
willingly accepts the punishment imposed by the State.34
As is well known the Magna Charta and the Declaration
of the Rights of Man legalized the right to resist the State under
certain circumstances. Chapter 61 of the Magna Charta, which
is still, in the words of Hallam, the keystone of English liberty,
appointed a committee of 25 barons with the recognized right
of resistance to the king as a means of enforcing the provisions
of the charter.35

32 Speeches, p. 532; T. p. 938.

33 Oct. 30, 1S49, p. 293.
34 Hind Swaraj, pp. 70-71.
It may be pointed out that General Smuts, Gandhiji’s adversary in South
Africa, considered the satyagraha movement there as a constitutional
movement. Speeches, p. 480. Lord Hardinge, the then Viceroy of India. also
approved of Gandhiji*s satyagraha in South Africa. Charles E. Merriam
describes GandhijTs system of civil disobedience as being “within the
borders of legality”. See his Political Power, p. 174. Sir Stafford Gripps
considers as legitimate the use of general strike by the working class in a
democracy under certain conditions. G. R. Attlee holds that in the absence
of democratic means of redress resort to unconstitutional, even violent,
means to bring about fundamental change is inevitable. Richard Acland
(ed.), Why I am a Democrat, contributions by G. R. Attlee and Sir Stafford
Cripps.
35 Gniest holds that the resistance conceded in Chapter 61 was in
260 NGN-POLITICAL CONFLICTS

If die absolutist attitude which swears by the sanctity of

tire constitution irrespective of its nature and of the quality of
governmental activity were to be accepted as valid. Government
would become the sole judge of what people ought to third:, all
democratic movements would be ruled out in undemocratic
countries and political progress would become impossible. The
right to resist the State is, indeed, the sovereign remedy in the
hands of the oppressed to put an end to the tyranny of unjust
rulers. It is the best guarantee of constitutional Government.
That is wrhy history has never condemned as unconstitutional
successful instances of even violent rebellions. Gandhiji, how¬
ever, docs not consider as constitutional the wresting of jusdee
by violent means. According to him, injustice cannot be cured
by violence.
Civil resistance is undoubtedly dangerous for an autocratic
State, but it is harmless to a democracy which is willing to sub¬
mit to public opinion. It educates and strengthens public opinion
and sets right abuses. It is “the purest type of constitutional
agitation”. To Gandhiji “Civil disobedience is the inherent right
of a citizen. He dare not give it up without ceasing to be a man
. . .to put down civil disobedience is to attempt to imprison con¬
science.”36 Similarly suppression of non-co-operation would
amount to co-operation by coercion.
No doubt democracy diminishes the need for civil resis¬
tance. Thus Gandhiji wrote in 1947, “Satyagraha, civil dis¬
obedience and fasts had restricted use in democracy. They
could not even think of them whilst the Governments were
harmony with the legal conceptions of the feudal State of the Middle Ages
based on compact. (Rudolph Gniest, History of the English Constitution,
2nd ed., Vol. I, pp. 306-07). Commenting on Chapter 61 Adams observes,
“The feudal law of Western Europe recognized the right of the vassal to
renounce his allegiance and to make war on his Lord to protect himself from
injustice. In no such case could he be charged with treason. The barons were
at the moment acting upon this right. ...” The Magna Charta, according to
Adams, lays down two fundamental principles which lie at the present day,
as clearly as in 1215, at the foundation of the English Constitution, and of all
constitutions derived from it. First that “There is a body of law in the state,
of rights belonging to the subjects or to the community, which the King is
bound to regard;” and second, that “if the King will not regard these rights
he may be compelled by force, by insurrection against him, to do so.”
G. B. Adams, Constitutional History of England, pp. 129-30 and 137-39.
36 r. L, I. p. 943.
 nox-pol:tical coxriucTs go:
set'.li::g down and the communal ot, temper was still v-'f:'.:.y
from on 2 province to another.5’57 In 13-i-t he s'-icl, "civil
diene 2 and non-co-operation, are designed fcr iss when people
. .have no political power. But immedir. nvy they have pel: tier!
pow.-r. naturally their grievance:;, vhnw'r their chsrrmev, will
be ameliorated through legislative channel'. . . .IF ‘he legis¬
lature proves itself to be incapable o~ safeguarding rh; .ah.: :;’
interests they mill of course always hove the sovereign mum ay
of civil disobedieme and non-co-operation.”53
hlo.'t modern States are either undemocratic or at h.-jt
democratic in form rather than hi spirit. But e^en in a pr:domi¬
nantly non-violent State non-violent resistance mill be morally
justified. Such a society may minimize the need of direct action.
But the mode of human association mill always admit of conti¬
nuous growth, and so there will always be room .or the rue o:
suffering love as the best means of perfecting social life.
In 1S30 he wrote, “I know that if I survive the struggle for
freedom, I might have to give non-violent battles ic my ^ own
countrymen which may be as stubborn as that in which I am
nose engaged.”39 According to him, “Real home rule is possible
oniv where passive (non-violent' resistance is the guiding force
of the people.”40 Describing his idea of village swaraj he writes,
“Non-violence with its technique of Satyagraha and non-co-
operation will be the sanction of the village community. ■**
Non-violent direct action is often mistaken for an un¬
constitutional method, for it is regarded to be coercive as against
constitutional methods which depend on persuasion.^ Tae critics
of non-violent resistance reject as unreal any distinction. bet¬
ween the effects, on the adversary, of violent and non-violent
actions. To them non-violence is a form of coercion. Some cf its.
advocates also argue that because non-violence is a form of
coercion, injustice should be lought non-viovnii, so far «.s
possible and violently when necessary.
Thus Arthur Moore considers satyagraha as “mental vio¬
lence” and “a method of fighting which is open to unarmed

57 H., Sept. 7, 1947. p. 316.

53 Gandhiji quoted in N. K. Bose, Studies in Gandhism, pp. 79-SO.
-'9 T. I., Jan. 30, 1930, p. 37.
40 Hind Swaraj, p. 74; T. I., Jan. 30, ISoO, p. 3/.
41 H., July 25, 1942, p. 238.
262 NON-POLITICAL CONFLICTS

people55 and which “is not a distinctively spiritual weapon any

more than is armed rebellion or war.55 He rejects the claim that
satyagraha is on a high ethical plane or that it is applied
Christianity or something nobler still.42 C. M. Case differendates
between persuasive suffering and coercive suffering. The
former is the passive resistance of the olden type which seeks
to produce in the mind of the one appealed to a change of mental
attitude without the use of coercion. Non-co-operation, strike
and boycott are, according to him, forms of coercive suffering.
Coercion, he says, may be either moral or physical. Xon-co-
operation, strike and boycott are instances of coercion because
in them suffering is self-inflicted with the express purpose of
producing a dilemma in the mind of the opponent. Neither of
these alternatives appeals to the opponent’s desire or his judg¬
ment, yet he is compelled by the situation to choose between
them. No act or threat of physical force or violence is used
against him on the one hand, nor is he persuaded of the excel¬
lence of either alternative on the other. Whichever he accepts
of the alternatives he remains unconvinced. Thus he is coerced,
though non-violentlv coerced.43 Jawaharlal Nehru also believes
that non-violence coerces as well as violence, sometimes even
more terribly.44
Arthur Moore’s denial of the moral superiority of satva-
graha rests on his mistaken view that satyagraha is “mental
violence55. To Gandhiji mental violence will turn an
apparently non-violent act into duragraha or passive
resistance.
Gandhiji would accept Case’s distinction between persua¬
sive and coercive suffering, but he would not put satyagraha in
the coercive category. Case puts non-violent non-co-operation
in the same group with strike and boycott as practised in the
West. His treatment of strike and boycott makes it abundantly
clear that these are non-violent, not in Gandhiji’s sense, but only
in appearance.45 Gandhiji considers boycott and strike, as prac¬
tised in the West, examples of passive resistance and not satya¬
graha. The two, i.e., satyagraha on the one hand, and boycott

42 S. Radhakrishnan (ed.), Mahatma Gandhi, pp. 192-93.

43 C. M. Case, Non-violent Coercion, p. 402.
44 See his Autobiography, p. 539.
45 C, M. Case, Non-violent Coercion, pp. 295-346.
 NON-POLITICAL CONFLICTS :33

and strike as forms of passive resistance on the other, resemble in

so far as they avoid physical violence, hut there is vital d:-Te¬
rence between these two agencies of social pressure ^ ud the
effects of the two are sufficiently distinct to be indicated by
separate terms.
The most important difference between these V *c is hint
satyagraha seeks to avoid not only physical but also mend ’do-
fence on moral considerations, while strike and bey?::: as
forms of passive resistance avoid physical violence on gvvuds
of expediency. Thus in satvagraha the motive must not be vio¬
lent, while boycott and strike coniine themselves to die :ver¬
nal act, ignore the motive and, short of openly merdvy to
physical force or its threat, use all the forms of s: rial
constraint.46 As a result of this difference in ..atyngrrha :ke
brunt of suffering is borne by the satyagrahi. in boycott ;ri
strike the incidence cf suffering is reversed. In sirik' and boy¬
cott none of the alternatives, i.e., the demand of the rcvv.ers
and the pressure they exert, appeals to the opponent's Judg¬
ment and he has to choose between the two evils.4" In
satyagraha the demand is kept so transparently, so unquesuc .>
ably, legitimate and morally conducive to the welfare of both
the parties that even when the opponent, under the stress of
self-interest, resists the satyagrahi’s demand he is comrior^ of
the intrinsic moral correctness of the latter's demand and
behaviour. Thus the satyagrahi wins by sapping ‘lie rucrrJ
defences of the opponent, and the pressure of his resistance,
though it is compelling, is persuasive. Strike and boycott, on
the other hand, frighten the opponent by the prospect of
suffering and loss and coerce him. The effect of sacyagrm n is
non-violent moral pressure which is unifying and elevating,
while the effect of boycott and strike is psychic violence which
is divisive and morally degrading.
The effect of boycott and strike, unless they eschew al: vio¬
lence, may rightly be called psychic or non-pnysical coercion.
It, however, creates confusion of thought and is imscientinc to
put these two distinct social forces, i.e., satyagraha and pa* *ive
resistance (boycott and strike), in the same category.
46 For the difference between satyagraha and passive resistance also see
above, pp. 127-28.
47 G. M. Case, Non-violent Coercion, p. 318.
264 XCX-POLITICAL CONFLICTS

It is incorrect to describe the ejects of non-violent direct

gevrn ev:.i as ncu-violent or moral coercion. In common as
w.::I as political parlance the term 'coercion’ usually signifies
cenyndr.a: ';y the use of physical force or by the threat of its
u-?. As :;:;erpveted by dictionaries also the term is associated
vi:I: physical violence.48 Violence stands for exploiteAiou of men
and their use as mere means which is ruled out by non-violence.
Duo to its association with physical violence, the use of the term
'coercion’ to indicate the effect of non-violent resistance gives
the wrong impression that violent resistance and non-violent
resu lance are essentially indistinguishable. It also hinders clear,
accurate thinking.
Yde have distinguished above between moral pressure of
non-violence and non-physical coercion of passive resistance.
There is even greater difference between non-violent pressure
and physical coercion. Gandhiji explains the difference between
the two forces and their respective reactions thus: "Violent
prepare is felt on the physical being and it degrades him who
uses it as it degrades the victim, but non-violent pressure
exerted through self-suffering, as by fasting, works in an
endrely different way. I c touches not the physical body but it
touches and strengthens the moral fibre of those against whom
it is exerted.”49
In his speeches and writings Gandhiji always disclaims
coercion and compulsion as elements in satyagraha. We quote
here a few relevant passages from liis writings:
“We cannot organize public opinion in a violent atmo¬
sphere. . .those who call themselves non-co-opcrators from

‘tS According to Webster’s Dictionary “coercion” means “the application

to another of such force, either physical or moral, as to induce or constrain
him to do against his will something that he would not otherwise have done.”
The Oxford. English Dictionary and A Mew English Dictionary (edited by
Sir James Murray) emphasize the association of violence with “coercion”.
According to them “to coerce” means “to constrain or restrain (a voluntary
or moral agent) by the application of superior force, or by authority resting
on force; to constrain to compliance or obedience by forcible means; to keep
in order by force. . ‘‘coercion” means “constraint, restraint, compulsion,
the application of force to control the action of a voluntary agent. .
government by force as opposed to that which rests upon the will of the
community.”
49 Quoted by Jawaharlal Nehru in his Autobiography, p. 537.
 NON-POLITICAL CO; ZZ TS

fashioner compulsion are no non-ce-oporators. , . .We mas. ih

fore eliminate compulsion in any shape from oar ‘druggie.’*-
“We must not resort to social boycott of cur opponents. Ir
auica:::s to coercion. . . .The rule of majority. t hen it becomes
coercive, is intolerable as that of bureaucratic minority.5 5 53
“2 at there should be no coercion in khaddrr-v'earhtg as ;u
any thing else/552
During the civil disobedience mc^unent of 1930 he wu
“We may not use compulsion even in the m of fiohnp a pmcl
thing. Any compulsion will ruin the cause, . . .This is
movement of conversion, not of compuhl: n evm of h ■:*
tyrant.5'53
“There is no such thing as compulsion in the scheme cf
non-violence. Reliance has to be placed upon the ability to reach
the intellect and the heart.5554
"Non-violence is never a method of coercion, it is one cf
conversion.5555
“The satyagrahi5s object is to convert, not coerce, the
wrong-doer.5556
rut though he avoids the use of the words “coercion55 and
“compulsion55, he does employ the word “compel'’' to indicate
the effect of satyagraha. By “compelling55 he means exerting
moral pressure or influence with the object of evoking the best.
Thus in 1920 referring to the Viceroy's speech in the legis¬
lature he wrote, “The remarks on the Punjab mean a nac refusal
to grant redress. . . .The immediate future is to compel repen¬
tance on the part of the Government on the Punjab matter.5'57
Again, “I have therefore ventured to suggest the remedy
of non-co-operation. . .which, if it is unattended by violence
and undertaken in an ordered manner, must compel it (me
Government) to retrace its steps and undo the wrongs
committed.5558

50 Satyagraha, pp. 24-25.

51 1\ I., I, p. 961.
52 T. I., II, p. 507.
53 r. April 17, 1930.
54 H., July 23, 1938, p. 192.
56 H., July 8, 1939, p. 193.
56 if., March 25, 1939, p. 64.
57 r. I, p. 133.
55 Ibid., p. 220.
266 NON-POLITICAL CONFLICTS

. .each party helping the other, we shall compel the

Government to accede to the minimum joint demands of all the
panics."59
Even the word “compel53 is an ambiguous word. A more
precise term that Gandhiji sometimes uses to indicate the effect
of non-violence is “moral pressure55. Thus referring to his
Rajkot fast he said, “If my fast, which I hope will be avoided
is to be interpreted as pressure, I can only say that such moral
pressure should be welcomed by all concerned.3360
Mo doubt the three kinds of social restraint, i.e., non-vio¬
lence, non-physical violence and physical violence shade off into
one another in marginal cases and the line of demarcation gets
blurred and is difficult to discern. But to describe the effects of
non-violence by the term “coercion33 which is associated with
violence is unscientific and leads to confusion. Thus peoole
sometimes argue that both non-violence and violence are forms
of coercion and when one fails the other may be employed. We
suggest that the effects of the three kinds of resistance may be
termed as moral pressure in the case of non-violence, non¬
physical coercion in the case of passive resistance and coercion
in the case of violence.
Critics often question the universal applicability of corpo¬
rate non-violence to all group conflicts. They point out that the
moral tone of the behaviour of groups, specially large ones, is
extremely low. Under excitement of emotions masses lose all res¬
traint and cannot be depended upon to resort to direct action
against the exploiters without being provoked into retaliation.
Thus corporate non-violent action is an impossibility.61
Gandhiji is fully alive to the facts that groups may be less
responsive to moral considerations than individuals and that
it may be far more difficult for large groups of men than for
individuals to acquire the necessary non-violent discipline. But
he does not discount the possibility of large groups being trained
in the way of non-violence. He refuses to believe that non-vio¬
lence is only for the individual and that non-violence on mass
scale is against human nature,62 He maintains that non-violence

~ 59^T71irpT26o.
60 H.y March 11, 1939, p. 46.
61 M. Ruthnaswamy, The Political Philosophy of Mr GandhL pp. 57-58.
62 r. Jan. 2, 1930; H.9 Oct. 12, 1935, p. 277.
 NON-POLITICAL CONFLICTS IV- i

era be exercised by individuals as well as by groups, even by

millions together.63
The weakness of large masses of men for vioiei.ee is cue 10
lack of self-control and discipline on the part of the member- of
these groups and of the non-violence of the brave in the leaders.
With veil-planned, thorough-going discipline vuv-ad over a
long period and with the right type of leaders this .v/nbnrrs or
violence can be brought under control. The fact the. i- p. vi-
ble to train effectively large groups for violent -.-•..fere skews
that they can be trained for non-violent group actio a also. Mili¬
tary training aims at controlling and disciplining the emotion
of fear and the corresponding urge to flight. The-.e are clcsch¬
ained to the parallel emotion of anger and the urge to nugn.'tity.
Both of these are divisive. Fear is aroused bv the stronger vd.v.r-
sary and anger by the weaker. The non-violent Lrai:i:ng wolves
a thorough control of these divisive emotions and urges.
The existence and progress of mankind show iba. w.v, co¬
operation and allied non-violent altitudes prependw; ie :\jr
anger, fear and other violent emotions and attitudes, won-vio¬
lent discipline should be more in consonance with human row ore
and, therefore, easier to practise and mere enduring thrrn mili¬
tary discipline.64
That large masses of men can be disciplined to act non-vio-
lently under the gravest provocation is proved b/ successful
instances of mass action at Dharasana, Bardoli, in tlu Frontier
Province and South Africa.
According to Gandhiji the discipline which is the moral pre¬
requisite of collective satyagraha can be acquired by every
individual and does not require a high level of culture or edu¬
cation or any other extraordinary capacity. That the baekvvvrd
unlettered Indian coolies of South Africa, the peaceful peumms
of Bardoli, and the ferocious, warlike Fnthaus of be
Frontier Province alike made well-disciplined soldiers of
63 H.} Jan. 6, 1940, p. 403.
64 One important factor in group behaviour is what Professor Giddings
calls “the consciousness of kind”. This group consciousness or group soli¬
darity sustains and reinforces for better or worse individual sentiments. Tne
individual as a member of the group with which his sentiments tally can not
only inflict but also undertake suffering more easily than he can as
P
ri i-j
CT

isolated individual. Thus non-violence can also benefit from what may
called “group contagion”.
2CS NON-POLITICAL CONFLICTS

Gandhijrs non-viol out army is ample evidence of the validity of

his claim.
After a : borough investigation of historical and biographi¬
cal faces ccaeerr.ing passive resisters and of psychological and
sramical evidence concerning “conscientious objectors53 G. M.
Cmc has arrived at the conclusion that both these classes of
people are entirely normal in their native physical and mental
equipment a;.d non-violent behaviour is the result not of inborn
bur of acquired traits.65 We believe that results obtained by a
similar enquiry regarding satyagrahis in India will not alter
Case's conclusion with respect to the psycho-physical normality
of non-violent resisters.
It has also been suggested that non-violence may succeed
against a mild enemy like the English who recognize that the
game of insurrection and repression has rules and who have
streaks of humanity and liberalism. But it would have little
chance of success against the pitiless might, the systematic and
remorseless terror, the brutality and ferocity of totalitarian
dictators.66
The tremendous improvement of social techniques, parti¬
cularly the military technique and the technique of propaganda,
has no doubt immensely increased the power of the control
group running the government to secure the general
acquiescence of the masses. But as Bertrand Russell points out,
it is still a doubtful question as to how far, and for how long,
State propaganda can prevail against the self-interest of the
majority.67 In recent times it has proved powerless against
nalional feeling; it has also difficulty in prevailing against
strong religious feeling.67 The only sure method of suppressing
opposition is the extermination, by the government, of all the
people opposing it. But efforts at ruthless and total suppression
are unlikely to succeed because persecution emphasizes the
significance of the cause of the oppressed. Further, no govern¬
ment can subsist for a long time merely on the basis of force.
To live it must secure the consent of the people, either in the

65 G. M. Case, Non-violent Coercion, Chapters X & XI.

66 S. Radhakrishnan (ed.) Mahatma Gandhi, Essays by Romain Rolland,
Edward Thompson and Arnold Zweig; Kenneth Ingram, The Defeat of War,
p. 73.
67 Bertrand Russell, Power, p. 102.
 NON-POLITICAL CONFLICTS -J9
form of active participator! cf ihe peoob in :Le political life of
the State cr in the form cf passive acquiescence h orn of a convic-
tie:: that the govciiimrri aims at the goorl of the coverned. Thus
to secure consent it has to be hum arm: :iac vh: ch maker total
extermination of the dissentient irenin in: t'Osur.e. -Ocsio.es. me
technique cf coercion calls forth a counter lech iqi:: :f frecd':i:fil ms
is why “Power is not strongest when it u-es violence, out
weakest.5169
Gandhiji does not believe in the omnipotence or perma¬
nence of arbitrary authority. According to him sc wagraha h
self-sufficient and does not depend for Its success on the mild¬
ness of the adversary. In Chapter VII we bar? deal: with
Gandhiji’s views on the moral and psychological working of
satyagraha in conflicts.70 The various movements cl non-vicem:
resistance led by Gandhiji in South Africa and India boar
ample testimony to the unique capacity of satyagraha for
winning adherents, building up morale and invoking sacrum:,
arousing public opinion and weakening the adversary.71
Gandhiji believes that the reaction of satyagraha is subject to
the law of progression or the law of growth which applies to
every righteous struggle but is an axiom in the case of satya¬
graha. “This (progress) is really inevitable and is bound up with
the first principles cf satyagraha. For in satyagraha the

68 E. A. Ross, Social Control, p. 387; Charles E. Merriarrz gives a brief

account of ihe forms, violent and non-violent, v/nicl: die technique of
freedom usually assumes in Political Power. Gh. VI.
69 Political Power, cited above, pp. 179-80.
70 See above, pp. 158-61.
71 Niebuhr gives an important reason for the weakening of the adver¬
sary in non-violent resistance. According to him the mos: important of all
the imponderables in a social struggle is the moral conceit by widen an
entrenched and dominant group identifies its interests with the peace and
order of society and which gives to the group the clearest and the hast
justified advantage over those who are attacking the stales "The latter
are placed in the category of enemies of public order, of cnminals and
inciters to violence and the neutral community is invariably arrayed again jt
them.” One great advantage of the temper and the methca of non-violence
in social conflict is that they destroy the plausibility oi tnc men. conceit of
the entrenched interests. Reinhold Niebuhr. A lore: .Man c ?d Le.ci'rel
Society, p. 250. For Brailsford’s estimate of the effect of non-violent resis¬
tance of Gandhiji on the public opinion in Britain and L.S.A., see Manniuia
Gandhi, p. 184.
270 NON-POLITICAL CONFLICTS

minimum is also the maximum, and as it is the irreducible

minimum, there is no question of retreat, and the only move¬
ment possible is an advance.”72
L\ one of his speeches in 1919 lie remarked, “My expe¬
rience of satyagraha leads me to believe that it is such a potent
force that, once set in motion, it spreads till at last it becomes
a dominant force in the community in which it is brought into
play, and if it so spreads no Government can neglect it.”73
To suggest that satyagraha might avail against a mild
adversary like the English but is bound to fail against the bruta¬
lized hordes of modern dictators is to betray ignorance of the
basic principles of satyagraha. Satyagraha would not be worth
much if its effectiveness wrere confined to the mild and the just
and if k broke down against the tyrant. Being soul-force, “supe¬
riority over physical strength, however overwhelming, is the
core of ahimsa. . . ,”74 According to Gandhiji, “Even a heart of
flint will melt in front of a fire kindled by the power of soul.
Even a Xero becomes a lamb when he faces love.”75 The reason
is that man is greater than his deeds and, even when most
depraved, he has, due to the spiritual element in him, limitless
capacity for reform and regeneration. Suffering is the unfailing
instrument of the satyagrahi to evoke the best in the opponent.
In inflicting suffering on the satyagrahi the opponent helps in
his own defeat. Thus the satyagrahi thrives on repression and
no amount of violence can crush him. So “Ahimsa is the most
efficacious in face of the greatest himsa.”76 “Non-violence in its
positive aspect as benevolence. . .is the greatest force because of
the limidess scope it affords for self-suffering.”77 In the duel bet¬
ween violence and non-violence, Gandhiji holds, the latter must
always come out victorious in the end. There is no such thing
as defeat or failure in satyagraha because in non-violence to
suffer is to win. The struggle may seem to be a slow, long drawn
process, but it is the swiftest, for it is the surest. There may be
apparent defeats for the satyagrahi. But these are only

72 South Africa, pp. 319-20.

73 Speeches, pp. 449-50.
74 if., Jan. 6, 1940, p. 403.
75 Speeches, p, 393.
16 H., May 27, 1939, p. 138.
 NON-POLITICAL CONFLICTS 271
temporary set-backs from which he extracts valuable Icssor.s
guide him to the goal.
In the past some British statesmen directly or by implica¬
tion bore witness to the power of satyagraha. In South Africa
and India on various occasions they had to yield to the demands
of satyagrahis. In an interview with Drew Pearson the then
Governor of Bombay, Sir George Lloyd (later Lord Lloyd .
called Gandhiji’s movement of 1919-21 the most colossal experi¬
ment in world history which came within. an ace of success.
The Gandhi-Irwin Pact and India’s freedom are also tributes to
the power of satyagraha. There is hardly any justification, how¬
ever, for ascribing the success or the partial success of saiya-
graha to the mildness or the justice of the British. According to
Gandhiji the Fascists and Nazis were revised editions of demo¬
crats and had reduced to a science the unscientific violence
which the latter had developed for exploiting the so-called back¬
ward races. The difference between the Fascists and die demo¬
crats of the West was one of degree. “It is, therefore, a matter of
rule of three to find out the exact amount of non-violence
required to melt the harder hearts of the Fascists and the Nazis
if it is assumed that the so-called democracies meit before
a given amount of non-violence."’75
Satyagraha depends for its success not Gn the mildness of
the adversary but on the capacity of the satyagrahi to suffer
until the opponent relents. Satyagraha being voluntary suffering
borne in love calls forth from all concerned, friends, foes and
neutrals, spontaneous sympathetic response. Thus it is “a pro¬
cess of educating public opinion such that it covers all the ele¬
ments of society and in the end makes itself irresistible.”79
For about three decades, critics also say, satyagraha was
tried in India under Gandhiji’s leadership. He achieved the
liberation of India but not its political unity. He was able to
carry’ out only a very small part of his social ideal. Besides, the
severe repression of the British suppressed the non-violent
resistance of Indians in 1922, 1933 and 1942. Thus satyagraha
is, according to these critics, a thing of history, a mere relic of
a by-gone age, which cannot work successfully in the complex
conditions of the modem world.
78 H., April 15, 1939, p. 89.
79 H., March 31, 1946, p. 64.
^70 xo::-POLrriaAL conflicts

3u: tbc country started with great initial handicaps—

a?-allir." no-erty, v.-idcspread illiteracy, political indifference
:rd above a” moral degeneration bom of age-lor.g political
:-.i:.verv. These with vested interests, the princes, landlords and
cvr.halists always aligned themselves with the rulers. There
vras ample scope for creating dissension among the people and
the British exploited it with consummate skill.
Besides, India was tne first country to try non-violent
resistance cn a nation-wide scale. The Congress accepted non¬
violence as a matter of expediency rather than of principle. It
was the non-violence of helplessness and not of resourcefulness,
of the weak and not of the brave. Gandhiji believed that he was
partly to blame for this, because for long he did not place un¬
adulterated non-violence, i.e., non-violence of the brave, before
the country.80 But no alternative was open to him. Had he insist¬
ed on satvagrahis accepting non-violence in all its implications
from the very beginning, he might have ended with himself. He
presented to the Congress non-violence as an expedient and
hoped that the Congress would after some experience adopt it
in a more comprehensive sense. In actual practice the sntya-
grahis harboured ill-will against the adversary and were only
outwardly non-violent. During Gandhiji’s absence in prison,
there was more emphasis on quantity than on quality. Even
secret methods which are demoralizing and which Gandhiji al¬
ways discountenanced were adopted in quest of quick results.
Thus the great weakness of the satyagraha movement was that
it tvas based on the mere physical observance of the non-violence
of the weak.
The non-violence of satyagrahis was no doubt far below the
required standard but in action the movement was predomi¬
nantly non-violent and the satyagrahis exercised self-restraint.
Never before in such large mass movements had there been so
little of violence.
Besides liberating India, non-violence has exerted tremen¬
dous influence on the people. “It (satyagraha) has brought
about,” Gandhiji observes, “an awakening among the masses
which would probably have taken generations otherwise. . . .”81
It has removed to a large extent the moral and psychological
00 H., June 17, 1939, p. 167.
81 H., May 18, 1940, p. 132.
 NON-POLITICAL CONFLICTS

effects of centuries of political subjection and lias given to the

people a consciousness of their strength to defy physical might
and of their capacity for concerted action. The people have
regained self-confidence and self-reliance and developed a sense
of solidarity* They have come to believe that the redress of their
grievances depends on their own moral strength born of sacri¬
fices. Satvagraha has also destroyed their traditional ‘political
passivity’, drawing them into national politics. One indication
of the widespread political consciousness was the rapidly
increasing response of the people to Gandhiji’s call for sacrifice.82
Another tribute to the morale of the people as well as the
method of non-violence is the rapid recovery of the Congress
after the repression of 1932-34 and 1942-44.
The political awakening brought about by satvagraha has
quickened the pace of national life in other spheres also. Thus
women have been largely emancipated and bear their due share
in the national life. Untouchability seems to be on its last legs
and caste restrictions have lost some of their rigidity. Cottage
industries are being revived and the village is being reconstruct¬
ed to assume its rightful place as the nerve centre of national
life.
As regards the effect of satvagraha on the British Govern¬
ment, we have referred above to the tributes paid by the British
statesmen to the efficacy of non-violent resistance. This resis¬
tance greatly shook the most powerful empire in the world. It
shattered their prestige and was a severe blow to the morale
of the police and other services. The police and the military
occasionally grew sick of having to be brutal to the resisters who
received but returned no violence. There were cases of open and
veiled sympathy83 and in the North-West Frontier Province,
some Garhwali soldiers disobeyed the order to open fire on a

82 According to Dr. P. Sitaramayya 30,000 persons courted imprison¬

t
ment in 1920-22 and 90,000 in 1930-31 History of the Congress). By the
beginning of 1933, according to Miss Wilkinson, 4,90,000 persons had gone
through the prisons. Miss Wilkinson came to India in 1932, with the India
League Delegation, to enquire into the political conditions then prevailing.
She gave this figure in an article published in the Manchester Guardian and
Swarajya in January 1932. The article is reproduced in Indian Struggle for
Freedom (Through Western Eyes) edited by Dr. B. Kumarappa.
83 For some instances see Rajendraprasad, Mahatma Gandhi and Bihar ,
Gh. XVII.
P. G.-18
274 NON-POLITICAL CONFLICTS

non-violent crowd and were court-martialled and sentenced to

long terms of imprisonment. The British trade with India was
hit hard by the economic boycott during 1930-34.84 Satyagraha
thus brought tremendous pressure to bear on the British.
Further non-violence raised Indian politics to the level of
high idealism and saved Indian nationalism from exclusiveness
and opportunism. Thus the non-violent movements exalted
India’s dignity and raised her status in her own eyes as well as
in those of the world. But being based on the non-violence of
the weak the Congress failed, after freedom was achieved, to
mould the life of the country according to the principles of
non-violence.
Some of the anarchists (e.g., Bakunin, Kropotkin and
Russian Nihilists), revolutionary syndicalists and Marxists
reject non-violence as an inadequate technique of resistance and
consider violence as the indispensable means of transforming
the present social order and ridding it of war, capitalism and
exploitation.85 Marx was against anarcho-syndicalist belief in
individual acts of terror and “the propaganda of the deed”.
Individual forms of violence, according to Marxists, invariably

84 India’s import of cotton goods decreased from 71.9 crores in 1927-28

to 26.1 crores in 1931-32 and 21.3 crores in 1933-34. Britain’s share in the
import of piecegoods fell from 78.2 per cent in 1927-28 to 53.5 per cent in
1933-34. The fall in the British share in the import of piecegoods was also
due to the Japanese efficiency. [The Indian Tear Book from 1927-28 to
1935-36).
85 In his Amsterdam speech (Sept. 8, 1872) Marx conceded the possibi¬
lity that in countries like England workers might be able to attain their end
peacefully, though in continental countries force was indispensable for the
attainment of the dominion of labour. In 1881, however, he said to Hyndman,
“England is the one country in which a peaceful revolution is possible, but,”
he added after a pause, “history does not tell us so.” Force is indispensable
because it is the only means to dispossess the bourgeoisie, which throttles
the progress of society, of the instruments of social production. The State,
which is the governmental arm of the nation’s industry, is the product and
the manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The source
of power of the State lies in an armed force which is not identical with or
a part of the working population but is separate from it. The liberation of
the oppressed class is impossible without the destruction of the machinery
of State power. Boris Nicolaivsky and Otto Maenchen-Helfen, Karl Marxi
Man and Fighter (tr. by Gwenda David and Eric Mosbacher), pp. 363-64 &
380; Sydney Hook, Karl Marx, Gh. VIII, see also his article on “Violence” in
the Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences; Lenin, State and Revolution, Ch. I.
 NON-POLITICAL CONFLICTS 275

facilitate the policy of governmental repression and thus play

into the hands of reaction. As against militarist, nationalist and
New Darwinian social philosophers who perceive a continuing
need for violent struggle, Marx and Lenin regarded violence as
a temporary expedient, only justified as a necessary means of
ushering in a new order of peace.86 According to both Marx and
Lenin violence can succeed only when the revolutionary situa¬
tion, i.e., the social condition ripe for a new order, is present.
In the words of Lenin, “Revolution is impossible without an
all-national crisis, affecting both the exploited and the
exploiters.3 587
But there is an inherent contradiction between the
communist goal and the violent means. Attitudes which are
inherent in the present social order must be changed if the aim
is to bring about the classless and Stateless democracy, the ideal
of the communist as well as of Gandhiji. Violence used on a
large scale will effectually hinder the emergence of impulses and
ideals demanded by the communist society. In the words of
Laski, “the condition of Communism is the restraint of exactly
those appetites which violence releases. . . /'ss
Violence, like capitalism, implies treating men as mere
means. It degrades and brutalizes those who use it and those
against whom it is used, arousing in them hatred, fear and
anger. Non-violence, on the other hand, exalts the satyagrahi
as well as the opponent, thus liberating tremendous more:
energy for social regeneration.89
In believing that an unbridgeable gulf and absolute anta¬
gonism between classes are essential features of society and that
capitalists are incorrigible and past all reform, communists pro¬
ceed on very wrong lines. Absolute clash of interests is an
impossibility and in any case it is not a normal situation of
social life: classes which may be irreconcilable in one social
situation co-operate in another.90 Every man has limitless

86 Quincy Wright, A Study of War, II, pp. 12-16.

87 Quoted in Karl Marx, cited above, p. 233. See also Sydney Hook’s
article on “Violence" cited above.
83 H. J. Laski, Communism, p. 174; H., Jan. 27, 1940, p. 428.
89 Bart de Ligt, cited above, p. 165.
90 K. Mannheim, Man and Society, p. 342; E. Barker, Refections on
Government, pp. 116-20.
 NON-POLITICAL CONFLICTS
276
capacity for growth and history furnishes us with numerous
instances of people who have been cured of their anti-social
tendencies and have become useful members of society.
Violence is also undemocratic. It denies the basic principle
of democracy, i.e., the infinite moral worth of the least among
men. Violence leads to the growth of the power of experts,
centralized absolute government, secret police, inquisition,
militarism and denial of liberty and equality. Undemocratic
power corrupts its operators, destroying their habit of responsi¬
bility, engendering in them a desire to retain power by even the
foulest means and thus rendering them incapable of voluntary-
abdication. Besides, once a dictatorship is established, the hope
of removing it under present conditions of social techniques is
very remote.91 These defects will perpetuate violence and
exploitation and will have ultimately to be combated by the
communists also as believers in non-violence seek to do today.
With reference to India Gandhiji often said that “Warfare
may give another rule for the English rule but not self-rule in
terms of the masses.”92 “The swaraj of my conception will come
only when all of us are firmly persuaded that our swaraj has got
to be won, worked and maintained through truth and ahimsa
alone. True democracy or the swaraj of the masses can never
come through untruthful and violent means, for the simple
reason that the natural corollary to their use would be to remove
all opposition through the suppression or extermination of the
antagonists. That does not make for individual freedom. Indi¬
vidual freedom can have the fullest play only under a regime
of unadulterated ahimsa.”93 “From violence done to the foreign
ruler, violence to our own people whom we may consider to be
obstructing the country’s progress is an easy natural step.”94
“Moreover, violence may destroy one or more bad rulers, but. . .
others will pop up in their places, for, the root lies elsewhere.
It lies in us. If we reform ourselves, the rulers will automatically
do so.”95
91 K. Mannheim, Man and Society, p. 342; Communism, cited above,
pp. 174-76; A Study of War, I, cited above, p. 192. See also the discussion of
War in Ch. XI below; Sydney Hook, article on “Violence95, cited above.
92 T. I., II, p. 928.
93 May 27, 1939, p. 143.
94 r. Jan. 2, 1930, p. 4.
95.#., Sept. 21, 1934, p. 250.
 NON-POLITICAL CONFLICTS 277

Thus violence cannot introduce any fundamental charge

in the unjust relation between the exploiter and the exploited,
the rulers and the ruled. This is why, according to Bar: de Ligt,
the greater the violence, the weaker the revolution, i.e., the
social construction which aims at rooting out all that is inhuman
and unworthy of man.96
Besides, in a non-violent revolution there is scooe
j.
for evciv*

individual’s contribution; even children can play their part. In

the words of Gandhiji, “the weakest can partake in it non¬
violence) without becoming weaker. They can only be the
stronger for having been in it.5’97 This is impossible in a violent
revolution.
Unlike non-violence, violence fails to resolve conflicts; for
it suppresses differences instead of integrating them. It ignores
even the just claims of the opponent and thus results in injustice
and leads to counter-violence. Non-violence, on the other hand,
reduces resentment to a minimum in social disputes, because
it leads to an effort to discriminate between the evils of a social
system and the individuals who are involved in it.98 As against
violence which destroys the process of a moral and rational
adjustment of interest to interest during the course of resistance,
non-violence reduces this danger to a minimum and preserves
moral, rational and co-operative attitudes within the areas of
conflict.99 Because violence provokes vindictiveness, while non¬
violence neutralizes it, there is far greater loss of life and pro¬
perty in a \iolent than in a non-violent revolution
Non-violence has checks that automatically work for the
vindication of truth and justice on whichever side these may be
in a preponderating measure. Victory thus inevitably goes to the
parry in the right."
On the other hand, in a violent conflict victor}’ is not deter¬
mined by the relative justness of the cause of the combatants
but by the relative destructive strength of the two.100 The war

96 The Conquest of Violence, cited above, pp. 75, 162.

In his Sociology of Revolution, F. Sorokin discusses in detail ihe ban end
effects of violent revolutions.
97 r. I., II, p. 928. See also Y. April 2, 1931, p. 55.
9S Rcinhold Niebuhr, Moral Man and Immoral Society, pp. 248-51. 254-55.
99 2\ I, p. 52.
*00 Bart de Ligt, cited above, p. 81; and A Study oflVar, I, cited above,
p. 192.
278 NON-POLITICAL CONFLICTS

machine which is more thorough in its destructiveness today

than ever before is the monopoly of the State which is mostly -
controlled by capitalists. Violence, as the World War II shows,
is ceasing to be an effective means of resistance even for a State
unless its armed forces happen to be, at least, as strong as those
of the adversary. Obviously the proletariat has little chance of
success in a violent revolution even in an armed country, no¬
thing to speak of a disarmed country like India.101 Indeed, the
proletariat would not be permitted to carry on the organization
preparatory to violent revolution, but would be ruthlessly sup¬
pressed in the very beginning. In non-violence there is no such
risk.
A violent revolution can be successful only if the Govern¬
ment is disorganized as it was in Russia at the time of the
communist revolution. This is a very rare occurrence. Satya-
graha, on the other hand, depends for its success not on external
conditions, but on the capacity of resisters to suffer in love and
without ill-will. It can succeed even against the mightiest of
Governments.
Thus as a method of settling conflicts and regulating indi¬
vidual and group relations non-violence is not only the correct
ideal practicable on psychological and historical evidence, it is
also the highest expediency.
The World War II is a timely warning that violence is the
surest way to another dark age of savagery. The sceptical world
perhaps also needs some compelling demonstration of the effi¬
ciency of non-violence. Due to her long unbroken tradition of
ahimsa dating back to the mysterious pre-historic past Gandhiji
hoped that India might deliver to mankind the message of
corporate non-violence. If free India accepts satyagraha as the
way of life, subject nations, exploited classes and oppressed
minorities may adopt the method of non-violence. This may
transform the present social, political and economic structure
and usher in a new order of peace and liberty.

101 Cf. “. . .the techniques of revolution lag far behind the techniques of
Government. Barricades, the symbols of revolution, are relics of an age when
they were built up against cavalry.” K. Mannheim, Diagnosis of Our Time,
p. 10.
 CHAPTER XI

THE STRUCTURE OF THE NOX-YIGLENT STATE1

The need of visualizing and defining in detail the political,

economic and social institutions of the non-violent S:nte had
been the subject of a controversy in India. Gandhij: r fused to
worry himself about the details of the distant goal. Ho said
with Cardinal Newman:
“.I do not ask to tcs
The distant scene: one step enough for ms.”

His critics on the other hand pointed out that the I'~acW
must see not only one but thousands of steps ahead in order
to avoid dangerous pitfalls and serious set-backs. He must plan
not only for the present but also for the future.2 A clear well-
defined goal brings hope to the masses, inspiring them :o
struggle, and sustaining them in their dreary onward march.
Why this deliberate self-denying ordinance, this intellectual
“non-possession”, on the part of Gandhiji?
A seeker after truth must have faith in a good deed
producing a good result. He must live and act in the present
dealing with problems as they arise, concentrating on the imme¬
diate duties without any attachment to the fruit thereof. If he
gives rein to his imagination and dissipates his energy in an
attempt to describe the social order that will emerge after the
non-violent revolution, he encumbers himself with irrelevant
details and loses his detachment, his thought control and his
present efficiency. So with his country under alien bondage
Gandhiji had been devoting his entire attention to perfecting
the revolutionary technique of non-violence that would trans¬
form the present system. When India became free he gave all Ills
time and energy to the establishment of communal peace the
1 By a non-violent State we mean the State that is predominantly non¬
violent. A State depending as it does more or less on coercion is the negation
of non-violence. The completely' non-violent State would no longer he a
State. It would then be the Stateless society and society can be Stateless
when it is completely or almost completely non-violent. This is an ideal that
may not be fully realized. What we may get in actual practice may be a
predominantly non-violent State advancing towards, though perhaps never
reaching, the Stateless stage.
2 Dr. Bhagwandas: The Philosophy of Son-co-operation, p. 70.

279
280 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE

absence of which, he felt sure, would destroy her freedom and

democracy. Diverting his attention from these objectives was,
he feit, a distraction that would hamper the creative moral effort
necessary for progress towards the goal. This is why, according
to Gandhiji, “The very nature of the science of satyagraha
precludes the student from seeing more than the step imme¬
diately in front of him.”3
Besides, satyagraha was a science in the making. Gandhiji
had not worked it out in its entirety. He was still experimenting
with non-violence, trying to apply it to all spheres of life and
studying its possibilities. Indeed, he felt that the experiment
was not even in its advanced stage.4 No doubt the structure of
the non-violent State would be in accordance with the princi¬
ples of satyagraha. But the details would be determined by the
people according to their moral level and their preferences.
Gandhiji, therefore, felt that to try to determine in detail the
institutional form of the future non-violent State was premature
and unscientific.. Thus he once wrote, “I have purposely
refrained from dealing with the nature of Government in a
society based on non-violence. . .when society is deliberately
constructed in accordance with the law of non-violence, its
structure will be different in material particulars from what it
is today. But I cannot say in advance what the Government
based wholly on non-violence will be like.”5
This well-known “one-step-enough-for-me” principle of
Gandhiji has also to be understood in the context of his views
on the relation between the means and the end.6 If the means
arc tainted with violence, physical or non-physical, the result¬
ing State will be neither non-violent nor democratic, for the
strong will seize power and exploit the weak. The way
to non-violent democracy lies through the adoption of non¬
violence as the creed and not a mere policy. This is why
to Gandhiji the problem of the technique of non-violence
included in itself the problem of the institutional form of

3 His statement dated Patna, April 7, 1934, History of the Congress,

p. 955.
4 H., May 27,1939, p. 136; Feb. 11, 1939, p. 8; and April 13,1940, p. 90.
5 H., Feb. 11, 1939, p. 8.
6 For Gandhiji’s views on the means and the end see Chapter III above.
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE 281

swarcj. “For me,” he repeatedly said, “ahimsa comes before

swaraj
In the evolution of the non-violent State the determinant
is not the visualization of the institutional structure but the
soul-force, i.e., the non-violence, of the average individual. A
people has a Government that it deserves and the institutional
form is but the concrete expression of the moral level of the
people. Thus if the people are not genuinely non-violent, exploi¬
tation and violence may continue, as they do in most Western
countries, even under an apparently democratic constitution. On
the other hand, as soon as people acquire self-control, master
the method of satyagraha and learn to co-operate voluntarily
among themselves and to non-co-operate -with the exploiter, the
non-violent State will emerge spontaneously as the by-product
of the practice of non-violence.7 In 1929 he wrote, . .we do not
know our distant goal. It will be determined not by our
definitions but by our acts, voluntary and involuntary. If we
are wise, we will take care of the present and the future will take
care of itself. God has given us only a limited sphere of action and
a limited vision. Sufficient unto the day is the good thereof.”8
Thus Gandhiji’s attitude is democratic, scientific and
justified on ethical considerations.
But though a detailed delineation of the new order was, ac¬
cording to him, out of question, even non-co-operation with the
opponent proceeded on the basis of construction and co-opera¬
tion among the satyagrahis. In satyagraha the construction of
the new and the destruction of the out-moded proceed apace.
The progress made by this constructive aspect of non-violent
direct action gives us some clue to the new order. Besides,
though against the formulation of any systematic plan of the future
social order, Gandhiji often tried to indicate roughly the broad
lines of the kind of society he aimed at. Hind Swaraj and a
large number of passages in his speeches, writings, statements
and interviews provide us with material for the study of his
views on the new social order. Referring to Hind Swaraj he

7 “It is swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves. . . .But such swaroj has
to he experienced by each one for himself.” Hind Swaraj, p. 95.
s T. L, III, p. 547.
282 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE

observed in 1924, “. . .what is written there has reference to an

ideal state.5’9
Gandhiji, as is well known, is a philosophical anarchist who,
ideally speaking, repudiates the State as such, whatever its
form. This repudiation has an ethical, historical as well r.s an
economic basis. The compulsive nature of State authority
damages the moral value of the individual's action; for an action
is moral only when it is voluntary. “No action which is not
voluntary can be called moral. . . .So long as we act like
machines, there can be no question of morality. If we want to
call an action moral, it should have been done consciously, and
as a matter of duty.5’10 Besides, the State, even though its machi-
' nery be most democratic, is rooted in violence. Violence implies
exploitation and every State exploits the poor. “The State
represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The
individual has a soul, but as the State is a soul-less machine, it
can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very
existence.5511 Once while discussing his theory of trusteeship in
relation to private property he remarked, “I look upon an
increase in the power of the State with the greatest fear, because
although while apparently doing good by minimizing exploita¬
tion, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying
individuality, which lies at the root of all progress. We know of
so many cases where men have adopted trusteeship, but none
where the State has really lived for the poor.5’11
The ideal society is, according to Gandhiji, the Stateless
democracy, the state of enlightened anarchy where social life
has become so perfect as to be self-regulated.^ “In such a state
(of enlightened anarchy) every one is his own ruler. He rules
himself in such a manner that he is never a hindrance to his
neighbour. In the ideal state, therefore, there is no political
power because there is no State.”12
{The ideal democracy will be a federation of more or less
self-sufficing and self-governing satyagrahi village communities."
“Society based on non-violence can only consist of groups

9 T. L, April 13, 1924, p. 113.

^ Ethical Religion, p. 40. Cf. Bakunin.
11 N. K. Bose, Studies in Gandhism, pp. 202-04. Every anarchist thinker
emphasizes the violent character of the State.
12 T. July 2, 1931, p. 162.
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE 283

settled in villages in which voluntary co-operation is the condi¬

tion of dignified and peaceful existence.”13 The federation like
the groups will obviously be organized on a voluntary basis. In
such a community almost every individual will have developed
a high level of non-violence and acquired almost complete self-
control. The individual, continuously aware of Spiritual Reality,
will live a life of simplicity and renunciation and live for social
•service.
Referring to the democratic satyagrahi rural communities
he writes, . .every village will be a republic or panchayat
having full powers. It follows, therefore, that every village has
to be self-sustained and capable of managing its affairs even to
the extent of defending itself against the world. It will be
trained and prepared to perish in the attempt to defend itself
against any onslaught from without. Thus, ultimately, it is the
individual which is the unit. This does not exclude dependence
on and willing help from neighbours or from the world. Such
a society is necessarily highly cultured in which every man and
woman knows what he or she wants and, what is more, knows
that no one should want anything that others cannot have with
equal labour.
“In this structure composed of innumerable villages. . .life
will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom.
But it will be an oceanic circle whose centre will be the indi¬
vidual always ready to perish for the village, the latter ready to
perish for the circle of villages, till at last the whole becomes one
life composed of individuals. . . .The outermost circumference
•will not wield power to crush the inner circle but will give
strength to all within and derive its own strength from it.”14
So far as possible every activity of these communities will
be conducted on co-operative basis.'Such a village will be a per¬
fect democracy based upon individual freedom/; “The individual
is the architect of his own Government. The law of non-violence
rules him and his Government. He and his village are able to
defy the might of the world. For the law governing ever}' vil¬
lager is that he will suffer death in the defence of his and his
village’s honour.”15

H.9 Jan. 13, 1940, p. 411.

14 H., July 28, 1946, p. 236.
H., July 26, 1942, p. 238.
284 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE

It will be a decentralized society with equality pervading

everv sphere of life. The need for decentralization arises from „
the fact that centralization means concentration of power in
the hands of a few people with the likelihood of its abuse.
Centralization adds to the complexity of life which is a distrac¬
tion in all creative moral endeavour. It damages initiative,
resourcefulness, courage and creativeness and diminishes
opportunities [of self-government and of resisting injustice. It
leads to depersonalization and insensibility to moral considera¬
tions. So the more of centralization, the less of democracy.
“Centralization as a system,55 wrote Gandhiji in 1941, “is
inconsistent with the non-violent structure of society.55 “I sug¬
gest,55 he remarked in 1939, “that if India is to evolve along non¬
violent lines it will have to decentralize many things. Centraliza¬
tion cannot be sustained and defended without adequate
force.5516
Gandhiji’s views on non-violent values give concreteness
to his ideas about decentralization and how it will be related to
centralization which is implicit in a federation. The ideal society
being based on non-violence, the control of the federation over
the units will be purely moral and in no way coercive. He lays
stress on non-possession, bread-labour and swadeshi. The first
two imply voluntary poverty, village industries and the com¬
mon people owning the means of production and having the
capacity to resist injustice. Swadeshi which demands attention
to duties immediate in point of space and time as against remote
ones relates the area of a man’s direct service to his capacity for
knowing, loving and serving. He insists that the satyagrahi
must maintain personal contact with the people of his locality.
This living association of human beings is essential to a genuine
democracy. But such an association requires that the locality
must be small enough for active participation in common affairs
to be within the reach of human beings. Thus his emphasis is
on small as against big groups.
Equality in the social sphere mil be expressed through the
law of vama combined with the ideals of non-possession and
bread-labour. According to Gandhiji the law of vama “esta¬
blished certain spheres of action for certain people with certain

16 if., Jan. 18, 1942, p. 5; Dec. 30, 1939, p. 391.

 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE 235

tendencies. This avoided all unworthy competition. While recog¬

nizing limitations the law of varna admitted of no distinctions
of high and low. . . .My conviction is that an ideal social order
will only be evolved when the implications of this law are fully
understood and given effect to.”17 Varna is, according to
Gandhiji, intimately, though not indissolubly, connected with
birth. He also believes that individuals belonging to every
varna must do bread-labour, i.e., physical labour enough for
their daily bread. Whatever people do with their body or mind
apart from bread-labour will be the labour of love for the com¬
mon good for which no payment should be demanded.18
Gandhiji’s social ideal thus implies fullest freedom to every
individual to devote himself to social service according to his
peculiar aptitude.
The ideal of bread-labour automatically leads to non¬
possession and economic equality which non-violence also
implies. “Love and exclusive possession can never go together.
Theoretically when there is perfect love there must be perfect
non-possession.”19 Thus the law of varna and the ideals of bread-
labour and non-possession will bring about complete economic
and social equality.
The ideals of non-possession and bread-labour also imply
an agricultural, rural civilization based on handicrafts. There
will be no room in this society for exploitation, the zamindari
system or capitalism. Everybody would be his own master and
none a hired labourer of another. We have discussed in
chapter VIII the moral, physical and economic advantages of
cottage industries.' Gandhiji is not against machinery as such
but he is against centralized mass production and profit motive.*
Centralized production leads to concentration of power, needs
control of big markets and vast quantities of raw materials and
leads to exploitation. A non-violent civilization, therefore, can¬
not grow up on the factory system, but “it can be built on self-
contained villages.”20 Gandhiji, however, welcomes “simple
tools and instruments and such machinery as saves individual

17 N. K. Bose, cited above, p. 205.

18 See above, pp. 90-92.
19 N. K. Bose, cited above, p. 200.
20 H., Nov., 1939, p. 331.
286 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE

labour and lightens the burden of millions of cottagers. . . .”2!

Machinery, however, “must not be allowed to displace neces¬
sary human labour.”22 Besides, this machinery must be such as
the villages can themselves make and can afford to use.23
In this democratic community of self-contained villages true
to the ideal of swadeshi there will be little international trade
and very little of it between one province and another, even
between one district and another.
Gandhiji believes that the ideal society is incompatible with
heavy transport, courts, lawyers, the modern system of medi¬
cine and big cities.24 He writes, “I doubt if the steel age is an
advance on the flint age.” “I wholeheartedly detest this mad
desire to destroy distance and time, to increase animal appetites
and go to the ends of the earth in search of their satisfaction.”25
In the ideal society there will be no centralized production and,
therefore, no heavy transport requiring such production.
Besides, most of such transport is due to military considerations
and international trade with both of which the non-violent
society will have nothing to do. Similarly, serious differences
among non-violent people will be few and far between and will
be adjusted by mutual discussion, persuasion, sometimes by
arbitration and rarely, when these methods do not suffice, by
self-imposed suffering. The idea of bread-labour rules out profes¬
sional doctors. There will also be no mass production of drugs,
medical instruments etc. Most of the diseases that pester human
life today will disappear due to the inward control acquired by
the individual, the emphasis on manual labour and the absence
of the senseless rush and worry born of the ever-present scare
of competition and insecurity in modern life. Gandhiji holds a
high opinion of the efficacy of ancient Indian yogic exercises for
mental, moral and physical health. The minor ailments that
remain will yield to various methods of nature cure. Thus the
ideal democracy will be none the worse for the disappearance
of doctors who by promising easy cure encourage self-
indulgence instead of inculcating self-control among the people.

21 T. II, p. 797.
22 Ibid., p. 713.
23 H., Aug. 29, 1936, p. 226.
24 Speeches, p. 770.
25 r. Ill, p. 120.
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE 287

But how will the non-violent democracy adjust the claims

of society and the individual and reconcile individual freedom
with social obligation, a task achieved at present by the State
by means of coercion exercised in the last resort?
To Gandhiji society' is just like a family, and the relation
between the individual and society is one of close inter¬
dependence. He rejects alike the unrestricted individualism that
ignores social obligations as well as the other extreme view
which regards the individual as a mere cog in the social
machine. He writes, “I value individual freedom, but you must
not forget that man is essentially a social being. He has risen to
the present status by learning to adjust his individualism to the
requirements of social progress. Unrestricted individualism is
the law of the beast of the jungle. We have learnt to strike the
mean between individual freedom and social restraint. Willine
submission to social restraint for the sake of the wellbeing of
the whole society, enriches both the individual and the society
of which one is a member.”26 But as between the individual and
society the individual comes first in Gandhiji’s philosophy,
though society is by no means neglected. The individual is above
all the soul and in any scheme of social progress the first step
always lies with him. The evolution of the Stateless non-violent
democracy depends on the average individual evolving genuine
non-violence and acquiring personal swaraj. Society must pro¬
vide opportunities for the maximum growth of the individual
which consists in selfless service of society and willing fulfilment
of his social obligations. In case either of the two goes wrong
the other should resist non-violently. But apart from the
pressure of the drastic step of non-violent direct action and the
inward morality of the individual, both of which induce him to
fulfil his social obligations, there is another non-violent factor
which keeps the individual alive to these obligations. This is
what Hindu thinkers call dharma.
Dharma which corresponds to the German conception of
sittlickkeit27 is a system of culture and discipline rather than a
creed. It is neither subjective in the sense of morality imposed
by the individual’s conscience, nor external like the law enforced

26 h.. May 27, 1939, p. 144.

27 Ernest Barker translates it as ‘social ethics* in Political Thought in
England from Spencer to Today, p. 27.
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE
288
bv the State. Dhama is not a fixed code of mechanical rules,
but a living spirit which grows and moves in response to the
development of society.28 The function of dharnia is to hold to¬
gether harmoniously the social order and to act as a guide to
the individual's conscience so as to train him to realize his
potentialities.
Dhama or social ethics of the non-violent society, which
will exert strong moral pressure on the individual and thus rein¬
force his conscience, null be a very important factor in sustain¬
ing social cohesion. The children born and educated in the ideal
non-violent atmosphere will imbibe the new morality in the
natural course.
Even today the fulfilment of the individual’s social obli<
gation is due not so much to law and coercion as to other factors,
specially the force of habit, the inward urge of the individual’s
moral sense and the pressure of social ethics. Far more than
today in the village communities of ancient India social and eco¬
nomic life was regulated by dharma of which the law of varna-
shrama was an important part. In ancient India the function of
the State was not to alter or amend dharma but to subserve it.
The disciplinary function which the State performs today by
means of law and coercion mosdy belonged, in ancient India, to
voluntary associations employing non-coercive methods, i.e.,
moral pressure. It was not a case of an utter lack of social res¬
traint, but moral pressure rather than coercion was the means
of this restraint. This pressure in the last resort took the form
of the refusal of society to have social or economic dealings with
the reprobated individual. Very likely this pressure often dete¬
riorated into non-physical violence, but at least it could be non¬
violent, and in a free society Gandhiji would prefer it to the
organized violence of the State.29
The village communities of ancient India, life in which was
to a large extent spontaneously self-regulated, made a near
approach to Gandhiji’s ideal of enlightened anarchy. “Thus he
writes, “The nearest approach to civilization based upon non¬
violence is the erstwhile village republic of India. I admit that

28 S. Radhakrishnan, The Heart of Hindustan, p. 18.

29 Thus Gandhiji writes, “Social boycott such as stopping barbel's,
washermen, etc., is undoubtedly a punishment which may be good in a free
society.” T. I, p. 941.
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE 289
it was very crude. I know that there was in it no non-violence
of my definition and conception. But the germ was there.5530 In
his well-known address to the Missionary Conference, Madras
(1916), Gandhiji said, “Following out the swadeshi spirit I
observe the indigenous institutions and the village panchavats
hold me. India is really a republican country, and it is because
it is that, that it has survived every shock hitherto delivered.
Princes and potentates, whether they were Indian born or
foreigners, have hardly touched the vast masses except for
collecting revenue. The latter in their turn seem to have ren¬
dered unto Caesar what was Caesar’s and for the rest have done
much as they have liked. The vast organization cf caste
answered not only the religious wants of the community, but it
answered to its political needs. The villages managed their
internal affairs through the caste system, and through it they
dealt with any oppression from the ruling power or powers.5’31
Thus in the non-violent society non-violence will reconcile
individual freedom with social restraint. Non-violence implies
that mechanisms of control which maintain social cohesion will
consist of internal and non-coercive external sanctions.32 The
individual will use his opportunity to advance “the greatest good

30 H.t Jan. 13, 1940, p. 411.

31 Speeches, p. 276.
32 Instances of internal sanctions are fear of being shamed, sense of
guilt, force of habit etc., while pressure of public opinion, fear of reciprocal
action, dread of divine power are some of the external sanctions. Various
agencies of education are the chief means of the internalization of the
norms of a society. On the basis of anthropological evidence Mead
believes that “As much specific education is necessary to train a child to
respond to external as to internal sanctions." In Gh. I we have referred to the
Jewish community which was held together by non-coercive sanctions. In
some of the primitive tribes today there is nothing corresponding to the
Siate. Thus the Eskimos and the Ojibwa lack political forms necessary for
group action. Similarly the Arapesh and the Bachiga lack effective adminis¬
trative mechanism and are not political societies. Among the Zuni and the
Samoa also strong central authority with effective sanctions is lacking. None
of these tribes values property highly, all of them considering it of slight
importance. See Margaret Mead (ed.), Co-operation and Competition among
Primitive Tribes, specially the last chapter.
Prof. Ross observes that political types of control which operate
through fear or prejudice will be preferred in a society in proportion as the
population elements to be held together are anti-pathetic and jarring; the
subordination of the individual will and welfare is required by the scheme
P. G.-19
290 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE

of alTa wliile society will give to the individual maximum

opportunity- Either can resist injustice on the part of the other
noi>violently.
But the Stateless non-violent society in which there will be
no police and military, no law courts, doctors, heavy transport
and centralized production is an inspiring ideal rather than the
goal to be soon realized.33 Society can become Stateless only
when men have acquired complete personal swaraj and grown
accustomed spontaneously to observe their social obligations
without the operation of the State. Because people could not yet
rise to the level of this exacting idealism, in his corporate acti¬
vity Gandhiji did not aim at destroying immediately hospitals
and courts, railways and mills, though he considered them a
necessary evil, would welcome their natural destruction and
was, in his personal capacity, working for the realization of the
ideal society in which these would have no place.34
Indeed, Gandhiji believes that the ideal society will always
remain an ideal unrealized and unrealizable in its entirety. This
is his attitude towards all ideals.35 In 1931, referring to the
Stateless society he said, “But the ideal is never fully realized
in life.”36 In 1940 in a conversation at Santiniketan, in answer to

of control; the social constitution stereotypes differences of status; the diffe¬

rences in economic conditions and opportunity it consecrates are great and
cumulative; and the parasitic relation is maintained between races, classes
or sexes. On the other hand ethical instruments of control, such as public
opinion, suggestion, personal ideal, social religion, art and social valuation,
will be preferred in proportion as the population is homogeneous; its culture
is uniform and diffused; the social contacts between the elements in the popu¬
lation are many and amicable; the total burden of requirement laid upon
the individual is light; and the social constitution does not consecrate
distinctions of status or the parasitic relation, but conforms to common ele¬
mentary notions of justice. E. A. Ross, Social Control, pp. 411-13.
33 Amongst anarchist thinkers, Godwin, Thomas Hodgskin and Prou¬
dhon did not look forward to the establishment of a society from which the
State would be completely eliminated. On the other hand Bakunin, Josiah
Warren, Benjamin Tucker and Kropotkin, besides many other anarchist
thinkers, held that it was possible to evolve a Stateless society. Marx and
Lenin also believed that the proletarian State would wither away and people
would grow accustomed to observe conditions of social existence without
force and without subjection.
34 Hind Swaraj, pp. vii & viii; T. L, I, pp. 885-86; and T. /., II, pp. 1129-30.
35 See Chapter V.
36 r. July 2, 1931, p. 162.
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE 291

the question, “Gan a State carry on strictly according to the

principle of non-violence?55 Gandhiji replied, “A Government
cannot succeed in becoming entirely non-violent, because it
represents all the people. I do not today conceive of such a
golden age. But I do believe in the possibility of a predominantly
non-violent society. And I am working for it.'537 In 1945 he dis¬
claimed interest in the problem and pointed out that “nowhere
in the world does a State without Government exist.55 But he
expressed the hope that if people continued to work for such a
society it might slowly come into being to an extent, such that
the people could benefit by it. He also held that if at all it could
ever come into being it would be in India; for this was the only
country where an attempt had been made. The way to work
towards it was completely to shed the fear of death.3S
The ideal non-violent society of Gandhiji, unattainable due
to human imperfection, indicates the direction rather than the
destination, the process rather than the consummation. The
structure of the State that will emerge as a result of the non¬
violent revolution will be a compromise, a via media, between
the ideal non-violent society and the facts of human nature. It
will be the attainable “middle way5539 of Gandhiji, the first step,
after the revolution, towards the ideal.
This via media will correspond to the quality of non-vio¬
lence evolved by the average individual. Non-violence and
democracy are both rooted in the spiritual equality of all men.
Democracy to be genuine must provide adequate opportunity
to the weakest and the strongest. This cannot happen except
through non-violence.40 If political power is won through the
non-violence of the weak the State established will be at best a
political democracy or democracy as the machinery of govern¬
ment. The external form, the constitution, will be democratic
but exploitation will continue, for the non-violence of the weak
permits the use of violence. On the ocher hand if the non-vio¬
lence evolved in the revolution is that of the brave, the resulting

37 h.9 March 9, 1940, p. 31.

3S H., Sept. 15, 1946, p. 309.
39 Gandhiji once said, “Having ascertained the law of our being, we
must set about reducing it to practice to the extent of our capacity and no
further. That is the middle way.” Y. II, p. 659.
40 May 18, 1940, p. 129.
292 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE

State -will be a genuine democracy, in which exploitation and

coercion will be minimized. This is why Gandhiji defines demo¬
cracy as “the rule of unadulterated non-violence”.41 Thus in
answer to a letter from Lord Lothian, he wrote, “. . .constitu¬
tional or democratic Government is a distant dream so long as
non-violence is not recognized as a living force, an inviolable
creed, not a mere policy.”42
In India’s war of liberation, in spite of Gandhiji’s efforts, the
Congress failed to evolve the non-violence of the brave. Even
now if people accept the non-violent way, the State and society
will become predominantly non-violent, i.e., democratic. The
State “would for the most part be based on non-violence”.42
The State will no doubt continue to exist, for there will be
some individuals or groups with anti-social tendencies and the
absence of external restraint will lead to anarchy.
The satyagrahi State will be equal in status to other States
and free to manage its own affairs. Progress is impossible with¬
out the right to err, i.e., freedom to try experiments, and
Gandhiji defines swaraj as “freedom to err and the duty of cor¬
recting errors”.44 Freedom is a part of truth; unless a nation is
free it cannot worship truth.45 So every nation, nothing to speak
of a satyagrahi nation, should be free to rule itself.46 Freedom of
a country is essential not only for its own progress but also for
that of others. Control of one country over another is destructive
of democracy in the imperialist country and leads to inter¬
national complications and wars. Gandhiji, as we have pointed
out later in this chapter, does not stand for isolated indepen¬
dence, nor is his nationalism exclusive nor designed to harm any
nation or individual.
Freedom and equality will not only characterize the inter¬
national status of the satyagrahi State but also determine its
internal life. The State will be democratic, for masses accepting
non-violence as the way of life will control political power. Says
Gandhiji, “Swaraj for me means freedom for the meanest of our

41H., Oct 13, 1940, p. 320.

42 H., Feb. 11, 1939, p. 8.
43 H., Feb. 16, 1947, p. 25.
44 Speeches, p. 388.
45 r. /., II, p. 2.
46 r. I., Oct. 15, 1931.
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE 293

countrymen.5547 India's swaraj signifies to him the vesting of the

' ultimate authority in the peasant and the labourer and not the
mere transference of power from the white bureaucrat to the
brown bureaucrat48 Non-violence or democracy also involves
self-purification or the moral regeneration of the individual. In
Gandhijrs words, “. . .political self-government, that is, self-
government for a large number of men and women, is no better
than individual self-government.5’49 “The root meaning of
swaraj is self-rule. Swaraj may, therefore, be rendered as disci¬
plined rule from within. . . .The word swaraj is a sacred word,
a Yeiic word, meaning self-rule and self-restraint, and not
freedom from all restraint which independence often means.5’49
To Gandhiji political power, i.e., the State, Is not an end in
itself but “one of the means of enabling people to better their
condition in every department of life55.50 Thus he does not accept
the Hegelian view of the State as the final goal of human
organization, its own end and object, the ultimate end which has
the highest right against the Individual and is itself above
morality, or the Mussolinian dictum, “Outside the State there
is noming”. Gandhiji does not consider the State even the
group of groups or the community of communities as the
idealist thinkers like Green and Bosanquet do. To him the
State is only “one of the means’5 to secure the greatest good
of all. There is nothing sacrosanct about the State. It is a
concession to human weakness and the more man can do
without it, the more real is his freedom. He distrusts
the State and seeks to develop in the people, through satya-
graha, the capacity to resist the State authority when it is
abused. In fact, he expects every member of a demo¬
cratic State to be “capable of defending his liberty against the
whole world”. According to him, “. . .real swaraj will come not
by the acquisition of authority by a few but by the acquisition
of the capacity by all to resist authority when abused. In other
words, swaraj is to be obtained by educating the masses to a
sense of their capacity to regulate and control authority.”51

47 T. II, p. 602.
48 Speeches, pp. 378 and 380.
49 Mahadev Desai, With Gandhiji in Ceylon, p. 93.
50 r. July 2, 31.
51 r. II, p. 491.
294 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE

Again, “2.eal home-rule is possible only where passive resistance

fsatyagraha) is the guiding force of the people. Any other rule
is foreign rule/’52
Like pluralists and anarchists, Gandhiji is against the
theory of absolute sovereignty of the State which lays upon the
individual the duty of absolute, unquestioning obedience to the
law of the State. He believes in the “Sovereignty of the people
based on pure moral authority55.53 A man, according to him,
owes only a limited and relative loyalty to the State as to ether
associations. This loyalty is conditional on the decision of the
State or any other association appealing to the individual’s con¬
science. This is no doubt a perpetual threat of anarchy. But this
is the only adequate safeguard against the abuse of political
power. Though Gandhiji makes the disobedience of laws, which
offend the moral sense, a right as well as a duty of the citizen
and considers such disobedience the key to democracy,54 he
provides ample safeguard against anarchy by making this
disobedience civil and non-violent.
As regards the political constitution of the non-violent
State, it may be pointed out that from 1909 onwards Gandhiji
subjected the Parliamentary Government as prevailing in Eng¬
land to severe criticism. In 1917 in his presidential address to
the first Gujarat Political Conference he demanded Parlia¬
mentary Government. In 1920 he said, “My swaraj is the Parlia¬
mentary Government of India in the modem sense of the term
for the time being. . . .5555
In 1942 he told Louis Fischer that he
did not believe in the accepted Western form of democracy with
its universal voting for parliamentary representatives.56 This
seems to be confusing, but it should be borne in mind that he
attaches far more importance to the spirit behind a constitution

52 Hind. Swaraj, p. 74.

53 H., Jan. 2, 1937, p. 374. The above is his definition of the term Ramaraj
which he frequently used to convey to the people the content of a democratic
State. Ramaraj is “the Kingdom of Righteousness”. “By Ramaraj I do not
mean Hindu raj. I mean by Ramaraj Divine raj, the Kingdom of God. . .the
ancient ideal of Ramaraj is undoubtedly one of true democracy. . . .” T. L,
May 28, 1931, p. 126; Sept. 19, 1929, p. 305.
54 Hind Swaraj, p. 71.
55 T. I, p. 873; also see Y. I, p. 885 and the Introduction to Hind
Swaraj, p. viii.
56 Louis Fischer, A Week with Gandhi, p. 55.
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE 295

than to its external form. His criticism of parliamentary demo¬

cracy is due more to the spirit in which it is actually worked
than to the constitutional machinery. Gandhiji does not believe
that representative institutions are something new or unsuitable
to India, though he is against a wholesale copving of the
West.*
States in the West are only nominal democracies because
they ignore the vital requirements regarding non-violence and
purificatory discipline. Hence the mad race for armaments,
imperialism, exploitation, capitalism, political instability, poli¬
tical corruption and poverty of leadership. According to
Gandhiji capitalism has, by making State intervention necessary
in economic affairs, contributed to the emergence of the all-
powerful State which makes individual freedom impossible and
is the greatest danger the world faces. The real problem today
is to devise checks and balances on such a State and to prevent
its rise.58
In Hind Swaraj Gandhiji severely criticizes the Mother of
Parliaments comparing it to a “sterile woman”. It has not yet
of its own accord done a single good thing. If Parliament consists
of the best men elected by enlightened voters, it “should not
need the spur of petitions or any other pressure. Its work should
be so smooth that its effect should be more apparent day by day.
But, as a matter of fact, it is generally acknowledged that the
members are hypocritical and selfish. Each thinks of his own
little interest. It is fear that is the guiding motive.”59 Besides,
Parliament is mercurial and unsteady'in its fidelity to ministers.
“Today it is under Mr. Asquith, tomorrow it may be under
Mr. Balfour.”60 Another instance of Parliament’s fickleness is
that there is no certainty about its decisions. “What is done
today may be undone tomorrow. It is not possible to recall a
single instance in which finality can be predicted for its work.”61

*T. Ill, p. 285.

58 Louis Fischer, A Week with Gandhi, pp. 82-83.
59 Hind Swaraj, pp. 15-16.
60 Ibid., p. 15.
61 Ibid., p. 16. Gandhiji’s opinion seems to be that if sincere efforts were
made to ascertain truth and stick to it and if the leaders had acquired
personal swaraj, there should not be frequent swings of pendulum in public
life.
296 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE

The members of Parliament are seen to stretch themselves

and doze when the greatest questions are debated. "Sometimes
they talk away until listeners are disgusted. Carlyle called it
the 'talking shop of the world5. Members vote for their party
without a thought.3562
The Prime Minister falls far short of Gandhiji3s ideal of
leadership. The Prime Minister is more concerned about his
power than about the welfare of Parliament. His energy is
concentrated upon securing the success of his party. It is never
his constant care that Parliament shall do right. Prime Ministers
are known to have made Parliament do things merely for
party advantage.63 They cannot be really considered to be
patriotic, and though they do not take bribes, they are open to
subtler influence. "In order to gain their ends, they certainly
bribe people with honours. . .they have neither real honesty nor
a living conscience.3363
The voters take their cue from their newspapers, which are
often dishonest.63 The voters are as changeable and fickle as
their Parliament. Their views "swring like the pendulum of a
clock and are never steadfast35.63 The people would follow a
powerful orator or a man who gives them parties, receptions,
etc. Due to these defects democracies in the West are undemo¬
cratic. Masses, instead of ruling themselves, are exploited by
the ruling classes. Parliaments are the emblems of slavery and
costly toys of nations—costly because they are a waste of time
and money.
In recent years Parliamentary Government has been
subjected to severe criticism. Thus the system of elections; the
slow-moving procedure; the incapacity of the system, due to
centralization and congestion of business, for the creative work
of social and economic regeneration; the dictatorship of the
cabinet; the increasing power of permanent officials; the failure
of the system to induce the citizen to participate actively in
political life; the absence of approximate economic equality—
all these weak points have been assailed by critics. To Gandhiji
democracy remains unachieved more on account of the prevail¬
ing belief in the efficacy of violence and untruth than on account

& Ibid., p. 16.

63 Ibid., p. 17.
 THE NOX-VIOLENT STATE 297

of mere institutional inadequacy. Democracy is vitiated by the

wrong ideas and ideals that move men.
If people accept the way of non-violence, the democratic
State that emerges will be inspired by the ideals of truth and
non-violence. Corruption and hypocrisy that characterize modem
democracies will be minimized. The emphasis will be not
on mere numbers but on the spirit of equality expressing itself
in service and sacrifice. In a statement issued in 1934 Gandhiji
remarked, “Western democracy is on its trial. If it has already
proved a failure, may it be reserved to India to evolve the true
science of democracy by giving a visible demonstration of its
buttress. Corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be the inevi¬
table products of democracy, as they undoubtedly are today.
Nor is bulk the true test of democracy. True democracy is not
inconsistent with a few persons representing the spirit, the hope
and the aspirations of those whom they claim to represent. I
hold that democracy cannot be evolved by forcible method. The
spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to
come from within.”64
Gandhiji is not against elections and representation. In
1925 he w-rote, “By swaraj I mean the government of India by
the consent of the people as ascertained by the largest number
of adult population, male or female, native bom or domiciled,
who have contributed by manual labour to the service of the
State and who have taken the trouble of having their names
registered as voters.”65 Again, “If independence is born non-
violently all the component parts will be voluntarily inter¬
dependent working in perfect harmony under a representative
central authority which will derive its sanction from the confi¬
dence reposed in it by the component parts.” The central powrer,
he goes on to add, will be based on “universal suffrage exercised
by a disciplined and politically intelligent electorate”.66
If he could have his way he wrould like the democratic
State to be administered by a few representatives selected by the
people and removable at the will of the people. A reduction in
the number of representatives wrould be feasible in a predomi¬
nantly non-violent State due to the extreme decentralization of

64 History of the Congress, pp. 981-82.

65 r. II, pp. 488-89.
66 HOct. 13, 1940, p. 320.
298 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE

political and economic authority, the limited functions of the

State and the correspondingly increased importance of voluntary -
associations.
At the Round Table Conference Gandhiji suggested indirect
election through the village panchayats.61 In 1942 he again advo¬
cated the system of indirect election. According to him seven
hundred thousand villages of India will be organized according
to the will of its citizens, all of them voting. These villages, each
having one vote, will elect their district administrations. The
district administrations will elect provincial administrations
which in turn will elect a president who will be the national
chief executive. This will decentralize power among seven
hundred thousand units. There will then be among these vil¬
lages voluntary co-operation which will produce real freedom.68
This indirect election should not be branded as undemocratic. It
will give us representatives tried and tested in the life of groups
and substitute active participation for the present-day passive
representation.69 It will diminish excitement, bribery, corruption
and violence in elections and it has to be understood in the con¬
text of decentralization and reduced functions of the State. At
the Round Table Conference Gandhiji was also opposed to
second chambers and to special representation of interests as
these are undemocratic.
Those seeking election must have acquired personal
swaraj, i.e., must be selfless, able and incorruptible. They should
be free from the morbid craze for office, self-advertisement,
running down of opponents, and psychological exploitation of
voters which are so much in evidence in elections today. The
vote should not come as a result of canvassing but by virtue of

67 The Nation's Voice, p. 18.

68 Louis Fischer, A Week with Gandhi, pp. 55 and 80. “Non-violence
with its technique of Satyagraha and non-co-operation will be the sanction of
the village community. There will be a compulsory service of village guards
who will be selected by rotation from the register maintained by the village.
The government of the village will be conducted by the panchayat of five
persons annually elected by the adult villagers, male and female, possessing
minimum prescribed qualifications. These will have the authority and juris¬
diction required. Since there will be no system of punishment in the accepted
sense, this panchayat will be the legislature, judiciary and executive com¬
bined to operate for its year of office.” H.3 July 26, 1942, p. 238.
69 The Nation's Voice, pp. 19-20.
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE 299

sendee rendered by the candidate. All public offices must be

^ held in the spirit of sendee without the slightest expectation of
personal gain. “If A is satisfied in ordinary life with getting
rupees twenty-five per month he has no right to expect rupees
two hundred and fifty on becoming a minister or obtaining any
other office under the Government .5170
In the case of a satyagrahi
who wills the common weal and not merely his own and tries
to advance it, the willingness to accept office implies love
and service of mankind. In his case, to use the words of
Prof. Hocking, “power over men becomes completely merged
with power for men.5’71
As for voters, according to Gandhiji, “The qualifications for
franchise should be neither property nor position but manual
w’ork. . .literary or property test has proved to be elusive.
Manual work gives an opportunity to all who wish to take part
in the government and the wellbeing of the State.5’72 Labour fran¬
chise is the application to politics of the ideal of bread-labour
which aims at making life self-sufficient and people self-reliant
and fearless. The intelligent and conscious adoption of the ideal
of bread-labour will prevent voters from becoming mere pawns
in the hands of politicians.73 It will develop in the people the
capacity to resist misuse of authority and prevent the division
of the State into a small class of exploiting, self-seeking rulers
and a large class of exploited subjects rendering passive,
unthinking obedience.

70 if., Sept. 3, 1938, p. 292. Ideally speaking every individual should earn
his living by engaging in bread-labour and should perform public duties in
the spirit of service without any pay. This may be possible only in the dis¬
tant future. Even under present conditions Gandhiji is against public
servants getting salaries out of all proportion to the national income. Under
swaraj Government, Gandhiji advocates, there should be drastic cuts in
salaries. According to the resolution of the Karachi Congress on Funda¬
mental Rights rupees five hundred should be the maximum salary payable
to the highest State functionaries. The London Times once defined adequate
salaries by saying that the salary should be enough not to deter any person
of public spirit from taking up an office and on the other hand it should not
attract people into public life for the sake of the salary". (See Harijan,
August 7, 1937).
71 W. E. Hocking, Man and the State, p. 316.
72 T. II, pp. 435-36.
73 if., Jan. 2, 1937, p. 373.
300 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE

As regards age limits of the voters Gandhiji was in favour

of “the franchise of all adults above the age of twenty-one or '
even eighteen. He would bar old men like himself. They were of
no use as voters. India and the rest of the world did not belong
to those who were on the point of dying. To them belonged
death, life to the young. Thus he would have a bar against per¬
sons beyond a certain age, say fifty, as he would against young¬
sters below eighteen.”74 Thus Gandhiji would reserve the right
to vote only for people who are between eighteen and fifty and
who contribute by body labour to the service of the State.
People above fifty will have only moral influence but no political
authority through the vote.
The State established by the non-violent revolution will be
what has been called “a spiritualized democracy”. In such a
democracy the method of taking decision by majority opinion
will be ordinarily, though not always, applicable. In matters con¬
cerning a particular religious or cultural group within the State
the decision will rest with the group itself. In vital questions the
dissent of the minority will get the fullest consideration and will
not be disregarded by the majority. Says Gandhiji, “In matters
of conscience the law of majority has no place.”75 “The rule of
majority has a narrow application, i.e., one should yield to the
majority in matters of detail. But it is slavery to be amenable to
the majority no matter what its decisions are. Democracy is not
a state in which people act like sheep. Under democracy, liberty
of opinion and action is jealously guarded. I, therefore, believe
that the minority has a perfect right to act differently from the
majority.”76 “. . .no school of thought can claim a monopoly of
right judgment. We are all liable to err and are often obliged to
revise our judgment. . . .And the least, therefore, that we owe to
ourselves as to others is to try to understand the opponent’s
view-point and, if we cannot accept it, respect it as fully as we
expect him to respect ours. It is one of the indispensable tests of
a healthy public life.”77 Again, “The rule of majority does not
mean it should suppress the opinion of even an individual if it
is sound. An individual’s opinion should have greater weight

14H., March 2, 1947, p. 45.

75 r. I, p. 860.
16 Ibid., pp. 864-65.
77 T. I., II, p. 227.
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE 301

than the opinion of many, if that opinion is sound. That is my

view of real democracy.5 5”s
Subjection cf the dissentient minority to the will of the
majority in questions involving important principles is not only
the negation of non-violence but will also be resisted by the
saiyagrahi minority. In such cases the only way for the majority
as well as the minority will be to try to convert the other
through persuasion or self-suffering.
Thus in the non-violent democracy there would be no place
for the tyranny of the majority. The meticulous regard that
Gandhiji advocates for the minority is net the tyranny of the
minority but “the magnanimity of the majority55.79 On the other
hand, it is the duty of the minority to yield to the majority deci¬
sion except when the decision offends their moral sense; for
otherwise there can be no social life and no corporate self-
government.
The non-violent State will be a secular State.80 Gandhiji did
not believe in State religion even though the whole community
had one religion. Every one living in the State should be en¬
titled to profess his religion without let or hindrance, so long
as the citizen obeyed the common law of the land. “If I were
a dictator,55 he said in 1946, “religion and State would be sepa¬
rate. I swear by my religion. I will die for it. But it is my personal
affair. The State has nothing to do with it. . . .That is every¬
body’s personal concern.55 According to him, the State cannot
concern itself or cope with religious education. Religious edu¬
cation must be the sole concern of religious associations. He
was also opposed to State aid to religious bodies. “An institution
or group, which did not manage to finance its own religious
teaching, was a stranger to true religion.55 In this context by
religion he means denommationalism and not fundamental
ethics common to all religions. “Teaching of fundamental ethics
is a function of the State.55

78 Gandhiji’s statement on the break-down of Gandhi-Jinnah talks. Sept.

28, 1944.
79 H.3 July 1, 1939, p. 185.
80 References to Gandhiji’s views on this topic are:
H.9 Sept. 22, 1946, p. 321; March 16, 1947, p. 63; March 23, 1947, p. 76;
Aug. 24, 1947, p. 292; Aug. 31, 1947, pp. 297 and 303.
 302 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE

The non-violent democracy is the highest form of State that

man has yet been able to envisage. No doubt such a State will
make great demands on the individual, for it presumes m-^ not
as he lives but as he should, not for the pleasures of the senses
but for the service of society. The non-violent State can subsist
only on the basis of a strong sense of unity of ideals. But non¬
violent direct action that will usher in the non-violent State will
also create that moral atmosphere in which alone this State can
flourish.
The State is a mere means and not an end. The ultimate
end or purpose of the non-violent State will be to advance
“the greatest good of all”.; To that end it will give to the indi¬
vidual maximum opportunity for growth. But the State is rooted
in violence, exploits the poor and by enforcing action restricts
the scope for self-rule on the part of the individual. So in a
predominantly non-violent society the State will govern the
least and use the least amount of force.81 Consistently with the
moral level of the people it will aim at reducing its functions
so as to efface itself ultimately and thus lead to the self-
regulated, ordered anarchy.
As regards the State governing the least Gandhiji writes,
“our capacity for swaraj depends upon our capacity for solving
without reference to, or intervention of, the Government, all
the varied and complex problems that must arise in the affairs
of one of the biggest and the most ancient nations like ours.”82
“Self-government means continuous effort to be independent of
Government control, whether it is foreign or whether it is
national. Swaraj Government will be a sorry affair if people look
up to it for the regulation of every detail of life.”83 Again, “I
admit that there are certain things which cannot be done with¬
out political power, but there are numerous other things which
do not at all depend upon political power. That is why a thinkpr
like Thoreau said that 'that Government is best which governs
the least. This means that when people come into possession of
political power, the interference with the freedom of the people
is reduced to a minimum. In other words, a nation that runs its
affairs smoothly and effectively without much State interference
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE 303

is truly democratic. Where such condition is absent the form of

Government is democratic in name.1384
If freedom is based on the non-violence cf the brave “least
government” will be practicable, for that freedom will be an
organic inward growth. People will acquire capacity for volun¬
tary co-operation and concerted action and will learn to
regulate most of their social life through voluntary organiza¬
tions. Thus the village units will be self-sufficient in regard to
production and defence. “A village unit,33 said Candhiji in 1946,
“conceived by me is as strong as the strongest.3385 The bewilder¬
ing multiplicity of functions which the modern State performs
will also become unnecessary in the non-violent State due to the
simplicity of life, decentralization and the absence of \iolent
class conflict and militarism. Besides, the justification and the
extent of State activity depends on whether people attach greater
value to security against the invasive acts of others, i.e., to peace
and order imposed by law, than to freedom of action. In the
non-violent State such invasive acts will be infrequent and
people will have acquired the technique of dealing with them
non-violently. This will also narrow the province of State action.
The functions of the State will be gradually reduced and
transferred to voluntary associations. Gandhiji is, however, not
a doctrinaire. He would decide every case on its own merits and
where State action is likely to advance the welfare of the people
he would welcome it in spite of his distrust of the State. In
performing its functions the object of the State will be to serve
the masses. The interest of the classes, so long as these continue,
will be its concern to the extent that this interest subserves and
does not conflict with the interest of the masses. Gandhiji insists
that every interest that is hostile to that of the masses must be
revised or must subside if it is incapable of revision.86
The State will perform its functions with the minimum use
of coercion. Towards the close of this chapter we have dealt with
the non-violent way in which this State will meet foreign aggres¬
sion. Internally the need of coercion arises in relation to crimes
and other violent outbreaks both of which threaten the
existence of society.
84 H., Jan. 11, 1936, p. 380.
85 if., Aug. 4, 1946, p. 252.
86 r. Sept. 17, 1931.
304 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE

As stated earlier, according to Gandhiji all crime is a

disease caused by social failings.87 That is why in the non-vio¬
lent State, though there may be crimes, nobody will be regarded
or treated as a criminal.88 The non-violence of the brave will
bring about the rationalization of social, political and economic
institutions, which will be based on justice, real equality and
genuine brotherhood.89 The Government will rule “through its
moral authority based upon the greatest goodwill of the
people.5590 The pressure of social ethics will induce far more
spontaneous conformity to the demands of social obligations
than it does today. The satyagrahi citizen will deal with crimes
non-violently.91 So in the non-violent State crime as well as
coercion will diminish.
Grime will, however, not disappear, for the non-violent
State will not consist of ideal men. There will remain some anti¬
social, parasitic individuals, victims of social maladies, who
might, due to lack of self-control, resort to violence and disobey
laws. Thus referring to criminal distillation Gandhiji once wrote,
“Some of it will go on perhaps till doomsday as thieving will.5’92
When the new State enters upon its career there may be some
violent organizations seeking to subvert the non-violent Govern¬
ment. According to Gandhiji, “No Government can allow private
military organizations to function without endangering public
peace.5593 Nor will the satyagrahi State tolerate crimes and allow
civil liberty to degenerate into criminal liberty, i.e., licence.
Thus it will not ignore incitement to violence.94 Crimes "cannot
be ignored for they promote an atmosphere of violence and are

87 See pp. 154-55, supra.

88tf., Mav 5, 1946, p. 124.
89 H., Aoril 27, 1940, p. 108.
90 if., July 13, 1940, p. 197.
91 See pp. 156-61, supra.
92 if., July 31, 1937, p. 86.
93 H.9 April 13, 1940, p. 86.
“The free Indian State shall guarantee full individual and civil liberty
and cultural and religious freedom, provided that there shall be no freedom
to overthrow by violence the constitution framed by the Indian people
through a constituent assembly.” H., April 20, 1940, p. 96. Gandhiji’s article
entitled “Jai Prakash’s Picture” giving in outline Mr. Jai Prakash Narain’s
views about the structure of the Indian State after the success of the non¬
violent revolution. Gandhiji concurred with the socialist leader’s views
94 H., Oct. 23, 1937, p. 308.
 THE XON-VIOLENT STATE 305

destructive of ordered society and “No Government worth its

name can suffer anarchy to prevail."95
Personally Gandhiji docs not believe in ‘“imprisoning by
vr.y of punishment even those who commit violence**.96 Indeed
he does not believe in the system of punishment for crimes,
whether private or public.97 If he had his way he would fling
open doors of prisons and discharge even murderers.55 But that
is an unrealizable ideal under present conditions o: society.
Thus he wrote in 1937, CCI have personally not found a way out
of punishment and punitive restrictions in all conceivable
cases.55 But though he would retain punishment, ““punishments
have to be non-violent if such an expression is permissible in
that connection.”99
In dealing with crime the satyagrahi State will make the
minimum use of coercion. The object of the State will be neither
retribution nor deterrence both of which, as large-scale
recidivism bears out, tend to deaden the criminaFs sociability
and injure society as well as the criminal. The satyagrahi State
■will aim at the reform of the offender. The non-violent treatment
will put an end to intimidation and humiliation, and occasional
torture and terror to which the offender is at present subjected.
Obviously there will be no place for capital punishment as death
sentence is contrary to ahimsa. “Under a State governed ac¬
cording to principles of ahimsa, therefore, a murderer would be
sent to a penitentiary and there given a chance of reforming
himself.55100 Between capital punishment and other punishments
there is, to Gandhiji, a difference not merely of quantity but also
of quality. Other punishments can be recalled and reparations
can be made to the person wrongly punished.c ‘But once a man
is killed, the punishment is beyond recall or reparation.55101
Gandhiji was, however, not against persons being “merely
detained so as to be unable to do harm, whether moral, social
or political in accordance with the conception of respective

95 March 9, 1940, p. 31.

96 His statement on the morning of the Gandhi-Irwin Truce in 1931.
History of the Congress, p. 753.
” H., Sept. 4, 1937, p. 233.
98 D. G. Tendulkar and others, Gandhiji, His Life end U'ork, p, 381.
99 H., Oct. 23, 1937, p. 308.
H., April 27, 1940, p. 101.
r. L, II, p. 862.

P. G.-20
306 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE

States."101 lu. chough he would retain jails, he would make

them r.c iicn-riolane as possible.
Ic: 1037, 'vher. die Congress assumed office in the provinces ,
Gcmdkij: suggested that jails should be turned into refcrma-"
tories cud workshops and should be self-supporting and edu¬
cational instead of being spending and punitive departments.
For the reform cf jails Gandhiji had prepared a plan in 1922
when he was a prisoner. The plan was that “all industries that
were not paying should be stopped. All the jails should be
turned into hand-spinning and hand-weaving institutions. Thev
should include (wherever possible) cotton-growing to producing
the finest cloth. . . .Prisoners must be treated as defectives, not
criminals to be looked down upon. Warders should cease to be
the terrors of the prisoners, but the jail officials should be their
friends and instructors. The one indispensable condition is that
the State should buy all the khadi that may be turned out bv the
prisons at cost price. And if there is a surplus, the public may
get it at a trifling higher price to cover the expense of running a
sales depot.”103 Gandhiji believed that if his suggestion was
adopted jails would be linked to the villages, they would spread
to them tne message of khadi, and discharged prisoners might
become model citizens of the State.104
In a post-prayer speech delivered in the Delhi Central Jail
in 1947, he said, . .all criminals should be treated as patients
and the jails should be the hospitals admitting this class of
patients for treatment and cure. No one committed crime for the
fun. of it. It is a sign of a diseased mind. The causes of a parti¬
cular disease should be investigated and removed. They need
not have palatial buildings when their jails became hospitals.
No country could afford that, much less could a poor country
like India. But the outlook of the jail staff should be that of
physicians and nurses in a hospital. The prisoners should feel
that the officials were their friends. They were there to help
them to regain their mental health and not to harass them in
any way.”105

102 Bapu’s Letters to Mira, p. 205; T. /., I, pp. 1118 and 1122.
103 H., July 17, 1937, p. 180.
104 H., July 31, 1937, p. 198.
105 H-, Nov. 2, 1947, pp. 395-96.
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE 207

To khadi Gandhiji vculd net mind adding other industries.

What he is concerned wifr: is not sc much the practice! details
. as the principle that prisons should he regarded not as an
agency created by society for vengeance on criminally;, a symp¬
tom of the pathological mate of society itself, but as a
reformatory, a hospital and a school combined into one, main¬
tained for the purpose cf converting the defectives t_ the non¬
violent wav of life.106
All the same Gandhiji recognizes that nnprisenrnen- is a
punishment and as such coercive and ££a fall from tne pure doc¬
trine"1.1'07 A non-violent prison or imprisonment is as much of
a contradiction as a non-violent State. The prison will, however,
correspond to the State and society and aim at minimizing
coercion.
In the non-violent Sta^e civil disturbances will also be mini¬
mized. There will not be many occasions for violent conflicts
between groups. Besides, masses will have acquired the capacity
to deal non-violently with violent outbreaks. Gandhiji writes,
£<So long as we are not saturated with pure ahimsa we cannot
possibly win swarqj through non-violence. We can come into
power only wThen w-e are in the majority or, in other
words, when the large majority of people are willing to abide by
the law' of ahimsa. When this happy State prevails the spirit of
violence will have all but vanished and internal disorder will
have come under control.”103 Thus in the non-violent State there
will be little likelihood of communal disturbances and serious
labour troubles, because the influence of the non-violent majo¬
rity will be so great as to command the respect of the principal
elements in society.108
Gandhiji concedes that even in the non-violent State a
police force will be necessary.109 But he would transform the
police system curing it of its present violent ways. He would
demand of the policemen of the satyagrahi State the qualifica¬
tions that he has prescribed for the volunteers of Peace
Brigades. Thus he writes, £cThe police of my conception will.

106 Mahadev Desai’s article “No Compromise”, H., Jan. 8, 1938, p. 411.
107 r. II, p. 862.
108 H., Sept. 1, 1940, p. 265.
109 r. /., I, pp. 284, 641 and 1086; H.} Feb. 10, 1940, p. 441; and
March 9, 1940, p. 31.
3C8 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE

however, be of a wholly different pattern from the present-day

force. Its rank will be composed of believers in non-violence.
Thev will be servants, not masters, of the people. The people will
instinctively render them every help, and through mutual co¬
o-aeration they will easily deal with the ever-decreasing distur¬
bances. The police force will have some kind of arms but they
-.■.•ill be rarely used, if at all. In fact the policemen will be
reformers. Their police work will be confined to robbers and
dacoits.”110 These will be very few in number in the non-violent
State because there will not be much of private property and
possession beyond needs will go with trusteeship.
He would permit the police to bear arms, for one of their
functions would be to arrest those who commit crimes for non¬
violent treatment in prisons. The police would also use physical
force to restrain, for example, a lunatic run amuck bent upon
murder. Gandhiji would likewise concede such modern methods
of preventing crimes as tear gas.111 He admits that the use of
tear gas is not justified in terms of the non-violent ideal. But he
would defend its use if he found that he could not save a helpless
girl from violation or prevent an infuriated crowd from
indulging in madness except by its use.112
In 1940 the Congress Ministries in some of the provinces
of India were taken to task by Gandhiji, for they failed to devise
peaceful ways and means of preserving order and had to fall
back upon the police and the military to suppress communal
riots and labour trouble. He wrote, “To the extent that the
Congress ministries have been obliged to make use of the police
and the military to that extent, in my opinion, we must admit
our failure.”112
In Nov. 1946, during Bihar riots, the Prime Minister said
that the Government would use even aerial bombing to put
down communal violence. Gandhiji considered it the British
way which would result in the suppression of India’s freedom.

110 H., Sept. 1,1940, p. 265. According to K. G. Mashruwala, “The true

function of the police ought to be the prevention of crime. At present it
practically consists in watching for criminals, and detecting and arresting
them after a crime has been committed.” See his Practical Non-violence,
p. 21.
111H., March 9, 1940, p. 31.
112 H., July 13, 1940, p. 197.
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE 309

He wrote, '“Democracy to be true should cease to rely upon the

army for anything whatever. . . At will be a poor democracy
that depends for its existence on military assistance, hlilkary
force interf ~es with the free growth of the mind. It smothers the
soul of man/ AS In his post-prayer speech on Dec. 12, 1947, he
remarked, “unless India developed her non-violent strength, she
had gained nothing either for herself or for the world. Militari¬
zation of India would mean her own destruction as of the whole
world.53114
He is opposed not to the police as such, but to its present-
day form and its out-and-out violent methods. Inability to do
without the present police system is, to him, an indication of
incapacity to hold power through non-violent means. As for
the military, until 1931, he was willing to retain it.115 Later, how¬
ever, he disapproved of the use of military for maintaining civil
liberties and internal peace.116 He also definitely declared
against the military as the means of defence against foreign
aggression. He had always been “against compulsory military
training in every case and even under a national Govern¬
ment/3117 In the non-violent State he would completely
decentralize defence against aggression and injustice. Villages
and even individual citizens should be capable of defending

113 June 9, 1946, p. 169.

114 H., Dec. 14, 1947, p. 471.
115 r. /., I, pp. 641 and 1086; T. II, p. 924.
In the well-known interview that Gandhiji granted to journalists the day-
after the Gandhi-Irwin Truce, in answer to the question, if he envisaged the
possibility of doing away with a national army when Puma Swaraj was ob¬
tained, he remarked, “As a visionary, yes. But I do not think it is possible
for me to see it during my lifetime. It may take ages before the Indian nation
may accommodate itself to having no army at all. It is possible my want of
faith may account for this pessimism on my part. But I do not exclude such
a possibility.” He went on to add that mass-awakening and the adherence to
non-violence on the part of the people filled him with some hope that Indian
leaders would be courageous enough in the near future to say that they
could do without any army. And even though armies may linger on he
hoped that with due emphasis on non-violence they “may gradually be
reduced to spectacular things, just as toys, remnants of something that is
past and not as instruments of protection of the nation.” History of the
Congress, pp. 762-63.
116 H., Oct. 23, 1937, p. 308, article on “Civil Liberties”.
117 T. /., Sept. 24, 1925, quoted in For Pacifists, p. 48.
3i0 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE

their liberty against the whole world.113 He was, however, in

favour of a non-violent army.119
The police and che military are considered to be the limbs
cf law ;n the modern democracy. The satyagrahi State stands
for the amputation of these limbs, particularly the military. The
police, though retained, will be transformed. Even though
Gandhiji concedes coercion, it is well to remember that he
retains it in the background to be used when non-violent
methods cannot be employed, that he prefers the lesser violence
of reformatory punishment to the greater violence of crime and
lawlessness and that this coercion is not the inadequacy of non¬
violence but an evidence of human imperfection. A fully non¬
violent man would be incapable of using violence and would
have no use for it. His non-violence would suffice under all
conditions.120 While conceding minimum coercion, as an idealist
he insists “that the use of force is wrong in whatever degree and
under whatever circumstances5’.121 He refuses to drag the ideal
to the level of the actual, for this course, he believes, is the only
way to the highest attainment.
The State will also perform the judicial function, though
according to Gandhiji as much of judicial work as possible
should be transferred to panchayals, i.e., ad hoc arbitration
tribunals the personnel of which is usually determined by the
parties to the case. Gandhiji has an intimate personal knowledge
of the modern judicial system and its failings, having himself
practised as a barrister in South Africa and India. He is a severe
critic of the system and of lawyers and judges. The two are
“first cousins55 and much of what he says about lawyers also
applies to judges. “The legal system teaches immorality.. . .The
lawyers. . .as a rule, advance quarrels, instead of repressing
them. . .their interest exists in multiplying disputes.”122
According to him, they are not entitled to more fees than
labourers. As early as 1908 he discerned another great disservice
of lawyers to India. “Those who know anything of the Hindu-
Mohammedan quarrels know that they have been often due to

118 See p. 303, supra.

119 H., May 12, 1946, p. 128.
120 if., March 9, 1940, p. 31.
121 Hind Swaraj, p. 42.
mIbid.
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE 311
the intervention of lawyers.55125 Their worst crime was thru they
tightened the grip of the foreign Governrn-rnt. “Without
■v lawyers, courts could not have been established or conducted,
and without the latter the English could not rulef*123
As for courts, he holds that it is wrong to com icier that thev
are established for the benefit of the people. “Ths-e who want
to perpetuate their powder do so through the court*. If people
were to settle their owm quarrels, a third party would not be
able to exercise any authority over them.'5123 The object of the
court is thus the permanence of the authority of the Govern¬
ment which they represent.124 Besides, “the decision of a third
party is not always right. The parties alone know7 who is right.
We, in our simplicity and ignorance, imagine that a stranger,
by taking our money, gives us justice.5*'125 In so far as they sup¬
port the authority of an unrighteous Government the courts are
not “the palladium of a nation’s liberty55, but “crushing houses
to crush a nation’s spirit55.126
Much of Gandhiji’s criticism applies to the judicial system
in the modern State. Practically everywhere the proverbial
delays and uncertainties make litigation a kind of gambling.
Everywhere the measure of a lawyer’s ability is his capacity to
confuse the judge and twist the issue, i.e., to make the “worse
appear better reason55 to the benefit of his client. Everywhere
the judicial system favours the rich against the poor, the ruling
classes against the masses. The system also tends to diminish
respect for truth and tempts people to have recourse to perjury
in order not to lose the case.
According to Gandhiji, “administration of justice should be
cheapened. . . .Parties to civil suits must be compelled in the
majority of cases to refer their disputes to arbitration, the deci¬
sion of panchayats to be final except in cases of corruption or
obvious misapplication of law. Multiplicity of intermediate
courts should be avoided. Case law7 should be abolished and the
general procedure should be simplified.5'127 Lawyers may
remain, but must not claim any superiority7 for their profession.
123 Hind Swaraj, p. 43.
124 Y. I, p. 351. For similar views of H. J. Laski see his essay on
“Judicial Function” in The Dangers of Being a Gentleman.
125 Hind Swaraj, p. 43.
126 T. b p. 350.
127 r. II, p. 436.
312 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE

The true function of lawyers is to unite parties driven

asunder.123 Ideally lawyers must depend for their living on some
form of bread-labour and serve people free. The second best
course was that “all bhangis, doctors, lawyers, teachers, mer¬
chants and others would get the same wages for an honest day’s
work.”129
Thus Gandhiji would minimize the judicial work of the
State. In the new State crimes and disturbances will diminish.
People wall ordinarily avoid courts and settle their differences
by mutual compromise or private arbitration. In the few cases
that come before the law courts of the State justice will be
cheap, speedy and efficient.
The non-violent State will try to equalize the economic
condition of the people with a view to secure social justice and
economic freedom. To understand Gandhiji’s views on this
important function we may first briefly deal with the social and
economic structure of the non-violent State.
The socio-economic structure of the Stateless society and
the values in which it is rooted is the goal that the non-violent
State will try to approach according to the moral capacity of its
citizens. Before the non-violent State materializes, social equality
must have been established, untouchability must have dis¬
appeared, caste rigidity loosened and economic life simplified
and organized predominantly on the basis of handicrafts.
One important departure from the modified vama system of
the classless society may be that in addition to enough bread-
labour for primary needs people may earn more by additional
physical and intellectual labour. This partial observance of the
law of bread-labour may not be much of a difficulty in the non¬
violent State, for people will have taken to a life of simplicity.
As they will have mastered the technique of non-violent resis¬
tance, over-possession will be possible only to the trustee.130
“Absolute trusteeship is an abstraction like Euclid’s definition
of a point, and is equally unattainable. But if we strive for it, we
shall be able to go further in realizing a state of equality on earth
than by any other method.”131

128 Autobiography, I, p. 315.

129 H., March 23, 1947, p. 78.
130 For a detailed discussion of trusteeship see pp. 85-87, supra.
131 N. K. Bose, Studies in Gandhism,, p. 201.
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE 313
Due to the partial realization of the ideals of bread-labour
and trusteeship the non-violent State will be able to achieve
> only equitable distribution of wealth unlike the Stateless society
which will be characterized by equal distribution, or rather
equality of non-possession. In other words, economic inequality
will continue due to differences in the earning capacity of the
people. But the disparity will be kept within proper bounds: for
though people will continue to earn according to their capacity,
the bulk of this earning will be used for the good of the
community.
In the sphere of production the non-violent State will differ
from the Stateless society in that the indispensable large-scale
production as well as heavy transport may continue. Though,
non-violence can be built up only on the basis of self-contained
villages and cottage industries, to Gandhiji “The supreme consi¬
deration is man.35132 He does not believe in forcing the pace.
Centralized production and heavy transport are a hindrance
rather than a help to right living. But Gandhiji is conscious of
the difficulty that people feel in giving up the modern means of
communications as well as heavy machinery for the work of
public utility which cannot be undertaken by human labour.
Thus he would permit the use of steam and electricity after
people have “learnt to avoid industrialism55.133 By industrialism
Gandhiji means centralized production and the profit motive.
Even while permitting a certain minimum of centralized pro¬
duction he would take away its sting, i.e., the profit motive. But
the indispensable centralized production should be so planned
as to subserve and not ruin villages and their crafts.134
For the minimum centralized production he would permit
private ownership of the means of production if the capitalist
raises the worker to the status of co-proprietor of his wealth,
and both labour and capital work as mutual trustees and
trustees of consumers.135 But failing this he would accept State-
ownership. These nationalized State-owned factories, he said in
1924, “ought only to be working under the most attractive and
ideal conditions, not for profit, but for the benefit of humanity.

13~ T. L, II, p. 1029.

133 Ibid., p. 1187.
134 HJan. 27, 1940, p. 428.
135 r. Ill, p. 736.
314 THE NOX-VIOLENT STATE

• . .The saving of labour of the individual should be the object,

and honest humanitarian consideration and not greed the
mo rive/'136 In State-owned enterprises the workers should be
represented in the management through their elected represen¬
tatives and should have an equal share in the management
with the representatives of the Government. But so far as
possible he would avoid centralized production and the use of
big machinery because their dangers are incomparably greater
than their benefits.137 It should also be remembered that he is
against large-scale production of such elementary necessaries
as food and clothing. The means of producing these should
remain in the control of the masses and “should be freely
available as God’s air and water are or ought to be; they should
not be made a vehicle of traffic for the exploitation of others.”138
Even in this sphere of production so long as villages aim at
being self-contained and manufacture mainly for use, Gandhiji
has no objection to “villages using even the modem machines
and tools that they can make and afford to use. Only they should
not be used as a means of exploitation of others.”139 He would
permit “any machinery which does not deprive masses of men
of the opportunity to labour, but which helps the individual
and adds to his efficiency, and which a man can handle at will
without being its slave.”140 Similarly he is not against such
modem technical facilities as can be used in decentralized cot¬
tage industries. Thus if electricity could be available in villages,
he would not mind villagers plying their tools and implements
with the help of electricity. “But then the village communities

136 r. II, p. 1130.

137 “Mass-production through power-driven machinery,” Gandhiji
wrote in 1936, “even when State-owned, will be of no avail.” (77., Mav 16,
1936, p. 111). His views regarding dangers of big machinery are shared by
many Western thinkers. Summing up the case for and against machines
Stuart Chase comes to the conclusion that “machinery has so far brought more
misery than happiness into the world”. See his Men and Machines,
Chs. XVIII and XIX. In his well-known book. Technics and Civilization,
Lewis Mumford comes to the conclusion that maturity of social life will lead
to the unemployment of machines and the replacement of old machines by
smaller, faster, and more adaptable organisms adapted not to the mine,
the battlefield and the factory, but to the positive environment of life.
138 T. 7., Ill, p. 924.
 THE XON-YIOLEXT STATE 315
or the State would cv.iz power-houses just as they have
their grazing pastures.”141 Thus machines must not c'.dcl to our
ignorance. They must be such as can be understood by the vil¬
lage people and made and owned by them either individually
or co-operatively. Such machines will not enslave man but be
his instruments. They will lead neithw to the concentration of
economic power ncr to exploitation and unemployment of the
masses.
In regard to the zamindari system Gandhiji would fall back
upon legislative confiscation only if zzmiidars failed to work as
trustees of peasants and to remove the inequality between them¬
selves and their peasants. He believes that “No man should
have more land than he needs for his dignified sustenance” and
is in favour of co-operative farming and collective cattle¬
farming.142
In short, in regard to the means of producing the prime
necessaries of life he stands for decentralization and democratic
control by individuals or voluntary organizations. As regards
the unavoidable centralized production, he prefers private
O’wnership to State-ownership, provided private owners act as
trustees either voluntarily or through persuasion by non-violent
non-co-operation. This preference is due to the fear of the State
using too much of violence. But if owners fail to act as trustees,
he would support a minimum of State-ownership with or with¬
out confiscation as the case may demand. But the Scats should
deprive the people cf their property when unavoidable with the
minimum exercise of violence.143
The socio-economic structure of the non-vicient State
brings out the importance of the role the State will play in eco¬
nomic life in order to ensure social justice, to bring about
economic self-sufficiency and to equalize the economic condition
of the people. The State will promote small-scale industries. It
will control forests, minerals, power resources and communica¬
tions in the interests of the people. The State will regulate the
rate of commission to be paid to the trustees for looking after,
in the interest of the community, the wealth accumulated by

141 H., June 22, 1935, p. 146.

142 H.y April 20, 1940, p. 97; Feb. 15, 1942, p. 39.
143 N. K. Bose, Studies in Gandhism, p. 202.
316 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE

them. The State will also finalize the arrangements made bv

the original trustee regarding his successor. Landlords and
capitalists may fail to live up to the ideal of trusteeship and
voluntary efforts of the people may be unavailing. In such a
case the State will end the various systems of landlordism and
own and manage, jointly with the representatives of the wor¬
kers, the unavoidable centralized production.144 For this purpose
the State may have to resort to confiscation with the minimum
violence.
Though Gandhiji gives to the State the duty of equalizing
economic condition even by confiscation, it seems to be a half¬
hearted concession. For he expresses his distrust of State action
and his preference of trusteeship, and of ownership by small
units like village communities. He even considers the violence
of private ownership as less injurious than the violence of the
State.145 In any case once the non-violent State is firmly esta¬
blished and necessary adjustments made in the socio-economic
structure, economic life will become increasingly self-regulated
and the need of State regulation will gradually diminish.
Gandhiji also advocates the revision of the revenue system
so as to make the poor man’s good the primary concern of the
State. “All taxation to be healthy must return ten-fold to the
tax-payer in the form of necessary services.”146 It must not fall
like a dead weight on those who are least able to bear it. He is
in favour of heavy death duties and raising the maximum limit
of taxation of riches beyond a certain margin.147 Nor must the
State make people pay for their own corruption, moral, mental
and physical. The non-violent State will have nothing to do, un¬
like the modern democratic State, with the income derived from
vices.148 It will withdraw the protection of the law that gambling
on the race course enjoys today and will forgo the income from
this source. Similarly Gandhiji is against the State legalizing
brothels by issuing licences.148 The proper method to deal with
gambling houses and brothels is propaganda by the State as

144 H., April 20, 1940, p. 97.

145 #•, June 22, 1935, p. 146,* N. K. Bose, cited above, p. 203.
146 JET., July 31, 1937, p. 196.
147 Ibid., p. 197.
148 H.s Sept. 4, 1937, p. 234.
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE 317
well as voluntary organizations for educating public opinion in
the right direction so as to stop the vices.149
On the basis of these moral considerations the non-violent
State will completely wipe out the revenue from drink and drug
traffic. As a means of conserving the moral and material welfare
of the country’ prohibition of intoxicants has been for thirty
years one of the chief items of the constructive programme of
Gandhiji. In 1937 when the Congress ministries came into office
in the provinces Gandhiji expounded his plan of complete
prohibition within three years.150 But in this as in other matters
Gandhiji laid as much stress on voluntary’ effort as on State
action. Imposing prohibition by law, i.e., closing down of drink
and drug shops and thus removing the open temptation is
merely the negative part of prohibition, the positive part being
“a type of adult education of the nation55, i.e., active systematic
propaganda by voluntary7 organizations with the object of
weaning the addicts. Propaganda also includes absolutely peace¬
ful, silent and educative picketing and intimate personal
contact with addicts.151
There has been a good deal of criticism that complete prohi¬
bition may not be practicable, may give rise to illicit traffic and
will, due to great loss of revenue, result in the starving of edu¬
cation and other necessary social services. Gandhiji concedes
that some illicit distillation may continue but so may thieving,
and he wrould not on that account license either. To him man
rather than money is the primary consideration. Rather than
use the tainted money he would cut out the education budget,
making education self-sufficing, effect oiher economies, tap
other sources of revenue and even raise short-term loans.152
Besides, economically also the nation will not be a loser. For the
removal of this degrading tax enables the drinker, i.e., the tax¬
payer, to save his drink-bill and to earn and spend better which
means a tremendous economic gain to the nation. Moreover, it
is impossible to compute in terms of money the enormous moral.

149 H.9 Sept. 4, 1937, pp. 234-35.

150 The Congress ministries in various States of the Indian Union have
adopted the policy of enforcing prohibition within a period of years. Some of
the States are experimenting with total prohibition.
151 H., July 31, 1937, p. 196 and Oct. 9, 1937, p. 291.
152 H., August 28, 1937, p. 229.
SIS Ti-iz XON-VIOLEMT STATE

mental and physical advantages that will accrue from

prohibit: cn.
As regards taxes, Candhiji would prefer payment in labour
to payment in coin. “Payment in labour invigerares the nation.
Where people perform labour voluntarily for the service of
society, exchange cf money becomes unnecessary. The labour
of collecting the taxes and keeping accounts is saved and the
results are equally good/’153 Payment in kind also implies the
use of taxes for the benefit of the area from which they are
gathered.
Another important duty of the State would be the education
of the young. Gandhiji attached great importance to education
as a means of social regeneration and would make education
free and compulsory during the primary stage from the age of
7 to 14. He drew up a new plan of self-supporting primary edu¬
cation. This plan of basic education sprang out of non-violence
and aims at rearing the younger generation on non-violent
values with a view to their all-round development and at
evolving the new non-violent democratic social order. It is ‘basic5
because it stands for the art of living.154 Under basic education
children learn through living.
The central feature of the new plan is education of the child
through a useful productive craft, the application of the ideal of
bread-labour to education and the recognition of the child’s
natural love for activity. The medium of instruction should be
the mother-tongue and the education of all other subjects should
be integrally related to the productive craft. According to
Gandhiji, literacy is not the end but only one of the means of
education. An intelligent use of the bodily organs of a child
provides the best and quickest way of developing his intellect.
But this is a lopsided affair unless the development of the mind
and body goes hand in hand with a corresponding awakening
of the soul. Training in a useful handicraft, when it is made the
centre of education, establishes a purposive relationship bet¬
ween doing, learning, and living and brings about the
harmonious development of the body, mind and soul.
The handicraft should be taught not mechanically but
scientifically, i.e., the child should know the why and the
153 H., March 25, 1939, p. 65.
154 H., May 11, 1947, p. 145.
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE 319
wherefore of every process. Thing: produced in schools should be
marketable articles. Tnus both the teacher and the pupil pro¬
duce in the very act of teaching and learning.155
The syllabus effects a new orientation of subjects so cs to
eliminate narrow, exclusive, competitive nationalism and to
emphasize the ideal of a united world. Thus the syllabus sets
Indian history and Indian geography against a background of
world history with special reference to social and cultural deve¬
lopment of man and world geography with special reference to
economic geography. Similarly the syllabus provides for the
study of fundamental universal ethics.
Though schools will thus be almost self-supporting, the
children earning their tuition by wThat they produce, the State
will have an important function to perform concerning edu¬
cation. It will compel guardians to put their wards to school. It
will be responsible for supervision, co-ordination and guidance
of schools. It will take over the manufactures of these schools
and find market for them. “Land, buildings and equipment are
not intended to be covered by the proceeds of the pupil’s
labour,”156 and the State or local bodies will have to bear these
expenses. The cost of education can be appreciably brought
down by compulsory enlistment of the service of the youth for
a year or longer before they begin their career. They may be paid
a salary not exceeding their maintenance on a scale in keeping
with the economic level of the country.157
According to Gandhiji self-sufficiency is the acid test of
basic education. “This does not mean that basic education will
be self-supporting from the very start. But taking the entire
period of seven years, covered by the basic education plan, in¬
come and expenditure must balance each other. Otherwise, it
would mean that even at the end of their training, the basic
education students will not be fitted for life. That is the negation
of basic education. Nai Talim without the self-supporting basis
would, therefore, be like a lifeless body.”158 In 1945 he said, “My
Nai Talim is not dependent on money. The running expenses

155 h.. May 8, 1937, p. 104; Sept. 11, 1937, pp. 246 and 256; Oct. 9,
1937, pp. 291-92; July 31, 1937, p. 197.
156 if., Oct. 30, 1937, p. 321.
157 H., July 31, 1937, p. 198 and Oct. 30, 1937, p. 324.
158 if., Aug. 25, 1946, p. 283.
320 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE

of this education should come from the educational process it¬

self. Whatever the criticisms may be, I know that the only edu¬
cation is that which is ‘self-supporting5.55158 Attempts are being
made in some of the basic schools to work out the self-sufficiency
aspect of the scheme.159
The self-supporting aspect of Gandhiji’s plan has been
subjected to severe criticism. In his scheme, however, economic
efficiency and educational efficiency coincide. If some schools
fall short of the self-sufficiency standard—in the beginning
many may—they will at least keep an eye on economic effi¬
ciency. That will add to the scanty resources of a poor country
like India and is the only practical way to universalize
education.
A more serious objection to the plan is the large measure
of socialization of industry that the scheme may involve, the
State being required to market the produce of all persons at least
up to the age of fourteen. But Gandhiji would in all likelihood
decentralize the work and shift the responsibility to local bodies.
Besides, it is also to be borne in mind that it is socialization
tacked to handicrafts and not to centralized production. Basic
education extending over seven years would equip boys and girls
to earn their living, while participation in the day-to-day life of
the school will train them up for citizenship in a non-violent demo¬
cratic society.
The new plan should not clash with the interests of arti¬
sans. For one thing, education, instead of turning their children
into drones, will enable them to eke out the scanty resources
of the parents. It will also exalt the status of the artisan in
society by recognizing labour as a moral force and build a bridge
between theory and practice, industry and letters, artisan and
student.
Politically the new education is of great significance “as
the spearhead of a silent social revolution55. In Gandhiji’s words,
<cIt will provide a healthy and moral basis of relationship bet¬
ween the city and the village and thus go a long way towards
eradicating some of the worst evils of the present social

During the year 1945-46 in the basic school at Sevagram the pay of
the teachers could be met from the income from the work of children in
spinning, weaving and gardening. HMarch 2, 1947, p. 48.
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE 321
insecurity and poisoned relationship between the classes. It will
check the progressive decay of our villages and lav the foundation
» of a juster social order in which there is no unnatural division bet¬
ween the ‘haves3 and the ‘have-nots3 and everybody is assured
of a living wage and the right of freedom. And ah this would
be accomplished without the horrors of a bloody class war or a
colossal capital expenditure such as would be involved in the
mechanization of a vast continent like India. Nor would it entail
a helpless dependence on foreign imported machinery or techni¬
cal skill. Lastly, by obviating the necessity for highly specia¬
lized talent, it would place the destiny of the masses, as it were,
in their own hands.33160 In short, the new plan is an invaluable
step towards a self-supporting, non-violent, democratic social
order, free alike of exploitation and social or class hatreds.361
In 1944 Gandhiji suggested that the scope of basic educa¬
tion should be extended and that it should become 4 dice rally
education for life33. Thus it should include pre-basic, post-basic
and adult education. It should extend from the moment a child
is conceived to the moment of death. Now the object of the
Hindustani Talimi Sangh, which had been confining itself to
primary education, is to work out the programme of national
education for life through manual activity and handicrafts.
According to Gandhiji, education at all stages should be self-
supporting, that is to say, in the end it should pay its expenses
except the capital which should remain intact. Education at
all stages should be imparted through the medium of the provin¬
cial language and should find its way to the homes of the
students.
Gandhiji considered the present university education to be
unsuited to the real requirements of the country. The vast
amount of the so-called education in arts was sheer waste. It
destroyed the mental and physical he alt a of the students and led
to unemployment. It did not fit people for independence but
only enslaved them. It should be remodelled and brought into

160 h., Oct. 9, 1937, p. 293.

161 The plan of basic education has been accepted by the Union and State
Governments in India and is being worked out in the States of India. But
the plan as worked out in States is mostly craft-biased and net crafc-hased.
Unlike GandhijTs plan, it does not make some basic productive craft the
medium of education. It also ignores the principle of self-sufficiency.

P. G.-21
322 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE

line with the basic education. The aim of university education

should he to turn out true servants of the people who would
live and die for the country’s freedom.
According to Gandhiji, the State should pay for higher edu¬
cation when it has definite use for it. It should educate only
those whose services it would need. The rest of the higher edu¬
cation should be left to private enterprise.
The responsibility for maintaining engineering, vocational
and commercial colleges should be thrown on business and
industrial concerns. Arts, agriculture and medical colleges
should either be self-supporting or depend on voluntary
contributions. The State universities should be purely
examining bodies, self-supporting through the fees charged in
examinations.162
Thus in regard to the functions of the State, though
Gandhiji stands for the ‘least government’ and the minimum
use of coercion, he is no doctrinaire. He supports confiscation
of property under certain conditions and favours compulsory
service for universal education, compulsory education, compul¬
sory prohibition and the nationalization of the essential
centralized production. This compulsion is a sign of the inade¬
quacy of non-violence as evolved by the people to deal with
problems demanding immediate solution. Gandhiji provides
ample safeguards against too much of compulsion or violence
being used by the State. These are decentralization, importance
of voluntary associations, the democratic structure of the State,
and a strong tradition of non-violent resistance.
The ‘least government’ of Gandhiji is not identical with the
negative police functions. The non-violent State is not a mere
Polizeistaat. The police and the military will be least in evi¬
dence in the non-violent State. Besides, to advance the welfare
of the people Gandhiji favours some functions of a socialistic or
even communistic nature—functions in which State action is
likely to be much more conducive to the welfare of the people
than voluntary action. But if Gandhiji is not an individualist of
the laissez-faire type, he is not a socialist or a communist either,
for he believes in non-violent means, in a handicraft civiliza¬
tion, simplification of life and decentralization.
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE 323
Hie non-violent State will not be able to achieve as srreat
. a measure of decentralization as the Staleless society. This
difference between the two is due to the fact that the people
of the non-violent State wifi have capacity only for oartial
cultivation of non-violence, non-possession, and bread-labour.
Over-possession and the minimum of large-scale production will
continue, though the former wall go with trusteeship, while the
latter will be democratically managed and will subserve rural
decentralized economy. But even in the non-violent State the
emphasis will be on small groups, voluntary organizations and
moral control, though the State will continue to perform its
limited functions with the minimum of coercion.
One important safeguard against the misuse of authority is
the system of rights. Gandhiji, however, attaches far greater
importance to duties than to rights. Rights are the opportunity
for self-realization. The way to self-realization is the realization
of one’s spiritual unity with others by serving them and doing
one’s duty by them. Thus every right is the right to do
one’s duty. To quote Gandhiji . .the right to perform
one’s duties is the only right that is worth Jiving for and dying
for. It covers all legitimate rights.”163 Further, if a right is
demanded or recognized without the claimant possessing the
capacity to perform the corresponding duty, the purpose of the
right is not attained and the right cannot be sustained. Gandhiji
relates his experience thus, “As a young man I began life by
seeking to assert my rights, and I soon discovered I had none
—not even over my wife. So I began discovering and performing
my duty by my wife, my children, friends, companions and
society, and I find today that I have greater rights, perhaps,
than any living man I know. If this is too tall a claim, then I say
I do not know any one who possesses greater rights than I.”164
According to him, in most of the democratic States the right to
vote has proved a burden to the people because it has been
obtained by the use of physical force or its threat and not by
acquiring any fitness for it.165

May 27, 1939, p. 143.

164 Gandhiji’s reply to Mr. H. G. Wells’s cable on the Rights of Man.
H., Oct. 13, 1940, p. 320.
165 Hind Swaraj, p. 61.
324 THE NON-VTOLENT STATE

If one acquires the capacity to perform a duty, the

corresponding right must inevitably follow. The greatest duty is,
self-realization, i.e., cultivation of non-violent values or acquiring
individual self-government. Thus according to Gandhiji, “we
will become free only through self-suffering.”166 “There is no
du'iy but creates a corresponding right, and those only are true
rights which flow from a due performance of one’s duty. Hence
rights of true citizenship accrue only to those who serve the
State to which they belong. And they alone can do justice to
the rights that accrue to them. . .to him who observes truth and
ncn-violence comes prestige and prestige brings rights. And
people who obtain rights as a result of performance of duty
exercise them only for the service of society, never for them¬
selves. Swaraj of a people means the sum total of swaraj (self-
rule) of individuals. And such swaraj comes only from perfor¬
mance by individuals of their duty as citizens. In it no one
thinks of his rights. They come, when they are needed, for
better performance of duty.”167 In his address to the Kathiawad
Political Conference (1925), he remarked, “The true source of
right is duty. . .if we all discharge our duties, rights will not
be far to seek. If leaving duties unperformed we run after rights,
trey will escape us like a will-o’-the-wisp. The more we pursue
them the further they will fly. The same teaching has been em¬
bodied by Krishna in the immortal words: ‘Action alone is thine.
Leave thou the fruit severely alone.’ Action is the duty; fruit
is the right.”168
Gandhiji, as the above extracts bring out, uses the term
right not only with reference to the State, but in a wider sense,
with reference to any and every aspect of social life. Once at
least, it may be pointed out, he used the term in the sense of
physical power. The relevant passage is: “Every one possesses
the right to tell lies or resort to goondaism. But the exercise of
such a right is harmful both to the exerciser and the society.”169
Generally, however, he uses the term in the sense of freedom of
action essential for the individual’s self-realization.

166 Hind Swaraj, p. 94.

167 H., March 25, 1939, p. 64.
168 r. L, II, p. 479.
169 H.. March 25. 1939. n. 64.
 THE XON-VIOLENT STATE 325
Rights are created, not by the State or any other group, but
by the individual himself as he develops fitness for the right by
pursuit of truth and non-violence. The State and groups only
recognize rights. The more non-violent a State is the greater
will be the scope for individual freedom. According to Gandhiji.
the natural corollary to the use of untruthful and violent means
“would be to remove all opposition through the suppression or
extermination of the antagonists. That does not make for indi¬
vidual freedom. Individual freedom can have the fullest play
only under a regime of unadulterated ahimsa”m Gandhijrs
theory of rights implies that the rights of different individuals
may differ according to their moral capacities, i.e., the level of
non-violence acquired by them.171 Every right has not only the
corresponding duty by performing which the right accrues but
also a remedy for resisting an attack upon the right. That
remedy is non-violent non-co-operation.172
The great advantage of his theory of rights is that it lays
emphasis on social service rather than on the self-regarding
propensities of the individual. As Gandhiji writes, “people who
obtain rights as a result of performance of duty, exercise them
only for the service of society, never for themselves.55173 His
theory also lays stress on self-help and teaches us to overcome
the adverse circumstances and to blame ourselves and not others
in case we do not possess rights. Further, people who have
realized the importance of duties are not likely to abuse their
rights and exploit others.
Though the non-violent State will be free and equal in
status to other States, satyagrahi nationalism is not exclusive,
aggressive or destructive. On the other hand it is constructive
and humanitarian.174 One reason why it is constructive is that
the means that it employs to fulfil itself is non-violence, the

17°if., May 27, 1939, p. 143.

171 Cf. “The rights which different individuals may properly claim must
vary according to their several ethical dispositions and capacities. Thus the
man who by his striving has built up for himself an upright character has
the right to demand from his fellow men a respect to which his less honest
neighbour can make no proper claim.” W. W. Willoughby, The Ethical Basis
of Political Authority, pp. 246-47.
17^ r. March 26, 1937, p. 49.
173 if., March 25, 1939, p. 64.
174 r. I, p. 673.
326 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE

method of conversion and not of coercion. Besides, it is inspired

by the ideal of world unity rooted in the highest truth, the
soiritual oneness of mankind and stands for a country learning ,
to live not by exploiting others but by serving others and dying
for others. As such, non-violent nationalism is the essential pre¬
condition of sound internationalism. Thus Gandhiji wrote in
1925, . .it is impossible for one to be an internationalist with¬
out being a nationalist. . . .It is not nationalism that is an evil,
it is the narrowness, selfishness, exclusiveness which is the bane
of modern nations which is evil. . . .Indian nationalism. . .
wants to organize itself or to find full self-expression for the
benefit and service of humanity at large/5175 Again, “We want
freedom for our country but not at the expense or exploitation
of others. . . J want the freedom of my country so that other
countries may learn something from my free country, so that
the resources of my country might be utilized for the benefit of
mankind. Just as the cult of patriotism teaches us today that
the individual has to die for the family, the family has to die
for the village, the village for the district, the district for the
province, and the province for the country, even so a country
has to be free in order that it may die, if necessary, for the bene¬
fit of the world. . . .My idea of nationalism is that my country
may die so that the human race may live. There is no room for
race-hatred there.5’176
Indeed this fulfilment of nationalism through truth and
non-violence is in itself the greatest service to mankind. It
should deliver the subject races from the crushing heels of
imperialist powers. Says Gandhiji, “Through the deliverance of
India, I seek to deliver the so-called weaker races of the earth
from the crushing heels of Western exploitation. . . .India’s
coming to her own will mean every nation doing likewise,5’177
“. . .tiie adoption of non-violence to the utmost extent possible
(by the National Government). . .mil be India’s great contribu¬
tion to the peace of the world and the establishment of a new
world order.”178

175 r. II, p. 1292.

176 Mahadev Desai, Gandhiji in Indian Villages, p. 170.
177 r. Ill, pp. 548-49.
178 if., June 21, 1942, p. 197.
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE 327

Non-violent nationalism is a corollary’ to the doctrine of

Swadeshi which lays down that ore's countrymen are one’s
nearest neighbours and have the first cirini upon cue’s
service.179 Non-viclent nationalism is thus essentially ethical
a,nd only incidentally political. It is a mere means and not an
end, a means not only of securing the welfare of a people but
also of serving humanity and advancing “the urea test good of
all”.
By national freedom Gandhiji does not mean absolute
independence which is inconsistent with progressive inter¬
nationalism. To quote him, “My notion of Puma Swaraj is not
isolated independence but healthy and dignified inter-depen¬
dence.”180 “The better mind of the world desires today not abso¬
lutely independent States warring one against another but a
federation of friendly inter-dependent States.”181 According to
him, the only condition on which the world can live is being
united under one central governing body composed of represen¬
tatives of the component parts.182
The international organization should be freely established
and maintained by non-violence which can solve all the pro¬
blems of the world. In 1931 speaking at Geneva about the
League of Nations he remarked, “It (the League^ is expected
to replace war, and by its own power, to arbitrate between
nations who might have differences amongst themselves. But it
has always seemed to me that the League lacks the necessary
sanctions. . . .1 venture to suggest to you that the means we
have adopted in India supply the necessary sanction not only to
a body like the League of Nations, but to any voluntary body or
association that would take up this great cause of the peace of
the world.”183 A non-violent world organization requires the
giving up of armaments and of the use of force to defend even
proved rights. “Proved rights should be capable of being vindi¬
cated by right means as against the rude, i.e., sanguinary
179 See above, pp. 92-97.
180 2". March 26, 1931.
181 Y. II, p. 438. Interdependence is, according to him, as much the
ideal of man as self-sufficiency, for man is a social being and his social inter¬
dependence enables him to suppress his egotism and to realize his oneness
with the universe.
182 H., June 8, 1947, p. 184.
183 Quoted in B. Sharga, Gandhi, pp. 389-90.
328 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE

means.5'184 For controlling violent outbreaks between States he

mav welcome an international non-violent police force
resembling peace-brigades or the police force of the non-vio- '
lent State. Before general disarmament commences, “Some
nation will have to dare to disarm herself and take large risks.
The level of non-violence in that nation. . .will naturally have
risen so high as to command universal respect. Her judgments
will be unerring, her decisions will be firm, her capacity for
heroic self-sacrifice will be great and she will want to live as
much for other nations as for herself.55185
The world order and disarmament rule out imperialism.
“There will be an international League only when all the
nations, big or small, composing it are fully independent. . . .In
a society based on non-violence the smallest nation will feel as
tall as the tallest. The idea of superiority and inferiority will be
wholly obliterated.55186 Gandhiji thus stands for the establish¬
ment of just political and economic international relations and
the ending of the domination of one State over another. For
the elimination of imperialism it was necessary for great nations
to shed competition and the desire to multiply wants and
material possessions.187
The new world order will take time to evolve. Meanwhile
there may be cases of international -injustice and aggression.
Aggression against a non-violent State will be unlikely and it
will be easy for it to defend itself non-violently. The democratic
socio-economic structure of the non-violent State being rooted
in justice and equality, there will be no internal struggle for
economic power which leads to imperialism or revolution.188
Non-violence inside the State will also manifest itself in the
foreign policy of the State. The non-violent Indian State, when
it comes into existence, will endeavour “to live on the friendliest

184 H., Oct. 14, 1939, p. 301. Gandhiji, is against an “armed peace im¬
posed upon the forcibly disarmed”. According to him the retention of an
international police force is by no means an emblem of peace. Shedding of
belief in war and violence is essential to the establishment of real peace based
on freedom and equality of all races and nations. Gandhiji3s statement on
the San Fransisco Conference, April 17, 1945.
185 r. II, p. 863.
186 H., Feb. 11, 1939, p. 8 and i£, Oct. 14, 1939, p. 301.
187 H., May 16, 1936, p. 109.
188 H. J. Laski, Nationalism and the Future of Civilization, p. 50.
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE 32S
terms with its neighbours, whether they be great powers or
small nations, and shall cover no foreign territory'/5189 As
pointed out earlier, the non-violent State will share its material
and moral resources with people across its boundaries.193 Nei¬
ther exploiting, nor being exploited, it will be at peace with the
rest of the world. It will work for total disarmament and for the
establishment of a non-violent international order. Its non-vio¬
lence will command universal respect and arouse the goodwill
of the neighbours. For its defence it will rely on the goodwill
of the whole world.191
Even if the non-violent State is a victim of aggression non¬
violent defence would be an easy affair. The satyagrahi method
of resistance evolved by Gandhiji to win freedom will be appli¬
cable, with necessary modifications, against foreign aggression
also. In the words of Gandhiji, “A non-violent man or society
does not anticipate or provide for attacks from without. On the
contrary, such a person or society firmly believes that nobody
is going to disturb them. If the worst happens, ehere are two
ways open to non-violence. To yield possession but non-co-
operate with the aggressor. Thus supposing that a modern edi¬
tion of Nero descended upon India, the representatives of the
State will let him in but tell him that he will get no assistance
from the people. They will prefer death to submission. The
second way will be non-violent resistance by a people wrho have
been trained in the non-violent wrav. They w7ould offer them¬
selves unarmed as fodder for the aggressor’s cannon. The under¬
lying belief in either case is that even a Nero is not devoid of a
heart. The unexpected spectacle of endless rows upon rowTs of
men and women simply dying rather than surrender to the -will
of an aggressor must ultimately melt him and Ins soldiery.55192
Thus the satyagrahi State may have a non-violent army.193

139 H.3 April 20, 1940, p. 96, “Jai Prakash’s Picture89.

190 See pp. 93-94 supra.
191 H., Feb. 10, 1940, p. 441.
192 H.} April 13, 1940, p. 90.
193 Referring to the training and discipline for a non-violent army
Gandhiji wrote in 1946, “A very small pari of the preliminary training
received by the military is common to the non-violent army. These are disci¬
pline, drill, singing in chorus, flag hoisting, signalling and the like. Even
this is not absolutely necessary and the basis is different. The positively
necessary training for a non-violent army is an immovable faith in God,
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE
330
According to Gandhiji, there is no place in non-violent resis¬
tance for the technique of ‘scorched earth’ adopted to circumvent
the enemy and hamper his march. As a war resister he sees "
neither bravery nor sacrifice in destroying life or property.
“There is no bravery in my poisoning my well or filling it in
so that my brother who is at war with me may not use the
water. . . .Nor is there sacrifice in it, for it does not purify me,
and sacrifice, as its root meaning implies, presupposes purity.”
Laws of war in olden times did not permit poisoning of wells
and destroying of food crops. Whenever possible the non-violent
resisters would stand between the crops and the aggressors so
that the latter cannot help themselves to the crops so long as a
single resister is living. Even if the resisters decide to retreat
in an orderly manner in the hope of later resisting under other
and better auspices, Gandhiji favours non-destruction of food-
crops and the like. He sees reason, sacrifice and bravery in
leaving property intact, if the non-violent resister does so not
out of fear but because he refuses to regard any one as his enemy
—i.e., out of a humanitarian motive. Non-destruction involves
bravery because the resister deliberately runs the risk of the
enemy feeding himself at the former’s expense and pursuing
him, and sacrifice because the sentiment of leaving something
for the enemy purifies and ennobles the resister.194
The question has sometimes been posed to Gandhiji as to
how satyagraha could avail against aerial warfare in which
there are no personal contacts. The person who rains death from
above has never any chance of even knowing whom and how
many he has killed. Gandhiji’s reply is that “behind the death¬
dealing bomb there is the human hand that releases it, and
behind that still, is the human heart that sets the hand
in motion. And at the back of the policy of terrorism is the
assumption that terrorism if applied in a sufficient measure will
produce the desired result, namely, bend the adversary to the
tyrant’s will. But supposing a people make up their mind that
they will never do the tyrant’s will, nor retaliate with the

willing and perfect obedience to the chief of the non-violent army and per¬
fect inward and outward co-operation between the units of the army.” H.,
May 12, 1946, p. 128.
194 H., March 22, 1942, p. 88; April 12, 1942, p. 109; April 19, 1942,
pp. 121-22; and May 3, 1942, p. 140.
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE 331
tyrant's own methods, the tyrant "will not find it worth his while
to go on with his terrorism. If sufficient food is given to the
^ tvrant, a time will come when he will have had more than
surfeit.”1*
In one of the last interviews given by him, Gandhiji was
asked, how he would use non-violence against the atom bomb.
His reply was, “I would meet it by prayerful action. . . .1 would
come out in the open and let the pilot see that I had not the face
of evil against him. The pilot would not see my face at such a
height, I know. But the longing in our heart that he will not
come to harm will reach up to him and his eyes would be opened.
Of those thousands who were done to death in Hiroshima by the
bombs—if they had died with that prayerful action, died openly
with prayer in their hearts without uttering a groan, then the
w^ar would not have ended as disgracefully as it has/5196
But if people are to die non-violently rather than submit to
the aggressor, who will live, it may be asked, to enjoy freedom?
According to Gandhiji, “The soldier who fights never expects
to enjoy the fruits of victory* (in violent combat). But in the case
of non-violence, everybody seems to start with the assumption
that the non-violent method must be set down as a failwe unless
he himself at least lives to enjoy the success thereof. This is both
illogical and invidious. In satyagraha more than in armed war¬
fare, it may be said that wre find life by losing it.5?197
If the victim of aggression is a non-violent country reared
on a civilization based on cottage industries, the country will
lose much less and will far more effectively resist such aggres¬
sion than if she is dependent on a factory civilization. The
enemy will gain nothing out of destroying the cottage crafts and
the devastated country trill take little time to recover. Writes
Gandhiji, “Even if Hitler wTas so minded, he could not devastate
seven hundred thousand non-violent villages. He vrould himself
become non-violent in the process.5’198 Thus the self-supporting
non-violent State will be proof against temptations and

195 H., Dec. 24, 1938, p. 394.

196 Margaret Bourke-White, Halfway to Freedom, p. 323.
™ H., July 28, 1940, p. 228.
H., Nov. 4, 1939, p. 331.
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE
332
exploitation. “Her internal economy will be the strongest
bulwark against aggression.”199
According to Gandhiji, . .the weakest State can render -
itself immune from attack if it learns the art of non-violence.
But a small State, no matter how powerfully armed it is, cannot
exist in the midst of a powerful combination of well-armed
States. It has to be absorbed by or be under the protection of one
of the members of such a combination.”200
It may perhaps be long before any State can mould itself
according to the principle of non-violence. Gandhiji prescribes
non-violent resistance even to the States which have so far
depended on violence as the means of defence. But a State can
use the non-violent technique only if it cleanses its hands of all
ill-gotten gains, territorial or otherwise.
His prescription to the Abyssinians, the Czechs, the Poles,
the English and other victims of aggression was to refuse to
fight and yet to refuse to yield to the usurper.201 Refusal to
yield means not to bow to the supremacy of the victor and not
to help him to attain his object.202 Thus concerning China he
once remarked, “If the Chinese had non-violence of my concep¬
tion, there would be no use left for the latest machinery of
destruction which Japan possesses. The Chinese would say to
Japan, ‘Bring all your machinery, we present half of our popu¬
lation to you. But the remaining two hundred millions won’t
bend their knee to you.’ If the Chinese did that, Japan would
become China’s slave.”203 It was essential to non-violent resis¬
tance, he wrote later, that the Chinese must develop love for
the Japanese in their hearts, not by remembering their virtues,
but in spite of their misdeeds.
When their country was at war, Gandhiji expected the paci¬
fists to do nothing to weaken their own Government so as to
compel defeat. “But for fear of so doing they may not miss the
only effective chance they have of demonstrating their undying
faith in the futility of all war. . . .This means that they put their
conscience and truth before their country’s so-called interest.

199 T. L, July 2, 1931.

200 H., Oct. 7, 1939, p. 293.
201 See his appeal “To Every Briton”, H., July 6, 1940, pp. 185-86.
202 H., Aug. 18, 1940, p. 254.
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE 333

For, regard for one’s conscience, if it is really such, has never

yet injured any legitimate cause or interest.5’204 The pacifists
should not wish success either to their own country or to the
enemy, but pray that the right should prevail. For, “It is very
difficult to judge when both sides are employing weapons of
violence which side deserves to succeed.”205* 'Whilst keeping
themselves aloof from violence they should not shirk danger
but serve friend and foe alike with a reckless disregard dor their
life.206
A non-viclent neutral country should no: allow an cvmy
to devastate a neighbouring country. It should refuse passage
to the invading army by refusing all supplies. It should also
present to the invader a living wall of men, women, and children
and invite the invaders to walk ever their corpses. The invading
army, it may be said, would be brutal enough to walk over dtc
non-violent resisters. But the latter shall have done their duty
by allowing themselves to be annihilated. Besides, 5iA:i army
that docs pass over the corpses of innocent men and women
wrould not be able to repeat the experiment.” Gandhiji also
favours the economic boycott of the aggressor nation by neutral
States.207
It is the duty of the neutral State to extend this moral sym¬
pathy and non-violent support to the \ictim of international
aggression, even if the latter chooses to put up violent resis¬
tance. Gandhiji distinguishes between aggressive and defensive
violence and wishes the latter success, though he also wishes

204 H., April 15, 1939, pp. 89-90.

205 H., Jan. 28, 1939, p. 442.
206 Ibid.
207 In answer to a question by some Chinese visitors as to what the
prospects of a boycott of Japanese goods by India were, Gandhiji replied,
“I wish I could say that there was any great hope. Our sympathies are
with you, but they have not stirred us to our depths, or else we should
have boycotted all Japanese goods, especially Japanese cloth. . . .Japan is
not only conquering you but it is trying to conquer us too by its cheap
flimsy machine-made goods. . .we too are a big nation like you. If we told
the Japanese, we are not going to import a single yard of your calico nor
export any of our cotton to you, Japan would think twice before proceeding
with its aggression.” Though in this passage Gandhiji has also in mind the
economic aspect of swadeshi, he obviously stresses the economic boycott
as a form of non-co-operation with the aggressor. H.} Jan. 28, 1939, p. 441.
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE
334
that resistance should have been non-violent.208 If a victim is
caoable of uttermost bravery and selflessness and fights vio¬
lently an unequal battle against an aggressor incomparabiy
superior in strength, Gandhiji would consider that violence al¬
most as non-violence; for when there is no premeditated vio¬
lence and when there is no capacity for proportionate violence,
violent resistance means “refusal to bend before overwhelming
might in the full knowledge that it means certain death.” The
Polish resistance of 1939 is an instance of this kind.209
Undoubtedly if all other States could unitedly offer against
the aggressor State moral resistance, war and aggression would
be wiped out, but this can be possible only if the moral level of
the average individual in the various States rises considerably.
The victim of international aggression would welcome such
moral support, but it should be prepared to rely on its own non¬
violent strength and to act alone.
War is a cultural rather than biological phenomenon210 and
never before was it so costly or so indiscriminate and universal
in its destructiveness as it is today. War also necessitates the
establishment of dictatorship.211 Besides being staggeringly
Dec. 9, 1939, p. 371; T. /., II, p. 423.
2°9 H., Sept. 23, 1939, p. 281 and Sept. 8, 1940, p. 274.
210 According to Marxists war is related to the economic competition
between the classes in which the dominant class exploiting the others takes
the initiative. H. C. Englebrecht (Revolt against War) has collected
psychological, anthropological and historical evidence to sustain the thesis
that “man is not war.*9 Quincy Wright (A Study of War) comes to the
conclusion that war is in the main a sociological rather than a psychic
phenomenon and that there is no specific war instinct but numerous motives
and interests which lead to aggression by human populations. Mannheim
similarly believes that the nature of social institutions and social regimes
determines whether man in the mass has a warlike or peaceful character
and that human nature can very well do without war. See Quincy Wright,
A Study of War, I, p. 277, II, pp. 1199-1200, 1367-68 and 1385-89; Mannheim,
Man and Society, pp. 123-24. R. D. Gillespie refers to a certain Indian tribe
on the western American sea-board to whom it is impossible to talk about
warfare, “for they do not have even the conceptual basis to enable them
to understand it.” See his Psychological Effects of War on Citizen and
Soldier, p.219.
211 Wright discusses how in the most recent stage of world-civilization
war has made for instability, disintegration, inadaptability and inflexibility
of social and political structures and despotism, rendering the course of
civilization less predictable and continued progress towards achievement of
its values less probable. The results of war, he shows, are indeterminable and
 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE 335

destructive and expensive, war only deepens differences instead of

settling them. In satyagraha, on the otlier hand, the loss in men
^ will be much smaller than in war, with absolutely no expen¬
diture in armament and fortifications. In earlier pages we have
shown how the hardest heart muse melt before the suffering of
non-violence and how there is no limit to the capacity of non¬
violence to suffer. The moral force created by genuine non-vio¬
lent resistance of a State, though it may involve immense
suffering, will produce incalculable moral effect and stagger the
aggressor, the public opinion of the aggressor country will
respond and the Government of that country will find it hard
to cany their own people with them.
Gandhiji does not expect every citizen of a State, resorting
to non-violent resistance for defence, to be a thorough-going
ahimsaist, even as every citizen of a militarist country* is net
an expert in the military science. With a handful of experts and
with a disciplined non-violent army that may bear the same
proportion to the total population as does the violent army a
country would be able to defy any aggressor.
Thus as the technique of defence against international
aggression the need of non-violent resistance is most pressing
and its efficacy seems to be certain.
The principles we have discussed in this chapter indicate
the broad outline of the social framework which is likely to
emerge from man’s endeavour to reshape his life and environ¬
ments according to the law of love. There is nothing final or
fixed about these principles. In actual social adjustments these
will be applied according to the urgencies of time and place

its cost excessive. War, which was professionalized during 1648-1789 and
capitalized during 1789-1914, has become total war since 1914. H. W. Speiegel
defines total war as armed conflict between sovereign States, sponsored and
waged by a society in arms with the aim of destroying the vanquished
nation. Total war is unrestricted in means, is fought with weapons supplied
by modem technology, psychology and economics, and is characterized by
mechanization, increased size of armies, intensification and nationalization
of war effort, militarization and the breakdown of the distinction between
the armed forces and the civilians in military operations. The development
of the modem military technique has tended towards the military totalitarian
State. H. W. Speiegel, The Economics of Total War, p. 37; P. Sorokin,
Contemporary Sociological TheoriesyCh. VI; and Q,. Wright, A Study of War,
I, Chapters, IX, X and XII and pp. 129-31, 192, and 321.
336 THE NON-VIOLENT STATE

in ways which cannot be foreseen today. Whether people will

try to set up a non-violent State depends on whether they really
desire liberty, peace and progress, i.e., genuine democracy. The
establishment of peace and the fulfilment of democracy are
synonymous with the cultivation of non-violence. Non-violence
alone can reconcile national existence with international co¬
operation, even as it alone can harmonize individual liberty and
social life.
The non-violent State will be a genuine democracy because
it will be based on the largest possible measure of liberty and
of equality of consideration. It will minimize exploitation and
replace the master-servant and the capitalist-labour relation¬
ships by a new co-operative order based on rural culture. Equa¬
lity of political rights will have a reality it lacks today, for it
will be accompanied by decentralization and social and approxi¬
mate economic equality. Functions will be related to capacities
and the emphasis will lie on service. Thus society will be simple
enough to be within the grasp of the average man and yet rich
in opportunity for a conscious life of freedom and individuality,
service and constructive criticism.
 CONCLUSION

' The starting point of Gandhijfs philosophy is his faith in

Satya. It is this Principle—and Gandhiji identifies it with God,
Soul-Force, Moral Law, etc.—which holds the universe. This
self-acting Force manifests itself in the creation, .giving it a basic
unity.
The entire Gandhian philosophy is derived from the
principle of spiritual unity. Man being rooted in Satya, his
growth and self-expression require him to know it and to hold
fast to it, i.e., to be a satyagrahi. The greatest Truth being
the unity of all life, self-expression consists in loving and serving
all, i.e., in striving after “the greatest good of all”. Loving
service of all is non-violence. Thus Satya can be pursued only
by non-violent means. Spiritual unity cannot be realized by
divisive means. As a corollary Gandhiji insists that to achieve
the greatest good of all means must be as pure as the end, and
that there must be no dual code of ethics for individual and
group conduct.
The greatest good of all towards which mankind is
consciously or unconsciously working can be achieved when
individual and social life express Satya. For the discernment
of truth and development of soul-force Gandhiji recommends
a course of discipline. This discipline consists in self-control
acquired by the pursuit of non-violent values. To realize the
nature of Satya, i.e., Absolute Satya, the satyagrahi must hold
by satya as he discerns it, i.e., relative satya. He must be non¬
violent, because violence offends against the greatest Satya,
the unity and sacredness of all life. Violence is, therefore,
asatya. Non-violence means the largest love, love even for the
evil-doer. It seeks to conquer evil by truth, to resist physical
force by soul-force, i.e., to convert the evil-doer by undertaking
suffering. Gandhiji distinguishes between the non-violence of
the brave embraced as a creed out of inner conviction and the
non-violence of the weak adopted as a measure of expediency.
The former alone is irresistible.
To cultivate the non-violence of the brave the satyagrahi
must shed fear and be humble. For this he must achieve
brahmacharya, i.e., control, in thought, word and deed, over all
337
P.G.-22
 CONCLUSION
338
the senses. To be fearless the satyagrahi must have the right
economic attitude which should be determined by the ideals
of non-stealing, non-possession and bread-labour. Gandhiji.
believes that the satyagrahi grows spiritually as he simplifies
his life to share the lot of the poorest and the lowliest. He
should cease to depend on money and other material means.
These do not count for much in matters of spirit. A certain
degree of comfort is no doubt essential for the satyagrahi but
this should not go beyond the proper limit. Swadeshi, which
stands for an all-sided creative patriotism, lays down the only
correct way of advancing the greatest good of all. According
to this principle the satyagrahi should restrict himself to the
use and service of his immediate surroundings in preference
to the more remote.
This discipline necessary for the conscious cultivation of
non-violence involves the control of our lower nature, specially
the urges of sex, acquisitiveness, and pugnacity and the emotions
of fear and anger. It implies rational asceticism and not forced
repression. We have discussed the rationale of these non-violent
values in Chapters III, IV, and V. These conclusions of Gandhiji
follow from his premises (i.e., belief in soul-force, the ultimate
end and the need for non-violent means), and together with
them form a single whole pattern. If the object is pursuit of
Satya through non-violent means, Gandhiji wants us to effect
a revaluation of current values and strive after a life of inner
harmony.
The non-violent discipline is indispensable for the leaders
among satyagrahis, if society is to progress. Discipline is
expected of satyagrahi followers also but not the high level
of moral excellence required of the leader.
The disciplined satyagrahi is an effective, self-confident
leader. He depends on the voluntary obedience of his followers
and honours public opinion and democracy in group affairs but
in regard to his own attitude he is guided by the promptings
of his conscience. The leader aims at educating people in satya-
graha so that society may evolve tendencies that will take from
class and State their raison d’etre. He organizes the masses.
The non-violent organization seeks to be an ideal democracy in
which decisions are taken by majority only in routine matters
and the dissent of the minority receives the fullest consideration
 CONCLUSION S3S

in matters affecting their specific interests. There is no

room in such an organization for power politics and manoeuv-
^ ring for the capture of part}’ machinery. When residing
wrongs the organization becomes a non-violent army in which
democratic methods are replaced by the unified ccntroi of the
democratically chosen leader.
Satyagraha, being the relentless pursuit of truthful ends
by non-violent means, includes, in addition to non-violent direct
action, all constructive activities. Thus satyagraha is not merely
a collective technique of direct action. Indeed, to be irres>;ihle
as a technique of resistance it has to be practised in ever}’
detail of daily life.
Satyagraha in its constructive as well as cleansing asp jets
is the instrument of social regeneration. Constructive satyagraha
develops the moral strength of the people and disciplines them
for the use of non-violent direct action. Besides, it is the tech¬
nique of transforming the existing social order along non¬
violent lines even before political power and State machinery are
captured by satyagrahis.
The satyagrahi leader employs every legitimate means of
propaganda. To him propaganda does not mean exploiting
public opinion, or acquiring over it an illegitimate control, but
educating it by strictly truthful and non-violent methods.
Satyagrahi propaganda is, moreover, carried on not so much
through the spoken and 'unitten word as through service and
suffering. The constructive programme, which is “collective
purificatory effort55, is the best publicity for satyagraha.
As a ferm of resistance satyagraha is the technique of
resisting injustice and settling conflicts. The satyagrahi aims
at bringing about a change of heart in the opponent and awaken¬
ing in him the sense of justice. If the satyagrahi’s appeal to the
opponent’s reason fails, the former tries to melt the latter’s
heart by undertaking pure voluntary suffering. Gandhiji does
not envisage the elimination of all conflicts, but aims at raising
them from the destructive physical to the constructive moral
plane where differences can be peacefully adjusted and anta¬
gonisms rather than antagonists liquidated.
As satyagraha integrates legitimate differences instead of
suppressing them, it minimizes the risk of counter-revolu¬
tion and its gains are likely to be stable. Resistance, when
 CONCLUSION
340
non-violent, ceases to be negative and positively achieves, by the
very exercise of soul-force, the approximation of the social order
to the moral order. In satyagraha the building up of a co- •
operative social order based on justice and non-violence and the
destruction of the unjust system based on exploitation go
together. According to Gandhiji, the basis of non-violence being
che belief that all men have infinite moral worth and should be
treated as ends in themselves and not as mere means, non¬
violence alone is the democratic technique of freedom which
can establish “self-rule in terms of the masses”. There is no¬
thing like defeat in satyagraha which thrives on repression and
in which voluntary suffering is the instrument of success.
Gandhiji’s social ideal is the classless and Stateless society,
a state of self-regulated enlightened “anarchy”, in which social
cohesion will be maintained by internal and non-coercive
external sanctions. But as this ideal is not realizable, he has
an attainable middle ideal also—the predominantly non-violent
State. Retaining the State in this second best society is a con¬
cession to human imperfection. Gandhiji distrusts the State
because it is steeped in violence. He believes that for the State
to be democratic, citizens must acquire the capacity to resist
non-violently any misuse of authority. The non-violent State will
not be an end in itself but one of the means for the achievement
of the greatest good of all. It will not be a sovereign State
but a service State. The State will be a federation of decentra¬
lized democratic rural satyagrahi communities. These communi¬
ties will be based on “voluntary simplicity, poverty and
slowness”, i.e., on a consciously slowed tempo of life in which
emphasis will be on self-expression through the larger rhythms
of fife rather than quicker beats of the quest of power and pelf.
The non-violent State will perform limited functions using
the minimum of coercion. Society in the non-violent State will
be characterized by social and approximate economic equality.
The economic life will be based on agriculture and cottage
industries, though there will be a minimum of centralized pro¬
duction. The centralized production will be organized either
on the basis of private enterprise, both labour and capital acting
as mutual trustees and trustees of consumers, or failing this,
on the basis of State ownership and joint management by the
State and the representatives of workers. An important feature
 CONCLUSION 341

of the economic life of the non-violent State will be the more

or less complete self-sufficiency of small regions.
Gandhiji’s plan of self-supporting education through pro¬
ductive handicrafts will establish an organic link between
learning, doing and living and develop the whole of the child
so as to make it a courageous, vigilant and active member of
the non-violent social order.
Decentralization of political and economic power, reduc¬
tion in the functions and importance of the State, growth of
voluntary' associations, removal of dehumanizing poverty and
superfluity, the new education and the tradition of non-\iolent
resistance to injustice—all these will bring life within the
understanding of man and make society' and the State
democratic.
The non-violent State will co-operate with an international
organization based on non-violence. Peace will come not merely
by changing the institutional forms but by regenerating those
attitudes and ideals of which war, imperialism, capitalism and
other forms of exploitation are the inevitable expressions.
The philosophy of satyagraha is the -philosophy of the
integral man. To Gandhiji the real being in man is the spirit.
The spirit is one in all and the service of the community in
every’ sphere of life is the one way to realize this truth. Gandhiji
does not neglect the legitimate physical demands of man, but
he believes that the lower in man must be harmonized with the
higher. Satyagraha is thus the philosophy of harmonious life
co-ordinated under the direction of soul-force. -It unifies the
spiritual and the mundane, the ideal and the real, the individual
and the social. Gandhiji makes social philosophy and social life
instinct with Satya and informs Satya with the plenitude of
living.
Thus Gandhiji’s political theory is an organic part of his
philosophy of life. The isolation of politics from moral princi¬
ples in the name of science or realism is, to him, a trap to kill
the soul. The method of non-violent resistance is a great con¬
tribution of his to the philosophy and technique of revolution.
With greater thoroughness than any other thinker in the his¬
tory of political thought he has explained how non-violence and
democracy are integral parts of each other and how each can
operate successfully only along with the other. His conception
342 CONCLUSION

of democracy, in which every individual has acquired the

caoacity to resist non-violently misuse of authority, in which
the dissent of the minority get the maximum consideration and '
which is characterized by “the magnanimity of the majority55,
is in advance of the Western conception of democracy. In the
absence of non-violence as the ruling principle of life, Gandhiji
discounts the ethical pretensions of democracies in the West
and regards them as an instrument of exploitation.
Similarly Gandhiji rejects the view of some of the Western
economists that economics should be dissociated from ethical
valuations. To him there is no sharp distinction between ethics
and economics. His views on economic questions are an ex¬
pression of his conviction that man's moral wellbeing must
not be subordinated to the profit motive and money values and
that economic activities like the rest of the human conduct
should be so planned as to advance and not hurt moral welfare.
Thus Gandhiji humanizes economics by subjecting it to the
suzerainty of ethics.
But Gandhiji's philosophy, as he never wearies of remind¬
ing us, has no finality about it. He says he is searching for and
experimenting with truth. The science of satyagraha is yet in
the making. Even in regard to the fundamental aspects of his
ideal he admits that logically there can be no absoluteness. All
the same according to him there is a relative morality which is
absolute enough for the imperfect mortals that we are.1 His
experiments, however, refer to the details of application rather
than to the basic concepts of the ideal, though some important
problems arising from the application of non-violence still await
solution. But if we rake into account the long history of war¬
fare, the six decades during which Gandhiji has experimented
with non-violence in group affairs appear too small a period for
satyagraha to develop into a full-fledged science of peace.
As for originality Gandhiji’s own judgment is: “. . .1
represent no new truth. I endeavour to follow and represent
Truth as I know it. I do claim to throw a new light on many
an old truth.5’2 Again, “I never claimed to be the one original
satyagrahi. What I have claimed is the application of that

1 H., Dec. 23, 1939, p. 387.

2 r. /., I, p. 567.
 CONCLUSION 343

doctrine on an almost universal scale.”- Before his time the

ideal of non-violence had come to be regarded a cloistered virtue.
>lt lacked that fulness of meaning, the universality of application
and the compelling appeal which Gandhiji has imparted to it.
In demonstrating the applicability of non-violence to all situa¬
tions of life, he has restated and reinterpreted the ideal. In his
philosophy non-violence has grown and has been renovated.
In so far as the survival and progress of mankind depend on
non-violence, which is, according to him, the law of life,
Gandhiji, who is the most authoritative exponent of non-violence
in the contemporary world, has made an invaluable contribution
to social and political thought.4
The philosophy of satvagraha is a great contribution to the
cause of human welfare partly because Gandhiji is much more
than a mere political thinker, statesman -or academic philo¬
sopher. He is a seer, a creative moral genius whose one constant
endeavour for about six decades has been the steady pursuit
of moral discipline essential, according to the philosophical
tradition of ancient India, for discerning Satya. His philosophy
is based on what he considers to be the law of life and its
growth, i.e., non-violence, the very soul of Truth, its maturest
fruit. Gandhiji also feels that non-violence is his God-given
mission. Thus, “I am confident that God has made me the
instrument of showing the better way.5’5 “God. . .has chosen
me as His instrument for presenting non-violence to India. . . .”6
Again, “My mission is to convert every Indian. . .and finally
the world, to non-violence for regulating mutual relations
whether political, economic, religious or social.5’7
At least on the grounds of expediency non-violence seems
to be the price humanity must pay for its survival and growth.
But will Gandhiji’s message of satvagraha find acceptance on
the part of the people in these dark and uncertain days when
force and greed seem on the ascendant?

3 r. I., Ill, p. 367.

4 “I do not think,” wrote the late Mr. G. F. Andrews, “that there has
been any more vital and inspiring contribution to ethical truth in our
generation than Mr. Gandhi’s fearless logic in the practice of Aliimsa..”
Speeches, Introduction, p. 14.
5 if., Sept. 29, 1940, p. 302.
6 if., July 23, 1938, p. 193.
7 if., July 13, 1940, p. 410.
344 CONCLUSION

Xo doubt the science of satyagraha is not yet full-grown

and those having vested interests or those dazed by modem
civilization, with its emphasis on wrong values, find it so difficult^
to comprehend its message. It is possible, therefore, that due
to ignorance mankind may fail to attain the necessary level of
moral excellence. Perhaps, this insensate world, lost in its mad
pursuit of wealth and power, may refuse to leave its selfish,
sub-human ways. Satyagraha has then come in advance of
its time. But man cannot break moral laws: in violating them
he only breaks himself. Says Gandhiji, “no individual and no
nation can violate the moral law with impunity.538 If non¬
violence is the only correct way mankind must either adopt
it or perish.
Gandhiji is, however, not pessimistic regarding the future
of non-violence. Thus, CCI can only say that my own experience
in organizing non-violent action for half a century fills me with
hope for the future.559 “The world of tomorrow will be, must
be, a society based on non-violence.3’10 “I feel in the innermost
recesses of my heart. . .that the world is sick unto death of
blood-spilling. The world is seeking a way out, and I flatter
myself with the belief that perhaps it will be the privilege of
the ancient land of India to show that way out to the hunger¬
ing world.5311
Satyagraha undoubtedly answers the deepest urge in men,
the urge to be good and true, to love and to suffer. Besides,
glaring inequalities, injustice, economic insecurity, hatred, fear
and violence, which are so chronic in the modern world, in¬
crease by sheer contrast the appeal of satyagraha. Even before
the discovery of the atom-bomb the message and the move¬
ments of Gandhiji had made a deep impression on the people
all the world over.
Gandhiji feels that the future of non-violence depends on
its coming to fruition in India and that of all countries it is
India’s destiny, due to her tradition of non-violence from times
immemorial, to deliver the message of satyagraha to mankind.

8 Ethical Religion, p. 48.

9 if., Aug. 11, 1940, p. 241.
10 Gandhiji cited in G. Gatlin, In the Path of Mahatma Gandhi, p. 145.
11 Quoted in R. K. Prabhu and U. R. Rao, The Mind of Mahatma
Gandhi, p. 145.
 CONCLUSION 345

“It may take ages,” he wrote in 1935, “to come to fruition. But
so far as I can judge, no other country’ will precede her in the
fulfilment of the message.”12
The future of non-violence in India depends on the sincerity
of believers in non-violence—even though these genuine be¬
lievers be, as they are likely to be, a small minority. To them
Gandhiji’s message is, “Let those who believe in non-violence
as the only method of achieving real freedom, keep the lamp
of non-violence burning bright in the midst of the present im¬
penetrable gloom. The truth of a few will count, the untruth
of millions will vanish even like chaff before a whiff of wind.”13
The masses will be won over not by the mere ideal but by a
group of persons, resolutely, courageously and selflessly living
up to that ideal and realizing it in action. This resolute minority
will in its turn owe its inspiration to the leader. Says Gandhiji,
“If non-violence disappears after me, the inference should be
that there was no non-violence in me.”14
This was Gandhiji’s judgment on himself and a test of those
who profess to accept his way. But of ahimsa as the way of re¬
generating man and his society he was absolutely certain. He
writes, “Ahimsa is one of the world’s great principles which
no power on earth can wipe out. Thousands like myself may
die to vindicate the ideal but ahimsa will never die. And the
gospel of ahimsa can be spread only through believers dying
for the cause.”15

12 H., Oct. 12, 1935, p. 276. He, however, always upheld the universal
practicability of non-violence. But sometimes he felt that, “It may even
be that what seems to me to be natural and feasible in India, may take
longer to permeate the inert Indian masses than the active European
masses.” Y. Sept. 3, 1925, p. 304.
13 r. /., ii, p. ii53.
14 Quoted by G. D. Birla in Bapu (Hindi), p. 36.
15 H., May 19, 1946, p. 140.
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gasulhiji’s Writings* Speeches, Etc*

An Autobiography or The Story of My Experiments with Truth (Tr. Desai,

Mahadev), 2 Vols. Ahmedabad, 1927 and 1929.
BapiCs Letters to Mira. Ahmedabad, 1949.
Basic Education. Ahmedabad, 1951.
Christian Missions. Ahmedabad, 1949.
Communal Unity. Ahmedabad, 1949.
Conquest of Self (Eds. Prabhu, R. K. and Rao, U. R.). Bombay, 1943.
Constructive Programme. Ahmedabad, 1941.
Daridranarayana (Ed. Hingorani, A. T.). Karachi, 1946.
Delhi Diary. Ahmedabad, 1948.
Economics of Khadi. Ahmedabad, 1941.
Ethical Religion. Madras, 1922.
For Pacifists. Ahmedabad, 1949.
From Teravda Mandir. Ahmedabad, 1933.
GandhijPs Correspondence with the Government (1942-44). Ahmedabad, 1945.
Harijan, 1933-40, 1942, 1946-50.
Hind Swaraj. Natesan, Madras, 4th ed. (Also Ahmedabad, 1946).
Hindu Dharma. Ahmedabad, 1950.
Indian States Problem. Ahmedabad, 1941.
Key to Health. Ahmedabad, 1948.
The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi (Eds. Prabhu, R. K. and Rao, U. R.).
Bombay, 1945.
My Appeal to the British (Ed. Hingorani, A. T.). Karachi, 1942.
My SouVs Agony. Bombay, 1932.
Non-violence in Peace and War, 2 Vols. Ahmedabad, 1942 and 1949.
Our Language Problem (Ed. Hingorani, A. T.). Karachi, 1942.
Poona Statements. Lucknow, 1933.
Sarvodaya—Its Principles and Programme. Ahmedabad, 1954.
Satyagraha (1910-35). Allahabad, 1935.
Satyagraha Ashram ka Itihas (Hindi), (Tr. Chowdhary, Ramnarayana).
Ahmedabad, 1948.
Satyagraha in South Africa. Madras, 1928. (Also Ahmedabad, 1950).
Selections from Gandhi (Ed. Bose, N. K.). Ahmedabad., 1948.
Self-restraint versus Selfindulgence, 2 Parts. Ahmedabad, 1930 and 1939.
Speeches and Writings of Mahatma Gandhi. Madras, 1922.

346
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 347

The Story of My Experiments with Truth. See An Autobiography above.

To the Princes and Their People (Ed. Hingorani, A. T.). Karachi, 1942.
To the Students. Ahmedabad, 1949.
To the Women (Ed. Hingorani, A. T.). Karachi, 1945.
Towards New Education. Ahmedabad, 1953.
Towards Non-violent Socialism. Ahmedabad, 1951.
The Wheel of Fortune. Madras, 1922.
Women and Social Injustice. Ahmedabad, 1942.
Young India (weekly). 1919-32.
Young India (Selections), I, (1919-32), II, (1924-26) and III (1927-28).
Madras, 1922, 1927, 1935.
Gandhi, M. K. and Desai, Mahadev, The Gita According to Gandhi.
Ahmedabad, 1948.
Gandhi, M. K. and Desai, Mahadev, The Nation’s Voice (Eds. Raja-
gopalachari, G. and Kumarappa, J. C.). Ahmedabad, 1947.
Gandhi, M. K. and Others, Cent per cent Swadeshi or tke Economics of Village
Industries. Ahmedabad, 1938.
Other Writings

Adhikari, G., Gandhism—A Review. Bombay, 1940.

Alexander, Horace, and Others, Social and Political Ideas of Mahatma Gandhi.
New Delhi, 1949.
Andrews, C. F., Mahatma Gandhi’s Ideas. London, 1930.
Aryan Path, Special Hind Swaraj Number, Sept. 1938.
Barker, E., Reflections on Government. Oxford University Press, 1942.
Barr, F. Mary, Conversations and Correspondence with Mahatma Gandhi.
Bombay, 1949.
Beales, A. G. F., The History of Peace. London, 1931.
Bhave, Vinoba, Swarajya Shastra (Principles of Non-violent Political Order).
Bombay, 1945.
Birla, G. D., Bapu (Hindi). Delhi, 1944.
—Diary he kuchh Panne (Hindi). Delhi, 1944.
Bolton, G., The Tragedy of Gandhi. London, 1934.
Bose, N. K., Studies in Gandhism. Calcutta, 1947.
Brailsford, H. N., Rebel India. London, 1931.
Brockway, Fenner A., Non-co-operation in Other Lands. Madras, 1921.
Carus, Paul, The Gospel of Buddha. Chicago, 1917.
Case, C. M., Non-violent Coercion. New York, 1923.
Gatlin, G., In the Path of Mahatma Gandhi. London, 1948.
Chase, Stuart, Men and Machines. London, 1929.
Conze, Edward, Buddhism’. Its Essence and Development. Oxford, 1951.
348 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Conze, Edward, Homer, I. B., and Others, Buddhist Texts Through the Ages
Oxford, 1954.
Coomaraswamy, Ananda K., Art and Swadeshi. Madras, n.d.
—Buddha and the Gospel of Buddhism. London, 1916.
—Hinduism and Buddhism. New York, n.d.
—The Religious Basis of the Forms of Indian Society (lithographed ed}
New York, 1946.

Coomaraswamy, Ananda K. and Homer, I. B., Gotama the Buddha. London

1948.

Datta, D. M., The Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi. Wisconsin, 1953.

Desai, Mahadev, Diary (Hindi), 2 parts. Ahmedabad, 1948 and 1950.

—The Epic of Travancore. Ahmedabad, 1937.
—Gandhiji in Indian Villages. Madras, 1927.
—The Story of Bardoli, Ahmedabad, 1929.
—Two Servants of God. Delhi, 1935.
—With Gandhiji in Ceylon. Madras, 1928.
Deshpande, P. G., Gandhiana (Bibliography of Gandhi an’Literature). Ahmeda¬
bad, 1948.

Doke, J. J., M.K. Gandhi, An Indian Patriot. Madras, 1909.

Dutt, R. Palme, India Today. Bombay, 1947.

El win, Verrier, Truth about India, Ahmedabad, 1938.

Farquhar, J. N., Modem Religious Movements in India. Macmillan, 1915.

Fischer, Louis, Gandhi and Stalin. New York, 1947.
—A Week with Gandhi, London, 1947.
Fullop-Miller, Rene, Gandhi, the Holy Man. London, 1931.

George, S. K., Gandhi s Challenge to Christianity, An Essay in Appreciation.

Ahmedabad, 1947.
Gillespie, R. D., Psychological Effects of War on Citizen and Soldier. London,
1943.
Glover, Edward, War Sadism and Pacifism. London, 1933.
Government of India, Congress Responsibility for Disturbances (1942-43). New
Delhi, 1943.
—Gandhian Outlook and Techniques. New Delhi, 1953.

Gray, R. M. and Parekh, M. C., Mahatma Gandhi, Calcutta, 1924.

Gregg, R. B., The Economics of Khaddar. Madras, 1928; Ahmedabad, 1946.
—A Discipline for Non-violence. Ahmedabad, 1941.
—The Power of Non-violence. Ahmedabad, 1938.
Guenon, Rene, An Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines. London, 1945.
Hindustan Times (Pub.), India Unreconciled. New Delhi, 1944.
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 349

Hindustani Talimi Sangh (Pub.), Basic National Education-Syllabus. Sevagram,

1946.
—Educational Reconstruction. Sevagram, 1939.
Hocking, W. E., Man and the State. Yale University Press, 1926.
—The Lasting Elements of Individualism. Yale University Press, 1937.
Hoyland, J. S., The Cross Moves East. London, 1931.
Huxley, Aldous, Ends and Means. London, 1937.
—The Perennial Philosophy. London, 1947.

Kosambi, Dharmanand, Bharatiya Sanskriti aur Ahimsa (Hindi tr. Skolapurkar,

V. D.). Bombay, 1948.
Kripalani, J. B., The Gandhian Way. Bombay, 1938.
Kripalani, K. R., Gandhi, Tagore and Nehru. Bombay, 1947.
Krishnadas, Seven Months with Mahatma Gandhi, 2 Vols. Madras, 1928;
Bihar, 1928.
Kumarappa, B., Capitalism, Socialism and Villagism? Madras, 1946.
Kumarappa, B. (ed.). The Indian Struggle for Freedom. Rajahmundry, 1938.
Kumarappa, J. C., The Economy of Permanence, 2 Parts. Wardha, 1946 and
1948.
—Why the Village Movement? Rajahmundry, 1936; Wardha, 1938.
Laski, H.J., Dangers of Obedience, New York, 1930.
Lenin, V. I., State and Revolution. Calcutta, 2nd Indian edition.
Ligt, Bart. De, The Conquest of Violence. London, 1938.
Lindsay, A. D., Karl Marx’s Capital. London, 1937.
Mannheim, K., Man and Society. London, 1945.
Marx, K., and Engels, F., The Communist Manifesto (Ed. Ryazanov). Cal¬
cutta, 1944.
Mashruwala, K. G., Gandhi and Marx. Ahmedabad, 1954.
—Practical Non-violence. Ahmedabad, 1941.
Maud, A., A Life of Tolstoy (First fifty Years). London, 1911.
—A Life of Tolstoy (Later Years). London, 1911.
Mead, Margaret (ed.). Co-operation and Competition among Primitive Tribes.
New York & London, 1937.
Mehta, Balubhai, Khadi Mimansa (Hindi). Delhi, 1940.
Marriam, C. E., Political Power. New York, 1934.
Mukeiji, H., Indian Struggle for Freedom. Bombay, 1946.
Mumford, Lewis, The Condition of Man. London, 1944.
—Techniques and Civilization, New York, 1943.
—The Culture of Cities. New York, 1938.
Murray, Gilbert, The Cult of Violence. London, 1934.
Nayar, Sushila, Bapu hi Karavas-Kahani (Hindi). New Delhi, 1950.
 350 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Natesan, G. A. (Pub.), Mahatma Gandhi, the Man and His Mission. Madras, 1932
Needham, F., Science, Religion and Reality. London, 1925.
Nehru, Jawaharlal, Jawaharlal Nehru, Autobiography. London, 1936.
Niebuhr, Reinhold, Moral Man and Immoral Society. New York, 1934.
—77z<? Nature and Destiny of Alan, 2 Vols. London, 1943.
Poiak, H. S. L., Mahatma Gandhi. Madras, 1930.
Polak, H. S. L., Brailsford, H. N., and Pethick-Lawrence, Mahatma Gandhi.
London, 1949.
Polak, Millie Graham, Mr. Gandhi, the Man. London, 1931.
Pyarelal, The Epic Fast. Ahmcdabad, 1932.
—Mahatma Gandhi, The Last Phase, Vol. 1. Ahmedabad, 1956.
—A Pilgrimage for Peace. Ahmedabad, 1950.
Radhakrishnan, S. (ed.), Mahatma Gandhi—Essays and Refections on His Life
and Work. London, 1939.
Rajendraprasad, Saiyagraha in Champaran. Madras, 1928. (Also Ahmedabad
1949).
Rajkumar, N. V., Development of the Congress Constitution. New Delhi,* 1949.
Rao, R. V., The Gandhian Institutions of Wardha. Bombay, 1949.
Ray, B. G., Gandhian Ethics. Ahmedabad, 1950.
Rolland, Romain, Mahatma Gandhi. London, 1924.
Ross, E. A., Social Control. New York, 1901.
Russell, Bertrand, Power, A New Social Analysis. London, 1938.

Sarma, D. S., Studies in the Renaissance of Hinduism in the Nineteenth and

Twentieth Centuries. Banaras, 1944.
Sharma, B. S., Gandhi as a Political Thinker. Allahabad, 1956.
Shelvankar, K. S., Ends Are Means. London, 1938.
—The Problem of India (Penguin), 1943.
Shukla, Chandrashankar, Conversations of Gandhiji. Bombay, 1949.
Sitaramayya, B. P., The History of the Congress (1885-1935). Allahabad,
1935. Reprinted as Vol. I, Bombay, 1947. Vol. II (1935-47)'
Bombay, 1947.
Sorokin, P., Contemporary Sociological Theories. New York and London, 1928.
—The Sociology of Revolution. Philadelphia, 1925.
Spratt, P., Gandhism, An Analysis. Madras, 1939.

Tendulkar, D. G., Mahatma—Life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, 6 Vols.

Bombay, 1951-53.
Tendulkar, D. G. and Others (eds.), Gandhiji, His Life and Work. Bombay,
1944.
Tolstoy, Leo, Childhood, Boyhood and Youth. London. 1921.
—A Confession and What I Believe. London, 1921.
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 351

—The Kingdom of God is Within Ton. London, 1936.

—Recollections and Essays. London, 1937.
—What Then Must We Do? London, 1931.
—Sex and Culture. London, 1934.
Unwin, J. D., Hopousia. London, 1940.
Vishwa-Bharati Quarterly. Gandhi Memorial Peace Number. Shantiniketan,
1949.
Walker, Roy, Sword of Gold, A Life of Mahatma Gandhi. London, 1945.
Wilenski, R. H., John Ruskin. London, 1933.
Wright, Q,., A Study of War, 2 Vols. Chicago, 1942.
Zacharias, H. G., Renascent India. London, 1933.
Note: In the above Bibliography, all the books except the one by
Elwin that have been described as published from Ahmedabad have been
published by the Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad-14.
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Ashram—M. K. Gandhi, Satyagraha Ashram ka Itihas.

Autobiography—M. K. Gandhi, The Story of My Experiments with Truth
(Vol. I, 1927; Vol. II, 1929).
Barr—F. Mary Barr, Conversations and Correspondence with Mahatma Gandhi.
Conversations—Chandrashankar Shukla, Conversations of Gandhiji.
Diary, I—Mahadev Desai, Diary, Vo. I.
Ethical Religion—M. K. Gandhi, Ethical Religion.
The Gita According to Gandhi—M. K. Gandhi and Mahadev Desai, The
Gospel of Selfless Action or The Gita According to Gandhi.
H.—Harijan.
Hind Swaraj—M. K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule (Natesan,
Madras, 4th ed.).
History of the Congress—B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, The History of the Congress,
Allahabad, 1935.
Mahatma Gandhi—H. S. L. Polak, H. N. Brailsford and* Pethick-Lawrence,
Mahatma Gandhi.
Nation’s Voice—M. K. Gandhi and Mahadev Desai, The Nation’s Voice.
Satyagraha—Satyagraha in Gandhiji’s Own Words, 1910-35.
South Africa—M. K. Gandhi, Satyagraha in South Africa.
Speeches—Speeches and Writings of Mahatma Gandhi (G. A. Natesan, Madras,
1922).
Teravda Mandir—M. K. Gandhi, From Teravda Mandir (1933).
T. I.—Young India.

352
 INDEX

ACLAND, RICHARD, 259n. Arundale, George, 15 In.

Acton, Lord, 24n. Ascetism, 34, 110ff., 337
Adams, G. B., 260n. Ashram, 167-68
Aerial warfare, 308, 330-31 Asoka, 18-19, 19n., 29
Agriculture, 90, 199, 201, 206-07, Asteya, see Non-stealing
252, 285 Atheists, 42
Akimsa, see Non-violence Atma, see Soul
Ahmedabad, 206, 218, 240, 256-57 Atom bomb, 331, 344
Ahmedabad Textile Labour Asso¬ Attlee, C. R., 259n.
ciation, 256-57
Akhil Bharat Sarva Seva Sangh, BAKUNIN, 274, 282n., 290n.
178 Barker, E., 32n., 275n., 287n.
Albigenses, 28 Bardoli, 119, 193, 207, 218, 235,
All-India Congress Committee, 176, 241, 247, 253, 267
209, 220, 220n., 235-36, 241, Baroda, 248
242 Beales, A.C.F., 22n., 29n.
All-India Spinners5 Association, 88, Bellegarigue, Anselm, 30
177, 179, 199n., 200-02, 209-10 Bhagawadgita, 11-13, 24-25, 35, 44n.,
All-India Village Industries Asso¬ 54, 94
ciation, 88, 177, 178n., 203, 210 Bhagwandas, Dr., 279n.
America, 269n. Bible, 23ff., 45n., 49n., 80n., 89n.
Anarchism, 5, 22, 30, 32fF., 155, 190, Birla, G. D., 197n., 344n.
274, 282ff., 302-03, 339 Birth-control, 79
Anarchy, 229, 233, 257-58, 292, Boetie, E. de La, 28
294, 305 Bombay, 34n., 148, 169, 175, 236,
Andrews, C. F., 14n., 23n., 25n., 248
80n., 102, 164n., 233n., 342n. Bondaref, 9On.
Anger, 16, 35, 60, 64-65, 67, 134- Borsad, 207
35, 147, 186, 211, 217, 267 Bosanquet, B., 46, 293
Aparigraha, see Non-possession Bose, J. C., 46
Arbitration, 36, 136, 256, 286, Bose, N. K., 51n., 84n., 86n., 261n.,
311-12 282n.
Armaments, 286, 327, 335 Boycott, 232, 236, 262-63Econo¬
Art, 111, 114-15 mic, 23, 97, 227, 233, 236, 274,

P. G.-23
 354 INDEX

333;—Social, 227, 229-31, 237- 222, 227, 23Iff., 235-36, 238fF.,

38, 265, 288n. 248, 260-61, 265; assertive, 242-

Brohmacharya, 56, 77£F., 337; see 45; defensive, 215, 218n., 242-

also Celibacy 43; individual, 192, 242-43, 245;

Brahmana, 8 mass, 192, 241-45; see also Non-

Bread-labour, 69, 83, 90f£, HO, co-operation, Non-violent direct
179, 196, 284-86, 299, 312-13, action, and Satyagraha

337; see also Manual labour Civil resister, see Satyagrahi

Brinkman, Carl, 258n. Close, Upton, 222

Britain, 23, 87, 149, 169, 172-73, Coercion, 5, 86, 116, 122, 151,
220, 245-46n., 268, 269n., 274n., 153, 161, 164, 184, 207, 214, 230-
276, 295-96, 332 32, 254-55, 260ff., 287, 289, 292,
Brockway, F., 37n. 303-05, 307, 310; see also Com¬
Brownists, 28 pulsion, Force and Violence
Brutalization, 143-44 Communal unity, 180, 195, 200,
Buddha, 4, 14, 15, 16, 17, 75 204, 210, 211, 213, 235, 279
Buddhism, 14-18 Communism, Communists, 6, 36,
54, 84, 87, 274ff.
CALCUTTA, 11. 149 Competition, 5, 63n., 95, 285, 286
Capitalism, capitalist, 3, 31, 33, Compromise, 34, 121, 136fF.
86-87, 133, 272, 274-75, 285, Compulsion, 122, 193, 227, 229,
295 264fF., 278; see also Coercion
Carlyle, 31 Conflict, 36, 71, 117, 121, 128, 132-
Case, C. M., 22-23n., 29n., 30n., 35, 137-38, 154, 162, 165, 184,
37n., 127n., 254n., 262, 268 214, 217, 227, 237-39, 249, 251,
Celibacy, 19, 34, 81; see also 254, 257, 269, 277-78, 307
Brahmacharya Confucius, 22
Centralized production, 197-98, Congress, see Indian National
252, 285-86, 290, 313 Congress
Champaran, 207, 219, 241, 253 Conscience, 3, 31, 44, 59-61, 83,
Change of heart, see Conversion 110, 111, 117-18, 120-21, 125-26,
Chase, Stuart, 314n. 133, 148-49, 239-41, 257-58, 260,
Chaurichaura, 146, 218n., 236 287-88, 294, 296, 300, 332
Chesley, Mary, 119
Conscientious objection, 268
Children, 75, 163, 277, 288, 318ff.
Consent, 227-28, 268, 297
China, 22-23, 220, 332
Christ, see Jesus Christ Constantine, 28

Christianity, 11, 24-28 Constitutional methods and non¬

Civil Disobedience, 30, 95, 126-27, violent resistance, 126-27, 239,
135, 144, 172-73, 192-93, 214-19, 257ff.
 INDEX 355

Constructive programme. 97. 172, 339- 41

177-79, 181, 190ET., 216, 234, 240, Depressed classes, see Untouchables
' 246. 250, 338-39 Desai, Mahadev, 34n.. 89n., 127n.,
Control of palate, 81 293n, 307n.
Conversion, 27, 134-35, 139ff., 146- Dharasana 243, 267
47, 152-54, 170, 196, 227, 249, Dharma, 287f.
254-55, 265, 301, 339 Dhuma, 20, 231
Coomaraswarny, Ananda, 16n., Dictatorship, 3, 36, 122, 173-74,
17n., 18n., 19n., 43n. 268, 270, 271, 276, 296. 301
Co-operation, 63n., 85, 170, 197, Discipline, 9, 44n., 48ff., 76ff.,
207, 260, 283, 315 108ff,, 116-17, 122-24, 126, 132,
Co-ordination Committee, 178 153, 161, 166, 172, 174, 178, 179,
Courts, 33, 153, 232-33, 286, 31 Off.; 18Iff., 186, 191, 200, 21 Iff., 215,
see also Justice 216, 218n., 221, 224, 230, 237,
Cottage industries, 157, 179, 195, 240-42, 243-45, 251, 266, 267,
198ff., 252, 273, 285; see also 337-38
Handicrafts and Village indus¬ Divisive emotions, 101-02, 103-09,
tries 135, 137-38, 161-62, 249, 263,
Cowardice, 72-73, 82, 132, 161, 164 267, 337
Crime, 36, 154ff., 239, 257-58, 269n., Doke, J. J., 20n., 24, 33
303fF., 310, 312 Doukhobors, 30, 247
Cripps, Sir Stafford, 259n. Dunkers, 28
Czechoslovakia, 332
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, 36,
DANDI, 187 83ff., 196ff., 284ff., 295, 312E,
Davids, Rhys, 9 340- 42
Deak, Francis, 37 Education, 33, 95, 113, 163-64, 183,
Decentralization, 117, 173, 194, 191, 195-96, 205-06, 210, 232-33,
284, 298, 303, 322 236, 289n., 301, 307, 317ft., 340
Declaration of the Rights of Man, Elections, 170ff., 232, 297ff.
259
End, 5, 36, 39, 53ff., 107f., 230, 336,
Defeat, 74, 268ff.
338
Defence, 33, 35, 72-73, 88, 133,
Engiebrecht, H. C., 334n.
138,- 155-59, 160-61, 204, 221,
Epictetus, 23
283-84, 309-10, 328ff.
Equality, 84, 92, 99, 205, 207,
Delhi, 149
Democracy, 3, 31, 35, 61, 116-17, 285, 292, 296, 304, 312, 328;—

122, 125, 130, 151-52, 160, 161, economic, 196-97, 201, 285, 296,
172-75, 194, 197, 204, 209, 220, 312
227, 239, 252, 260-61, 276, 280ff., Erasmus, 28
 356 INDEX

Ethical principles, 38-39, 53fF., 76ff., GANDHI-IRWIN PACT, 271,

103ff, 117ff, 319, 337-38, 342- 305n., 309n.

43 Gandhi, M. K., on aggressive satya-

Evil, 34, 39, 51-52, 55, 61, 66-67, graha, 242-45;—on art, 114-15;
73, 128, 134, 144, 229, 263, 290 —on boycott, 230-31, 236-38;_
Evil-doer, 61, 66-67, 135, 144-45, on brahmacharya, 76ff., 177, 178;
225, 237; see also Wrong-doer —on bread-labour, SOfF.;—on
Excommunication, see Boycott capitalism, :253ff;—on centraliz¬
Exploitation, 5, 34, 64, 85, 95, 142, ed production, 197ff, 313ff.,—
154, 165, 178, 192, 194-96, 249, and Christ, 24-28;—on civil dis¬
252, 257, 271, 274, 276, 281-82, obedience, 238fF.;—on coercion,
285, 291, 295, 296, 298-99, 302, 260ff;—on compromise, 136fF.;—
314, 331 and Congress organization, 168ff.;
—on constructive programme,
FAILURE, see Defeat 189fF.;—on courts, 31 Off.;—on
Faith, 47-49, 117-19 crime, 154ff., 31 Off.;—on de¬
Fanners, 31, 196, 206-07, 252-53, fence against foreign aggression,
261, 286, 315-16 328ff;—on democracy, 281 fF.;—
Farquhar. J. N., 34n. on dhurna, 231;—on discipline,
Fascists, 6, 54, 163, 174, 271 76ff, 171 ff, 182ff, 21 Iff,—on
Fasting, 20, 44, 95, 110, 123-24, education, 317ff,—on ends and
140, 146ff, 204, 212, 227, 231, means, 53ff.;—on equality of
250, 266; see also Hunger-strike religions, 99ff;—ethical princi¬
Fear, 61, 72-73, 82-83, 101, 267, ples of, Chs. Ill, IV and V;—on
274, 332 fasting, 123-24, 146ff.;—on free¬
Fearlessness, 72ff., 82ff, 89, 338 dom of will, 50-51;—on the future
Fischer, Louis, 119, 138, 253n., 294 of satyagraha, 343ff.;—on God
and soul, 39ff;—on hartals, 229-
Force, 26, 32-33, 40-42, 46, 67, 73-
30;—on hijrat, 247ff.;—on human
74, 134, 160-62 , 227, 262-64, 268,
nature, 103ff;—on humility, 100-
270, 308-09; see also Coercion,
01;—on individual satyagraha,
Compulsion and Violence
242ff;—and his influence on the
Fox, George, 29
Congress, 174ff;—on international
Franchise, see Vote
organization, 327-28;—on jails,
Freedom, 35, 39, 50, 59, 126, 130, 155 305ff.;—on .karma, 49-50;
176, 204, 219-21, 226, 229, 239, —on khadi, 196ff;—and Khudai
241-42, 246-47, 259, 261, 269, Khidmatgars, 180ff.; —and labour
271, 276, 280, 283, 285, 287, 292- 253ff;—on leadership, 84ff,
93, 295, 297, 302-04, 308-10, 325 116ff, 165ff,—on machines, 285-
Fullop-Miller, R., 65n., 11 In., 114n. 86, 313ff;—on mass satyagraha,
 INDEX 357

242ff.;—on the meaning of satya- Giddings, 267n.

graha, 126ff.;—on military, 308- Gillespie, R. D., 84n., 334n.
- 10:—and mystical experience, 43- Gniest, R, 259n.
44, 125;—on nationalism, 325ff.; God, 7, 30, 39ff, 53, 57, 62-63, 66,
—on non-co-operation, 145fF., 72, 76, 82, 83, 8Sf., 99, 101, 105,
227ff.:—on non-possession, 83ff.; 107, 110f., 118-19, 123-25. 147-48,
—on non-stealing, 83ff.;—on non¬ 151, 166, 182, 211, 213, 225, 251,
violence, 6Iff.;—on the non-vio¬ 258, 343
lent State. 279ff.;—on peace bri¬ Godwin, 290n.
gades, 180, 250;—as a philosophi¬ Gokhale, G. K., 4
cal anarchist, 282fF.;—on picket¬ Goseva Sangh, 178
ing, 229, 231;—on police, 307ff.; Government, 35, 227ff., 249, 251ff.,
—on prayer, 123-25;—on propa¬ 259-60, 268, 269, 270, 273, 274n.,
ganda, 184fT.;—on public opi¬ 276 278, 280-81, 291-92, 294ff.
nion, 118fF.;—on re-birth, 49;— Government of India, 87, 146, 149-
on renunciation, 118fF.;—on 50, 172, 236, 251, 253, 265-66,
rights and duties, 323ff.;—and 273
Ruskin, 31-32;—on sabotage, Greece, 23
224;—as a satyagrahi leader, Green, T. H., 293
117ff.;—and the science of satya- Gregg, R. B., 37n., 59, 62n., 193,
graha, 6, 7, 59-60, 280, 341ff.; 198n.
—on scorched-earth policy, Gujarat, 14, 247, 294
330;—as a seer, 343;—as a social Guntur, 236
scientist, 60, 34Iff.;—on strikes,
254ff.;—on suffering, 112ff., HALLAM, 259
139ff.;—on suspension of satya- Handicrafts, 179, 197ff., 285, 312ff,
graha, 214ff.;—on swadeshi, 92ff.; 331; see also Cottage industries
—on taxation, 316-18;—and Tho- and Village industries
reau, 30-31;—and Tolstoy, 32- Hardinge, Lord, 259n.
35;—on trusteeship, 85-87, 197, Harijan Sevak Sangh, 177, 210
313ff.;—on truth, 56ff.;—on uni¬ Harijan weeklies, 188
versal applicability of satya- Harrison, Miss Agatha, 134, 144
graha, 128, 161-63, 166, 266ff; Hartal, 179, 187, 229-30
—on untouchability, 97-98;—on Hatred, 16-18, 61, 63, 67, 74, .134,
village industries, 195ff.;—on 187, 239, 254
volunteers, 178ff.;—on vows, : Heard, G., 36
56-57;—on the zamindari system, Heber, Bishop, 20
252-53, 315-16 Hegel, 46, 293
Gandhi, Mrs. Kasturba, 137 Henderson, E. H., 184n.
Gandhi Seva Sangh, 177, 186 Hijrat, 20, 227, 247f.
 358 INDEX

Himalayan blunder, 240 341

Himsa, see Violence Individualism, 6, 194, 195, 287
Hindu, 9ft, 33, 42, 149, 204, 209, 322 ~ ’
213 Individual Satyagraha, 242ff.
Hindu-Muslim Unity, see Commu¬ Intellect, 46-47, 115-16, 118-19
nal unity Internationalism, 93-94, 325-27
Hindustani, 206 International organization, 327, 341
Hindustani Talimi Sangh, 178, Islam, 21-22
178n., 210 Israelites, 247
Hocking, W. E., 24n., 299n.
Hodgskin, Thomas, 290n. JAIL, 155-56, 212, 236, 240, 305ft
Holmes, J. H., 39n., 151n., 254 Jainas, 13-14, 131
Holst, R., 36 Jainism, 13-14
Hook, S., 274n., 276n. Jaipur, 241
Hoyland, J. S., 13In. Jambusar, 247
Human nature, 31-32, 38, 67, 105fT., Japan, 23, 274n., 332, 333n.
163-64, 266-68 Jesus Christ, 4, 24ff., 32, 57n., 59,
Humility, 100-01, 143, 337 75, 89, 93n., 125n.
Hunger-strike, 147n., 231; see also Jews, 24, 93n., 289n.
Fasting Joad, C. E. M., 36
Huxley, A., 37n., 55, 81 Johnstone, P. D. L., 2In.
Hyderabad, 251 Joy, 113, 125n., 139
Judaism, 23
IDEALS, 70, 106ff.? 290, 302, 345; Justice, 260, 271, 277, 309ft.
see also Ethical principles
Imperialism, 95, 197, 218, 246n., KALELKAR, KARA, 87n.
292, 295, 328 Kant, 47, 48
Imprisonment, 21 If., 226, 273n., Karachi Congress, Resolution on
305ff. Fundamental Rights and Duties,
India, 4, 9fF., 87, 95ff., 209, 220, 299n.
245, 247, 249fF., 269, 271, 272, Karma, 11, 13, 49-50, 54
279, 288, 289, 297ft, 308fF., Kashmir, 169
344-45 Kasturba Gandhi Memorial Trust,
Indian National Congress, 71, 121, 178n., 205
160, 168ft, 177, 192, 200, 209, Kathopanishad, 113n.
226, 235ft, 245, 306, 308 Kavitha, 248
Indian Opinion, 165, 188 Khadi, 96-97, 179, 183, 195ft, 209,
Individual, 5-6, 33-36, 52-53, 86, 211, 232, 235, 246, 265, 306
155, 194-95, 266-67, 274, 277, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, 180f.
282ff., 309-10, 314-15, 325, 337, Kheda, 207, 241, 253
 INDEX 359

Khilafat, 218n., 219, 232 MACHINES, 286, 313ff.

Khudai Khidmatgars, 180f. MacMurray, J., 24n., 26n.
.Killing, 35, 64, 68-69, 73, 164, 182 Madras, 235. 289
Kripalani, J. B., 62n. Magna Charta, 259
Krishna, 12-13 Mahabhcrata, 10-11
Krishnadas, 125n., 187n., 236n. Majority, 1‘2L 149, 170, 174. 204,
Kropotkin, 63n., 274, 290n. 230, 265, 268, 300-01, 307. 338
Kskatriyas, 8-9 Manual labour, 31. 33, 90, 297, 299,
338; see also Bread-labour
LABOUR, 206-07, 274n.; 278, 307, Manicheans, 28
313 Mannheim, K., 273n., 334n.
Landlord, 249, 253, 272 Mannsmriti, 78
Lao Tse, 23 Marcus Aurelius, 23
Laski, H. J., 3n., 258n., 275n., 31 In., Marriage, 33, 78
328n. Marx, Marxists, 6, 87. 274-75. 334n.
Lawyers, 232-33, 286, 31 Off. Mashruwala. K. G., 308n.
Leader, Leadership, 60, 76ff., 101, Masses, 35, 75. 88, 50, 91, 103. 105,
109, 117ff, 138, 165ff, 173-74, 109, 126, 131, 138. 147. 151,
177, 183, 192, 209, 216-18, 220- 163, 166-67, 179, 184, 187-38,
22, 227, 236, 240ff, 251, 267, 271, 191-92, 197, 200, 206, 208, 220,
279, 295, 338-39, 344 223-25, 228, 233ff., 252, 266ff.,
League of Nations, 327-28 289, 292, 296, 307, 311, 314-15,
Legislatures, 172, 232, 236, 245, 338, 345
294ff. Maude, A., 32n.
Lenin, V. I., 275, 290n. Mead, Margaret. 238n.
Lester, Muriel, 187n. Means, 5, 34, 36, olff., 61-62, 117,
Liberty, see Freedom 127-28, 168-69, 177, 196-97, 273-
Ligt, Bart de, 23n., 28n., 29n., 30n., 74, 280-81, 325, 337-38
275n., 277n. Mecca, 247
Medina, 247
Lloyd, Sir George, 271
Meetings, public, 186-87, 242-43
Lok Sevak Sangh, 176, 209
Mehta, Narsinha, 20n.
Lollards, 28 Meijer-Wichmann, 36
Lothian, Lord, 292 Mennonites, 28
Love, 32-33, 42, 44. 61, 63, 65-67, Merriam, C. E., 258n., 259n., 269n.
73, 74, 79, 106, 109, 112-13, 116, Metta Sutta. 17
131, 134, 138, 142, 144, 145, 151- Military, 19, 28-33, 232, 235, 268,
53, 156, 159, 161-62, 166, 182n., 273, 274n., 276, 286, 290, 308-10
185, 249, 259, 261, 267, 270, 285, Minority, 121, 149, 170, 174, 204
299, 332, 337 230, 265, 300-01, 338
 360 INDEX

Modern civilization, 3-4, 34, 95, Non-payment of taxes, 30, 35

108, 113, 344 232ff., 242, 253
Mohammedans, Muslims, Mussal- Non-possession, 19, 56, 60, 83ff., 110
mans, 149, 180, 204, 213 156, 166, 196, 252, 284-85, 338*
Mott, Dr., 89 Non-resistance, 29, 127n.
Mukerji, R. K., 19n. Non-stealing, 56, 60, 83fF., 196, 338
Mumford, Lewis, 198n., 314n. Non-violence, 4-5, 8ff., 16, 17, 40,
Murray, Gilbert, 12In. 46, 56, 59, 61ff., 76, 78, 84, 86^
Murray, James, 184n., 264n. 102-03, 108, 111, 115ff., 126ff.,
Mutual aid, see Go-operation 165ff., 177, 178, 207ff., 279ff.,
Mystical experience, 44-45, 125 337ff.;—and army, 310, 329,
344-45;—and brahmacharya, 76ff.;
NADIAD, 218n., 240 —and bread-labour, 90fF.;—and
Nag, Kalidas, 32n., 55n. coercion, 260ff.;—and crime,
Naine, G., 36 154ff., 304ff.;—and defeat, 74;—
Nanda, G. L., 286n. and democracy, 28 Iff.;—and
Nation, nationalism, 5, 23, 93-94, faith in God, 39-40;—and fast¬
233n., 268, 274, 302-03, 309n., ing, 123-24, 146fF.;—and fearless¬
311, 319, 325ff. ness, 82-83;—the future of, 343ff.;
Native States, 220, 241 —the history of, Ch. I;—and
Nature cure, 196, 207, 286 humility, 100-01;—and inter¬
Navajivan, 188 national organization, 327-28;
Nazi, 271 —and jails, 154-56, 305ff.;—and
Negotiations, 136fT., 255 killing, 64ff.;—and khadi, 195ff.;
Nehru, Jawaharlal, 115n., 262, —and labour, 253fF.;—and lea¬
264n. dership, 76ff., 117ff., 165ff.;—
Nehru, Motilal, 219 the meaning of, 63 ff.;—and na¬
Newman, Cardinal, 279 tionalism, 325fF.;—and non¬
New Zealand, 37 possession, 83ff.;—and non-steal¬
Niebuhr, Reinhold, 269n., 277n. ing, 83ff.;—and occupations, 69;
Noakhali, 186, 204, 250 —and physical force, 73-74, 162;
No-changers, 171 —and prayer, 123-25;—and pub¬
Non-co-operation, 30, 33, 86, 95, lic opinion, 117fF.;—and renun¬
97, 126, 135, 142, 144ff., 159, 161, ciation, 11 Iff.;—and the State,
197, 227, 260fF., 265, 281; see also Ch. XI;—and suffering, 112ff,
Civil Disobedience, -Non-payment 139ff.;—and trusteeship, 85ff.,
of taxes, Non-violent direct ac¬ 197, 313ff.;—and truth, 60ff.;
tion and Satyagraha —various grades of, 70ff.;—as the
Non-embarrassment, 214fF., 239, way of life, Ch. VII;—the work¬
246, 254-55 ing of, 140ff.; see also M. K.
 INDEX 361

Gandhi, Non-violent direct ac¬ tribes, *289-90n.;—social condi¬

tion and Satyagraha tion of, 282ff.;—social cohesion
^Non-violent direct action. 36, 67- in, 286ff.
68, 102, 122-23, 126-27, 152, 175 Non-violent State. 279ff., 29Iff.;—
182,190-94, 208, 214ff., 249ff., 287 „ the end of. 302;—and foreign
290, 294, 302, 312, 338-39;— aggression, 328ff.;—the func¬
aggressive aspect of, *242ff.;— tions of, 302ff.;—the interna¬
and anarchy, 259;—and coercion, tional status of, 292, 325;—a
260fF.;—as the collective tech¬ means, 293, 302:—the political
nique, Chs. IX and X;—and structure of, 292ff.;—the socio¬
compromise, 137ff.;—and consti¬ economic structure of, 312ff.
tutional methods, 257ff.;— North-west Frontier Province, 60,
and constructive programme, 157, 180ff., 267, 273
189fF.;—as defence against foreign Norway, 37
aggression, 328fF.;—defensive as¬
pect of, 242 ff.;—discipline for, OPEN DEALING, 222ff.
76ff., 18Iff., 21 Iff.;—in dyadic Organization, 165ff., 282ff,
conflicts, Ch. VII;—forms of, Ostracism, see Boycott (Social),
Chs. VII, IX;—and leadership, 227, 288
165ff.;—and money and num¬
bers, 224ff.;—and non-embarrass¬ PACIFISM, PACIFISTS, 22,
ment, 214ff.;—and non-political 28ff, 70, 332-33
conflicts, 249ff.;—and propa¬ Pakistan, 169, 181, 204
ganda, 184ff.;—objective of,
Panchayats, 177, 209, 283, 288, 298,
219ff.;—and oppression, 267ff.;
310, 311
—and organization, 165ff.;—and
Panchasilani, 16
sabotage, 224;—and scorched-
earth policy, 330ff.;—and sus¬ Parallel government, 233, 241
pension, 214ff.;—and violence Parliament, 294ff.
as the technique of revolution, Passive resistance, 20, 30, 35, 37,
273ff.; see also Boycott, Civil 127ff., 214, 261, 266
Disobedience, Dhurna, Fasting, Patanjali, 9
Hijrat, Non-co-operation, Non¬ Patel, Vallabhbhai, 253
payment of taxes, Picketing, Re¬ Pathan, 60, 181, 267
volution, Satyagraha and Strike Patricians, 23, 247
Non-violent resisters, see Satya- Paulicians, 28
grahis Peace brigades, 180ff., 250, 307
Non-violent society, 28Iff.;—econo¬ Pearson, Drew, 271
mic condition of, 284ff.;—pos¬ Pennsylvania, 29-30
sibility of, 287ff.;—and primitive Penn, William, 29
 362 INDEX

Persuasion, 86, 135ff., 171, 197, 222, Rajkot, 54, 146, 240, 266
229, 250, 259, 261-63, 286 Ramaraj, 294
Physical force, see Force Ramayana, 9
Picketing, 229, 231, 243 Rebirth, 53, 109
Plato, 23, 63 Red Indian, 29
Plebeians, 23, 247 Religion, 12, 25, 38-40, 61, 64, 88,
Plowman, Max, 41n. 94-95, 99-100, 117, 167, 204, 2lo’,
Polak, H. S. L., 38 240, 250-51, 268, 301
Police, 33, 153, 155, 161, 204, 232, Renunciation, 11-12, 11 Iff., 182
235, 273, 276, 290, 307ff. Repression, 35-36, 77-78, 80, 109-
Prayer, 82, 83, 110, 123-24, 146 11, 113, 143, 214-17, 218n., 224,
Press, 184, 186, 188-90, 296 235, 240, 247-48, 268ff., 339
Prison, see Jail Revolution, 56, 163, 233, 260, 271,
Processions, 184-86 274ff., 279, 328, 341 ;—non-vio¬
Progress, 106, 111-12, 139, 292 lent, 153-54, 207-08, 233, 238,
Progression, the law of, 106, 221, 249, 277ff., 297, 300, 302-03;—
225, 269 violent, 138, 207-08, 238, 274ff.
Prohibition, 195, 203-04, 317, 322 Rights and duties, 246, 254, 258ff.,
Propaganda, 36, 176, 184ff., 223, 294, 307ff.
229, 235, 250, 268, 274, 339 Rig Veda, 8
Property, 33, 83fF., 156, 197, 251- Rolland, Romain, 32n., 36, 55n.,
52, 282, 299, 308 80n., 268n.
Proudhon, 290n. Ross, E. A., 269n., 289n.
Public opinion, 117fF., 139, 184, Round Table Conference, 183n.,
189, 229-31, 259-60, 264, 269, 238, 298
338-39 Royden, Maude, 84n.
Punishment, 35, 143, 154fF., 223, Ruru-deer Jataka, 17
230, 232, 257, 259, 305ff. Ruskin, 31-32, 90n.
Punjab, 211, 219, 251, 265 Russell, B., 36, 268
Pyarelal, 18 In. Russia, 30, 37, 220, 278
Ruthnaswamy, M., 103n., 266n.
QAUMI SEVA DAL, 178
Quakers, 29, 164 SABARMATI ASHRAM, 56, 168
Quran, 21 Sabotage, 224
Sacrifice, 112-13, 159, 183n., 227,
RADHAKRISHNAN, S., 8n., 234, 250
59n., 80n., 82n., 84n., 103n., Sammiliti Samiti, see Co-ordination
11 In., 288n. Committee
Rajachandra, 33, 34n. Samoa, Western, 37
Rajendraprasad, 245n., 273n. Samuel, Viscount, 82
 INDEX 363

Sanchalaks, 203 trusteeship, 85ff.;—the universal

Sanodaya, 53 applicability of, 128-29, 161-63,
% Sarvodaya Samaj, 178 164, 266ff.;—and violent resis¬
Saiya,, see Truth tance, 274fF.;—as the way of
Satyagraha, 4, 37, 52, 56-57, 76, life, 126ff.; see also Boycott, Civil
91, 102, 126ff., 165ff, 214fF., Disobedience, Constructive
280fF., 330-31, 333ff.aggressive programme, Dhuma., Fasting,
aspect of, 242ff.;—aim of, 133- Hijra l} M. K. Gandhi, Xon-
34, 218-19;—and coercion, co-operation, Non-payment of
26 Iff.;—as the collective tech¬ taxes, Non-violence, Non-vio¬
nique of direct action. 214ff.; lent direct action, Pacifism,
—and compromise, 135ff.;— Passive Resistance, Picketing,
and constitutional methods, Revolution and Strike
257ff.;—the constructive as¬ Satyagraha pledge, 182-83, 21 Iff.,
pect of, 190ff.;—and crime, 245
154fF., 303ff.;—and defence against Satyagrahi, 40. 58, 75, 76ff., 116ff.,
foreign aggression, 329ff.;—and 136ff., 182ff., 21 Iff., 214ff.,
defensive aspect of, 242ff.;—and 250ff., 281, 292, 299, 301, 504ff.,
discipline, 76ff., 182ff., 21 Iff.; 337ff.
—and failure, 74-75, 268ff.;— Scorched-earth policy, 330
and faith in God, 39ff.;—the Secrecy, 161, 207, 222ff., 272
future of, 344-45;—individual,
Secretary of State for India, 150
242ff.;—and leadership, 76ff.,
Second Chambers, 298
117ff., 165ff.;—the meaning of,
126ff.;—and money and num¬ Secular State, 301
bers, 224ff.;—movements in Self-sufficiency, 96, 303, 315, 319-
India, 97, 102-03, 118-19, 219ff., 20, 327, 340
232ff., 244ff., 271ff.;—and non¬ Sense-perception, 46-47
embarrassment, 214ff.;—and Separate electorates, 149
non-political conflicts, 249ff.;— Sevagram, 195, 202
and oppression, 268ff.;—and paral¬ Shaw, Bernard, 65
lel government, 233, 238, 241; Shridharani, K., 143n.
—and passive resistance, 126ff.; Shudras, 8
—and propaganda, 184ff.;— Sibley, M. Q., 33n.
and sabotage, 224;—the science Sikhs, 143, 251
of, 6, 40, 59-60, 341ff.;—and Silence, 110, 123
scorched-earth policy, 330-31; Simonians, 28
—and suffering, II Iff., 139ff.; Sitaramayya, B. Patrabhi, 245n.,
—suspension of, 214ff.;—the 246n., 273n.
technique of, 135fF., 214ff.;—and Smuts, General, 136, 141n., 25In.
 364 INDEX

Socialist Co-operative Common¬ 236n.,=261, 276,281, 287, 290, 292-

wealth, 177 94, 295n., 297-98, 299n., -302
Social technique, 268, 278 307, 324, 327
Socinians, 28 Swarajists, 171
Socrates, 23 Sweden, 37 q
Sorokin, 227n., 335n. Syndicalists, 274
Soul-force, 40-41, 46, 73-75, 88,
108, 128, 132, 134, 140, 153, 158, TAGORE, RABINDRANATH, -6,
182, 185, 188, 225, 270, 281, 111, 151
337, 341 Taoism, 22-23
South Africa, 30, 34, 127, 131, 136, Taxation, Taxes, 35, 86, 232, 235-
165, 219, 223, 225, 241, 249, 36, 258, 316-18
259n., 267, 269, 271, 310 Tear gas, 308
Sovereignty, 258-59, 293-94 Tennyson, 122
Speiegel, H. W., 335n. Tilak Swaraj Fund, 226
Spinning, Spinning-wheel, 90-91, Thoreau, 28, 30
200ff., 246, 306 Tolstoy, Leo, 25, 28, 32-35, 55, 90n.,
Spratt, P., 80n., 11 In. 164
State, 3, 29-30, 33, 35-36, 39, 56, Tours, 186, 204, 250
85-87, 155, 190, 194, 205, 208, Travancore, 220, 241, 250
232, 238, 240ff., 251ff., 258ff., Trusteeship, 85ff., 156, 197, 212,
279ff., 288ff., 340-41; see also 252, 253-54, 282, 308, 315, 323
Non-violent State and Secular Truth, 7, 8, 10, 27, 34, 38, 40, 41-
State 43, 44-46, 48-49, 53ff., 76, 78,
Steed, W., 3n. 90, 99, 101-02, 109, 114-16, 117,
Stoics, 23 119-21, 123, 126, 131, 133-34,
Stratton, G. M., 163n. 135, 138, 148, 151, 162, 165,
Strike, 30, 206-07, 219, 254ff., 262ff 168-70, 178, 182, 185-88, 190-91,
Students, 196, 204, 206-07, 232, 220, 222, 225, 325, 337-38, 341-43
318ff.
UNTOUCHABILITY, UNTOUCH¬
Suffering, 16, 61, 67, 75, lllff.,
ABLES, 97ff., 149-50, 153, 195,
126, 131, 139ff., 152-54, 159, 161-
200, 205, 210, 211, 235, 248, 250,
63, 182, 185, 190-91, 208, 215,
273
225, 227, 237, 240, 249, 254-55,
Unwin, J. D., 81
259, 262-63, 270-71, 286, 301, 339
Upanishads, 11
Suicide, 152n., 158
Utilitarian, 53-54
Swadeshi, 83, 93ff., 166, 196, 211,
232, 235, 284, 286, 289, 326, 338 VAISHNAVA, 14, 20n., 43, 131
Swaraj, 54, 82, 98, 130, 161, 168- Vamashramadharma, 8-9, 95, 98, 99,
69, 191-93, 206, 211, 219-20,229, 205, 285, 288, 312
 INDEX 365

Vaudois, 28 WADALA, 243

Vegetarianism, 69 Wadia, A. R., II In.
■>Vijayaraghavachariar, G., 219 Walker, Roy, 187n., 244n., 245n.
Village life, Villages, 87, 177, 179- War, 3, 5, 9, 12-13, 19, 28-29, 35-
80, 194ff., 2- ‘, 236, 273, 283-86, 37, 70, 87, 95, 122, 128, 163, 169,
288, 298, 303, 306, 309, 313-14, 172-73, 184, 192, 197, 214, 220,
321, 326 245-47, 254, 260n., 267, 276-78,
Village industries, 179, 195ff., 284, 292, 327ff.
312-15; see also Cottage indus¬ Warren, Josiah, 290n.
tries and Handicrafts Weldenses, 28
Violence, 4, 8, 13, 22, 27-31, 33-36, Wells, H. G., 19, 28
54-55, 60, 61, 64-65, 67-74, 86- Wilenski, R. H., 32n.
87, 88, 89, 116, 121, 127-30, 131, Wilkinson, Miss, 273n.
134, 138-39, 141-42, 144-45, 147- Willoughby, W. W., 325n.
48, 153-55, 156-57, 160-62, 164- Women, 157-59, 195, 205, 231, 273
65, 172-74, 181, 192, 193, 197, Working Committee of Congress,
216-17, 218, 218n., 221, 222, 228- 176, 177, 180n., 211, 235-38, 245
31, 234-37, 240, 242, 243-45, 254, Wright, Quincy, 275n., 334-35n.
261-67, 270-77, 280-82, 288, Wrong-doer, 134, 143-45, 151, 159-
291, 392-05, 307-09, 316, 60, 227, 249, 265; see also Evil
327-28, 333-34, 337 doer
Volunteers, 184ff., 211-13,- 226,
233, 243, 250 TOGIC SYSTEM, 286

Vote, 170-72, 297-300, 323 Yone Noguchi, 111

Young India, 188
Voter, 232, 298, 299
Vows, 56, 60, 84, 131
ZAMINDARI SYSTEM, 252-53,
Vykom, 250 285, 315
 SOME OF OUR IMPORTANT BOOKS

BY MAHATMA GANDHI

GANDHIJPS CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE GOVERNMENT (1944-47)
The present volume takes up the thread where it was
left in the earlier volume, namely, from Gandhiji’s release
in May, 1944 to the advent of independence on 15-8-1947.
This covers the period included in Shri Pyarelal’s book
Mahatma Gandhi — The Last Phase, in two volumes.
Pages xlviii, 375 Price Rs. 6.00 Postage etc. Re. 1.30

MY NON-VIOLENCE
Compiled by S. X. Bandopadbaya

This is a collection of select passages on the subject

from the writings and speeches of Mahatma Gandhi. As.
Gandhiji says, “The religion of non-violence is not meant
merely for the Rishis and saints. It is meant for the common
people as well.”
Pages xi, 373 Price Rs. 5.00 Postage etc. Re. 1.10

DEMOCRACY s REAL AND DECEPTIVE

Compiled by R. K. Prabhu

“My notion of democracy is that under it the weakest

should have the same opportunity as the strongest. That
can never happen except through non-violence.”
—Gandhiji.
Pages iv, 84 Price 80 nP. Postage etc. 30 nP.
 BOOKS ON SATYAGRAHA
BY MAHATMA GANDHI

SATYAGRAHA IN SOUTH AFRICA

(Companion Volume to Autobiography)

Translated from the Gujarati by V. G. Desai

In the foreword to the history, Gandhiji writes:

“Readers of My Experiments with Truth cannot afford to
miss these chapters on Satyagraha, if they would follow in
all its details the working out of the search after truth.”
Revised Second Edition, Reprint Price Rs. 4.00
Pages xvi, 348 Postage etc. Re. 1.13

BY DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD

SATYAGRAHA IN CHAMPARAN
“The Champaran struggle was a proof of the fact that
a disinterested service of the people in any sphere ultimately
helps the country politically.” —Gandhiji
Second Revised Edition Price Rs. 2.25
Pages xii, 224 Postage etc. 87 nP.

BY MAHADEV DESAI

THE STORY OF BARDOLI

History of the Bardoli Satyagraha of 1928 and its sequel.
“The book has the spirit of the Epic Age in its narrative
of the triumph of moral right over arbitrary power through
a fight moral in character, unique in modem times.”
—Rabindranath Tagore
First Edition, Reprint Price Rs. 3.00
Pages viii, 249 Postage etc. Re. 1.00
 BOOKS OF GENERAL INTEREST

BY MAHATMA GANDHI

CO-OPERATIVE FARMING
Edited by Shriman Narayan

“I firmly believe that we shall not derive the full bene¬

fits of agriculture until we take to co-operative farming.
Co-operative farming of my conception would change the
face of the land and banish poverty and idleness from their
midst.” —Gandhiji
Pages 16 Price 20 nP. Postage etc. 13 nP.

BY R. B. GREGG

A PHILOSOPHY OF INDIAN ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT

This book is an attempt to state and explain a philo¬

sophy of Indian economic development which is peculiarly
Indian because of the impress of the fresh ideas of Mahatma
Gandhi.
Pages vii, 232 Price Rs. 2.50 Postage etc. Re. 1.00

BY PYARELAL

TOWARDS NEW HORIZONS

Gandhiji’s economic, political and social activities are

an expression and an integral part of what was fundamental
to him. To the last he continued to proclaim his faith in
Khadi and Charkha, manual crafts, the village way of life,
and the values these stand for, in short, the ideal of Sarvodaya.
The present volume offers a full exposition of this ideal.
Pages xxii, 221 Price Rs. 2.00 Postage etc. Re. 1.00