A friend writes as follows:
"On the declaration of war you had advised giving moral support to
Britain. Many persons never understood the implications of such
support. You have never explained them either, so far as I know. I
am a regular reader of Harijan-bandhu,
but I have not seen a clear explanation there. Everyone puts his own
interpretation on the words. At the last sitting of the Gujarat
Provincial Congress Committee the leaders said: 'Bapu was ready to
give moral support to Britain. What else has the Congress done in
its latest resolution? As a matter of fact, the Congress asks for
more than it promises to give. Bapu was willing to give all for
nothing.' If war is itself a wrong act, how can it deserve moral
support or blessings? In the Mahabharata, was the help that Lord
Krishna gave to Arjuna moral, or was it more destructive than the
deadliest weapons of war?"
I did explain in Harijan what I meant by moral
support. It is possible that the explanation did not appear in
Harijan-bandhu. In my English writings things are often left to
be understood. The ellipses need, however, to be brought out in
translations.
Broadly speaking Britain could have had moral support
from the Congress, if only she had acted justly towards India. There
was no spirit of bargaining in my proposal because the help was not
offered in exchange for anything.
Suppose my friend possesses moral strength which he
has acquired through tapasya. And suppose I am in need of
this strength. I shall not get it from him for the asking. He may
always be ready to give it to me, but if I have not the capacity
within me to take it from him, how shall I ever obtain it? Moral
support cannot really be given in the sense of giving. It
automatically comes to him who is qualified to take it. And such a
one can take it in abundance.
The Congress has this moral reservoir. The acceptance
of the creed of truth and non-violence has been its tapasya.
It has acquired world prestige through the acceptance of truth and
non-violence for the attainment of its goal. If the Congress could
have given its blessings to Britain, the world would have adjudged
Britain's cause to be just. The masses over whom the Congress holds
sway would also have acknowledged justice to be on Britain's side.
But in all this the Congress would have had nothing material to
give. The British government would, by its own action, have acquired
moral prestige or strength. Though the "Congress would not give one
man or one pice as material aid, its moral support and blessings
would definitely have turned the scales in favour of Britain. This
is my belief. That my belief may be groundless and that the Congress
never had any moral prestige is quite possible. The determination
of this question is unnecessary for my argument.
But the opportunity for rendering moral support now
seems almost to have gone. The Congress felt itself unable to adopt
my course. It cannot be taken mechanically. It presupposes a living
faith in truth and non-violence. The greatest quality in the
Congress is this that it has never claimed to have what it really
does not possess. And therefore its resolutions are dignified and
carry force with them.
The help that the Congress in its latest resolution
promises to give is material and for a consideration, eminently
just, no doubt, but it is not and cannot be unconditional. I do not
suggest that this position is either untenable or morally wrong.
The resolution has dignity because it is the considered opinion of
the majority. But by passing it the Congress has, in my opinion,
surrendered the prestige it had or was supposed to have. Many
Congressmen say that, while they firmly believed that they could
attain Swaraj through non-violence, they had never meant it to be
understood that they could retain it also through nonviolence. The
entire outside world, however, believed that the Congress was
showing the golden way to the abolition of war. No one outside India
ever dreamed that, if the Congress could wrest independence from a
mighty power like Britain purely through non-violence, it would not
be able to defend it also -by the same means.
In my opinion Lord Krishna's help to Arjuna cannot be
said to be moral, because he himself had an army and was an expert
in the art of war. Duryodhana acted foolishly in that he asked for
Krishna's army, while Arjuna got what he wanted in the person of the
expert in the science of war. Therefore, if we interpret the
Mahabharata literally, Lord Krishna's strength was certainly more
destructive than that of his army. Because of his scientific skill
Krishna was able, with an army of seven divisions, to destroy
Duryodhana's army of eleven. But it is well- known that I have never
looked upon the Mahabharata as a mere record of earthly warfare. In
the garb of an epic the poet has described the eternal warfare
within the individual as well as in society, between Truth and
Untruth, Violence and Non-violence, Right and Wrong. Looking at the
epic even superficially one can understand how the great Vyasa has
demonstrated that in this war the victor was no better off than the
vanquished. Out of that vast concourse of warriors only seven
remained to tell the tale. And the poet gives a true picture of the
woeful state of mind also of these seven. The author has shown
clearly too that in armed warfare the contending parties are certain
to stoop to meanness and trickery. When occasion arose even the
great Yudhishthira had to resort to untruth to save the battle.
One more question of the writer remains to be
answered. If war is itself a wrong act, how can it be worthy of
moral support or blessings? I believe all war to be wholly wrong.
But if we scrutinize the motives of two warring parties, we may find
one to be in the right and the other in the wrong. For instance, if
A wishes to seize B's country, B is obviously the wronged one. Both
fight with arms. I do not believe in violent warfare, but all the
same, B, whose cause is just, deserves my moral help and blessings.
Sevagram,
12-8-'40
Harijan, 18-8-1940