What Would Gandhi Do In
Kashmir?
by Subhash Kak
Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803-5901, USA
Mahatma
Gandhi was the apostle of non-violence, so what would he have
done in Kashmir? His life shows that he did not walk away from violence.
During the Boer War in South Africa he raised a volunteer non-combatant
force of Indians to aid the British. The reason why he limited the offer
to a non-combatant role was that the Indians did not have constitutional
rights in South Africa indicating thereby that once this rights were granted
the Indian would fight along side the English.
Elsewhere Gandhi clearly
stated that he preferred violence to cowardice although he preferred non-violence
to violence. He was clearly against walking away from defending one's natural
rights. He said: ``There is real ahimsa in defending my wife and children
even at the risk of striking down the wrongdoer.'' He repeated on countless
occasion that non-violence was the way of the strong. He wished for people
to become strong not only in body but also in mind so that they would renounce
violence.
In 1896 the whites in
South Africa wished to lynch him; he was badly beaten up and saved by the
police from a certain death. Yet he refused to be cowed down and his courage
earned him the respect of his opponents.
We celebrate the one
twenty fifth anniversary of Gandhi's birth, but we have made him into an
icon and forgotten how to think like him. He was a critic of a mindless
repetition of the slogan of non-violence. Speaking of avoiding physical
confrontation he said:
What we have taken as dharma
is not dharma. We commit violence on a large scale
in the name of non-violence. Fearing to shed blood, we torment people
every day and dry up their blood. (See Complete Works, vol. 14,
page 499)
We see that the manner
in which the Government of India has walked away from its duty to protect
the homes and hearths of the Kashmiri refugees is precisely the cowardice
that Mahatma Gandhi considered worse than violence.
In his famous book,
GANDHI'S TRUTH, Erik Erikson's analysis suggests that the worst response
to terrorism of the kind we have seen in Kashmir is to leave the field
open to them. Says Erik Erikson about the parallels that the West has seen:
We in the West have experienced
an analogous problem in the dispersed descendents
of the Jewish nation, who became over-specialized in mercantile
and intellectual pursuits, and, for centuries, had to leave
their own defense to the the warriors of the host countries, who often
turned in sadistic disgust against those who could not or would not
defend themselves. The mere suspicion that the Jews would not fight because
they could not fight has, no doubt, been a strong factor in popular anti-semitism. (page 375)
Gandhi himself was looking
for strengthening the character of the Indian who would either join in
mob violence or shirk from defending his rights related to property and
dignity. Said he: ``Today I find that everybody is desirous of killing
but most are afraid of doing so or powerless to do so. Whatever is to be
the result I feel certain that the power must be restored to India. The
result may be carnage. Then India must go through it. Today's condition
is intolerable.'' (See Complete Works, vol. 14, page 520)
Yes, today's condition
related to the refugee camps is intolerable. Gandhi would have sent the
Kashmiri refugees back to their homes, provided them security, and also
provided them arms and training so that they would be able to defend themselves.
Source: Koshur Samachar
|