Gandhi and terrorism pdf karo

Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” 1 of 16

Gandhi and Terrorism

Anurag Gangal,

Professor, International Politics,

Department of Political Science, and

Director, Gandhian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies,

University of Jammu, Jammu-180006, J&K, India.

Abstract

Sometimes violence has to be used under certain inevitable circumstances. Yet violence

is the way to self-destruction. Nonviolence is an ever alive process – it never ends and it is

timeless. Violence kills and nonviolence never kills. That is why vast international resources are

being spent on establishing the processes of nonviolence for resolving conflicts and tensions

through multi-track diplomacy and instruments of institutions like the United Nations etc.

What is really required is also benevolent intent of political will, determination, patience,

perseverance and a general belief in the force of nonviolence. Violence does not succeed.

Despite this realisation about violence and terrorism, there is emerging a new profession

for our younger generation. This is the profession of ‘Terrorism’. This is the most dangerous

portent for posterity to see in a much vaster and wider form. This must be done away with soon.

Otherwise, the twenty-first century must be considered as having brought in its wake, among

others, an absolute consolidation of the dawn of the Age of Doomsday today.

Mahatma Gandhi has zero tolerance for Terrorism. No compromise with violence

especially when it is becoming like an Age of Overkill of Max Learner. Yet Gandhi did

try his best for saving the life of so-called terrorists like Sardar Bhagat Singh and others.

Why did he do so? Was Gandhi following different policy for his theory and practice?

Was he a man full of contradictions? Can terrorism be conceptualised? Is there a

philosophy of terrorism?

For trying to answer all above mentioned questions, author of this

research/seminar paper is highly grateful to Mark Juergensmeyer for his timely

publication “Gandhi vs. Terrorism” in Daedalus, Vol.136, No.1, 2007, pp. 30-41.1 But

for the relatively negative approach of Juergensmeyer when he reasons out his preference

for Gandhian nonviolence to deal with the menace of terrorism today, he has written a

bold piece in recognition of the power of nonviolence in the modern world – specially for


tackling the challenge of terrorism after 9/11 attacks on New York Trade Tower and the

Pentagon.

Introduction:

Gandhi is known to have lived amidst violence and terrorism quite like the type

that we see in the world today. India has come across a lot of violence when Gandhi

returned from South Africa in 1915. Before coming to India, Gandhi had suffered from

violence in South Africa. Yet he never resorted to retort through violence. It is indeed in

historical records that Gandhi has always succeeded while using his own precept and

practice of nonviolence against violence.

Gandhi’s views on violence leads us to think that violence seldom succeeds.

Gandhi, as such, has written and debated widely on the themes of violence and terrorism.

It would be well to reproduce quite a few paragraphs from Juergensmeyer’s above

mentioned article here:

India was on the verge of a violent confrontation with

Britain when, in 1915, Gandhi was brought into India's

independence movement from South Africa, where as a

lawyer he had been a leader in the struggle for social equality

for immigrant Indians. In India, as in South Africa, the British

had overwhelming military superiority and were not afraid to

use it. In 1919, in the North Indian city of Amritsar, an irate

British brigadier-general slaughtered almost four hundred

Indians who had come to the plaza of Jallianwala Bagh to

protest peacefully.

But the nationalist side was countering with violence

of its own. In Bengal, Sub-has Chandra Bose organized an

Indian National Army, and, in Punjab, leaders of the Ghadar

movement -- supported by immigrant Punjabis in California --

plotted a violent revolution that anticipated boatloads of

weapons and revolutionaries transported to India from the

United States. These Indian anarchists and militant Hindi


nationalists saw violence as the only solution to break the

power of the British over India.

Terrorism versus Nonviolence Debate

Gandhi's views about violent struggle were sharpened

in response to Indian activists who had defended a terrorist

attack on a British official. The incident occurred in London in

1909, shortly before Gandhi arrived there to lobby the British

Parliament on behalf of South African Indian immigrants. An

Indian student in London, Madan Lal Dhingra, had attacked an

official in Britain's India office, Sir William H. Curzon-Wylie,

in protest against Britain's colonial control over India. At a

formal function, Dhingra pulled out a gun and, at close range,

fired five shots in his face. The British official died on the

spot. Dhingra was immediately apprehended by the police;

when people in the crowd called him a murderer, he said that

he was only fighting for India's freedom.

Several weeks after Gandhi arrived in London, he was

asked to debate this issue of violence with several of London's

expatriate Indian nationalists. His chief opponent was Vinayak

Savarkar, a militant Hindu who would later found the political

movement known as the Hindu Mahasabha, a precursor to the

present-day Hindu nationalist party, the Bharatiya Janata

Party. At the time of the 1909 assassination Savarkar was

reputed to have supplied the weapons and ammunition for the

act, and to have instructed the ardent Hindu assassin in what to

say in his final statement as he was led to the gallows. The

young killer said that he was "prepared to die, glorying in

martyrdom."2

Shortly before the debate, Gandhi wrote to a friend that

in London he had met practically no Indian who believed

"India can ever become free without resorting to violence."3


He described the position of the militant activists as one in

which terrorism would precede a general revolution: Their

plans were first to "assassinate a few Englishmen and strike

terror," after which "a few men who will have been armed will

fight openly." Then, they calculated, eventually they might

have to lose "a quarter of a million men, more or less," but the

militant Indian nationalists thought this effort at guerrilla

warfare would "defeat the English" and "regain our land." 4

During the debate, Gandhi challenged the logic of the

militants on the grounds of political realism. They could

hardly expect to defeat the might of the British military

through sporadic acts of terrorism and guerrilla warfare. More

important, however, was the effect that violent tactics would

have on the emerging Indian nationalist movement. He feared

that the methods they used to combat the British would

become part of India's national character.

Hind Swaraj

Several weeks later Gandhi was still thinking about

these things as he boarded a steamship to return to South

Africa. He penned his response to the Indian activists in

London in the form of a book. In a preliminary way, this

essay, which Gandhi wrote hurriedly on the boat to Durban in

1909 (writing first with one hand and then the other to avoid

getting cramps), set forth an approach to conflict resolution

that he would pursue the rest of his life. The book, Hind

Swaraj, or, Indian Home Rule, went to some lengths to

describe both the goals of India's emerging independence

movement and the appropriate methods to achieve it. He

agreed with the Indian radicals in London that Britain should

have no place in ruling India and exploiting its economy.

Moreover, he thought that India should not try to emulate the


materialism of Western civilization, which he described as a

kind of "sickness."

The thrust of the book, however, was to counter

terrorism. Gandhi sketched out a nonviolent approach,

beginning with an examination of the nature of conflict. He

insisted on looking beyond a specific clash between

individuals to the larger issues for which they were fighting.

Every conflict, Gandhi reasoned, was a contestation on two

levels--between persons and between principles. Behind every

fighter was the issue for which the fighter was fighting. Every

fight, Gandhi explained in a later essay, was on some level an

encounter between differing "angles of vision" illuminating

the same truth.5

It was this difference in positions--sometimes even in

worldviews--that needed to be resolved in order for a fight to

be finished and the fighters reconciled. In that sense Gandhi's

methods were more than a way of confronting an enemy; they

were a way of dealing with conflict itself. For this reason he

grew unhappy with the label, 'passive resistance,' that had

been attached to the methods used by his protest movement in

South Africa. There was nothing passive about it--in fact,

Gandhi had led the movement into stormy confrontations with

government authorities--and it was more than just resistance.

It was also a way of searching for what was right and standing

up for it, of speaking truth to power.

In 1906 Gandhi decided to find a new term for his

method of engaging in conflict. He invited readers of his

journal, Indian Opinion, to offer suggestions, and he offered a

book prize for the winning entry. The one that most intrigued

him came from his own cousin, Maganlal, which Gandhi

refined into the term, satyagraha. The neologism is a conjunct


of two Sanskrit words, satya, 'truth,' and agraha, 'to grasp

firmly.' Hence it could be translated as 'grasping onto truth,' or

as Gandhi liked to call it, "truth force."

What Gandhi found appealing about the winning

phrase was its focus on truth. Gandhi reasoned that no one

possesses a complete view of it. The very existence of a

conflict indicates a deep difference over what is right. The first

task of a conflict, then, is to try to see the conflict from both

sides of an issue. This requires an effort to understand an

opponent's position as well as one's own--or, as former U.S.

Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara advised in the

documentary film The Fog of War, "Empathize with the

enemy."

Gandhi’s View of Conflict

The ability to cast an empathetic eye was central to

Gandhi's view of conflict. It made it possible to imagine a

solution that both sides could accept, at least in part--though

Gandhi also recognized that sometimes the other side had very

little worth respecting. In his campaign for the British to 'quit

India,' for instance, he regarded the only righteous place for

the British to be was Britain. Yet at the same time he openly

appreciated the many positive things that British rule had

brought to the Indian subcontinent, from roads to

administrative offices.

After a solution was imagined, the second stage of a

struggle was to achieve it. This meant fighting--but in a way

that was consistent with the solution itself. Gandhi adamantly

rejected the notion that the goal justifies the means. Gandhi

argued that the ends and the means were ultimately the same.

If you fought violently you would establish a pattern of

violence that would be part of any solution to the conflict, no


matter how noble it was supposed to be. Even if terrorists

were successful in ousting the British from India, Gandhi

asked, "Who will then rule in their place?" His answer was

that it would be the ones who had killed in order to liberate

India, adding, "India can gain nothing from the rule of

murderers."6

A struggle could be forceful--often it would begin with

a demonstration and "a refusal to cooperate with anything

humiliating." But it could not be violent, Gandhi reasoned, for

these destructive means would negate any positive benefits of

a struggle's victory. If a fight is waged in the right way it could

enlarge one's vision of the truth and enhance one's character in

the process. What Gandhi disdained was the notion that one

had to stoop to the lowest levels of human demeanour in

fighting for something worthwhile. This brings us to the way

that Gandhi would respond to terrorism. To begin with,

Gandhi insisted on some kind of response. He never

recommended doing nothing at all. "Inaction at a time of

conflagration is inexcusable," he once wrote.7

Beneath Contempt

He regarded cowardice as beneath contempt. Fighting-

-if it is nonviolent--is "never demoralizing," Gandhi said,

while "cowardice always is."8

And perhaps Gandhi's most memorable statement

against a tepid response: "Where there is only a choice

between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence."9

Occasionally violence does indeed seem to be the only

response available. Gandhi provided some examples. One was

the mad dog. On confronting a dog with rabies, one must stop

it by any means possible, including maiming or killing it.10


Another case that Gandhi offered was a brutal rapist

caught in the act. To do nothing in that situation, Gandhi said,

makes the observer "a partner in violence." Hence violence

could be used to counter it. Gandhi thus concluded, "Heroic

violence is less sinful than cowardly nonviolence."11

Gandhian Strategy

A Gandhian strategy for confronting terrorism,

therefore, would consist of the following:

Stop an act of violence in its tracks. The effort to do so

should be nonviolent but forceful. Gandhi made a distinction

between detentive force--the use of physical control in order to

halt violence in progress--and coercive force. The latter is

meant to intimidate and destroy, and hinders a Gandhian fight

aimed at a resolution of principles at stake.

Address the issues behind the terrorism. To focus

solely on acts of terrorism, Gandhi argued, would be like

being concerned with weapons in an effort to stop the spread

of racial hatred. Gandhi thought the sensible approach would

be to confront the ideas and alleviate the conditions that

motivated people to undertake such desperate operations in the

first place.

Maintain the moral high ground. A bellicose stance,

Gandhi thought, debased those who adopted it. A violent

posture adopted by public authorities could lead to a civil

order based on coercion. For this reason Gandhi insisted on

means consistent with the moral goals of those engaged in the

conflict.

These are worthy principles, but do they work? This

question is often raised about nonviolent methods as a

response to terrorism--as if the violent ones have been so

effective. In Israel, a harsh response to Palestinian violence


has often led to a surge of support for Hamas and an increase

in terrorist violence. The U.S. responses to jihadi movements

after the September 11 attacks have not diminished support for

the movements nor reduced the number of terrorist incidents

worldwide. Militant responses to terrorism do not possess a

particularly good record of success.

Violence begets violence and absolute violence leads to complete extinction.

Nonviolence, on the other hand, cuts at the roots of violence. Nonviolence paves the

pathway to peace and ultimate victory in which even the loser is not hurt. Gandhi,

therefore, even while dealing with state “terrorism” of the British, always succeeded in

his nonviolent attempts to resolve numerous conflicts.12

Sometimes violence has to be used under certain inevitable circumstances as

already shown in this chapter earlier. Yet violence is the way to self-destruction.

Nonviolence is an ever alive process – it never ends and it is timeless. Violence kills and

nonviolence never kills. That is why vast international resources are being spent on

establishing the processes of nonviolence for resolving conflicts and tensions through

multi-track diplomacy and instruments of institutions like the United Nations etc.

What is really required is also benevolent intent of political will, determination,

patience, perseverance and a general belief in the force of nonviolence. Violence does not

succeed.13

However, State and inter-state use of force maybe necessary now in view of

the latest establishment of the United Jihad Council (UJC) in Pakistan recently.

Modern terrorism is indeed not a random response of an individual or a group of

individuals. Terrorism has become an army of disciplined and well trained soldiers

beyond national frontiers. They have their own philosophies, morals and ethics. In

addition to their networking and armaments, their real strength comes from their

philosophies – ethically sound and morally soothing to them though esoterically. Hence,

the terrorists will have to be dealt with nonviolently – with nonviolence providing the

strong base for confronting the terrorists ethically as well. Otherwise, terrorism will

flourish ever more. Terrorists go for massive violence with ethical base beneath their act.


Terrorism Terrorises

Terrorism, indeed, terrorizes. It has evolved into a profession in rich and poor

countries both. It denotes instantaneous power not only for unemployed youth but also

for disgruntled rich and poor individuals, groups and countries alike. It immediately

provides liquid money, gun-power, license to kill alongwith facilities of moving about the

world freely with easily obtainable passports and visas.

Definitions and Major Types:

There are, among several others, three major types of terrorism such as

‘insurgency’, ‘militancy’ and ‘terrorism’.

"Insurgency" involves revolutionary and guerrilla activities against the military

force of a State.

"Militancy" is the more aggressive and even violent wing of a political party.

Prime target of militancy is also military, para-military, armed soldiers and police forces

of the State machinery. However, they do not hesitate to go for other destructive and

absolutely violent acts when it is required to attain their ends.

"Terrorism" is the violent act involving massacre and indiscriminate killing of

innocent people for the purpose of drawing political attention by generating mass fear

psychosis to attain certain political and motivated ends or goals.

All three types of above mentioned activities involve absolute and utterly

destructive violence. These definitions have emerged after prolonged years of interviews

and discussions with senior air force, army and police officers of India and several other

academics from various universities in India and abroad.

Operations:

Terrorists today operate from the comfort of five star hotels in general and not so

much from dangerous jungles and ravines. Police, Army, Air Force and intelligence

services all appear to have failed in dealing with the ever growing menace of terrorism.

Federated Network:

Terrorist network appears to have become a federation on global scale with well

established branches and centres operating from every country. Terrorists have their own

economy through counterfeit currency notes. They print these currencies of United States

dollars, Indian rupees, British pounds and what not freely with the help of rouge states.


Terror Islands:

Terrorists have now stopped using services of national and international banking

also. Terrorism is emerging as a federal post-modern nation-state spread like networked

islands of power in a world full of terror from Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs).

Even WMDs are also available to terrorists now!

Massive Destruction:

Terrorism is now evolving as a profession and institution. Joseph Conard has

pointed out its professional commitment to utter destruction beyond all shades of doubt:

"A bomb outrage to have any influence on public opinion now must go beyond

the intention of vengeance or terrorism. It must be purely destructive. It must be that and

only that, beyond the faintest suspicion of any other object".14

Sheer irresponsibility of the modern State vis-à-vis terrorists can be seen in the

later acquiring nuclear weapons.

"The reality is that a number of terrorist groups have already employed chemical

[and nuclear] weapons, e.g. Japan’s Aum Sinriklyo’s use of …in Tokyo subway system

in 1995, and …..Terrorism is widely believed to be a new kind of warfare and the al

Qaeda network and al Queda-inspired groups its foremost exponents".15

The terrorists are now sharing their networked information bank the world over.

They have acquired a hidden international identity nearly as powerful as the institution of

the State. It is the State and its sponsored terrorism and counterterrorism that appear to

have become direct and indirect source of the strength of terrorist groups the world over.

Terrorism will not end until there develops a strong faith in the power of

nonviolence on a larger general plane at the behest of every individual and organization.

Real Danger:

The twenty-first century is replete with “floodgates” of globalization and surging

flames of terrorism. Events of 11 September 2001 are logical corollary of massive

violence and weapons of mass destruction available to the institution of State. The trend

is thus set and examples are then adopted and followed. The trend-setters just do not

appear to be realizing this aspect. This violence is becoming not only infectious but also

professional to a great extent.


Indeed, terrorism, even for Mahatma Gandhi, can be dealt with only through zero

tolerance towards it. Otherwise, it will go for ever more violence upon violence and

massacres after massacres, i.e. mass killings of innocent masses in a ruthless fashion.

This violence has to be taken care of through an international collaborative effort.

Other Dynamics of Terrorism:

This violence is becoming not only infectious but also professional to a great

extent. How this situation has emerged? Why terrorism is still a continuously growing

phenomenon despite the so-called “war on terrorism” and “zero tolerance to terrorism”?

What after all terrorism is? What are the different perspectives on terrorism? Are terrorist

having any special characteristics? Can terrorism be defined? What are diverse and

different views and analyses in this matter?

Nassar presents an in depth picture on the real and historic causes behind

terrorism. For him, as it were, every global citizen and leader in Parliament are, among

others, responsible for the current and widespread menace of terrorism. That is why

Nassar says:

Recently, a former student of mine wrote me one of those

rare but special notes that teachers occasionally receive. Lynn

Weddle of the class of 1985 wrote, “I often am reminded of the

many things I learned while in your class and how some of the

things you mentioned became truly prophetic.” My former student

went on to remind me of a statement I had made in class arguing

that the Soviet Union was not the enemy we needed to fear but

rather “a Third World country that we would never expect to

wreak havoc on the US.” The events of September 11, 2001,

reminded her of that statement. While the events of that dreadful

day were a wake-up call to most Americans, terror has been a

normal way of life for a long time to many people around the

world. It certainly has been a part of my life since birth (Nassar i-

iv).16

Terrorism is and terrorist incidents are on the increase in Asia and Middle-East

and West Asia while they are on a decreasing trend in Europe and America. Terrorist


violence and incidents have led to thousands of death every year from 700 to about 6000

in the world (Sengupta and Cockburn 27 March 2007).17

International Terrorist Incidences 1968 to 2004

Source: Graph from MIPT database, http://www.tkb.org/Home.jsp

Terrorism on the Rise:

This menace of terrorists’ violent and fatal incidents is beyond human description

and definition. Various dictionaries and encyclopaedias define terrorism mainly in terms

of acts of fatal violence and attacks against established and recognized institutions of

State and its citizens and forces. Academics and experts do not fully agree with such

simplistic meanings and definitions. For Jimmy Carter, Palestinian people have always

suffered at the hands of the Israel’s policy of “Apartheid” against them.18

If this so then

http://www.tkb.org/Home.jsp


what about Palestine’s’ sustained terrorists attacks not only aimed at Israel but also the

different countries of the entire world. For Nassar Jamal, terrorism is use of excessive

force, fatal attacks with the intention to create terror and panic in order to secure

calculated political demands. He, however, finds – quite like Bjorgo – institution of State

more responsible for present-day terrorism.19

Gurr and Cole believe that there are different levels of terrorist attacks and

violence – the conventional and non-conventional. Terrorist groups are not gun-trotting

armatures. They have there aims and purposes. As such there main objective is to

accomplish their political aims through effective means of massive violence. They even

use weapons of mass destruction especially nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.20

Defining terrorism leads also to a major question. Are terrorists normal human

beings? Are they primarily pathological cases? Yes, even terrorists of today are normal

beings and their global system and networking is running parallel to governments all

around the world. They are certainly not pathological at all. They are die hard and

energetic persons living a normal life in this age of information technology.

Terrorism is now evolving as a profession and institution. Joseph Conard has

pointed out its professional commitment to utter destruction beyond all shades of doubt:

A bomb outrage to have any influence on public

opinion now must go beyond the intention of vengeance or

terrorism. It must be purely destructive. It must be that and

only that, beyond the faintest suspicion of any other object.21

Sheer irresponsibility of the modern State vis-à-vis terrorists can be seen in the

later acquiring nuclear weapons.

The reality is that a number of terrorist groups have

already employed chemical [and nuclear] weapons, e.g.

Japan’s Aum Sinriklyo’s use of …in Tokyo subway system in

1995, and …..Terrorism is widely believed to be a new kind of

warfare and the al Qaeda network and al Queda-inspired

groups its foremost exponents.22


Conclusion:

The terrorists are now sharing their networked information bank the world over.

They have acquired a hidden international identity nearly as powerful as the institution of

the State. It is the State and its sponsored terrorism and counterterrorism that appear to

have become direct and indirect source of the strength of terrorist groups the world over.

Terrorism will not end until there develops a strong faith in the power of

nonviolence on a larger general plane at the behest of every individual and organization.

At times, legal violence, against the perpetrators of widespread massive satanic violence,

is also to be regarded as nonviolence only.


References and Notes:

1 Mark Juergensmeyer, “Gandhi vs. Terrorism”, Daedalus, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2007, pp. 30-41.

2 James D. Hunt, Gandhi in London, (Promilla and Co. Publishers, New Delhi: 1973), p. 134.

3 Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi,

Vol. 9, (Publications Division, Delhi: 1958), p. 509. 4 M. K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule, 2nd ed., (Navajivan, Ahmedabad: 1938), p. 69.

5 Young India, 23 September 1926. See specially Mark Juergensmeyer, Gandhi's Way: A Handbook of

Conflict Resolution, rev. ed., (University of California Press, Berkeley: 2005). 6 Op cit. n. 1.

7 Harijan, April 7, 1946.

8 Young India, October 31, 1929.

9 Young India, August 11, 1920.

10 Gandhi, Collected Works, Vol. 14, 505.

11 Gandhi, Collected Works, Vol. 51, 17. References 1-10 in this chapter are almost wholly reproduced

from Mark Juergensmeyer, “Gandhi vs. Terrorism” in Daedalus, Vol.136, No.1, 2007, pp. 30-41 with

emphasis added in different ways. I express deep sense of gratitude to Mark for writing such a

commendable piece on “Gandhi and Terrorism”. 12

Erik H. Erikson, Gandhi's Truth: On the Origins of Militant Nonviolence, (W. W. Norton, New York:

1993), pp. 413-416. 13

Michael J. Nojeim, Gandhi and King: The Power of Nonviolent Resistance, (Praeger, Westport, CT :

2004) pp. 91, 288. 14

Meghnad Desai, Rethinking Islamism: The Ideology of the New Terror, (I.B. Tauris, London: 2007), p.1. 15

L. Weinberg, Global Terrorism, (Oneworld, Oxford: 2006), pp.131-132. 16

Nassar, Jamal, R. Globalization and Terrorism: The Migration of Dreams and Nightmares, , Oxford,

Rowman and Littlefield: 2005), pp. i-iv, 103. 17

Kim Sengupta, and Patrick, Cockburn, “How the War on Terror Made the World a More Terrifying

Place”, The Independent, (London: 2007). See also http://www.tkb.org/Home.jsp 18

Jimmy, Carter, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, (Simon & Schuster, New York: 2006), p. 176. 19

Bjorgo Tore, Root causes of Terrorism: Myths, Reality, and Ways Forward, Routledge: 2005), see

especially the entire first Chapter. 20

N. Gurr, and B. Cole, The New Face of Terrorism: Threats form Weapons of Mass Destruction, (I.B.

Tauris, London: 2002), pp. 1-22. 21

M.Desai, Rethinking Islamism: The Ideology of the New Terror, (I.B. Tauris, London: 2007), p.1. 22

L. Weinberg, Global Terrorism, (Oneworld, Oxford: 2006), pp. 131-132.

http://www.tkb.org/Home.jsp

Gandhi and terrorism pdf karo

Documents

Transcript of Gandhi and terrorism pdf karo