CHAPTER VIII
AHIMSA -ITS
POLITICAL GRAMMAR*
Ahimsa
is originally a term of Yoga, where it is stipulated as one of the necessary
mental disciplines for achieving the yogic goal, which is to step up gradually
and step by step, beyond all the behaviour and values peculiar to the human
condition. The Yoga aims at elimination of all dispersions and automatisms of
the secular mind and thus “to die to this life” so as to take a new and
qualitatively different rebirth into another way of being. Ahimsa is an
integral part of the initiatory structure of Yoga and ex-hypothesi, it
is alien to normal social or political behaviour of man, and from the true and
original content of ahimsa therefore, a grammar of social or political
technology cannot be, theoretically, extracted.
But ahimsa
has also been declared as the essence of Buddhist technique for achieving
the gnosis : Jivahimsa parmodharma, that is, an a value-measure of human
conduct on the secular plane. The non-monastic Jaina community also regards “ahimsa” as the quintessence of social
behaviour of man thus recognising it a normative rule of Ethics. Without digressing into the practical
manifestations and consequences
of regulating secular human behaviour, strictly based on ahimsa, it is
legitimate to affirm that the Buddhist and the Jaina ahimsa is something
different and something less than the original and true ahimsa of the
Yoga to which plane it truly belongs. As an ethical norm of social secular
behavior ahimsa is for all practical purposes, avoidance of injury to “living
form of life”, as the Buddhist dictum, jivohimsa parmodharma, lays down,
Jivohimsa, “non-injury to living life, and it constitutes an end in itself instead of a
mere technique as originally conceived by Yoga. This ahimsa, on the
plane of the secular social behaviour, is not a tool for the basic
restructuring of human mind but is a functional norm and measure, valid as an
end and not merely legitimate and imperative as a means. The original yogic “ahimsa” has its focus exclusively
on the re-structuration of the human mind itself, while the Buddhist and Jaina
ahimsa, as a regulatory norm of social behaviour, primarily focuses an avoidance
of injury to other forms of life.
It is
necessary to appreciate this distinction between the yogic ahimsa and
the socio-political ahimsa before we may properly consider the merits or
otherwise of the grammar of ahimsa, as a tool of social persuasion or
political confrontation.
Mahatma
Gandhi, who extracted the doctrine of satyagraha, literally, “holding fast to truth”, out of the concept
of ahimsa, was a Jaina by birth and his main vocation in life was
political activity. The technique of satyagraha that he evolved and tried to practice during the British
Colonial rule in India
was, in fact, a confection of many ingredients. Its base was undoubtedly the
social ahimsa of the Jaina variety, but it was mixed up with the
Christian “Sermon on the Mount” that holds forth the good news that “the weak
shall inherit the earth”, and the amorphous notions of Tolstoy whose basic
concern was a search for individual happiness and who came to the conclusion
that the truth that brings happiness cannot be preached and can only be
achieved by individuals who honestly look within themselves. Tolstoy tried to
bring his daily existence into conformity with his views by living an ascetic
life of self-denial and as much self-sufficiency as possible, which resulted in
complete and somewhat hostile estrangement between himself and his wife and
elder sons. He modified the Ten Commandments of Christianity, in accordance
with what he believed to be Christ’s real utterances, by formulating five
Commandments to guide him: do not be angry; do not lust : do not bind yourself
by oaths; resist not him that is evil; be good to the just and the unjust.
Instead of these insights providing Tolstoy with an efficient technique and a
successful weapon for political confrontation, his worsening domestic
situation forced him to leave home stealthily one night in search of a refuge
and a few days later, in 1910, he died of pneumonia, exposed to merciless
winter, at a remote Russian railway station.
Whether
a tree is to be known by its roots or by its fruits, the ingredients out of
which Mahatma Gandhi confectioned his satyagraha, also interchangeably
called, ahimsa, apparently hold out little promise of being a viable
tool of politics. But although, whether Mahatma Gandhi was capable of such keen
logical clarity of mind to have seen this point, his pragmatic subtlety cannot
be doubted. Lord Wavell, the last British Viceroy of India, in his private
diary, now published as The Viceroy’s Journal, a few years ago, pays the
Mahatma, a left-handed compliment by saying that, “Gandhi is a very tough
politician and not a saint.” Mahatma Gandhi showed much perceptiveness in
judging the true character of his adversary, namely, the Oxbridgian British
rulers of India .
He perfectly understood their notions of what constituted “civilised” behaviour
and “gentlemanly” conduct, and through his applied satyagraha Mahatma Gandhi
succeeded thoroughly in exasperating and weakening the Will to rule of these
foreigners. This purely extraneous element in the situation invested Mahatma
Gandhi’s satyagraha-cum-ahimsa technology with a semblance of
plausibility and viability. There is intrinsically, or demonstrably, no potency in ahimsa
or satyagraha itself to recommend it as a suitable weapon of war or peace.
Non-violent
satyagraha is, at its roots, coercive and not persuasive, capable of
conquest or designed to conquer through love or sweet reason. When its roots
are bared and exposed, it is seen not as an act of spiritual transformation or
genuine reformation, but a judo-technique of hitting below the belt and a skill
of moral blackmail. Satyagraha, “holding fast to truth”, is a gloved first, a loaded weapon, for the question
which Pontius Pilate posed to Jesus Christ, two thousand years ago, still
remains unanswered, “What is truth?” In place of plain and frank jingoism: “My
country, right or wrong,” in satyagraha, you assert : “I am in
possession of the exclusive truth.”
Besides,
non violence is not germane to the basic structure of human psyche, such
as would ensure a natural catalytic process leading to voluntary redressal of
injustice or atonement of wrongs. As Plato has stated in his, Proof of
Immortality, wickedness often pays and an average man has no compulsive
reason to give it up, ahinsa and satyagraha, notwithstanding:
“Far from
being deadly to the wicked man himself, wickedness makes him very much alive and
fills him with an unsleeping energy.”
It is
no wise arguable or demonstrable that injustice can be righted and a right can
be won by employing non-violent satyagraha. The latest scientific
discipline, Ethnology, has established aggressiveness as the natural quality
of human psyche, and non-violence as simply “rubbish”. Freud, the father of
Psycho-analysis, in his Civilisation and its Discontents, observes that:
“The
truth is that men are not friendly, gentle creatures, wishing for love .... but
that a powerful measure for aggression has to be reckoned with as their
instinctual endowment.”
Logically
considered, non-violence must postulate there being a basic identity of
interests between the protesting party and the party protested to. This is, by
no means, always the case and, in fact, is contrary to common sense as well as
historical experience of mankind. There are, literally, innumerable cases,
recorded and authenticated, where Jews men and women, in Hitler’s concentration
camps came forth voluntarily to hang themselves, in some dim hope of melting
the hearts of their Nazi persecutors, but in each case, invariably, the offer
of suicide was promptly and approvingly accepted. Rudyard Kipling has rightly
observed that a sparrow clutched in the predatory talons of a hawk gets no
relief by pitiable agonized cries but merely invites further punishment by
annoying its captor.
Non-violence
has been upheld as a superior way of life on account of its survival-bestowing
value. This argument is derived from the affirmation in the “Sermon on the
Mount” and the allied Christian temper that speaks of “the meek inheriting the
earth”, in the long run, and those who employ the sword, doomed to perish by
the sword. This argument is, by no means conclusive and besides, is highly
specious. Firstly, it is, by no means; certain that the meek and the
non-violent always, or even mostly survive. Dodo was, by all accounts, as
non-violent and saintly as a crooning pigeon, and on account of its flightless
bulk and blunt broad beak was a natural model of nonviolence, but it has
become extinct and has not survived. Nature respects capacity for self-defence
in the relentless struggle for existence, survival, and seems to regard non-violent satyagraha
as an irrelevant and spurious quality for
this purpose. A reference here also might be permissible to the six million,
non-violent, non-resisting Jews who perished recently in the death-dealing
concentration camps of Hitler. Secondly, this, “the meek inheriting the earth”,
argument altogether bypasses the question of human dignity and the qualitative
aspect of sheer survival. The Sikh scripture, Guru Granth Sahib, a
weighty and modern source-book on questions of spiritual quality and moral
status of human existence, refers to “the stone” and “the reptilian crawling
life” as the lowest levels on the vertical ladder of ethical and spiritual
value-systems. It refers to men, wholly engrossed in secular existence,
alienated from the life of the spirit, as “a meaningless rock”, 1 “a long-lived .creeping reptile.” 2 Is
physical survival always preferable to the certain death resulting from a
heroic violent confrontation with evil things? Best moral judgements and most
praiseworthy conduct of individuals in history and the noblest feelings of man
in certain critical situations, certainly do not endorse ignoble survival and
flight from choice of a noble death. The great Sanskrit epic, Mahabharat, an authority on the
Hindu value-system, declares that :
“Non-violence3 is the
basic truth of religion but proper violence is also equally true. I tell you
solemnly that this is the true Principle that Wardens of Justice follow.” 4
The
Sikh Prophet Guru Gobind Singh (1666-1707), the Law-giver of the Modern Age, lays
down that:
“When
all peaceful means fail, to
take up the sword in hand, is a lawful imperative.”·
And
about seeking survival through submission and anyhow, he says :
“I
would confront and oppose that what is evil, to destroy it or to subdue it, or die fighting against it, with
dignity.” 5
To sum
up : (1) the original yogic concept of “ahimsa” is not the same as the Christian
doctrine of non-confrontative submission through love, (2) the non-violence of Tolstoy is
not the same as the satyagraha of Mahatma Gandhi, (3) As a norm of
social behavior “non-violence” is not viable or productive under all
circumstances, and
(4) as a grammar of survival-value, non-violent satyagraha is neither practicable in ultimate
terms, nor is it in conformity with human dignity and manly honour, always.
* Being the text of an address delivered to the students of Santa
Clara University (U.S.A.) on the 18th of May 1979 by the author. Professor Dr. Sweetezer was in the
Chair.
1. Patthtar sail
2. sarap jon arjari
3. ahimsa saklo dharmah hinsah dharmas tatha hitalch, satyamteaham
paravakyamiyo dharma satyavadinan santikarvam, Santiparvam.
4. chun dast az hameh hilte dargusast, halal ast burdan b-shamshir dast.
5. jab avi ki avadhi nidan banai ran main ati hi tab jujh maron.
No comments:
Post a Comment