§ 5
And what will now come? Will England, wiser for past experiences, know how to mold the aspirations of the people of India? And will this people remain true to its ideal? Nations have short memories, and I should have but slight faith in India’s power to remain true to the Mahatma’s teaching if his doctrines were not an expression of the deepest and most ancient longings of the race. For if there is such a thing as genius, great by its own strength whether or not it corresponds to the ideals of its surroundings, there can be no genius of action, no leader, who does not incarnate the instincts of his race, satisfy the need of the hour, and requite the yearning of the world.
Mahatma Gandhi does all this. His principle of Ahimsa (non-violence) has been inscribed in the spirit of India for more than two thousand years. Mahavira, Buddha, and the cult of Vishnu have made it the substance of millions of souls. Gandhi has merely transfused heroic blood into it. He called upon the great shadows, the forces of the past, plunged in mortal lethargy, and at the sound of his voice they came to life. In him they found themselves. Gandhi is more than a word; he is an example. He incarnates the spirit of his people. Blessed the man who is a people, his people, entombed, and then resuscitated in him! But such resurrections are never haphazard. If the spirit of India now surges forth from temples and forests, it is because it holds the message for which the world is sighing.
This message carries far beyond the boundaries of India. India alone could formulate it, but it consecrates the nation’s greatness as much as its sacrifice. It may become its cross.
For it would seem as if a people must he sacrificed in order to give new life to the world. The Jews were sacrificed to their Messiah, whom they had borne for centuries in their thoughts, and whom they did not recognize when He finally flowered on the blood-stained cross. More fortunate, India has recognized her Messiah, and joyously the people march to the sacrifice which is to set them free.
But, like the early Christians, they do not all understand the real meaning of their liberation. For a long time the Christians awaited the fulfilment of the adveniat regnum tuum. In India there are many who do not see beyond Swaraj, home rule. Incidentally, I imagine that this political goal will soon be reached. Europe, bled by wars and revolutions, impoverished and exhausted, despoiled of her prestige in the eyes of Asia, which she formerly oppressed, cannot long resist on Asiatic soil the aspirations of the awakened peoples of Islam, India, China, and Japan. But this would mean little, no matter how rich and new might be the harmonies which a few more nations would bring to the human symphony; this would mean little, if the surging spirit of Asia did not become the vehicle for a new ideal of life and of death, and, what is more, of action, for all humanity, and if it did not bring a new viaticum to prostrate Europe.
The world is swept by the wind of violence. This storm which ravages the harvest of our civilization did not break out from a clear sky. Centuries of brutal national pride, whetted by the idolatrous ideology of the Revolution, spread by the empty mockery of democracies, and crowned by a century of inhuman industrialism, rapacious plutocracy, and a materialistic system of economics where the soul perishes, stifled to death, were bound to culminate in these dark struggles where the treasures of the West succumbed. It is not enough to say all this was inevitable. There is a in it. Each people kills the other in the name of the same principles which hid the same covetousness and Cainish instincts. All—be they nationalists, Fascists, Bolshevists, members of the oppressed classes, members of the oppressing classes—claim that they have the right to use force, while refusing this right to others. Half a century ago might dominated right. To-day things are far worse. Might is right. Might has devoured right.
In the old crumbling world, no refuge, no hope, no great light. The church gives innocuous advice, virtuous and dosed, carefully worded so as not to antagonize the mighty. Besides, the church never sets the example—even when giving advice. Weak pacifists bray languishingly, and you feel that they hesitate and fumble, talk about a faith they no longer believe in. Who will prove this faith? And how, in an unbelieving world? Faith is proved by action.
This is the great message to the world, or, as Gandhi puts it, India’s message—self-sacrifice.
And Tagore has repeated the same inspired words, for on this proud principle Tagore and Gandhi agree.
I hope this spirit of sacrifice will grow, and also the will to suffer.... This is real liberty. Nothing is higher, not even national independence. The West has an unshakable belief in force and material wealth; therefore no matter how much it cries for peace and disarmament, its ferocity will cry still louder.... We, in India, must show the world what this truth is which not only makes disarmament possible but transmutes it into strength. The fact that moral force is a stronger power than brute force will be proved by an unarmed people. The evolution of life shows that it has gradually cast off its formidable armature of scales and carapaces and a monstrous quantity of flesh until man was evolved who conquered brute force. The day will come when a weak, noble man absolutely unarmed will prove that the meek shall inherit the earth. It is logical that Mahatma Gandhi, weak of body and without material resources, should prove the unconquerable strength of the meek and the humble hidden in the heart of the outraged and destitute humanity of India. India’s destiny is bound up in Narayana and not in Narayani-sena, in soul force and not muscle. It must uplift human history, transport it from the confused valley of material struggles to the high plateaux of spiritual battles. Although we may delude ourselves through phrases acquired from the vocabulary of the West, Swaraj, home rule, is not really our goal. Our battle is a spiritual battle, a fight for humanity. We must emancipate man from the meshes he has woven around him, free him from the organizations of national selfishness. We must persuade the butterfly that the freedom of the sky is better than the shelter of the cocoon. In India we have no word for “nation.” When we loan the word from other peoples it is not suited to us, for we should ally ourselves with Narayana, the Supreme Being, and our victory will be the victory for God’s world.... If we can defy the powerful, the rich, the armed, by showing the world the power of the immortal spirit, the castle of the giant Flesh will crumble into nothingness. And then man will find real Swaraj. We, the miserable outcasts of the Orient, we must conquer freedom for all humanity....
“Our object,” Gandhi has said, “is friendship with the whole world. Non-violence has come to men, and it will remain. It is the annunciation of peace on earth.”
The peace of the world is far off. We have no illusions. We have seen, abundantly, during the course of half a century, the hypocrisy, the cowardice, and the cruelty of mankind. But this does not prevent us from loving mankind. For even among the worst there is a nescio quid Dei. We know the material ties that weigh on twentieth-century Europe, the crushing determinism of economic conditions which hem it in; we know that centuries of passions and systematized error have built a crust about our souls which the light cannot pierce. But we also know what miracles the spirit can work.
Historians, we have seen its glory brighten skies even darker than our own. We, who live but a day, have caught in India the sound of the tambour of Çiva, “the Master Dancer who veils his devouring eye and guards his steps to save the world from plunging into the abyss.”127
The Realpolitiker of violence, whether revolutionary or reactionary, ridicule our faith, and reveal thereby their ignorance of deep reality. Let them jeer! I have this faith. I know it is scorned and persecuted in Europe, and that in my own land we are but a handful—are we even a handful?—who believe in it. And even if I were the only one to believe in it, what would it matter? The true characteristic of faith is not to deny the hostility of the world, but to recognize it and to believe in spite of it! Faith is a battle. And our non-violence is the most desperate battle. The way to peace is not through weakness. We do not fight violence so much as weakness. Nothing is worth while unless it is strong, neither good nor evil. Absolute evil is better than emasculated goodness. Moaning pacifism is the death-knell of peace; it is cowardice and lack of faith. Let those who do not believe, who fear, withdraw! The way to peace leads through self-sacrifice.
This is Gandhi’s message. The only thing lacking is the cross.128 Every one knows that had it not been for the Jews, Rome would not have given it to Christ. The British Empire is no better than ancient Rome. The impetus has been given. The soul of Oriental peoples has been moved in its deepest fibers, and its vibrations are felt the whole world over.
The great religious apparitions of the Orient are ruled by a rhythm. One thing is certain: either Gandhi’s spirit will triumph, or it will manifest itself again, as were manifested, centuries before, the Messiah and Buddha, till there finally is manifested, in a mortal half-god, the perfect incarnation of the principle of life which will lead a new humanity on to a new path.
Notes
113One hundred and forty villages, 87,000 inhabitants.
114A note in “Young India” of the same date is even more explicit. If the viceroy does not answer, civil obedience will be proclaimed even if against the will of the majority.
115What light these words throw on the mysterious power of this soul where all the emotions of hit people are inscribed!
116Gandhi had come to realize that some of the majority members who voted for non-violence looked upon it, in their hearts, as a political expedient paving the way, covertly, to violence. They spoke suavely, he says, “of delivering non-violent blows.” Gandhi had not grasped the danger, as Tagore had, long before. But he was horror-struck. And, more harshly than Tagore, he denounced and attacked the majority’s attitude.
117March 9, 1922.
118”The Great Trial, Young India,” March 23, 1922.
119”If the existence of our Empire were challenged, the discharge of responsibilities of the British Government to India prevented and demands were made in the very mistaken belief that we contemplated retreat from India, then India would not challenge with success the most determined people in the world who once again would answer with all the vigor and determination at its command.”
120Mr. Banker, the editor of “Young India,” who, during the trial, had followed the master’s example and acquiesced in all his statements, was sentenced to a fine and imprisonment for one year.
121Mrs. Kasturibai Gandhi informed the people of India of the sentence imposed on Gandhi, in a very beautiful message, urging them in peace and quiet to concentrate on carrying out Gandhi’s constructive program.
Gandhi did not remain in the prison of Sarbamati, where he was well treated, but was transferred to an unknown jail and then to Yeravda, near Poona. According to a statement made by N. D. Hardiker, “Gandhi in Prison, Unity,” May 18, 1922, which we are unable to verify, Gandhi has been placed in a cell like the common-law criminals, and is allowed no privileges of any kind. It is claimed that his delicate health has suffered through this regime.
“Mr. C. F. Andrews, speaking of Gandhi’s imprisonment, told me that the Mahatma was happy in prison and that he had asked his friends not to visit him. He is purifying himself, he prays and feels convinced that in this way he is working in the most efficacious way for India.”
Incidentally Mr. Andrews states that the Gandhist party in India has gained strength by the Mahatma’s imprisonment. India believes in Gandhi with more fervor than ever before. It persists in looking upon him as an incarnation of Sri-Krishna, who was also subjected to the trial of imprisonment. And Gandhi, in jail, has more effectively prevented the explosion of that violence which he feared than if he had been at liberty.
122On August 3, 1922, “Unity” published a “Letter from Prison” where Gandhi speaks about the evils of modern civilization. The letter seems apocryphal to me. I should imagine it a summary of extracts written some time ago, particularly in the “Hind Swaraj.”
123Guru-Ka-Bagh is a sanctuary (Gurdwara) about ten miles from Amritsar.
124”The Akali Struggle,” by Andrews, professor at Santiniketan. Published in the “Swaraiya” of Madras and under separate cover. September 1, 1922.
125”Manchester Guardian Weekly,” October 13, 1922.
126An article by Blanche Watson, in “Unity,” November 16, 1922, enumerates the advantages which India has won by her fight of non-violent resistance.
This article claims that the internal revenues of India have decreased some seventy million dollars, and that the boycott of English goods has caused England to lose, in the course of a single year, some twenty million dollars. She claims that at that time about thirty thousand Indians were imprisoned, and that the governmental machinery was entirely upset. But Blanche Watson, who is a fervent admirer of Gandhism, has, perhaps, an unconscious tendency to exaggerate its successes. Other testimony would seem to be less encouraging and would seem to prove that the spirit of self-sacrifice is balked by the selfish attitude of the wealthy and of business people, while many of those who resigned from government posts in the first flush of enthusiasm have now returned to work. It would not be human to believe anything else. In every revolution many lag on behind, or retrace their steps. The point is to determine whether, or not, on the whole, the movement is on the increase or the decrease. In this connection it is interesting to refer to a description published in the “Manchester Guardian Weekly,” February 16, 1928.
The “Manchester Guardian,” whose intelligent liberalism is well known, but which nevertheless represents certain powerful interests directly imperiled by the non-coöperation movement, recently organized an investigation of conditions in India. The conclusion one draws after reading the results of this inquiry, in spite of a very natural tendency to discredit the movement, is that the situation is serious and causes grave misgivings. The last article (February 16, 1923) tries to prove that Gandhi’s tactics have been proved ineffective and that the non-coöperation movement must be reorganized. But the article goes on to say that the spirit of non-coöperation is growing. Everywhere there are traces of distrust of the foreign Government and ardent hope of getting rid of it. The most cultivated people in India and the inhabitants of the large cities agree on this point. The ryot, or peasant, is only slightly affected by the movement, but conditions are such in the villages that within a short time he will have to take sides. The army still seems immune, but recruits come from the villages, and sooner or later they will be contaminated. The non-coöperation movement is frequently most intense among the best and the most moderate elements. These elements disapprove revolutionary methods, but their disapproval is not shared by the rest of the country. The writer claims that it will take about ten years for India really to bring about effective civil disobedience. But in the meantime the situation will grow more and more serious. It is impossible to hold the Indians in check by threatening them with imprisonment. They no longer fear it. Harsher coercive measures must be resorted to, and this will stir up hatred. There is only one peaceful solution—if it is not already too late—and that is for England to take the initiative of making Indian reforms. No half-measures, like those of 1919, and not applied till last year! They are not sufficient, and there is no time to lose. England must call a National Indian Convention where all parties and interests in India will be represented—Gandhi and his disciples as well as Indian princes and European capitalists, Mohammedans, Hindus, Parsees, Eurasians, Christians, pariahs—all must join in a convention and draft a constitution for an autonomous India within the empire and draw up the lines of such a home rule. This is the only way to avoid the breaking up of the empire.
I do not know how the Government of India and British bureaucracy look upon the “Manchester Guardian’s” suggestion, and I hardly believe that Gandhi and his non-coöperators would agree to sit in a convention with European and Indian capitalists. But one thing is sure, and that is that no one questions, any more, India’s right to home rule. It must come in one way or another. And nothing is more remarkable than the change of England’s attitude to India since the beginning of the Gandhist movement. The European no longer scorns the Indian but treats him with consideration. Everybody agrees that it is a mistake to employ the violent methods which were the first the Governments resorted to in former days. From a spiritual and mental point of view, India is already victorious.
127Fragment of the oldest Invocation of Çiva, in the play “Mudra-Rakshasha” (400) by Vishakadatta.
128This is the standpoint of the “conscientious objectors” in England, which is spreading little by little to other countries.