4
February 2007
Remembering Mahatma Gandhi
By
observing the occasion of
Mahatma Gandhi’s 59th death anniversary
as ‘Martyrs Day’ and
holding an international conference on his life and legacy,
India does not only remember the
‘Father of the Nation’ about
whom Albert Einstein once said
“people may in future scarcely
believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and
blood did walk upon this
earth”. It also recalls his
moral vision and noble values of tolerance
and non-violence, all of which
need to be re-emphasized in a contemporary
world characterized by an unprecedented
tide of violence and recklessness.
As
an Arab academic recently put it “we desperately need a person like
Gandhi to lead the masses
to the greatest victories without a drop of blood or a single shot”. But the problem is
that there is no Gandhi and the current environment
does not encourage the emergence of his like.
Arabs, of course, have heard of the
remarkable experience of the man once described in Europe
as the new Messiah, but only a few of them are aware of the philosophical
foundations of his movement. Probably because of
Gandhi’s Hindu faith, there is a trend in the Arab World, where extremism and religious fundamentalism
is on the rise, to ignore his legacy and argue that his way
of peaceful resistance is not relevant to present crises.
Armed with deep philosophical reading and unique experience from his time in South Africa, Gandhi returned to India to set an example of how poor and helpless people could turn their
weakness and despair into power to meet the challenge of liberating their country with the minimum loss.
After a period of attempts
to persuade the colonial authorities
to change their ruthless policies, he came to realize that patience and dialogue would lead to nothing, especially in the aftermath of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, in which the British troops killed 400 and wounded 1,200 Punjabi peasants. At the
time, he could employ the wave
of discontent generated by the massacre in urging Indians to meet violence with violence in accordance with the principle of ‘an eye for an eye’, something that would have led to bloodshed and mass chaos, given the upper
hand of British rule. But his
conviction that violence once began
would not stop, and if ultimately stopped, it would leave
behind a violent communal culture and
impregnable wall of hatred, led him
to promote ‘Satyagrah’, an intermarriage between ‘Satya’ (truth) and ‘Graha’ (love) that generated non-violent resistance.
Gandhi,
however, needed first to liberate Indians from both
fear of confronting the colonial repressive apparatus and fear
of losing their living and interests. He also needed
to liberate India’s women from miserable traditions that denied them
equality and restricted their venture. He succeeded in doing so by alerting
Indians that their fundamental rights were violated,
their culture was penetrated, and their country’s resources were looted by British rule. He repeatedly stated
that “the British are here not only because of their strength, but because of our division, weakness, and fear”.
His next step was the launch
of civil disobedience by calling
Indians to boycott the occupier’s institutions and firms. Some at
the time, including his comrades, criticized
the move. But they soon realized
their misjudgment, particularly in the aftermath of Gandhi’s most famous and difficult
struggle against the world’s largest, wealthiest, and most powerful empire; the 248-mile Salt March from
Ahmedabad to Dandi in 1930 to defy
the salt tax.
The Gandhian way of resistance differs from present resistance
movements in the Arab world in numerous aspects:
1. Non-violence was
instrumental in Gandhi’s struggle for freedom. He argued that
“if your enemy is brutal, you must prove that you
are more civilized by not retaliating
with brutality”. By doing so, he
did not only embarrass British rule but also gained the
respect and support of many
forces in and outside Britain. Had he
resorted to kidnapping, suicide-bombings,
slaughtering, or other
barbarian means, his memory would not have remained rooted in the world’s conscience.
2. Gandhi knew that boycotting British
institutions, firms, and products would not lead to the collapse of the occupier’s economy. His emphasis
on boycotting and learning the art of self-reliance, therefore, was only a symbolic
act to boost Indians’ will and
determination.
3. Believing that the credibility
of one’s action lay in setting a personal example, Gandhi began with himself. He
quit his legal practice, gave up wearing Western-style clothing, and embraced a
humble lifestyle by making his own clothes
and living on a simple vegetarian
diet. This, of course, differs
from the practice of some Arab movements’
leaders, who urge their followers to boycott the West while savouring the Western lifestyle, products, and technology.
4. Unlike in some Arab resistance
movements, Gandhi was keen to include all Indians into his
movement regardless of
religion, sec, ethnicity, or social class. He, therefore, neither restricted the participation to specific
groups, nor attributed achievements to his Hindu community alone.
5. Gandhi was also keen to avoid
emotional rhetoric that might work
against the attraction of the sympathy and
support of Western peace-loving forces. Thus, he never
attacked Western values, beliefs,
or systems, confining himself to criticizing British imperialism.
6. Despite his significant role and influence, Gandhi claimed no supremacy over national figures and groups.
He recognized and respected his
opponents’ right to seek or
adopt alternative solutions and
means and avoided labeling them traitors.
Academic researcher and lecturer on Asian affairs