Mahatmaji’s method of defending his idealism is unique. In his place, most people would have failed to present his case with logical sequence turning the table against the critics using his/her own points to show why he is correct and his critic is not. This is another one such wonderful example from many of his apologetic writings upholding his idealism of Satya and Ahimsa with their action plan like Non-Cooperation.
223. WHAT IT IS NOT
The situation in India illustrates another curious basis of difference between us. I hold to the “Non-resistance” idea. Gandhi as I understand him proclaims the Way of Love. And yet he does not see that “Non-co-operation is a way of violence”…. Over the dead bodies of little children, they would by “non-co-operation” win their victory. As Bertrand Russell said of the Bolsheviki, “such suffering makes us question the means used to arrive at a desired end” Non-co-operation means suffering in Lancashire and is an appeal, in the end, to violence rather than reason.…John Fiske pointed out, through absence of war, the process of growth has been by the method of co-operation. [Non-cooperation]
The above is an extract from an article in Unity (14th February, 1924) sent by an unknown American friend.
The article is a letter addressed to Mr. Holmes3 Mr. Arthur L. Weatherly. The letter is an endeavour to show that an idealist, if he will be practical, has to water his ideal down to suit given circumstances. [idealism, viz. idealist won’t do is the message by Mahatmaji]…
- Presumably, John Haynes Holmes, author of My Gandhi
(p.210)
Mr. Weatherly has laid down a universal proposition that “non-co-operation is a way of violence”. A moment’s thought would have shown the falsity of the proposition….My non-co-operation, I hold, is not only not a way of violence, but may be an act of love, if love is the motive that has prompted my refusal. The fact is that all non-co-operation is not violent and non-violent non-co-operation can never be an act of violence. It may not be always an act of love. For love is an active quality which cannot always be inferred from the act itself. A surgeon may perform a most successful operation and yet he may have no love for his patient. [Love]
Mr. Weatherly’s illustration is most unhappy and incomplete for the purpose of examination. If the milk drivers of New York have a grievance against its Municipality for criminal mismanagement of its trust and if, in order to bend it, they decided to cut off the milk supply of the babies of New York, they would be guilty of a crime against humanity. But suppose that the milk drivers were underpaid by their employers, that they were consequently starving, they would be justified, if they have tried every other available and proper method of securing better wages, in refusing to drive the milk carts even though their action resulted in the death of the babies of New York. Their refusal will certainly not be an act of violence, though it will not be an act of love. They were not philanthropists. They were driving milk carts for the sake of their maintenance. It was no part of their duty as employees under every circumstance to supply milk to babies. There is no violence when there is no infraction of duty. Suppose further that the milk drivers in question knew that their employers supplied cheap but adulterated milk and another dairy company supplied better but dearer milk and they felt for the welfare of the babies of New York, their refusal to drive the milk carts will be an act of love, even though some short-sighted mother of New York might be deprived of the adulterated milk and may not have bought better but dearer milk from the more honest dairy company whose existence has been assumed for the purpose of our argument.
- There is an error here. Gandhiji later corrected this to read: “My purpose is to
show that Mr. Weatherly’s view is altogether wrong. His view, wrong though it is, cannot fail to be of general interest.” Vide “Letter to Mahadev Desai”, after 10-4-1924.
(p. 211)
From the imaginary heartless milk drivers and the heaps of dead bodies of New York babies, the writer in Unity takes us to Lancashire and pictures its ruin when Indian non-co-operation has succeeded. In his haste to prove his main argument, the writer has hardly taken the trouble to study even simple facts. Indian non-co-operation is not designed to injure Lancashire or any other part of the British Isles. It has been undertaken to vindicate India’s right to administer her own affairs. Lancashire’s trade with India was established at the point of the bayonet and it is sustained by similar means. It has ruined the one vital cottage industry which supplemented the resources of millions of India’s peasants and kept starvation from their doors. If India now strives to revive her cottage industry and hand-spinning and refuses to buy any foreign cloth or even cloth manufactured by Indian mills, and Lancashire of Indian mills suffer thereby, non-co-operation cannot by any law of morals be held to be an act of violence. India never bound herself to maintain Lancashire….Similarly, if customers of money-lenders ceased to borrow and the latter starved, the former cannot be regarded as violent by reason of their withdrawal. But they might be so considered if they transferred their custom from one money-lender to another through ill will or spite and without just cause.
Thus, it is clear that non-co-operation is not violence when the refusal of the restraint is a right and a duty, even though by reason of its performance some people may have to suffer. It will be an act of love when non-co-operation is resorted to solely for the good of the wrongdoer. Indian non-co-operation is a right and a duty, but cannot be regarded as an act of love because it has been undertaken by a weak people in self-defence.
Mr. Weatherly’s reference to the obstructive programme of the Swarajist cannot for reasons stated last week be examined for the time being.
Young India, 10-4-1924, CWMG, vol. 27, pp. 210- 212
Leave a Reply