|
What
Would Gandhiji Do? |
The evolution of globalization as a
multi-dimensional phenomenon is being widely discussed among scholars
and thinkers around the world. The popular perception of globalization
as a methodology for economic integration of the world acquires much
significance. The most visible phenomenon of globalization's impact on
human societies is found with the rise and growth of social
insecurity, which in other words can be described as terrorism.
Immediately after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon, the idea of taking a nonviolent stance in
response to terrorism would have been dismissed out of hand. It is in
this context that various forms of less militant response, adopted by
Mahatma Gandhi, deserve a second look.
Mahatma Gandhi, a champion of non-violence, seeing the present plight
of the world in terms of the violence rate would have sought united,
determined, and decisive action against international terrorism as no
cause or religion justifies the menace whatever be the objective.
Gandhiji's principle of non-violence is applicable across fields from
terrorism to non-proliferation to economic disparities, and the world
could ignore his principles at its own peril. Gandhi's firm belief
that means are as important as the ends, he asserted that the
principles could not be flexible, truth is not a convenience, and
conviction cannot be bartered on the altar of expediency.
In fighting terrorism, the Gandhian reaction cannot be seen as taking
mainly the form of earnest discussion with terrorists to stop from
doing dishonorable things, but to create a society based on the
principle of non-violence, where man's freedom alone would be safe and
mankind would be free from repression and tyranny, whereby peaceful
social life is ensured.
A Gandhian strategy for confronting terrorism, therefore, would
consist of the following:
w
Terrorism must be condemned by world leaders and efforts should be in
place on an international scale to deal with the problem.
w
All governments of the world should cooperate to fight terrorism.
w
Strengthen intelligence.
w
Law and order enforcement should be made more effective.
w
Employ modern technology to detect and trace terrorists and award them
deterrent punishment.
w
Educate the public on the means and measures to fight terrorism.
w
National governments should abjure their attitudes of obstinacy and
should concede just demands of some sections of community without any
loss of time.
w
Where accommodation is possible, making an issue of point of prestige
would not redound to the credit of the government.
w
National security should be depoliticized as it is important to
recognize that terrorist attacks in the world as well as in our
country have been continuous and have taken a heavy human toll,
affecting the development of countries.
w
All citizens should be treated equally and should be able to secure
redress of their grievances through constitutional methods - then no
one would likely risk his/her life and lives of his near and dear in
the foolish adventure of terrorism.
India was on the verge of a violent confrontation with Britain when,
in 1915, Gandhi was brought into India's independence movement from
South Africa, where as a lawyer he had been a leader in the struggle
for social equality for immigrant Indians. In India, as in South
Africa, the British had overwhelming military superiority and were not
afraid to use it. Responding to terrorism after the fact, however, is
quite a different matter. What Gandhi argued in Hind Swaraj was that
violence never works as a response to violence. It usually generates
more violence as a result, and precipitates a seemingly endless litany
of tit-for-tat militant engagements.
Gandhi was adamantly opposed to political positions that justified
terrorism, but he was remarkably lenient toward the terrorists
themselves. In the case of the assassination that occurred when Gandhi
was in London in 1909, he did not blame Madan Lal Dhingra, the
assassin of Curzon-Wyllie. He said that Dhingra as a person was not
the main problem. Instead, Gandhi said "he was like a drunkard,
in the grip of a mad idea." The difficulty was the mad idea, not
the terrorists. Though he might have justified killing them if he had
caught them in the act, after their tragic mission was over, Gandhi's
attitude toward those who carried out terrorist acts was more of pity
than of revenge. He would not let them go free, of course, but he
treated them as misguided soldiers rather than as monsters.
Gandhi's main tactic in his fight was what he called Satyagraha,
meaning "soul-force," which took the form of civil
disobedience and non-cooperation with evil. Civil disobedience
involved breaking a specific law if it was believed to be unjust, and
then facing the consequences. The Salt March of 1930 was a vital step
toward India's independence from Britain. Gandhi led masses of Indians
into a program of massive disobedience to British law, and what was
most important was that Indians used neither violence nor hatred in
their fight for freedom. The Salt March of 1930 was one of Gandhi's
greatest successes in civil disobedience. Salt was necessary to the
life of Indian farmers' cattle, and the British monopoly on salt
production had led to massive taxes on the vital substance.
Gandhi was dismayed by Hinduism's treatment of the Muslim minority in
India, and by the resulting calls for the creation of a separate
Muslim state of Pakistan. Widespread distrust and hatred was growing
between Hindus and Muslims and, on the eve of India's independence,
riots erupted all over India. The country became a bloodbath. Many
believed that Gandhi's non-violence had failed, but he spent his time
in the most violent areas and each night he preached peace and love as
he prayed and walked from village to village through the heart of that
violent madness.
In a world seemingly dominated by violence and hatred, Mahatma Gandhi
reincarnated the ancient idea of Ahimsa, non-violence, as the only way
of living in peace. His example influenced and inspired many later
peaceful struggles, for example the civil rights movement of Martin
Luther King, Jr. Despite India's shortcomings, Gandhi never lost faith
in Ahimsa.
|
|
|
|