Missionaries, Protection, and the Worship of Brute Force
We all know well that Mahatma Gandhiji was more a practical man than a prophet. Yet, at times, what he wrote in response to a concrete historical situation continues to speak with a prophetic clarity far beyond its moment. The following reflection is one such instance. Written almost a century ago, Gandhiji’s words require little commentary today. They expose not an abstract philosophy but a recurring pattern of modern power: the simultaneous invocation of peace and reliance on force.
The occasion was an appeal made by twenty-five American missionaries working in China. As reported in The New York Nation, these missionaries explicitly refused all military protection. Declaring themselves “messengers of the gospel of brotherhood and peace,” they requested that no foreign military force be used to safeguard either their lives or their property. Even in the event of capture or death, they asked that no punitive expedition, indemnity, or ransom be exacted. Their conviction was unambiguous: righteousness and peace could be established only through suffering without retaliation (p. 513).
Gandhiji acknowledged the moral courage of this position and noted how rare such an attitude had already become in his own time. Yet he immediately placed this episode within a longer and less flattering history. Was it not, he asked, also in China that missionaries once sought the protection of British gunboats from Lord Salisbury? When they did so, Salisbury reminded them that accepting armed protection meant submitting to imperial obligations and curbing missionary zeal. The Christians of old, he observed, expected no protection save from God and willingly exposed themselves to danger. In the case cited by The New York Nation, the missionaries appeared—at least in principle—to have reverted to this ancient practice.
The real problem, Gandhiji insisted, lay not with the missionaries but with the modern state. The American Legation rejected the missionaries’ appeal, claiming that safeguarding Americans abroad admitted of no exceptions. Gandhiji called this one of those rare cases where “two apparently contradictory positions are right at the same time.” The missionaries could not have taken any other stand if they were serious about non-violence. The American government, however, “so long as it retains its present character, can only give the answer they are reported to have given” (p. 513).
That answer, Gandhiji argued, exposed the deeper evil of the modern political system. “The American prestige depends not upon its moral strength but upon force” (p. 514). This was not merely a criticism of one nation but an indictment of a global order in which honour, citizenship, and commerce had become inseparable from coercion. Why, Gandhiji asked pointedly, should the entire armed force of America be mobilized for the so-called vindication of national honour if a handful of missionaries chose to risk their lives voluntarily? What harm would come to America’s honour if they were killed while delivering their message? “Probably, it would be the best thing for their mission.”
State interference, he argued, could only interrupt the working of what he called “the law of suffering.” Yet such restraint would require a complete change of outlook. In practice, the defence of citizenship had become the defence of national commerce—that is, exploitation. Exploitation, in turn, presupposed the use of force to impose commerce upon unwilling peoples. Nations, Gandhiji concluded with chilling clarity, had “almost become gangs of robbers,” when they ought instead to be peaceful associations united for the common good of humanity (pp. 514–515).
Against this backdrop, the missionaries’ action appeared only as “a dim shadow of reconstructed society or even reconstructed nations” (p. 515). Gandhiji did not romanticize them. He openly questioned whether they carried their principle consistently into every department of life. True non-violence, he noted, would demand complete self-effacement. Yet he was unequivocal on one point: if the fetish of force was to be challenged at all, it could only be challenged by means radically different from those employed by its worshippers.
Gandhiji did not deny that there was a philosophy behind the modern worship of brute force, nor that it had history on its side. What he challenged was the widespread disbelief in the possibility of holding society together without it. If one person could pit himself against the whole world, he asked, why could not two or more do so together? The obstacle was not feasibility but faith—faith that moral force could outlast military might.
Nearly a century later, little has changed. Other colonial powers have receded into history after losing control of their empires. America alone continues to retain global prestige primarily through force. The language of peace remains constant; the dependence on coercion uninterrupted. Gandhiji’s words, written in response to a small and easily forgotten episode, now read less like commentary and more like diagnosis.
No further commentary is required.
Erode
January 15, 2026
Appendix
Summary of 557. Stand for Non-Violence — M. K. Gandhi
English Summary
In this article, Mahatma Gandhi reflects on a report published in The New York Nation concerning twenty-five American missionaries working in China who formally requested that no military protection be provided to them by their government. Declaring themselves messengers of peace and brotherhood, the missionaries expressed their willingness to suffer harm or even death without retaliation, believing that righteousness and peace could only be established through non-violence and voluntary suffering.
Gandhi commends the moral courage of the missionaries while situating their action within a broader historical context. He recalls an earlier episode in which missionaries sought the protection of British gunboats, and notes Lord Salisbury’s warning that reliance on armed protection inevitably subjects religious missions to political and imperial obligations. By contrast, the missionaries in the present case, at least in principle, revived the ancient Christian practice of trusting in moral force rather than military power.
Gandhi argues that while the missionaries’ position was morally sound, the American government’s refusal to exempt them from military protection was consistent with the nature of the modern state. He uses this incident to expose a deeper flaw in modern political systems: national prestige is grounded not in moral strength but in the capacity to use force. Citizenship, he contends, has become inseparable from the protection of national commerce and economic exploitation, which in turn presupposes coercion.
Concluding his reflection, Gandhi maintains that true non-violence requires complete self-effacement and faith in moral power. Nations, he argues, must move away from reliance on brute force and reimagine themselves as peaceful associations serving the common good of humanity. The action of the missionaries, though limited, represents a faint indication of such a reconstructed society.
Young India, 21-10-1926, pp. 513-16, CWMG, Vol. 31, mkgandhi.org.in
Leave a Reply