Japan is knocking at our gates. What are we to do in
a non-violent way? If we were a free country, things could be done
non-violently to prevent the Japanese from entering the country. As
it is, non-violent resistance could commence the moment they
effected a landing. Thus non-violent resisters would refuse them any
help, even water. For it is no part of their duty to help anyone to
steal their country. But if a Japanese had missed his way and was
dying of thirst and sought help as a human being, a non-violent
resister, who may not regard anyone as his enemy, would give water
to the thirsty one. Suppose the Japanese compel resisters to give
them water, the resisters must die in the act of resistance. It is
conceivable that they will exterminate all resisters. The underlying
belief in such non-violent resistance is that the aggressor will, in
time, be mentally and even physically tired of killing non-violent
resisters. He will begin to search what this new (for him) force is
which refuses co-operation without seeking to hurt, and will
probably desist from further slaughter. But the resisters may find
that the Japanese are utterly heartless and that they do not care
how many they kill. The non-violent resisters will have won the day
inasmuch as they will have preferred extermination to submission.
But things will not happen quite so simply as I have
put them. There are at least four parties in the country. First, the
British and the army they have brought into being. The Japanese
declare that they have no designs upon India. Their quarrel is only
with the British. In this they are assisted by some Indians who are
in Japan. It is difficult to guess how many, but there must be a
fairly large number who believe in the declaration of the Japanese
and think that they will deliver the country from the British yoke
and retire. Even if the worst happens, their fatigue of the British
yoke is so great that they would even welcome the Japanese yoke for
a change. This is the second party. The third are the neutrals, who
though not non-violent will help neither the British nor the
Japanese.
The fourth and last are non-violent resisters. If
they are only a few, their resistance will be ineffective except as
an example for the future. Such resisters will calmly die wherever
they are but will not bend the knee before the aggressor. They will
not be deceived by promises. They do not seek deliverance from the
British yoke through the help of a third party. They believe
implicitly in their own way of fighting and no other. Their fight is
on behalf of the dumb millions who do not perhaps know that there is
such a thing as deliverance. They have neither hatred for the
British nor love for the Japanese. They wish well to both as to all
others. They would like both to do what is right. They believe that
non-violence alone will lead men to do right under all
circumstances. Therefore, if for want of enough companions
non-violent resisters cannot reach the goal, they will not give up
their way but pursue it to death.
The task before the votaries of non-violence is very
difficult. But no difficulty can baffle men who have faith in their
mission.
This is going to be a long drawn out agony. Let
nonviolent resisters not make impossible attempts. Their powers are
limited. A resister in Kerala is not physically responsible for the
defence of Assam which is just now in imminent danger. If Assam is
non-violently inclined, it is well able to take care of itself. If
it is not, no party of nonviolent resisters from Kerala can help it
or any other province. Kerala can help Assam etc. by demonstrating
its non-violence in Kerala itself. The Japanese army, if it gets a
foothold in India, will not stop at Assam. In order to defeat the
British, it has to overrun the whole country. The British will fight
every inch of the ground. Loss of India will probably be admission
of complete defeat for them. But whether it is so or not, it is
quite clear that Japan will not rest till India is wholly in her
hands. Hence non-violent, resisters must remain at their posts
wherever they are.
One thing has to be made clear. Where the British
army is actually engaging the 'enemy', it would be perhaps improper
for direct resistance to function. It will not be non-violent
resistance when it is mixed with, or allies itself to, violence.
Let me therefore reiterate what I have said so often.
The best preparation for, and even the expression of, nonviolence
lies in the determined pursuit of the constructive programme. Anyone
who believes that without the backing of the constructive programme
he will show non-violent strength when the testing time comes will
fail miserably. It will be, like the attempt of a starving unarmed
man to match his physical strength against a fully fed and panoplied
soldier, foredoomed to failure. He who has no belief in the
constructive programme has, in my opinion, no concrete feeling for
the starved millions. He who is devoid of that feeling cannot fight
non-violently. In actual practice the expansion of my non-violence
has kept exact pace with that of my identification with starved
humanity. I am still far from the non-violence of my conception, for
am I not still far away from the identification of my conception
with dumb humanity?
On the train to Wardha,
5-4-'42
Harijan, 12-4-1942