Gandhi's ethic of nonviolent civil disobedience - Essay Example

Is Gandhi's Ethic of Non-violent Civil Disobedience a Reasonable Alternative, when Confronted by such Demonic Inversions of the Holy as the Holocaustand the World Trade Center Attacks' The Holocaust and more recently, the attacks on the World Trade Center may be considered as examples of an unfortunate inversion of sacred beliefs and moralities, that led to the attempted annihilation of two distinct groups of people and their cultures. In the first instance, it was the Jews, who were the target, and in the second it was the American people. The responsibility for these two subversions of the holy can be narrowed down and fixed on two powerful personalities, Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden. But what motivated these two to such actions' Hitler firmly subscribed to the belief that the Germans were of Nordic/Aryan origin, and were a superior race; if they mixed with the inferior race of Jews, racial purity would be diluted. (Jewish Virtual Library, para 4) This view may have also been exacerbated by his personal dislike of Jews; he felt they, along with the Communists, (most Communists were Jews too!) were responsible for the defeat of Germany in the First World War, a defeat that led to the Fatherland's total humiliation. (Burleigh qtd. in Spartacus.schoolnet) Germany had to pay 38% of its national income in war reparation. In the spirit of a Plato advocating regulated breeding of humans to ensure better 'quality', Hitler went a step further by advocating ethnic cleansing, which would set the stage for building a strong and pure Nordic race. Hitler gave his eugenic program a 'scientific' base too. He referred to Nietzsche's and Darwin's theories to justify it. He firmly believed that he would be helping to achieve the evolutionary ideal of getting the best to survive by wiping out the inferior Jewish race. (Brief History: Evolutionary Theory) The Jews were first isolated in ghettos in order to be stopped from 'polluting' the pure Nordic race. The next step taken by Hitler was to exhort his countrymen to partake in a cleansing pogrom devised for the complete annihilation of the Jews. And Hitler, being the demagogue that he was, was also able to convince his compatriots that it was a sacred duty to wipe out an inferior race, thus paving the way for making Germany a great country. As for Osama, his belief was (is) that Islam is the only true religion, and Mohammed, the only Prophet, and all those who did not agree were infidels. It was God's great plan that the infidels should be wiped out through the process of 'Jihad' (Holy War). It was a devout Mussalman's sacred duty to kill or forcefully convert the infidel to Islam. '''''As Fasching says: Bin Laden and the al Qaeda, according to a discovered terrorist manual, are clear about the goal - "overthrow of the godless regimes and their replacement with an Islamic regime." This goal authorizes Muslims to kill Americans and all unbelievers. The killing of even innocent women and children is not only permitted but religiously required. (2002) Bin Laden justified his aggressive anti-American stand by stating that the Americans caused offence to Islam and its followers by their very presence in the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia) during the Gulf War of the early 1990's. The most holy of Islamic sites are located in Saudi Arabia, and Islam forbids a non-Muslim to visit these sites (Mecca, for instance) even under normal circumstances of peace. Thus the presence of American soldiers during the war was seen as a wanton desecration of the Holy Land of Islamic tradition. (Fasching 2002) From Osama's perspective, secularism as a way of life, accepted by the modern Western outlook, is itself profane, with its implications of a free intermingling of different religious groups, and a negation of religious and cultural identities. Bin Laden's antipathy to the outsider, encompasses all the nations of the UN, including "those who pretend(ed) they are leaders of the Arab world" and continued with their U.N membership. Bin Laden, it must be remembered, abhorred the UN as an organization'that divided Palestine in 1947 and "gave the Muslim country to the Jews."'(Fasching 2002) Certainly, Hitler and Osama could not carry out their plans of attempting to annihilate whole groups of people, relentlessly, without eager and willing hands ready to do their bidding. The people who carried out these horrible acts that killed many thousands of innocent men, women and children, were ordinary people, who truly believed that what they did was for the common good, and that their acts were for their country or for an even higher power, God. But since "everywhere in the world what people seem to hold most sacred is their way of life and the powers they believe made such a life possible" (Fasching & Dechant: 2001, page11) both Hitler and Osama use this understanding of people's psyche to make them commit the reprehensible acts which they would on their own never ever dream of doing. People do not feel 'responsible' for the acts they have to perform in the call of duty. A soldier may kill and maim for God and country, a scientist may tamely give over the fruits of his work that have the potential for destroying humanity to an unscrupulous head of state, an idealist may be persuaded to violate basic tenets of human decency because he does it for what is 'sacred' to him. His way of life is "sacred", and what comes outside his way of life - that is "profane" (Fasching & Dechant, 2001, p1). And those who profane are less than human, and have no right to expect human decencies. Such is the process of thought that prevents cognitive dissonance in a person who commits reprehensible acts while at work, but is a perfectly decent spouse or parent, or friend in personal life. And this is the schizophrenic process of 'doubling' (Fasching & Dechant, 2001, p 303-10) that works in favor of persons like Osama and Hitler, enabling them to motivate large numbers of people to commit crimes against humanity. And unlike western democracies, which depend on merely the power of thought (the ideals of freedom and democracy) to motivate action, Osama and Hitler motivate feelings by using sacred religious/ emotional symbols and imagery, against the "stranger" (Fasching & Dechant 2001, p20), who comes outside the circle of this sacred set up. This process can motivate people to suicidal acts too, when their own salvation is seen in their suicides, and the cause for which they die, as something 'higher', one that transcends the immediate - a cause worth dying for. And that is how suicide bombings like the 9/11 attacks are enabled. No security is really secure against a person who is ready to die for his cause. The process of thinking and of motivation is remarkably similar in the case of a bin Laden / Hitler and a Gandhi/ Martin Luther King. They all use powerful religious or emotional symbols in leading people. But the results are just the opposite, because Gandhian philosophy is inclusive in its sweep, unlike the exclusivity of the Osama-Hitler world view. The Gandhian is favorably disposed to the stranger. It views humanity as a whole, and sees the laws to be applied to all as being the same. So even the oppressor is not a stranger. The oppressor must be respected too. (Fasching 2002) Respecting all and including the stranger forms the basis for Gandhi's philosophy of nonviolent civil disobedience. The term 'civil disobedience' is very much an oxymoron. But in its seeming contrariness, it offers a powerful tool that disarms the oppressor. It does not defeat the enemy, but destroys him by making him a friend. One disobeys the oppressor because the oppressor does wrong, but one does it at all times civilly, without using physical or verbal violence. Gandhi went even to the extent of not taking advantage of the oppressor's own problems to get back at him. When the oppressor was in trouble, Gandhi suspended his own strikes and agitations so as not to inconvenience him. Gandhi's first act of civil disobedience dates to a hundred years back, to 11th September 1906 (the date: 9/11, no less!) He called it Satyagraha (a term in the Sanskrit language 'satya': truth; 'agraha': firmness). Satyagraha meant being firm, and always true. Resorting to devious means in reaching an end vitiated the very end such means could achieve. On 11th Sept 1906, in South Africa, the young Mohandas Gandhi held a meeting to protest against a new legislation brought out by the British that all Indians, Arabs and Turks should register their names with the government, and even get their fingerprints taken and kept in a state dossier. They were to get obtain special permissions from the government for very ordinary and day to day actions. The state even decreed that their marriages as performed according to traditional rituals would not be recognized unless they got themselves registered as per the local law. This was basically an attempt to interfere with the personal liberty of certain cultural groups. The White Christian community was kept outside the purview of this Draconian law. Gandhi's meeting was held to protest against this discriminatory policy. On a later date, however, when there was a railroad strike, Gandhi cancelled a protest march that was scheduled, as he refused to take advantage of the oppressor's (the government's) difficulties! In the original civil disobedience movement, many Indians were jailed, tortured and even killed. Jails were filled with Indians who protested, but did not resist arrest. They seemed to willingly accept the jailing and the other punishments that were meted out to them. Gandhian Civil Disobedience has, for this reason, often been referred to as passive resistance. It was passive because there was no physical violence involved. But the passivity stopped there. It was very much a positive force that expressed its intent verbally in a dignified manner, and publicized this intent to the world. It was pure and undiluted "soul force", as Gandhi himself termed it. Gandhi's methods undoubtedly worked in freeing a nation, without a bloody war. However, we must not forget that Gandhi's fight was not against an individual. It was against a system - one that was represented by the British monarch. It was against a system that had checks and balances. Gandhi lived during a period when colonialism was on the wane. And he used the very arguments that the British system respected, the arguments of fair play and justice, in claiming non-discriminatory treatment, and the eventual right to be independent. Was Gandhi merely lucky that he was placed in circumstances and a time period when his views would be considered sympathetically by his 'oppressors'' And can Gandhi's methods work in an Osama-Hitler scenario' Many Jews went quietly to their death during the Holocaust. They meekly met with a horrible end in the concentration camps and gas chambers of Hitler. If any Jewish leader, similar to Gandhi and adopting the Gandhian philosophy of non-violence, had emerged at that time, could it have made a difference' Would soul force have worked against Hitler' Can it work against an Osama' While, the 'obvious' answer to this question seems to be a 'no', ultimately, one must admit that these are questions for which we can only formulate hypothetical answers - as no Gandhi had actually emerged to confront Hitler, and none seems to be around to tackle Osama. Gandhi's success lay not just in his belief in non-violence and his strength of character. He was an astute politician too, and used the media of the time to advance his cause. Like Osama, he used the technology (radio/ television/ printing press/ means of transport) of the West to publicize his views, and gather sympathy for his cause. He was quite aware of the (heroic) impression he created on the minds of the average citizen of the world - the loin-cloth clad ("half-naked fakir" as Churchill so contemptuously referred to him) bespectacled, brown face that represented the teeming millions of the Indian subcontinent, demanding his right to self determination from a monarch who ruled over an empire on which the sun never set. Going further into the question of whether Gandhian methods would have worked during the Holocaust, let us see what Gandhi himself had to say about it. He believed that although the Jews were persecuted to the extreme, they could and would be successful if they resorted to a satyagraha, a civil disobedience movement. All they needed was a strong leader who could lead this movement with faith and strength. Gandhi, however did admit that if there ever was a tyrant against whom violence could be contemplated, that tyrant was Hitler, but, even in such extreme circumstances a sweeping non-violent protest would work. In Gandhi's own words If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German may, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment. And for doing this, I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance but would have confidence that in the end the rest are bound to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. (Gandhi 1938) It is evident that Gandhi fully and firmly believed that his method of civil disobedience would work against a person like Hitler. At the present moment in history it appears that the American peoples have to protect themselves against attacks of the Osama-Hitler variety. This is to ensure their (personal and physical) security in the short term. But if we examine the genesis of the problem, it would be evident to anyone that the problem arose only because the US has till today viewed itself as the custodian of the world and its resources. The US has applied the sacred-profane criterion in its dealings with the rest of the world, and has viewed the rest as the 'other', slightly lower than itself. This kind of a world-view has now to be shed, whatever the political exigencies. The US has itself been guilty of demonic inversions of the holy (fighting 'righteous' wars outside US soil, even though religion has not been so blatantly used in justifying these inversions) A genuine attempt, if made to undo this in the long run, can disarm even opponents of the Osama variety. If the US has to do this, they would have to give up notions of political superiority. This suggestion may sound like the outcome of child-like or extremely impractical thinking. It could even invoke laughter in a serious discussion of international affairs and balance of power. But, remember most new ideas take birth amidst laughter and opposition. And remember this is what Mahatma Gandhi would have suggested, in any case. Works Cited Brief History of Evolutionary Theory, Part2 (Retrieved 4/9/2007) Read More