His View: Gandhi and the absurdity of ‘pure’ pacifism

“Where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.”

— Mohandas K. Gandhi

-----

Every year at this time I write to honor Mahatma Gandhi on his birthday. On Oct. 2, he would have been 154 years old.

There is a story about Gandhi that may be apocryphal, but it makes a significant point about the limits of “pure” pacifism. One day some elders came to Gandhi to report that a disaster had befallen their village. Some bandits had attacked them, raped their women and stolen their livestock.

The village leaders said: “We want to be nonviolent like you, but it didn’t seem to work.” Gandhi answered: “You are fools! In such a case you must defend yourselves at all costs. It is preferable to be violent than to be a coward.”

In 1908, while he was in South Africa developing his principles of nonviolence, he was brutally attacked. After the event Gandhi’s eldest son asked him what he should have done if he had been present. Gandhi answered: “I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence.”

In August 1928, one of the calves in Gandhi’s Sabarmati Ashram became fatally ill. Gandhi declared that the only compassionate way to deal with the animal was to end its suffering.

This decision caused consternation among his disciples and the wider Hindu community. Many objected that it was a violation of his own principle of nonviolence. At first, Gandhi wanted the local policeman to use his revolver, but his disciples suggested that an injection from a veterinarian would be more humane.

Gandhi’s position on the war against the Nazis initially sounded like the pragmatic nonviolence in the stories above: “If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of humanity, a war against Germany, to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be completely justified.”

In a baffling about-face, Gandhi gave this advice to the British: “This manslaughter must be stopped. You are losing; if you persist, it will only result in greater bloodshed. Hitler is not a bad man.” He proposed that the British lay down their arms and surrender to the Nazis.

Gandhi’s advice to the Jews is nothing short of outrageous: “If the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant.”

The absurdities of pure pacifism have led many scholars to the conclusion that, as Umang Kanwat contends, “just war theory should begin with a pacifist anti-war premise.”

Liberal democratic governments pursue anti-war policies unless they are attacked. Every nation has the right to self-defense, and nonviolent practitioner Marshall Rosenberg agrees with Gandhi that sometimes “protective force” is necessary.

It is perplexing that Gandhi did not see the difference between the Nazis and the British. If a German Gandhi had stood up to the Nazis, he would have been summarily executed. In stark contrast, Gandhi was given due process and he was superb at flummoxing British judges. He always pled guilty to the charges and demanded full punishment for his crimes.

In 1998, the ruling Hindu nationalist party resumed nuclear testing. There was widespread criticism, especially from groups identifying themselves as Gandhian. The government defended its decision as Gandhian, too, citing existential threats from neighboring Pakistan.

One of Gandhi’s principal goals was to bring India’s Muslims and Hindus together in peace, but Muslim leaders refused. The result, much to Gandhi’s dismay, was the creation of a Muslim Pakistan in 1947.

Since that time the two countries have fought four wars (India winning each one), and they have dramatically increased the number of their nuclear warheads — 170 for Pakistan and 164 for India.

Returning to the story above, it appears that the Hindu nationalists are portraying themselves as the innocent villagers being attacked by Pakistani bandits. I think that Gandhi would find this political posturing totally contrary to his principled, pragmatic nonviolence.

I wonder how the Hindu nationalists would respond to Gandhi’s warning that the invention of nuclear weapons was the “most diabolical use of science.”

Gier is professor emeritus at the University of Idaho. Read chapters from his Gandhi book at bit.ly/3ZxaHO1. Email him at ngier006@gmail.com.