I am always impressed by the way Gandhiji can present his views with a logical skill. Maybe as an experienced Lawyer he naturally developed such talent. However he was blamed for using his ‘hunger strike’ as a block mail to bend the will of the opponents to agree with him. But he never approved all kinds of hunger strikes. Similarly he was criticised for the way he encouraged imprisonment in the process of civil-obedience. But when I read the following message I could hardly disagree with him on these two of his major non-violent weapons to achieve his ends.
DB, Gurukulam,
26-5-2023
19. NOTES
HUNGER STRIKE
I cannot sufficiently warn non-co-operation prisoners against the danger of hastily embarking upon hunger strikes in their prisons. It cannot be justified as a means for removing irksome jail restrictions. For a jail is nothing if it does not impose upon us restrictions which we will not submit to in ordinary life. A hunger strike would be justified when inhumanity is practised, or food issued which offends one’s religious sense or which is unfit for human consumption. It should be rejected when it is offered in an insulting manner. In other words it should be rejected when acceptance would prove us to be slaves of hunger.
WHY SUFFER?
Let there be no mistake about the meaning of these imprisonments. They are not courted with the object of embarrassing the Government, though as a matter of fact they do. They are courted for the sake of discipline and suffering. They are courted because we consider it to be wrong to be free under a Government we hold to be wholly bad. No stone should be left unturned by us to make the Government realize that we are in no way amenable to its control. And
(p.39)
no government has yet tolerated such open defiance however respectful it may be. It might safely therefore be said that if we are yet outside the prison walls, the cause lies as much with us as with the Government. We are moving cautiously in our corporate capacity. We are still voluntarily obeying many of its laws. There was, for instance, nothing to prevent me from disregarding the Madras Government’s order and courting arrest,1 but I avoided it. There is nothing to prevent me save my prudence or weakness from going without permission into the barracks and being arrested for trespass. I certainly believe the barracks to be the nation’s property and not that of a Government which l no longer recognize as representative of the people. Thus there is an apparent inconsistency between the statement on the one hand that it is painful to remain outside the prison walls under a bad Government and this deliberate avoidance on the other hand of arrest upon grounds which are not strictly moral but largely expedient. We thus avoid imprisonment, because first, we think that the nation is not ready for complete civil revolt, secondly, we think that the atmosphere of voluntary obedience and non-violence has not been firmly established, and thirdly, we have not done any constructive corporate work to inspire self-confidence. We therefore refrain from offering civil disobedience amounting to peaceful rebellion, but court imprisonment merely in the ordinary pursuit of our programme and in defence of complete freedom of opinion and action short of revolt.
Thus it is clear that our remaining outside the jails of a bad Government has to be justified upon very exceptional grounds, and that our swaraj is attained when we are in jail or when we have bent the Government to our will. Whether therefore the Government feel embarrassed or happy over our incarceration, the only safe and honourable place for us is the prison. And if this position be accepted, it follows that when imprisonment comes to us in the ordinary discharge of our duty, we must feel happy because we feel stronger, because we pay the price of due performance of duty. And if exhibition of real strength is the best propaganda, we must believe that every imprisonment strengthens the people and thus brings swaraj nearer.Young India, 3-11-1921, CWMG, vol. 25, pp. 39-480
Leave a Reply