Theory of Principle

Though I prefer not to share my views on Tariff Trump—since I am neither a politician nor an economist qualified to have an informed opinion—I sometimes find it intriguing, as a layperson, to observe the concept of ‘retaliatory tariff’ that Trump (better yet, ElonTrump) proposes from April 2nd, deliberately avoiding April 1st to escape any association with Fool’s Day sentiments.

In this context, Pandit Motilal’s response to Mahatma Gandhi’s principle of Ahimsa offers valuable insight into understanding the ‘other side’ of any principle. As I often say, many principles in life are not just double-edged swords but multi-edged swords—often without a handle. To my surprise, what Panditji wrote nearly a century ago still holds true about the nature of principles—whether it be Ahimsa or retaliatory tariffs.

While Trump is arguably correct in attempting to undo past mistakes, Panditji’s perspective reminds us that a principle “goes deeper and lies more in the theory on which the principle is based than in the principle itself”—or in the details, as he emphasized in his response. This is worth pondering whenever we find ourselves disagreeing with someone on principle.

Conclusion

Principles, whether in ethics, politics, or economics, are not isolated truths but constructs shaped by their underlying theories. As Pandit Motilal Nehru observed, the real debate often lies “more in the theory on which the principle is based than in the principle itself.” This holds true for Ahimsa as much as for retaliatory tariffs or any ideological stance. Principles, like multi-edged swords, require careful handling, as their rigid application can sometimes undermine their very purpose. Understanding their theoretical foundation allows for a more nuanced and pragmatic approach—one that does not reject principles outright but applies them with wisdom and context.

Happy Holi—a festival that reminds us that ‘Reconciliation,’ not ‘Retaliation,’ is the fundamental value in ahimsa. Yet, as Pandit Motilal Nehru insightfully noted, even within ahimsa, there remains a place for violence, for ‘it would be doing violence to the highest and noblest feelings implanted in man if we ruled out violence in any shape or form under all conceivable circumstances.’”

Ashram, 14-3-2025. 

APPENDIX VIII

• MOTILAL NEHRU’S NOTE ON COUNCIL-ENTRY

I have read and re-read Mahatmaji’s draft with all the attention I am capable of and have allowed a whole week to elapse since it was handed to me. I have also had the advantage in this interval of discussing the draft with Mahatmaji for which he was good enough to give me a long sitting of over three hours. I have considered the observations made by Mahatmaji in the course of that discussion with anxious care. This long deliberation has, I am sorry to say, resulted only in confirming the opinion I formed 18 months ago.

I agree that the difference between Mahatmaji and me is in some respects one of principle and not of mere detail. Indeed, on closer examination, I have come to think that it goes deeper and lies more in the theory on which the principle is based than in the principle itself. But with all that I am persuaded to believe that it does not and ought not to be allowed to affect the application of the principle in practice. Let us take “non-violence” and “non-co-operation” separately.

• “Non-violence” Mahatmaji’s “non-violence” is conceived on a very much higher plane than what I have agreed to adopt owing to the compelling necessity of the case. The doctrine of ahimsa with all its implications and logical deductions has not been and cannot be adopted by the Congress which professes to include men of all religions and creeds in the world within its fold. Islam does not recognize it as an invariable and inflexible rule of life and there are many Hindu castes and sects with which the judicious use of violence is an accepted article of faith. Whilst Mahatmaji would not resort to violence under any circumstances whatever in thought, word or deed, many true Congressmen would, under certain conditions, consider it their highest duty to resort to actual physical violence. In fact, I hold that it would be doing violence to the highest and noblest feelings implanted in man if we ruled out violence in any shape or form under all conceivable circumstances. If I see a bully ill-treating or assaulting a person weaker than himself, I would not merely interpose my body between the assailant and the victim and thus enable him to have two victims instead of one, but try to knock him down and thus save both his victim and myself. Again if I were assaulted, I would defend myself, if necessary, by inflicting violence on my assailant and that violence may under certain circumstances extend even to the causing of the assailants’s death. I need not give other illustrations of a similar nature which can easily be conceived. As for non-violence in thought, it is obvious that one who is prepared to resort to actual violence on certain occasions cannot be entirely free from the thought of it. By joining the movement of non-violent non-co-operation all I have undertaken to do is, to refrain from inflicting or even contemplating violence of any kind in carrying out the programme of non- (p.

470)

co-operation against the Government. This is what I take Mahatmaji to mean, when he speaks of “non-violence in its full sense, but restricted as the cause for which it was taken”. If a government official chooses to behave to me like the bully of my illustration in matters wholly unconnected with the Congress programme, he shall receive exactly the same treatment as I would give to the bully. The doctrine of non-violence has, so far as I am concerned, a limited application for the very special purpose for which I have adopted it.

CWMG, Vol. 27, pp. 470-71