A friend writing from America propounds the following two questions:
"1. Granted that Satyagraha is capable of winning India's independence,
what are the chances of its being accepted as a principle of State
policy in a free India ? In other words, would a strong and
independent India rely on Satyagraha as a method of
self-preservation, or would it lapse back to seeking refuge in the
age-old institution of war, however defensive its character? To
restate the question on the basis of a purely theoretic problem: Is
Satyagraha likely to be accepted only in an uphill battle, when the
phenomenon of martyrdom is fully effective, or is it also to be the
instrument of a sovereign authority which has neither the need nor
the scope of behaving on the principle of martyrdom?
2. Suppose a free India adopts Satyagraha as an instrument of State
policy, how would she defend herself against probable aggression by
another sovereign State? To restate the question on the basis of a
purely theoretic problem: What would be the Satyagrahic
action-patterns to meet the invading army at the frontier? What kind
of resistance can be offered the opponent before a common area of
action, such as the one now existing in India between the Indian
nationalists and the British government, is established? Or should
the Satyagrahis withhold their action until after the opponent has
taken over the country?"
The questions are admittedly theoretical. They are
also premature for the reason that I have not mastered the whole
technique of non-violence. The experiment is still in the making. It
is not even in its advanced stage. The nature of the experiment
requires one to be satisfied with one step at a time. The distant
scene is not for him to see. Therefore my answers can only be
speculative.
In truth, as I have said before, now we are not
having unadulterated non-violence even in our struggle to win
independence.
As to the first question, I fear that the chances of
nonviolence being accepted as a principle of State policy are very
slight, so far as I can see at present. If India does not accept
non-violence as her policy after winning independence, the second
question becomes superfluous.
But I may state my own individual view of the potency
of non-violence. I believe that a State can be administered on a
non-violent basis, if the vast majority of the people are
non-violent. So far as I know, India is the only country which has a
possibility of being such a State. I am conducting my experiment in
that faith. Supposing, therefore, that India attained independence
through pure non-violence, India could retain it too by the same
means. A nonviolent man or society does not anticipate or provide
for attacks from without. On the contrary, such a person or society
firmly believes that nobody is going to disturb them. If the worst
happens, there are two ways open to non-violence. To yield
possession, but non-co-operate with the aggressor. Thus supposing
that a modern edition of Nero descended upon India, the
representatives of the State will let him in, but tell him that he
will get no assistance from the people. They will prefer death to
submission. The second way would be non-violent resistance by the
people who have been trained in the non-violent way. They would
offer themselves unarmed as fodder for the aggressor's cannons. The
underlying belief in either case is that even a Nero is not devoid
of a heart. The unexpected spectacle of endless rows upon rows of
men and women simply dying rather than surrender to the will of an
aggressor must ultimately melt him and his soldiery. Practically
speaking, there will be probably no greater loss in men than if
forcible resistance was offered; there will be no expenditure in
armaments and fortifications. The non-violent training received by
the people will add inconceivably to their height. Such men and
women will have shown personal bravery of a type far superior to
that shown in armed warfare. In each case the bravery consists in
dying, not in killing. Lastly, there is no such thing as defeat in
non-violent resistance. That such a thing has not happened before is
no answer to my speculation. I have drawn no impossible picture.
History is replete with instances of individual non-violence of the
type I have mentioned. There is no warrant for saying or thinking
that a group of men and women cannot by sufficient training act
non-violently as a group or nation. Indeed the sum total of the
experience of mankind is that men somehow or other live on, from
which fact I infer that it is the law of love that rules mankind.
Had violence, i.e. hate, ruled us, we should have become extinct
long ago. And yet the tragedy of it is that the so-called civilized
men and nations conduct themselves as if the basis of society was
violence. It gives me ineffable joy to make experiments proving that
love is the supreme and only law of life. Much evidence to the
contrary cannot shake my faith. Even the mixed non-violence of India
has supported it. But if it is not enough to convince an
unbeliever, it is enough to incline a friendly critic to view it
with favour.
Sevagram, 8-4-'40
Harijan, 13-4-1940