An International Non-violence day, but when?

By Purushottam Agrawal

 The idea of Satyagraha, non-violent civil disobedience, is now a  hundred years old. The centenary was celebrated with gusto a few  days ago in Delhi. This is the century that historian Eric Hobsbawm  calls the Age of Extremes. In this age, humanity dreamt the loftiest
 of dreams and faced the most terrible realities. Dreams of radically  transforming societies, of eradicating violence, exploitation and  injustice forever. And the reality of dream projects turning into the worst nightmares. Social systems claiming to have freed men from chains turned entire societies into prisons. It was an age of wars,  each claiming to be the war to end all wars, a cause that justified  its own mass violence and cruelty. The violence was on a scale that made
 epic wars of different traditions seem like the bickering of naughty  children.

 The same century witnessed the unprecedented accomplishments of  science - rooting out several killer diseases, but afflicted by the  rise of new maladies, notably the modern "lifestyle" diseases.

But what if the lifestyle itself were the malady? A socially institutionalised disease which ensures that once you are in its  grip, you are condemned to succumb to its poison. What then calls for
 a cure, the lifestyle or its pathological symptoms?

 Gandhiji's experiments with the truth arose from the desire to  answer this question. There is something wrong with the lifestyle and the social organisation at the root of our practices. Our
 individual sufferings are a symptom of a deeper disease. Without  reorganising lifestyle, we are not likely to cure the disease. And the need to rethink lifestyle or civilisation is not limited to an age or a continent. All is not evil in modern civilisation and no great old  civilisation is the utopia we must hark back to.

 The deeper problem is that the tension between basic instincts and  social organisation remains unresolved. The balance between different human impulses too remains an important question. Important for the individual and for the culture that mediates relationships between
 individuals. So the question of my individual lifestyle and choices ultimately becomes a question of civilisational choices.

 Many, before and after Gandhi, have pondered over civilisational choices, in quiet solitude or collective action. Gandhi's originality lies in his questioning of the very assumptions and critical tools of civilisational thought.  For him, it is not this or that form of growth or development that is to be questioned. Industrial civilisation as a whole is the problem. Not this or that form of
 modernity, but modernity itself that is to be subjected to scrutiny. We are typically uncomfortable with such a stance. Quite  understandably, Gandhi's <Hind Swaraj> (The Independence of India) comes across to many as evidence of utterly irrational
 and retrograde thinking. Even from those who identify with the spirit in which it is written, agreement with its practical conclusions seems too much to expect. The very originality of Gandhiji's critique of civilisation reveals itself to be its limit, its weakness.

 But Gandhi's critique also fundamentally concerns the methods of civilisational critique. Every critique of social relations, proposing its alternative perspective, seems to assume the natural, indeed obligatory role of violence in bringing about the proposed transformation. It hardly seems imaginable to embark on a project of change that takes non-violence itself to be the central criterion, the measure of success or failure. Even those who balk at the idea of personally engaging in violent action commonly view chosen forms of justified violence with indulgence. The violence of others is a thing of horror but the campaign launched to attain my Utopia is unfortunately an unavoidable necessity.

 One man's social utopia may be another's idea of hell. But  significantly, ostensibly opposed visions seem agreed on one point - violence is acceptable. How can there be liberation
 without a war of liberation? Thus, throughout human history, violence employed for base, personal ends suffers little comparison with the "pure, detached", mass violence deployed for attaining lofty ideals.

One important legacy the passing century, the age of extremes, seems finally to have bequeathed us is an increasing loss of confidence in the path of violence. The very sophistication we have attained in the instruments of violence is leading us to the conviction that the non-violent path is not simply more desirable, but that there is no alternative. The omnipresence of violence in our lives and our world is now impressing upon us the urgency of developing a non-violent idiom for movements for change.

 One was used to the comment that you're Gandhi when you're helpless,  under <majburi>. Of course, the world today has indeed no alternative to Gandhi's non-violent path. Even those who can't entirely agree with Gandhi's critique of modern civilisation can hardly deny this
 increasingly evident truth. Some of us, on the other hand, have long held that you're Gandhi only if you have the force, <mazbuti>. Non-violence is a force more powerful. It was this force that Lech Walesa spoke of during the recent Satyagraha conference in Delhi, saying that Gandhi's thought and action is not just about South Africa and India. "Gandhi is part of us too. We have learnt from our own experience that in matters of political or social change, there is no
 better alternative to the force of non-violence."

 The non-violent vision replaces the spirit of vengeance with truth and reconciliation. After the end of the white supremacist apartheid rule in South Africa, this consciousness led to the institution of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission headed by Nobel laureate Bishop
 Desmond Tutu. During the Satyagraha conference in Delhi, Bishop Tutu spoke again of how suicidal it is to turn history into an unending cycle of vengeance.

One of the most welcome outcomes of the Delhi meet was the decision to call for an ahimsa day. That this should be an International Day of Non-violence under the aegis of the United Nations is an even better idea. The readers of this <Jansatta> edit page will remember that the
 idea of a worldwide Ahimsa Day had initially come from students in an international school in Paris. This proposal was taken to the World Social Forum in Bombay (January 2004) by their teacher Akshay Bakaya, and it was from Mumbai itself that Iranian Peace Nobel laureate Shirin
 Ebadi had called for an International Day of Non-violence. The topic was discussed on this page in February 2004 and the eminent Gandhian, the late Siddharaj Dhaddha, wrote here of the importance of accepting this invitation.

 Though the basic spirit behind that appeal and the one launched from the Satyagraha conference is similar, there is a difference. The children in Paris first proposed the 30th of January for Ahimsa Day, and the Congress Satyagraha conference proposes the 2nd of October.
 This difference calls for some reflection.

 Gandhiji did not die a natural death, he was assassinated. In the words of the killer, this was not murder, but a slaying. Nathuram Godse was clear about two things - the huge, unquestionable, moral influence of the Mahatma, and the urgency, precisely for this reason,
 to make him the target, "not to let him die a natural death".

 Ahimsa Day should be observed worldwide on January 30th because that is the day when Gandhiji gave up his life for non-violence, that is the day when he was done to death by an Indian version of "pure, disinterested" violence, precisely in response to the moral influence
 of his unending quest for non-violence.

 The reasons for Gandhiji's very special moral influence have been examined and discussed over the years from different perspectives. This influence is not really rooted in a man's realisation, his understanding or exposition of a desirable ethic. To tell the truth,
 who does not know that the path of non-violence is morally superior? The challenge lies in going from the understanding to the doing. Gandhiji was the most prominent example of a man trying every moment of his life to live out that ethical principle. And that is why he was
 chosen for the slaying by Godse.

 Gandhiji knew that this was the only challenge - acting rather than expounding. And this was his criterion for judging himself. He made this clearer on 27th January 1948, three days before the assassination. Speaking about the attempt on his life on 20th January at the same
 spot, Gandhiji spoke of Duryodhana in the Mahabharata, who admitted that he realized where dharma, the right path, lay, but how he was incapable of following the path of dharma. And <Jaanamyadharmam na cha me nivritti>, "I know where adharma lies too, but cannot free myself from it". Gandhiji said that if he could honestly conclude that  this phrase didn't apply to him that would be good enough. "But this is possible only if I am willing to welcome a rain of bullets joyfully, with open arms". So he could not congratulate himself for having escaped the 20th January attempt. "It was God's wish that I should live some more. But now I am fully prepared to present myself before Him on the day of his choosing."

 30th January was that day, when Gandhiji finally lived up to his criterion of judging himself. Each of us is born the same ordinary way, without a choice in the matter. What is extraordinary is the way only some of us choose to die.

 What was that compulsion that prevented Gandhiji from simply flowing with his times? It was a compulsion he imposed upon himself. He chose to make the effort, to act in accordance with dharma and free himself from adharma. He chose to launch an inner battle against the Duryodhana in him, and his success lay in vanquishing the villainous character within.
 it is this truth which led his assassin to acknowledge this man's unquestionable moral force. That is the power of non-violence, of a life lived in accordance with the highest dharma that is ahimsa.

 The 30th of January is the most highly charged symbol of this superior force - a symbol that can wake us up to the truth that - individual or society, group or system - in each instance; it is up to us to do battle with the Duryodhana within ourselves. Remembering Gandhi should
 mean remembering this responsibility. And a good way to launch such introspection worldwide would be to observe Non-violence Day on the 30th of January.

English translation of the Jansatta article