| OCR Text |
Show Gandhian non-violence still effective weapon violence are no less spectacular than those of bloodshed. He demonstrated that nonviolence non-violence need not be an impotent weapon of the weak and the disinherited, but an imaginative and powerful tool that can change societies as well as hearts, as something that can bring a mighty empire to its knees. Perhaps Gandhi's greatest contribution was to show that a method which was lauded as ethical but was condemned as inoperative outside the pale of individual action could be trasnformed into a weapon of revolutionary pro- POUwould be legitimate to ask here if Gandhi would have survived m Hitler s rermany In Stalin's Russia? Perhaps not. ? should however be obvious that what-ever what-ever the fate of Gandhian techniques in Parian regimes, in a democratic order it would be hard to question the primacy Sf "non-violence as a weapon of re re Ultimately, i" a democracy s a United States, violence may not be me 5 or logical means to espouse, for means arc' an important matter in a free society. Democracy and violence go ill together. Democracy by definition is amenable to change though not infrequently, in practice, prac-tice, it is as intolerant and unmindful of the rights and privileges of the minorities as is a totalitarian regime. The point is that a democracy docs react to pressures-pressures pressures-pressures of criticism, of dissent; it can be prodded into action. As an old Indian adage says, even a mother would fain suckle her child unless she hears the infant's loud protestations of hunger. Similarly, Simi-larly, in a democracy, pressures have to be exerted and crises fomented for, to para-. para-. phrase Charles Frankcl, the accomplishments accomplish-ments of a democracy at any given moment will of necessity fall short of its ideals and aims. Some would deny that a citizen has an inherent right to resist evil laws, for tins would deny the legitimacy of the law; they would also deny him the right because (his (Continued on page 6) Mtor's Note: Dr. Candadai Seshachari, e of India, is presently an Assistant w in the Department of English at State College. He received his Ph.D. uhfrom the University in 1964, Wy having come here as a Fulbright Mundt fellow in 1959. Among his Publications is a doctoral thesis . M: "Gandhi and the American "jAn Intellectual History and CANDADAI SESHACHARI 1 sPial to the Chronicle ?"nt Gallup poll disclosed that four ; 'i college students believe that any -1 wii krican society in e next 25 S 2 be the work of a revolution W of more Peaceful and . Ic methods. Whatever the "cash sentinent, it certainly does 2 e mood of the times. ;Je y' days of Gandhian non-seen' non-seen' to have ended with the assassination of Martin Luther King. What seems to have gained ground instead is the belief that in violence alone lies the panacea to the ills of the society. Somehow Some-how today, in the midst of the American s rediscovery of the violent nature of his past, and also his seeming belief tJia violence will deliver the kingdon of God, it is pertinent to ask if non-violent means to achieve change will not do as well. As John Dewey was fond of saying there is no such thing in the modern world as status quo. Change will come, but the only questions are whether we can t control con-trol the direction, content and method ot change. Those who demand change would that "violence is as American as cheny pie," and the "it is necessary Violence on the American scene has perhaps been a commonplace since the , Pilgrw athe landed at Plymouth. The question is whether it is necessary. If anything, Gandhi's life and achieve ments proclaim that the v.ctones of non Power exists in non-violence (Continued from page 5) would be tantamount to wrecking the well-ordered society. There is little doubt that the right to resist unjust and discriminatory laws is generally recognized. Gandhi was unequivocally on the side of con science when man-made laws conflicted con-flicted with the higher law of his conscience. This was also the stand of Thoreau whose essay on "Civil Disobedience" provided Gandhi with a confirming rationale for his beliefs. To be right was more important, said Thoreau, than to be on the side of an unscrupulous law. It was more important for a man to obey his conscience, which after all was his instructed moral sense, then "to resign his conscience to a legislator." legis-lator." Even Lincoln, who in a speech in 1838 proclaimed that "to vio- written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution-certainly would if such a right were a vital one." It would seem that the right to protest, to demand change of discriminatory dis-criminatory laws, to insist that the law not differentiate between one citizen and another are inalienable rights. But the right to be violent is not; there is no inherent right to destroy, to bomb, to kill; whatever what-ever the rationale behind such an approach, there seems little doubt that in a democracy means are just as important as ends. Vio- ren's liberty," modified his stand to proclaim in his First Inaugural Address: "...if by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly late the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and tear the charter of his own and his child- lence after all, like non-violence is an instrument and, like all instruments, instru-ments, has to be justifiable. As Gandhi would say, "I am not likely to obtain the result flowing from the worship of God by laying myself prostrate before Satan." To ask the question again: Is violence necessary if non-violent means can succeed as well? In a technological society much more than in an "emerging" society, the possibilities of peaceful peace-ful means of confrontation succeeding suc-ceeding are limitless. Non-violent techniques from the ordinary strike to the more powerful weapons of non-cooperation and civil disobedience can be "'ielded an manipulated with such drama and finesse that the opponent can always be caught in disarray. A one-man protest, for instance, in far-off Congo may not achieve anything, but a one-man walk out at Cape Kennedy is likely to bring the massive space complex at the Cape to a standstill. The dynamics of an advanced industrial society are such that it can little brook disruption of its routine. Other factors such as public opinion and the conscience of a democracy lend to non-violence a power to make it what William James called the "moral equivalent of war." One need only to look at the accomplishments of Martin Luther King and the students stu-dents themsleves to recognize the truth of this assertion. |
