Prof. Timur of Islamia College, Peshawar, writes:
"The world is indebted to you for revealing to it in these hard
times the hidden values of non-violence. The experiment which you
want to make of defending India against foreign aggression without
the use of arms would be the boldest moral experiment of all times.
There are two possible results of such a course. Either the
conscience of the invaders may be awakened by the love of the
invaded and they may repent of their sin. Or the proud invaders may
take non-violence as a sign of physical weakness and degeneration,
and may think it right to subjugate, rule over, and exploit, a weak
people. This is the doctrine of Nietzsche which is followed in
practice by Hitler. A great loss is involved in such conquest of the
physically weak by the physically strong. A few strong-willed
members of the conquered nation may refuse to own allegiance to the
conquerors, but the large majority always submits and adopts servile
manners to preserve its existence. Among them may be found great
scientists, philosophers and artists. Genius and moral strength are
not always combined in the same man. The strong man does not need
armies to defend his liberty. He sacrifices his body to preserve his
soul. Such men are, however, few and far between. It is the weak
majority which needs protection. The question is how to protect it
by non-violent methods. This is the real difficulty which every
patriot feels when he thinks of adopting non-violence for the
defence of his country." The weak majority no doubt needs
protection. If all were soldiers either of Ahimsa or Himsa, no such
questions as call for discussion in these columns would arise. There
is always a weak majority that would want protection against man's
mischief. The orthodox method we know. Nazism is its logical
outcome. It is an answer to a definite want. A terrible wrong
wantonly perpetrated against a whole nation cried out for redress.
And Hitler arose to avenge it. Whatever the ultimate fortune of the
war, Germany will not be humiliated again. Humanity will not stand a
second outrage. But in seeking to avenge the wrong by the wrong
method of violence brought to very near perfection, Hitler has
brutalized not only Germans but a large part of humanity. The end of
it we have not yet reached. For Britain, so long as she holds to the
orthodox method, has to copy the Nazi methods, if she is to put up a
successful defence. Thus the logical outcome of the violent method
seems to be increasingly to brutalize man including “the weak
majority". For it has to give its defenders the required measure of
co-operation.
Now imagine the same majority defended after the
method of non-violence. As it admits of no grossness, no fraud, no
malice, it must raise the moral tone of the defenders. Hence there
will be a corresponding rise in the moral tone of the “weak
majority" to be defended. No 'doubt there will be difference in
degree, but not in kind.
But the snag comes in when we consider the ways and
means of working the non-violent method. In working the other, there
is no difficulty in getting the human material. Therefore that way
seems easy. In getting non-violent defenders, we have to pick and
choose. Money cannot buy them. The non-violent process is wholly
different from the one commonly known. I can only say that my own
experience in organizing non-violent action for half a century
fills me with hope for the future. It has succeeded in a marked
measure in protecting the “weak majority ". But half a century is
nothing in discovering the hidden possibilities of this force and
working them out. Those, therefore, like the correspondents who are
attracted to non-violence should, according to their ability and
opportunity, join the experiment. It has entered upon a most
interesting; though at the same time a most difficult, stage. I am
myself sailing on uncharted waters. I have to take soundings every
half- hour. The difficulty only braces me for the struggle.
Sevagram,
6-8-'40
Harijan, 11-8-1940