Non-violence and the Concept of “Dharma Yuddha” vis-à-vis the Teaching and Practice of Jesus and Gandhi

By Acharya K.K. Chandy

Introduction (1)

Agape and Ahamisa: In a context where the survival of the species itself has become the main anxiety of our day, discarding the warnings given by Christ and Gandhi would be to our peril as individuals and nations: Gandhiji said, “In every state in the world today, violence, even if it were for so called defensive purposes only, enjoyed a status which is in conflict with the better elements of life. The organization of the best in society should be (our) aim, and this could be done only if we succeeded in demolishing the status which has been given to militarism today” (Harijan, Augustus 24^th, 1947). Provided it is absolute and uncompromising, non-violence, Gandhiji said, is adequate to meet any situation – personal, social, political, economic, national and international. Christ said, “Put up your sword, all who take the sword die by the sword”; “Be not overcome of evil but overcome evil with good.” (2) It is gratifying to note that despite the feared nuclear weapons threat from Pakistan, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi has categorically declared that India has no intention to make the bomb.

Ahimsa and Dharma Yuddha (2a): In a context where guerilla terrorism in the name of ‘just war’, ‘Jehad’ [sic], or ‘Dharma Yuddha’ is making life itself increasingly perilous, this subject is assuming a life and death importance. The Mahabharata which states that there is no religion greater than truth also declares, ‘Ahimsa paramodharma’ [sic] (non-violence is the greatest duty or religion); and yet in the Gita which carries its basic message, Sri Krishna advises Arjuna to fight, waging Dharma Yuddha (righteous war) and do his duty as a warrior, but without hatred or attachment. Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, commenting on it, wrote, “Krishna tried all peaceful methods of getting justice done. But having failed, he advises Arjuna to fight against the selfish and unrighteous exploiters (the Kowravas) out of a sense of duty for the cause of justice. (3) Radhakrishnan also notes that the Ahimsa of the Hindu scriptures is meant only for non-Kshattriyas, and enjoined for all devotees only during Vanaprastha and Sannyasa – the last two stages of the Hindu’s life.

Gandhiji gave an entirely different interpretation to the Gita. He did not agree that the Gita’s argument was in defense of a physically fought righteous war. Though it is presented in a stetting of physical warfare, [what] the Dharma Yudha referred to, Gandhi said, is the eternal duel between right and wrong that is going on within man. The thesis of the Gita “is neither violence nor non-violence, but the gospel of selfless action – the duty of performing right action by right means only, and in a spirit of detachment – leaving the fruits of action to the care of God”. (4) 

Gandhi’s non-violence: was it situational or absolute?

During the stress and strain of the Sino-Indian war, many Indian leaders including some Gandhians stated that, though Gandhiji had stood for absolute non-violence, he permitted violence under certain circumstances. There are many critics who say that though the ethics of non-violence may apply in the realm of personal relations it is not practical in social or political relations, and in the achievement of basic justice. They also argue that there is a contradiction between love and power, especially as applied to state power. Let us examine the above assumptions in the light Gandhiji’s own words and actions.

Gandhi came to absolute non-violence only after 1935: It should be mentioned at the outset that as Gandhiji himself had admitted to Lewis Fisher, he came to absolute non-violence only about the year 1935, after the First World War. (5) Some of his statements and actions before that time would show that his non-violence at that time was not absolute but one of expediency. For instance, as mentioned by Sri K.P.S. Nenon, “During the First World War Gandhi exhorted his people to fight on the side of the Allies”. (6) The following words of Gandhi are often quoted by critics to show that Gandhi recognized the need of a limited use of violence: “Man cannot be wholly free from violence so long as he lives a bodily life and continues to be a social being”. (7) But by it, Gandhi clearly referred to the killing of germs and other non-human forms of life and not with reference to mankind. The absolute non-violence to which he committed himself after 1935 was only in terms of human beings.

Gandhi denied supporting World War II: Louis Fisher wrote that the day after the beginning of the Second World War Gandhi said, “he could not participate in the war effort, nor would he defend India against an aggressor. He did not want India to have an army”. (8)

Kashmir Action: Another oft-quoted instance of Gandhiji’s compromising on non-violence is where he is said to have blessed India’s military action in Kashmir. Gandhi had denied this also. (9)

Non-violence as expediency was rejected by Gandhi, both as a means to achieve justice and to defend freedom. He wrote, non-violence as expediency means non-violence so far as profitable, and violence when necessary. This, Gandhi believed, was the non-violence of the weak as against the non-violence of the brave to which he was uncompromisingly committed.

Violence involved treating men as means. The least among men (oppressed or oppressor) has infinite worth. Non-violence of the week is denial of this basic principle of democracy, while that of the brave stand for the equality of all persons as persons irrespective of friend or foe. Non-violence as expediency might bring about political freedom, but the resultant democracy, will not be real swaraj (democracy of the people). Democracy thus won will inevitably lead to the scramble for power. “It will not bring freedom or power to the weaker, and if long practiced may even render as unfit for self-government” (Harijan, July 13^th, 1940.

Non-violence is as practicable to nations as to individuals

Gandhi said, “It is a blasphemy to say that non-violence can only be practiced by individuals, and never by nations”. (10)
Non-violence is power: There are many who see a contradiction between love and power. But Gandhi said, “non-violence of the brave is the greatest force in the world” (Harijan, June 29^th, 1947). Jesus and Gandhi believed that power through violence is self-annihilating, that the non-violence of the cross – Satyagraha – alone is power, that love and power are the same and do not contradict each other. (11). Gandhiji however said, “non-violence is power only when it is unadulterated”, “In this age of the atom bomb, unadulterated non-violence is the only force that can confound all the tricks of violence put together”. (12) He took to heart Jesus’ words, “Sheathe the sword, he that takes up the sword shall perish by the sword”, “He that seeks to save his life shall lose it, but he that loses it” in the way of the cross “shall find it”. 

Is non-violence adequate to meet British aggressors? Though non-violence worked with a nation like the British who had some moral scruples, “will it work in dealing with dictators… who are impervious to pity or moral response, or to world opinion?” Gandhiji replied: “Non-violence does not depend for its working on the sufferance or good will of the tyrant. It is self-sustained.” (13)

But will non-violence work against air attacks and nuclear weapons, where there would be no opportunity for any personal contacts with the opponents, Gandhi replied, “Behind the death dealing bomb is the human hand that releases it and behind that still is the human heart that sets that hand in motion”. That heart as well as the heart of his brutish master whose agent he is, has the divine imprint, and is also “open to the influence of prayer “, that supreme defence weapon of Ahimsa. 

Is non-violence adequate to run a state?: Gandhi’s answer was an emphatic ‘yes’. He pointed out the instance of Ashoka’s state after his conversion to Buddhism and the acceptance of the Dharma Chakra on its coat of arms. (14) It is little known that Pennsylvania, a state in the U.S.A., functioned for about seventy years on the sanction of non-violence without an army or armed police. (15) While the white settlers of other colonies had to carry guns even when they went to church to protect women and children, Penn and his men could depend upon those ‘savages’ themselves for security.

It is true, however, that non-violence as sanction of state power and technique for mass action has yet to be developed. This should continue to be a concern of the W.R.I., which gave shape to the World Peace Brigade.

Did Jesus ever use or sanction violence?

There are three occasions when critics ascribe Jesus to have sanctioned the use of violence: 1) when he said, “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s”; 2) when he “took the whip and drove sheep, cattle and all out”; 3) when he said, “He that has no sword let him sell his garment and buy one”. But when we examine these closely it could be seen that Jesus neither used violence nor sanctioned the ‘sword’. (16)

It may be recalled here that in the case of Gandhiji also his so called sanction of violence for ‘self defence’, ‘preparedness’ etc. were also rebukes as in the case of [???] to such of his followers, who giving up the non-violence of the brave were going in for the non-violence of the coward. It was under such circumstances he said with anguish, “The day India accepts the sword shall be the hour of my trial”. But statements made by him that he would prefer violence to the non-violence of the weak, have often been quoted to show that his non-violence was only situational. They were made in the same spirit as Jesus told his disciples, “He that has a sword let him have it…” Gandhi and Jesus considered all violence as cowardice and lack of faith and never permitted violence under any circumstances for their followers. (14a and b)

Urgency of peace education and spiritual regeneration

Both Jesus and Gandhi emphasized the urgency and importance of peace education. Jesus commissioned his followers to go, preach, teach, heal, making disciples of nations, “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded” – summed up in the love commandment. Thus educating the people they have to help nations to beat their swords into ploughs. Gandhi urged the nation and nations, to promote basic education. A programme of educating the people in Satyagraha – truth, justice and non-violence – is the urgent need of the hour. All educational institutions are to be reconstructed from being communally based centres of power, to centres promoting education for Peace and self-giving service. N.C.C.’s and Home Guards should be replaced by peace squads for non-violent action. 

Take up God’s armour to do Dharma Yuddha: The revolution for the new order is to begin first within us, individually. Gandhiji said, the battle for peace is to be won in the struggle between good and evil in the hearts of men. It was such a revolution that took shape in the community life in the followers of Christ in the early church. (18 ???) They gave heed to the New Testament injunction, “Take up God’s armour; then you will be able to stand your ground when things are at their worst… stand firm… buckle on the belt of truth… let the shoes on your feet be the gospel of peace… take up the great shield of faith , for sword take up that which the spirit gives you the words that come from God” (Eph. 6:13-17). And take care that, “All you do be done in love”, “there is nothing that love cannot face”. It was to such a way of life that Christ and Gandhi have called us. It is to such a way of life that my colleagues and I are called at the Christavashram to which I belong. “Education for revolution seems to me”, Gandhi said, “to express in three words what our policy should be towards the birth of the new society”, and that revolution, be believed could only be achieved through dynamic non-violence.

Endnotes:

(1) Ushering in a lopsided and materialistic culture which defies man and science, Swinburne sang: “Glory to man in the highest for man is the master of things”. This was a parody of the ‘Song of the Angels’ announcing the birth of Jesus. Immediately following the atomic raid on Hiroshima, H.G. Wells wrote, “Man is at the end of his tether… Homo-Sapiens is played out…” The thing which man has made is pursuing him like a Frankenstein monster before whom he is fleeing for survival. Along with Rev. Paul Sekiya (the then Secretary of the Japanese Fellowship of Reconciliation) I was visiting in 1963 a hospital in Hiroshima, where hundreds of victims of atomic radiation were inpatients, many of them from the time of the bombing. As we were coming away, one of them who had shared with us of her agonizing story called us back and said, “Thank you very much for this your mission of peace. Please tell the peoples of the world as you go round, never to allow the world to be plunged into war again and cause more unfortunates like us to pine away the rest of their lives”. I was reminded of Khrushchev’s words that in an atomic war, “the survivors will envy the dead”.
(2) Matt. 26:52
(2a) Gandhi had on various occasions expressed the inspiration he owed to Jesus’s teachings and practice of the law of love – agape, the non-violence of the cross. Acharya Vinoba Bhave spoke of Jesus Christ as the incarnation of love, non-violence. Christ said, “A new commandment I give you, love one another as I have loved you”, love became a ‘new commandment’ because there was something new and more positive in it than the ‘love’ of the Old Testament, and ‘Ahimsa’ of the Indian Scriptures. It was new, also because love which till then was dharma became incarnate in him. Vinobaji wrote, “The Lord Jesus said clearly, ‘Love your enemies…’ Others have also said the same thing, but not so clearly as he did” (Shanti Sena by Vinoba). Praying for his crucifiers Jesus said, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do”. It may be recalled here that while the Ten Incannations [sic] came to destroy evildoers and to save the righteous, Jesus said that he “did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them” (Luke 9:56). The non-violence as enunciated by Jesus and Gandhi was one which sought to create fellowship where fellowship seemed impossible – the unfailing will (not merely sentiment) for the highest good of the other person, whether he be friend or enemy. Such non-violence insisted on purity of means, and believed that there is “as much relation between the means and ends as there is between the seed and the tree”. While military tactics and the Marxian methods of struggle would seek to use methods of violence and untruth, and to take advantage of the opponent’s difficulties as opportunity, Gandhi said, “In a Dharma Yuddha, Satyagraha (the Gandhian – Christian way of struggle) forbids such action. No wonder the non-violence of the cross created fellowship causing the Centurion who prosecuted the crucifixion to say, “Beyond all doubt, this man was innocent”, “Truly this man was a son of God” (Luke 23:47, Math 27:54). Likewise, on Gandhiji’s death his ‘enemies’ like General Smuts of South-Africa said, “Here was a man who released a power which eclipsed the power of the atom” – Fellowship where fellowship seemed impossible.  
(3) Religion and Society by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan.
(4) Mahatma Gandhi: The Last Phase by Pyarelal
(5) Life of Mahatma Gandhi
(6) Yesterday and Today
(7) The law of love.
(8) “I believe”, he said, “that all war is wholly wrong”, “if the Government had not arrested me in 1942, I would have shown how to fight Japan by non-violence”(Harijan, June 9^th, 1946). An impression however had gained ground that as a participant in the Bombay Resolution of the Indian national Congress, Gandhi had offered to support Britain in the war, provided Britain pledged freedom to India after the war. But the fact that he was against participation, not only in that war, but in all wars “on the ground primarily of non-violence” was declared by him clearly in his letter to the Congress President Moulana Abdul Kalam Azad. Gandhi wrote, “In the course of my discussion in the Working Committee a great error I the interpretation of the Bombay Resolution… I have interpreted it to mean that the Congress was to refuse participation in the present, or all wars on the ground principally of non-violence… It is my certain belief that only non-violence can save India and the world from self-extinction. Such being the case… you will please relieve me of the responsibility laid on me by the Bombay Resolution. I must continue civil disobedience for free speech against all wars with such Congress men and others whom I select, and who believe in the non-violence I have contemplated” (Guardian, Madras, 8.1.’841 [sic]).
(9) The truth of the matter, however, may be seen from what Gandhiji told Vincent Shean from the U.S.A. during an interview at that time. He said referring to the Cabinet decision to send armed forces to meet Azad Kashmir forces, “They would not lend ear to my council… If I live long enough they will see the futility of it all and come round to my way”. (Mahatma Gandhi: The Last Phase) The following statement by Nehru made earlier in 1961 would clearly show that Gandhi’s stand on non-violence was uncompromising: “We were all for peaceful methods in our [freedom] movement… but he said, ‘You must now decide that when India is free you must take to non-violence; it meant keeping no armies, no forces and hardly a police force.’ This was Gandhiji’s idea of non-violence. Much as we admired Gandhiji and believed in his peaceful non-violent movement, we thought we could not commit the future India to that” (The Hindu, December 29^th, 1961)
(10) “I do not believe”, he wrote, “that the unarmed millions in India cannot exercise non-violence with success in this wide field . Congress men should train themselves to defend their country with a non-violent army” (Harijan, September 27^th, 1947). 
His fearless acceptance of non-violence vis-avis the nation , may clearly be seen in this statement, “My love of nationalism is that my country may become free, that if need be the whole country may die that the human race may live”. (Studies in Gandhism by Nirmal Bose) In order to save humanity from annihilation through war, Gandhi thus was ready even to risk the martyrdom of India by the acceptance of non-violent defence. He believed that such martyrdom will lead to a resurrection with a renewed strength and power.
(11) It was through the power of non-violence that the early Christians overcame Rome –the greatest power on earth at that time. It was through the same power that under Gandhiji’s leadership India overcame the power of Britain – the greatest power on earth at that time. And how many nations in Asia and Africa got liberated without firing a gun after India got liberated through non-violence?
(12) It reminds us of the prophesy of Isaiah regarding the non-violence of Christ, “He shall make many nations to sprint to liberty” (Isaiah 52:15). Looking at the crucified figure of Christ in the Sistine Chapel Gandhiji reflected, “I saw there at once that nations like individuals can only be re-made by the agony of the cross and in no other way”; “I wish India accepted this way.”
(13) Taking an instance from history, Pyarelal pointed out in his book New Horizons, about the struggle of the early Christians against the emperor Nero, who “burnt the Christian heretics alive” or threw them “to gladiators or hungry lions”. Those methods, and the Javelin proof coat of mail of the Roman soldiers were “of no proof against this subtle force” of non-violence of the early Christians.
To the question that “If through such non-violent resistance the defender was likely to lose his life how could it be called self-defence?”Gandhi replied, “Did Jesus lose his life on the cross and did the Roman Pilate win? No, Jesus had won as world history has abundantly shown (Harijan, September 27^th, 1947)
(14) Ashoka ventured on that course by educating the people in the ways of truth, non-violence, justice and peace through Stupas, Rock edicts, Pillar edicts etc., which he set up throughout the empire.
(a) Regarding the incident of the whip: the Gospel of John clearly states that Jesus took the whip to drive “sheep, cattle and all out”, meaning the animals” (John, 2:15). It may be noticed that no human beings are included in the list relating to the whip. When he turned against the men what he did was to “upset the tables of the money changers”. There was of course the use of force in it. But that force was not violence. It was force used in love redemptively which did not cause the “shedding of blood or taking of life” which were considered as violence by the early Christians. 
(b) Regarding the “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s” statement, the disciples and the early Christians understood it to mean that their primary loyalty is to God. Their obligation to the state is always subject to God’s commandments, all of which Jesus summed up in the commandment of love – “Love your enemy”. Participation in the army involved directly the killing of the ‘enemy’, which was clearly betrayal of their loyalty to God in favour of Caesar. The doctrine of the ‘just war’, and the ‘crusades’ should all be seen as such. It is regrettable that while there is an increasing sense of guilt about this ‘canonization’ of the ‘sword’ on the part of the Pope and some other leaders of the Churches today, the actionists of the so called liberation theology still cling to it, justifying guerilla terrorism such as of the late priest Camilo Torres of Latin America, in the name of God and Justice. Torres before his death as a guerilla had said that those who don’t accept the “bloody line” live “in mortal sin”. He based his statement on the church’s doctrine of the ‘just war’ (as he was taught during his seminary days), and on Christ’s ‘whip’ action in the temple.
(15) William Penn, the Quaker leader of the colonists when asked by the king of England, “What security have you in venting against the savages of North America”, “I will not send a single soldier with you”, replied, “I want none of your soldiers. I depend on something better than soldiers, I depend on themselves on their moral sense, even on that grace of God…” – he was thus trusting in the divine imprint in every man – “The Holy Experiment…” In fact they depended on the security of agape –the non-violence of the cross – which casts out fear and turns enemies into friends.
(16) The last statement for instance was made during the passion week. He had noticed a cowardly sense of insecurity among the disciples ever since he started telling them about the impending crucifixion. Some of them were seen having swords and purses. So, he reminded them of his sending them out two by two without purses or arms of any kind, “as sheep in the midst of wolves” (Matt. 10:9, 16), and of their “coming back jubilant” reporting, “in your name, Lord, even the devils submit to us” (Luke 10:17). Reminding them of it all Jesus asked whether when they went out without purse or arms they lacked anything. The replied, “nothing”. “But now”, he said, “he that has a purse let him take it… and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one”(Luke 22:35-36). Surely, he was thereby decrying their non-violence of the coward and telling them that he would rather have them bear arms then go without it. Not catching the point of his words they replied, “Look Lord, we have two swords here”. Jesus replied rebuking them saying, ‘though, enough”, stopping that conversation and leaving unsaid, “Oh you of little understanding; having been with me for so long you have not yet understood the a, b, c of my Gospel”. Not grasping the point of Jesus [final part is missing, as is endnote 17]