NON- VIOLENCE & MAHATMA GANDHI
Mahatma Gandhi used the ‘Non- Violence as a weapon’ only against a most cunning adversary in a particular situation but it is really unfortunate that his name was made synonymous with Non-violence to make him irrelevant in the current scenario, when the concept of Terrorism is being patronized by a particular religion and without using some minimum force it can not be checked. I think the Gandhi’s philosophy can offer very optimum solutions for such a situation, but it may not be 100% non-violent.
I don’t know why Gandhians examine any issue only on the basis of Violence & Non-violence only, when Gandhi always said that for prevalence of TRUTH, concept of Ahimsa can also be sacrificed. Considering the magnitude of Islamic Terrorism, minimum and optimum use of Violence can not be perceived as against the Gandhian principles & philosophy. Many people have only a little knowledge of history otherwise they would have been aware of the fact that Gandhi also approved the military action in J & K, when Pakistan invaded it in 1947/48.
Similarly such people must learn that the best tributes for the sacrifice of martyrs like Bhagat Singh / Rajguru / Sukhdev were offered by none other than Mahatma Gandhi himself. He was for all praise of their sacrifice but told that not enough such courageous young man are available in his country, therefore he opted the route of Non- Violence.
Moreover, where were the weapons in those days of 1920/ 30? Only a few Indian Royals had the Arms & ammunition, which were firmly behind the British Govt. The revolutionary party of Bhagat Singh was having only one or two pistols but certainly not a single gun. The coward & divided citizens of this nation never supported revolutionaries with money even in spite of their many heroic acts.
Therefore Non- Violence was also a compulsion for Gandhi. At the most it was only one aspect of Gandhi’s versatile Hindu philosophy but always subordinate to TRUTH, as has been described by the Gandhi in following words:
Life and its problems have thus become to me so many experiments in the practice of truth and non-violence. By instinct I have been truthful, but not non-violent. As a Jain Muni once rightly said I was not so much votary of ‘Ahimsa’ as I was of truth, and I put the latter in the first place and the former in the second . For , , as he put it, I was capable of sacrificing violence for the sake of truth. In fact it was in the course of my persuit of truth that I discovered non-violence. Our scriptures have declared that there is no ‘dharma’(law) higher than Truth. But non-violence they say is the highest duty. The word ‘dharma’ in my opinion has different connotations as used in the two aphorisms. ( Harijan , 28-03-1936)