sandman outlook and techniques

Transcription

SANDM AN OUTLOOK
AND TECHNIQUES
A verbatim
re p o rt'o fth e proceedings
of the Seminar on the contribution of
; tGan(Jhian optlobk. -anH., techniques to
■'* ' • ' ‘ '’V V 'y■*■
,I
‘
the solution of tensions between and
within nations held at New'Delhi from
the
5th to
the 17th
January,
1955.
With-a Foreword
. by
M
aulanv
A
but.
K
alam
A
zad
Minister for Education
and
President, Indian National Commission for Co-operation. with Unesco
MTNIST k Y
OF
GOVERNMENT
1953
B Dt J C A T TON
OF
INDIA
Price Rs. 3 annas 12 or 6sh.
PRINTED IN INDIA BY THE MANAGER
GOVT. O t INDIA PRESS, NEW DELHI: 1953
PREFACE
In accordance with a resolution of the Seminar on the
contribution of Gandhi an outlook and techniques, a brief
Report on its deliberations and conclusions has been p re
pared under the title, The Gandhian Way. It is proposed
that Unesco will publish it .in English and French. In ad
dition, translations in other languages are also under con
sideration. It is however obvious that this sum m ary record
in about ten thousand words cannot satisfy the curiosity of
those who desire detailed inform ation about the Seminar’s
activities and in particular to know how participants with
widely differing backgrounds reacted to the impact of
G andhiji’s message. In view of the world-wide interest in
the work of the Seminar, the Governm ent of India have
decided to publish a verbatim report of the proceedings,
including those of the secret sessions, which till now have
not been available to the public.
In preparing the text for the Press, the verbatim records
have been followed as closely as possible. Im prom ptu dis
cussions, however, tend to be repetitious and in preparing
the text for the Press some of these repetitions have been
excised. I have also drawn occasionally upon my own
notes to supplement and correct w hat the reporters h ad
taken down.
Among the delegates who had submitted w ritten state
ments, some adhered to their text. In order to save time,
others gave brief summaries of their position a n d /o r added
further comments. In such cases, their written statem ents
have been included as appendices to the text. The daily
press releases have also been included in an appendix for
the benefit of those who may desire a fuller account than
will be found in The Gandhian Way, but are not willing to
study the four hundred and odd pages of the proceedings
and appendices.
In going through the proceedings and editing it for the
press. I have again lived through some of the experiences
of the Seminar. The way in which a com pos::c picture
of Gandhiji emerged out of the contributions of individuals
with widely different backgrounds and outlooks v/rs a les
son in cooperative thinking. This portrait of Gandhi
drawn by an international team will, I hope, help people
in other countries to understand more clearly the implica
tions of his teaching and its application to their own special
problems.
I would like to express my thanks to the Press for its
magnificent cooperation in giving the widest publicity to
our daily releases and refraining from publishing any u n
authorised reports. I am indebted to Dr. William J. H ag
gerty and Mrs. Muriel Wasi for help in reading the proofs
and otherwise assisting in the work of publication. I would
also like to thank the members of the Government of India
Press and in particular Mr. C. A. Subrahmanyam, C on
troller of Printing and Stationery, for unstinted cooperation
which made it possible to publish the work in what may
well bo called record time. Finally, I would like to thank
Messrs Kahvant Singh and P. S. Subram anian who willing
ly and ungrudgingly worked beyond office hours in typing
and re-typing the draft of the m anuscript for Gandhian
O utlook and Techniques as well as for The Gandhian W ay.
H U M A Y U N KABIR.
N e w D e l h i;
\3th M a y, 1953.
CONTENTS
P ages
Foreword
Inaugural Session:
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
Dr. Alva Myrdal
Professor Humayun K a b i/
[_jj
1—24
1
9
]8
23
First Session:________________________________ 25_51
Lord Boyd Orr
25
Acharya Kripalani
27
Second Session:
Professor L. Massignon
52—74
52
Third Session:
Madame Cecilia Meireles
Professor G. Tucci
75—J05
75
96
Fourth Session:
Professor Yusuke Tsurumi
106—129
106
Dr. S. Radhakrishnan
Kaka Kalelkar
HO
121
Fifth Session:
Dr. Matine Daftary
Pastor D. Martin NiemoHer
130—155
130
146
Sixth Session:
Dr. Mohamed Hussein Haekal
156—183
156
Mr. PyarciaJ
168
Dr. Ralph Bunche
172
First Secret Session:
184—208
Seventh Session:
Professor Humayun Kabir
209—228
209
Lord Boyd Orr
224
Second Secret Session:
Pagjs
229—241
Third Secret Session:
242—271
Fourth Secret Session:
272—309
310—342
310
311
316
318
321
323
325
327
331
340
Closing Session :
Professor Humayun Kabir.
Lord Boyd Orr.
Professor Yusuke Tsurumi.
Dr. Matine Daftary.
Professor G. Tucci.
Pastor D. Martin Niemoller.
Dr. Mohamed Hussein Haekal.
Dr. Ralph Bunche
Dr. Rajendra Prasad.
Madame Cecilia Meireles.
Appendix A
List of Participants in the Seminar.
343—345
Appendix B
The Gandhian Way—By Acharya J. B. Kripalani. 346—365
Appendix C
Summary of Professor Massignon’s Statement.
366—367
Appendix D
Stray Thoughts on Gandhian Techniques
368—374
By Kaka Saheb Kalelkar.
Appendix E
The Gandhian Technique and How It Eases
375—379
Tension
Internally
And
Internationally
By Dr. Mohamed Hussein Haekal.
Appendix F
and
380—396
Way o f Life —By Dr. J. C.
Kumarappa.
Appendix H
Summaries of Daily Disscussion Released to
the Press.
397—403
GandhiijVs Satyagraha : Its Technique
Application— By Shri Pyarelal.
Appendix G
A Non-Violent
404—424
The first conference o f the Indian National Commission
for Cooperation with Unesco adopted at its meeting in
A pril, 1949, a resolution:
1
“ (/) that a com mittee be appointed to initiate, direct
and stimulate, in cooperation with other bodies
with similar aims, the study of the ideas and
techniques expounded by G andhiji;
(2) that, in the light o f these studies, a world-wide
programme o f action to prom ote universal
peace and good-will among all nations should
be prepared for consideration by the F ifth
General Conference o f the Unesco to be held in
M a y, m o r
The Executive Board of the Commission appointed a
small com m ittee to take steps for implementing the
resolution, but it soon became clear that it was beyond the
capacity of any national body to fram e such a world-wide
programme o f action. A more fruitful approach appeared
to be the organisation o f a Seminar with foreign as well as
Indian participants for a closer study o f Gandhian principles.
Accordingly, a Seminar was held in N ew Delhi from the
5th to 17th January, 1953 and had as the main topic
of its discussion, the contribution o f Gandhian outlook and
techniques to the solution of tensions within and among
nations.
The Seminar was inaugurated by the Prime M inister,
while the concluding session was addressed by the President
of the Indian Republic. Besides India, nine other countries
were represented as will be seen from the list of delegates
at Appendix A . In addition. D r. Alva M yrdal, a wellknown sociologist of Sweden, attended the inaugural session
on behalf o f Unesco. A ttem pts were made to invite
delegates also from U.S.S.R. and China but .unfortunately
no participant came from either o f these countries.
A preliminary meeting of the delegates was held dt
I I a.m. on the 5th January at Hyderabad House, when
Lord Boyd Orr was elected Chairman, Dr. Ralph Bunche
arid Dr. M oham ed Hussein Haekal, Vice-Chairmen and
Mr. H um ayun Kabir, Secretary-General. In settling the
tentative programme it was decided that only the inaugural
and the concluding sessions would be open to the public.
Observers from universities and certain recognised
institutions would, however, be perm itted to attend oth.Qr
sessions, except any meetings held ‘in camera*. Each delegate
would be expected tv mQke a statement which would be the
basis of discussion and com m ents by others. It was hoped
that the exchange of views Would lead to agreed conclusions
and recommendations for further study and action.
There was world- wide*interest in the work of the Seminar
and enquiries were received from countries far and near.
The Government o f India have therefore decided to publish
a verbatim report o f the proceedings and entrusted
Mr, H um ayun Kabir with the task of editing and preparing
it for the press. It is m y hope that the publication o f this
volume will help to educate world opinion in the efficacy
of the Gandhian approach and create conditions for a
peaceful and lasting solution of the crisis which faces the
modern world.
ABUL KALAM AZAD.
15th April, 1953.
PHOTOGRAPH ON REVERSE
(
Group photograph taken before the Inauguration of the Seminar
ting L to R : Prof. G, Tucci (Italy), Dr. Mohamed Hussein Haekal (Egypt)*
Lord Boyd Orr (U.K.), Mr. Jawaharlal Nehra, Mrs. Alva Myrdal
(Unesco), Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Madame Cecilia Meireles (Brazil),
Dr, Matine Daftary (Iran), Dr. Ralph Bunche (U.S.A.), Prof. Massignon
(France), and Prof. Yusuke Tsurumi (Japan).
Sending L to R: Dr. N, S. Junankar (Min. of Education), Mr, K, G. Saiyidain
(Joint Secretary, Min. of Education), Prof. Humayun Kabir (Additionaj
Secretary, Min, of Education), Mr, L. R. Sethi (Min. of Education),
Acharya Narendra Deva, Kaka Saheb Kalelkar, Mr. Pyarelal, and
Mr. S. Nagappa (Min. of Education).
IThe Inaugural Session of the Seminar was held at 3 PJid. on he
5th January 1933 in the Central Hall of Parliament House
with Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Minister for Education,
Government of India and President, Indian National Commis*
sion for Co-operation with Unesco, in the Chair.
LMaulana Abol Kalam Azad:
Friends, I have great pleasure in welcoming you to this Seminar
to discuss the contribution of Gandhian. outlook and techniques
to the solution of tensions between and within nations. I am
particularly happy that so many distinguished men and women
from so many countries have responded to our invitation. The
subject for their deliberations is one which is of overriding
importance in the modern world and immediately concerns all
individuals of all nations.
When the Indian National Commission for Cooperation
with Unesco met for the first time in 1949, it resolved that
steps should be taken at an early date to consider the Gandhian
doctrines and their relevance to the problem of achieving world
peace. Unesco which is concerned with the creation of an
. international outlook and the promotion of friendly feelings
among different nations was naturally greatly interested in the
proposal. Since then we have been considering how best to give
. effect to our plans of examining the Gandhian methods as a means
to the achievement of peace. You will agree that it was hardly
necessary to have a Seminar only in order to draw attention to
Gand hip's thought. His ideas have been before the world for
many years and are already a part of the intellectual heritage of
modern man. In view, however, of the crisis which threatens the
-world today and the danger of war which is always in the back
ground of our minds, it seems specially appropriate to consider
Gandhiji’s methods so far as they provide an alternative to war
and promise a solution to international problems. That is why
after much hesitation and thought, we have decided to call this
Seminar to give distinguished thinkers of East and West an
opportunity to discuss Gaitdhiji’s methods in all their implications.
I am keenly conscious of the stupendous nature of the problem
and also of how a solution has till now baffled the efforts of man.
It is, therefore, in a spirit of humility that we have organised this
: Seminar in the hope that the cooperative efforts of thinkers from so
GANDHIAN OUTLOOK AND TECHNIQUES
many countries may throw some light on our pressing problems
and suggest some methods for dealing more satisfactorily with
the problems of war and peace. The issues at stake are so vast
and our aim so important that whether we fully succeed or not*,
the effort is its own justification.
The progress of science itself makes it the more urgent to
find a solution to these problems. In the phst, wars were often
due to the fact that man’s lack of knowledge did not permit him
to utilise to the full the resources of nature. One nation or group
could, therefore, satisfy its needs only by depriving others. I f :
food or fodder was scarce, the only means of overcoming this
shortage lay in forcible occupation of the fields or pastures belong
ing to others. Today, the progress of science has created conditions
where all the legitimate demands of man can be satisfied. We
can now live in an economy of plenty rather than one of want.
Secrets of nature have been revealed one after the other and have-,
made available to man the immense wealth of her hidden resources.
The tragedy of the situation, however, is that this increase of.
knowledge and mastery over nature is being used not so much for
the constructive purposes of society as to enhance man’s powers
of destruction. The energy of the Atom has been unlocked and
can bring within the reach of all comfort and plenty. We are,,
however, concentrating on the use of Atomic energy mainly to
create terrible engines of destruction. Wireless has brought all
mankind nearer one another, but instead of using it to strengthen
the bonds of fellowship among men, we are using it as an aid
to propaganda of hatred and discord. Aeroplanes are being used
primarily to develop our offensive in aerial warfare. Greater
knowledge of germs and bacteria promises mastery over disease
and suffering, but such knowledge is often being sought for deve- ■
loping their use as weapons in bacteriological war. Not that these
discoveries have no beneficent use, but such use seems subsidiary
to the main purpose of employing them as weapons for destroying.
humanity.
Since the beginning of this century, technological and scientific
developments have tended to make war and peace co-extensive
with the whole world. In the past, some problems may have
been solved by war. In any case such wars were confined to a.
section of the world. Today it is clear that no problem can besolved by war. If an attempt is made to solve any problems by,
means of war, the consequences extend, beyond the frontiers of
the nations concerned and involve all mankind. Wars havereached a stage where they only succeed in intensifying the hatred .
between nations and leading to new hatreds. The only consequence
of war today is to enhance the impulse to revenge and retribution.
2
5 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
Forces are released that make each war the prelude to further and
more devastating wars.
This becomes clear if we consider the sequence of events since
the first World War. Originally the conflict arose between
Germany, Austria and Russia but very soon France and the United
Kingdom were embroiled, More nations joined till it became a
world war which ended in the defeat of Germany. The victoriousnations met at Versailles and drew up a plan of peace. President
Wilson enunciated his famous Fourteen Points which aimed a t
bringing into being a world which would be free from the threat
of war. He proclaimed the doctrine of the right of self-determi
nation of nations. Eventually, however, a Peace Treaty was signed
which was based not on the Fourteen Points but on a desire to
impose the severest penalty on Germany. Sections of the German
people were separated from the Reich and such heavy reparations,
imposed on it that the very base of its economic life was shaken.
The responsibility of the Second World War is generally laid on
Hitler and the Nazi Party, but if we ask who created Hitler, we*
have to recognise that it was the Treaty of Versailles. In fact we
may say that the signing of the Treaty was the moment of Hitler’s
birth.
The‘Peace Treaty made every German feel his humiliation and'
helplessness. The Weimar Republic tried by negotiation to lighten
the burden on Germans so that democracy might have a chance
in Germany but the U.K. and France paid little heed to her
appeals. In fact, the victorious Allies characterised all German
attempts to reduce reparations as attempts at blackmail. I cannot
refrain from referring to the Lausanne Conference which met
shortly before the rise of Hitler, On that occasion, Germany
proposed measures for removing causes of misunderstanding and
conflict between herself and France and was prepared even to
have Joint Chiefs of Staff for the two Armies so that they could
always work together. This would have removed permanently
French fears of German aggression and German fears of French
military might. It is obvious today that there could have been
no better solution of the long-standing Franco-German conflict. I f
this proposal had been put into effect, the Second World War may
well have been avoided. The proposal was, however, rejected. It
is a strange irony of history that Mr. Ramsay Macdonald—who
had been one of the foremost pacifists during the First World War
—should be mainly responsible for its rejection. Would it be un
charitable to suggest that the reason why he opposed the Germair
proposals was that such close collaboration between France and
Germany would reduce the importance and power of the U.K.?
It seems that while the U.K. wanted peace between France and!
Germany, she did not want such close friendship as was envisaged
a t Lausanne.
Germany became more and more embittered and frustrated and
sought a leader who could cater to this mood. Hitler’s rise to
power thus became inevitable even though his Party was in a
minority in the country as a whole. The second World War was,
therefore, nothing but a release of the hatreds that were generated
in Germany in consequence of the Treaty of Versailles. While
Germany was powerless, the Allies dealt with her claims, cot from
the point of view of justice but of their own military might. In
1939, when Germany regained her power, she also based her
claims, not on justice but on might. It is not easy to decide in
favour of either protagonist. Both were tarred with die same
brush of hatred and vendetta. Both adopted in the day of their
power the law of the jungle rather than the law of reason.
Like World War I, World War II also ended in the defeat
-of Germany. Perhaps her defeat would have come earlier if the
Allies had not insisted on unconditional surrender. As early as
1942, a group had been formed in Germany who wanted to end
Hitler’s power. Faced with the Allies’ demand of unconditional
surrender, they were compelled to stay their hand and aid Hitlec
in carrying on the struggle as long as possible. During the first
World War, there was a demand that the Kaiser should be tried
as a war criminal and hanged. Though this was not done, the
trials at Nuremburg were held after the conclusion of the second
World War. This was in accordance with a Statute of the
victorious nations to set up a Tribunal to try the German leaders.
The question may very well be asked: what authority other
than sheer military might allowed this Tribunal to brand as war
criminals the German leaders who had been responsible for the
war? It was a manifestation of the same spirit which led the
Allies to frame and enforce the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler and
his associates were guilty first and foremost before the German
nation. If anybody had the moral authority to punish them, it
was the German nation and the German Courts. After the war,
German Courts condemned hundreds of Germans as Nazis. Why
then were the accused at Nuremburg not tried by the same German
Courts? There is no doubt that Goering, Ribbentrop and Himmler
were guilty of heinous crimes against humanity but the question
is, who had the right to punish them? When the Pharisees put
a question to Christ about the punishment of the adulteress, Christ
said that only he who was free from guilt had the right to cast the
first stone.
It is difficult to say what is the definition of a war crime. When
ihe German bombers raided the United Kingdom, the civilised
4
world was horrified by the indiscriminate attack on civiliansWhen, however, the allied powers started their bombing raids, they
also did not spare the civilian population of Germany. If the
inventors of the V2 were war criminals, cannot those who were
responsible for dropping Atom Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
also lay claim to the title? Since the beginning of history, con
querors have generally killed only those who took up arms against
them. Cyrus formulated this as an explicit principle five hundred
years before Christ. Tyrants have no doubt destroyed and pillaged
cities from time to time but they have been regarded as enemies
of man. The use 5f a weapon to destroy a whole city containing
thousands of innocent and unarmed men, women and children is
therefore an act that must be condemned as a crime against
humanity. During the present war in Korea, there have been
accusations and denials about germ warfare. The world is not
in a position to give a final verdict on these charges but papers
are full of accounts of experiments about germ and bacteriological
warfare. We also read of the extermination of whole groups of
people for the crime of belonging to a particular class or commu
nity. In such a world, how can we brand any particular groups
as the only war criminals?
The first World War laid the foundations of World War IIThe second World War is now creating conditions for a third
World War. Who can say where this process of destruction will'
lead mankind? Such senseless destruction seems even more futile
when we remember how at the end of each war conqueror and
conquered alike have to pay the price of victory. After World
War I, circumstances compelled the Allies to recognise step by
step the need to rebuild Germany in order to restore the health of'
European economy. After the second World War, we are againwitnessing fervent elforts of the victorious nations to rebuild
Germany. All these are evidence that so long as we adopt the
way of hatred and revenge, there is no solution but only the
creation of new and more bitter problems. If the world is tosurvive, we must, therefore, find out some solution other than by
way of war.
It was in order to find out a method of settling international;
disputes in a peaceful manner that at first the League of Nations,
and now the United Nations have been established. There is no*
doubt that their establishment is a step in the right direction buti
equally there is no doubt that they have not been able to fulfil:
the hopes they had aroused. The League petered out because it
failed to stand up to the aggression of the great powers. Today
we are witnessing the United Nations fumbling whenever the
interests of the great nations are at stake. Nevertheless, the U.N..
5*
GANDHIAN OU TLOO K AND TEC H N IQ U ES
represents the only hope of mankind, and it is, therefore, our duty
to find out what are its shortcomings and how best to remedy
‘them.
It seems clear to me that two conditions must be fulfilled if
■the U.N. is to achieve its objective. The first is the recognition of
justice as a value with the same validity in the international sphere
as within national life. Individuals in a State have through a long
process learnt to curb their impulse to private vengeance and
■submit to the arbitration of neutral judges appointed by the State.
If an individual seeks to wreak private vengeance, he is punished
even though he may have acted under grave provocation. We
/must learn to apply the same principle in the international sphere
and lay down that the individual nation, society or state must
never be the judge in its own case.
The second condition is clearly linked with the first and in fact
ârises out of it. Social peace became possible only when indivi
duals gave up the right of private action and agreed to abide by
the dictates of the State. International peace can be achieved
•only if States are prepared to recognise limits to their national
•sovereignty and submit to the arbitration of an international body.
The position today is that States advocate arbitration on all issues
which concern others but refuse to recognise the validity of neutral
arbitration as soon as their own interests are touched.
If these two conditions are fulfilled, we may hope to find a
way out of the greatest danger which threatens the world today.
This is the prevailing cold war between the Communist and the
-non-Communist countries. Whatever may be our personal attitude
to Communism, we must recognise the fact that it counts a large
•section of mankind as its adherents. We must also admit the right
of these people to their own way of life, provided they choose it
freely and do not seek to interfere with the way of life of others.
Once the two blocs develop an attitude of toleration for one
another, discussions on specific issues will no longer be barren and
disappointing as they are today. This will also make each bloc
realise that other nations must be free to choose their own way
of life according to their national genius.
To recognise justice as an absolute value is to substitute right
in the place of might. This also implies that the ends can never
justify the means. 1 It was a basic principle of Gandhiji’s thought
that not only must we aim at truth and justice but must also
adopt means that are truthful and just. There is, therefore, no
option before the world today but to turn to Gandhiji’s doctrine
and methods if we are to escape disaster. He preached that
violence and hatred solved no problems and could only lead to
further misery. He, therefore, appealed hr men to settle* their
6
differences in the light of reason and justice. He held that the
•only victories were those based on moral principles. The lessons
of history confirm his teachings, for history is full of the record of
-conflicts which seemed to end in victory but were only the prelude
to further conflicts and, as often as not, ended in bitter defeat.
In essence, Gandhiji’s message is not a new one. It is a message
which India gave to the world six hundred years before the birth
of Christ through Gautama Buddha. This was also the message
which Jesus gave to the world on the Mount of Olives. Jesus,
it is often said, was the first and the last Christian. This, however,
does not seem to be fully correct. If we look at the history of the
'Christian Church, we find that it survived the persecution of the
Roman Empire and in fact triumphed over it, not by the uie
-of force and violence, but by its readiness to suffer persecution and
-even death for the sake of its ideals. Even when these early
Christians had become powerful, they refrained from the use of
tforce. Tertullian gave expression to this attitude in his speech
for the defence of the Christians against the accusations of the
"Gentiles. In an address to the Magistrates he said, “Our origin
is but recent, yet already we fill all that your power acknowledges
—cities, fortresses, islands, provinces, the assemblies of the people,
•the wards of Rome, the palace, the senate, the public places and
•especially the armies. We have left you nothing but your temples.
Reflect what wars we are able to undertake! With what prompti
tude might we not arm ourselves were we not restrained by our
religion, which teaches us that it is better to be killed than to
kill!”
In more recent times, we have seen Tolstoy deliver the same
message of opposing evil by good, though Tolstoy had no oppor
tunity of putting his theory to the test
Gandhiji’s greatness lies in this that he propounded non*
violence not as a mere theoretical idea but as a practical pro
gramme. In fact his life was a shining example of this principle
and that is why he was able to convert large masses of men to his
way of thinking. In doing so, Gandhiji at the same time offered
to the world a moral substitute for war. Till his time, even
thinkers who had recognised the futility of war could offer no
substitute for i t In his programme of non-violent non-cooperation, Gandhiji showed a way in which wrong could be
opposed without resorting to arms. This is not an easy way and
we do not yet see clearly how the method can be applied in the
settlement of all international disputes. Since, however, there is
Jio other alternative if mankind is to survive, we must find a way
o f extending its application to all fields of conflict.
Beginning from 1920 up to the last days of his life, I have
7
had the privilege of seeing Gandhiji at very close quarters ancf!
have in fact been one of his associates. The thing which impressed
me most during all this long and close association was his unflinch
ing faith in non-violence. Non-violence was for him an absolute
value and he regarded it as the ultimate truth. Two instances
come to my mind of how uncompromising his stand was on this
issue. When World War II started his heart was heavy with the
suffering of afflicted nations. His anguish was the greater that
he could not share in their misery or do anything to stop the
holocaust. His sense of misery came to a head during the heavy
air bombing of Great Britain and he brooded over it till he came
to the decision that he must do whatever lay in his power to bring
the war to an end. He, therefore, wanted to send a message to
the British people advising them to refrain from the use of arms
and instead oppose Hitler non-violently. Even if this resulted in
the military occupation of Great Britain, he wanted to advise
British people to refuse to surrender to Hitler and oppose his
violence by non-violent non-cooperation.
I pleaded with him that this was hardly an appropriate message
to the British people in the hour of their trial and it was likely to
be misunderstood. He withheld his message for two days but
then told me that he had pondered deeply over the matter and
it was his conviction that he must give out his mind whatever be
the consequences. Accordingly, he drafted his message and sent
it to the then Viceroy and Governor-General of India.
A second occasion arose during the War over the issue of'
Indian Independence. Gandhiji held that if the British made an
offer of Independence on the condition that India should join
the war, he for one would reject the offer. He believed that non
violence was an absolute value and he would not be justified in
compromising on this issue even for the sake of Indian freedom.
As the President of the Indian National Congress at the time, I
could not agree with him. It was my view that the Allies were
lighting in a just cause and the only thing that prevented us from
participating in the struggle was British domination over India.
If this was withdrawn, India would have no reason to withhold
her help to the democratic powers that were opposing Nazi
aggression. These two instances show how complete was his
acceptance of the principle of non-violence. He was not prepared
to deviate from non-violence even for the sake of national freedom.
In this Seminar we are not, however, considering non-violence
as an absolute value nor pacifism
a creed which allows no
exception. We recognise that in certain circumstances, limited
use of force may be necessary in order to prevent violence, i r
we take an example from civil life, the power of the Police in a State-
8
5TH JANUARY 1 9 5 3
is the guarantee of the suppression of lawlessness and disorder..
Our aim, therefore, should be to find out how this principle can
be applied in the relations between nations so that war may be
eliminated as an instrument of policy. International conflicts are often the result of internal conflicts. We have, therefore, to
consider the application of Gandhian methods and outlook for
the solution of both types of tensions.
In conclusion, I would like to welcome once again the distin
guished thinkers from East and West who have met to consider
this problem and suggest practical measures for giving effect to
them.
It is a matter for regret that we have today among us no
representative from either the U S S R, or China. The responsi
bility for this is not ours as we made repeated attempts to associate
thinkers from these countries in the work of the Seminar. In
view of the many international peace conferences that these two
states have been sponsoring in recent years, I would have expected
that they would welcome this opportunity of meeting thinkers
from other regions of the world for promoting international peace.
It is, therefore, a matter for regret and surprise that our invitations
have not met with the response that we had a right to expect.
I have great pleasure in requesting the Prime Minister to deliver
his inaugural address.
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru:
Mr. Chairman and Friends, I confess to a feeling of great diffidence in having to address you on the subject of this Seminar.
When I first heard of this Seminar some time ago, I could not
make out how—and I speak with all respect—a number of people
meeting together for a few days, a number of eminent people,
could consider and come to any decisions about such topics .
Certainly I can throw very little light on them from that logical,
philosophical point of view with which no doubt this Seminar wiH
approach this question. Some people add Pandit to my name,
but 1 am no Pandit; nor am I a philosopher; nor am I one of those metaphysicians who abound in this country and have always been
found in large numbers in India. And so I find it very difficult
to say anything really worthwhile about this subject, although I
feel, in my heart of hearts, that the subject is of vital importance.
I feel that in this distracted world of ours it does offer a good."
deal of light to us; at any rate it points to a certain direction which 1
J think is the right direction. But more than that I cannot say. It :
is a feeling, it is an impression, if you like. It is a conviction
which I cannot logically argue about, and the conviction has been
derived, certainly I suppose, from thinking often on these subjects;
9
but more so perhaps from having indulged in a course of action,
and most of all from having had the great privilege of coming into
contact with Gandhiji. And yet if you ask what is this Gandhian
technique and what method did he pursue or did he recommend,
I rather doubt if any of those who are best entitled to speak on
this question will speak with one voice. I think they will give
you different pictures—not contradictory pictures. I mean—but
different pictures, different emphasis, different aspects of that ex
traordinary personality and the way he functioned, and so you
might get some light here and there, but you will find it difficult
to form a full picture and you might even end by being a good
deal confused. Because he himself was, if you like, in the normal
sense of the word, rather a confusing and contradictory individual.
Or perhaps he was not contradictory at all; he was a very inte
grated individual, but we. with our contradictory approaches, could
not quite understand what he was.
I have another difficulty and that is that, when I think of him,
many ideas come into my mind. I hardly think of techniques, of
action and the rest of it; 1 think of him perhaps in a rather emo
tional way, as my leader, a great friend and a great comrade. And
that rather confuses the mind, because cold blooded logic is set
aside. Then, again, during all these years—thirty years or so—
-during which many of us of a passing generation were associated
■with him—or rather those who were associated with him are of a
passing generation—we were associated seldom in logical debate
and argument, or philosophical discourse; we were associated in
action, certainly in discussions about the action occasionally, but
much more so in action, in how to meet a particular situation—not
philosophically but practically—and so you could derive perhaps
some logical consequences from that action.
The action did not flow, if I may say so, from some definite
set theory of action, at any rate, so far as many of us were con
cerned. But we learnt through that action itself and gradually
formed some idea of perhaps the basic principles underlying that
action, because Gandhiji was very far from being a doctrinaire
person and yet he was very firm and very unmoving in regard to
certain basic matters and at the same time very flexible, very
adaptable, very human. So what is one to make of all these
rather contradictory things?
I remember once I was reading Plato’s Dialogues and someone
was describing the effect that Socrates had on him. As I read
this Dialogue, I was astonished because it was almost a description
of the effect that Gandhiji had on me, an effect, a curious effect,
sometimes an irritating effect, sometimes a most mystifying effect,
very often an inspiring effect, very often an effect, that I M t
10
ashamed of myself. I found when I read Plato that this was
the effect that Socrates produced on some persons who used to
go to him from time to time, and I found a picture of my own
.mind reflected in that; I was astonished and it came as a sur
prise to me.
And so all these various effects come in; you may examine
them when you sit in the Seminar. I have no doubt that they are
techniques but in that technique itself the most important things
are imponderable, which you cannot measure or weigh in a
balance—how a human being behaves to another, how a group
should behave to another group, how a nation should behave to
wards another nation. How do you measure, let us say anything,
let us say goodness? How do you measure goodness? I know
of no measure. How do you measure tolerance? How do you
measure anything that is worthwhile—beauty or truth or any
thing else? You cannot measure them. You feel them. You may
‘try to live up to them to the best of your ability but there it is; you
Teel them certainly and when people feel them you know they are
there. And in this world, especially today, which becomes more
-and more bereft and devoid of the spirit of toleration, of the
spirit of putting up with another person who does not agree with
you, all these big words become rather meaningless Today if a
person does not agree with you, he is wicked; if a country does
mot agree with your country, it is wicked; there is no half-way;
there are no shades of grey; there is only black and white and
Therefore you come into conflict and there are attempts to impose
your will on others. Well, it is all very well for me to say so
because the questions that a nation, a country or any organised
group, has to deal with are not so simply disposed of by some
maxim or aphorism; they are difficult and the choice often is very
difficult.
And then you come up against that basic difficulty, if I may
call it so, of two ways of approaching a problem—the* prophet’s
way, or if you like, of the man of truth wedded to truth whatever
‘.happens, and the way of the politician or the statesman. The
prophet usually meets his doom in crucifixion, and it was in the
fitness of things that Gandhiji met his death in that way. That
has been the role of men like Gandhiji through the ages and so
both in life and in his death he served the cause he held dear.
But we are not prophets; we are humbler folk and if we have
responsibility cast upon us as politicians and the like, we have
to deal with human material which is very far from perfect. And
if we live in an age of democracy—and all praise to democracy—
but democracy does not make fools wise men necessarily, nor
-does it follow that what the crowds say is the wise thing—and so
11
the average is lowered often enough. It is better to stick to th a t
average perhaps, than to take other risks. That is the virtue of
democracy. But, anyhow, the politician has his tools in large
numbers of human beings. Even if the politician or statesman*,
sees truth, which he seldom does—but let us say he sees the truth
and wants to stick to it—he has to function through other tools.
He has to function not only through certain tools, but through
the multitude who have made him what he is. Now that multitude
-—who are his tools—can only follow the truth in so far as they see
it, and even when they see it, in so far as they have the strength to
follow it.
So immediately difficulties arise in the way of the political;
leader—let us say, leader of any type, apart from the prophet.
Because although he sees the truth and wants to go that way,,
how is he to carry others with him unless others see it also? Howis he to make them receptive to that? And then he has to strug
gle and wrestle with the problem of what he is to do. Is he to*
walk alone or slay with his comrades? Sometimes he has to
walk alone undoubtedly, and he should; but then again is that all'
right for him? What about democracy? What about trying to
take others to the next stage of the journey? So long as he re
mains the leader, he has to consider all the time how far he cam.
take those that he leads. He is influenced by them of course, and
he influences them and he can take them perhaps a little further
than they might otherwise go, but there are limits because thoselimits are the limits of the receptivity of the truth by those people.
So the ieader has always to face this difficult pro!:’em. Should he
seek, should he adhere to the truth as he knows it completely, or
should he compromise? Now, when one compromises, it is a
dangerous and a slippery slope, and yet if one does not compro
mise* one loses touch, one is cut oil from those one works for and
works with; one is isolated. One can work for ones own per
sonal perfection if you like, but the whole object of the leader is
to lead others, to help others and to take them forward in thejourney.
Of course all this presumes that what is Truth is clear, and i r
seldom is. That is another difficulty, but I was presuming that
for the moment. I am not talking about the ultimate truth but
rather of the right step, the right direction in which to go, theright step to take, the truth for the present, whatever it may be,
If that is clear, at any rate, the next step is clear whatever the
further one may be. Now that again is very seldom something
abstract, because you are dealing with day-to-day problems of
multitudes of people, of human society and the like, and it is not
so easy to say that this is absolutely the right thing to do for that
1society. Ultimately we proceed by a process of trial and error.
We try an experiment. If we make a mistake, we should be
rstrong enough to go back, but anyhow one should aim in a certain
i directipn. That is, there should be some fixed principles, or call
; them what you like, which should govern your action, some touch
stone by which you can judge whether a thing is right or wrong.
You may not go fast, you may go slowly, but you should go in a
particular direction. So there is always this conflict, if you like,
in the leader’s mind who cannot, and who is not capable of acting
'like a prophet or like the man of ultimate truth and who has
always to think in terms either of compromises or of a choice of
evils and he has to choose what he considers the lesser evil lest
the greater overwhelm.
Now, there are all these difficulties in the way of a man like
' Gandhi who was of the prophetic mould and who was also very
much a human being, and who was firm and inflexible and yet also
'flexible arid adaptable. The things he said had been said before;
the truths he uttered, or even the principles he proclaimed, had
been said by the great ones in earlier days also; but perhaps for
the first time he applied them on a large scale—not on the indi
vidual scale as others had done—but on a large mass scale and in
the political field. I speak of course with my limited knowledge
■of events during the past but I do not know of atiy such attempt
or experiment on a large mass scale of applying these various
techniques, which themselves, came, I believe, out of his mind,
not as something complete but something which developed as he
experimented with them. He calls, as you perhaps know, his auto
biography Experiments with Truth. There is that in them,
that quality of inflexibility, that is to say, not surrendering to
.what he considered basically evil, whatever the consequences;
but having decided that, always to be friendly, always to be co
operative, always to stretch out your hand even to your opponent
•and enemy, always to keep a door open for reconciliation.
These two things are very difficult to have at the same time—to
be firm and inflexible and to fight evil with all your might and
yet always to be prepared for reconciliation. The two do not nor
mally go together. You work yourself up to a fury of hatred of
your opponent as normally happens today with wars—whether
They are shooting wars or cold wars or any other war. In fact, it
is considered a necessary concomitant of war to rouse up this
passion of hatred. A ndêt Gandhiji could combine the two, and of
the many miracles he wrought in this country this was one, that he
made us in India, poor stuff as we are—I lay no claims to special
virtue for our people—he made us also somewhat receptive to
th at technique, to those ideas and even to that behaviour; so that,
13
while we struggled, we did not have that much of bitterness and 1
hatred in us which normally accompanies such struggles and'
which has accompanied struggles in other parts of the world—
nationalist struggles or struggles for freedom.
Now that was good of course, but another virtue was also attached to that general approach, and that virtue was that when
the time comes to end the struggle, it can be ended graciously*
gracefully and with a minimum of bitterness. That is a very big:
thing, because the worst of the struggles of the world, whatever
they are, whether by war—shooting war, cold war or any other—
they are bad enough, but what is worse is the trail of bitterness and
hatred that they leave behind, the brutalisation of humanity that-:
they lead to. That is the terrible consequence. Now that conse
quence is largely avoided—not completely of course, because we
are all, shall I say, poor folk; we are not trained up to these things.
We have not as human beings, in any country, arrived at that high
enough stage. Nevertheless, it means something if a deliberate
attempt is made, a deliberate aim not to surrender to hatred. Hatred
may creep in; it does creep in, but it makes all the difference when
on the one side you promote hatred, while on the other side you
try to restrict it and lessen it as far as possible.
That was his attempt in India and if you compare the struggle
for Indian independence during all its various phases with any
other struggle,—you will find plenty of courage and heroism in
every country, plenty of sacrifice even in any other country,—but
the thing that probably will be missing elsewhere was this delibe
rate attempt to keep that struggle outside the scope of hatred. As
I said, I do not mean to say that this succeeded completely. Of
course, there was hatred, anger and all that in people’s minds*
but still that was limited tremendously by that continuous impress
that Gandhiji gave to it and by the fact’ that others, to a much •
lesser extent, but desiring to convey the master’s teachings to ■
others also repeated that all the time. In fact, indeed many pos
sibly, who themselves were not at all devoid of hatred, had to
repeat it because that was the lesson they had to learn. It was
the fashion to repeat it. But it was a good fashion even though
it was not felt by everyone, and it did produce a certain mass
effect.
Now, if you analyse that again, it comes back definitely to
the same old question of means and ends—that means should
never be subordinated to ends. Whatever your reasons, apart
from moral or ethical reasons, from the-very obvious practicaT
reason that if you adopt any means you like, well, your ends dis
appear; you don’t arrive at the aim, because you have taken thewrong path and it leads you somewhere else. When you consider
14
5 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3 #
the Gandhian technique, it is a technique of struggle—to right a
wrong whatever the wrong may be. It is a struggle carried 00
under certain very definite limitations of behaviour which prevent
people from going astray or too far; which is limited, too, to some
extent in the sense that even a good thing might well develop into
an evil thing if taken too far.
Let us take something; let us take nationalism which has been
and is a very good thing. It has been a great liberating force in
certain stages of a country’s history. In our country it was a?
great liberating force and yet it is well known that nationalism
in many countries has during its later stages become aggressive
nationalism trying to impose its will on others. Nationalism,
which is a liberating force, becomes, or may become at a later
stage, a limiting force, a narrowing force, a narrow nationalism.
We see how the same thing may develop, the same thing which*
is good, may develop into something that is bad. The same
thing which is widening and liberating may become a narrowing
thing. How are we to check all these various influences that
work? Now when a technique of action depends, not so much
on the suffering or distress or misery you cause to the other party,
but on what you suffer yourself, certain obvious checks and limit
ing factors operate and you cannot normally overdo it, in so far
as you are concerned. You can very well overdo it so far as
the other party is concerned because there is no check except
your own good-will or feeling, and if you are full of hatred, you
overdo it, but you cannot go on hating yourself too much, or act
ing on yourself because of these inevitable checks. So that if the:
Gandhian technique is employed, while on the one hand you exer
cise pressure, political pressure, or economic pressure or, much
more so, moral and psychological pressure on the opponent, at the
same time that pressure is limited by your own capacity to bear
suffering and distress.
One of the more important aspects of this technique is to
undermine the morale of the other party, that is if you are right
If two persons, convinced of the right, come into conflict, they
fight each other and try to suppress and eliminate each other,,
because they are utterly convinced that each is right. As in
war each country is convinced, partly through facts, largely
through propaganda, that it is fighting for right, for liberty, for
freedom, for democracy, for everything good, while the other
country is the incarnation of the Devil. That is the propaganda in.
war-time and so each fights to the utmost because each believes that,
defeat is not only loss of freedom but loss of everything each holds >
dear and it is the victory of the Devil if the other party wins.
Obviously both are wrong, thoueh one may be more in the wrong;
15
G ANDH IJI OUTLOOK AND IfcCHNIQUfeS
r than the other; but neither party is very saintly and neither party
is perhaps as devilish as it is painted.
When the approach is according to what might be called the
^Gandhian technique, first of ail you are not supposed to paint the
other party as the devil. You try as far as possible to adhere to
the truth. You separate always the individual from the system.
If I can give you an example, Gandhiji was always saying:
“I am fighting British imperialism, I am not fighting the
Britisher; I am not fighting the Englishman or anybody. They
are my friends but I will fight British Imperialism”. There is
always this distinction made between an evil thing, as he
thought imperialism was which he fought, and the indivi
duals with whom he wanted to be friendly. That itself of course
rather toned down the opposition of the opponents. Secondly,
the whole approach was—it may be irritating to the other party—
to undermine the moral defences of the other party. Of course, if
those moral defences were sound absolutely, then they could not
be undermined, but if the moral defences were superficial or
based on propaganda or some such thing, but not on basic facts,
then they were undermined. They were undermined, while at the
same time you were prepared for conciliation, too. You see all
these different things in motion at the same time. So firstly
there is the struggle and hitting out, in a non-violent way, but hit
ting out; and secondly the undermining of the other's moral
defence. Thirdly, the door is open to reconciliation all the time,
’but not by any compromise on any basic question of what is
considered wrong and evil.
I am merely placing before you some odd thoughts coming to
my mind. I am not talking like a scientific student of this
matter or a philosopher but merely as a person who was a soldier
in action for many long years under Gandhiji’s inspiring leader
ship. Ultimately one may define and may analyse all these things,
but the real thing will probably elude us because it is not capable
of analysis, because the real things of life cannot be analysed; you
feel them, you look at them, you see them. Nevertheless, whether
you arrive at any concrete result or philosophy as a result of your
discussions or not, I have no doubt that the mere attempt to do so
is worthwhile. It may give us some ideas. The mere attempt to
draw the world’s attention is worthwhile I think, attention to what
^Gandhiji stood for and did, more especially in the world today
when people become more and more rigid in outlook, more and
;more inflexible, more and more unmannerly, as if strength consists
in shouting, unmannerliness and abuse. That is what international
politics is coming to; and it is more and more devoid of the
»critical faculty and is presuming that anything that the other party
16
opposed to us does must inevitably be wrong, suspecting it, fearing
it. So we get tied up in this, surrounded by this atmosphere of fear,
suspicion and hatred. There seems to be no way of getting out of
it because the peoples’ minds are closed and become impervious.
Perhaps even there it would be a little easier to open out those
minds, trying the Gandhian approach, than merely by trying the
rather ancient method of using a big club on die head, which
sometimes may have succeeded but does not appear to succeed
always. When everybody is clubbing each other, the result may
be a very large number of broken heads, but not any conviction
arising out of that.
There is another aspect of this question of war. It seems to
be patent to any intelligent person that war as it is today does not
lead to the political results aimed at. I am leaving out the moral
aspect, the humanitarian aspect. War may lead to victory, though
even that becomes rather doubtful, but victory by itself does not
mean that you have achieved the political results you were aiming
at. As we have seen in the last two Great Wars, they led to vic
tory, and complete victory; but the peace that followed was highly
unsatisfactory and led to further trouble, friction and war. And
if to our misfortune war occurs again on a big scale, nobody can
say what it will lead to. But one can say with absolute confidence
that it will not lead to anything that people want it to lead to.
If that is so, one must proceed on the basis of trying to avoid that
type of war and trying to avoid anything that leads to that war.
Of course one person, or one group, or one nation cannot by itself
avoid all these things, and no country, I fear, can take up the
attitude which Gandhiji might have suggested. No leader—poli
tical leader—can possibly give that advice to his country. But
the prophet can. If a political leader gave that advice, well, he
would cease to be a political leader and become something else.
But that apart, the question remains not of laying down your
arms before anybody but aiming very deliberately, consciously
and deliberately, at the avoidance of war.
Now I do think—I
say so with all respect—that there is so much talk of peace every
where, but very little of it is honest talk. The people in every
country want peace; I am not referring to them, I am referring
to the persons at the top, to the politicians, the statesmen and all
that crowd. And I have no doubt that at the back of their minds
they also want peace. Nevertheless, either through fear or what
ever it is, they do not work for peace even though they talk
about it so much, and it all becomes a manoeuvring for position
—even the talk of peace.
So we see the world going step by step towards some tragic
disaster—and everybody realises the awfulness of that disaster
11
94 M. of Edu.
and .everybody would like to avoid it. I do not know what will
happen but at any rate whether we apply scientific techniques or
not, calling them Gandhian techniques or by whatever name you
might call them, I have not a shadow of doubt that the way of
hatred is a bad way. It is a bad way in itself and it produces
distempers all round, more especially in the person who employs
that method even more than in the other. And victory or defeat
is important, one or the other, but far more important is the way
you attain your objectives, you reach your end, or else you will
have missed everything that you value in life.
I hope that the labours of this Seminar will, I will not say yield
any very practical result immediately, but nevertheless, help peo
ple to understand, help people to get out of that rut which makes
them think that there is no other way to solve the problem but to
hit the man with a club, no other way to convince a person except
by breaking his head. That is an extraordinary thought really
and yet that is the basis of war. If we can help in making people
think about these problems in the right way, I am sure the Seminar
will have done good work.
I am very happy that so many eminent people have come from
abroad to share their thoughts with us. If I am supposed to say
formally that I inaugurate the Seminar, I gladly do so.
Dr. Alva Myrdak
It is a rare privilege for me to be allowed to bring to this very
prominent gathering, in the personal presence of one of the great
leaders of our historical era, Mr. Nehru, a message of greeting
and good wishes from Unesco. That World Organization itself
is dedicated to very much the same tasks as you have chosen to
discuss at this Seminar. And it is not unimportant that sixty-eight
Governments should, by their signature to the Unesco Constitution,
have solemnly committed themselves to helping to solve the ten
sions between nations. This implies working together to establish
peace in the world. And trying to solve the tensions within nations
implies working together towards a state of social justice, economic
well-being and spiritual liberty for all human beings. If I add that
through the definition indicated by its very name, Unesco is
contributing its share to these general objectives of the whole
United Nations systems along the avenues of Education, Science
and Culture, you will see even more clearly how identical are
the objectives of this Seminar and those of Unesco.
With all due modesty I have to add that we, as well as
the United Nations organization itself, are at present doing
our best to carry out these objectives which were laid down in the
post-war days of peace and optimism and more genuine inter
18
national goodwill, and are having to do so against heavy odds;
in spite of blatant difficulties, and even in the face of some defeats.
But even temporary defeats need not spell defeatism. We all
know deep in our inner beings that an oft repeated truth is really
true: that only the Unijted Nations can save this world. Only
if the nations are united, if the wills of nations are bent together*
can the whole of mankind be encompassed in our efforts at salva
tion. The contrary course which now seems to be the dominant
one, namely trying to save oneself at the cost of the others, is
actually the origin of the tensions that divide and destroy instead
of uniting and constructing. That course of narrow self-interest
is in the long run good for nobody and yet is the one chosen by
most No wonder that we need a seminar such as this to solve—
not the tensions, but the riddle of all this self-destruction 1
The privilege of bringing this message from Unesco to your
Symposium means so much more to me in that it is delivered in a
country that reflects, within the framework of its wide geography
and its long history, all the world’s worries and all the world’s
aspirations. One point seems particularly noteworthy in view of
our subject today, a paradox which seems to spring to the eyes
when we turn the pages »f India’s history. On the one hand, we
find how often in the past this country experienced strife and
struggle. Wave after wave of conquerers brought wars; there
were bitter dashes between ethnic and communal groups, even
villages fought for what seems no very compelling reason at all.
And yet it remains true on the other hand, without any shadow of
doubt or hesitation, that it is this nation that today symbolises for
the rest of the world the very idea of non-violence. The quarrel
some past you share with most nations. Whence then comes the
present determination to avoid strife?
You are probably right in connecting that attitude with the
name of Gandhiji. Let me confess, however, that to a stranger,
without the possibility of diagnosing and defining the source of
the attitude, the identification with the principles of non-violence
connected with his name seems rather to have become the climate
of a whole nation, and the stranger who dwells among you can
not be the same again. Our will to self-sacrifice which is so often
blanked by other desires, our readiness to devote all our forces to
one great cause, become so singularly fortified in the social and
cultural atmosphere of India that I am only paying honest homage
if I testify to its impact on those who come among you. But I can
also, from my experience in the international organisations I have
served, United Nations as well as Unesco, testify to the fact that
this indefinable something which is generally recognised as
Gandhian is the object of a deep admiration by the whole of world
19
public opinion. Often this admiration is an unwilling one, as the
Indian position seems to require uncomfortably much of honesty
and peacefulness. Still the admiration is there and it is not just
passive. It forces the outside world, and more particularly it for
ces the International Organizations to continue to believe in the
workability of these principles and to ask how this outlook can be
spread, how it can be made to prevail in this world, how this planet
could on the whole be made a peaceful one, without the tensions
that are now marring and senselessly spoiling international as well
- as community life and thus not sparing even our private happiness.
But let me be more precise. How far is world public opinion
really ready to accept the Gandhian Outlook?
There is world-wide agreement that a culture permeated by the
Gandhian outlook is the ultimate goal. But Gandhiji asked for
more. To him, ends and means were not as separated as they
usually are to the ordinary man and even more so to the politi
cians. If peace and social uplift of the masses were called his
objectives and truth and non-violence the means to this end, to him
they were all one and inseparable. They were the true human
way of life. I am afraid that the majority of peoples and nations
still make a much more comfortable compromise: they include
truth and non-violence also in that paradise on earth which is
ardently desired but at the same time placed in a distant future.
Falsehood and violence still seem to be permissible means for
even the noblest objectives. Here the Gandhian outlook presents
its uncompromising demand. I need not underline what a terri
fying choice the Gandhian attitude places before the world, before
the statesmen, who have to deal in violence or non-violence, parti
cularly and especially before the machinators of public opinion
who have to choose between using truth or untruth. Finally, the
choice comes down to the ordinary man in all countries. Are
they ready to be independent seekers after truth? Are they ready
to practice an active but non-violent resistance to the forces of
tensions as they appear in the situation of today?
If I understand rightly, this is the very core of the question to
which this seminar will endeavour to find an answer. I will not
try to forecast the results. But I want to emphasize how closely
wedded Unesco is to this attitude, called Gandhian, not only as a
goal but also as a technique to overcome tensions. In the language
of the organisation, Education and Science would rather be the
means utilised while Culture in all its true senses is the objective.
In all these spheres, steps are already being taken in the direction
of a peaceful victory over tensions.
Taking Science, first, I would like to point out how whole
heartedly Unesco started from the beginning of its existence to
20
5TH JANUARY 1 9 5 3
utilize the scientific method for an unremitting analysis of tensions,
their actual forms, their causes and their effects. When the organi
sation was established immediately after the war there was a con
viction, strong enough to lead Governments to make formal deci
sions, that the function of the social sciences, harnessed by
Unesco should be to reveal die ultimate preconditions for peace.
The very preamble of Unesco’s Constitution contains the confes
sion of such a belief: “As war begins in the minds of men, it is
in the minds of men that the defences of peace should be built”.
The Department which I now head was asked by the Member
Governments to undertake an ambitious course of study, namely
to investigate various forms of aggressive nationalism and other
group tensions and it was especially asked to diagnose the psycho
logical genesis of such tensions, the origins of fears and the mani
fold transmutations that lead small and irrational fears to become
potent and seemingly rational movements, setting peoples
against peoples.
Some international publications emanated from this pre-occupa
tion, in which the social scientists of many countries were invited
to participate. I want to mention especially the general survey of
psychological roots of tensions, being a summary of numerous
studies undertaken in various countries, contained in Kli neb erg’s
book "Tensions A ffecting International Understanding”; further a
symposium on techniques for overcoming international tensions,
summarized in CantriFs “Tensions that Cause W ars” as well as a
more philosophical symposium, edited by McKeon, " Democracy
in a World o f Tensions”.
Remarkable attempts were also made to recruit social scientists
to undertake an analysis of internal tensions in some countries. In
this respect the precursor was India, which called on Unesco to
enlist the assistance of a foreign expert, Professor Gardner
Murphy, to help in organising research in local tensions. The
magnanimity revealed in this attempt, which has led to some
fourteen tensions studies by local university teams, has rightly
been admired and often hailed as an example by participants in
the international conferences of Unesco. This year, Israel is
following the lead and submitting to a similar analysis its seeth
ing melting-pot from which a new nation is taking shape. I
have the most profound respect for these attempts at an objective
self-analysis, for I firmly believe that truth is the only way to set
people free and cure them of their self-inflicted social ills.
I have, however, to confess that Unesco no longer places quite
the same hope of happy solution in the studies of international
tensions. The reasons are obvious: the most explosive tensions of
our time are not submitted to analysis by cold-tempered scientists
21
by any of the interested parties. Neither the East-West conflict
nor Korea; neither North Africa nor Kashmir. Further, the signs
of crisis in world affairs are now so urgent, that particularly the
more distant psychological roots of tensions become of less imme
diate importance than certain economic interests, or certain power
constellations or certain waves of public opinion. Since Unesco
is not allowed to deal with them in their acute stage, all we can
do is to direct the attention of the social scientists to the more
general problems which beset most nations, but which can and
must be approached internationally because they are gigantic gene
rators of tension. Thus the time has come to give priority
to studies of the social impact of the rapidly increasing industralisation, to studies of the social problems relating to land reform,
and especially to comparative studies of the positive value of local
self-government. A strengthening of “democracy at the grass-roots"
is the goal that inspires all these new studies, in which it is hoped
that this great country will participate, sharing its intelligent aware
ness of what the problems really are and its experiences in over
coming some of that pervading inertia that so often condones abuse.
Thus, Science is trying to do its part, through Unesco, mobiliz
ing as far as possible the social scientists everywhere, turning them
from their more esoteric problems to those of world urgency, so
that they may thus serve their own countries as well as the inter
national community.
Does this search after Truth correspond to Gandhiji’s claims
on us? It is not for me to judge. I can perhaps be more positive
in stating that the bridge from studies to action which Unesco is
utilizing is Education. It is otherwise powerless to persuade
governments to follow any policy for the removal of any tensions
our studies might have revealed. Truly and definitely in the spirit
of Gandhiji is our specific campaign for Fundamental Education.
This must be considered the central task of our whole organization
in this particular cultural era where elevated summits of scientific
knowledge are reached by some while half of mankind remairfs the
slave of ignorance and illiteracy. Fundamental Education, with its
new regional centres for the training of local teachers and produc
tion of efficient, indigenous teaching material at Patzcuarro in
Mexico, and Sirs El Lyan in Egypt, is nothing but an international
version of Gandhi's basic education for adults. The teaching of
the three R.s then becomes incidental to what is much more practi
cal, namely, guidance in learning facts relating to everyday needs,
from seeds and soil, to hygiene and Human Rights.
dut of course you might want even more from Unesco, You
want a more definite reorientation of all education at all
levels towards the goals of non-violence. You might want educa
22
tion from early childhood to give to each human being such an
assurance of love and security, as the educators phrase it, or of
affectionate consideration and a sense of “belonging” as we might
say in more sociological terms, that a new atmosphere may be
created strong enough to cure individuals of the inclination to such
tensions as now play havoc with them within their local, national
and world community.
If more ambitious goals are to be striven for, it is for you to
stimulate more far-reaching demands on the organizations that
try to serve the world. All I want to state—and I think I can
do so on behalf of Unesco—is that we firmly believe that every
step taken in the direction of permeating world culture, science
and education with a Gandhian outlook is a step in the right
direction. We have the common goal to reduce the reasons for
fear in each growing human being. We have the joint desire to
strengthen the bonds of cooperation in each social group, however
small. We are inspired by the same striving to liberate the minds
of every man and woman, however humble or however exalted their
position. Even if such efforts of this Seminar or of Unesco itself
should not be enough to guarantee peace, at least they will help to
improve the situation of the common man everywhere. Even if
they cannot achieve their goal in time to save the world of to
morrow, they will at least have made the world of today a some
what better place in which to live.
It is evident, and here I think the Prime Minister touched on
something very important, that means and ends are inseparable,
because the wrong means cannot lead to the right end.
Unesco needs the guidance of this Seminar in order to show us
a forward path. We are proud to be connected with its inaugura
tion and will try to live up to these ideals which we are proud and
happy to call Gandhian. With these words, I wish the Seminar
all success in the name of Unesco.
Professor Humayun Kabfn
Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, Excellencies and Ladies
and Gentlemen, I consider it a great privilege to move, on behalf
of the delegates of the Seminar and on my own behalf, a most
cordial vote of thanks to you, Sir, and to die Prime Minister for
associating yourselves with the inauguration of the Seminar. We
feel that the Seminar could not have started under better auspices.
The Prime Minister in his speech referred to the extraordinarily
complex character which was Gandhiji and said that everyone
who came in contact with him interpreted him from his own point
of view; not only interpreted him, but also caught something of
his spirit and showed his influence in all his actions. We have
23
today heard two great colleagues of Gandhiji, two noble natures
touched to greater nobility by the magic of the Mahatma. They
have shared their thoughts with us and given us an insight into
their own mind and the way in which the impact of Gandhiji’s
personality nioved them to action in the past and still moves them
across the years.
We hope that this Seminar in Delhi where Gandhiji lived and
toiled and finally met his martyrdom will give thinkers from
different countries of the world an opportunity to consider his
techniques and suggest, on their basis, concrete and specific pro
grammes of action to resolve the troubles of the present day world.
The Prime Minister very rightly pointed out that it is not the
function of this Seminar to try to evolve a new philosophy. If
we try to do that, we would perhaps only lose ourselves in a
metaphysical morass. It will, however, be our task to recall the
teachings of Gandhiji and find out how far we can apply these
teachings to our personal problems and to problems of national
and international import If all these thinkers from so many
different countries of the world with such differing backgrounds
come and ponder over the teachings of Gandhiji in the context of
the modern world, their very association has a great significance.
It will be our endeavour to justify the hopes held of this Seminar,
and I know we have your good wishes and sympathy in the perfor
mance of our task.
May I-say how glad we are to have with us Madame Myrdal.
as a representative of Unesco? We are sorry that she will not
be able to stay with us for the whole of the Seminar and we only
wish we could persuade her to do so.
I would, before I end, also like to thank the distinguished
gathering which has assembled to bid Godspeed to the work of
the Seminar.
24
The Seminar met at 10 A.M. on 6th January 1953 in the
Committee Room of Parliament House with Lord Boyd Orr in
the Chair.
Lord Boyd 0 m
Ladies and Gentlemen, I wish first of all to thank you for
putting me in the Chair for this very important Seminar. I will
try to do my best
Some of us have not met before. So, it will be of great help
if we know the background of the various members of the Seminar.
I would therefore suggest that each member draws up a short note
of his background and interests and gives it to Dr. Kabir. For
example, I am a medical man, a scientist. I am Chancellor of a
University. I am interested in medicine and health. I am interested
in education. I was a soldier of the war. I have been in the
United Nations. I have edited publications of the United Nations ■
dealing with politics, and so on. I am interested in politics. I was
in the House of Commons. I am now in the House of Lords. A
short note like that on each member, showing his special interests,
would be of great help.
About procedure, what Mr. Kabir suggested yesterday is, I
think, wise. Each delegate is expected to make a statement. It
can be a formal statement, or it can be quite an informal one.
After each member has made his statement, questions may be
put to him to elicit further information or to clarify and elucidate
particular points. Short comments on each-statement may also be
made. When that is all finished, we can see what the views of
the different people are. I would suggest that by Friday we should
be able to complete this part. By that time we should have the
views of all the different members and we will see what the big
issues are. We may leave Saturday free for a discussion of the
big issues. Having done that, we will be in a position to decide
whether we should split up in groups and how many groups there
should be. It has been suggested that there should be one for
international affairs and one for national affairs, but we need not
take any decision today.
Now about the object of the Seminar. Gandhi was a remark
able man. He said God is truth and love. These are the funda
mentals of life. They have been so recognised for a very long
time. But the unique thing about Gandhi was that he applied
them to everyday life—not only to politics but also to economics.
25
By applying them to economics and politics he got the following
of millions of people. What we have to consider is how far, to
what extent, his methods can be applied in the troubled world
of today. Gandhi was dealing with India mainly. He also dealt
with international affairs; but he dealt with India mainly. In his
inaugural speech yesterday, Mr. Nehru pointed out the difficulties
in the world today. We have to consider the Gandhian teaching
against the background of what is happening in the world. 1
would like to point out four things which seem to me to be very
important factors.
One is the tremendous advance of science, the enormous powers
that science has placed in the hands of mankind. Within ten
years science can abolish hunger, preventable diseases, ignorance
and so on. We can make a new world in ten years or the whole
world can be turned into a shambles and we can wash out human
life. People like Einstein and my friend Dr. Chisholm all agree it
is possible to use science to eliminate the human species. How
can Gandhian teaching be applied to prevent that from happening?
There is another factor—Mr. Gandhi placed the utmost import
ance on the decentralisation of power.
With the advance of
science and the annihilation of distance, power has been concen
trated into a few hands. In economics a small group of men
control the supplies of the whole world. I am not discussing
whether it is right or wrong, whether it is evil or beneficial to
human society. For the last three hundred years, the Western
European nations built up armies by their modem techniques.
We have seen how these armies were employed in the process of
eliminating mankind. Make no mistake about that. This process
is gradually drifting towards liquidation of the human race. Now
we find an awakening all over the world, people demanding
rightly demanding economic and political equality. At the same
time great powers are trying for further concentration of power
in their hands. During the last fifty years we have seen the
creation of numerous armies in Europe and other regions; today
different armies are being placed under one supreme commander.
There is concentration of political power in the hands of small
groups. One of the dangerous factors in the world today is the
manoeuvring of one big group or the other to gather around it
some of the smaller nations.
Another factor which seems to me very important is the spread
of education and the higher ethical standards of life. It is very
important with people all over the world demanding peace and
wanting to be friendly with each other. I think everywhere you
go, there are the same decent people whose wants are the same,
whose ambitions of life are the same. People have one demand;
26
6TH JANUARY 1 9 5 3
‘Let us be friendly to each other Why should we kill each other?*
While there is enormous concentration of power in the hands of
a few men and huge concentration of political power in the hands
of a few nations, there is also a rise in the ethical standards in the
world today trying to put an end to all wars. We should consider
Gandhism against these great changes taking place in the world
and examine to what extent the principles Gandhi preached and
practised can be applied on a world-wide scale.
This is a very important Seminar. You are dealing with a
subject of prime importance. Representatives of various countries
have assembled here and I hope they will feel completely free to
express their views. They are free to influence the notions of others.
In fact if I leave the Seminar with the same ideas as I was holding
before, I will feel this Seminar has been of little value. But when
we leave the Seminar, if some change has come about in our
views, then I think this Seminar is worthwhile. It will be of
great significance if we can reach agreement on certain funda
mental things which we know will be of value to the people of the
world.
Against this background, with completely open minds, we can
criticise our own country; we can criticise any country; we have
also a right to change our opinions. Indeed I am prepared to
modify my views in the light of our discussions.
Well now, Gentlemen, having taken up some of your time, I
shall call upon the first speaker. Dr. Kripalani has agreed to
speak first and has submitted an excellent document. By the way,
if I mispronounce your names, do not take it as an offence.
Acharya J. B. Kripalani:
I am not yet a Doctor.
Lord Boyd Orr:
It is a mistake on the part of one of the Universities. There
is no need to rise to speak. You can be informal and keep sitting.
1 hope everybody will speak a little slowly and loud enough so
that everyone can hear.
Acharya Kripalani:
Mr. Chairman and friends, I take it that the paper I have sub
mitted has been read by all of you and that it is unnecessary for
me to go over the viewpoints embodied in that paper. (See
Appendix B). I would therefore like to place certain other
important questions before you. In case what I say may be
contradicted by somebody else, I must tell you that I am giving
you my view of Gandhiji’s philosophy.
27
Professor Kabir:
Just one thing. Everyone will speak here in his individual
capacity. He represents only himself and, therefore, he should say
freely whatever he likes, irrespective of what others may or may
not say about i t
Acharya Kripalani:
Gandhiji was not a pacifist in the popular or accepted sense
of the term. He did not consider violence as the greatest evil that
can befall individuals or nations. Rather he considered fear as the
greatest evil from which mankind suffers. It is our greatest enemy.
Therefore, the first problem that he tackled, whether in South
Africa or India, was that of elimination of fear. Only we Indians
know the fear in the grip of which we lived before Gandhiji came
to the political field. /The biggest Indian lived and moved in a
climate of fear.
Therefore, what Gandhi did in 1920, when he inaugurated his
first India-wide satyagraha. movement, was to take away this great
fear. He took away the fear of the British, the fear of the police,
the magistracy, the jails, lathi charges and even bullets. People
were hauled up for sedition and instead of pleading ‘not guilty’,
as they did before, they admitted their guilt and proclaimed that
preaching sedition was their national duty. They proclaimed
from the house tops that the British government in India was
‘satanic*.
Gandhiji wanted people to be not only brave but fearless. He
considered weakness, cowardice and fear as sin against the human
spirit. A person in the grip of fear is capable of undergoing any
humiliation and tolerating any tyranny. He is also capable under
fear of committing any crime or enormity. After all, violence is
something positive. Fear is negative. It induces unquestioning
submission to the will of the evil-doer. Only a comparatively
fearless man can use violence. A fearful man is without power or
potency. He suffers from deficiency. It is not want or deficiency
that makes for moral conduct. It cannot be used for any fruitful
activity. On the other hand, violence is something positive and
vital. It is vitality misdirected. When rightly used it can be turned
to fruitful purposes. How often has it been recorded in history
that great sinners turned into great saints! Why? Because they had
the capacity which when rightly directed resulted in the miracle of
conversion and a new life.
I remember an incident in Gandhiji’s life in Champaran worth
recording. There, the European planters tyrannised over the
tenantry. One day when we were there, a planter’s man went and
looted a village. The villagers fled in terror leaving even their
28
6TH JANUARY 1 9 5 3
womenfolk behind. When Gandhiji was told of this, his indigna
tion knew no bounds. He said it would have been more moral if
the villagers had resisted violently. The worst thing that they
could do was to flee in fear.
Gandhiji always admitted and admired the undoubted bravery,
patriotism and hatred of tyranny of the violent revolutionaries in
India. He liked them better than those who bore British domina
tion and tyranny supinely, without raising a protest, even though
they appeared non-violent. Gandhiji did not credit them with non
violence. In spite if its form, non-violence is a positive virtue. It
is not want, deficiency, cowardice and even smug satisfaction. Non
violence is a divine discontent which must seek to remedy injustice
and tyranny. Gandhiji often said that he would rather have the
Indian nation use violence to achieve independence than remain
content under foreign rule. Only, he said, the freedom thus
achieved will not be real freedom. At least it would not be the
freedom of his conception.
Gandhiji’s non-violence was, therefore, graded. Lowest in the
scale was the man who out of fear would not resist what he recog
nised as injustice and tyranny. He was not non-violent but a non
resisting coward. He encouraged tyranny by allowing it free
scope. Next in the scale and much higher was the soldier, the
violent resister. He took up arms against injustice and tyranny
and in the process was prepared, if need be, to lay down his life.
He was brave but he was not completely fearless. He would rather
take than give his own life. He relied upon arms and strategy
which involved him in untruth and violence. But even this was
much superior to cowardice. He, therefore, in World War II, con
sidered the resistance of China against Japan and of Poland against
Germany as the nearest approach to non-violence. Higher still in
the scale was the physically non-violent resister. He was
non-violent by necessity, because he could not organise
violent resistance with any possibility of success. He eschews
violence out of necessity. Though he eschews violence he
is full of hatred and is fearful. But today when wars are fought
with ever more destructive scientific weapons, which threaten not
only human civilization but human existence on this planet, this
kind of non-violence is very useful. It saves humanity from much
inhuman slaughter and misery. It does not also generate the
fanaticism, the fear and the hate of the present-day armed conflicts.
The physically non-violent resister is as brave as the soldier but
behind his non-violence there lurks a sense of fear, fear bom of the
idea that he considers himself weak. He, as Gandhiji said, has
the non-violence of the weak but not that of the coward. The
highest in the hierarchy is he who is non-violent in thought, word
29
and deed. For him non-violence is not merely a policy but the
law of life. Prepared to lay down his life in resisting injustice and
tyranny, he is not prepared to take the life of others. He is not
only brave but also fearless. It is part of human psychology, in
dividual and group, that reliance on weapons, though it may make
the people brave, cannot make them fearless. Today the most
fearful nations, who go into hysterics on the least provocation, are
the big nations that have the most powerful war machines at their
disposal. The smaller nations, not relying for their safety on arms,
even though it be out of painful necessity, are more calm in the
present gathering gloom.
The highest non-violence, that of the strong, is fearless, because
it is not prepared to take life but to offer its own as sacrifice. It,
therefore, makes a very correct diagnosis of the world m aladies that
result in injustice, exploitation and tyranny. It makes a distinction
between the system and the men who run it. The system may be
unjust and cruel but the men and women who are its agents may
not be inherently cruel and unjust. It must, therefore, be not the
agents, often by and large innocent, who are to be eliminated by
violence but the systems that are to be pulled down. This attitude
on the part of the satyagrahi also makes for the reformation and
enlightenment of the agents of a bad system.
As Gandhiji was non-violent in the highest sense, I would invite
your attention to another quality of his, which must necessarily
mark every true satyagrahi. That was his capacity to stand alone
if he could not convince others of the rightness of the course he
suggested. Gandhiji did not care what others thought or did if he
was convinced that a course of action was just and correct. This
trait of his comes out not only in the political field but also in the
social field. It made him unconventional. His dress, food, manner
of living were all his own, unique in one of his class. People would
laugh at him but he did not care. He had always the last laugh
over them. In politics both in South Africa and India he had often
had to stand alone. He was one of the great propagandists of the
world. His persuasive capacities were great. His capacity for
compromise in details was tremendous. Yet in spite of all these
qualities he often failed to carry conviction with his opponents or
his fellow workers and followers. At such moments he dared stand
alone. No ridicule, no ideas of prudence or safety had any influ
ence on him. When he saw the light clear before him he had the
courage to walk alone without counting the cost to himself.
A
significant example of this was provided during the last war in 1942
when he advised the Congress Working Committee to pass the
‘Quit India* resolution. The resolution was put before the
Committee at a time when the British had at their disposal the most
30
terrible and efficient war machine. They were fully mobilized foi
resistance to Germany and Japan. They had powerful allies in
U.S.A., Russia and China. Moreover, it was the most critical time
for British imperialism. It was for the British a question of life
and death. It is at such times that individuals and groups indulge
out of fear in the greatest cruelties. Yet at that time Gandhiji
threw a challenge to British imperialism! The members of the
Working Committee stood aghast at his audacity. They were
afraid, if of nothing else, at least of world opinion. U.S.A., Russia
and China were known to be sympathetic towards the cause of
Indian independence. This ill-timed challenge would deprive the
country of the sympathy of these countries. The members of the
Working Committee were naturally hesitant. When he saw this
hesitation Gandhiji proposed that he be allowed to organise re
sistance by himself and alone. Only those need join who believed
with him that if the nation did not resist the British at that time,
it would have to yield ignobly and unresistingly to a Japanese in
vasion even as Malaya, Burma and other eastern countries had
done. This capacity to stand alone in emergency was Gandhiji’s
great asset. It showed his utter fearlessness. Such fearlessness can
only be the result of supreme non-violence which abases the self
and believes in the absolute supremacy of God or the moral law.
Before I have done, I would like to bring to the notice of my
distinguished and learned colleagues one thing more that marked
Gandhiji. It was his sense of urgency. Without this sense of
urgency nothing great can be achieved. This sense of urgency is
found in all great leaders, revolutionaries and prophets. Christ
believed and made his followers believe that “the Kingdom of
Heaven is at hand.” The early Christians lived in this belief. They
thought that the Kingdom of Heaven was round the corner. But.
alas, after twenty centuries it appears as far as ever! But it is this
belief that made Christianity spread in the world. Like every
reformer Gandhiji believed that time, though it matures and ripens,
also kills. The Indian condition to him appeared so bad that any
tinkering with the problem, any compromise, any hesitation would
bring about conditions that would emasculate the nation further
and there would be no hope for it for a long time to come. The
struggle against British imperialism was, therefore, a question of
life and death for the nation. Now or never. In 1921, Gandhiji
said Swaraj in one year. In 1930 he said he would not return to
his Ashram at Sabarmati unless he had achieved Swaraj. In 1942
he said ‘Do or Die’. Those who seek a remedy for war must also
be fired by this sense of urgency that Gandhiji had and of which
he gave many illustrations in his political, economic and social
work. He wanted to take the Kingdom of Swaraj by storm.
31
CiANDHlAN OUTLOOK AND TECHNIQUES
These are some of the points that I thought I would place
before you in further elucidation of my paper. I thank you, Mr.
Chairman for the time you have allotted to me, and all friends here
for the patience with which they have listened to this my rambling
loud thinking.
Lord Bayd Orr.
Thank you very much for the additional exposition to the
memorandum that you have submitted. Now it is open for mem
bers to ask questions or to put up suggestions or comments, if any.
Who would like to open the discussion?
Dr. Ralph Bunche:
You talked of a certain sense of urgency in Gandhiji’s work as
compared with other leaders. I would like to know what was
exactly the world situation at that time. How was it that Gandhiji
was able to reach the masses more than any one else? What was
his technique? Was it his influence which differentiated him from
others? As I see it, this is something worth serious consideration.
As Lord Boyd Orr has said, there is a desire on the part of the
people everywhere for peace. So far no individual or organisation
has found the means to reach the people. Somebody has to find
the means for reaching the people with an effective appeal, as
Gandhiji was able to do in India, if disaster is to be averted. I
hope I have made myself clear.
Acharya Kripalani:
I do not quite follow your question. Is it your suggestion that
there is tyranny in the world and a time comes when the suppressed
and the oppressed wake up? Do you want to know what is that
time and how that time comes about in history? My reply
is that sometimes the time wakes us up and sometimes we have to
awaken time. Both things happen. The time makes the man when
conditions improve somewhat and are not as hard as they used to
be. For instance, the national democratic movement took place
in Europe when conditions were better than in the fourteenth
or the fifteenth century. When conditions were really bad, the
people did not often rise. Take, for instance, untouchability in
India. Conditions were worse than they are today. The un
touchables did not rise then. Today they rise up. Take the
slavery question in America and the racial question in Africa.
Today the conditions are better than in the slavery period, still
American Negroes are not willing to bear the comparatively easy
life they have and seek to eradicate all inequality. It is also
because of the education they have received. It may be that people
32
6 t h , JANUARY 1 9 5 3
suffered patiently in the past because they had certain religious
oeliefs. For instance, the untouchable in India at one time
believed that to revolt was irreligious and that the Brahmins had
a right over him and that he ought to respect that right. Nowadays,
due to education, the people are not willing to bear the contrast.
It may also be due to the rise of leaders who tell them that they
are suffering from untouchability. There were times when people
did not even know that they were suffering from injustice. They
did not even know that, but Gandhiji made them conscious and he
stood up and fought for them. As I have said, he was willing to
suffer martyrdom for what he considered to be the truth.
It is difficult to say whether the time produced the man or the
man produced the time. That is a very difficult question in history.
Sometimes the time is ripe and the man does not come and the
whole thing is lost. Sometimes the time is not ripe and the man
fails because he is before his time, but sometimes, the Kingdom of
Heaven is taken by somebody by storm. I think Gandhiji took
the Kingdom of Heaven by storm. I do not suppose time was
ripe before him but I also think he took the Kingdom of Heaven
by storm.
Professor Homayun Kabir:
As I understand it, Dr. Bunche’s question was: Why is it that
Gandhiji of all persons was chosen when so many others were
called to leadership? How was he able to command loyalty from
millions of men and women? Perhaps one reason may be his
identification with the people of the country. Probably no political
or social leader before his time had identified h im self with the
people like Gandhiji. By such identification, Gandhiji got an
immediate response from the people. This, however, raises a
problem when we are thinking of response from different nations
and countries. Gandhiji identified himself with the Indian people
and this meant the adoption of the beliefs and customs, the attitude,
language and dress of the Indian people. Would not such identifi
cation with one people stand in the way of evoking an equal
response from other nations or countries with different attitudes,
beliefs and customs? I think this is what Dr. Bunche has in mind
when he asks: How to reach the people 6f the world as Gandhiji
reached the people of India? How would you suggest an answer
to that question? How can identification go beyond one particular
group or community so that we may evoke from different nations
the same sort of response, the same sort of heroic endeavour,
which we find that great leaders have been able to evoke from theit
own people? I do not know if this is clear, but that seems to be
the question.
33
94 K of Edn.
GANDHIAN OUTI^QQ^t^ p ^ g H N f Q C a »
^ r,Paâ^^* . (
.
1^ , 4; ;. ^ on! ^fanrHriJW**; ftnfra®«3
^ T may say tha^Gandhiji. was workin&in
genius o f his g e ^ le .. I d0..nq£ say- if t^ e ^ a s a urriwera^
freedom W e^cre tryingfa splve ourvprt?Wei^Sjri^^ste^;,fajsfe^
and it^s.possihle that people already understood lAatd2}«^,wa>s^*©
possibj^ljy of displacing the British; Qpyeyrunenttby :$pj&ed |qfpe;
jtjiere could be no competition,/vvith .the,.Britisfe.on -the basi^-of
apns. Therefore, GandJyjiintroducedâ •weapon, in- which r,there
-cbulcj be cprgypetitlon^ jn w h jc h w e were ,in'■fact stem gervth j^ d ic
British. It may be like that—rl am only making a suggestion. ; , a
Of course, Gandhiji was an exceptional man,; a* genius*tha&ftad
grown up slowly and not at pnce. He "did not all at oflCCplay' a
great part in world, affairs. It seems to m e if wa» dm* to thetim e,
due to his personality, due to his identification with the genius,? of
his people, $nd due tp the fact? that he found out a ‘ weapon .with
which he, could ^compete with Britain more successfully? than >*with
any tweapon of violence, that he succeeded. - AIT the ■tirm* ■.the
SociaHsts, the, Q?mmurpsts, and all other gtoups; wanted to use-the
very same w eaponsof vkdeuceôf dipioiwey, the weapon of con
centration of power—concentration of power in the mills*îft the
factories, concentration of political power, of economic- power,
Gandhiji realised or discovered that this old weapon by whtcft the
Socialists and the Communists were trying to redress the? wrongs
of .-people,would -not,do.
—* h ■ _ ■ ? : *
. Gandhiji discarded aH these bid weapons, because* violence
could not be killed by violence. As-1 have said in my paper, cen
tralism cannot be extercised by centralism. Therefore!?'he found
the new weapon—non-cooperation, *de-«ontr©l . of . power, • de
centralisation. ; Ail these absolutely new methods, wiltiChet dynamic;
personality of Gandhiji,! his ideas, the urgency of''the. problem—all these and the situation which had been develarping for somet
time o n ’account of the Congress/movement—all these forces may
have combined. I presume it i s the combination of forces like
these that brings about suchgreat changes in history,
j ,oYou will be surprised to know that G andhijt himself, before?
1917, used to think that tire sum total of the energy of the British
and of the activities of the British Government w as for the good o f
India. You would not dxpect such man to fight with the British,
Afterwards, he changed and began to callrtbat British Government
a Satanic Government. It ,teok him a couple of years to-come to
that conclusion, but when he>did, he 'fought thdBritish Govern?
jnent with all his., strengths In the w orld today; many factors are
present ■and it may be possible, if there- be a- man w ithhis powers
of organisation and. hia' passionate dewotion to a cauee* tjQ> apply
all his methods to solve the problem of the world*
6 t h j& tfu M iy 1 ^ 5 3
fEord Boyd.Orr:
t
. t .,
u
. ■ YoU ^rbught out .V very important point..' In the evolution of
Uum an society, .certain conditions arise-which'make it possible to
carry out a change. For înstanê yqu> re/en^d to the „ Ametican
Revolution against the British/. It would haye been impossible in
earlier times. What made it possible was that k rth e eighteenth
century, if new spirit had risen in Britain itself—thi% great idea of
freedom, totally different from the feudal system. ; The Americans
'o t tiiatirom the. British people.- -The-throwing of tea in Boston
arbour was*merely an;indication of the spirit that was coming over
the American nation. The conditions were such that a section of
the British people were themselves against the Government. Even
in Parliament, speeches were being made in fdVqur of equality.
It \yas unjusp therefqjr^, it. was wrong; more than wrong, to use
force, agapistj the Americans. The English King wanted to import
European «.trpops there, jbut then circumstances arose ■•thari made
this impossible. :
The reference to Ipdia has a bearing on this question because
of two factors. Peop^ jike.Mr. G andhi^dr. Mejiru and a great
many ofhers went to Europe a n d : America. • They had got ideas
of freedom which were impossible some time agd. 'They built on
these ideas, and there grew upon:them, largely through* Gandhiji, a
ray of-hppe,of, freedom, a hope of higher standard of living. On
t,he other hand the people in Britain had made very great advances
since the beginning pf the present century. - When I was a boy
the .British Em pi re;was a great-thing for ra e ^ I wa&TPnce a soldier—
hut,fhe progress of .education has made people realise- that: there
were gjaye injustices within the British Empire. The ' Socialists
also gained irvpofrer during the present century and taught that
imperialism must come to an end. The British people recognised
the right of colonial people to freedom and, once this feeling grew,
it was impossible to have power by the mere force of arms. This
Weakened the moral force of the British Government at ' home
i£ftid strengthened the new moral force in-India'/ 'Special circum
stances arise in'the world from time to time—they arose in
America in.the eighteenth century, and in India in the twentieth
centifry. And then, if a great man is thrown up; it becomes
possible to make great advances.
Now, lookifig 5t the present world today; the coinfndn people
rif die world have, in ffry opinion, a higher ethical level than they
"had; say,-fifty yeats agd. ' With the radio; the spread of education
"and so oh, in Europe and Africa—they have £ vision of the world
as it shouldTje They dsk: what is the kind of world we canhave?
^They Rnolv the?power'' of'war, the terriWe^power of waf. They also
iknow the new psychological conditknt hr the world ttsflay,- *Tt' is a
f
3$
GANDfflAff ODTLOOK AND TECHNIQUES7
question of urgency, for tfte next five years will decide whether'
they should build a great new world of common fellowship or take*
the world over the precipice of war. The outcome depends
on the common people of the world. Can we get a group' of people'
or a single man who will give readership to the people* of the*
world? I realise how difficult it is. What is the common appeal*
that we can make to the decent people of America, to Ihe decentpeople of Russia, to the decent people' of China, to the decent'
people of all the world?' Should it be1on the Gandhian line? The*
world is ripe for a great change, but if awaits a leader who1can give *
the call.
Acharya Kripalani:
The many individuals who have undergone’ martyrdom have*
established morality in individual and social life; The nations are*
the individuals in die world family. Some nation will have to say:
“Here I am ready to sacrifice myself.” Some leader or other
will have to educate his nation to say: “Here I stand without armsand I shall not fight under any circumstances.” Unless you get.
such a nation, I am afraid it will not be possible to solve international conflicts non-violently.
If Gandhijf were alive today, he would not have let us waste*
our slender resources on our army and would have devoted him
self to the task of saying—“Here we stand. We stand for the moral
law and we are willing to be eliminated but shall not resort to*
violence.” Unless some nation (in the international world nationsare the individuals) says, “Here I am; I am* willing to-be annihi
lated for the sake of humanity”, there will always be armies in the*
world. As Christ said, “I go to the cross”, so must a nation be *
prepared to say, “We will be crucified for the sake of die world.”
Professor Massignon:
I would refer to our experience in France shortly before 1940,.
when the Germans were fully prepared for war. W e could not '
afford to keep quiet, because we were afraid that if we remained'
less armed, the Germans would overwhelm us. A t that time the*
French Government had taken her troops about ten kilometers from the border to show the Germans that we did not wish to,
attack. We had gained a hill in Lorraine. But we did not utilise
it for defence and yet when we were attacked, we tried' to fight. I
say that I share your view that a chief like Gandhi would have'
accepted the challenge and tried to act according to his principlesin spite of the German attack. He could sacrifice himself for the*
good of the world, but can we induce others to'sacrifice themselves^,
tor this spiritually high purpose?*
36
:6 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
This may appear impossible to us .and yet it is done by Goverarments in war. They say: “You must be prepared to be killed for
:the sake of your country.” Men are prepared to be killed for war.
:but not for preventing war, hecause modern education "does not
iteach people to think in that way. Nowadays people are taught to
fight and die for selfish narrow political ends. This however shows
that men can be taught to die for a cause, I believe it possible to
give moral training to people on the lines of the Gandhian
technique.
When Gandhi visited Paris, I saw him in person. He said that
-God is the essence of Lave. It means that by love we can make
people sufficiently strong to say, “I am prepared to sacrifice my
self for the sake of non-violence.” We cannot do that if we have
not made a vow. A vow always to tread the non-violent path is
.essential. You must be sure within yourself that you are prepared
to sacrifice yourself in the interest of the good of others. For this
you must have previous training. It was only gradually that
Gandhi became aware of the depths of the Indian consciousness.
Gandhi went by Third Class in railways. He had awful ex
periences, but he was trying all the time to realise his words. He
realised personally what he had'said. He was a genius in investing
common words with unique meanings. He no doubt borrowed
concepts like ah imsa, if we use the term ‘borrow* in the conven
tional sense. But you no longer borrow if what is ‘borrowed*
becomes an integral part of yourself. You have earned it by living
and realising it. I think we must go back to the subject of personal
training on the lines of Gandhian technique.. We have to identify
ourselves with the people. We have to adhere to the moral
rule.
Gandhi had a sense of the importance of municipal life. In
India you have not developed municipal life as we in France or
people • in England have. Municipal life is a very important one.
Gandhi said that the future of India is in the seven hundred
thousand odd villages. Each of these villages must be united in the
Panchayat, so that each Panchayat can have a moral life of its own.
There is no use shouting slogans. We have to live the truth, the
social truth together. I think in India you have not yet achieved
for the township the ideal of Gandhi. You have not yet laid the
moral foundation of the Indian township and that is fundamental.
After all India could teach these things to the other nations.
India could teach the world the fullness of the meaning of truth.
That is Satyagraha.
yAcharya Kripalani:
May I continue?
37
GANDHEAIf OUTLO O K,/ftfDjTBCHNlQ UBfr
Today there are only two countries which: are .paintainirig:
armies that can rea fly "Tight. All other countries hqve .absolutely :
useless armies. They will not be'able to do'anything in case of
war and yet they are keeping armies^ A country like India has a
big army without any airfare^ or without any modern s equipment.
Surely we art wasting huge'sums, of money for maintaining thesearmies, I think it is only because of fear and stupjidity that nationsare keeping ahriies. If they undertake constructive jobs with all
that mtiney, these countries can’so well organize themselves, that it
will be impossible for any foreigner to go and invade .them.
Then there is also the talk of being .neutral between tiyo groups.
Why then do we keep ‘armies? If we do not belong to any blod,
what will an Indian army ‘do unless we are going to lend therm
either to the Americans or the Bolsheviks?
Kaka Saheb Kalelkan
I think the question was, “How is it that Gandhiji was able t o
train his people in non-violence?”. I remember an interview withu
Gandhiji when it was asked, “What is it that sustains you under'
the country’s most distressing circumstances?” . Gandhiji said, “The
spirit of non-violence in the Indian people in spite of provocation”.
He had seen that people could resist non-violently up to a point.
Let me put it another way. Gandhiji believed in the moral power
and strength of the masses. Other leaders- looked to the masseswhenever they wanted to resist physically. But Gandhiji did not
believe in the brute power ; of the masses. Gandhiji helieved
in the moral power of the masses and, being, born jn India, heknew his own people and he knew that he could rely on their
power of non-violent resistance. He believed that the masses of"
every country can resist non-violently, if properly trained. Tp fight:
non-violently the masses should be equipped with moral force. He
himself believed in soul force and, what is more, believed that the
masses who are uneducated have the necessary soul force. They
may be uneducated in the worldly sense but they have a family life,
a social life in whicf}' they are sufficiently trained. He had intense
faith in the soul force of the masses. That is why *be,
succeeded.
Dr. Bunche:
Mr. Chairman, Professor Kripalani seems to indicate again
this point. He said th a f Gandhi was not a pacifist but
naturally assessing the 1Indian situation, the Indian struggle
against the British Imperialism he found a weapon in non
violence. with which the Indian people might fight the British rftbrb
successfully.
38
Ks&a KyAtik*r?
As I said, Gandhiji knew 1iis people. He knew that he could
lead' them ahd ediild unite them. ’ Ke af OnCd recoghised thaf the
Governors and.administrators knew -only physical power add
diplomacy. They thought that they could succeed by brute forcfe
and. intoffagehce. But here was moral power gathered together/
No doubt great skill was Required in organising 'the moral power
of the people, but once this was done, the Government duJ^fcot
know hew to attack it. They confiscated their cattle, but thtty
knew- the spirit of resistance was there; the people could not be
cowed down. So Government had to yield in the end.
Dr. Bamche:
Following my original question, 1 would -like to put another
question. Would you .say that Mr. Gandhi came, into contact
with the mass of die Indian people when they were becoming
conscious of the injustices that were done to them under foreign rule
and when they were trying to find a leader who could show them
the path of living with self-respect and human dignity which were
itill then denied to them? This would play an important part in
ithe communication which was established between him as leader
;and the masses of the people. Is it not a fact that the Mahatma had
a substantial success in South Africa and this was a factor of
^confidence in him for adopting his techniqu es?T h is factor must
-have been an important one for Gandhiji to reach the Indian people
êffectively. It must have been widely known that this techniqueihad a highly significant success in the Union of South Africa
before he applied it in India.
Professor Kabin
Undoubtedly it gkve him some prestige, but the fact is that
most political leaders did not take Gandhiji seriously in spite of
his success in South Africa. - In spite of their indifference and a
•certain amount of opposition, Gandhiji’s programmes made such
an 1 appeal to the people that the political leaders had to accept
his views. It was not that Gandhiji had established a reputation
among the intellectuals first and that they -introduced him to' the
masses : on the contrary, the political leaders were forced to accept
him because of his appeal to the masses. The reason for his hold
on the people was that he identified himself with the people, in
which technique other leaders were found wanting. It was anupsurge of emotion which really gave Gandhiji the leadership. '
Perhaps, those who have known him much longer than me will
aiy^wer. one question. What , was the secret of •his tremendous
success in evoking-this upsurge of feeling? He made politics in
39
India much more a way of passion than it had ever been before.
Acharya Narendra Deva:
Gandhiji had built up a little prestige for himself in South ,
Africa. Actually he regarded South Africa as his laboratory,
where his first experiment was carried out with great success. He
organised the illiterate Indians who had settled in South Africa
as indentured labourers. They were illiterate; they were dis
organised. He organised them and with their help carried on* a
non-violent struggle with a large measure of success. When he
returned to India, he had not decided his future course of action.
He studied the political situation before coming to certain conclu
sions, on the advice of Gokhale. Therefore, although he attended
the sessions of the Indian National Congress every year, he never
spoke on any political question. He talked only about South
Africa, as regards which he considered himself an expert, but did
not intermingle with Indian politics for many years. In the mean
time he carried out local struggles on the agrarian issue with great
success.
Now, it so happened that there were political leaders before
the advent of Gandhiji, but they had no faith in the masses. They
had no use for the masses. They regarded the people as an inert
mass. They were wedded to constitutional methods of agitation.
The Indian leadership then had great faith in the good intentions
of the British. Some of them regarded India’s relationship with
Britain as providential. Mr, Gokhale is also included in this fist
For many years they believed in Britain’s promise that when
Indians had demonstrated their capacity to govern themselves,
Britain would willingly retire from India and leave her free to
manage her own affairs. That was the faith which guided them.
They did not think of violence because they had, faith in the good
intentions of the British people.
There were, however, others outside the Indian National
Congress—the terrorists, the revolutionaries—who believed in
violence. They did not believe in the constitutional methods of
agitation. They had not the least faith in the noble intentions of
the British. They thought that no Government would rule others
for the benefit of the governed. They govern others for their own
benefit, for their selfish ends. The Revolutionaries therefore
hatched conspiracies, they believed in murders. They thought
that India could get freedom only with the help of the Indian
army. They wanted the Indian army to revolt. They had faith
in the Indian youth. They had no faith in the masses. The
masses never came into their picture. They believed in a violent
struggle to liberate India from British imperialism.
40
That was the situation when Gandhiji returned to India from
South Africa. He studied the Indian situation. There was a wide
gulf between Gandhiji and the English-educated Indian commu
nity. The English-educated community had no faith in Gandhiji*s
leadership. They looked upon him with* scepticism and prejudice.
Gandhiji was essentially a man of the masses. We should not
forget this fact. He lived and dressed like any other ordinary
Indian peasant. He was more akin to them, nearer to them than
the English-educated classes. He was not a sophisticated person.
He was not a learned man. He was not wedded to any philoso
phical system or ism. Therefore, he could think independently
of these isms or the systems of philosophy. He was not even
versed in the ancient lore of India. But he was deeply versed in
the innermost spirit of the Indian people. His fingers were on
the pulse of the people of India. He moved freely amongst them.
He knew their ups and downs. He knew them intimately. There-"
fore, he was the only person who had faith in the Indian masses.
Gandhiji had no faith in the constitutional method of agitation.
He used constitutional methods as a training ground for preparing
the people for a non-violent struggle. If an objective could be
achieved by negotiations, by making representations, by agitation,
by educating the people, he would do that. If these methods failed,
if negotiations broke down, he would resort to non-violent
struggle. Now, a non-violent struggle cannot be carried on in
secrecy, because the masses, large numbers, will be involved in
it. Therefore, Gandhi had devised his new methods which he had
successfully carried out in South Africa. The South African
example demonstrated clearly that the illiterate, disorganised
Indians could be organised into a powerful force to fight for their
rights against the colour prejudice in South Africa. It brought a
large measure of success. He had that faith. But the educated
community lacked that faith. They had no trust in the masses.
They could not make any use of them. A revolutionary cannot
make use of a villager.
During the period of the first World War, the British could not
divide the Hindus from the Muslims. It so happened that we
presented a united front on the constitutional claim. The two big
organisations of the country, the Indian National Congress and
the Muslim League united to present a demand known as the
Congress-League scheme. The policy of divide and rule could
not be carried out. The leaders were thus working on the consti
tutional plane. The terrorists were also working for the indepen
dence of the country and made a pact with the German Govern
ment. They sent ,their emissaries to the army. There was mass
discontent as a result of hardship due to war and there was dis41!
GANDHIAN OU +'Ô O K AN t> T E C H N IQ U E S
affection in the anqyalsc^ These Terrorist, emissaries who went
into the Indian army incited thofpuTo revolt. (There wete* many
conspirapy xases hfld %nd manyj people.were fctoged, and, ^mariy
were giyen tr a n s a c tio n -for lifo* The Terrorists; however Tailed.
It was at this stage that *Gandb^ji took to:politics. Hindus and
Muslims presented a joint demaqd to the Britishers* It had some
effect. , Britain could not completely ignore it. They had to yield
and to give a certain,measure oh reform.- It ;wasat the end of the
war, in 1918, when Gandhiji entered the arena of politics, in ln d ia .
Before that he was studying the situation* He took up* local
agrarian issues anc^he did-succeed. At Ahmedabad he want on a
fast and the demands of the workers were conceded by the .mill*
owners put of regard for.the sacred life of Gandhiji. In this manner
the efficacy of the new weapon which, he wanted tp. use had been
established successfully in certain: local areas, first in Shuth Africa*
then in Champaran in 1917, and in 1918 in Kaira and<they all
added;to his prestige immensely. With .this experience,he came
at a moment when the people were ripe for something* new. ^ That
was true of all Asian ,counties.
It was in 1918, 1919 and 1920, that in all the Asian countries—subject countries—large-scale constitutional movements for
freedom started. In 1918, Gandhiji. gave the call in the name
of the Congress. He called it Satyagraha. It had a tremendous
response, , People were on the move. They .had been disturbed,
they were in search of a ne,w leader, and Gandhiji was theretodeliver the goods. In China, we find, a fresh struggle starting in1919. We find in Egypt the Wafd movement coming to the fore
front as representative of the Egyptian people demanding freedom. ■
In the same year in Iran also a new struggle starts; in 1921 it gets*
its fulfilment and Reza Shah Pahlavi comes into power. As a
sequel to the first World War, in all these countries fresh struggles*
for freedom were initiated simultaneously.:; Therefore* the time was
certainly ripe for a new movement. People wanted something to
give them a new hope, a new faith.
_L
Gandhiji fipd succeeded in using his weapon of Satyagraha
with a certain, degree of success in certain localities. Me was 1;
welcomed by the people. The educated community did not at first *
respond. The cpmmon people, responded.T here was however
an outbreak of violence and Gandhiji had to cry halt. There was.
thus.a set-back. Burthen, when the-leaders of the educated classes
saw the efficacy of the new weapon, they agreed^ to go with
Gandhiji.. When he started the non-cpQperation movement, in1920,, they at first argued with him. They were- enamoured of ;
seats in the Legislature* but; when a y e n la rg e body -of Relegates r
went to tthe side of Gandhiji <they had to* follow. Otherwise.their ^
42
- 6TH JANUARY 1 9 5 3
political carters would have come to an: end.
Gandhiji always found it difficult to convince the English-*
educated Indian leaders^ of* political thought. They were not at,*
first convinced by the line of action which he wanted to chalk o u t,
for them, but he had greater success with the Indian masses
because he was essentially. a man of the masses. You can use
the strength of the masses onlyin a non-violent struggle. He did
succeed in exploiting the enthusiasm evoked in the masses for the
objectives which were so dear to his heart. Therefore,^ think it
was the propitious.-and favourable' situation that made the people
respond to Gandhiji’s call. -The educated community was sceptical'
but wanted to give a trial to his new method. They were not men
of faith, but the masses had faith in him and followed him, because
the masses thought he was one of them.
Professor G. Tucci:
I would like to add something to what Acharya Narendra Deva
said in reply to the question which was raised by Dr. Bunche.
When we think of the personality of Gandhiji to my mind he was
not a common leader. Throughout the ages there have been many
leaders all over the world, all good men undoubtedly. But this
man with a long record of experience was ever responding to the
calls of his Paramatma in the old Indian traditional way, and her
identified himself as one with the mas^ of the people. That meansin Gandhi there has been a combination of qualities which we
cannot define, but which, represent a kind of spiritual bond
between the leader and the masses. For them Gandhiji was, I
think, not only a leader but Was just the representative Of the
highest type of mankind who is born in India once in a way after
centuries. This is an important aspect of Gandhiji’s life whichwe have to take into consideration.
No doubt he had to fulfil a great political mission. At the
same time there was an element in him which cast him in the role
of the latest reformer or avatara. Due to his personality old tradi
tions have been greatly revised. For instance, what he did for the
untouchables is not only a social question, it is also a religious
question. In asking for respect for the untouchable, he challenged
the old tradition of Indian people in believing in the consequences
of some old Karma or actions which have been done in previous
lives. The religious element is different according to different
reformers. Religion is a relation between man and the Creator
whatever the name you give him, Brahman or anything else. But
Gandhiji placed religion inside society. I'do not mean that politi
cal considerations wets not,present, but they were not enough,
certainly not. What Gandhi did was tb rffx the -relationship, not
43
between man and God, but between man and man belonging to
various religious elements. I think this is a very important point
of Gandhi's personality. I mean his religious personality.
Dr. Mohamed Hussein Haekal:
This movement of Gandhi after 1917, after the first World War
was a movement which had spread only in India, but as our learned
friend has said it is now known nearly all over the world. This
. movement has come to us in Egypt and this was not due simply
to the rise of nationalism, but it came as, I may say, an instrument
for building peace. When the first World War came to an end,
the then President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, said that
certain principles should be accepted by all countries, by all the
nations that made the war, whether victorious or defeated. One
of these principles was self-determination for all people. We in
Egypt were quite appreciative in 1918, when these principles of
Woodrow Wilson were published. We were still young at that
time and we thought that this idea of self-determination proposed
by Wilson was something new, certainly for a country like Egypt
or India. I think Gandhi profited much by what was taking place
during the war. It was not simply the South African campaign
which had formed the basis of his future movements, although
what Gandhi had done in South Africa was really important from
the point of view of his coming to basic conclusions about human
dignity and so on. Again, the world atmosphere after the World
War helped Gandhi much, more perhaps than other leaders of
other nations. There were new political urges, new standards of
thinking based on the cry of freedom for all. I do believe that
since the first World War up to the present moment there has been
all over the world a Hew evaluation of freedom, a new outlook of
political liberties; and we find ourselves much better than we used
to be at the beginning of this century. I think in this connection
that the Gandhian techniques which have so well served India can
profit mankind all over the world in the future, if ways can be
formulated to employ them effectively in our lives and in the
conduct of nations.
Lord Boyd Orr:
I think I must make it clear that though I have sometimes
said some odd things against America, I always admired the lead
that the Americans have given in so many fields, science, modem
techniques, etc. Big ideas came from America. Our friend from
Egypt has just spoken about Woodrow Wilson. Unfortunately,
the League of Nations did not function according to the great
new concepts under which Wilson wanted it to work. Various
44
countries and millions of people subscribed to the Charter of th e League of Nations and if I may say so, forces in America and ’
elsewhere turned down the ideals put forth by Wilson and we had '
the second World War.
The only way to prevent war is to build up a new and better
world and to create agencies to do that. We must get the Econo
mic and Social Council to develop great industries and commerce to help us in that. Poverty is one of the greatest injustices and
all nations should cooperate to make some contribution for the
abolition of poverty. I have a great respect for America, but why
was not Marshall Aid extended to the whole world? A great
number of Americans deserve great credit for these new ideals and
they have given great help towards the Gandhian movement here.
Gentlemen, I believe if the Governments in Russia and America, instead of throwing brickbats at each other, could compliment each
other on what they have done, it would be good for the world and
for them both. I quite appreciate the'term ‘urgency’ and we should
take advantage of its high ethical value. Within five or ten years,
Gandhiji was able to get for India her independence.' If we do
not take advantage of this fact, we may drift into another war
which nobody wants. Neither Eisenhower wants it nor Stalin
wants it. Some appeal must be made to the masses of the
people.
Dr. Bunche:
The reason why I have raised this question is that I am. •
particularly interested in the Gandhian outlook. A technique has
to be evolved for the basic problems confronting the world today
but we find in the United Nations that an obstacle is raised as soon as we begin anything. The fact is that we have not
been able to reach the masses with a sense of urgency of the
times.
Professor Kabin
How did Gandhiji reach the people? He identified himself
with their hopes and aspirations. Unless some nation takes upon
itself the leadership as Gandhiji had to take the leadership, there
is no hope. Which is the nation with that sense of urgency?
America is today doing a great many things—spending large sums
of money to help other countries. Will it do so through the
medium of the United Nations? It can then take the leadership.
Somebody has to take the first step in limiting national sovereignty.
Anybody who takes the plunge must be prepared to undergo
martyrdom. He may or may not succeed but he must make the.
effort.
45
$Lord Boyd Orn .
f . i
.
* Theprdblem is who is going td take the leadership? I think
».my owrr> country is politically more mature than' any other‘-fcountry
in the world, but Mr. Attlee’s leadership of the Socialist -Labour
Government has yet increased the piling up of armaments. ’Russia
- is thinking about the: piling up of more armaments. ; Who will take
. up the leadership? - 1 sometimes thought that India should take up
: the leadership/ T do not know if India realises'iU moral prestige
in the world. The world, during the Korean War, looked towards
■this land of purification. India might do; japan blight do it/ How
: are we going to get somfe nation 'to do it? They dirjndt do so until
"the condition is fulfilled throughout the world that the masses are
ready to rise, and I believe that 'the masSes are ready to "rise. As
* we have been saying, the present age is ethical and peOplfe know
* the dignity of man. They'know the-rights of .macfr, their right to
1 freedom’from want and the other freedoms.' There is a growing
' recognition that all men are equal politically. How are wfe £oing
to precipitate a great mass'movement in the world?r ’
Professor Kabin
We h f vq got to a precipice. Mankind is at the brink of that
precipice. Somebody has to take the plunge. Who is to^.take
it? Gandhiji’s experience in India might perhaps give some help
to the rest of the world, because he dealt with this problem of
facing a crisis. When Gandhiji was doing this, he dkKnot ask
, the people to make tfie ,supreme, sacrifice at the first stage. Of
course* as Acharya. Kripalani stated at the very, beginning, every
one interprets Gandhiji according, to his -own lights. I hope ; the
înterpretation I am giving will be generally acceptable, but at any
vrate that is the way in which I understand him from his activities
flor the last twenty-five or thirty years. Gandhiji gave the call to
the masses, but the first call that he gave was not a call for the
supreme sacrifice. It was Gandhiji’s faith, perhaps his instinct
which guided him. I do not know how you reason it Wif, but
everyone who has had contacts with, Gandhiji knows that very
often he decided rightly by intuition, and yet, if you'asked him,
■he gave reasons Which did not often: convince. :'H e’ acted instjnc*lively and often he was right- The course of events also, later on,
:showed that vhe was right: 'Pandit Nehru has recorded this.beauti
fully in his Autobiography 'and said that Gandhiji’s decisions were
/correct-but his reasons-were often wrong................ .. .
The, first demand that Gandhi made otr th'e people'w&s to ask
ithem to give up the,fear Of going :to jails.:-It was difficult in those
sdays, for there was at: first no prestige* but fear;of loss of prestige
in going to jails. Later on, going to jails was not so difficulty Ip
4
*46
1
^ r
6
-
1
1
‘-vuwxtu 6THf^>ft;AR>tnL95a
fact, latterly,
it became
a badge, pf honour.’ There
were■ not #eryJ
& KIW I
j i t * <( j J P 7 ! f . i '
* ■many- mthose early days who had gone to' jail for a politic^ cause.
Thus in 1919,-20.: Gandhiij took,the fitst step, t;Then- in 1930, he
nse£oh^step!a|id tried
the people,- mayt>e again
P^JPss.-of .property-.. :I d o not
^ seems there are njjany people, perhaps
.^Pl ^ê^(iyiajonty.3 people,.-ip ôqiety,; who are more reluctant to
’ ifpr meir prqperiy than' ever> their 5good pames. Otherwise,
you woutS/not get .Blac^ marked ^nd black-marketeers. There are
'Ô p le wii'cr,', if y o u ’ hit; then] through their property,.. ynmediatdl^/^top opf. ^ln- l!3(l 9-20, when. Gandhiji gaye the call for
'Wreakmg the fear of jajls> many peopje respopdsd,apd I feel .that
1hevBritish (jovernmen], soon ^ o im d o q ttjh at the jail was not so
effective a method of dealing with the situation as confiscation of
property. So, the second step was taken in 1930,- and a large
number : of people .^conquered , their fear, of losing their
property,,. There was,, large-scale confiscation, e;g. ill Bardoli.
îius. during the 1929-32 movemît. lhe-people leam t thft-sfeoond
step..
• ^ Jh en, in 1939-40,, as, a result of these political activities,
Gandhiji, .maybe again unconsciously byt instinctively, felt that
itfie people were jjejujy to go on^. furthpr step: forward. -Even then
h^. did not" experiment with the masses in the beginning. In
fact he gaye the call for individual satyagraha and said that select
ed individuals would resist the Government/ It was not a mass
movement. Now there*,were very many-good; pfactitaI,.«ctoimon-senê reasons wfiy he took that step.-’ You may remember that it
was q time when there was a vast .army in the country. Any mass.scale operation might have been squashed-at the very beginning.
The British ha^ ajsq learnt by their experience of the twenties and
the thirties, that it, did not do to laugh-at tpandhiji.; In-: 1920, "they
1iad laughed at him. Even in 1930, they laughed at him when he
started the Salt Satyagraha. There were many in the Government
who said, “What does it matter? Let him go on boiling sea
water on the beach for? all his life”. *Most peopled whether in the
Government or Outside, did notr understand its significance, -its
symbolism for the masses. In 1940, thtefft was" War' and the
Government was-not in;a moodtto take any risks. Gandhiji also
knew -this,' though he gave’Other reasons. He*‘intuitively knew
that this was not the time for a mass moveni&it without"pfe'paration. Therefore, rhe gave-rthe call for individual Sdtyagraha,
finally, in 1942, he gave'the supreme call—Do or Die. First he
taught the peoplerto lose their fear of jails; then he taught them
to lose their fear of loBmg their property. ' At th* thfrd stage, lie
.selected-individuals to face a Government iff war tithe, and' as the
I O (t 1 £ W
:
, v
‘
47
final step, he called upon the whole people to resist a war non—
violently.
When we talk of applying his techniques in the international
field, we will have to find out first a series of steps by which
people can be led on to make the supreme effort and second, some
simple act in which the masses can participate and which may
become symbolic of their determination to end war. Without such
gradual steps, it would be useless for us to tell a nation: “You
should abolish all these armaments straightaway”. Certainly, war
may be a stupid thing, but is any nation prepared to give up the
use of its army in self-defence? As Lord Boyd Orr said just now,
even a politically mature nation like Britain is not prepared todisband its army and declare unconditionally against war.
Lord Boyd Orr
I have indicated the reasons why a nation is afraid to experi
ment with a thing like giving up its armies. The Soviet Union,
fhe United States—I cannot visualise that they will come to such,
a decision tomorrow or the day after, but, say in the next five
years, they can gradually abolish armaments, if, as a result of
these discussions, we can suggest some practical alternative to*
war. If we can at least get down to a discussion of the narrower
issues, we will have done something. In a Mmited way. resistance
on a non-violent scale can be used for solving relations between
nations. People who are greatly concerned to avert the threat
of a third World War have been meeting in groups. Can they"
persuade one nation to undertake the experiment for the sake of
the world? Obviously I cannot give an answer to that question.
I do not know if any one here can give an answer to that question,
but all of us will have to try to put our heads together, and our
feelings together to find out if any suggestions on these lines come*,
to us.
I don’t think France can be the nation which would be pre
pared to sacrifice itself for the good of the world. Because of the
awful experience of the two World Wars in 1914 and 1940, I am
afraid, France would not be prepared to do that. I think it will
have to be India. I hope India will be able to make the world
recognise this eternal truth. The spirit of eternal India should be
able to convince the world of the folly of piling armaments and
trying to efface mankind. For the purpose, a law of life has to be
advocated. There should be rules of life, spiritual rules.
Mr.
Kripalani has said that in India the masses are receptive to such
spiritual rules of life. They were able to recognise leaders like
48
Gandhi, It is the ideal, the noble.theory of the Dkarma Shastras
that can save the world. If we could make the world follow them,
we would be taking a step in the right direction—towards the
goal of human happiness. All these things are to be regarded as
an Indian legacy that Gandhi attempted to give to the whole
world.
Dr. Bunche:
Whatever contribution I might make to this Seminar will be
very slight indeed, particularly at this early stage. I would like to
raise a question now which I think you might well respond to in
view of the very profound thinking you have given to this subject.
It may be that we are guilty of over-simplification when we think
and speak of the world’s peoples, in the sense that there is a very
decided element of contradiction implicit in the attitudes of the
peoples of the world. I would respectfully say that the peoples of
the world are ardently for peace. They seek freedom. They wish
human advancement. But in stressing this, we often tend to ignore
the fact that people are also intensely nationalistic. This involves
a contradiction. The problem in the world today is how to recon
cile this conflict, how to resolve this contradiction, how to get over
these conflicting appeals in the attitudes of people. I must say
that singly, no Government, whether it be India or my own Govern
ment or the Government of any other country. Is likely to be
inclined or able to provide the sort of leadership about which we
have been talking this morning. I am sorry to have to say that.
But I should not be frank if I did not say that. I think if that is
the conclusion, we are likely to find ourselves at a dead end.
When we think in terms of the relationship between the Gandhian
outlook, methods and techniques, and world affaii?, I think we
must realise that there was no such contradiction in the Indian
people concerning Gandhi. The nationalistic feeb'ng in the Indian
people had provided a vehicle which Gandhi could employ because
of the specific nationalist goal toward whicn the Indian people
were aiming. But when we shift to the international scene, we
have to consider the relationship between the peoples and the
techniques. First of all, it seems to me necessity tc find a rational,
logical, and practical basis for meeting these two appeals on the
part of the people. We must find the means of overcoming
nationalism, often blind irrational nationalism, which cuts across
everything good that we may try to do in the world. I say with
all deference, Mr. Chairman, that a solution will have to be found
to resolve the contradiction. I do know that you have given
profound thought to it, and no question could be more
important.
49
9 4 M . Qi E d u .
GANDHIAN OUTLOOK AND T ECH N IQ U ES
Lord Boyd Orr:
You have raised a most important question—this con
flict between the nationalist idea and the internationalist
idea.
1 am British. I am intensely British in thought and proud of
't. There is no reason why every nation should not be proud of
its own culture and the contribution it could make to the world.
At the same time, while I am profoundly British and wish that my
country could give leadership to the world—it noght have done
so in 1945—F realise that during that year my country missed
the boat. Although I am intensely British, I recognise this failure
of my people. I attend international conferences. I attended a
meeting of the Women’s League for Peace and Freedom. There
I found women of all countries coming together—with different
backgrounds—to discuss what the women of the world can do.
When they meet they forget what country they come from. They
are dealing with the world as a whole. I will give you another
illustration. When I was Director General of Food and Agricul
tural Organisation, I called scientists together from different
countries and put a proposition to them: “Gentlemen, here is the
great problem of animal disease and food shortage”. I wrote to
the Governments: “We know your Government has got an emi
nent man of world reputation. Would you be willing to send this
scientist to discuss with other scientists this problem which affects
all countries'?” There was no political aspect. These scientists
came from different countries with different backgrounds. The
first time they met, they were sticky. They were still carrying
with them their own country. 1 explained to them the whole
problem. The second day they were interested in it. The third
day, the problem engrossed them. They were so interested in
the world problem that they forgot their regional self-interests and
devoted themselves wholeheartedly to the solution of the problem.
Everywhere people are taking more and more interest in world
problems. They send their delegations to international meetings.
Take, for instance, the international scientists sitting together
and considering world problems as a whole. For the time
being, they forget their individual country and think they are
internationalists. They participate just as individuals and are
prepared to share fully each others views. We can get similar
agreements on big problems through non-governmental organisa
tions. These movements for the collaboration of nations are very
important and are capable of creating the Gandhian spirit, at least
in some aspects. They provide an opportunity to go beyond
narrow nationalism. The American may think, “Our country is
self-sufficient in food and it has enough of it. India’s requirements
50
6TH JANUARY 1 9 5 3
of food are very bad. What contribution can our great country
make towards helping the hungry millions in India?”
I tell you a time will come when non-governmental organisa
tions throughout the world will be prepared to partake in inter
national assistance and cooperation even if governments are not
prepared to do so. The more such ideas spread, the more you
will find countries giving up the fear of the soldier, and peaceful
people seeking to spread them throughout the world. As I have
already said, individuals everywhere are decent. Russians also are
decent people, just the same as we are. Our problem is: How
will Russians and Americans come together and try to share our
belief in international philosophy of life, in international coopera
tion and good-will? Where can we get the starting point? We
must endeavour to put forward something such that no govern
ment can say we cannot cooperate. I hope that such will be the
outcome of this meeting, so that an attempt may be made to
remove all these troubles of the world as far as possible by the
application of Gandhian ways.
Another matter that comes up for consideration as a result is:
Who will take the lead which will not be a political lead? Is any
country prepared to come forward? If you want the leadership
of the world* if you are prepared to take it up, you must make
sure that at least your own nationals are fully trained to apply
these new techniques, irrespective of what others may or may not
do to help you. At the same time each one should be able to
assess the contribution which his country can make to the world
and ask other countries “Are you also prepared to make your
contribution to it?” I hope at the end of this Seminar we will
have something to offer to the world.
Professor Kabin
Before we disperse I wish to point out that the proceedings of
these meetings are secret and are not, at present, meant for the
press. All the delegates are taking part in their individual capa
city and no one present here will, I hope, give anything to the
press. We shall of course hand out a summary every evening and
the press are free to publish the official handout (See Appendix H).
Lord Boyd Orr
Yes, these proceedings are strictly secret and they should not
be flashed round the world at this stage. If you do so, you will
destroy the objectives of this Conference. Please, therefore, follow
the advice given by Professor Kabir. The meeting is now adjourn
ed till KMX) a .m . tomorrow.
51
7 he Seminar met at 10 A.M. on 1th January 1953 in the Committee Room, Parliament House, with Lord Boyd Orr in the
Chair.
Lord Boyd Orr:
Gentlemen, I call the meeting to order.
Before we begin, I would like to refer to the excellent report of
the first day’s proceedings that we all have read in this morning’s
paper. It has brought out the main points and has referred to the
excellent speech of our friend Mr. Kripalani.
Today Professor Massignon will speak. This is the last day he
will be with us. We are allowing him a special concession, for this
will be the only opportunity he will have to speak here. I am
suggesting that he should speak fully and give us the benefit of his
views before he leaves. My friend Acharya Narendra Deva has
very kindly agreed to put off his speech to make provision for him.
Mr. Chairman, owing to official duties at the Paris University,
it is only today, as Mr. Chairman said, that I am able to give my
views before this Gandhian Seminar. There is a kind of earnestness
in me because for many years I was concerned, not only intellec
tually but I may say, spiritually and socially, with the Gandhian
approach to a better order of things, and behaviour between men.
As 1 have said in the summary I have given, I am beginning with
the educational side of the Gandhian approach (See Appendix C).
Usually one thinks that words have only tactical meaning, and
are slogans. In the case of Gandhi he did not use or invent such
new words. He discovered the real meaning of the traditional
words. He proceeded by a kind of interiorisation: the funda
mental way of thinking. When you have to learn something you
must understand it. And how can you understand if you do not
live with it so that it is a kind of engagement in meditation? I am
not talking about mysticism, nor in an Ashrama, but 1 think that we
cannot understand Gandhi, we cannot apply the ideas of Gandhi
socially, if we have not meditated. It is not sufficient to learn.
We must try to understand, and to understand, to keep in memory,
you have to contemplate through words, the real meaning. That
is the goal you must try to find.
In India, there is the question of vow—vrata. The point, I
will say. after having studied this word, is that you meditate before
52
7t h
JANUARY
1953
getting into action, not merely by idealism. It means that you are
no longer theoretical; it means that you are steadfast, that you are
meditating, contemplating. You are trying to find the inner mean
ing. You are fixed. You have vowed your life. That goal was
of great importance to Gandhiji. In 1929 all the people of the
world agreed by the Kellogg Pact to live together in goodwill and
peace. They all condemned war unconditionally. But they soon
forgot the whole thing. Why? Because they did not meditate.
Because they did not contemplate in accordance with the real
meaning of the words, which is that we are striving for self deter
mination, to hold on in social work, to keep holding on, to realise
that pledge. Omitting that, the pledge was forgotten.
Gandhi’s life showed that his vow was that of a man who has
contemplated on the words that are used in his community for the
religious approach. It is a question of sanctity, or sacredness. Dr.
Kalelkar says Pavitra or Punya. But the sacredness is not realised
by merely keeping the word alive literally. It should be realised
personally by a vow of saintship. That is the great message of
Gandhi.
We received from the Mahatma this great message of steadfast
ness in keeping a hold on truth. That is quite necessary and that is
itself a part of satyagraha. The idea of satyagraha is the main
point. As Professor Kabir said, Gandhiji at the end of his life
knew things instinctively. He used words intuitively and not
tactically. That is why he insisted particularly on individual satya
graha. It is only by personal steadfastness, by holding on to the
pledge, the vow, that one may be useful to others. That is the
way he waded through, crossed the river of life. That is the
pilgrimage that makes people go to the sacred. Sacredness neces
sarily is among men. It is a question of the pledge of honour. It
is impossible to live as a human being if you do not keep your word.
The next thing I will say, it is the last paragraph of my sum
mary, concerns the question of heroism. It is very difficult for
the masses to be heroic but heroism for them remains necessary.
Man’s heroism is not insignificant. It is just as in therapeutics
we have homeopathy—with a little drop we can change the world.
Gandhi enjoined saintship for himself by losing everything, sacri
ficing for the community, using every day common words whose
meaning was lost to man but recovered by Gandhi.
At the end I would say that the leaders are not allowed the
time to meditate. When they are in Parliament, they have some
sort of notes given by their Secretaries, and that is practically
what they answer. But if they were doing one or two hours of
meditation, before the discussion on the main point, not merely
judging as barristers, but as souls living in this world, then they
53
GANDHIAN OU TLOO K AND T EC H N IQ U ES
would be able to answer the questions rightfully. Gandhi himself
was a barrister, but a barrister for the sake of truth, not tactically.
He grasped the principle and was using it in his fight in South
Africa. That was the beginning of satyagraha. He brought
steadfastness by using common words for justice and truth. These
had been badly used as traps for fools but are also a pledge for
saints to keep their vows. They are also used by the masses so
that we can immediately make the people understand. We must make this clear especially to those who are holding
pou'er, those who are leading in U.N.—excuse me Mr. Bunche,
but I think that we must induce them by some means to consider
these aspects of truth, because, otherwise, there may come the
eventuality of a third war. Nobody wants it but the emergency
may arise. In that case, we must at least hold on to the idea that
there may be zones of security, for hospitals, for the wounded,
for refugees and for shrines and artistic monuments. They must
not be exposed to the atom bomb and the gas. That is perfectly
unbearable. Wc must insist on enforcing the Geneva convention
(cf. Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge, Geneve, June, 1952,
pp. 449—468). We must get all the nations to sign an agreement
for having, in cases of emergency, protected places for hospitals
and the wounded. There should be no indiscriminate use of bombs
and gas. That would be horrible.
The second thing is to make all the people share the same
privileges. That is, create zones of security for refugees, for
displaced persons. This will be work for the ideal of truth and
justice. We must ask aii the Governments to have zones of
security in their territories to have homes for the refugees. If it is
necessary for some people to get out of their countries they
should not be treated brutally. We should have the old principle,
the old Indian principle that is written in the Manava Dharma
Shasita—the idea of the A tithi—of hospitality to the guest; the
Carany a Dharma or the right of protection for the man who is a
refugee, as for the Buddhist mendicant. Asking for this protec
tion was a sacred right among the Buddhists. If we could grasp
the full meaning of this old Indian principle, and also get others
to share it, then something could be done.
1 was yesterday at Mehrauli and visited Kutbuddin Bakhtyar’s
shrine. Gandhiji, as you know—visited it, it w'as his last pilgrim
age, four days before his death, together with some Muslim
ladies of Delhi, who had (at the instance of Bibi Amat-al-Salam)
shared his last fasting and broken it with him. He found the
shrine damaged, promised to have it repaired (this promise was
fulfilled in 1950 as stated by an Arabic inscription), prayed witfl
the worshippers, vowed with ‘hem a pledge of brotherhood, that
54
7t h
JANUARY
1953
Delhi might solve the problem of unity of India through non
violence. But four days later, he was killed. It was his last
social act; he wanted to make unity between Indians, between
Hindus and Muslims. It was a sacred place for Muslims. He
wanted to atone for others, for his brethren who had broken the
shrine.
If it would be possible to force Unesco and the U.N., in
their deliberations, to decide that sacred places should be respect
ed, it would be a great achievement. There was a conference in
Amsterdam two years ago and it was decided there that artistic
monuments and shrines should be privileged, because they are
sacred places. They are places of pavitra or punya. A sacred
place is a place where people think of God, try to find Moksha,
to find a way out from this base world, to go to God. It must be
insisted that if there must be zones of security for the wounded,
zones of security for refugees in case of emergency of war.
there must be zones for the sacred places also, as artistic and
beautiful places are places where people go for the contemplation
of God.
Now, I will make a fuller explanation of my points.
1 will first deal with my personal approach to the Gandhian
mission. In 1921, thirty years ago, I was a young professor of
Muslim Sociology at the Paris University. The University was
visited by Dr. An sari and Professor Suleiman Nadvi, who were
the heads of the pro-Khilafat Commission in Paris. They gave
me the satyagraha pledge of Gandhi. It wras published in Revue
du Monde M u salman in April, 1921, showing its main accord
ance with Islam. It was through Muslims that 1 knew Gandhi
and I understood the ideal of Gandhi, the ideal of satyagraha, the
pursuit of truth by steadfastness in will, by Vrata, by oath. I
also learnt through Dr. Abdul Majid that satyagraha was a sacred
thing for the Muslims also. I realised immediately that there was
something in Gandhi which was valuable. For perhaps the first
time in the world, there was a man having influence on people of
other religions with great social results.
Atithi Dharma is one of the fundamentals in the Laws of
Manu. From it derives the right of sanctuary which is found also
in Islam. I was saved in Iraq among the Montafiq Arabs by
atithi dharma some forty-four years ago. I was an archaeologist
wmrking there and was denounced as a spy. Unfortunately many
Europeans were often in the Intelligence Service. I was not in
the Intelligence Service, but I was supposed to be in it and there
fore thought to be a spy. I was taken prisoner and was going tc
be killed. But I had been the guest of a noble family. The head
of the family said to the people who were taking me—*Tf you
55
kill Massignon you will be killing one of ourselves. He is our
guest and a guest is a sacred thing. You cannot therefore kill
him. You know that he is our guest and therefore he is the guest
of God and you must not touch him.” I know that in India too
it is a very sacred principle. Even among the most savage tribal
people, the guest is sacred. So I was saved by the ideal of the
Right of Sanctuary, the caranya dharma. I can never forget that.
This very spring I was among the Montafiq Arabs again, with
my wife, and I told her what Emir Adil Arslan had said to the
first U.N. meeting in Paris. There was a widow of a Bedouin
Chief, whose husband had been killed. One night, at the
approach of the tent she saw a man who was a fugitive, who came
and took hold of a string of the tent. Among the Arabs, if you
hold the string of the tent, you are sacred, you are a guest. So
she welcomed him and gave three days’ safety to the guest. After
that she allowed him to escape, though he was the murderer of
her husband. I do not say she forgave him. I only say that she
stood steadfast to the ideal of the right of sanctuary. We in
Europe have lost the sense of the sacred in social life, but through
people like Gandhi we can regain it. In India people were in
agreement with him in the cause of right of sanctuary. We have
to make the people of the world take to this principle, that the
guest is of God and that his right is higher than war, even just
war. In India the masses still believe in it. It may be said that
if we can work on this principle, we can make peace stand over
war, we can have war killed. We can kill war only by the right
of sanctuary. We should see that the foreigner is not considered
a spy, should believe that he is not acting to betray us. In Europe
we do not have the steadfastness or the hope that the guest may
be really of God. We are afraid the guest may be of the Devil,
tfiat he may be a spy, of the Intelligence Service and too often
it happens so. That is one reason why most of the Eastern people
are fed up with European peoples, who break their pledge as easily
as they give it.
From 1921 onward I was working with some Frenchmen,
trying to see how the Satyagraha pledge of Truth could be made
to capture the French mind. By mixing with the masses, Gandhi
was able to influence them. In India you do not keep spiritual
and material things apart. They are integrated. That is not the
case in Europe. We keep the spiritual aside from the temporal.
In December, 1931, Gandhi came to Paris and 1 had the privi
lege to meet him twice. One of us asked him : ‘How and in what
way could religion help in advocating the suppression of w ar?'
Gandhi very simply answered: “Official religions are very weak
for stopping war”. Of course official religions have the support
56
7t h
JANUARY
1953
of the State. They have the material goods, they have the mate
rial prosperity, so that they are very weak in spiritual matters.
When a State enters into a war, they would call it a just war and
ask everyone to be prepared to die for the country. The people
have not taken the satyagraha pledge, and therefore They have
to go the way the State asks them to go.
I was very much interested by this talk with Gandhi. We
French attempted to publish a little periodical called Nouvelles de
L’lnde—News from India. But it was not much of a success.
We could not get the support of bankers. Mrs. Guieysse, the
founder, did not have the privilege to find rich friends for this
social action. I was, however, much interested by the possibility
of pilot cells or group cells of action. These I would call operative
cells. I think Gandhi’s ideals are quite fit to make little cells,
little pilot cells in different European centres, where people, who
are united by such pledges—not secret pledges like Masonic pledges
—but pledges with free determination or vow, could stand together.
A man who has vowed the pledge would not like to break the
pledge. It is not an oath, because an oath is from outside, from
below. In the case of pledge, you pledge willingly. A pledge is
from inside. It is the realisation in your life. When you vow a
pledge you are united with a definite ideal.
By educating people to take the satyagraha pledge, you can
gradually make people understand the spiritual power, the power
of the soul. Acharya Kripalani said that it was gradually and
slowly that Gandhi became acquainted with this weapon of
Satyagraha. He moulded the world only after practising the
thing himself. Here is a booklet by Gandhi. It is called From
Yeravda Mandir. It contains in English the quintessence of the
Gandhian soul. There are so many remarkable counsels in this
book. It is a spiritual book. I went to some of the leading book
sellers here to get a copy of this book. It was a surprise to me
to know that a copy was not available anywhere. I was shocked.
Herbert translated this book. We are also making a book on
non-violent philosophy. It is going to be published soon. It is
a text book for making people understand the non-violent tech
nique. Prof. Meile and Prof. Lacombe who are interested in
seeing the works of Gandhi published have cooperated in this
endeavour. I think we cannot get into action until we have
grasped the meaning, until we have steadfastness. We must
follow the way of Gandhi. That is the meaning of pilgrimage.
We must go on his way. We must try to understand his words,
because his words were not empty words, but words bom of his
personal experience. We must very closely study his words.
Many of them are summaries of his experiences, explained in
57
GANDHIAN O U TLO O K AND TEC H N IQ U ES
common words, in words we understand. That is the social value
of meditation and contemplation before action. If I insisted on
it at the beginning, it is because the beginning of action is con
templation. That is what Gandhi has proved. I do not know
if Professor Kripalani could explain at what time Gandhi used to
take to meditation.
Acharya Kripalani:
While he wras acting he was meditating.
Is it so? In the performance of his every act he was medita
ting? I understand Gandhi’s meditation was always directed to
wards social action and it was his immediate goal. We must
understand that it is impossible to perform a social action
without a kind of vowa It is determination. It is the determination
to suffer any consequences, good or bad, in the performance of
that action. What is hunger-strike? Gandhi said, “It is not a
technique to coerce others to your way of action. It is a desire
coming from God that obliges me to hunger-strike.” Till the end
of his life he was forbidding some of his followers to undertake
hunger-strikes. It was distasteful for him to make fasting a
weapon. So this question of understanding the true meaning of
certain Sanskrit words Gandhi chose is very important in order to
understand his actions. In the programme of this Seminar we
talk of tensions. I do not know what is the Indian word for ten
sion. What is the Sanskrit word for tension? Do you know,
Professor Kripalani?
Acharya Kripalani:
I do not know. You may ask Kaka Kalelkar.
Do you know' Mr. Kalelkar?
Kaka Kalelkar:
Conflict................Sangharshana.
There are not only bad tensions, there are tensions for good, for
justice. Satyagraha is also a tension, a tension for a good cause.
It was slowly and by experimenting in his beliefs that this young
barrister gained stature in his spiritual personality. If we read
Gandhi’s works, written in English, and carefully watch the words
he chose to use in them, we find that Tolstoy and Ruskin had a
58
7t h
JANUARY
1953
great influence on this man. He also maintained his faith in
prayer and the native value of Sanskrit words in Gujrati. His
commentary on the Geeta is full of spiritual meaning and value.
No doubt he acquired most of his knowledge through the medium
of a foreign language, through the English language, but he al
ways attached the greatest value to the native and pure meaning
of the old Sanskrit words for justice and truth. Let us examine
their meaning as felt by Gandhi. We are surprised, for instance,
when-he says that God is Satya; God is truth. It implies all the
metaphysics. God is Satya because we know that He is Truth,
when we read it in English, but he also knew that it has social
significance. The greatest metaphysicians in India had said it
is the essence of God. “God is the essence of Vow” , Gandhi said,
because He is Truth, in social realisations.
We must therefore realise the full meaning of the extensive
use of Sanskrit words by Gandhi. We must go into the native
value of certain of these words that were said in India in Sanskrit.
We among Europeans are anxious to see that you Gandhists in
India understand correctly the significance of the words often
uttered by Gandhi and help us follow' them as best as possible.
I am now speaking to the Indian Gandhists. You have not tried
sufficiently to bring home to your conservative isolationists the
meaning of Gandhi’s preachings. You have not exercised suffi
ciently your mind to show them that Gandhi belonged to the
purest Aryan tradition, that he had grasped the fundamentals
of the Sanskrit texts (his commentary on the Geeta bears testi
mony to this); that he placed himself above all foreign prejudices;
that he wras an Indian believer in truth and truth alone; that
Gandhi has not betrayed the lawr of the Indian community and
that he has kept the oath.
It is not an oath, necessarily in the literal sense of the Sans
krit word, which in the Law of Manu states, “ They will keep it
at all costs”. He kept the oath in the sense that through his
atonement he found social compassion for the masses. The
masses are illiterate. They are not responsible for the narrowness
of conservative leaders because they are simple men. You have
got to impress upon the Indian conservatives that Gandhi did not
do anything which went against their Dharma; on the other
hand that their creed was maintained and enriched by Gandhi,
As you all knowy he died uttering the words R am Ram. They
were the last words on his lips.
Unlike many, Gandhi had realized the meaning of his utter
ances and that mantras were meant to be practised. He was a
believer in the universal brotherhood of man. He had equal
respect for pure faith in all religions and cultures. In short, he
59
knew no barriers between one human being and another. Natur
ally, to understand the world outside India, he had to fall back
on the English language and he did not regard that as a sin. His
mission was the unification of Mother India. He wished for the
integration of all religious units who have a common culture and
tradition.
With this teaching of Gandhi in mind, how can you help us in
getting out of wrar? In a general Satyagraha? “You will be*
defeated in diplomatic action,” says the doubter and the sceptic.
This however is the counsel of a foreigner or guest to the Indian
Gandhist. Gandhi believed in the potential power of Satyagraha
so much that he employed it right through his fight against the
foreign rule in India.
Truth is also in Arabic, Haqq. This concept is very import
ant for Muslims. Among them you have the memorial of a saint
of Baghdad, Mansur Hallaj, “who died for Truth”. He isnamed in Bengali “Satyapir”, the master of Truth. This memorial
unites Indian Satya and Muslim Haqq in a practical worshipping
of Truth, socially acting (according to Professor Muhyiuddin of
Dacca whom I met in Montreal) in Faridpur (Sureswara) and
Chittagong (Maij Bhandar). In two places he visited in Chitta
gong, you still have people that are worshipping Satya or Truth.
Those who believe that life is to be sacrificed for Truth’s sake*,
whether Muslim or Hindu, live by Truth.
In the true meaning, his life becomes really a fulfilled oath,
for it is a vow, a Vrata. Vow has a very important role to play
in our everyday life, but at the present time, it is ignored. With
out the vow, how can we have any attachment to the work that
we undertake and how can we be sincere to fulfil the tasks?
Vow is not meant to be against the law. It accomplishes the law.
It is not against Dharma; it is an accomplishment of Dharma,
Gandhi never wanted his followers to be timid while fulfilling
their vows. He wanted them to possess all the qualities of a hero.
Another aspect of satyagraha is pilgrimage. It means that
you may cross the water, Tirtha, to leave your goods, to leave
your common goods. It is a kind of sacrifice. There are places,
like Hardwar and Banaras and so on. It is in a pilgrimage to
wards Truth that Gandhi went to all such places, wherever they
exist. It was not in any sense of complacency. Sacrifice is still
the meaning of the pilgrimage for the man who has a vow o f
Satya. Among the Hindus there is a common belief of going
to Moksha in the way in which the Muslims think of going to
Mecca which is not something material but something spiritual
like the Moksha of the Hindus. Gandhiji never failed to keep in
touch with th<3 people by going on a pilgrimage with others am$
60
7t h
JANUARY
1953
that was for realisation of his vow. Yesterday, when I was on
Gandhiji?s track at Mehrauli. I realised that if he made a Muslim
pilgrimage there, he did this for the sake of compassion towards
Muslims as he understood that Muslims were truly Indians. This
is a very important thing in the life of Gandhiji. It does not mean
that he surrendered to the Muslims but it shows his compassion
for them. He understood that there was something common and
very deep between Muslims and Hindus in India and that Truth
should be worked in social practice.
On the eve of his death, Gandhiji had written that seven
hundred thousand villages in India were not properly organised
and that the social corporate life of India must depend upon the
unity and the organisation of these villages. There must be Satya
graha in each village for universal brotherhood. People of differing
creeds live in the same village, eat the same food and work together.
He thought that there was a possibility of social corporate
life.
The last two years of Gandhi’s life are very important. In
these two years, if one goes through his editorials in the Harijan>
one can see horrible happenings taking place, people killing one
another, and doing all sorts of heinous things. Gandhiji took the
blame on himself and said, “I have been a bad workman”. He
did not use words lightly like so many of us. but realised their full
meaning and resorted to Satyagraha to atone for others’ sins.
Now 1 will comment upon the word tension. It is difficult to
translate it in Sanskrit. The most common of the tensions is to
wards war. Tensions generally mean an opposition to something,
but Satyagraha is an exception to it as it is tension for holding on
to Truth.
I was in Chicago last October. I met a man there doing social
work for a hundred thousand refugees from Lithuania and Poland.
He was a Jew, Mr. Saul Alinsky. It is very interesting to know
about him and his activities. He says love for most people is
merely a feeling, a weak feeling and that we must have a tension
for justice and truth and a tension for making refugees realise
them. He gave the refugees an idea of a better life claiming full
civic rights for them. This man, Alinsky, was doing Gandhian
work, though unaware of it, among refugees. We must under
stand that somebody has to take a Satyagraha pledge. It is a word
of honour and not any ordinary thing and we must keep to it.
This is the real meaning of Satyagraha and we must make it
known through Unesco to all the world. Another important
thing is that people who were persecuted found an asylum in
India, for instance, the Parsis. This is all due to the deep feeling
of the sacredness of the guest in India.
61
GANDHIAN OUTLOOK AND TEC H N IQ U ES
When [ visited A1inskv’s field of activity in Chicago, I found
something Gandhian. When I told the American Committee of
Social Thought about this, somebody said that this man was going
to the masses and behaving as a communist. We investigated into
the matter and found that he was a man full of tension for justice,
ip.cluding justice for the masses. We found that it was not at all
communism he preached but an old powerful truth. Pursuing the
truth is not belonging to a party.
I feel something has to be done in America by this Gandhian
technique, if we are to resolve the many tensions there. Gandhi’s
method is not intellectual but spiritual. We are obliged to look
for a ray of hope from personalities like the Mahatma. It is
impossible to know the masses by merely intellectual means. I
do not mean that there is any contradiction between the intellec
tual and spiritual aspects of Gandhiji, What I mean is that there
is something deeper than the intellect in Gandhiji. His life is of
the spiritual mould and not of the intellectual mould. As
Professor Kripalani said, Gandhi was not a genius intellectually,
but he was a moral genius. It was he who understood the world.
He did not care about dogmas and philosophies. He cared more
about purity in manner and behaviour. He did not wish to have
a philosophy of his own. His was the old philosophy.
For birth control, Gandhiji advocated Brahmacharya Vrata or
celebacy even in family life. What medical men talk of birth
control is taken from statistics. Gandhiji in his autobiography
has given a true exposition of his vow of Brahmacharya Vrata.
You might have read how on the very eve of his death he draft
ed a note on the organization of municipal life in India. He said
that if there be in every village a number of men wedded to the
Satyagraha pledge, in the long run India would be one and it
would be really a Mother India for the world.
I had the honour of sitting in an international conference
recently and I was talking to my neighbour. This man said that
people are slow to recognise that better distribution of land would
make people averse to wars. They were having statistics after
statistics in the U.N., but here in India they have started redistri
bution of land voluntarily, under an inspired leader, Mr. Vinoba
Bhave. They realise the design of justice. It is perfectly possible
to live in even a crowded world if the ideas of the Food and Agri
culture Organization as stated in its reports are moulded in this
fashion. We are trying for rational distribution of land, but most
people only say we shall begin, but do not want to sacrifice. This
is the main problem in India. I think the idea of having land
given to labour and the ploughmen voluntarily by the owners, by
the landowners is called the Sarvodaya. I request you to convey
62
7t h
JANUARY
1953
this idea to the Food and Agriculture Organisation, through
this Gandhi Seminar. This would be a contribution of India
to the F.A.O. Unesco also ought to take more interest in this
idea.
As for the question of refugees, caranarthi, there should be
an international law for the refugees. At the last U.N. Confer
ence in Paris, a note of ours, through Professor Dehousse, who
attended as an official delegate, stated that there must be zones of
security for refugees in case of the emergency of a-fiew war. It is
unsound, it is degrading to denationalise the refugees. In the
United States, the refugees have to become Americans, learn their
language and become American citizens, and then, as they say,
they will have the rights. They are saving themselves to the detri
ment of the future. These people are therefore made to forget
their culture. Take the case of Lithuanians. They have even
forgotten their language. In some cases, they might like to come
back. Their country might be liberated. It is acting wrongly to
force them to give up their own nationality. These refugees are
the guests of God. They should remain Lithuanians. I have
seen even more horrible things. The Volkdeutscher Germans
become American citizens and are sent back, armed with weapons
to fight against Eastern Germany. They are welcome to take
American Citizenship but is it their duty to take weapons and
fight their own nationals for the safety of America?
But why should they not be considered as refugees? The
U.N. does not yet consider them so. Tndia has still this
problem. There are thousands of Muslims crossing the border of
Rajputana every month. Similarly there are still millions of
Hindus living uneasily in Eastern Pakistan. They are separated
because of the supposed incompatibility of their cultures. Here
I have a book in Devanagri script written by a Muslim from
Dacca. This man has much more of the real Indian culture than
many Hindus. Forgive me for talking of these things as a
foreigner, as a westerner, but I think they show the ultimate unity
of India. To force a people out of their land is horrible, because
it is against justice, it is against truth. Muslims in Eastern
Pakistan are Indians, Bengalis. I think, Sir, that refugees must
not be denationalised and forced to adopt the nationality of the
country in which they seek refuge. Still less must they be mobi
lised against their own country. We have lost the sense of sacred
ness. We have lost the sense of Gandhi who was the last of the
saints.
In the search of the intellect for the truth, we do not yet
realise that science must be disinterested. We are breaking heads
with science. I am acknowledged as professor at the University
63
of Paris, but 1 am not allowed to share with a foreign visiting
professor the power of examining our common students for their
doctorates. This is silly. You give him the power of teaching, but
not the power of assessing the values. At other universities I
get much more privileges than I do in France itself. On this ques
tion of super nationalisation, forgive me if I refer again to the
Kutbuddin shrine. I have been deeply touched by Gandhiji’s
social work, and I think this disinterested action was his best
message. J feel here was real supernationalism. This is a very
important thing in Gandhi, in Nehru and in Maulana Abul Kalam
Azad.
The great thing is to contemplate through social work. The
aim must be Moksha. That must be by the vow.' One must feel
through vow the sacredness of God. It is not merely intellectual,
but a spiritual realisation. God is not an invention. God is a
discovery. You must forgive me if I mention my personal point
of view, because it is the main idea of Gandhi that the person is
important. On the social point of view, it is a perpetual problem—
this satyagraha. Whether in 1921, 1931 or 1948, it was for
Gandhi exactly the same, the same spiritual idea. Today the
problem of satyagraha is to make a new application of Gandhi’s
spiritual strength so that there may be a new evocation of the
spirit on a wide scale.
From the days I was very young, I was longing for India. For
the second time, I am now visiting India. India has always cast a
spell over me. God hides himself in a way. We have to find him.
Iswara hides in us. We are his shrine. It is only when the shrine
is broken that the perfume of his presence is revealed. We have
to make sacrifices. You find that in the text of the Vedas and the
Brahamanas. I felt most that Gandhi had always tried to console
the broken-hearted. The broken-hearted recognised in him one
who would help them truly and efficiently. Men in their misery
went to him and got help and guidance. Gandhi was a man of
sorrow, and it is only the man of sorrow who discovers God. He
discovers Him in the humble weavers, in the nakedness of the un
touchables. By becoming naked himself, he tries to make their
sorrows clothed.
Lord Boyd O i t
Thank you for your very interesting address. Some of the sub
jects you touched on I have thought about a great deal. Before
we go on to the discussion, we will follow Professor Kabirs advice
and adjourn for ten minutes.
(After reassembly)
64
Lord Boyd Orr:
Ladies hnd Gentlemen. I wish to thank Professor Massignon for
the brilliant and intellectual exposition he has given of Gandhi's life and philosophy which I hope all of you have enjoyed. Now
we are going to ask for questions and comments; but before I ask
for the first question or comment, I am very much interested to
have clarification on one or two points. One is on the need for
meditation. One of the biggest troubles in the world today is:
“Have we any time to think?” Take the British Prime Minister,
for instance. From the early hours of the day he is a frightfully
busy person. Heaps of files and papers are placed before him,
very urgent papers to be discussed either in the Parliament or in
the various conferences or meetings; he is busy keeping engage
ments, answering his own party calls as well as those of the
Government. There is no time at all to think or meditate. He is
forced to act just mechanically in the day-to-day events.
There are today many political tensions, and the fear of a third
world war. Our time is occupied in these big problems so much
that we treat all talk of spirituality or meditation as superficial and
there is no time for them. Suppose a person can manage to get
away from the crowded routine programmes for about forty days.
He retires to a calm and quiet place undisturbed by outside
happenings; settles down to thinking, contemplating and meditat
ing on the higher aspects of human life. I am sure, Gentlemen,
when he comes out he will find himself full of new vigour. If Stalin,
Churchill and Eisenhower can be persuaded to come together
on an enforced holiday of about forty days, if we take them far
away from the shores of their countries, say to the middle of
the Atlantic Ocean and tell them, “Look, you are here for fort)
days. You will get food and everything you want. Between the
three of you, you are not going to criticise or quarrel with one
other. Your main job is to find solutions that can eliminate fear
and suspicion, hunger and poverty, disease and illiteracy and to
promote human dignity throughout all parts of the world”. I am
sure these great men will come out after forty days quite different
men.
I will say a word on the difference between the scientist, the
spiritual man and the intellectual. I do not think there is any
great conflict between them. The scientist interprets the truth
about things that he can demonstrate, but he never says that this is
tibe final truth. He says, so far as it has been found, this holds
good for the present time. He will keep an open mind for con
tinual change about that truth as and when it occurs. On the other
hand, from the spiritual point of view a man can feel strongly about
certain things. He says, “I have intuitive certainty. I cannot ifive
65
94 M . o f E d u .
reasons for that, but I feel the truth of it in my heart/’ There is no
conflict between these two. As knowledge grew, people began to
probe into the reasons for their beliefs and conventions. For in
stance, I may mention true love. It is a mystical thing and is felt.
Nobody can perceive it, but everybody feels it. Intellectual reason
ing comes out of adherence to certain principles that one believes
to be true.
The other thing that I wished to draw your attention to was the
willingness of man to agree to certain fundamental truths of life.
Gandhi believed in the basic teachings of all religions. He believed
that knowledge is not the monopoly of any particular religion or
sect. While we agree on all fundamental issues as individuals,
what is the way to make them acceptable on a national and
universal scale?
Dr. Bunche:
Mr. Chairman * first of all I would like to express my great
appreciation to Professor Massignon for his profound statement. It
was the expression of a lifetime of dedication, an effort of both
mind and spirit. That is clear to all of us. Professor Massignon
will not think it presumptuous on my part if I now pose a few ques
tions and make some brief comments on the matter. As I said
yesterday, my prime interest here in our discussions is to find out
to what extent the Gandhian outlook can have application to the
issues in which the world now finds itself and also m the universal
effort to find a path of salvation for humanity. In that connection
I must repeat what I have said to one of our Indian colleagues
during the recess, that I was finding some hope in the fact that
apparently Gandhiji was much more practical in his approach
than I had anticipated.
While 1 was listening with great interest to Professor
Massigncn’s remarks, I had some concern as to what he had in
mind regarding refugees and sanctuaries. I would ask him this
question: “Would it not be a defeatist mentality to assume that
there must always be refugees in the world in the particular sense
in which you used the term?” Are we to accept that it is not
feasible that men’s minds and hearts will be freed of suspicion, pre
judice, arrogance and hatred? That all men can live together in
peace and full understanding? If it is feasible to hope for such a
world, to work for such a world, why then must we consider it in
evitable that there must always be refugees? I take my own
country, which is indeed culturally diversified despite the fact that
there is political homogenity. I take Lousiana, for instance, which
is culturally French, in which the French language is spoken, in
which the basic law continues to be the Code Napoleon, We have
66
in the United States, not an American culture but a large variety
of cultures; but we have a political homogenity.
Then you spoke of the possibility of the tragedy of the third
world war, the need of sanctuaries for the wounded, Geneva Con
vention, the unparalleled horror of Atomic warfare, biological
weapons and similar other horrors. I wondered whether in the
event of that tragedy these ideas might not prove to be unnatural,
outmoded and impracticable. How worthwhile is it really to begin
to think of saving anything from the horror of the third world
war? I believe after deep consideration that what might be profit
able is to try to prevent that war at all costs. If such a war were
to come, civilisation and morality would be dealt a heavy blow
and a final blow. Out of it, no possible good could come and no
solutions to problems could be found. So we must discover the
means for attacking these warmongers effectively. Now the ques
tion before us is : How to meet this challenge, the greatest chal
lenge that mankind has ever known? Gandhiji brought freedom
to India and for that it was necessary for Gandhiji to change the
Indian people. As I understood it, what Gandhiji did was to lead
the Indian people towards spiritual power. He moulded their
longings and aspirations into a dynamic and irresistible force. This
is what Unesco and other specialised agencies have been seeking to
do. If we could make any contribution towards helping to find the
path, then this seminar would have been worthwhile indeed. To
wards the end, you mentioned about supernationalism. I quite
agree with you on this point
I shall try to reply to your points. We may look at the refugee
problem as a supernational problem. It would be very good if we
had a supernational board looking after the guests of God. Real
hospitality cannot be exercised truly by the U.N. unless it is recog
nised that the refugee is sacred. I am specially concerned to
convey the Indian idea of Gandhi to Europeans. I think his
is a truly international view. I think it is inhuman to arm with
weapons the people who are expelled from their country, who come
to you for refuge. They should be allowed to be free. It is not
just, it is not sacred to force them to fight for you. That is the
fundamental thing. When you receive a guest, you do not give
him weapons. He is without arms, he is an angel of God.
The inhospitality that Christ received in Bethlehem is wellknown. You should not destroy the refugee’s source of culture.
I was talking to a young Parsi gentleman a few minutes ago. Look
at the hospitality of India. The Parsis came from Persia and are
settled here, but India has not asked them to give up their culture.
67.
In China there is an old law, an unwritten law, the supreme
possibility of the indignation of women against enmity. If the
women feel that there is something done against the spirit of law,
some sacreligious injustice, they solemnly declare that they are in
dignant, and no judge dares to oppose the indignation of the women.
Just as there was the indignation of women in China, let there be
indignation against evil among women all over the world. I saw
women in the Mahalakshmi temple in Bombay. Indian women go
there for worshipping compassion in the Goddess Lakshmi. There
is nothing intellectual in it, but something permeates, something
vibrates. That force must be made use of in the international field.
Women must ask from U.N., as a wife from her husband going to
war: “Are you going to kill the wounded?” That is what some
Germans did. When a German soldier was wounded, they planned
to kill him because he was no more useful for their purpose. We
must ask the nations: “Are you prepared to keep the sick and
the wounded safe in a sanctuary? Are you prepared to make
zones of security for the wounded, and hospitals for the sick in
cases of emergency?” This way of argumentation may look silly,
but it is practically as powerful as the indignation of women,
opposing exemptions and privileges to absurd generalisations.
Dr. Bunche:
I just want to make one point clear. It is not a question of
whether there can be just or unjust war, but how to prevent the
very outbreak of war.
Professor Kabir:
I think the real danger is this: If you divert attention to
smaller issues like, “If there were a war could we prevent these
atrocities?”, by implication you accept the inevitability of war.
Instead of allowing us to concentrate on the supreme issue that
there shall be no war in any circumstance, we waste our energies
in seeking palliatives. Once you accept that there may be war,
you induce in others an acceptance of war and vain arguments as
to whether it is a just war or an unjust war.
I do not believe in enforcing general principles immediately,
without previous mental preparation. It was the Gandhian way
to build up pilot cells in the minds of men. We have to grasp
slowly the unity in the diversity.
I do not see why zones of
security could not, gradually, in the course of years, help world
forces like the U.N. and solve many of our problems. They
will be respected. Atom bombs and gas will not be used to
destroy them. Similarly, there must be sanctuary for refugees.
68
7 l H JANUARY 1 9 5 3
1 am convinced that there will always be at least one refugee,
and that will be God. He must be welcomed as such, “Unto
this last” as Ruskin said. If the U.N. could give a sense of
general security, Bernadotte would not have been killed in the
Sacred City. I do feel that the refugee problem is vital for the
United Nations. Refugees in the United States may be living
better than ever before, but they live without any hope and without
sharing their feelings with their own people. If there are zones
of security for these refugees, it would be a great thing.
Dr, Bundle:
The solution to the problem is not to keep them as refugees;
but to give them a normal life. My criticism of the United
Nations is precisely on that point. It has tried to keep them in
a sanctuary and has given them a life better than they had before.
But this is no solution to the human problem. The only solution
to the refugee problem is to make them cease to be refugees. It is
their aspiration also. They do not want to be refugees. They
want to lead the life of normal human beings. The solution of
every human problem is difficult; but the solution of no human
problem is impossible.
If we make a zone of security for these people, it is against
the imminent evil of the war. We should not give the refugees
weapons and ask them to fight. That will be against humanity.
You agree that the only man in modern times who sacrificed
himself for the sake of humanity is Gandhi, who gave himself up
for sacrifice voluntarily. There is none other. You can ask
the poor man to make a sacrifice. It is much better as Ruskin
said to ask the rich man to make the sacrifice. The rich man
can afford to sacrifice, but the poor cannot.
My third point is this. I am very strong on this point. I
think my colleagues, the sociologists, are wrong in saying that
love is only due to the action of the libido and that there is no
difference between pure love and lust. Of course, pure love is
seldom to be found, but 1 am .sure it exists.
Dr. Bunche:
What is the precise word for tensions in Sanskrit, or is it that
there were no tensions in Indian Society? (Laughter).
Dr. Zakir Husain:
We can call ‘tension* as tanai.
love.
It covers also the tension of
69
g a n d h ia n o u t l o o k a n d t e c h n i q u e s
On account of their ‘desecrating’ vocabulary, the political and
economic theories of the nineteenth century were opposed by
Ruskin and Gandhi. Klineberg and Levi-Strauss think that it is
only interesting to evaluate tensions statistically. It is said there is
tension because of covetousness. But desire for justice can also
be the result of tension. And that is the thing that Klineberg
and Levi-Strauss do not see, but it is what Gandhi insisted on.
We should create good, tensions, the tension where the desire
to do justice is predominant.
Kutbuddin Bakhtyar induced
Iltutmish (Altamash) to establish equality of treatment between
Hindus and Muslims. The great Muslim rulers like Akbar were
equal and just in their dealings with Hindus and Muslims. That
sort of thing requires heroism. It is not to be found by statisti
cal studies of tensions. It is a peculiar tension, a spiritual
tension: a vow of perfection.
It has been said that one of the reasons for tension within
India is incompatibility of cultures. Take the case of Pakistan
and India. Pakistan expelled the minority communities, but I
deny it was due to incompatibility of culture. There are Muslims
in India still. The Muslim minority in India accepted the Indian
pledge that they would be treated as equals, though the other
State is not prepared to accord the same treatment to its mino
rities. We have to make a distinction between the tension due
to the so-called incompatibility of cultures, and the other tension,
that due to the desire for Justice,
,
Acharya Kripalani:
Gandhi was working for the independence of India.
That
was a big question. But he did not allow smaller questions to
remain untouched.
Whenever he could find a possibility of
coming to an agreement with his opponent, he tried his utmost
to do so. Wherever he found that it was impossible for Govern
ment to deny the justice of his contention, he tried to come to an
agreement with them.
In this way he had local grievances
resolved.
Resolution of local grievances gave an opportunity
of exercising his soldiers in the practice of Satyagraha. That does
not mean that he ever lost sight of the goal. That was ever present;
that was never neglected. These problems on which we mostly
agreed may be tried in the U.N. or when people of goodwill meet
together from different parts of the world, so that there may be no
third World War.
You said that there are good tensions and bad tensions. I am
afraid there can be no good tension. Tension is the result of
split personality. No good can come out of a split personality.
7C
When a man is working for justice, for peace, for the rule of law,
there is no tension in him. It is just like music. To a man who
does not understand music, it may appear to him as so much
sound.. But it is not really sound. It is harmony. And when
there is harmony, there is no tension. So there cannot be a good
tension. Tension is against the nature of man. Whenever a man
is not in harmony, then there is tension.
Satyagraha cannot
therefore be identified with the word ‘tension*. Tension is split
personality.
Lord Boyd Om
It is another kind of tension. There are tensions that lead to
war and tensions which could serve good ends. That is a good
form of tension.
Acharya Kripalani:
The latter is only external tension with internal peace.
Lord Boyd Om
There are still five minutes.
If nobody is
going
to use the five minutes, I would like to use that time.
Professor Massignon, I am referring to the question you raised
about women. I am very fond of women. I attended an Interna
tional Council of Women, and I believe that they can play a vital
part in preventing wars and promoting peace throughout the world.
The women can come forward and say, we want so many things
for our daily needs and we would like all the ordnance factories
to be converted into factories for producing goods that we so
badly need. They can say, “If you are going to war and kill
children and women, it is a horrible thing to do.
If you are
going to throw bombs and destroy all our homes, it is a bad thing
to do. If you are not going to respect the wounded and sick
it, hospitals and they are also liable to attack and to be killed,
that is a bad thing to do. We would waive our objection to war
only if you can guarantee that these things will not take place/*
This is the kind of talk that I often hear from women. But
we are all well aware that wars of today are not fought on battle
fields. They are directed against civil populations in big cities
and towns, whether these people are directly responsible for
bringing about the war or not. If another war has to come, I
am sure fifty per cent of the world’s population will be annihilated
and all the civilization that has been built through centuries will
come to an end. We cannot therefore have another war at all.
In the past, every time there was a war, people thought that it
was the last of the kind and there was going to be peace every
71
where in the future. But the acts of victorious nations on the
termination of those wars carried with them the germs for a
further war and again there was a repetition of history. The
victorious nations always treated their defeated opponents in a
very bad manner and it often amounted to exploitation of those
nations. But they could exploit them only for a short while, al
though this left behind a trail of dissatisfaction and was responsible
for a future war.
This treatment of the vanquished nations has been one of the
most horrible things in imperialism. I do not mind war today if
people responsible for war, if the Kings and their Prime Ministers,
Field Marshals and other top people are put in the army and
are asked to take the front lines; because those are the people who
create war. But what actually happens? They themselves keep
back in their happy homes and send others, the common folk, who
never wanted that war, as cannon fodder. You asked for a cate
gorical assurance from the United Nations that there is not going to
be another war. I doubt if anyone is in a position to give such a
guarantee today. People have only partial faith in the United
Nations. I may say I am against certain policies adopted by the
United Nations but let me tell you it is a body created for the
achievement of noble objectives. It must be the duty of every
nation to strengthen the United Nations in order to make it
a still better organization. If so far it has failed to realize the
high hopes that a number of people had, it is only due to the
politicians quarrelling among themselves over every matter that
has been brought before it which rendered it incapable of reaching
conclusions.
It should not matter whether Republicans or Democrats are in
power in the United States, or whether it is the Conservatives pr
Labour that are ruling in Britain. It falls on every nation to co
operate and make others cooperate in the common objectives of
the United Nations so as to abolish hunger, to abolish illiteracy,
to fight preventable diseases, to abolish social and economic in
justices wherever they exist. United Nations has in it many organs
which are all intended to build up a new and better world. For in
stance there is the World Bank, whose job it is to finance the under
developed nations, there is the World Health Organization, there
is Unesco and so on.
When I was proposed for the Food and Agricultural Organiza
tion. I was most willing to serve. I was told that I had a number
oi people to assist me and that I should collect technical data and
promote research and things like that. I said there was no need to
promote new, research There had already been enough research
m agricultural operations and that it did not appear to me to be
72
7XH JANUARY 1 9 5 3
the primary task. I said, “There are millions of people facing
starvation in various parts of the world—of course, I am giving
you the position as it was in 1945—and if you cannot rush imme
diate relief to those parts, two million people are going to die with
in the next two years. Set aside all your armies at the earliest
possible date. Let us now fight this battle of hunger. Let us pool
all the available food from countries which have excess of it, let us
estimate what are the immediate needs of food in India and in other
countries, let us take a full picture of this kind and see how we
shall be able to avert this catastrophe.” I was told, “You have no
power, that is not your job”. I said, “This Organization was creat
ed to abolish hunger; it was created to raise standards of living of
all these people. Let us get on with the job.” I said this to every
government, and then invited the governments to come to Wash
ington and say, “Here is a big problem facing us. Let us meet it co
operating with each other.” I hope we have been able to achieve
some good results. It was a remarkable thing in 1946. The spirit
of unity was still in the world. All the nations, all of them—and
specially the United States of America—agreed that they would
pool their resources; they appointed a committee, arranged for staff
and the money, and said they would send all the exportable food.
And that was done. This was one of the greatest demonstrations
of nations cooperating with each other.
I feel strongly that from time to time all the representatives of
various nations should gather together to discuss real practical
problems of the world for the benefit of mankind, to build a new
world from the bottom by abolishing hunger, by abolishing disease.
It would then have been the beginning of the building up of a new
world. Ladies and Gentlemen, I tell you there is no difference
between man and man, one country and another, one religion and
another religion. Only two things we can do. We go either on the
road to war and destruction or on the very long and difficult march
for creating a new clean age free from want and exploitation. Un
fortunately the great countries would not accept the challenge.
They said: “You are not a prophet, but neither are you a practical
man; your head is in the clouds. This cannot be done. First, let
us destroy Communism.” This seems to indicate that the small
nations stand for peace but the big powerful nations do not. They
are in the game of power politics, while many smaller nations are
looking for their help to abolish hunger and disease. If food, cloth
ing and shelter are restored to all the people in all corners of the
world, and if education is spread, I may tell you, Ladies and
Gentlemen, nine hundred and ninety-nine out of every thousand will
be against war. I am sorry I have spoken too long. I think
Dr. Bunche agrees a hundred per cent, with these observations73
Conflicts are brought about by politicians at the top and the real
mass of the people who ultimately have to face the consequences
are completely ignored.
Dr. Bunche:
If the huge amount of dollars that is spent in the world today
for armaments could be spent for the basic needs of humanity
throughout the world, it would be really helpful. One great
problem in the world today is the fear of war and as such all the
resources are being directed towards it.
This is all due to the fact that people believe in a just war.
As Lord Boyd Orr has suggested, it is the women who could help
in the prevention of war. They know their husbands who are
responsible for making all these wars. They must extract from
them little by little during their conversation with them the
promise that they would not kill the wounded or the refugees
when they are without weapons.
Dr. Bunche:
You are interpreting the family mind. Women’s views have
always been neglected in these matters and yet, ultimately they
suffer most
Lord Boyd Om
We will now adjourn till ten to-morrow morning.
34
The Seminar met at 10 A.M. on 8/ft January 1953 in Committee'
Room of Parliament House with Dr. Bunche in the Chair.
Dr. Bunche:
Ladies and Gentlemen, the first discussion today is to be led
by Madame Cecilia Meireles, the Brazilian Representative, and I
have great pleasure in calling her to present her statement*
Madame Cecilia Meireles:
Mr. Chairman and friends, on leaving Brazil I deliberately post
poned writing this paper avoiding thus to put any suggestion before
this Seminar without first getting acquainted with India and meet
ing the delegates from distant parts of the world, who came here
attracted by the personality of Gandhiji and hoping to contribute
to the equilibrium of the world through the realisation of his ideas
on peace.
I have observed attentively all the manifestations or expressions
of Indian life, be it in the streets, during conversation or through
the press, on the one hand, as well as the aims and hopes of those
who are here to take part in this Seminar, through the inaugural
speeches and the discussions during the meetings that have been
taking place.
As far as Indian life is concerned, I confess it seems as familiar
to me as if I had lived here always. As to the aims and hopes
expressed by my colleagues in the Seminar, I must say they interest
me both for their intrinsic value and in relation to the particular
point of view each delegate represents in so far as each delegate
present here is of different origin.
In my opinion, one of the important aspects of this Seminar is
to bring together a group of persons united by their interest for
Gandhi and their wish to work for a better world, who react how
ever according to their individual sensibility against the background
of their country of origin. The result is a different outlook in each
case, that is to say, an Asian outlook, a European outlook, an
American outlook and within the South American orbit, a Brazilian
outlook.
I must stress that even if India with its deep spiritual life and
particularly the work and sacrifice of Gandhi had not been always
so close and familiar to me, the fact that Brazil is my country
would enable me *o understand more fully the problems being dis
cussed here.
75
Because the Indian vocation of Brazil is a kind of “historical
fate” when one remembers that (according to ancient texts) the
discovery of Brazil was a mere accident on the route of the navi
gators bound for India. Through the Portuguese many points of
contact were established between the two peoples; the textiles of
India, the procelain of India, the stories from India have a vivid
place in our past and only recent influences have brought any
changes to our picture of it.
Besides this, Brazil is a young country the growth of which,
from a colony into an Empire and then into a Republic, came
about without great convulsions. Consolidated through its experi
ences in Catholicism, Free Masonry, Positivism and religious
tolerance, it brought about the blessed lack of racial discrimination
with the abolition of slavery.
The country I belong to, and which seems from here to be at
the other end of the earth, is a unique country and its hospitality is
universally known. At the same time, it has been very rich, a
great field of labour, a place of hope for all those who for different
reasons have had to abandon their native soil. Historically
European and geographically American, Brazil has been a meeting
point of all races and encountered their love and protection.
Italians, Japanese, Syrians, Poles, Germans and Israelis came to it
in large numbers over a long period. Because of ihe happenings of
the last war Brazil became a port of refuge for many.
Without any intention of criticism, only for the sake of truth
and from a personal standpoint, I dare to say that many of the
difficulties of Brazil at present arise on the one hand from the
diversity of the primitive population of Whites, Negroes and Red
Indians who are not completely amalgamated, as well as from the
problems caused by this complex coming together of different
cultures and from the vastness of its territory and the repercussion
of international problems of utmost importance in the process of
its national integration. This great complexity, however, enables
us all the more to “share” the Indian problems: the variety of popu
lations, the multiplicity of languages, the religious diversity and the
contrast between its millenial existence and its recent Independence.
I allowed myself to introduce you rapidly to Brazil in order to
explain to you its position in the world and the projection that
Gandhi’s ideas can have there.
The vastness of the land, the ethnic variety and the religious
diversity are some of the many points we share with India. There
are also some similarities of human physiognomy and landscape
to be added. In the distant nooks, away from the impact of ambi
tion and cosmopolitan vanity, the same sweetness, the same feelings
of human respect that T encountered among my Indian friends
76
8TH JANUARY 1 9 5 3
(luckily quite numerous today) is to be found.
However, this land 1 depict to you almost like a paradise, a land
of persons full of sensibility and receptiveness even to the news
from a distant press or a radio station, is a land undergoing a crisis
of growth, and as such it has all the virtues and defects of exuberant
adolescence.
Because of my double activity in the fields of Education and
Letters, I have been able to watch closely many details of this
crisis; one of them is the growing materialism due to the interna
tional stress on excessive well-being, a most important detail
because it hinders the individual in the choice of his profession and
in his work, the chief aim in his life being a rapidly acquired
fortune or situation leading to power.
Unfortunately this change of attitude in the formation of Brazi
lian youth is the result of world events and directly related to the
two wars that have afflicted our country. It is furthermore the
same attitude I was able to observe in various countries of Europe.
The greatest disaster of war is not the death toll on the battle
field but the moral damage left in heritage to the survivors. The
belief in moral values, in the respect amongst individuals and in
the fundamental truths of religion is being lost. That is why after
every war the world is faced anew by chaos. And if Brazil, being
so far, is affected by these deplorable consequences, one can well
imagine the pitiful conditions in other countries which were in
volved in the conflicts. We watch with bitterness the demoralisa
tion of the purest expressions of life. The children and young
people everywhere receive this sad heirloom with mute despair, for
they cannot find one noble reason which can truly justify man’s
fate. And man cannot live without a noble ideal.
The contact I have had with the youth of different countries
beginning with my own has shown me that young people are the
first to suffer from their lack of orientation and many of them have
the sincere desire to find a solution for their despair. All the
artistic manifestations, almost without exception, constitute an
appeal, a protest or an evasion against and from a seemingly
intolerable world.
I believe that the division of this Seminar into two groups; (1)
Gandhian outlook and techniques and their application to Inter
national Relations, and (2) Gandhian outlook and techniques in
their application to Internal Tensions could be interpreted as a
division into two kinds of problems: (a) International Politics and
(b) Education in the smaller national orbits.
This would correspond to the treatment of the same problem
at two levels: a level of urgency to attend to the immediate
anguish of the world and the level of application, both slow and
77
constant, capable of promoting the construction of a better world
by means of the training of childhood and youth.
As to the political aspect of the problem, in the field of Interna
tional Relations, the opinions of my illustrious colleagues in this
Seminar are of far greater weight than mine.
In the educational orbit, I would like to bring forward some
considerations hoping that through this Seminar they shall reach a
practical form for their useful application.
I have been able to note that great progress was achieved
lately in education from primary to university level in the metho
dological field. The same cannot be said about its content. A
great effort has been made to know how to teach. I do not think,
however, this matters too much. In my opinion how one teaches
is not as important as what is being taught. The trouble is not
about How but about What.
In respect to the What, school programmes are being lengthened
every day, for the treasures of human knowledge increase every
moment. The disparity between the length of the programmes and
the amount of time favours the development of a scanty instruc
tion, unreal and somehow useless. The problem of moral mould
ing (which is the true problem of Education) is put aside, some
times left to the possibilities of religious institutions of every creed.
The help of the family in this task has become almost impossible
with the emergence of the working woman.
From a strictly personal viewpoint again, I wish to point out
that religious action is not the solution; we should bear in mind
the facts of the materialistic moment in which we are living and
the numerous contradictions among the various creeds- also the
gap that exists between theoretical teaching and practical decision.
The importance of meditation towards the formation of the
individuals is a point which has already been made in this Seminar,
but it is hard to meditate in a world violently shaken by traffic
congestion, a press prolific in sensation and the deluge of frantic
suggestions that are showered upon us by the cinema, the radio and
the television.
Amidst this everyday chaos there still hovers the threat of the
atomic weapons. Humanity is being driven into a frenzy and those
who have not yet lost control over the situation should endeavour
to help her in her present distress.
Between the first and second World Wars, the personality of
Gandhi revealed itself in the East as a unique hope. Those who
were fortunate enough to get acquainted with his work, even
from afar, felt in it the presence of genius such as appears centuries
apart and whose mission it was to save Creation in the name of the
Creator, on the level of the human and also on the transcendental.
78
The authenticity of Gandhi as a necessary existence for the equili
brium of the world seems beyond discussion, if we point out the
interest his life aroused not only around it in the Indian milieu but
also abroad among the highest minds of our times. The whole
world watched his experiments at the individual level as well as at
the collective one. TTie whole world watched in awe and admira
tion his independence campaign. The whole world suffered the
loss of his death. Gandhi did not belong to his country only but
to all the countries. He was a teacher, a friend of humanity, who
discovered that God is Truth and Truth is God, and wanted to share
with all men the benefits of his insight.
It has been said during this Seminar that Gandhi’s outlook is
something mysterious and subtle, inexplicable, and therefore,
perhaps impossible to be applied to everyday life. This difficulty
can be removed if we consider his participation idea—his identifi
cation with the untouchables, with the different castes and religions.
His was a work of love. Many men, many countries, many institu
tions have rendered great service unto humanity, relieving its
necessity of food, money or other material good. Humanity is
grateful but forgets soon. Love alone is unforgettable. Because,
love does not depend upon material tokens but demands selfsurrender. It is a gift of the soul unto the soul, a truth transmitted
instantly, and which, in its modesty, is far more prodigious in its
power than wealth or other apparent advantages.
This participation of Gandhi—which recognised no frontiers,
penetrated all countries and moved distant hearts, triumphing
over language, racial and religious barriers—is the best proof that
this world is one, that there is but one human family and that
there is but one feeling of the unity of life, which goes from the
human level to that of the beasts.
In the present world situation, it seems that education is the
field where Gandhi’s outlook will have its best application. I do
not believe that a Gandhian world can be created out of nowhere,
nor does it seem immediately necessary. But I do believe that the
evil in the world could be lessened progressively through the utili
sation of a certain number of ideas, moderate in their application,
but efficient in their results. These are the ideas which I present
to this Seminar as propositions or suggestions to be studied by my
illustrious colleagues who will be able to apply them conveniently
through adequate channels like the Unesco.
Proposals.— 1 . To divulge the life, history and work of Gandhi,
presenting him as a Hero of Peace and a builder of the Modem
World, through his experience of Truth. Besides all the national
heroes, there have always been international heroes. Gandhi is the
last one in the line and perhaps the greatest.
79
2. To illustrate through Gandhi’s work and life history the
unity of life and unity of the world.
3. In the same spirit, to study the present efforts of humanity,
be it in the East or the West, considering its problems as an objec
tive topic, without any political or religious prejudices, strictly as a
human topic.
4. Taking into account the necessity of a general knowledge
of the world, to encourage, especially at the university level, the
teaching of oriental languages, eastern philosophy and comparative
religions, so as to acquaint the West with oriental thought by means
of its millenial conceptions.
5. To remind everyone of Gandhi’s sayings about industries
and more generally about the exaggerated use of the machine in
everyday life. The machine is good when it helps man, evil when
it takes his place.
6. In relation with his thought, in order to dignify human
labour, to encourage handicraft in every sector, in schools, pro
vinces, etc., stimulating artistic creation as a vital discipline,
favourable to the harmonious development of man, both physically
and spiritually.
7. To suggest for all levels of education, the cult of truth and
dignity of life, embodied in human beings or in animals and to
proceed to a revision of school texts about wars past and present.
8. To insist upon the strength of spiritual values in the solution
of any conflict, to oppose the generalised notion of Right or the
stern notion of Duty, to set the notions of Love, Self-sacrifice and
Co-operation, above and against the immediate and egotistic
notions of happiness, in the individuals as in the national and
international spheres.
I beg your pardon for my pronunciation.
Dr. Bunche:
Thank you very much, Madame. We do very well appreciate
this thoughtful paper and the useful suggestions which it sets forth.
I am sure it provides a basis for constructive discussion for the
purpose of our meeting here. The meeting is open for discussion
and any comments.
Dr. Matine Daftary:
I want to comment about this Gandhian doctrine for industries.
As regards our country, and other undeveloped countries, how can
we avoid industrialisation? How can we apply these principles?
We want to develop our country and development of the country
necessitates machinery, mechanisation of agriculture, etc., etc.
How can we apply the Gandhian doctrine and, at the same time
80
have the development of undeveloped countries?
Dr. Bunche:.
*
Would you care to answer, Madame?
Madame Meireles: (Replied in French).
Professor Tucci (Translating Madame):
You can speak English better. I do not, therefore, see any
necessity for my interpretation. Anyhow I am going to explain
what you said in French. Madame said that the ideas of Gandhi
as regards machinery are these, that no man should be a servant of
any sort to a machine. Machines are useful in life, but they do
not mean everything for man. Therefore, man should not depend
on machine but should rather control machines.
The introduction of machines has done a lot of harm to the
village and local industries. Your countrymen were doing em
broideries and things of that kind. All these local industries,
handicrafts, have greatly suffered by the introduction of machines.
When things are produced by machines, the people find them ready
and cheap in the market. Therefore, they would prefer to buy
in the market these machine-made things.
I think the lessening of the artistic taste because of the
machine-made things—stereotyped things—is very dangerous for
the education of the people. I think we must keep some handi
crafts. Handicrafts are important, because you can express your
spirit through handicrafts. It is a pity that machines are tending to
replace handicrafts. Because of the conveyor belt and standardiz
ed things, artistic taste is gradually lessening. The workman
must find his personality in the things he is making by his own
hands. He is crushed spiritually if he is unable to express his per
sonality because of the conveyor belt.
Madame Meireles:
Personal manual work is essential. That was exactly also
Gandhi’s ideal. If a particular work is of the stereotyped kind,
you are not fond of it. It is not a work of love. Only if the
whole thing is executed by you, will it be a work of love.
Dr. Daftary:
I agree completely with Mrs. Meireles about handicraft. As
regards my own country, Iran, we have many impressive handi
crafts. Everybody knows our wonderful carpets, which are pro
ducts of a handicraft.
*K
94 M. of Edu.
GANDHIAN OUTLOOK AND TECHNIQUBS
But as regards agriculture, as regards factories, we cannot, I
am afraid, accept the position. I do not know what exactly
Gandhiji’s doctrine is. I think he wanted decentralisation of in
dustries. We have got to make a distinction between industries
which are capable of being worked by individual artisans and
those which require machines. Individual handicrafts must be
maintained. But what about industries which require machines,
like agriculture?
Madame Meireles:
There are two aspects: the international aspect and the
national aspect. I insist that from the national point of view the
handicrafts should be maintained. The problem of the big in
dustries is a different matter. They present the international aspect.
Dr. Bunche:.
I do feel that a word of caution is necessary with regard to this
subject, because it tends sometimes to lose track of the peculiar
milieu in which Gandhi was working. That was the milieu of
people who were suppressed and oppressed, who were to be liberat
ed, who were seeking liberation from imperialist rule. This
inevitably seems to me to cover the techniques, the philosophies,
the innovations, which Gandhi as the leader would follow. We
have to think of this when we consider Gandhi’s view of machines.
I would be obliged if Acharya Kripalani would comment on this:
Whether Gandhiji’s attitude towards machines might riot be inter
preted more in the nature of an attack, using of a psychological
weapon in the situation, than as a fundamental, specific premise
or as a basic economic doctrine? In the situation which faced
them, surely the machine symbolised for the Indian people the
foreign domination,—just as the use of foreign goods, which
Gandhi went so far as to advocate the destruction of for
symbolic reasons, did. His task was to rally the people and to
instil in them self-confidence, to build in them a sense of selfreliance and self-sufficiency, and this would seem, to me, to have
influenced very much his position towards the machine. It need
not have application, for example, to Brazil, to the United States
or Iran in an entirely different situation. Or, it might not have been
the position that Gandhi would have taken in an independent
India.
Acharya Kripalani:
It is a fact, as our Vice-Chairman has said, that Gandhi was
working in connection with local circumstances as they existed in
India, But he worked in such a way that his ideas, though they
8TH JANUARY 1 9 5 3
appeared looal, could be universalised. This question is one which
has very greatly confused the modern m ind It is not the case out
side India only, but in India itself. Some people who did not know
Gandhiji thought that he was against science. I have in fact never
seen a man more scientific in spirit than Gandhiji, and he called his
autobiography as Experiments with Truth. He was all the time,
throughout his life, experimenting with himself, with food, with
agriculture, with almost everything, and he did it in the most
scientific way possible. He was not against science. By his advo
cating decentralised industry, he was not against machines. You
may be surprised to know that he was not against machinery. He
did want to lessen the human drudgery in the world. He himself
tried to minimise the labour that is spent on food, on scavenging,
on so many other physical tasks.
I am afraid we are still thinking in terms of the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries. Historically, how did mass production take
place? It took place by means of the energy that was avail
able to humanity. The energy then available to humanity
was steam. If you want to work with steam, you naturally want
mass production, and then you must have factories. That is very
plain. Because steam cannot be distributed over long distances.
Steam cannot be divided into small parts.
So far as the educative and the artistic value of handicrafts is
concerned, I think in this learned assembly there can be no ques
tion about it. My friend from Iran also raised that question. That
question has been raised in India several times; that question has
been raised almost everywhere in the East. How are we to increase
our production without bringing in the centralization that has
characterized the industrial revolution in the Western countries?
Industrial revolution took place in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, in the age of steel. In India we have to view this indus
trialization from a different angle, because India consists mainly of
village life. We have to try to make the lot of the villager better
in his own home. Not only in India, we have in all the Eastern
countries the question of vast populations. If we want to use
machinery which has been used in Western factories—every
machine is there to save human labour and to enrich human life—
we will have to kill at least three-fourths of our populations. We
vcannot do i t
We must adopt means by which all the human resources that
are available are employed first and foremost. At the same time,
we cannot afford to neglect the good that is done to millions by
industrialization; but what type df industrialization should it be is
then the question. It should not be the monopoly of a few indi
viduals Which will ’lead to dangerous consequences. First of alL
83
industry was built upon free enterprise. What is the meaning o t
free enterprise? You will excuse me if I am taking the time o f
the house, but I consider this a very important question. I there*
fore want to deal with it at length, how this industrial revolution'
developed. First of all there was the indiscriminate employment
of human material to keep the factories going. Even children and
women were made to work fourteen to sixteen hours a day—no
holidays, no amenities. It was a whole tale of misery. I do not
say that there were not certain advantages, but I believe all those
advantages accrued to a negligible minority. This industrial revolu
tion had its worst repercussions on the colonial countries. As indus
tries went on developing, huge stocks of manufactured goods accummulated in the factories. They were much beyond the require
ments of home markets. Factories had to close down throwing'
many to unemployment and that naturally led to terrible unrest.
Unless markets were found for the goods produced by the factories-'
there appeared to be no solution to the problem. Then the compe
tition for capturing foreign markets and exploitation of others for
stabilizing one’s own industries started. This process ultimately
tended to make industries dependent on periodical wars. A situa
tion arose when if there was no war, there was always unemploy
ment. So for maintaining the race in industrial development, one
had to make wars which solved the question of economising man
power resources. But I say one cannot economize men by using
this destructive method of war; we have to find employment for
them.
Therefore Gandhiji’s proposition is this: Let us not stick to
the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries’ steel age. We are in the
electric age. Let science produce such machines which people can
use in their, own homes. Let there be enough production in each
and every village, production of those articles which are commonly
needed by our people. This undoubtedly creates self-reliance. It
can often be like this. The articles so produced may be a little less
attractive, a little less artistic, but a self-made article enriches the
outlook of a man which is so very important. If we proceed
further, we know that a 1 big machine is not the product of one
individual’s effort. So many brains and so many hands must
have worked on it before it emerges as a huge machine. Take,
for instance, a motor. Every part of the motor is standardised.
Every part of a locomotive is standardised. Every part and every
article used in big machinery is standardised. I think these
standardised parts of at least small machines can be produced by
villagers at village level. A villager, if he is given the knowledgeof producing such small things can; while he remains essentially
an agriculturist, combine hiy activities. In India as it is situated^
84
8TH JANUARY 1 9 5 3
today, there are periods of depression in agriculture, on account of
untimely rains, on account of other natural calamities, such as
.floods, etc. Similarly there are no doubt periods of depression in
industry too. But he can fall back on agriculture when there is
■depression in industry and vice versa. Gandhiji did not want
science to be the master of man but man to be the master of
science. Science should be used for humanitarian purposes only.
I must also say here that this craze for goods does not add
to a good life, a good life in the sense of submitting to certain
limitations of our physical needs. Beyond that limit, physical
needs are a burden upon man. They enslave man. But how did
Gandhiji want industries to develop? He wanted them to be
decentralized. He said, by means of decentralization, you multiply
goods in such a manner that it is possible that goods that are
.essential, that are necessary, may be made available to every
individual, ft is not for me to draw out the life you should live. He
loved good life with the minimum of wants. All people should
have enough food to eat and enough of clothing, housing, medi
cal attention and education. On education Gandhiji said, nobody
should have less than seven years of education.
And then for the good life, it is not essential for me to possess
artistic goods. Why should I possess artistic goods, when
thousands are not possessing even ordinary requirements? Again,
there may be many things in common use. Their possession by
the individual is not quite necessary. For instance, the radio. Is it
necessary that every house, and then every room in a house should
possess one radio set? Every radio set creates its own noise and
you will find you have no place where you can sit calmly; you
cannot contemplate, you cannot sleep. One radio set can very
well serve the essential purpose of so many people. But it is
essential to imbibe the attitude of willingly sharing what you have
with others who have not.
Dr. Bunche:
But what about the political differences etc.?
Acharya Kripalani:
This is a subject fundamental to Gandhiji’s thought. I may
not have been able to put my ideas clearly and there may be some
flaw in my interpretations. I do not however wish to take more
of the valuable time of the Seminar.
Dr. Bunche:
What industries did Gandhiji want to work in a decentralized
way?
Acharya Kripalani
Everything can be decentralized.
Can it not be ? 1
Professor Kabin
What about the production of power?
Acharya Kripalani:
Supposing you want to produce electricity, that will have to*
be centralized. Gandhiji said all group activity must be centraliz-1
ed. This must be allowed by the community. I must make a
distinction between things belonging to the community and those
belonging to the State. State is not a community. As it has always
happened, governments are not the people. Whatever type of
governments they may be, I say they are not people.
That is
why I say they must be controlled by people themselves. So in
dustries should be socialized and not nationalized, socialized in the
sense as you have in Great Britain. If they are socialized, people
will control them by a charter.
Dr. Bunche:
It is not a matter of machinery.
Acharya Kripalani:
Gandhiji’s ideas can be fitted into any advanced economy.
Gandhiji did not object to the use of electric power whether it is
meant for running your fans or for working big machines. But
he wanted the production and distribution of the power by people
themselves. That was not done. I want to know if there is any
flaw in what Gandhiji said. There are many in our own country
also who say that Gandhiji did not want machines. Gandhiji
wanted the human being to live with full freedom in a compact
whole. As I said, he did work under local conditions but what
he did can be applied universally. Gandhiji wrote many articles
on this subject in his paper Harijan and today his stand is as true as
when it was written.
Dr. Bonche:.
Thank you very much Professor Kripalani Will you pass on
the microphone. I hope there is no philosophy or any abuse of
machine in the use of the microphone!
Acharya Kripalani:
Gandhiji himself used i t
Dr. Bonche:
I want now to call on Mr. Pyarelal.
ii/i
8 lH JANUARY 1 9 5 3
Mr. Pyarelal:
You were going to call on Dr. Haekal to begin.
Dr. Bunche:
You want to speak?
Mr. Pyarelal:
No. Let Dr. Haekal speak.
Madame Meireles:
May I add something to what I have said?
(She spoke in French and the following is the translation.)
Professor Tucci:
Madame says that she is very much interested in the folklore of
her own country. She realised that folklore is the best approach
to find out the unity of people. To understand other countries and
other people, one will have to understand one’s own countrymen
thoroughly. When machines are introduced, they are so abstract
that they kill all idea of concrete self-experience in peoples’ minds,
because they have no more to bother about producing their daily
needs with their own hands. You can employ machinery in so far
as it does not kill the creative urges in man.
Mr. Pyarelal:
To me the question of the machines has got very much to do
with the pattern of society that we want to evolve because the
pattern of society will largely depend upon the method of pro*
duction that society adopts.
So there are two aspects of the
question. One is production of commodities; the other relates to
the sociological reactions of the mode of production. Tension is
growing in the world because power is getting more and more
concentrated in the hands of individuals, groups and nations. It
is wielded sometimes by dictators, and sometimes by oligarchies
of capitalists, experts and sometimes bureaucrats—as in Russia.
The mass of the people feel helpless under the compulsions which
machines create. They lose their power of decision and as a
matter of fact decisions are forced upon them by the necessities
of the environment over which they have very little control, and so
it comes about that people love peace but vote for war. Another
thing that we find is that as society becomes more and more
complex, its vulnerability increases and with that the power of the
individual to do evil. For instance, a single person bv pumping
air into the gas main of a modern city and applying a lighted
M
match can blow up the whole city. But the inculcation of virtue
has net become easier with the advance of technology and so good
continues to travel at a snail’s pace. The adoption of decentralized
economy and a less complex pattern of social organisation is
thus closely related to the question of peace and non-violence and
has a universal application in the present-day world irrespective of
the special conditions under which Gandhiji recommended it
during our non-violent freedom struggle.
Dr. Bunche:
I concede that machines have enhanced man’s powers of des
truction, but have they not also added to his constructive ability?
Can there be plenty for all without the use of machines?
Mr. Pyarelal:
The fact is that machines have a potential for doing tremendous
good also but we have not been able to tame human nature.
Therefore, what I am saying is that once the power of initiative is
restored to the masses they can act independently for what is good
for them. If a person is dependent even for his basic needs upon
the sweet will of a small oligarchy, then he cannot act freely. So
we have to strike a margin somewhere. I am worrying where the
line is to be put. For the time being I would point out that largescale industrialisation has taken away from the large mass of
people the power of decision and that is the question which needs
attention. What Gandhiji proposed was that so far as the basic
needs of people are concerned, as far as possible we should make
them self-sufficient and that particularly with regard to the pro
ducts that grow on the farm. Instead of sending away the
products of the farm to distant places to be fabricated and then
distributed, he said that those products should be fabricated on the
spot, enabling the manual labourer to work on them. That is
also why he insisted on basic education and said that every boy
and girl must learn by manual work.
He however recognised that everything cannot be produced
on the basis of cottage industry. He was clear about it and did
not say that we should build diesel engines in our homes. It is
not possible to do that. If things could not be done individually,
he said let people take them on a regional basis. He recommend
ed the same thing for food. So far as factories are concerned,
they should be adhered to. Gandhiji further said that you cannot
have steel industry in every home; you have got to do it centrally.
As Acharya Kripalani has pointed out, let that be socialised and
not nationalised83
8TH JANUARY 1 9 5 3
Dr. Haekal:
I do believe that as far as I have read Gandhiji’s writings, he
was not against the machinery itself so long as it is for man’s good.
I think we have met here not merely to find a national solution
Tnrt an international one for the benefit of the under-developed
nations. It is most important that all over the world—even in the
"least developed of the countries—there is a movement to have
their own self-sufficing industries. So we must think of economy
on an international basis. I quite agree with Mr. Pyarelal on
the educative side that a boy or girl should know how to use bis
or her hands. Thus the idea of Gandhiji about primary and
secondary education is absolutely correct, but as far as the econo
my of a nation is concerned, I think we cannot go back on scientific
discoveries and we cannot neglect what is going on. The point
now is, as our distinguished Chairman said, we have to find out
how to utilise these discoveries for the benefit of mankind as a
whole. As our friend Mr. Pyarelal said, the big industries are like
ly to be controlled by a few persons and therein lies the serious
evil. If we can find out means of socialising industries in order
that they should serve every nation and all nations together, I do
believe that that would do the greatest good to humanity. Dr.
Bunche was saying yesterday how the food problem is being tackl
ed by the cooperation of all nations in the world in order that
humanity as a whole will profit. I think this is the most important
question with which we have to deal. How can we ensure that the
industrial machinery and all scientific discoveries will be of the
greatest help, to man? That is why I think that, without neglecting
the national genius of all countries, we must treat the question
of industrial economy on an international basis. If we do that, I
think very many of the tensions between the countries will dis
appear.
Dr. Zakir Husain:
I wish to make a few observations at this stage. My feeling
is that Gandhiji was never absolute about what techniques should
be accepted. Technique, he said, was a relative thing. It was re
lative to the objective that you want to achieve. His advocacy of
the spinning wheel has been interpreted as his loyalty to the primi
tive methods of production. I do not think it was the case. If you
put the question to any economist and ask him to examine it in
the light of the existing situation, I do not believe any rational
economist could have given any other reply.
Given an economy like the Indian economy, a rural economy in
'Which almost seventy-five per cent, of the holdings are uneconomic
89
and cannot gainfully employ the family, and only twenty-fiveper cent, of them can give subsistence to the peasant family work
ing on it where, due to the dependence on the monsoon, agriculturalwork cannot be carried on .all the year round and is subject to long
unavoidable breaks which must be productively spent to supplement
the peasant’s meagre income, but which are almost totally lost:
because he has not the resources to put this unemployed time to
productive use; where an occupation has to be found for him that
can be taken in hand and left standing as the contingencies of the
weather situation demand, an occupation that must supply some
thing of universal use, an occupation that would not require any
considerable investment for equipment—given this problem, any
rational technician would have come to the same conclusion as
Gandhiji did. The spinning wheel was not the obsession of a pri
mitive, it was the answer of a rational practical man, who refused:
to be deluded or frightened by words, to one of the most urgent
problems of Indian economy.
Now because Gandhiji advocated the use of the spinning wheel,
it has come to be generally supposed that he was not for improve
ments in the traditional methods of production. Actually, hedevoted a lot of energy and application to the improvement of the
spinning wheel itself, because he wanted to increase its efficiency
as a productive tool. But I feel he was conscious all along of the
essential difference between a tool and a machine. The tool is a
device that helps the worker, the machine is a device that replacesthe. worker.
Dr. Bunche:
What did you say?
Dr. Zakir Husain:
I was saying that the tool served the worker and the
machine was served by the worker. The machine does
not serve you. It is you who stand in attendance on the machine
which does all the work. That brings us to the broad, essential
educational difference between production with tools and produc
tion by machines. In handicrafts the worker stands with his whole
personality behind his product, that produces the pride of the artist
and the artisan in his work. Ever since the machine came, there
is hardly anything that anyone has produced. No product is en
tirely yours; you share in making many things but you are not fully
responsible for anything. Who in the textile industry can say that
he has produced this one yard of cloth? Who in a shoe factory can
say he has produced that pair of shoes? It is a long process in
which a number of people cooperate, the product is a cooperative
90
8 tH JANUARY 1 9 5 3
product and comes into being without anyone having the feeling:
that he has produced it. This has its advantages* the advantages of
social cooperation. But it has its serious disadvantages too, the
disadvantages of narrowing down a person’s grasp of reality by
preventing him from feeling the glow cf having done any meaning
ful job by himself. I think Gandhiji was averse to the machine re
placing the tool. He was afraid of it on account of the social impli
cations of the use of machines in our order of. society, the concentra
tion of capital, the concentration of economic power, the aristocratic
organisation of economic life in which the initiative remained with;
fewer and fewer people and the many had to work and toil at their
behest. In the economy of handwork the organisation of work is
democratic, the initiative and the means of production are processed
by most of the producers. He was afraid of the introduction of
machinery also and perhaps principally on account of its educa
tional and psychological implications—the rearing of partial men,,
with divided responsibility and deprived of the joy of significant:
meaningful work.
Dr. Bunche:
I want to ask you if machinery at that time was considered as
symbolical of alien influence?
Dr. Zakir Husain:
Yes, to some extent, but I do not think that that was anything
like an overriding consideration with Gandhiji.
Gandhiji was
conscious of the dangers, economic and psychological, of machine
production in our social milieu. The dislocation it had caused in
our rural economy was before him. Gandhiji was a practical man,
he was not interested in methods of production as such, but in
the happiness of the common man and he wanted to organise
production with a view to the welfare of the people. It was, it
seems to me, not this ‘primitive’ method or that ‘advanced*
method as such in which he was interested. He was keenly alive
to the defects in machine production—to its social implications
and its individual educational drawbacks. He was, therefore, for
democratising and decentralising production; where the worker is
closely associated with the instruments of production, where he is
responsible for producing something as a whole significant unit,
in which he stands behind his work, in which the initiative of pro
duction and its direction is not confined to the few, but is distribut
ed among the many, where power—economic and with it politi
cal—does not get concentrated in the hands of an all-powerful'
group, but is democratically shared.
He was against over
centralisation in production, be it iii the capitalistic factory’ or in'
91
a communistic unit of production. The agglomeration of enor
mous masses of humanity on certain nodal points, the total
mechanisation of work and its entire depersonalisation were aspect*
of modern technique—capitalistic or communistic—that Gandhiji
did not favour. He considered this to be a process of dehumani
sation and contrary to the ideal of economic activity for general
human welfare. He thought he should come out with his warn
ing in an economy that was impatient to raise the standards of
living and to raise them quick. The people in the under-developed
countries today are naturally anxious to develop them.
They
feel that by the use of machinery alone they can develop the
countries quickly. Gandhiji did not subscribe to that view. He
thought the under-developed had an opportunity of learning from
the experience of the countries with centralised capitalistic or
communistic production. He was anxious that this opportunity
should be used to organise economic life for the happiness of the
people and not with a view to abundance of material goods alone.
Dr. Bunche:
Thank you very much, Dr. Zakir Husain. I am now calling
upon our Chairman Lord Boyd Orr, with his ideas, great wisdom
and rich experience, to let us have any pertinent comments he
might have to offer on the subject.
Lord Boyd Orr:
The previous speakers have referred to some of the most im
portant aspects of Gandhian principles, the very foundation of
what he was trying to teach. The question is so very important
that I do not know if we will be able to exhaust it today. I think
it will have to come in for further discussion. Now, what has
happened is that during the last hundred or hundred and fifty
years we have built up a terrific power of production, we have
built up enormous machinery. The problems of the world today
are due partially to the big machinery. Now, my friend from Iran,
in which country I am interested, wants to take advantage of
machinery for developing his country. It is a country where the
people are poor. It is a country with great potential wealth. With
modern industry and big machinery you will make it into a rich
country in a short time. You will have irrigation, water power,
electricity in every house etc. If you have machinery for that
purpose, then the machinery is a blessing. At the present time
one of the greatest uses for the machinery is to execute irrigation
schemes and other methods to increase food production, to supply
sufficient food for the people in the world. Machinery used for
that purpose cannot do any harm.
92
The other thing that machinery does is to increase leisure: J
find rich ladies in my own country engaged in embroidery, though
they do not need to do it. But if you have people working in the
country for long, long hours, and doing embroidery only to make
a few annas daily, doing sweated labour, then I am not in favour
of that. If machine means lessening labour and increasing leisure,
then machine is a blessing.
Now let us consider India. Gandhi is quite right for India,
because India lives essentially in villages, and village life is a life
of work. There is the greatest amount of freedom there. If you
could provide a higher standard of living in the villages, you coyld
reach higher cultural levels for the common people in the village.
If India is industrialised, if she is made a Manchester, a Pittsburgh
or a Detroit, then a few, relatively small number of people, who
can produce will get work and concentrate in great cities, causing
vast unemployment, poverty and low standard of living. If India is
industrialised like that she cannot maintain her village community.
One of the great dangers of the machinery is that once you get
it going you cannot stop it. I must say that this is one of the
grave dangers of machines. You can start enormous production,
maybe of atom bombs and various other things like that. And when
once it starts producing war materials, it is difficult to stop it. It’
may thus be a blessing or a curse. If the nations are going to
use the machines science has placed in the hands of man for war*
then they will carry death and destruction to mankind. On the
other hand, if you can use machines wisely and produce the
necessities of life, to give leisure to people, to get people educated,
to maintain a better village life—and there are so many thousands
of villages—then machines can confer very great blessings. It is
an international problem.
One of the great things about the U.N., (turning to Dr. Ralph
Bunche) of which you are a distinguished servant, is that the U.N.
and its organisations like the F.A.O. are using machines for
irrigation, for improving the production of foodstuffs and to
serve social and economic ends. The big machines should be
used to serve social ends. There are all' these big organisations
and they should consider more about how the big machines could
be used for the promotion of the welfare of all'the people in the
tvorld, to solve the big political problems and avoid war. What
we are going to do, what the human family is going to do with
big machines is the fundamental problem.
Gandhiji has been very badly misrepresented' in the West. It'
is not right to say that he was against the-use-of machines, that he
advocated going back to the jungle. This is a complete negation
of what Gandhiji had in mind.
93
.Madame Meireles:
I have made clear in my statement that I distinguish between
the international side of industry and the national side. Big
machines are important from the international aspect. I did not
say that Gandhi’s ideas were against machines. In my country it
is essential that the handicrafts should be encouraged. If machines
are introduced, they will depress village industries. The poor
villagers will have no work. They must have at least embroidery
work, pottery work and so on. That is the only work in which
they can really achieve something.
Otherwise there would be
nothing else to employ their talents on. Therefore, these aspects
should be completely distinguished—the international aspect and
the national aspect.
.Dr. Bunche:
Are not the two closely related? Are we to assume that the
poor masses must always be with us? Is it not possible, as
Lord Boyd Orr said, for the international forces, the international
organisations to harness machines to eliminate poverty, hunger,
etc., so that there will not be great sections of people who must be
subject eternally to this sort of life? This is the problem as I
see it. The problem is to give some work to the people, work
which would be in consonance with the traditions and capabilities
o f the people.
Professor Tucci;
According to me, the point which has emerged from the
discussions and the interesting remarks of Lord Boyd Orr is that
machines are instruments or tools. Therefore, I ask myself, if
after all, the problem with which we are concerned is not an
ethical one. Who is going to employ these machines, these instru
ments? They are employed by groups, and these groups are
composed of men. Therefore it is an ethical problem. The most
important thing is that we have forgotten that machines are in
struments in the hands of men. If the problem is looked at from
this fundamental point of view, it is an ethical problem.
.Professor Massignon:
One of the fine things the only woman member here has made
us aware of is that humanity is not only men, but men and women*
and that women should not be asked to do work of a kind which
would not appeal to them. The kind of work or labour which
they are asked to do should be such as they would do of their
own free will. In socialising labour, we are socialising women.
Are the women to be socialised? When we put women in fao-
94
JANUARY
1953
tories, they are lost. Their families are wrecked. It is impossi
ble to have a true family life with women in factories.
The
workers do not want their wives to work in factories. They
refuse that their women should be put into factories, because they
are immediately spoiled, irremediably spoiled. If you put the
women in factories, you are spoiling the world. The theory of
production and yet more production has been denounced by
Ruskin and other wise men.
I have seen a very important problem in France. The work
men work. The Priests of the workmen are trying to maintain
some morals among the workmen. They are pledged. In France
the Priests are not allowed to have wives. They are practising per
petual Brahmacharya, Now however they are getting married,
some of them are even having temporary wives. All this lowering
of morals is, I think, due to women leaving their homes and
going to factories to work. The problem has become so acute
that a girl known to me working in a factory had to ask her
brother to go to the factory every evening to bring her home from
the factory. Otherwise she would be taken by somebody else.
I think it is time that there is a protest in the Chinese sense.
When women in China protest, it is respected. Productive labour
is a fine ideal, but men should not use women for producing more
by putting them into factories. It is the temptation of power that
wants women to be put into factories, but the women would be
totally sacrificed in that way.
D r. Bunche:
I am quite sure -there is no one sitting round this table who
would not give full rights to women and complete equality.
.Professor Massignon:
I am not asking for complete equality.
•equality.
I ask for discriminatory
Dr* Bunche:
Now, that has broadened the issue beyond what was raised
by Madame Meireles.
D r. Daftary:
I myself had the honour of raising this question, this funda
mental question. We have no doubt about the good intentions
of Madame Meireles. We are all thankful to her. She offered
us the opportunity for discussing this fundamental question. This
question had to be discussed once, as you know. I agree com
pletely with the explanation of Lord Boyd Orr and the definition
95
GANDHIAN OUTLOOK AND
TECHNIQUES
he gave where a machine can be a blessing to the world ancT
where it can be an evil to mankind. I want to know if the
distinguished interpreters of Gandhiji will agree with this view. I f
they keep quiet I take it that they agree. If they do not agree I
would like to hear their comments.
Dr. Bunche:
Shall we take five minutes adjournment before we take up the
next paper?
(After interval)
Professor Tucci:
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, I do not intend to talk
for a long time, as I have already written down my opinions and
my suggestions about the problems we are at present engaged in.
I have divided my statements into four parts. In the first part,
I have dealt with my approach to the problems facing us; in the
second part, I have expressed my personal views on the crisis
through which we are passing now; in the third part, I have tried
to investigate whether and how Gandhian principles can be of use;
and, in the last part, I have tried to suggest how we can make
Gandhian principles effective in the modern world.
As a student of ancient Indian civilisation and philosophy,
allow me to say that my approach to Gandhi ji is not that of a
politician, or even of a man interested in politics. I think that the
purport of Gandhian principles is chiefly ethical, since it is ethics
that gives a society or a State its fundamental aspect.
The mere enunciation of these two fundamental principles—Truth and Non-violence—shows that they are not intellectual
opinions; they are facts of practical experience. We must also
make it clear that Gandhiji was not a philosopher. His princi
ples were not formulated as the result of philosophical speculation
but were drawn from his very life. He achieved what he did,
became a Mahatma, and exercised such a wonderful influence upon
the masses because he first experienced these principles himself.
Then only he taught them to others and “he taught them not by
words but by action.’*
Our problem, therefore, is not only to understand these
principles but to see how they can be applied. Our purpose, it is
true, the purpose not only of this Seminar but of every responsible
person, is that of improving the relations among and within nations,,
but ultimately we are concerned with man as individual. Nothing
can be achieved if the individual remains what he is, if he is not
spiritually renewed. We live in a period of transition. Periods of
transition are difficult to judge, because some judge them in terms:
of the past, others in terms of the future. It is wise, therefore,
to be neither optimistic nor pessimistic. Life will always find its
channels and evolve even at the cost of temporary collapses and
disharmonies. It cannot be denied however that great dangers
threaten our present generation and that the chief cause of these
dangers is to be found in the ethical crisis through which we are
passing.
Let us now pass on to a consideration of the fundamental
aspects of the crisis which faces the world today. Words seem
to take the place of Truth, insomuch as we speak in one way and
we think or act in another way.
Morality splits into many
moralities: individual morality, party morality and national
morality. But in fact morality should be one, simply morality,
without any adjectives. Secondly, on account of the organised
propaganda of political parties or groups or Governments, man,
little by little, loses the faculty of free thinking and criticism. Thus
man, who should be a unity becomes disintegrated, intellect taking
the upper hand over what we call spirit or soul. The equilibrium
between these two indissoluble portions of our being is thus lost.
The result is that on the one hand science and abstractions direct
and dominate our activities; on the other hand, spiritual life or
those concrete emotions which bring us in contact with the Unseen
dry up. Moreover, the wide interest of all sorts of peopl^ for
science brings about superficiality. Everybody is ready to speak
about everything. We are eager to know many things but we know
them all superficially. From the mental plane this tendency passes
into the moral one. We take everything lightly and change our
ideas according to the interests or the inclinations of the moment.
Last but not least is the danger of intolerance. There is a deplor
able tendency in many parts of the world to compel others to think
as we ourselves do, and not to lead them to our ideas by persuasion.
This means that the sense of freedom is darkened and it implies a
negation of the spirit because no external submission can reason
ably cancel an inner conviction.
I notice also a dangerous tendency to break away from all
connections with the past, with the experiences of our forefather*
and to become blind worshippers of progress. But progress should
not go by leaps: progress means development of our traditions
which are adapted by life itself to the changed situations and w
the modified demands of the spirit and of the intellect. Tradition*
should not be abolished if we do not want to follow the examole
of that Indian Sadhu who on account of some malediction remain
ed suspended between sky and earth. Man, unfortunately, has only
limited ideas, but he has been endowed by God with an inexhaust
ible capacity of giving them new and fuller meanings. This was
94 M. of Edu.
91
shown by the Mahatma himself who was a reformer just because
he imparted a new life to old creeds. His innovations were not
creations but new interpretations.
The aim for which we have gathered here is to ascertain if
Gandhian principles can be of use in the present world situation.
In case we admit that they can be, to discuss how they should be
applied and to what extent they can help mankind. As regards
their utility there cannot be any doubt; we said that the origin of
our troubles is to be found first of all in a moral crisis, and that,
on the other hand, the purport of Gandhian ideals is fundamentally
moral.
We have ascertained that Gandhi realised a correct equilibrium
of mind and soul. He was a leader and a Mahatma, he worked for
the body and the spirit of the masses but he was not born a
Mahatma. This equilibrium was the result of a lifelong struggle,
discipline and self-mortification. This not only means that he
was true to himself but that he was not superficial. He went to the
very bottom of things and he changed the very foundations of his
being. As regards science, he certainly admired it, but he pointed
out its dangers, and acknowledged that technical progress does not
imply moral progress. He, therefore, insisted on wisdom which is
quite a different thing. His non-violence was directed not only
against physical violence but chiefly against mental and spiritual
violence which is used to suppress others’ ideas, creeds and
opinions. His aim was the welfare of the people but he reminded
people that no welfare is possible without self-contentment and
limitation of personal desires.
It is useless to attempt distributing wealth equally if man is
unable to limit his aspirations.
Now the far more important question arises: How can we
render Gandhian principles effective in this world? First of all,
I think by living up to the example which he set for us. This is the
most difficult and important task, but if we are persuaded of its
truth we must strive for its realisation. But we must not live
secluded from our fellow beings. Then, we should develop our
personal contacts with all sorts of men and all sorts of nations
in a spirit of comprehension and sympathy.
We should do just the contrary of what we are generally doing
nowadays. We must avoid dealing only with systems and theories
because nothing divides men more than theories and abstractions.
We must try to reach the very heart of our opponents and not
fight against their brains. Every period in human history has its
ideaV Our ideal at the moment is the intellect but man’s intellect
is as cold as bright moonlight in a winter night. The worst is
that we train young generations to worship the intellect. We must,
98
each one of us, approach the responsible men of our countries,
and point out to them, even at the risk of humiliation, the different
shortcomings which, in our opinion, do not correspond to that
ethical truth or purity which we propose to attain.
Let us take an example. Take our schools and universities.
Teaching in our schools or universities is purely intellectual. We
teach how battles were fought and won. We teach the intrigues of
politics, but no time is left for those personalities, who, more than
others, realized the divine in man. Even as regards the teaching
of religions, I am afraid, too much emphasis is laid on the dog
matic side. It would be advisable to insist on teaching the expe
riences of the great saints; in a certain sense, more on aggiography
than on theology. I am afraid that even religions—which should
find out in a brotherly way the divine in man and be different but
loving voices of the same truth—still insist too much on formality
and ritualism and, therefore, instead of uniting communities and
nations, too often increase, as they did in the past, the reasons for
dissensions and hatred. I would like very much to introduce in our
schools and universities the yoga or the system of meditation, so
that every young man, every child is accustomed to self-concentra
tion. Lord Boyd Orr said yesterday that it will be an excellent
thing if political leaders are put into retirement for forty days. I
suppose many of us could not stand long isolation, but it is only
in isolation that you can have concentration, good ideas and ethi
cally noble thought. If we had the spirit of meditation, we would
begin to say “ My life belongs to everybody, not to myself alone.”
The examples of violence should be counteracted. Everything
now-a-days speaks of violence. Look for instance at film advertise
ments. They show men killing each other, men with knives, men
with pistols and men with guns. In order to instil into young
people’s minds the spirit of heroism, they always insist on showing
the wars and fighting. On the screen man is represented as an
enemy of man. Toys given to boys are weapons and soldiers. My
mind goes back to Confucius who, when a child, used to play with
sacrificial vessels and learnt how to place them on the altar.
And what shall we say of the newspapers which are one of
the most potent causes of this feeling of hatred between nations
and classes? In their pages, there is hardly a word of peace, a word
of lull or anything approaching tolerance and non-violence. For
this we have to start our campaign, a campaign of patient but
unrelenting determination.
It is also urgent that Gandhiji’s life be better known, specially
by the ruling classes. Because, as Confucius said, they are like
the wind and their subjects are like the grass which stirs and bends
according as the wind blows. We must not forget that the opinion
99
of the masses is formed and guided by leaders or persons or groupswho are in power and control them. Therefore, our action should
be chiefly directed to make these groups or leaders as human, ascomprehensive, as conscious of the* tremendous responsibilities of
their decisions as possible. On the other hand, scientists, writers*
philosophers, poets, priests of all kinds of religions, who on account
of their activities and researches and speculations and propensitiesare supposed to be spiritually united in a supernational world*
should resume the task incumbent on them to express openly their
ideas, to denounce any wrong which they might discover, to insist
always on the points of contact among men and nations instead of
accentuating the differences as politicians often do. They should
be conscious and proud of their mission and not subservient to any
leader or a party and much less to personal ambitions. As a
practical measure, Gandhian centres should be established in
all nations in order to spread knowledge of these principles and
what is more important to arouse in men the resolution to be pro
ficient in them.
I do not say that we can in this way achieve astonishing results;
man is more inclined to self-interest than to self-sacrifice, to exact
from others more than he is willing to give himself. But even if
we gain only one man to our cause, so much the better. We can
not presume that we can operate miraculous changes. But as the
Indian Shastras say as regards illumination, the mere fact of in
sisting on these ideas and examples will help us to get rid gradually
of at least part of our limitations and give us consciousness of our
wrong doing. Purification just as illumination is realised by steps
and degrees: Krama Mukti. Moreover, there is always a chance
that the principles of non-violence and truth entering our brains
might begin to work within the unconscious, which, as the Yoga
masters well knew, has in our life a far greater importance than
we generally suppose. These may appear very scarce results. We
must not forget that the urge of reality in our present days is such
that man could give up fully his anxieties and hatred and intoler
ance only by one of those immediate revulsions or changes of plan
which are brought about by the sudden appearance of such out
standing personalities as the Buddha, Christ or Gandhi himself.
Unfortunately it is beyond our power to enforce the appearance
of another Mahatma.
Dr. Bunche:
Thank you very much Professor Tucci for this powerful and
thoughtful discussion. Any comments?
Madame Meireles:
100
(Spoke in French).
Professor Tucci:
(Translation of Madame Meireles* speech)
I will explain what Madame has said. She says that we should
insist very much on introducing in the schools in our various
-countries the study of Indian Philosophy. It is urgent. That is
w hat Madame has proposed. In fact, in my country, where I am
a professor, in our university we have oriental languages, oriental
philosophy. These are being taught there.
I quite agree with Madame. I have worked for this end. In
my country there are such institutions. The chief consideration is
cultural relations between East and West. This will enable repre
sentatives of various countries to meet and discuss fundamental
problems. After all, you will be able to find out, there are many
points of contact. People insist too much on the difference in the
background. I am a professor in the University of Rome, and I
am supposed to know something about these religions. People
insist too much on the historical side of the religious. The emphasis
should be on the fundamental unity which is the real background
of the universe, as the Indians would say—the Swarupa,
Dr. Bunche:
I would like to hear Professor Kabir on this.
Professor Kabir:
Mr. Chairman, on this particular point, the only thing I want
to say is that recently throughout the world there have been
attempts at a somewhat closer integration of studies. We in India
and in several of the other eastern countries have, for various
Teasons, been familiar with some of the modes of western thought,
but eastern thought, philosophy and literature have not been in
cluded as part of the syllabus in the West. Attempts at correcting
such one-sidedness are being made, and I would refer to two big
attempts that have been made in this connection. First, Unesco
is trying to produce a history of the civilisation of the world, a
history of human culture and progress, not from the view poin* ot
national supremacy or warfare, not as a history of the conflicts 01
man but a history of the cooperation between nations, in advanc
ing what may be called the arts of peace. Unfortunately today,
in most universities, the study of such history is altogether neglect
ed. I would differ slightly from Professor Tucci when he saiu
that it is not enough to teach the meaning of religion historically,
(hat greater emphasis should be on the actual import or the
awumpa as he calls it. I disagree because we cannot lay such
emphasis on the swarupa or essence unless we have some know
ledge of at least the externals. The question of the import would
101
arise only when there was an exchange of knowledge on the
subject, between the East and the West. That is one direction in
which, I think, we who have come from different countries may
help. That will also be in line with Gandhtji’s teaching.
A reinterpretation of history is needed to create goodwill
between individuals and nations. This will help us in creating
the mental outlook which Gandhiji believed in and which would
achieve better relations between men. Today, even small children
are taught history in terms of conflicts. They read at the same
time about the value of love and goodwill. This creates a kind of
dichotomy in thetr minds from the beginning. On the one side
is the glorification of conquerors, the glorification of war and on
the other of men of religion and goodwill. A reorientation of the
study of history is thus of very great importance.
I would also say that we need a reorientation of the teaching
of philosophy. A comparative study would show that the differ
ences between philosophies within a country are often far greater
than one finds between philosophies of different countries. There
tire more differences within the schools of thought in India or
within the schools of European thought than between selected
schools of philosophy of East and West. Within classical Europ
ean philosophy you find great differences. In modern Europe,
existentialists differ from the school of absolute idealism. Similarly
you find sharp differences between the idealistic and the realistic
schools of India. In fact, Indian idealism has greater affinity
with European idealism than with Indian realism. In a word, the
division is not geographical but ideological.
If, therefore, a recommendation is made—and th is' is being
considered by us now—to teach in the universities a coherent his
tory of philosophy, that would probably go a long way to create
an attitude of mind where things would be viewed from the stand
point of cooperation. I may mention here that the Government
of India have made an effort in this direction, which probably
deserves to be known and to be emulated in other parts of the
world. We have undertaken the production of a history of the
philosophy of the world—mot the history of the philosophy of India
nor of only Asian or European philosophy but philosophy of the
whole world—in which scholars from more than half a dozen
countries have cooperated under the title, History of Philosophy:
Eastern and Western.
Professor Tucci also raised the question of ethics. That of
course brings us down to the basic issue. It is because there is such
difference between what we say and what we do that all these
problems within the nations and among nations arise. If only
men’s profession and practice were the same, many of our diffi
m
culties would be over. I am very happy that Madame Meireles
raised the issue of education though unfortunately it was soon lost
in economic issues.
Acharya Kripalani:
You emphasised the ethical aspect of Gandhiji’s life. So far as
I know, Gandhiji did not divide life into departments. His ethics
was that it must function in every department of life. He himself
said that ethics cannot act in a vacuum. If I may quote his words—
“ I do not believe that the spiritual lav/ works in a field of its own.
On the contrary it expresses itself through the ordinary activities
of life. It docs penetrate into economic, social and political fields.”
He had no separate ethical ideas, no separate ethical field from the
economic. All his life he was working mostly in the economic and
political fields. You will find the same ethical ideas in every
reformer’s and prophet’s teachings, and there was nothing new
about it. The new thing was that he did not make a difference
between the ethical and the economic and political life.
Another thing—Professor Tucci has placed great emphasis
upon the Mahatmic character of Gandhiji. I am afraid that puts
him at a very great distance from us. Gandhiji never thought he
was extraordinary. He thought that anybody could do what he
was able to do. And he did not also believe that he was a
Mahatma. He said he was an ordinary human being. His teach
ings are appropriate for the average man and woman. It may add
to our national pride if we put him on a high pedestal. In India
great men are considered the incarnation of God. Gandhi did not
consider himself as an incarnation of God.
Dr. Bunche:.
We do not detract from Gandhi’s greatness by thinking and
speaking of him as a human being. His greatness is in the fact
that he was human. He was a man with all the frailties that go
with human beings, but by self-discipline, he rose above them.
I should like Professor Tucci to give some attention to the
subject of the intrinsic worth and dignity of the individual person
ality. We have been talking about people in the mass. What
about his individual personality, his advancement, his intrinsic
worth and dignity? To what extent did Gandhi devote his atten
tion—ethically, philosophically—to the individual personality as
an individual? .
Professor Tucci:
One should insist on historical studies of religions. They
should be taken in a certain sense. We must insist on facts. After
m
all religion is a series of ideas. We have to deal with them histori
cally. Much more importance should be given to the evolution of
ideas. Even religion, in the ultimate analysis, cannot remain static.
Take the case of Hinduism. It is the oldest of religions. Hinduism
has not remained static. It has been moving. It has recently been
greatly modified by a great personality about whom we are speak
ing—by Gandhi himself.
I agree with Professor Humayun Kabir that in India the study
of philosophy is more advanced than in our countries. We in
Europe have not devoted any attention to the study of philosophies
of other countries. There is only one Chair in the whole of Europe
devoted to Indian philosophy, and I hold that Chair in Rome. In
India, on the contrary, you are studying European philosophies
in your universities. In Europe, in very few universities Indian
philosophy is taught. The history of philosophy should contain
Chinese philosophy, Indian philosophy, Arab philosophy, Japanese
philosophy and other philosophies. We have to learn very much
from Indian philosophy, much more than from our own philosophy.
Bertrand Russell has written a book on philosophy. There is not
even a mention of Indian philosophy in that book.
It is impossible to speak of a western and an eastern philosophy.
The fundamental problems are the same. There cannot be an
eastern philosophy and a western philosophy. There can be only
one philosophy.
As regards the point Acharya Kripalani raised, I would agree
that Gandhi is just the living example of ethics. Because ethics
is not a speculation, ethics is not something to be taught in the
universities, it should be believed in. In Gandhi there was no
dissociation of theory from practice. So ethics was chiefly repre
sented by his own life.
In my own country I am considered a heretic. Even though I
belong to the Catholic Church, I am still considered a heretic,
because I am not bound down by religious dogma. I consider
everything on merits.
As regards my use of the word Mahatma, I used that word in
perhaps quite a peculiar way. According to me Gandhi is a
Mahatma, just because he tried to develop to the utmost the possi- *
bilities which are inherent in man. I very much believe in man,
but unfortunately our pre-occupations do not let us develop our
inner possibilities. I would say that Gandhi is more than a god.
Take Bodhi Satva. The Buddhisls consider Bodhi Satva as some
thing higher than a god. because to be Bodhi Satva you should be
born a man. I have good friends in India. My idea of a Mahatma
is a man who would not surrender to evil under any circumstances,
and this is possible for any man to achieve. It is possible for every
104
man to develop from his imperfect personality and reach the highest
type of personality—to be a Mahapurusha. That is my idea of
Mahatma— a Mahapurusha.
Dr. Bunche:.
Yesterday we had a good deal of discussion about tensions.
O ur great tension today is the conflict between the flow of ideas
and the clock. So we adjourn till tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock.
K )5
The Seminar met at 10 A M . on 9th January 1953 in the Committee Room of Parliament House, with Dr. Mohamed Hussein
Haekal in the Chair.
Dr. Haekal:
Gentlemen. I think it is now time for us to begin and with your
permission I declare the meeting open. I think it is for the
Japanese delegate to begin the discussion today.
*
kb. Yusuke Tsurumi:
Mr. Chairman and friends, I came to this Seminar to learn and
not so much to talk. I came to India seeking for the light.
Japan’s mind is disturbed profoundly in three ways. Firstly,
we face war—how can we avert it? Secondly, we face internal
crisis due mainly to economic distress. How can we overcome
that crisis? Thirdly, we are in search of a new spiritual goal, for
old values are losing authority and new values are not yet in sight.
Where can we find new light in this spiritual morass? What will
Gandhian outlook teach us in this crucial period of crisis en
countered for perhaps the first time in our history? The following
discourse is an attempt to show how Gandhiji’s outlook and tech
niques can contribute to the solution of Japan’s external and
internal tensions.
As I see it, there are two phases in Gandhiji’s activities and
views. One is local and confined to the needs of India of his days,
whereas the other is universal and has global implications and
covers the welfare of the whole human race. It is this last aspect
that I intend to take up with special reference to Japan.
Gandhiji as 1 see him is a man of Outstanding size. He has
four distinct phases, namely, Gandhi, as a Prophet, Gandhi as a
practical economist, Gandhi as a politician and Gandhi as a
teacher. It is this last phase that primarily concerns us here, but
let me refer to the other phases as well. I will take up first the
phase of Gandhi as a Prophet.
Gandhiji was essentially a religious man and, as such, he has a
universal appeal that transcends national boundaries and defies
time. He is revered in Japan to an extent that would surprise
Indian friends who have not visited that country. The fact is that
the Japanese people are proud that Asia produced such a great
and heroic figure.
106
In his autobiography, Gandhi says that while in London, he
read Carlyle’s Heroes and Hero Worship and learnt in reading the
chapter on the Hero as a Prophet, of the Prophet’s “greatness,
braveFy, and austere living”. This is very revealing. Unconsciously
he started to emulate the great religious leaders and ultimately
became one of the greatest. To my mind, the incomparable nobi
lity of his spirit and the indomitable courage of his life sprang
from this source.
Ideas appeal to intellectuals alone, but it is personality that
moves millions of common men. Democracy always demands a
symbol in the noblest sense of the .term. Gandhiji’s appeal is not to
the intellectuals only, but to the millions of common men. If I am
not mistaken, Gandhiji’s personality more than anything else
became a symbol of truthfulness, love, courage and wisdom for
the common people of India. He thus symbolises the unity of
India in his person and it is a pity that the life of such a man
should end in a tragedy.
Perhaps this was, however, inevitable. In the words of Oscar
Wilde, “The life of a man, in order to be beautiful, must end in
tragedy.” The life of Gandhi on that account will not cease to fire
the imagination of posterity as does that of Lincoln. Gandhiji
will remain for ever the symbol of nobility and truthfulness for
Indians to emulate.
Japan is now in a deplorable situation spiritually. The spirit
of buoyancy and steadfastness that marked Japan since 1868 has
now given way to a mentality of frustration and desperation due
to the defeat in the war and the submission to foreign rule for the
first time in our history. Old values have lost their prestige and
no new values are yet in sight to take the former’s place. To serve
the State with the utmost self-sacrifice was considered to be the
no]}lest virtue of all Japanese citizens. That ideal has now been
shattered by defeat and the service to the State has lost its original
prestige. The Emperor, as the symbol of virtues, was relegated to
a secondary position by the new Constitution imposed on us during
the Occupation. Into this moral vacuum communism marched,
and at one time it assumed a threatening position in the social life
of the country. The moral background of Japan however held,
and communism has now waned in its influence on the people.
The moral vacuum however still exists. The strength as well as
the weakness of pre-war Japan was the stress it laid on patriotism.
Its strength was that it inculcated a sense of loyalty and discipline
Its weakness was that it precluded the development of a cosmo.
politan outlook by extending the interest of the citizens to the
whole of humanity.
107
This is where Gandhi comes in to help us in Japan with his
‘ broad outlook on life. His love extends to the whole of humanity
and his concept of Government embraces the whole world. The
World State, as conceived by H. G. Wells, finds a constructive
programme in Gandhi’s ideas. I feel confident that if Gandhi had
been given more years to work, the establishment of a World State
would have been Ins final endeavour.
I have come in contact with Woodrow Wilson, H. G. Wells and
other great men. I met Mr. H. G. Wells in London many years
ago. I was very interested in his new ideas and wanted to know
how and why he wrote the Outlines of History. I learnt that he
did so to give a new outlook to' the Nations of the world. It is
with a view to create a World State that he wrote his Outlines.
This was not a concept acceptable to the Japanese before the war,
but now due to the present situation, Japan is in a receptive mood.
I think this gives a good chance to spread the constructive ideas of
Gandhi in Japan. I propose to start on a nation-wide speaking
tour on Gandhian ideas on my return home. In 1950, I went all
over the country visiting villages, farms, factories, dockyards speak
ing on the problems of new Japan. I propose to do the same
thing for Gandhian ideas on my return home.
Secondly, Gandhi as a practising economist, was a most extra*
ordinary person. The thing that has struck me most is that
Gandhiji, although he was a religious leader, was extremely practi
cal, particularly in the economic phases of life. I believe his three
attainments a re :
(i) The accumulation of national capital in contradiction
to foreign capital by helping industrialists like Mr.
Birla in his cotton industry;
(ii) The regeneration of villages through the movement that
he started. In this connection, there is a very interest
ing figure in Japan in the person of Santok Nino Mea
who lived about a hundred or hundred and fifty years
ago and is considered a peasant saint of Japan. If
you go to Japan, you must make it a point to visit
Primary Schools in the villages. All over the country,
you will find in such schools, a curious statue in
bronze of a boy of ten or eleven years carrying a goat
on his back and reading a book. This is the peasant
saint. He was born poor and like Lincoln, he had
to study while working. He, however, became the
centre of the regeneration of the Japanese peasants in
the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
The method he applied and the spirit of his work are
very similar to those of Gandhi and his movement.
9 th JANUARY‘1953
The movement he started is still carried on in the
shape of Ho To Kokai which means ‘compensate the
peasant’.
(Hi) The decentralisation of industry and a human solution
of the labour problem. In regard to the decentralisa
tion of industries, we have gone pretty far in that
direction in Japan, because we started our industrialisa
tion years ago and it has already reached even the
small villages of the country. It is however, Gandhiji’s
handling of labour problems, particularly his attitude
towards the untouchables, that is most revealing to us
in Japan, I do not however want to spend much time
on these internal aspects of Gandhiji’s policies.
Now I wish to refer to Gandhi’s work as a politician. The
more I study his life and work, the more I am impressed by his
astuteness and his unerring political instinct in handling the most
difficult situations. These however are personal to him and diffi
cult of introduction into Japan. I am particularly impressed by his
sagacity in choosing symbols in starting a new political movement.
The spinning wheel he carried and the loin cloth he wore are well
known. His salt march served to electrify the countryside and I
need not dilate on these aspects of Gandhiji.
I have said that it is the phase of Gandhi as a teacher that is
most important to us. Great men are great teachers in many cases.
In his speech the other day, Mr. Nehru referred to Gandhi’s in
fluence on him as being similar to the influence of Socrates on the
young men around him. In that sense he is akin to Socrates and
Confucius and helped to bring out the best in the youth, who came
near him. I am reminded of Tukujawa, an interesting figure we
had in Japan in the seventies of the last century who gallantly
and courageously fought against the old ideas of feudalism based
on the sanctity of the State and supported the gospel of the
dignity of man.
Let me now consider Gandhi’s techniques and their application
to Japan, mainly in their international aspects. The menace of war
stares Japan right in the face. I do not think you can realise the
sense of uncertainty that we face and our feeling of insecurity at
present on account of our total disarmament. We feel the more
helpless, as for the past two hundred years Japan’s national safety
has always been menaced from the direction of Korea. Before the
war, Japan was one of the five greatest military powers in the
world and we felt sure that our country was safe from any attack
and if attacked, we could surely protect ourselves. Now we are
entirely disarmed, not only militarily, but also economically. This
total disarmament after being a strong military power induces in
109
many Japanese an appalling sense of insecurity. Add to that the
horrors of war which were impressed on Japan to a degree which I
think you cannot imagine here. Lord Boyd Orr who has visited
Japan recently has seen some evidence of it and knows that today
the craving for peace among the masses of Japan is very intense.
What can we do in this juncture? Can Japan take the non
violent technique of Gandhiji? It is a difficult question to answer.
It takes a man of Gandhi's religious conviction and moral courage
to stand up non-violently against armed power and live and die for
the sake of non-violence. Very few Japanese have attained to the
spiritual height of Gandhi. We do not have the heritage and tradi
tion of the ideal which he followed, and as such, it will be difficult
for us to face the imminent danger of war in a Gandhian fashion.
Japan however needs a new gospel and a new teaching. We have
to find out the way of dealing with the new situation—a situation
entirely new to us—of the lack of power to protect ourselves and
the imminence of danger with a great power at our immediate
frontier. We have to find out a practical application of Gandhian
techniques to develop anew spiritual ideals and avert the danger
that confronts us and face the future with courage and hope.
Now may 1 venture to make a new suggestion? Is it a
fantastic dream of a visionary to aspire that at no distant future,
steps should be taken to implement the Gandhian idealism in a
practical scheme and raise the voice of sanity against the impend
ing catastrophe of humanity? Cannot the nations living between
the Eastern Bloc and the Western Bloc unite their moral forces
in some concrete form and resist the breaking down of humanity
by another global war? Nothing would be a greater tribute to
Gandhi's memory and to the study of his views than to conceive
of some practical method of stopping the utmost folly of another
global war.
Thank you.
Dr, Haekal:
In accordance with the usual practice, those who have any
questions to ask or any comments to make may do so.
Dr. Sarvapaili Radhakrishnan ;
Mr. Chairman and friends,
1 listened to the paper read by our Japanese colleague with
great interest, a genuine attempt to study the principles as well as
the limitations—real or imaginary—which he finds. The first point
which he made wus that Gandhiji was essentially a religious
man. A religious man, when he is authentically religious, rises
above all the particular group loyalties and becomes a universal
110
9 th
JANUARY
1953
man. The loyalty to his nation or to his community, all these
things are subordinated to the supreme loyalty to Truth—which by
its very nature is universal. The great point about Gandhiji, as our
friend said, is that he realised in practice the theoretical implic*
ations of religions that have been with us from the beginning of
religions. Hindus talk about Abhaya and Ahimsa, fearlessness and
love; Buddhists talk about wisdom and love or compassion—
Prajna and Karuna; Christians talk about truth and freedom;
Muslims speak to us of one God and one family on earth. But
what distinguishes a prophetic nature like Gandhiji is the serious
ness with which he implements these ideals and lives for them.
We talk about them. The knowledge is in us, but not the deed
which answers to the knowledge.
So far as Gandhiji is concerned, his greatest contribution is to
make us understand that even in this world of narrow loyalties and
artifices, it is possible for us to incarnate these great ideals of Truth
and Love. In the twentieth century, with all the complicated
machinery of modern civilisation around us, we can yet steadfastly
demonstrate our loyalty to these ideals, which are universal and
which transcend small group loyalties. For him God is Truth,
as he once said, and this truth you can attain by a perpetual,
incessant search. It is not a thing which leads to complacency.
Whenever he had to do any particular action, take up some line
of conduct, he questioned himself, he fasted, he prayed, and he
ransacked his brains till at last he was able to say; “This is the line
of conduct on which to proceed”. In that sense, as a religious
man, he was essentially a universal man, an internationalist.
He took up the cause of India to demonstrate to the world that
the weapons which he was employing in this small compass could
be extended to the whole world “If 1 am able to establish the
validity of non-violence in India, it could as well be applied to the
whole world.” That is how he argued. He argued that political
freedom could be won by non-violent methods. He wanted to
demonstrate to the world that the method sanctified by history—
violence, deceit and cunning—was not the only way to achieve
political objectives. Winning of freedom by non-violent methods
would be a lesson to the rest of the world. So he took up the
Indian cause, not out of any narrow patriotism, not only because
he happened to belong to India, but because of his intense love
for humanity and in order to enable humanity to adopt a different
outlook, a different attitude, with regard to the problems which
faced humanity. In that sense, he was first and foremost an
internationalist and only then a nationalist in its narrow sense.
His nationalism was a means to internationalism. He advocated
these methods to show the world that if India could win indepen
0L1JU
GANDHlAff OUTLOOK AND TECHNIQUES
dence by non-violent means—unlike America and other countries
which won their independence by starting violent revolutions—it
would show that violence is not necessary for achieving indepen
dence. We can achieve independence by methods which are
purer, cleaner. We do not need to leave any kind of bitterness
behind. That is why he worked for the liberation of India.
His whole attitude was one of universalism. If we have
conflict with Englishmen, let us not hate the Englishman, because
both Englishmen and Indians are offsprings of the same Divinity*
creatures of the same Reality. If we happen to be estranged for a
time, we must feel that even though we have differences, we are
still all brothers. That would enable us to love the evil-doer while
hating the evil that was in his methods. It was a method of
comprehension, of understanding, of finding out what the dis
positions are, why those dispositions are, whether we should not
think that the opponent is a possessor of certain wicked disposi
tions which we ourselves happen to possess. There is thus no
point in our trying to adjudge him as all evil. Gandhiji’s whole
attitude was to understand the opponent, to find what his motives
were in committing any particular kind of evil. In that way he
felt that all strife, even civil strife, could be more or less eliminated.
If we turn to the ancient scriptures, they say that the angels as
well as the devils are the offspring of the same Creator. One
Creator has produced both of them and hence there is an ultimate
relationship between them—neither can be completely excluded.
Gandhiji’s attitude was therefore one of understanding, of humility.
It is the same attitude of love that made him feel that other
religions are also to be regarded as valid as his own. The belief
that your religion is supreme and the talk of exclusive monopoly
of truth seemed to him a kind of spiritual pride. If he wanted us
to be humble, and to understand and respect other religions, as
he himself did, it was because his standpoint was that truth
happens to be the essence of all religions. He wanted that
everyone should practise this both in mind and spirit, and he
believed that one who is able to do it will reach the goal. If the
constitution of our country embodies that principle, it is largely
due to Gandhiji’s teaching,—it is the expression of his sentiment
of love and understanding for other peoples and creeds.
Our friend remarked that Communism is the product of a
vacuum that has been created by the absence of moral and ethical
values of life. I may say that Communism is the answer to the
artificial, greasy and dishonest way in which we practise our reli
gions. We talk of purity of mind and we practise so many things
which are unethical, unspiritual and unhumanistic. It is these
deficiencies that have brought up the criticism of religion both in
112
9TH JANUARY 1953
the scientific and on the ethical plane. People have been com
plaining about the unhumanistic practices which we have. It is
said that militant atheism is the answer to dishonest religion. If we
are able to practise truth and love and if we make ourselves
servants of these things, our conduct should evince that, but our
conduct demonstrates our lack of faith in God while our beliefs
proclaim such faith. We have become practically atheists; that
is why Communists came to the fore. Communism says let us
give up the sham belief in God and build up a humanistic kind
of society.
If we have today so much of uncertainty, so much of fear, so
much of confusion, it is because our goals are not clear. We have
not given to the human mind something to satisfy its hunger.,
hunger for truth and something that creates universal brotherhood.
Men are therefore seduced to false beliefs by their immediate
environment. They are seduced by our artificial system of educa
tion. Gandhi wished us to love and sympathise with other people.
He did not want to divide them into minor compartments and say:
you are Hindu, you are Muslim, you are Boer, you are South
African. We are very often inclined to seduce the minds and
hearts of men in this behalf through the medium of so-called
education. If we want to get real human unity in this world, we
must take our religion more seriously. Our primary loyalty must
be to the human race. We must train our youngsters in that
spirit now. We must make them understand that they should
not take to practices which vitiate the fundamental objectives of
the human race.
It is the sense of a common humanity that is lacking today. If
we take the advanced nations of the last decade or two, we see
abundance of natural resources, great intellectual penetration,
wonderful scientific achievement, even great development of dis
cipline and leadership. They are all there but we still came to
grief- Take Japan. The Japanese are a very industrious people,
a patriotic people, a disciplined nation, intellectually penetrating,
militarily and navally very great—and what happened? These
qualities are not enough. Something deeper, something more
universal in appeal to man is necessary. Unless we are able to
train our young men and women in this sense of world citizen
ship and make them understand that national loyalities must be
subordinate—just as we today subordinate family loyalties to the
nation, national loyalties must be subordinate to universal loyal
ties—the world cannot escape disaster. We talk of the United
Nations. It is a symbol of this growing unity of the world order.
It is unfortunately the scene of conflicts at the present moment,
but it can still be saved for achieving through its medium the goaf
113
04 M. cf Edu.
of the future world, the international society, if Gandhi’s philoso
phy and ideals could be adopted.
As you said, Sir, if Gandhi had lived longer, he would have
worked to build a world state; a world state of which the different
nations are merely branches. He would have given to that world
state a kind of executive authority, a kind of police force, not mili
tary power but only a police force to maintain the normal civil life.
He visualised such a world state in which rivalries among nations
will have been set aside like rivalries between individuals of the
same nation through the development of the nation state. Each
individual nation would not then be at liberty to own any large*
scale armed forces. Individual requirements of nations for military
forces would be greatly curtailed, because every one of them would
be required to contribute their armed strength only to the world
organisation.
We refer to Eastern and Western philosophies and culture. But
we must adopt the Gandhian method of humility and self-search
and enquire whether all is right with us and everything wrong with
the enemy before we adjudge him black. We must find out if the
people of Russia as such, the people of India or any other people
are not just as lovable, just as decent as we think ourselves to be.
When you put them into a kind of machine they become different
and begin to talk of Father Russia, just as we talk of Mother India,
-or just as Englishmen talk of Britain, Queen of the waves, and this
or that- What is necessary to my mind is that these demands of
truth and love which are put before us must be taken more seriously
than wc have hitherto done in solving our political problems. We
must ask ourselves: “Are we treating any question, whether it con
cerns our own country or another, in a dispassionate way? If my
own country is involved, has it done the right thing or has it done
the wrong thing?” We never apply to ourselves the same standards
of objective truth and justice which we are ready to apply to our
enemies. We are always prepared to criticise our enemies, “They
have done this or that wrong”. How many of us say, “We have
gone wrong, so it is necessary for us to improve ourselves.”
The great thing about Gandhi is that he was always insisting
that the Indian people must recognize their guilt for the way we
have treated our own brethren in calling them untouchables. That
is why Gandhi succeeded. Whenever he recognized something
wrong with his own men, he was prepared to condemn them and
denounc e them in the same severe words in which he would have
criticised other nations. He made representations during the last
war, sent open letters to Hitler and the Japanese people and asked
them 1 What are you doing? Germany was feeling that she was
treated very badly after the first World War and that she was justi!M
9 lH
JANUARY 1 9 5 3
tfied in seeking revenge on all those at whose hands she suffered.
'Gandhi appealed to the British people not to participate in the war
but to invite Hitler to come and occupy England and rule over it
if he could for any length of time. He asked the British people to
non-cooperate and offer satyagraha from the very first day in such’
an eventuality. If Gandhi’s advice was heeded, probably the world
would have been saved the disaster
of
the
second
World War.
If a happier world order has to be evolved for the
good of the future generations, we must declare right here that we
believe in universal brotherhood, that we will respect one another,
whether it be individuals or nations, that we will not apply two
different methods of criticism, one to ourselves and a different one
to others. All that is necessary is to transform these theoretical
beliefs of one family, one God, etc., into practical functioning
realities. I realize that we cannot overnight bring about this
change. But it is necessary to bring about, maybe slowly, this
transformation of our society with good-will and understanding
amongst us, keeping in view always that the role of self-denial is
the best medium for educating others.
Of course, if we go back to the pre-historic ages, we find that
each man followed his own dictates and that he was the sole
judge of what is right and what is wrong. Gradually community
life was evolved and we have given ourselves the rule of law;
there are law courts, the judges and so on by means of which
wrong was sought to be redressed in the community. Again we
have some individuals who place themselves above all these laws,
the Sanyasis, who have neither desires nor belongings and who
can go and sit in far-off mountains. They need not bother about
these national governments and world governments; but for
ordinary people trying to be saintly and as yet not fully so, we do
require a world organisation, a world police, a world court, a
world bank and so on, so far as nations are concerned.
We
have to put theories into practice and demilitarize ourselves and
»employ police only for purposes of maintaining internal order.
All this is practicable if there are people who can make non
violence their creed. We have seen that military might offers no
-solution for our disputes. Therefore, it becomes incumbent upon
us to find out means by which solutions to the complex problems
of the day can be offered on a more permanent basis. In this
connection I would only add that Gandhi was anxious that means
must be as pure as the end itself.
I am sorry I was not here to listen to the previous discussions
7but, gentlemen, these are some of the things that occur
To me.
115
Dr. Haekal:
Thank you, Sir. We can now continue our discussion.
members of the Seminar ready to put questions?
Are*
Acharya Kripalani:
Just a small thing. Mr. Tsurumi said that Japan had no non-*
violent traditions and the non-violent creed would not therefore
be possible there. May I suggest, Sir, that many of the followers that Gandhiji got in India were from violent groups of a revolu
tionary nature? Another thing is that one of the biggest and
most peaceful campaigns of Satyagraha was carried on by a
martial race like the Sikhs. After that, the most successful"
Satya gra his and those who suffered most were the Pathans of the
North-West Frontier Province under the leadership of Khan Abdul
Gaffar Khan. It is not necessary that people should have tradi
tions of non-violence. I rather believe that the people of Japan
can better follow Gandhiji because they have most of the requisite
moral qualities—discipline, a regulated life, restraint and all that:
It is only that their basis of operation has got to be changed.
Gandhiji always believed that non-violence could be practised only
by the brave. Up to the present time, we will have to admit
that most brave men were found among those who fought. They*
have only to turn the direction of their viewpoint and then they
will be very good Satyagrahis. I myself believe that some of the
military nations might take up the creed of Gandhiji and work it '
much better than India because they have got the potency, they
have got the power. A nation does not become virtuous only
because it lacks something of that potency. The military nations
can become virtuous because they have got the power and potency
which they can utilise for constructive purposes.
There is another thing which our friend talked about—some
thing about capitalists. I could not follow him.
Professor Kabin
Professor Tsurumi’s contention was that Gandhiji on the econo
mic side believed that there should be national capital biltlt up in
India and that his movement helped in the formation of such
. capital.
Acharya Kripalani:
Is it the idea that Gandhiji tried to build up the Birlas and the
like? Gandhiji was rather disillusioned in the end and held th at'
his capitalist friends could never become the trustees of the people.
In any case, he never tried to build them up. The capitalists went:
to him for their own purposes mostly and they did serve their"
116
9 th
JANUARY
1953
■purposes in many ways. Also, they went to Mm because these
capitalists spring up from a section of Hindu Society which
believes in a kind of charity. They thought Gandhiji was a
fakir and any charity given to him would give them some status
.and salvation and also a social reputation. They did all these
things, but Gandhiji could not turn the heart of even one capitalist.
They remained what they were. I will try not to use any strong
terms in this distinguished company.
Mr. Tsurumi:
I think I was emphasizing the weaker points of Japan t(X
much. We have really many outstandingly courageous men.
outstanding for peace and non-violence in a sense. Take the case
-of one of our princes whom I admire very much. It was about
thirteen hundred years ago and his concept of Government and
life was based on peace and renunciation. To that extent he
■caused the disruption of family life. That tradition also we have,
but what I meant was that we have never had non-violence as an
organised movement of the kind in India. In the second place,
about Gandhiji’s attitude towards helping some industrialists, my
point was not against it but for it. I think it was an expression
of his practical side of trying to create capital in India instead
o f helping foreign capital.
Professor Kabin
I want to pursue a little further one of the points raised by
Acharya Kripalani; and connect with it something that was
-said yesterday or the day before. I think it was Professor
Massignon who said that the type of technique used by Gandhiji
could very well be used in budding up cells in different countries.
We cannot perhaps at this stage expect that an entire people or
nation will wholeheartedly and without qualification or condi
tion take up non-violence. At present, even if we get five per
cent or two per cent or an even smaller percentage of the people
to take up the techniques and the outlook of Gandhiji, it will be
a great step forward in the evolution of the methods which he
used. Now the point wMch I want to refer to Mr. Yusuke
Tsurumi is this. You have not only the tradition of a great
military people, of iron discipline, great heroism and ancient
culture, but you have also got the tradition of death-defying
heroism of small bands. You had the tradition of the Samurai.
In the last War, you had groups of people called ‘suicide squads’
who went to death in cold blood, knowing that there was no
possibility of coming back. If these people, your human tor
pedoes, could undertake that kind of enterprise for a military
117
objective—supposing you could build up cells of that type o f
men for a non-violent objective—it may very well be that Japan
may be one of the countries which 'will establish the tradition of
martyrdom for the sake of non-violence. With this tradition of'
sacrifice of the individual for a noble cause, Japan may well prove
by its example that it is possible to solve by the application of
non-violence problems which till now have demanded a military or
violent solution.
Mr. Tsurumi:
If you permit me to say so, some of us take things very
seriously. For instance, when we imported Buddhism, many
people died for it. When Christianity came, after the Restora
tion, the Japanese Christian teachers took Christianity in the sense
that was practised in earlier days in Palestine. What I meant to
convey in my talk was that when we have a goal before us, we
have lived and died for it.
Acharya Kripalani:
Dr. Radhakrishnan emphasized the spiritual character of'
Gandhi ji when he said that Gandhiji was loyal to moral
principles and it appeared to him that that was the one thing
which carried Gandhiji through. So far as I know, Gandhiji
came to he recognized as the Mahatma, not because he carried
out the ideals of truth and non-violence—many humble people
in daily life are carrying out these ideals and yet they do not pro
duce any great sociological results—but because he exercised'1
these virtues in connection with the sociological problems that
arise in economics, politics and social life.
Dr. Radhakrishnan:
Gandhiji applied moral principles to the solution of our national
liberation movement. By demonstrating that freedom could be
achieved by moral means, he also helped the growth of the move
ment.
He applied these principles of truth and love to the
national liberation movement, and when I say national liberation
movement, I mean it in every sense of the word, cultural,political, economic, and social.
Acharya Kripalani:
I wanted to make this point clear, because a mere believer"
in non-violence and truthfulness will not be of much use to usin this Seminar. He may be a very good man, a very pious manbut he would not help us in solving any of the problems th«tj
confront the world today.
118
9 th
JANUARY
1953
Or. Bunche:
As I said earlier, my primary purpose is to seek an under
standing and clarification on points of doubt, and as such, my
question is whether his technique is to be understood and accept
ed for humanity as a whole. That he is a true internationalist
cannot be doubted in view of the fact that he applied his technique
for alleviating the suffering of humanity ; but since we are allowed
to speak frankly, I must say that I cannot understand the basisfor what appears to be an assumption that, in his actions*
Gandhiji was concerned primarily with all humanity and only
secondarily with Indians and India. I see in his actions in South
Africa that he chose to lead the struggle of some one hundred
and fifty thousand Indians while millions of Africans were in
even more desperate need of leadership. We need not doubt hiswisdom in doing so, for it was only natural that he should espouse
and lead the struggle for liberation of the people of India, though
imperialism and suppression of the indigeneous people was equally
characteristic of most of Asia, particularly of South East Asia.
Why then, is it apparently considered less desirable to describeGandhiji as first and foremost an Indian patriot? Indian he was
and a patriot in the finest and broadest sense; and at the same
time, I must say, there was no conflict between his immense love,
deep love for his own people, his devotion to their advancement
and their liberation, and internationalism, concern for the good
of humanity as a whole. Indeed in the circumstances, in serving
the needs of the Indian people, Gandhiji, it seems to me, was
serving the cause of all humanity, because this, in the final
analysis, is the noblest kind of patriotism. This is not narrow
nationalism and it does not, in the least, in my estimation, detract
from Gandhiji’s historic world position or detract from his vital
contribution spiritually, psychologically and practically to the
advancement of mankind as a whole. I would appreciate it if
some of our Indian colleagues here would give me the clarifica
tion I seek on this point because, I must say that it has troubled
me a bit. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Radhakrisbnan:
Apparently, it is natural that one would take up that which
is nearest to him. Gandhi saw that his people were suffering
and he thought he could use the opportunity for work amongst
them. It does not take away from his love for the whole of
humanity, because he made service to his own people thefoothold by which he built up service for the whole
#r mankind.
119*
Dr. Bunche:
This makes him no less a patriot.
Dr. Radhakrishnan:
Certainly so, but not in the narrow sense of the word. He
"was a patriot in the larger and real sense.
Dr. Zakir Husain:
I should like briefly to point out two difficulties in the under
standing of Gandhi. One of the difficulties is when we try to
explain Gandhiji in a certain social context only. For instance,
.an observation was made that the eastern tradition, the situation
in India, made the phenomenon, Gandhi, possible and it might
mot be repeated elsewhere. That is one difficulty. The other
■difficulty is, in the anxiety to claim Gandhiji as a citizen of the
world, we tend to deny his position as an Indian. I think both
•these difficulties must be combatted. Every individual can be ex
plained partially by the social circumstances in which he appears,
but a great individual with original patterns of action and of
♦original ways of thinking would easily falsify most of these social
explanations. He could act in the same direction as the social
.explanation would suggest, or he might take absolutely the
♦opposite direction as a reaction. I, therefore, think this tendency
;fo explain in sociological terms should not be taken too far.
Gandhiji, on account of his extreme simplicity as an Indian,
the type he so pre-eminently symbolised, insisted on the simple idea
•ot truth—not on seeing it, not on discovering it. This, as I said,
is a simple idea, which requires no social explanation and, as
such, can repeat itself anywhere. But it does not often repeat
itself and appears to be a rare freak. Why? Because we are
so bound up with words, we are so satisfied with words that we
do not care for the facts. As Professor Tucci rightly pointed
-out yesterday we are in the grasp of verbalism. We are satisfied
with words. Gandhiji was not satisfied with words. He did not
insist on seeing truth, or discussing it. He wanted to practise
truth. Now, that can happen in Japan, or in Russia, or in the
United States—in fact, anywhere; and it may not happen any
where for a long time. No one can predict. It is a principle.
I t may express itself in individuals or in small groups. It may
start anywhere, the ball may be set rolling, the flame started. I
think that is what we should learn—the essentially individual
mature of the simplicity that is genuine, the power of social
circumstances to make it burst forth into flower, and the right
o f the immediate environment to dedication. Gandhiji was
Essentially an Indian serving a universal idea and, through that, a
citizen of the world.
120
9 th JANUARY 1953
Acharya Kripalani:
May I suggest a line of thought? We are apt to think in terms
'to which we are used, and these are terms of contradiction—
-humanity on the one side and nationalism on the other. Gandhiji
■did not think in these contradictory terms. For him these con
tradictions were reconciled because he recognised the supremacy
of the moral law. He thought that if a nation was moral and
-acted morally, it cannot suffer. That was his firm faith. If you
follow the moral law, you will not only serve the nation but you
will be serving humanity. If you deviate from the moral law, you
are not serving yourself. What is right is in the best interests of
India. India can never serve herself by dubious methods. You
will remember, once an Englishman asked him, “Naturally,
‘Gandhiji. you must be loving your own people more than other
people”. He expected him to say, “ Yes, naturally” but Gandhiji
did not say that—not at all. He said, “The happiness of
'humanity is the same, and I am as much concerned with the
happiness of other people as mine. I would first serve my
neighbour because that is immediately possible for me, so that
Through him I serve humanity.”
But in doing so, you must follow the moral law. If you do not
"follow the moral law, then you are serving neither yourself nor
*humanity. Some people asked him : you are thinking more of the
moral law than of the liberty of the country. He said that the
liberty of the country can never come by using means that are
not moral. There must be no contradiction in our minds. There
m ust be th e . conviction that if you want the good of
the country, it must be based on good moral conduct
If you deviate from the moral code, you might
gel
what you want, but he said, when you get it, it win
never be for the good of the country.
Or. Haekal:
I think it is now Mr. Kalelkar who is going to speak.
kindly take the floor, Kaka Saheb?
Will you
Kstka Kalelkar:
Let me say in the beginning that I am labouring under a
double handicap. I am not used to speaking in English. That
is one of my handicaps. Another is that yesterday we were
talking about machines and my hearing machine failed me. I
could not therefore quite follow the discussions that went on and
had to content myself with the reports in the papers of the next
*dpv.
1 gave a copy of my paper to be cyclostyled but I am not:
anxious to read out to you what I have written. It is enough if
the paper is circulated (see Appendix D) and I will only add a .
few words on some of the points raised during our discussions.
We were talking yesterday about whether Mahatma Gandhi ,
was a mystic or a pragmatist. I think the real answer will be that
he was both. In the first place, all his inspiration came from within
and not from the mere experience of the world. His devotion to truth was absolute. When he was asked if he would allow' resort
to violence to get the independence of India, he said: “I would ;
sacrifice the whole world rather than compromise with truth". But
at the same time, he said: “ It is impossible that the good of any
country or of any nation or of any people could be contradictory
to the pursuit of truth”. Truth is the very soul of the world, the
soul of man, the soul of humanity and, therefore, pursuit of truth.'
can be nothing but the good of humanity.
But Gandhiji’s sadhana, that is the cultivation of his own souL.
was not withdrawing to the forest or withdrawing to the solitude in;
order to reach the essence of truth. He identified himself writh the’'
whole of humanity. Therefore, he made his nearest neighbours, .,
all the people around him, the instruments and colleagues and
companions of his self-development. That is why we find him ;
coming out with confessions. If he had committed any fault of'
any nature, he would come out and tell the whole world: “This is
the sin I have committed”. He did not want to conceal anything
from the world. He was in pursuit of truth in the whole company
of the world. When he gave any programme to the people, he.
was intensely pragmatic. He said that he believed in God but to the poor man God can appear only in the form of bread. There
fore unless you are able to give bread to the hungry, he said, you
cannot teach them any religious principles. God to the poor man
is the daily bread.
In all his life, whenever he had to say anything to the people, .
he came out with a practical programme of work. He said: “Man
can develop himself and assimilate thought only through action”.
As the Lord has said:
Buddhih Karmanusarini, i.e., intellect cam
be developed only through action. Truth is assimilated only
through action. Principles are assimilated only through action.
Therefore, whenever he wanted to have a particular thought
accepted by the people, he would think within himself and bring
out something that was practical and concrete.
I would like to refer to the problem that was raised a little:
while ago. Gandhiji said that he, being an individual, his acti
vities began with himself and the society round him. But there;:
was no limit to the circumference about him. He said, “ 1 sh all 1
122
9TH JANUARY 1953
start with the people of India” . When he returned from South \
Africa, he said: “Being a Gujrati by birth and nay mothertongue being Gujrati, let me first start with Gujrat.” That did
not mean that he had partiality for Gujrat as against other pro
vinces. He said: “I shall speak to the masses in the language they
know. Through Gujrat I shall speak to the whole of India.” One
day when I talked to him about some institution, he said: “It is
my ambition to spend all the wealth of Gujrat for the good of
India.” His patriotism was not for the aggrandisement of his
own people, but for sacrificing his people for the good of
humanity. When he worked for the independence of India, he
said: “India, shackled and bound hand and foot, can never do
good to humanity. I want to work for the independence of
India so that India could sacrifice all her best interests in the
service of humanity”. Independence for India was thus meant
only for the service of humanity. In a message to a French
paper, he said: “My nationalism is intense internationalism.”
Gandhiji was proud of Indian culture, because he thought that
only through Indian culture could we raise the masses to their
height. But if there were anything that was narrow in Indian
culture, he would fight it. So there was no contradiction between
his patriotism and his humanity. Rather he wanted to use his
patriotism to win the independence of India so that he could use
India for the service of humanity.
Now about machinery. Gandhiji’s antagonism to machinery
was not because machinery came from the West. I remember his
expressing a thought which was afterwards modified. He once said,
“We must teach people to use the material'that is available in the
country to produce goods which can meet our needs. If we go on
exporting our raw materials and purchasing our needs in finished
goods from foreign countries, how can our people be self-reliant?
You know how these foreigners came to India by means of trade,
by buying things from India, by introducing their own goods into
India, and gradually they took possession of the whole country. In
that we have a greater evil.” He modified his view afterwards but
that will show that his antagonism to machinery was not because
it came from foreign lands, but because he was antagonistic to
machinery itself. He was antagonistic to the machine in the sense
that it made man's existence unrealistic, that it dampened the
creative urge in man. Man began to depend even for his basic
needs on machinery. So we must understand the difference
between the two. He said that the machine age has destroyed the
soul of man; it has destroyed the belief in soul and man’s creative
genius. So this machine age is not going to help us at all. Machi
nery may be good for America, whose pattern of life is different,
123
which has advanced far in techniques and whose population may
not be able to cope with production on a smaller scale if they
have to cater to all their needs. But things are different in our
country. We have a great population and we have got to use this
enormous human power that is available. If we are going to allow
any of this human material to go idle, we will be doing a great
injustice to them and their souls. And then he said, “After utilis
ing all man-power and cattle-power that is available in the country,
if your basic needs are still to be met, then certainly introduce
machinery in whatever spheres it is necessary. You must also
bring into use the natural resources that are available within the
country, i.e., coal, minerals, etc. We must use them for the good
■of the country and not exhaust them by resorting to export of these
iraw materials to foreign countries.”
If machinery could be used for the betterment of man, he had
âbsolutely no objection. Rather he said, “We have got to fight
this drudgery that has become the lot of our masses. Look at the
women who toil day and night without paying serious attention
even to normal requirements of life. They often do not find time
‘for a little leisure which is after all so essential for the healthy
growth of an individual.” When the sewing machine was intro
duced his reaction was. “I welcome this sewing machine because
it dispenses with so much labour of a woman in making garments
for herself and her children.” So, while he was not against machi
nery as such, he was against the machine age. "The machine age
is perhaps the greatest evil that the world has to worry about and
it has got to be fought somehow,” said Gandhiji.
In my paper I have said that without creating the feeling of
equality between man and man, it is not possible to develop one
universal brotherhood. We must on the one hand try to raise
the standard of life of those who are poor and on the other lower
the standard of life of the extremely rich. If we eat too little we
suffer, but if we eat too much then also we suffer from disease.
There may be slight variations, but if the variation is too great, it
is bound to result in a dislocation of healthy life. We must
therefore lay down an optimum standard of life.
In the matter of solving international tensions, the United
Nations is the one hope of our age. But it must be remembered
that the prevention of tensions, rather the resolution of tensions,
is more desirable. How can such a situation arise? The domi
nation of one group by another, either in the social or economic
fields, is the fundamental cause for creating tensions. If this is
eliminated and if we can create a non-political society where man
will cooperate with man, that is a desirable thing. The message of
■Gandhiji is to abolish want and illiteracy among all men and to
124
9 th JANUARY 1953
inculcate in them the spirit of non-violence and the eschewing of
physical force, I will lay emphasis on the latter part, eschewing of
methods of physical force, because that will not stifle the moral
development of mind. He said we must call out strength of resist
ance in a non-violent way. However fierce the attack, still you
must resist it non-violently. On the social side, he wanted that
wherever we honestly felt that there was an injustice, we must
fight it out, so that more and more people who want to perpetuate,
those evils may see reason and may be ready to cooperate with us*
Our problem is: How to minimise evil, how to destroy it
altogether? Gandhiji said unless we change our very nature, we
cannot stop this aggression and exploitation. Wars are
created for exploiting a certain group of people. Therefore,
he said, the only way to oppose war is to change our lives. We
must abandon this idea of exploitation. We must change our
very nature*
Dr. Haekak
Thank you, Sir. Any question or discussion arising out of the
statement?
Professor Kabir:
One remark of Kaka Saheb during his very interesting speech
this morning is, I think, of very great significance. It appears to
me that if we develop the line of thought suggested in that state
ment, it may help us to arrive at some useful recommendations.
In talking of wealth, he said that on the one hand we have to
raise the standard of life of those who are living below the minimum
standard which is essential for human life, but at the same time
we must lower the standard of those who are leading inordinately
rich, artificial and luxurious lives. He gave an analogy of the
need of such limits in the field of dietetics and pointed out that
those who are under-nourished and those who over-feed are equally
liable to loss of health. I fully agree with him that there should
be some kind of Doctrine of Limits in the social and econo
mic spheres as well. The standard must however be both scientifi
cally and ethically right. I was going to ask for an amplification:
of the idea mentioned in his speech as well as in his paper.
This doctrine of limits is not of course a new doctrine. Aristotle
and others had proclaimed it long ago. If this idea is developed,
perhaps it may help us to solve some of the difficulties which the
world faces today.
Acharya Kripalani:
What about truth?
125'
1Professor Kabin
Of course, the doctrine of limits cannot apply to Truth. Truth
is an absolute value and is imponderable. Nobody has ever seen
it or known it. The doctrine of limits is applicable only to things
which have a quantitative measure and are commensurable in
human terms. It cannot apply to imponderables like Truth or
Love. Most of the conflicts arise out of these ponderables, these
■measurable things of life, like food, wealth, property etc., because
somebody has too much, and somebody has too little. This is
the line of thought which I want to pursue a little further.
Sometimes in our discussions, perhaps unconsciously, we have
tended somewhat to idealise village life and village conditions
which existed in pre-capitalist times. The avoidable evil and
misery which followed the first development of capitalism is a
warning to every nation and to individuals all over the world. At
the same time, because of our more immediate experience of the
horrors of capitalism, we should not forget some of the horrors
inherent in the pre-capitalist village society. Lord Boyd Orr said
casually that embroidery is a beautiful thing. But it is a beautiful
thing only if it is done voluntarily. It is not a beautiful thing if
it is done for a small pittance. We have heard of the carpets of
Iran and Central Asia. They are beautiful things, but I doubt
whether these carpets are made voluntarily or out of a sense of
artistry. I do know that in Kashmir the people who manufactured
these beautiful carpets were often without the bare necessities of
life. They lose their eyesight because they have to work such
long hours for a bare pittance. They work in such terrible
conditions that before they are thirty or thirty-five, many of them
have become decrepit and useless members of society. These
essentially beautiful things thus have another aspect, which is
horrible, for they are produced by hungry and starving men and
women. How can we forget that those who create these objects
of beauty for us have to suffer for our enjoyment?
We are not in favour of centralisation and monstrously large
cities. We are for decentralisation and smaller units of social liv
ing. Let us not, however, forget for a moment that in villages
there is a kind of inquisitiveness, there is a kind of tyranny of the
group over the individual which allows him no privacy. The city
is callous. In the city, you have no consideration for your
neighbour. You are not interested in what is going on in your
neighbour's house. Your neighbours also take no notice of you.
But in the village, they take such an interest in you that the
interest may become a tyranny and an imposition. The doctrine
of limits should therefore apply to the social organisations also.
’My idea of desirable social units is that they should be small
126
9 th
JANUARY
1953
Clowns, neither too inquisitive like a small village nor coldly
impersonal like a big city. I am not against the village as such.
But I do not find in the village an optimum unit either econo
mically or socially. There is too much interference in one’s
personal life in the villages. The cities have vast conglommerations of human beings where human relations are weakened and
depersonalised. We have to find some average or mean whereby
the village or township will be big enough to offer a certain
; amount of privacy, and at the same time not so big as to deny
people the opportunity of living human contacts, Gandhiji’s
idea of decentralisation is important, provided it is applied with
. these qualifications.
Kaka Saheb gave a good analysis of the dangers of having
extremes of poverty and riches. It is quite true that when some
body has more than he needs, he has to deprive others of their
legitimate dues and in order to find some justification for his
; action he develops an attitude of self-righteousness. The golden
mean, an optimum standard of life is therefore necessary as much
for our own sakes as for the good of others.
When we are dealing with some great man, we often try to
uphold our own views by quoting him. We want to wse great men
‘ instead of following them. I am sure that a dynamic personality
like Gandhiji particularly, who was always growing, would not like
us to stick to set theories. I am glad that Acharya Kripalani
referred to the scientific spirit of Gandhiji and Dr. Zakir Husain
to his objective attitude. Gandhiji’s object was the achievement
-of human welfare under conditions of truth and prosperity for
everybody. What the exact techniques were, was a comparatively
minor matter and he would have agreed that they are relative to
■the circumstances and liable to change from time to time. If we
recognise this, if we really believe that it is one of the essential
characteristics of Gandhiji that he was scientific in his approach
to human problems, that he would see them objectively and would
; treat the techniques as relative to the achievement of his object,
viz-, the attainment of human welfare by rightful means, we
would not say that Gandhiji would never have changed.
Our Chairman asked the question: “If Gandhiji had lived
for a long time after independence, would he not have changed his
views on machines?” Unfortunately it was not given to us to have
him with us for long after India became free. It might have been
that if he had lived longer, he might have changed some of his
views. Whenever he followed a particular course of action and
that course led to a certain result which he did not approve of,
be.was the first to recognise it. He once said that a decision of
! his was a Himalayan blunder. Gandhiji had the courage to
127
admit a mistake and never suffered from a false sense of prestige- He had objectivity of approach to each particular action. His
life is a lesson to us. If we remember this fact, then with the
kind of situations we are facing today we should try not to
repeat his techniques blindly, but to apply them with such
modifications as may be necessary. He permitted variation in method so long as we remained true to the principles.
Whatever we may wish, the world is not going to go backThe machine has come and will stay. Machines can spread murder
throughout the world, but machines can also reduce the drudgery
of life. We do not want mass murder, but we want the lessening of
drudgery. Gandhiji also was against the drudgery of labour. If
that is so, and if we want to provide leisure for vast numbers of
people, the machine cannot be discarded. If you say the people
cannot enjoy leisure, they will abuse it, it is because the vast
masses of people have never had leisure before. Take the expe
rience of Great Britain. When baths were first given to the Welsh:
miners, there were critics who raised the objection: “We have
gone to the houses of the miners. They use the baths not for
bathing, but to keep coal. So this money has been wasted”.
Maybe the baths were not properly used for a year or two, maybe
they were used for other purposes, but the miners soon learnt the •
real use of the bath tub. The same is the case with the problem
of leisure. Till now, the vast majority of people all over the world
have never had the opportunity of enjoying leisure. There was
leisure and comfort for only a minority and this they enjoyed by
imposing drudgery on the millions. Machines for the first time
have made it possible for all men to have a modicum of leisure. I
have no doubt Gandhiji would himself have approved the use of"
the machines in such a situation.
I would like to revert, before I close, to this idea of the
doctrine of limits. If we can make some recommendations on
these lines, our report would be treated seriously. If not, it would'
contain mere statements, pious wishes. Even dictators, even
those who are utilising human beings as cannon fodder, appeal
to the nobler sentiments of man and, without such appeal, they
cannot get the necessary response in effort and sacrifice. We may
also appeal to the nations of the world and ask them to adopt
Gandhian principles in the light of the situation of to-day. Let
us take the fullest advantage of man’s scientific achievements..
Machines have created the opportunity of leisure for the people, have for the first time created an era of plenty for the people, have
for the first time made it possible for large numbers of people
from different countries of the world to come into contact with
one another personally—we could not have met in a group like
128
9TH JANUARY 1953
this unless there was the machine—have made it possible to
exchange ideas and to plan together for the welfare of all
mankind.
Lord Boyd Om
As we hear of the things Gandhi wanted, we realise the people
of the world want the things that Gandhi wanted. For the first
time in history, we have now got the power to give people the
things that they have wanted. The big evil of the world today is,
as Gandhi said, great concentration of power, the power of exploita
tion over tfie lives of common men. Big cities and big combines
make such exploitation possible and that is why he wanted us to go
back to village life. I fully agree with Professor Kabir that
village life must be enriched. There should be work for all.
It is a long and difficult road before we get to the goal. It
depends upon the people themselves, how they get there. We have
to go step by step. One of the things we should first attempt is„
as Gandhi wanted, to raise the people of the world to the level
at which they will be free men. Therefore, I would like to see
first, an effort to ensure that every person in the world has the
physical necessities of life. He should not have to depend on
any man for bread. So long as even a single individual has to
depend on another for his bread, there can be no freedom in the
world. When a man has to depend on another for his bread, he
is not a free man, he can never be a free man. I think Gandhi
had that in mind when he said that to a poor man God is bread.
There is no use preaching ethics and philosophy to an empty
stomach.
We must hasten to formulate and put forward some concrete. •
proposals and ask the United Nations to get them implemented for
the benefit of mankind as a whole. The first task of any govern
ment or a group of governments today is to eliminate hunger and
disease wherever it exists. In this matter it will be unwise if certain
nations do not find themselves able to cooperate. Then we have
got to face the political problems the solution of which also should
contribute for the making of a better world. In these matters it is
difficult to say which thing should come first. And if we reach an
agreement, this Seminar will have made a great contribution.
Dr. Haekal:
Thank you. Sir. I hope we all agree with what Lord Boyd Orr
has just said.
We shall adjourn the meeting now to meet tomorrow morning;
•at 10-30 a.m .
129*
94 M . of E du.
The Seminar met at 10-30 A.M. on \0th January 1953, in the
Committee Room of Parliament House with Lord Boyd Orr in the
chair.
Lord Boyd Orr:
Ladies and Gentlemen: The meeting is now called,to order.
We still have* five people to speak and today we have the pleasure
of meeting our friend from Germany, Pastor Niemoller. Today
the discussions will start with Dr. Daftary’s statement. By
Monday all the speeches will, I hope, have been made and then
we will have to sit down to frame our recommendations. I will
now call on my friend Dr. Daftary.
Or, Daftary:
It has, indeed, been a great privilege for me so far to have
attended this international Seminar on Gandhian principles, in this
historic capital of India, and to have benefited by the very excel
lent viewpoints of various renowned Indian as well as other
" scholars, who are here to find a way in the Gandhian doctrines,
for promoting and preserving peace in the world.
Presumably, I too, have been invited to attend this Seminar
because the Indian Government thought that I also am one ©f
the devoted servants of the cause of peace. I must thank, there
fore, the organisers for this rather appropriate view of myself,
which they so kindly took. It is true, indeed, that for years I
have fought for the ideals of the League of Nations now dead, and
the present U. N. Accordingly I accepted this cordial invitation
very gratefully, so that in this visit of mine I may succeed in bene
fiting from Gandhian teachings and thus stand before the objects
-of my visit, face to face.
I must confess that I have not previously made a sufficient
study of Gandhian thought That is why I have been trying
throughout to learn and to appreciate in this Seminar so far,
rather than speak or give an address myself.
May I also remark that it has not however been at all difficult
for me to follow and appreciate all the deep and subtle things said
on Gandhiji despite my previous insufficient study of him? This
capacity to appreciate the noble ideals of Gandhiji is inherent in
most of the Iranians—indeed, even our masses can appreciate and
understand fully these great principles of love, non-violence and
rsupreme sacrifice.
130
Delegates'to the Seminar placing wreaths at the Samadhi of Mahatma Gandhi
Maulana Abul Kalani Azad addressing the Inaugural Session
1 0 t h tanuary 1 9 5 3
This fact is however accountable. For centuries, Iranians have
-foeen under the spell of teachers like Firdausi, Saadi, Hafiz, Orfi
-and Gazzali, whose exhortations and teachings greatly resemble
those of Gandhi. The great masters whom I am mentioning
belong to all ages and to every clime. There is a universal appeal
-in these true leaders of humanity. Saadi of Iran is equally owned
by India, and Gandhi of India belongs to India and Iran alike.
It would not be inappropriate, therefore, if I mention here that
there exists a very striking and wonderful analogy between the
Gandhian ideals and the ones preached and supported by the
Iranian poets and mystics. During a chequered and long career
-of some nine hundred years in India of the Persian language, the
'Iranian genius has become so inextricably wedded to the Indian
mind that both seem sometimes to have emanated from one and the
. same source.
Any student of literature would find in the great Iranian poets
the same unqualified insistence on non-violence and purity of
thought and action, on spirit rather than matter, on idealism rather
than brute action, on forgiveness rather than retribution, on truth
rather than evil, which Gandhiji has preached with great fervour in
our own times. To corroborate further what I have said I would like
'do quote a few Persian verses and read out their translations to you.
Saadi, whom we all know and love, says: —
Bani Adam Aazaye Yek-Deegarand,
Keh Dar Afareenesh Ze Yek Gouharand.
Cho Ozvi Bedard A warad Rouzegar,
Digar Ozvhara Namanad Qarar.
To Kaz Mehnate Digaran Bighami,
Nashayad Keh Namat Nahand Adami.
All mankind are limbs of one another,
In origin and their descent, the same.
When some one part of the body aches.
The rest of the limbs become restless.
Thou who careth not for the grief and the woes of man.
It befits not to call thee human.
.Another poet says: —
Gpftogooye Kofro Din Aakhar Be Yekja Mikas had,
Khaab Yek Khaab-ast Bashad Mokhtalef Tabeerha.
The controversy between Faith and Heresy terminates at
the self-same place at last.
The dream is one, interpretations vary.
'Then again: —
Dar Hairatam Ke Doshmanya Kofro Din Chehrast,
m
A z Yek Cheragh Kaaba va Botkhaneh Roushanast.
I stare in wonder why all this bitterness between Faith and.
Unbelief,
When both the Kaaba and the temple are ablaze from the:
same torch.
Orfi says:—
Haram Jouyan Dari-R a Miparastand,
Faqihan Daftarl-Ra Miparastand.
Barafkan Pardeh Ta Maloom Gardad,
Ki Yaran Digari Ra Miparastand.
The inmates of the Kaaba worship the door,
The devout adore the book,
Let the curtain be uncovered to reveal,
That the friends are worshipping something else.
And then a beautiful thought from Hafiz; —
Hama Ja Khaneh Esqast Che Masfid Che Kenesht.
Love is all pervading
It has enveloped the Mosque and the Church alike.
Now that you have appreciated how I and my countrymen are:
psychologically in a position to understand the teachings of Gandhi,.
I wish to make my own humble contribution to this Seminar, and"'
thus try to benefit fully from the Gandhian treasure-house of truthand knowledge.
Today there is none in the world who is not greatly perplexed;
and at sea in regard to his future. What are we to do then in order
to avoid the mistakes of the past? This is the most important
question. Well, of the various learned discourses that I have been
listening to here, that of Maulana Abul Kalara Azad, our dis
tinguished President, has left a deep impression on me. I am quite
sure if only we keep in view his line of thought we shall, in this
Seminar, achieve something worthwhile.
May I quote from his speech some very thoughtful pieces?
Maulana Azad said. “The responsibility of World War II was
generally laid on Hitler, but if one asked who created Hitler, theanswer would be: the signing of the treaty of Versailles was the
moment of Hitler’s birth
” Then again:
“World War II was nothing but a release of the hatfeds th at’
were generated in Germany in consequence of the Versailles treaty.
World War II is now creating conditions for a third World War.
Who can say where this process of destruction will take mankind?” '
Gentlemen, as a fervent believer in the U.N. ideals, I wish to
add to what the Maulana told us. U.N., the only hope of humanity
today, is also going the lamentable way of its predecessor, the
League of Nations. The League paid little heed to the petitions o f
132
10TH JANUARY 1953
fthe nations who were demanding revision of their fates and who
complained against the state of affairs resulting from the most
unjust treaties and pacts. The League remained adamant and
w ar came. The big fire that blew up burnt away the League
itself! U.N. likewise has today shut its doors upon several of the
nations and countries, whose cooperation is needed for strengthen
ing peace. U.N. unfortunately remains disregardful of the joint
commitments of its members and is only a spectator of the
attempts made by different nations towards economic or political
.pressure on others and has apparently no desire to check them.
U.N. has even failed to show any regard to what, in my opinion,
-constitutes the most important of all its missions, i.e., “to re>commend measures, which would guarantee the peaceful adjust
ment of critical situations, whatever their origin, and which
appear or are calculated to harm and jeopardise the general
welfare or the amicable relations between the nations.”
This important assignment of the United Nations as pres
cribed by Article XIV of its Charter implies that all injustices
of the past are to be rectified and that all those concessions which
'the stronger nations had forcibly extorted from the weaker
nations, are to be totally annulled, thus enabling all nations to
enjoy equal rights in a practical manner.
How then are we to apply today and tomorrow the Gandhian
principles of justice and toleration, when we find that the wrongs
done in the past are still there?
I was rather pleased by the coincidence of this assemblage of
ours with Mr. Attlee’s visit to Delhi. That “imperialism is now
undergoing the process of dissolution and liquidation” was a very
significant utterance made by Mr. Attlee in his speech in the Indian
Parliament.
I wish the big powers of the world may take
this advice from Mr. Attlee, and may agree in a practical manner
with his pronouncement, so that imperialism dies down completely
everywhere, both in the East and in the West. It must be
obvious to all, that so long as imperialism exists, there can be
no real peace in the world, nor can the third world war be
avoided.
Now in order to be able to discover the way of benefiting from
the Gandhian precepts and morals, let us take stock and adequately
assess the situation confronting us today. In this respect I cannot
do better than quote the very graphic words of Lord Boyd Orr.
He said: —
“There are four significant factors in the modem world
which have to be kept in mind in considering the possibility
of applying Gandhian techniques to the solution of internal
and international tensions: the first: the advance of science
133
has created conditions which can either eliminate hunger
and disease or can annihilate mankind; the second: the
concentration of power in the hands of a small minority*
leading to the third: the transformation of the world so
that there are only two nations who can deploy over
whelming military power; the fourth: a hopeful factor, the
great development in the ethical consciousness of the
masses, mainly as a result of the progress of education.”
With this world situation, the issue claiming priority of thought
ful deliberation is: What then are the rest of the nations to do?
Are they merely to stare and stand motionless and fascinated before
the two Big Powers and provide them with the fuel for the th ir d :
huge conflagration? Are they to remain scattered, some be
coming subservient to this, and some to that big power?
Or, are they to draw closer to one another, creating thus a
strong group-alliance on the basis of love of peace and security?
But in so doing, not severing their ties with the U.N., and also so to
contrive that the danger of any third big coalition may be con
siderably eliminated, and the great ideals and objectives of the U.N.,
as, for example, seeking reduction in the nation's armaments, may *
profitably be achieved.
Does it not therefore behove us all to take a solemn pledge to
assist each other in the event of an aggression, and rout
the aggressor whosover he be?
Mr. Kripalani has rightly referred to this notion when he
announced in the course of a powerful speech of his that “the pro
blem before the world today is whether Gandhiji’s principles of
non-violent resistance could be applied to ' conflicts between
nations.” According to Mr. Kripalani, this is possible if “an
individual nation is ready to make sacrifices for an international
cause, exactly as an individual does for a national cause, achiev
ing thus a standard of morality.”
True, an individual should immolate himself for a national'
cause, setting an example for others, as Mahatma Gandhi did in
very recent years, and so should it be the case with nations, sacri
ficing themselves for international causes.
In the world of today, with war not apparently very distant, if
all the peaceful and freedpm-loving nations in Asia, Africa, Europe
and America do not actually draw nearer in mutual concord, and *
assist one another, thus helping to create an effective peace front*
mere individual effort on the part of a nation would be tantamount
to suicide.
If the European countries have riot yet read the signs of the times, nor felt our pulse in Asia and Africa and Realised that we are not going to coalesce with imperialism or exploitation of any type134
1 0 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
whatsoever, and if these nations are not going to join us in thestruggle for constructing the edifice of peace, and if those in the
Western hemisphere consider themselves quite far away from th e
scene of action, why should we, the Asian and African nations not
come forward? Maybe this initiative on our part might induce
others to join us and also to cooperate with us in this battle o f
Ihe Right.
To build up an effective and strong front of the Asians and
Africans greater mutual understanding is urgently needed between
us. If the trade relations cannot for some reason or the other get
speeded up sufficiently fast, let not the cultural ties be spared; on'
the other hand, these must be strengthened as much and as quickly
as possible.
Gentlemen, this is an age of nationalism. Nationalism tomy mind is a reaction against imperialism. So it is good only so
long as it holds imperialism at bay, but it must not preclude our
becoming mutually more and more united. Let the dagger of
nationalism be therefore sharp for imperialism only, and not be
used to cut ourselves adrift.
Some days back, Mr. Nehru said that the Indian people were*
not against the British people in their struggle but against
British imperialism. This view was later repeated by Mr.
Kripahani and others too. Indeed, this is precisely the right frame
of mind to be commended. We should be friends of all nations
*nd not become averse to any.
I must observe, however, that if at all, and whenever the
imperialist policy is followed, whatever that power may be, in*
East or West, it is to be resisted. This would be a genuine and
reasoned nationalism. But let not a show of ultra-nationalism,,
hide-bound and parochial, narrow and extreme, stand in the way
of mutual intelligibility of nations.
For then our maladies would be aggravated, and the differences,
linguistic, religious and otherwise, which have come to us as the*
gift of imperialism, would only sharpen and take roots. I would
like to illustrate my point of view further for it is of considerable
moment to me. Suppose we, the Iranians, try to eliminateArabic words from the language spoken by Hafiz and Saadi, the
Turks turn out the Persian words, replacing them by newly coined
Turkish words, and our Indian friends disown the vast Persian
heritage so akin to the genius of the Indian soil and Gandhian*
philosophy, where shall we possibly land ourselves ultimately?
These reactionary and separatist movements among us would'
throw us farther and farther away from one another, bringing in
their wake isolationism and an intellectual alienness.
May I ask, by the way, whether it is not a reflection utxrn us:
135
all that we should perforce have to adopt one or the other of
European languages, brought to us by imperialism, in order to
make our views known in such gatherings as this? I am not
opposed to these languages as such. All I want is to make a plea
for the rich and great Oriental languages. The promotion of
these languages is bound to melt away the barriers between us.
I should also like to say in this respect that regarding disputed,
territorial or otherwise existing between us, let us liquidate them
.magnanimously, as far as possible. Thus alone can we succeed in
stopping aggression.
Thus alone, i.e., by minimising all our possible differences of
spirit and outlook, of language and religion, can we apply the non
violence and non-cooperation of the Gandhian concept.
lam reminded here of what our dear friend Mr. Kripalani said:
“If every nation acted truthfully and honestly and was prepared to
suffer for its faith, the aggressor would in course of time be
exhausted.”
Gentlemen, if isolationism in Asia persists any more, the alter
native would be a further and more vigorous exploitation of us all,
either by State Capitalism, or by exploiting trusts. As long as
exploitation exists, it will be impossible to eliminate war. It is
only in peace that it is possible for us, the so-called under-developed
countries, to thrive and to prosper. In peace alone can we build
up prosperity in our own homes, by providing bread and work for
all, securing a more reasoned distribution of wealth, raising the
standard of living of the common man, lessening the class conflicts,
achieving thus social justice and equity.
Gentlemen, war widens the scope of imperialism. In the event
of war, the freedom-loving peoples, in particular, are chastised with
malevolence and recrimination. There remains neither the bread
nor the morality. Indeed, as one of my teachers was wont to re
peat, “To talk of law or morals in war is a fantastic nonsense,” for
war knows no principles or canons, neither the international nor
the national laws. Nor are the moral exhortations of great
spiritual masters at all shown any regard. I am pretty certain, if
war comes, the eloquence of Professor Massignon also, which the
other day he unleashed in the defence of the war-wounded and the
refugees of war, would pay no dividends.
Let us therefore take a solemn pledge, a vrata after the
Gandhian pattern, not to hesitate, so long as we live, to plant our
selves solidly, against forces of aggression, from whatever quarter
it comes, and whosoever happens to be the aggressor.
Lord Boyd Orr:
Thank you very much, Dr. Daftary.
136
10TH
JANUARY
1953
The meeting is now open for questions and comments*
D r. Bunche:
I must say, Dr. Daftary, that I was somewhat shocked by what
■I might consider your excessive pessimism concerning the United
Nations. I would be the first to admit that the United Nations has
great weaknesses and has had significant failures. But it has
also had great successes. Usually our memory is short in regard
to its successes and always remembers failures.
I have
to mention that the first question of an important nature that the
United Nations was called upon to tackle had to do with the pre
sence of Soviet troops on Iranian soil. This was the first big
question the Security Council was seized of, and the United
Nations’ position on that issue was very strong. I think the
United Nations is the only effective machine in checking and
stopping dangerous armed conflicts. It has been working hard
for the restoration of peace and justice in such areas as Indonesia,
Palestine, in Kashmir itself. We are actually acting in accordance
with the principle laid down in the Charter of the United Nations.
1 think, when discussing this question, I must also remind you
*of the assistance which the United Nations has given to certain
peoples who have been engaged in their struggle against imperial
ist forces. The United Nations’ role in the events in Indonesia
helped in securing independence to the Indonesians. We must
also remember what U.N. did to secure justice to Eritrea, not to
mention the question which the United Nations tried to solve in
the struggle in Libya. To demand that U.N. must liquidate
colonialism and imperialism within one decade is in effect asking
for a miracle. To expect the United Nations to write off all the
injustices that"certain parts of the world have suffered for centuries
within the short span of seven years is not, in my opinion, fair to
the United Nations.
There may be great injustices which the United Nations has
not touched at all. Indeed, it may not have reached decisions
about the claims of certain nations such as your own or of India
whose guests we are. The role of the United Nations is neverthe
less tremendously important in assisting other peoples in their
struggle for liberation. I consider that the United Nations has
played a very important role in furthering the dissolution of
imperialism quite beyond anything which the League of Nations
was able to do.
In conclusion, I might say that we of the United Nations re
cognise the fact that while great conflicts are created by imperialsims, a great many conflicts and tensions are the creation of the
‘difference in ideology between the East and the West in the con-,
137
temporary world. We are also aware of the fact that our deci
sions may not be to the entire satisfaction of all the nations. The
United Nations can only act on broad principles and try to re oognise the realities of each individual situation. For instance,,
one such problem which the United Nations is facing is Kashmir,
a dangerous dispute from the standpoint of developing peace
between India and Pakistan. I am sony to have to speak in
defence of the United Nations in this Seminar. I do not know
what the stand of Gandhi would have been on matters which are
confronting the United Nations today. But I should say this
much, that the United Nations is always trying to find out solutions
to world problems without fear or favour of any particular/
group or nation.
Dr. Daftary:
Mr. Chairman, May I answer Dr. Bunche? I thank you for*
your observations. If you had heard my broadcast talk on theUnited Nations Day, or if you happen to read it, I think you w ill.
find that I am in no way antagonistic to the United Nations. I am 1
always preaching the principles of the Charter of the United!
Nations. If this Organization is weakening, it is because the more important members of the United Nations do not pay heed to their
obligations. You will agree with me that the United Nations isnot yet universal; many nations are outside it and they are only tooanxious to get into it. But by trying to keep them out, it is
felt that the more important members are inclined to exploit U.N.
for their own ends. Every nation in the world should be free fi>
associate itself with U.N. and make its contribution, however little
it may be, towards the achievement of the objectives of the United!
Nations. Therefore, if I made any observations about the United
Nations, it is only to remove the weaknesses of that Organization.
We are very grateful in Iran for the services that the United Nations
has done for our country. No doubt, U.N. started quite well, but.
I think it was in the third year that the Organization began toweaken because of the defiance of the big members. Yet we
must support the United Nations, because the United Nations isthe only hope of mankind. Whether it exists in the name of the:
United Nations or in some other name, we must have an organiza
tion of that kind and we must all try to save it. I want to ask;
you, Dr. Bunche, to take a copy of my paper to the United:
Nations.
Professor Kabir:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Dr. Daftary a few questions.
We all agree that as long as exploitation is there, the clanger o f ;
138
1 0 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
aggression is also there. He then went on to say that whenever
there is exploitation or aggression we must resist it. But how to*
find methods, peaceful and non-violent methods, to meet that:
aggression? In his reply, Dr. Daftary may kindly suggest in what
way non-violence can play a part in the solution of these problems.
As a matter of fact, no religion preaches war, untruthfulness, and
the kind. No country ever says it is in favour of war. But in the
circumstance of a war, most nations take a rather light view of the
interpretation of law, whether moral or written law. Their only
objective is to defeat the opponent by all possible means and we
all know what these means have been in wars till now. Once war
breaks out, morality has no chance. Therefore, war is to be avert
ed at all costs. But Dr. Daftary did not indicate how this should
be done. Further, Dr. Daftary advocated that there should be far
greater contact between nations of the East and the West. Hereagain everyone, I hope, will agree with him. But he stressed morethe need for all the Asian countries to get into much closer con
tact with each other. I am afraid if there is specially close inter
course between oriental nations without the western nations, it wilt
undoubtedly lead to the creation of a new type of bloc. There is*
already great tension between Soviet Russia and the Western demo
cracies giving rise to a very dangerous situation. The creation of
an oriental bloc may be even more dangerous, for it may easily
take a racial turn. This is bound to create tension between what
may be called the Eastern or Oriental bloc and the Western
or Occidental bloc. I would therefore like him to clarify further
his suggestion about greater contacts between the eastern countries,
and tell us how these can be carried out without creating frictionbetween them. Or would he favour the development of contacts
simultaneously between Eastern and Western countries?
Dr. Daftary:
Thank you very much, Professor Kabir. If you read carefully
my paper, I have already answered your question. Probably you:
have not caught my explanation. I am not advocating anything:
to be done outside the United Nations. We must bring together
all peace-loving people. We must make a peace-front in the
United Nations. I would say this in answer to Mr. Kripalani. I f
one nation sacrifices itself, then will the others follow? I said wemust apply the principles of Gandhi's non-violent resistance. If
we are separate and if we are isolationists, we would not succeed..
We must therefore have a front to apply Gandhi's principles.
We may create a peace front in the United Nations and resist,
aggression. It is the ideal of the United Nations Charter to resist
aggression. If all the peace-loving natkxis in the United Nations139
made a front inside the United Nations, not outside the United
'Nations, and resisted aggression, any idea of aggression, then we
could apply the high principles of non-violence and non-cooperation
of Gandhi against aggression. The United Nations, I repeat,
must be universal. We have to admit all the nations who are
now outside and are waiting for their admission into the United
'Nations.
Xord Boyd Om
Thank you.
Acharya Kripalani:
Mr. Chairman, You will kindly permit me to say a word. Dr.
Daftary quoted Mr. Attlee. May I say that when he was in office,
he tried to save imperialism as much as he could conveniently do?
Dr. Bunche:
What is it? I do not quite follow what you say.
Acharya Kripalani:
I say Dr. Daftary quoted Mr. Attlee and he seems to agree
with what he had said. I am afraid Mr. Attlee, when he was in
office, tried to save British imperialism as much as he could and
he was just following the foreign policy of his predecessors, the
Tory Party.
Dr. Daftary:
May I answer, Mr. Chairman? I am not personally responsible
for what Mr. Attlee said. He said that many nations were freed
when his government was in office and for that statement Mr.
Attlee would be responsible.
Acharya Kriplani:
Yes, when he found his power was crumbling in face of the
non-violent resistance of India.
Dr. Zakir Husain:
Dr. Daftary’s point was that if something could be done to
make non-violence a creed, then the whole of the East could adopt
it. I do not
know whether I understood him rightly,
but he seems to want the Eastern nations to come to
gether to undertake this job.
Dr. Daftary;
I want all peace-loving nations to do so, but I want the Eastern
140
10TH
JANUARY
1953
nations to make a start; and others will join us. Sometimes it .1
was possible for one man to resist a law which was most power
ful. So when I was talking about that, I was thinking in termsof very efficient resistance and the most powerful resistance,
even if it be by only one nation, although the effort in organizing:such a movement may appear to be wasteful for the time being.
Dr. Zakir Husain:
I think an important point to be kept in view in connection
with the observations of Mr. Kripalani is, that when you offer
non-violent moral resistance, you should not think too much
about the chances of success as the Chief of General Staff of an-,
army does. The greatest success of non-violent resistance is in.
its initial failures. If you have full belief in the cause for which
the non-violent resistance is offered, in spite of the many failures,.,
it is bound to succeed in the long run.
Professor Kabir:
I think we in this Seminar are concerned primarily with people
who are not prophets or saints. We need some method which,
ordinary people may adopt. Dr. Daftary has given us an interest- . ing address. His point is that even if one nation in the world is
prepared to sacrifice itself for the cause of world peace in the same
way as an individual like Mahatmaji sacrificed himself for the
cause of a nation, it would surely be a wonderful thing. It would
however be better and probably more within the reach of practi
cability if there is a Peace Front within the United Nations.
Dr. Daftary:
That is ray idea.
Dr. Haekal:
We are wanting to get things done very quickly. We are tryingto find out the reasons for the actual increase of tension in the
world today. If we have to consider the life of Gandhiji himself,
he had been developing his ideas for more than fifty or sixty
years—right up to his death. In this Seminar also we may find
ideas which will take sometime to develop, perhaps twenty or
thirty years. Dr. Bunche has been good enough to give us
examples of what the United Nations has been doing and what
still remains to be done. We easily forget the good things done.
and remember all the cases in which the United Nations has failed.
I very much value the United Nations organization as an Egyptian
but I feel that here in this Seminar we are asked to find out what we
can do through Gandhiji’s teachings which will save the world.
14 1
Trom a third world war. Personally, I do not believe in the
imminence of a third world war; on the contrary, I believe—I had
been in New York in 1946-47, everywhere there were war-mongers
who were saying war is coming and it is more than five or six
years—that war will not come. People all over the world feel
bitterly about world tensions. If war were to come, it would be
the annihilation of mankind. Thus we need time to get in our
ideas, to have them developed and evolve a better world in this
world of power politics.
We must have a new history of the world, and as Professor
Kabir said, we must have a new philosophy and new idea of the
world. It was very difficult some thirty or forty years ago to
find out what the ideas of different nations were. We at least in
the Middle East did not realise forty years ago the spiritual force
of India. We knew some of the Iranians as they were our neigh
bours. Actually we know through this scientific progress, through
books, radio and other means that the world is becoming smaller
and smaller, and thus I think, as Dr. Daftary said, we can co
operate, and collaborate much more in the actual scientific work
than we were able to do before, I think the United Nations is
the greatest organization that can help us in this sense on con
dition that it becomes truly universal. Nations must be able to
become members simply by knocking at the door of the United
Nations. Then alone will we have a real United Nations. When
this has been done, we can do something for the betterment of
human life.
Mr, Pyarelal:
Mr. Chairman: There can be no doubt in the mind of any rightminded person that the only hope of mankind is the emergence of
a true United Nations. The law of the jungle has to cease to
operate between nations, as it has ceased to operate between indi
viduals and groups in all civilised society. A true United Nations,
however, can come into being only when the nations composing it
are completely free and independent—and the nature and extent of
that freedom will correspond to the degree to which it, has assimi
lated the principle of non-violence.
Armaments are not necessary for this purpose. World peace
cannot be achieved by means other than peaceful. The U.N. has
set up a number of bodies for international cooperation to tackle
a number of world problems. Why should it not set up a body for
the propagation of non-violence and research into its techniques?
The next step should be to call upon all the nations composing it
to educate their people in the use of those techniques and to env courage increasing employment of the same for resolving internal
142
10TH JANUARY 1 9 5 3
^tensions within their own territories. There is no question that
simultaneous disarmament is the only solution but nations are not
today ready for it. Governments, as they exist today, cannot from
their very nature be completely non-violent because at the root of
the modem state is the conception of force. It need not be so
always. It is possible for a government progressively to move
towards the goal of non-violence. Take the case of our govern
ment. It does not claim that it is based on non-violence. But the
' holding of this Seminar is an indication of the direction in which
it wants to advance. I therefore heartily endorse the idea of a
Peace Front within the U.N. A nation may not be able imme
diately to disarm but it may refuse to align itself with any of the
power blocs and refuse to be drawn into a shooting war. In the
U.N., as it exists today, issues are still decided by considerations
of diplomacy instead of abstract justice and truth. Let it be for
the neutral group to stand for abstract justice and truth instead
o f expediency.
The first condition is sincerity of conviction. Gandhiji always
^said that one ounce of action is far better than a ton of theory.
He said that if you want to carry out an idea, become a personi
fication of that idea. I can give you many examples of how he
’became possessed of an idea. When he went to East Bengal, he
said, “I want to enter into the hearts of the people, and until and
unless I do so, I cannot move them”. Do you know what he
•did? At the age of seventy-eight, he sat down to learn the
Bengali language, and no matter how busy he was and how short
•of time, he did his Bengali lessons like a schoolboy.
The pity is that U.N. like other nations has adopted a line of
*what is called diplomacy. Diplomacy means to use words, not to
express what you say, but to conceal what you have to say. This
is a thing Gandhiji shunned all his life. He always told the
unpleasant truth.
i Dr. Bunche:
Might I just say that there are many who feel that one of the
most significant departures of the United Nations in procedure,
from its predecessor, the League of Nations, is its lack of diplo: macy? Speakers, representatives of the Governments, speak much
too frankly in U.N.
Mr, Pyarelab
But it cannot be denied that the United Nations organisation
does speak the old language of diplomacy on occasions.
ifir. Bonche:
There is, I should have thought, a singular lack of diplomacy.
143
Mr. Pyarelal:
The trouble is that the U.N. sometimes does not want to judgean issue because of the feeling that its role is that of a peace
maker. It is a false notion. Peace is a very desirable end but it
must not be a blanket for the perpetuation of injustice. Gandhiji
always stood for peace with justice. His creed was non-violence'
but he was never satisfied with the peace of the grave. He swore
by non-violence because he found it to be the most efficient instru
ment for the redress of wrongs, for the establishment of justice.
The U.N. must not be afraid of pronouncing a clear judgment
when the issue is between right and wrong.
Dr. Bunche:
Afraid of What?
Mr. Pyarelal:
Coming to a judgment.
Dr. Bunche:
I did not catch you.
;
Mr. Pyarelal:
Coming to a judgment.
Now comes the next point. I feel that the U.N, ought to make
a declaration about ends and means. If it makes such a' declara
tion viz-, that right ends can only be achieved by right means, that
ends of civilization cannot be attained by the sacrifice of human
values, we shall have taken a great step forward. We shall not
then have to witness the tragedy of a people being blotted out oT
existence by those who have set out to liberate them—to save them
for democracy! After the first world war, the intellectuals of the
world issued a declaration of the independence of the spirit. It
was led by Romain Rolland and others. I wish we had a similar
declaration about ends and means on behalf of the U.N. The
next thing would be, as I have said before, for the U.N. to organise
research in the science of non-violence; to promote understanding
of its working; to find out what system of education is needed U>
train people in its use; what are the means by which the discipline
of non-violence can be inculcated among the masses etc. We are
talking a lot about the Gandhian outlook. It will remain a pious
hope unless we seriously apply our minds to the techniques which
he perfected and which made that outlook effective. It is that
which constitutes his special contribution to modem political!
thought.
144
lO T H JANU/VRY
1953
Dr. Bunche:
Might I just say that this point, this last point, seems to be the
central problem? Actually, in the Charter of the United Nations,
you have the declaration for achievement of the ends by peaceful
means. The problem of the United Nations is to get the Govern
ments, or what is more important, to get the people to insist that
the Governments abide by the principle to which they have sub
scribed in the United Nations. That is the problem. That is
the weaknessof the United Nations. The difficulty is that the
Governments do not sometimes accurately reflect the wishes of
the people.
Lord Boyd Orr:
We have got only a few minutes now
and Iam not going
to deprive you of the pleasure of hearing the next learned
speaker, Pastor Niemoller. I only wish to make a few brief
remarks. Dr. Daftary had referred to Mr. Attlee and his attitude
towards Indian freedom. A friend objected and said that the
British Government had to give in in any case, that they could not
pursue the same policy as in earlier days. This may be true, but
there is no harm in making a virtue of necessity, is there? I think
it would be quite gracious to assume that what Mr. Attlee did was
done out of a good heart. We could say, “How noble of the
United Kingdom to have given India her freedom?” This would
also give her encouragement to follow a similar liberal policy else
where, I think you will agree on that.
Then regarding the United Nations. We are all agreed that
the U.N. is now the only barrier between *ourselves and chaos.
Criticism of U.N. there has been and there will be. I have myself
criticised it with great bitterness. But there is not much harm in
criticising what we love very much. It is those whom you love
most that you criticise. The second point was about the League
of Nations and the present United Nations. Today any member
nation can express its views before the U.N., but it could not be
done fifty years ago when countries gathered on the basis of
big powers, and small countries could have no say.
India,
for instance, could not stick her knees below the same table, at
Whitehall, with other nations, but now, she can stick her knees
below the same table with the biggest nations of the world. The
United Nations is a great structure. If you remember the pre
amble to the Charter, it says, not the Governments, but the
“Peoples of the world”. Let all the peoples of the world get
together and take important decisions on the great problems of the
world today.
145
The o.her point that was mentioned was about power politics. 1
think we have got to realise that power politics has always existed
in the world. Ever since history began, it was the age of power
politics. We have now reached a stage when we feel that without
‘non-violence, there will be an end to man. This thought has
advanced to such an extent, has produced institutions of such
power, that people have begun to feel war is impossible; power
politics is impossible; even the most powerful nations of the world
have begun to fee] this. And so, you have, for the first time in
world history, this philosophy of dislike of power politics. Every
body realises that violence must be discarded. And now that we
have created a vacuum in the world today, what is to take its
place? There is this Gandhian idea. How could this new
philosophy be put into operation, into action? One excellent
suggestion, that of our friend Dr. Daftary, about a peace bloc in
the United Nations, deserves attention. This has got to be done,
because some of the powerful nations have got control over other
nations. Now, it is suggested that some of the smaller nations
might get together and say: We are against war; we do not want
war, and you need not send us guns and bombs, because we will
not use them. This is a non-violent way of resisting war. If some
two or three groups of nations could be made to do this, it would
be very good, and I am quite sure the people of the United States, v
the people of Russia, they would all heave a sigh of relief: “We
can then cut down our armaments; we can then lay down arms.
War is death” Russia, United States, and everybody will say this,
I am afraid I have taken too much time, but this is a very in
teresting discussion.
Now, I will call upon Pastor Niemoller to speak.
Pastor D, Martin Niemoller:
Ladies and Gentlemen, it is only with some reluctance that 1
try to make a very brief and modest contribution to the general
discussion which has already for some days gone on in this group.
This hesitancy is due not only to the fact that unfortunately I have
not been able to attend from the beginning, but also to the fact
that I cannot regard myself as an expert, as most of you are.
Moreover—as you know—I belong to a nation which certainly has
suffered from violence more than many others, but which has no
right to complain about it, since we ourselves have brought
suffering upon our neighbours by violence in an unheard-of way.
Yet. I could not but accept the invitation to this Seminar, even
for the very few days which 1 have to spare; for I wanted to con
tribute to your common task out of the experiences and insights
which are the results of my people’s latest history.
146
10TH JANUARY 1953
Certainly, I am right in saying that in my country—as in all
European countries—the personality, the work and methods, the
philosophy of life of Mahatma Gandhi are looked upon with the
greatest interest, and more, with keen hope and eager expectation.
For the confidence that anything good could be achieved by
violence has broken down completely and has given way to a
feeling of utter frustration. Instead, the conviction is growing that
in order to avoid chaos and despair, a totally different and new
way must be found.
It is because of this state of mind that at present all sorts of
peace organisations—not all of them sincere—find members and
subscribers by the thousand, whereas the membership of the
established political parties is dwindling away; that the Churches
are urged incessantly they should do something real and construct
ive in order to secure a peaceful solution of the growing tensions
in international life; that the plan of re-arming our people is
severely criticised and indeed rejected by public opinion. Even
if in general this attitude is based more on instinct than on clear
conviction, I may say that the number of those who earnestly
think about the problem and who have come to see that a basic
change is needed, has grown steadily and continues growing.
Nobody will contradict you, wherever and whenever you may
state this fact. Actually, no political leader would dare to re
commend re-armament in public without emphasising from the
beginning that according to his conviction re-armament is the
only way to secure peace and to avoid war, and that it must in
no way be misunderstood as a preparation for war.
As far as I can see, the conviction is widespread and nearly
general by now that war is no longer an instrument by which any
thing can be achieved; that war has ceased being the last resort
when politics fail; that its only result is that at the end of the war
the situation is even worse for all participants than the situation
which existed before and which was sought to be improved and
restored by the war. This means that war has become absolutely
devoid of sense.
In the wake of this experience, which seems to be definite, many
people have begun to put the further question whether or not what
is true as to war might be true also for every use of violence. Thus
the hope formerly attached to the idea of class struggle is vanishing
rapidly, and a strong tendency has developed to overcome diffi
culties and controversies by negotiation rather than by
lock-out or strike, that is by force. Consequently, not
only the method of violence, but the whole principle of
power—power understood as potential use of force—has become
.dubious and suspect,
147
The question now is how to replace a system which has already*
become ineffective and is going to become Obsolete. It is withr
this question that our generation is confronted. The problem
would have arisen and.would have become clear to my people
twenty-five years earlier—at least this Is my opinion—if the first
World War had not stopped short just outside the German borders.
Now it has come to us very late and ever so more urgently.
May I now proceed and make a few remarks with reference to
the exact topic and issue of this Seminar? I shall put them into
four points.
First, I think there is a general agreement amongst us as to the
principle for whose realisation we want to work. We avowedly
want a human society with as little use of violence as possible and1
we want to get rid of violence as a more or less normal and
acknowledged means for settling disputes. We, that is, persons,
groups and nations, have to live together side by side; that implies
that our own interests—sooner or later—will get into touch with
the interests of others with whom we live side by side. This con
tact can be friendly and enrich our life; or, it can become hostile
and encroach upon our life. Our problem is what to do in this
latter case; for the threat of hostile contacts has greatly grown
because our world is shrinking and the contacts have becomedangerously frequent and unavoidable.
For many thousand years the problem has been solved inside
the family and in other organically organised communities.
Custom and law have provided for authorities which prevent or
check the use of violence and, where necessary, punish it. There*
has been no such authority in the field of relations concerning
nations or communities. It has been here that the problem hinted
at in the discussions has remained before the United Nations
arrived. We not only need to find a way without violence, but we
have to find a way to punish by authority without using violence.
That is the real problem. If this authority weakens, ways have
been found again and again to reform and strengthen it. But
between the nations and groups of nations such authority is lacking
or, as in the case of the U.N., is not yet strong enough—I put it
this way and not in the way Dr. Daftary has put it—to prevent the
use of violence. It is here that for the first time we are seeking for
improvement, because it is on this international level that violence
threatei
unkind to its very roots of existence.
Secondly: In what way can this principle be tackled? Where is
the way out? Here, by the Gandhian way, we understand the way
of non-violence. It is not the only way thinkable, for the alter
native is a real and effective world government with firmly
established authority, capable of settling any disputes and contro148
10th JANUARY 1953
•versies in the same way and with the same efficacy as an
acknowledged State or family authority can do in its own sphere,
and strong enough to secure observance of the law.
We all know about the special difficulties of this solution and
we cannot and must not wait until it will work. Then it would be
too late, if I understand rightly. So there is the Gandhian way of
non-violence as an alternative, or at least as a supplement. A way
of avoiding violence ought to be found if the partners concerned
agree—as they actually do—that violence in the end will bring no
good or lasting results. Here we have to counteract the mere idea
of violence, and in this respect much can be done.
We have become used to take power and strength for synonyms;
and so we have developed or at least supported a superstitious belief
in violent and military power without realising that—surely in our
days—military power is to be regarded as an opiate with which to
offset a lack of self-confidence, the fear of not being strong enough.
Therefore today the most powerful nations are at the same time
the most fear-stricken in the world. The way of power which
may end in the way of violence is not the way of strength, but of
fear and weakness. We see evidence of this in the fact that the
most powerful nations of our days are frightened of each other
to such a degree that they don’t even dare to speak with each
other. Power is not strength. If we don’t believe in violence—and
we don’t—we must admit that strength has to be drawn from other,
different sources. Then it comes to the question where the sounder
thoughts and arguments are, who has more intuition and the better
proposals, who—in one word—really has more strength to promote
our living together without taking to violence.
Thirdly: Now the crucial problem is—and it was hinted at just
a minute ago—how to put into action the way which in theory—as
we all agree—is the right one? And this is the point where
nearly always fear—i.e., weakness^-dominates. Everybody and
■every nation fears that by making the first step on the way of non
violence, he will lose ground, and that after all he has to safeguard
himself and those for whom he is responsible; and blinded by this
fear he again relies upon power, in spite of knowing that power
will lead him nowhere. It takes courage to meet your opponent
unarmed in the non-violent way as long as you see him armed to
the teeth. Practically in the whole Western world the way of non
violence therefore ends even before it has been tried; it ends be
cause there is no strength.
Here it becomes clear, according to my impression, that the
Gandhian way is more, and must be more than just a method. The
greatness of Gandhi reveals itself to me by the fact that he had this
courage and that he was able to imbue masses with this courage.
149
Here, and for him, non-violence is inseparably linked and connected with Truth. We would perhaps say in our Western manner,
Faith. It is the conviction that what is right is just and will become,
justified in any case, by victory or by defeat, because in the end it
must and will prevail. Non-violence is worthless without this faith,,
for it would become mere expediency and utilitarian; and as
cowardice, it might become worse even than violence itself. Non
violence with Truth becomes strength, aggressive strength, over
ruling and disarming what today is called power.
The fourth point. Non-violence as the Gandhian way can be
practised only by those who do trust that suffering injustice develops
and increases strength and that it weakens the imaginary power of
the opponent; that this suffering, voluntarily accepted, may in the
end bring your opponent round to your own attitude because his
weapons become ineffective and useless. It is here that Gandhian
and Christian doctrine, as well as the sources of Muslim doctrine,
come nearest to each other. To overcome evil by doing good, to
suffer in order to overcome and to change your opponent by heap
ing coals of fire on his head, so that he has to surrender—not to
you—but to Truth. That is the hope and the promise of suffering
by non-violent resistance.
The so-called ‘Christian’ world has never followed in these foot
steps of Christ; very few Christians have. That is why I cannot
look at Gandhi otherwise than that in him God once again calls
Christianity to repentance and re-dedication, and that in
this sense he really has to be recognised as a beacon in the dark
ness of our age, and the light of this beacon is seen all over the
world.
Now this Seminar is going to examine the problem of how the
Gandhian outlook and methods can be brought to bear upon and
to influence the present and solve tensions in the different areas of
our human, personal, social, national and international life.
Certainly that is not a question of mere technique, but a question
which in all its aspects needs a spiritual impact and motive.
Gandhi’s own way has been a tremendous effort of spiritual edu
cation, born out of his indefatigable love for his neigh
bours, for his fellow-men. We also, I think, shall need more
than knowledge and insight; we need, in order to go and to pro
mote his way, a full share of his mind and of the spirit that worked
in him.
Thank you.
Lord Boyd Orr:
Thank you very much. We have still twenty minutes left for
comments and discussion.
150
1 0 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
Mr. Pyarelal:
It is a great privilege to have Professor Niemoller here in our
midst. He has had experience in the practice of non-violence
under the heaviest odds—as perhaps nobody else in this assembly.
We would very much like to hear from his lips how he found it
possible to oppose by the power of the spirit the most absolute
dictatorship that the world has ever seen and have the benefit of
his personal testimony.
Pastor Niemoller:
First I want just to say that I am no professor. I am a
mere Pastor.
I often meet with gentlemen in my country and in every
European country who tell us that under totalitarian regimes you
cannot keep being free. What I have tried and what many
people in Germany have tried to do is to keep our freedom in spite
of the threat of a totalitarian power and I think we have succeeded
in a fair measure.
I will tell you of one experience which helped me. When I
was put behind bars, I at first felt constrained, but I discovered
after a little time that you could easily create in yourself the
impression that people looking from the other side of the bars
into your cell were really behind the bars, that we were the free
ones inside the cells and that those who were obeying a system
in which they themselves did not believe, but obeying it from
sheer fear of their physical life were the real prisoners, were the
ones who were? imprisoned. I also found this was not my
experience only, but of others who, like me, had defied the
regime and were put behind prison bars. In fact, I think it
belongs to all people suffering from and opposing totalitarian
pressure of today.
We must of course have the strength, I think, the conviction
that we have the right to freedom even if the freedom is taken
away from us by physical force. I have found, and it has been
one of my great experiences of these eight years, that any firm belief
and any strong conviction can give you the power to stand up
against tyranny. I have shared my experiences with Communists,
with Socialists, with people of Japan, in a word with all sorts of
people of different convictions. Most of them suffered and were
kept under strict control and yet maintained their morale, certainly
as well as I did it as a Christian. Often I have been asked: How
could you stand it? Was it because of your Christian faith?
Personally it is my Christian faith that sustained me but I must
confess that you can stick to any faith, if it is really genuine. Deep
personal conviction, whether in the Christ as in my case or in
151
Socialism as in the case of Socialists, renders you the
same service.
The real trial came not during imprisonment but afterwards,
when we came out. We were coming in contact with the same
people who had been our oppressors a few days before. Now the
question arose: How to behave towards those people who,had
exercised so much pressure against you? You knew that their
ideology had been crushed. They did not have the moral courage
to support their previous actions. You could take revenge on them.
You were now in power. You could tell them, “Now it is our
turn to condemn you and take away your liberty and freedom”.
Those who had no faith in God could and did often go this
way. You could also go the other way, the way of the Christ and
the way of Gandhi’s non-violence, his conception of non-violence
combined with truth, and treat your opponent of yesterday as your
brother and feilow-man and friend of today.
The question which we are facing today is how to transfuse
such personal experience and faith as Gandhi transfused them
into the masses of the Indian people. How can we transfuse, in
our days, this spirit of non-violence from the personal level, from
the group level into the level of nations? I am convinced that a
few nations inside the United Nations, representing a great pro
portion of the population of the world—if they take the line of
Gandhi or of Christian non-violence, non-violence combined with
faith, combined with truth, combined with this sort of human
goodwill for fellowmen—could really turn the tjde. For it will
then become apparent that power is not strength and that strength
must look for different ways to make an impression on the people
of the world and to convert even those who today believe in power
as being the only strength.
Mr, Pyarelal:
One more question. The stock argument that is often trotted
out here is that the technique of non-violence cannot be used in
the environment of totalitarian doctrines. It is on this point that
we should like to have your views.
Pastor Niemoller:
If I understand aright, you mean whether the methods and out
look c/f non-violence could be administered, could be exercised
under the influence of totalitarian doctrines and their propaganda?
Mr. Pyarelal:
Against those who have made violence and brute force their
creed.
152
10TH JANUARY 1953
Pastor Niemoller.
I would say that is nothing new. I was brought up under the
same technique, propaganda and belief that power is strength.
But firm conviction will enable you to stand against being over
ruled. The surrender to such propaganda is indeed loss of freedom
and liberty. In other words, you need not necessarily succumb to
any such propaganda and lose faith in your own belief. Even
the most confirmed Nazis admit this.
Professor Kabir:
I agree that people who have faith in non-violence can resist
the pressure of propaganda, but what about people that have had
no opportunity of developing such faith? I am thinking of those
whose whole life has been spent under a totalitarian regime, where
you have tremendous psychological propaganda and conditioning
of the people all the time, and where all the media of communica
tion are in the control of a party which believes that a different
view point should not be presented at all to the people and only
one type of thought and attitude should be conveyed to all the
people there,—how are you going to approach the people, parti
cularly those generations who—unlike yours—-have had no
experience of any other state of affairs?
Pastor Niemoller:
Certainly this question is a little difficult to answer. We have
no Germany today. We have no German nation as it used to be.
The nation is itself split into two groups, both under the strong
influence of one-sided propaganda. One group, i.e., Western
Germany is re-arming itself under the propaganda of the Western
bloc of nations and the other, Eastern Germany, is absolutely under
the propaganda coming and being directed from Moscow. Now
the populations in both Germanys of today have some experience
of a different state of affairs. Many of the older among them
remember the pre-Hitler days and even those who grew up under
the Hitler regime compare the present with the twelve years of
previous rule. So far our situation may be considered better than
the situation in Czechoslovakia, or Hungary or in Russia. But I
can say that even the weapon of propaganda becomes ineffective
after a while; that it does not have the sharp edge on the people to
whom it is directed. It was so even in the times of Hitler himself
that people began to scoff at the newspaper reports and at what was
being propagated. Too much of propaganda often defeats itself,
but I do not think that it is very easy or could be made very easy
today to make an impact on the population of say Soviet Russia
where for thirty years or more people have heard only one type of
propaganda. It is a rather difficult question.
153
I would however say that it is my firm belief if nations belong
ing to the United Nations today group together in this non-violent
way of truth, something could be accomplished because the most
powerful may come to see that they are not really strong and that
if they stand aloof from the rest, they are really weaker in the
whole set-up of today’s humanity.
Mr, Pyarelal:
By isolating the force of untruth and violence?
Professor kabir:
Are you suggesting that by putting aside all those who believe
in violence and boycotting them we can make them realise their
weakness?
Pastor Niemollen
You mean by excluding them?
Mr. Pyarelal:
I did not suggest their ‘exclusion*. I said
That is different from ‘exclusion,’
‘isolate
them,’
Pastor Niemollen
If most nations agree to act non-violently, those powers, who
do not, will find themselves isolated in the midst of the rest of the
nations. I have often expressed myself in this sense to the people
driven by fear today in my own country and elsewhere in
Europe. I made a very audacious remark to them and have
asked them, “Could you guarantee that Russia and America will
really be the big powers ten years hence in spite of their arma
ments?” Maybe some different powers may grow militarily
stronger; some other nations may produce more destructive
weapons and may accumulate the strength of power to challenge
the two great powers. But we do not want to wait until their
power dwindles. We want to built up the strength of non-violence
in order to accelerate the decay of mere military power. I think in
Europe the reliance on the strength of power is fast dwindling.
Personally, my conviction is that if attempts are made towards
re-arming the small nations of-Europe, theyjwill not succeed. I am
sure that if the third- World War is to come, there will be no armies
left, nor even people left to fight. Actually people in Europe
are not prepared to take up arms1again. Their fighting spirit is
gone. When the armies to be uged in war make no use of the
arms, how could any war take place? We have seen this happen
154
1 0 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
in the last war. We have seen it in France, Belgium, Holland
and so on. Power dwindles, this sort of power is dwindling.
Lord Boyd Om
We have to close the sitting in two minutes.
Acharya Kripalani:
What my friend Pyarelal has been trying _to ask has already
been answered by Gandhiji himself. He said that as the power of
violence—physical and psychological—increases, the power of non
violence should proportionately increase. There is no doubt that
this happens as non-violence becomes more pure. That is what
Gandhiji said. Even if he had died in fighting the British Govern
ment, his followers would have taken up the work. This made him
more and more non-violent in thought, word and deed.
Mr. Pyarelal:
I need no persuasion myself. I only wanted Pastor Niemoller’s
witness.
Lord Boyd Orr:
I think Pastor Niemoller is correct when he says that Europe
today is sick of war.
Pastor Niemoller:
My impression is that the fear in Moscow from Washington is
greater than it is in Washington from Moscow, but these two
cities are the most terrified cities that I have seen.
Lord Boyd Orr:
Well, Ladies and Gentlemen, we shall adjourn till Monday. 1
hope on Monday everybody will be in his seat at 10-00 o’clock.
[155
The Seminar met at 10 A M . on 12th January 1953 in the
Committee Room of Parliament House with Lord Boyd Orr in the
Chair.
Lord Boyd O rr
Ladies and Gentlemen, the meeting is called to order. We
have got a little behind our schedule and today we had planned
to have four speakers but will take up only three—Dr. Haekal,
Mr. Pyarelal, and Dr. Bunche. The other paper we will not be
able to take* up today because our friend is not ready, and also he
is not feeling too well. We will try to go through these today.
Tbmorrow we have no meeting here. There will be a meeting
in camera to see how far we have come and what is the further
programme. So, tomorrow there will be a meeting at the Hyder
abad House, but no meeting here. I hope that is quite clear. There
will be no observers but only the delegates. There will be a meeting
here on Wednesday morning at ten. If that is clear, I will now
call upon our distinguished friend, Dr. Haekal, to give us his paper.
Before we take this up, our friend Pastor Niemoller has not
been here with us for some of our meetings. He came here only
the other day and will be here today and tomorrow. So you will
agree that we should give precedence to any remarks he wishes
to make, and allow him to give us the benefit of his views. If he
wants to speak, we will be silent.
Dr. Haekal:
Mr. Chairman and fellow delegates, my paper has already been
distributed to you and I take it that many of you have read it, or
if you have not had the time, you will read it at your leisure.
(See Appendix E). I do not therefore propose to read it here.
I am going to introduce some new facts and will do so briefly.
The two leading ideas of Gandhiji, to my mind, are these:
The first is truth and the second is human dignity. Truth to
Gandhiji did not mean simply seeing truth, but meant truth in
thought, word and deed. We agree easily on ideas. Whenever
it is simply a matter of ideas or principles which we are discuss
ing, we can easily come to an agreement on principles. But
once implementation begins, there come differences of interpre
tation, differences of opinion, and then the idea itself is shelved.
'May I recall what happened after the first World War? When
President Woodrow Wilson drew up his Fourteen Points, the whole
world agreed that thesj fourteen points would be of the greatest
156
12th JANUARY 1953
good to all humanity. But when the peace conference met a t
Versailles, and they began to discuss how to implement these four
teen points, very many differences arose between the members, and
it took them six months to draw up the Versailles Treaty. I quite
agree with Maulana Azad that it was through this treaty which:
was intended to establish peace after the first World War that the
seeds of the second World Wrar were sown.
Very many meetings have been held either by the United
Nations or by Unesco and many fine statements have been made
on this question of tensions with which we are dealing. I have
here with me a book about a meeting that was held in 1948, in
which eight big sociologists of different countries, from communist
countries and from democratic western countries, participated and
they made a common statement.
But they have been honest
enough to say that “although we agree on the statement as a whole,
so far as many of its points and the implementation of these points
are concerned, we differ as to what effect will come out of them.”
This idea of truth in thought, word and deed has been a central
idea, a basic idea of Gandhiji. It is this idea which can lead us
to world peace.
The second idea, and I think it is the most important part of
the whole campaign of Gandhiji, is the idea of human dignity—
human dignity for individuals and human dignity in society. His
first campaign in South Africa was for his own human dignity and,
secondly, for the dignity of his co-nationals in that part of the world.
The unjustified discrimination of the South African Government in
humiliating the Indians there made Gandhiji revolt. It was not
only for his own personal or individual sake that he revolted, but
he began thinking that if these thousands of Indians here are going
to be treated so badly, how can they cooperate with this Govern
ment? How can they cooperate with people who do not respect
human dignity? Thus he came to his idea of Satyagraha and
Ahimsa. It was there in South Africa that these ideas were born.
When he came back to India, it was again this new idea of
human dignity that led him to campaign against untouchability,
which is really a very great campaign. We are all equals, born
equals and must live as equals. There should be no touchability
and untouchability and, therefore, he launched his great campaign.
Again, it was not simply for the untouchables that he had this idea
of human dignity. He had also the idea of brotherhood among
men, whatever be their religion, whatever be their thoughts. This
was the idea which led him to treat all members of the Indian
society in the very same way, be they Hindus, Muslims, Christians
or anything else, so long as they were sincere in their faith and in
their prayers.
15 7
May I say that his great respect for human dignity also made
him go against the great machines? He found that men working in
big industries become mere tools in these industries. They do not
go on as human beings working with their own minds, but they
become simply tools, a mere cog in these machines. We can apply
this idea of human dignity to all the activities of Gandhiji and that
is why it was the central idea of his life. How can people co
operate with anyone whom they do not respect? How can people
work for the common good if some of them are to be respected
and others not? As a matter of fact, the idea of dignity of labour
pertains to this very leading idea of human dignity. I do believe
this is what our friend Professor Kabir was stressing the other day
when he said that we must think of limitations of wealth both on an
individual and a national scale, of limitations on both sides—limi
tations for the very small and for the very big. You cannot have
human dignity if you cannot feed yourself and your family through
your work. Nor is it consonant with human dignity that you
should sit there doing nothing and at the same time exploit your
fellowmen for your own profit.
These two ideas—truth and human dignity—led Gandhiji to
formulate what he called the Nai Talim . This method taught
that everybody in education should have to work with his hands
and feet and with his body. The idea is that this will teach him
morality and lead his intellect to better understanding. I, how
ever, do not agree with Gandhiji so far as the university is con
cerned. The universities specialise in certain branches of study,
but so long as it concerns primary education and secondary edu
cation. I quite agree with him. Now, may I go a little back and
say that as a matter fact, we in this world can cooperate and do
cooperate only on this basisi that all human work is respected so
long as it is honest—you can be a lawyer, a barber, anything else—
so long as you are honest, your work must be respected by every
body and you are equal in this way with everyone.
If we can put these ideas into the minds of the youth, the idea
of respect for human labour, of human dignity, of brotherhood
between men, whatever their faith, I think we can come to a state
of mind—an international state of mind—that will lead us to co
operate and to collaborate with one another for the common good
of the whole of humanity. In 1950, the United Nations drew
up a Declaration of Human Rights. This Declaration has at its
head the principle of human dignity and human equality. I
should like the United Nations to press all nations to implement
the ideas in this Declaration of Human Rights. I think the United
Nations can do a great good in this respect, but there is one thing
which prevents the United Nations from succeeding. I think it is
158
1 2 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3 .
the lack of confidence between its members. At the same time, it
is not yet universal as it should be. I quite understand that the
United Nations is a great organisation and that it is the hope of
humanity for future peace. I also admit that it has achieved some
thing remarkable, namely, that delegates of small nations can stand
up against the great powers and say whatever they like.
Up to the present moment, unfortunately, there are however
two things lacking. The United Nations is not yet the universal
organisation for all nations of the world. Secondly, there is a lack
of confidence between its members. Much might be said about
the right of veto, but what I can never understand is the right of
veto concerning the admission of new members to the United
Nations. All members there may agree that a nation which wants
to come in is a peace-loving nation and can be a very useful member
and still one or the other side may say: “Well, I will use the veto,
1 cannot admit this nation.” By the way, we have in this Seminar
some members of nations who are still not members of the United
Nations. I am myself a member of the Parliamentary Union.
We in the Parliamentary Union admit all parliamentary countries
into this Union and we find it is really useful to hear them. In 1949,
the Communist States—Czechoslovakia and other countries—were
there and then they withdrew. I do not know why. But the
thing which really impressed me was this. When they were there,
their presence was very useful. They brought us new ideas and
over the question of peace with which we are now dealing, they
cooperated greatly with the other members of the Parliamentary
Union. I believe that the same thing will take place in the United
Nations if one day it becomes universal, embracing all the nations
of the world without distinction.
The second thing is this lack of confidence existing between
members—actual members—of the U.N. I was happy yesterday
to hear from Mrs. Pandit, who has just come back from the United
Nations, that things were improving in respect of the point we were
complaining of. I refer to the fact that some nations are always
siding with one bloc and other nations always siding with the other
bloc. Many of the smaller nations are becoming, I do not say
more powerful, but more strong morally, and they now tell what
they believe to be the truth and it is truth alone which makes
people cooperate. So long as one believes that the other member
who is sitting with him is not saying what he believes to be the
truth for any consideration—national or otherwise—well, the other
fellow-delegate will also feel that he himself must find a suitable
way of answering and not face him with what he believes to be the
truth. Tf we can come to a state of mind which is absolutely
Gandhian and truthful—I mean truth including truth in word and
15 9
d eed -and in this organisation of the United Nations we are able
to say all we believe and act up to it, then I think we can come to
a state of cooperation and collaboration which will be of the
greatest good to humanity. I have no particular suggestions to
make to the honourable members of the Seminar. But I think
that these two ideas—Truth and Human Dignity—being the lead
ing ideals of Gandhi will serve us well, will help us very much in
working for peace.
Thank you.
Lord Boyd Orr:
Thank you.
Any comments or questions on what Dr. Haekal has said?
Dr. Daftary:
1 agree completely with what my friend, Dr. Haekal, told us
about the United Nations—that the United Nations is the only hope
of the world. He pointed out some deficiencies—lack of confidence
between the members of the United Nations, which must be re
moved.
As regards the question of applying Gandhian doctrines in the
international field, I would like to say this. In my opinion,
Gandhiji’s doctrine has two aspects. One aspect is the theoretical
one; and the other, the most important aspect, is the practical. As
an Iranian, I am quite familiar with the Gandhian doctrine through
my own philosophy—through the Iranian philosophy. But what is
quite new and important is that Gandhiji in his own life applied the
doctrine. In other words, his tactics, his ideas of brotherhood,
love and all these things are not new to the world, but the manner,
and the methods he adopted are new. I would like to hear from
the interpreters of Gandhiji something on the second aspect—the
application of Gandhian doctrines. We could then translate his
tactics to the international field.
Pastor Niemoller;
Mr. Chairman, my conviction is that the views expressed by
Dr. Haekal are in conformity with what 1 said day before yesterday.
Only truth and human dignity should be the ultimate questions
that need serious consideration. The problem is to restore these to
mankind. Dr. Haekal pointed out that Gandhiji’s ideas about re
ligion should be implemented. Gandhi laid stress on truth and
human dignity whether in religion or anywhere else. Should I
say that in Christianity belief in truth and human dignity are
derived from faith in God? According to Gandhi, all human
beings are equal in the eyes of God. The teachings of Christianity
160
1 2 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
are just the same. You know the teaching that the greatest being
in the world is also the son of Man, like any other ordinary man.
This practically means that ethics and religion cannot be separated,
that you cannot love God without loving man and vice versa. I
find that Dr. Haekal and Dr. Daftary have supported this view
and we all are to a great extent of the same opinion and outlook.
When I heard Dr. Haekal this morning. I wrote down the basic
question: How to realise this truth?
It comes to me as a
question, “How can this Gandhian non-violence be worked so
that it becomes ingrained in the mind of those exercising authority?
How can it be made a workable thing, this non-violent way of
resisting injustice?” Gandhi has solved it in special ways—from
cne instance and one occasion to the next with a great amount of
energy and I should say through education and training of his
followers.
Then there is the question of an authority in the international
sphere—as there are authorities within the State—for checking
wrong and punishing those who transgress. The question is. Is
there any possibility of setting up inside the United Nations an
authority for meting out non-violent punishment? The idea, if I
put it down simply and avoid any philosophic expression, the idea
could be compared to the circumstances of a family. How does it
work in a fajnily where somebody is transgressing against the
normal way and against what the family head thinks to be the
right way of practice? How is it possible to persuade a member
who does not agree with the rest of the family and takes to a
different way, thus disturbing the whole family? How to bring
him to his senses in such a way that the family remains intact?
This way of punishment within the family is the way of non-violent
punishment to make the transgressor see the wrong and to adapt
himself to the ways of others.
Really, this is a crucial question. Putting it quite starkly, it
amounts to a reflection on the method adopted by the Unittd
Nations in the case of the Korean conflict. If the United Nations
could have found the right way of administering a punishment, to
bring about family conviction, family behaviour among the nations
in the world, it would have been a great step forward in
international understanding. But I fear, and many other people
fear, that the means to accomplish this punishment and bring the
evil-doer round to the life of the family could not perhaps have
succeeded today. Therefore, we have to consider why these means
have failed and what is wrong with them. Or was it really a
point where the way of non-violence could not have been adminis
tered? Must we always deal with external issues in a way
different from that which was the Gandhian way? Maybe the
161
94 M. o f Edu.
i
family approach will work if only there is a real family and in the
case of nations the set-up of a real family does not exist at present.
Maybe, what the Prime Minister, in an address to the Council of
Churches the other day, said—that really the question of China
being outside of this family of United Nations is the root cause
of all this trouble—is decisively correct. I do not know whether
we have put the last things first instead of putting first things first
in the question of Korea. I think we could consider, while think
ing about this special point, whether it may not be an example of
finding out a way in the Committee’s meeting tomorrow, if we
could face this very point and concentrate our thinking on this
question which was duly and rightly raised by Dr. Daftary:
“How to accomplish the Gandhian ideals?”
Lord Boyd Orn
Thank you. Anyone else to make a comment?
Acharya Kripalani:
1 want to say a word with reference to the question you have
raised, specially with reference to Korea. The solution you have
suggested has been the fundamental conception of Gandhiji. He
believed that a common understanding of problems would not be
possible unless and until all the nations are brought together with
the exclusion of none. You also raised the question of a family and
administering non-violent punishment to an erring member.
Gandhiji did not use the word punishment; he talked of non-violent
resistance. But who is capable of administering that resistance?
If the father of the family is afflicted by the same vice, which he
wants to correct, evidently he is not the right person to administer
a punishment to the erring member. His entreaties will have no
effect, because he himself is a victim of the vice. If you take the
case of a magistrate, who is supposed to administer justice, if he
is a thief himself, he is not the proper person to administer justice.
Gandhiji wanted reformers, who move about with the object of
reforming people by speeches and so on, to reform themselves first
and be free from the evil which they have taken upon themselves
to put an end to. There is no good preaching to others to desist
from a certain evil unless you yourself have eliminated that
evil in you.
For instance, he said, if you are demanding justice and fair play
from Britishers for your country as a whole, you must see that you
in turn are prepared to do justice by all your countrymen. In this
direction he made a vow to remove untouchability in this country
and he initiated action in various ways to achieve that end. Again,
he wanted that foremost attention should be paid to the uplift of
162
the depressed classes. When working for these people, he did not
mind identifying himself with them. He wanted capitalists to do
justice to labour and the Zamirtdars to do justice to the Kisans.
Again, he worked for the cause of women who were thrown into
the background of Indian society for centuries. He was working
at all these questions side by side. While he was fighting the
foreign power, he was also fighting evil within the country.
Are there no nations in the United Nations organisation which
can stand up and condemn the Korean war? We do not mind even
if their efforts go in vain for the moment. For example, why should
not the United States of America itself try this experiment? Why
•did Americans not try to reform American society? Why did they
not decry the Korean war and declare to the other nations that this
aggression is going to be met, but by methods other than violent
methods? If they had achieved success internally in their own
country in the first place, it would have produced a tremendous
effect on all the nations of the world and we would have seen a
different picture of Korea today. But they have not tried this
method. I have ventured to mention the United States particularly
because the Korean war was vastly influenced by the decisions
of the United States. Not only that, most countries follow the
lead of the U.S.A. I will readily admit that all the other nations
represented in the United Nations today have not also tried to
lessen the evils in their own country by the application of non
violent methods and yet curiously enough, they too want to be
world reformers. That is a thing which Gandhiji considered
impossible to achieve. Going back to the example of the family,
what do we think of- the father in a family who will simply give
a few slaps to the erring child, without caring to set a good
example before it? In the same way the U.N. is trying to set
right the erring nations by use of armed forces.
That is the way in which violence works. The other way is
that while you try to demand justice in the international field, you
try to do justice in your own nation. Unless the internal strains
are diminished, external strains will remain and there will be field
for violence. This is what Gandhiji suggested. As far as the
techniques are concerned, I think it will be a very detailed ques
tion whether the techniques that he applied here, can be applied
in the international field also. It will need a great deal of time to
find o u t As I have said in my paper, we can work in his light,
we can take his example, but the techniques, we will have to work
out independently.
D r. Zakir Hussain:
I had no intention of intervening in
this discussion.
As a
163
matter of fact, what I have to say does not relate to the question
that wc were uibcussing just now. Dr. Haekal, in his speech, made
a casual remark with regard to education. If I have understood him
correctly, he said that Gandhiji’s scheme of education through
manual work was very good for the primary and secondary stages,
but that the scheme was not workable in the university stage. I
thought since this question of Gandhian ideas about education
had not come in for much discussion, I might be allowed to say
something about this. It would be redundant to point out to this
august group of people that education of the mind is essentially
a process of revivifying in it the latent values contained in goods
of culture. There are various types of mind and various types of
cultural goods. The process of effective education demands a
congruence and correspondence between the mind that has to be
educated and the mind that produced the cultural goods which is
the instrument of the former’s education. To understand the
nature of the process of assimilation, we should remember that the
mental food offered by goods of culture can give real nutrition to
the mind only through what I would call educationally productive
work. That was Gandhiji’s theory.
Education is possible only through educationally productive
work, and that work to be productive should have certain social
values. 1 use the word education to mean the cultivation of the
mind. Let me say at the very outset that knowledge and skill
are not synonymous with education. They are not even reliable
measures of education. In order to make them serviceable as such
measures, we must make a distinction. Knowledge, as you can
easily see, can be of two kinds. You have knowledge acquired
by someone else by his labour and passed on to us as information;
or it can be knowledge acquired by us through our own experience,
knowledge which has grown up in our minds by our own work,
similarly, skill can be of two varieties—it can be mechanical skill
attained by imitative diligence capable of repeating existing values;
or, it can be a non-mechanical skill based on natural disposition
creating new values. The first kind of knowledge and the first
kind of skill are additions from outside. The second, an enrich
ment and a transformation from within. The first represents an
external appendage, the second signifies an internal development.
The first is instruction, the second is education. The first is mere
superficial polish, the second is essential culture.
As long as education was integrally related with life and was
not taken over by specialised agencies as a partial function, by
and large, the second kind prevailed. But specialised institutions
of education turned more and more to the first kind till those
became their almost exclusive concern. This may be more true
164
of our country, but it is generally true of all countries. But during
the last fifty years or so there has been a strong reaction against
this position. Attempts have been made to bring productive work,
creative activity, purposeful activity, and knowledge based on expe
rience and discovery into the school. Our Indian scheme of Basic
National Education is one of the most significant developments
anywhere in the world in this direction. But as usually happens
in most reactions, either the swing of the pendulum tends to go to
the other extreme, or the adherents of the old position, by clever
twists and turns, make the new position innocuous to themselves.
We should make sure as to what educationally productive
work really is. Educationally productive work can be manual
work; it can be mental work. There is a lot of manual work as
well as mental work which is not educationally productive. Educa
tionally productive work is all activity, manual or mental, which
initiates new ideas and makes possible new combinations of ideas
already present, with a view to reach a higher unity of mental life
or a higher development of capacity, to express or realise them.
It is this purpose which distinguishes it from the play activities
of children. The mental activity involved in productive work, as
defined by me just now, being purposeful, tends to lead from
purpose to purpose. In the pursuit of this ever-widening circle of
purposes one exercises all one’s powers and puts forth all one’s
energy; one strives and fights and adapts and develops in himself
the virtues of diligence and perseverance, consciousness and devo
tion in pursuance of one’s own inner urges and not by compulsion
from outside.
Now, the pursuit of these purposes which grip one’s whole
being, makes it necessary to acquire a good deal of traditional
knowledge and a good deal of mechanical skill, if progress in the
pursuit of this purpose is not to be disconcertingly slow. Even
the most gifted and the most mature cannot escape this. Tradi
tional knowledge and mechanical skill have, therefore, their place
in educational work, but only when they come in to fill the gaps
of knowledge acquired or sought to be acquired by direct expe
rience and of skill, attained or sought to be attained by creative
work.
While, therefore, productive mental work has to be con
stantly reinforced by traditional knowledge and mechanical skill,
it has also to be reinforced and sublimated in other ways. The
purpose of getting and realising or expressing newer and newer
ideas or combinations of ideas or intellectual development and
mental growth is essentially egoistic.
It is work on and
for oneself. That is its danger to education as a social force.
Persons engaged in such productive mental work can easily grow
into partially socially ineffective, useless men.
Such intellectual
165
work may leave a savant aesthetically unschooled or morally
infantile. It may make the artist a morally indifferent person
living by himself in a world of his own. Productive mental work
in art or in science or technique should therefore be placed in the
service of society if the artist, or the scientists or the technicians
are to grow into full and not partial men.
If productive work of this kind is essential for mental develop
ment and growth, its close association with the service of others is
essential for man’s growth, moral and social. Productive mental
work can give an end and a purpose to the individual; harnessing
it to social ends gives to the individual a social meaning and signifi
cance. Into communities of such work must we transform all
our educational institutions if they are to perform their appointed
task with any degree of success. I deliberately say ‘all our educa
tional institutions’ for it is only by such productive educational
work that they become true places of education. It is not only
the basic schools but all our secondary schools and colleges, and
universities also that should hasten to make use of this only
available instrument of true education. Difficult almost beyond
words—and yet, if we are to go forward as a people, a task which
must be undertaken and performed. It is this task which I think
Gandhiji wanted to apply himself to in his scheme of basic educa
tion. He developed this idea of basic education, at first for the
rural children, but he gradually developed that idea, adapted the
main idea, as one that should be true of all education, and I seem
to agree with that view.
Lord Boyd Om
Thank you. Anything else today? Now, before going further,
let me congratulate Dr. Haekal on the excellent paper he has given,
, and on the controversy my friend from Iran has raised. The big
problem is to get non-violence applied in practice. I should say
that a good many great men in the past have had somewhat
similar ideas. In fact, this same idea was preached for two
thousand years, that you must not be violent. And, after preaching
this for two thousand years, vhat do we find today? In the fair
name of Christianity, we are dropping bombs on cities and towns,
killing women and children. We have got Red Cross, the Church,
and so on. We go to the church on Sundays and then forget all
about Jesus Christ, the New Testament and Christianity for the rest
of the week. So Gandhi’s idea is not new. What we have to
consider is how it can be put into practice.
One other thing I would say is about the United Nations not
admitting people. It is just like in the ordinary family. If a
member of the family gets into evil ways and subsequently wants
166
12th JANUARY 1953
to return, you do not refuse him. You welcome him. These
things which Gandhiji taught have all been taught before for two
thousand years, but to what little effect? We have to come down to
earth and put these into practice instead of allowing them to be
merely lofty ideals. We have to see how we can put these into
practice. That is the big problem that we will need to go into in
the Committee
Dr. Bunche:
Mr. Chairman, before we pass on to the next paper, I would
like to say how greatly we appreciate the statement made by Dr.
Haekal, and to say that I endorse fully, without any qualification,
what he had to say regarding the United Nations. The problem
of international society is very similar to the problem of domestic
society. If the people of the society are good, the society is good.
If they are lacking in confidence in themselves, there can be no
peace, no nobility in that society. The same is obviously true
with regard to international societies. The problem is how to
eliminate fear, how to instil confidence, how to develop moral
force among the peoples of the world. I do not wish to say any
thing at the moment about what has been said of Korea except to
say that in considering Korea we must bear in mind that the fight
ing which erupted in Korea was the inevitable result of tensions
which were permitted to develop there. And to bring such
tensions to a peaceful and non-violent solution presupposes that
there already exists a strong moral force in the world. Something
akin to the truth force of Gandhiji should be there to solve inter
national conflicts without force. But in that case the world would
never have had to face fighting in Korea which threatens the peace
of the entire world. That, I take it, is the sort of problem we will
grapple with, in our committee meeting, in the down-to-earth
session tomorrow.
Professor Kabin
I want to make only one observation regarding a very important
point which Acharya Kripalani made; that is, as long as nations
have internal tensions and are not free from injustices within them
selves, it is very difficult for them to act on an international plane.
While I agree entirely with what he said, I hope he will also agree
with me that we cannot afford to wait till all tensions have ceased
internally before we start to act in the international sphere. We
nave to work simultaneously to bring to an end tensions within the
nations and among nations.
Lord Boyd Om
I will now call upon Mr. Pyarelal to make his statement.
167
Mr* Pyarelah
My paper has already been circulated and I do not wish to
read it out to you or repeat the points 1 have made there. I
would, however, like to add a few supplementary remarks to what
I have said in my written statement. (See Appendix F).
In the course of the discussions that have been going on, the
question has again and again been asked, “How did Gandhiji
manage to convey the message of non-violence to such a large
number of people and make them practice non-violence on such a
vast scale?”
The starting point of Gandhiji’s technique was that non
violence is the strength of the weak. Therefore it turns upon in
significant, little things in life; its instruments are also insignificant
looking. In India there were four hundred millions. We had the
numbers on our side; but numbers can also be a source of weak
ness. How to convert the numbers into a source of strength—not
brute strength but the power of non-violence—that was his problem.
His instruments were poor, illiterate, ignorant men, women and
even children. The question before him was to devise a form of
action which these unsophisticated folk could practise, which would
evoke the power latent in them and harness it for the freedom
struggle. All his programmes of mass action therefore had that
elemental simplicity in them. His education for non-violence, too,
consisted of very small things in basic spiritual disciplines, as he
called them.
He created heroes out of clay. He could do it because he
ceaselessly strove to live the whole truth as he saw it. It is not
enough to profess truth, it is not enough to proclaim truth; what
is necessary is that it must be proclaimed by the deed. His
method of propaganda was propaganda by the deed. He stood
sentinel upon himself all the twenty-four hours. He examined each
and every one of his actions in the light of the principles of Truth
and Ahimsa, whether they satisfied all the implications and corol
laries that flowed from the acceptance of these principles. It was his
theory that when an idea is personified in action in all its purity,
its power spreads far and wide. It does not then need any
material medium for its propagation. What, however, happens
ordinarily is that what we say or what we think is belied by what
we do and thus untruth in action chokes the power inherent in
unadulterated truth. It is not possible for a human being to
remove the hiatus completely between thought, word and deed.
It is not possible for a human being in the flesh to attain the
complete ideal of non-violence. But it is possible by constant
endeavour and striving progressively to attain it Once the
critical limit is crossed and the barrier that confines the power of
168
12th JANUARY 1953
non-violence pierced, an energy will be released which knows
no limit and which can fill the entire universe. It was Gandhiji’s
constant endeavour, by dint of sleepless discipline, to attain to
that state of unadulterated truth. To the extent that he succeeded
in this, the power of his deeds grew and produced the pheno
menal results at which the world still marvels.
To make the masses see and feel that he was one of them and
belonged to them, he took to the spinning wheel. He nursed it
with all the passion of the soul that he was capable of. No matter
how tired he was, how heavy the load of work he was labouring
under, he never failed to perform the sacrament of his daily
spinning.
Food and clothing are the basic requirements of man.
Gandhiji was materialist enough to believe that our thinking is
conditioned by what we do with our hands, particularly the
activities related to the satisfaction of our primary needs, more
than what we are taught or told. The spinning wheel was intim
ately related to a basic requirement of four hundred millions.
Il provided Gandhiji with an instrument of mass education. The
goal of all education has been defined to be to make right thinking
and right action instinctive to us. Has not Ruskin said some
where that the end of all education is to make the love of truth
and abhorrence of cruelty natural to man? The spinning wheel
was at one time the symbol of India’s backwardness, exploitation
and slavery. Gandhiji made it the symbol of non-violence and a
means for the cultivation of the discipline and organisation of
non-violence. It enabled him to carry his message even to the
humblest cottage, and to establish a living bond of cooperation
between them and the workers, which made non-violent, corporate
action on a nation-wide scale possible.
The universality of the spinning wheel, in his eyes, was its
greatest asset. Gandhiji’s technique of non-violent action rested
on his discovery that small, insignificant looking things when per
formed together by millions of people, as part of a consciously
directed effort, produce results far greater than any individual
can achieve or than the sum total of their individual efforts put
together. All of Gandhiii’s activities had this thing in common—
they were capable of being multiplied to the nth degree.
We were discussing yesterday the question: what we are to do
with nations that do not cooperate with the United Nations
organisation, how can we reach them? It is no use blaming it all
on the sinister influence of communism or wire-pulling from the
Kremlin. I am no admirer of communism or its tactics. But
let us try to get down to the grass roots. What is it that makes
people so susceptible to communist propaganda? What is it
169
that makes communism dynamic? It is the oppression and
exploitation of the weak and the less advanced people by the
strong, the backing which reaction has received at the hands of
the big powers. We were talking of the intransigence of China the
other day. What is the record of the big powers in China?
The Opium War, Boxer Rebellion, extra-territoriality. They have
supported corrupt, reactionary regimes in China, Viet Nam, Africa
and Europe. That is what has made people like the Chinese so
distrustful of the Western Powers. But for it, China might have
been saved for democracy. What should be our attitude towards
China today in terms of the Gandhian outlook? The plain answer
is to admit her into the United Nations organisation un
conditionally and without delay—and this not as strategy or
tactics but as a genuine act of belated justice. If Gandhiji had an
opponent in the Congress he preferred to have him inside the
Working Committee than outside. He used to say: “I shall be
able to act upon him better, if he is inside. Outside he will be
oeyond the direct operation of my non-violence”. And let me
tell you that his action was justified by results.
A tidal wave of consciousness is sweeping over all the
suppressed and oppressed races of the world and it is our great
privilege to have Dr. Bunche in our midst who can well speak for
these people. Has the Gandhian technique any application here?
If we can make it possible for these people to resist their ex
ploitation by non-violent means, we shall have half won the battle
of non-violence all over the world.
I remember, a deputation of Africans from South Africa once
came to Gandhiji and asked him: “Tell us what are we to do?
Is there any hope for us?” His reply was: “If there is one thing
that can save you, it is the spinning wheel and all that it stands
for.” He offered to train a dozen of their young men in various
constructive activities and to send them back in their turn to
educate and organise their people in the same way.
It is a
suggestion worthy of your serious consideration. You will perhaps
„ smile at the naivete of the suggestion. Let me assure you it is no
laughing matter.
The African native is a freedom-loving creature. He hates to
slave for anybody. But to induce him to sell his labour he is made
to depend on the White settlers for the satisfaction of his essential
needs. When these are non-existent they are created artificially.
For instance, there is a bye-law that a Zulu or a Bantu must wear
a piece of regulation cloth in order to visit a Municipal area, which
of course, he must purchase. Initiation into the liquor habit and
the enforcement of excise regulations is another means of impound
ing their labour. Why should they have to purchase the first by
170
1 2 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
doing forced labour and why should they not be taught to abjure
liquor altogether? Nature has blessed them with all the resources,
to enable them to live a happy, contented, civilized life. All that
they need is education in the arts of life and civilisation and the
discipline and organisation of non-violence to put an end to their
exploitation.
In a remarkable passage the author of The Martyrdom of Man
has shown the part which the shuttle and the handloom, the plough
and the call to prayer have played in the spread of civilization into
the heart of Africa. The analogy between that historical process
and the Gandhian technique is obvious. You cannot go on *
preaching sermons to the poor-folk for long; they will feel bored.
Nor can you make the masses stand on moral tip-toe, as it were,
all the time. But if you talk to them in terms of their daily wants
and show them how they can realize their freedom through their
own effort and by dint of cooperation amongst themselves, you
create a basis for discipline and organisation that rests not upon
force but its opposite. It will give them a sense of power and
cohesion and enable them to resist aggression and exploitation by
the power of non-violence. Arm these people with this technique
and you remove not only their exploitation and oppression but
to a large extent also meet the challenge of communism which
sets out to eradicate exploitation and oppression but replaces it with
something equally bad, if not worse.
Lord Boyd Orr:
Thank you Mr. Pyarelal. We shall have five minutes interval
and then we shall have a short discussion on your paper. We
should abide by the rule that no member is going to speak for
more than three or four minutes, as we have another important
paper to discuss.
(After interval)
Lord Boyd Om
These are very important matters concerning the community,
better water, better food, better housing, better drainage. The
movement for a better life once started will certainly gather
force. At the same time, we must recognise that the proper use of
science is necessary for achieving better standards. When a
challenge has faced man, science has generally shown the way out.
Thus a scientific study of plague has not been without its effect
Previous to the application of science to the study of this disease,
it had been generally an accepted opinion that sanitation was the
work of medical officers alone. No special training or special
sanitation staff had therefore been considered of any great
importance. When plague appeared, the staff was however
171
found to be inadequate and unprepared. Then action was taken
on general principles and sanitary measures were taken which we
now know were unsuitable and could do little to check the spread
of the disease. Science has however helped us to bring this dreadful
disease under control.
Then regarding food. My own farm produces crops three or
four times a year. It all depends upon the way you treat nature.
You should not exploit her too much without providing her with
the necessary compensation. If you act as 1 say, there is no
necessity for import of foreign grains and thus you can save
foreign exchange. You can produce much more food if only you
adopt the latest wonderful scientific developments already wellknown. The soil can be used in such a way that kindly Mother
Earth will give you in abundance and do so year after year.
Mr, Pyarelal:
Food shortage is a world problem. It is the result largely of
the economy of exploitation and quick profits to maintain arti
ficial, inflated standards of living which the highly industrialised
countries in the West have adopted. The solution is a return to
sanity, Teturn to the economy of conservance—the economy of
permanence. About England, it is a hard case. Hard cases
make bad law. But I have come across writings by people, who
can speak with authority on the subject, that by adopting suitable
methods, even England could be made self-sufficient in the matter
of food, provided the people could shed some of their super
fluities.
Lord Boyd Orn
I think we are waiting to hear Dr, Bunche.
Dr. Bunche:
Mr. Chairman, if, with no little diffidence, I now make bold
to offer these quite tentative remarks, it is only in obedience to
the subtle tyranny of conformity; since all members of this unique
Seminar are apparently expected to do so, and no doubt, quite
properly. For never have I experienced a deeper sense of
inadequacy in confronting a challenge.
I hasten to say, however, that if there be anything wanting in
my speech, this is exclusively a result of my own shortcomings,
and in no sense a reflection on this Seminar, which has been utterly
serious in purpose, intensely devoted to its task, and, for me at
least, extremely enlightening. I have learned and profited
immensely from our discussions thus far, but the time has been
short as measured against my own lack of knowledge, and I have
172
12th JANUARY 1953
by no means, as yet, learned enough to speak with any degree of
authority about the rich heritage bequeathed to us all by one of the
truly great personalities of human history. If, therefore, I cannot
speak of Gandhiji with authority, I can and do speak of him with
reverence and humble appreciation.
I realize, of course, that since I am an American, a product of
“Western” culture, it will be assumed by many that I approach
the subject of the Gandhian Outlook with a “Western” mind and
from a “Western” point of view. I discount any such suggestion
very sharply. For though this is my first visit to India, and I am
delighted at the privilege, it is not my first visit to the Orient.
As a result of previous experience in the East and long association
with colleagues and friends from Asia, reinforced by my experiences
in Delhi during the week since my arrival, I feel that there is a
tendency to exaggerate the differences between East and West.
On the fundamental prob!ems*of human existence on this troubled
planet, I have never perceived any significant difference between
the thinking, the aspirations, the philosophy or the spirituality of
the common man, of people in the street and village, whether East
or West, in India or America. Whatever their race or religion,
their culture or geographical location, I am convinced that the
hopes of people everywhere are for peace and freedom, for dignity
and self-respect; for the elemental necessities of decent living; for
food, clothing, housing, education and good health; for economic
security; for equality with all other men. These find expression
in a common language, universal in scope, and readily understood
by all men of good sense and good-will. I believe also that there
is nothing regional about the essential goodness and oneness of
human beings, faith in people, and reliance upon Truth as the
sole acceptable basis for human relations.
I must say that although a complete stranger to India, I have
quickly felt very much at home here, my “Western” background
notwithstanding, I find no mystifying differences in philosophy
or approach. Indeed, I have often been more mystified by some
of the mysticism, political and economic, of my own people in my
own country than by anything I have encountered in India. I am
not at all baffled by the Gandhian way because it is “Eastern”,—
a way, indeed, which is more unique in its methods and tactics than
in its fundamental philosophy; I am only intensely eager to fill
the wide gaps in my knowledge about it.
I am, in short, no little suspicious of concepts of the “Eastern
mind” and the “Western mind”. I see such concepts as often an
expression of cultural provincialism, if not dangerous manifesta
tions of nationalist chauvinism and arrogance. Such attitudes are
serious obstructions to the effort to promote the Gandhian spirit
17 3
of brotherhood among men, typical of all religions, and the concept
of one world which, I note from Mr. Kalelkar’s statement,
Gandhiji himself embraced when advising against the formation
o f an Asian bloc.
This is not to suggest, of course, that cultures among the nations
are not diversified or should not be, or to deny the cultural gifts
and traits peculiar to specific societies and to particular groups
within societies, gifts with which the society of India from ancient
times has been richly endowed.
X find every facet of Gandhiji’s outiook tremendously interest
ing. B ut in the brief span of this statement, I am primarily con
cerned with two aspects of his contribution, namely,
(1) the explanation of his extraordinary effectiveness as a
leader of his people;
(2) the implications and lessons available to a world in
deep and persistent crisis.
Like all great leaders in mankind’s history, and they have
"been all too few, Gandhiji stood with deep humility before God
and people. But though he walked with humility he was not
■without pride, and in his eyes courage was an indispensable virtuePerhaps the real measure of his greatness as leader is to be found
in the striking effectiveness of his appeal to the people and the
decisive support he commanded from them. Gandhiji reached
and moved the oppressed people of India as he had earlier done
among the oppressed Indian population of South Africa.
But it is not extraordinary that a leader should move people.
Throughout history, in every society demagogues have reached
and moved people for their own and evil purposes, by false
counsels, by appeals to man’s base motives, by playing upon
selfishness and greed. Nor is it at all unusual for people, at the
behest of their leaders, to make great, and at times unjustified
sacrifices in pursuance of a goal.
The singularly rare quality in Gandhiji’s leadership is that he
provided for the people of India an inspiration and a guidance
which enabled them to give expression to their greatest and noblest
strength. His appeal was to truth and goodness and he brought
out all that was good in the people. His special genius was to
plumb the depths of the latent, hidden genius of the people. He ,
called upon them to express to the utmost their ability for selfsacrifice and self-discipline and in large measure they responded.
This was a call to the spiritual power of a people, unknown, T
believe, to history.
Tt would be highly presumptuous of me, in the presence of
tested disciples of Gandhiji, of men who stood the stern test of
'fire at his side, even to attempt to suggest how Gandhiji was able
174
1 2 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
to perform this miracle in an age of disbelief in miracles. But
it is clearly apparent that Gandhiji was identified always and
completely with the people; that he walked with them; he was
one of them and at one with them; that he spoke with them, not to
them and never down to them; that he considered himself with
complete and simple sincerity as an ordinary man among ordinary
men, and never an oracle or a demi-god. The cause of the people
was his cause because he was of them. All of their problems and
causes—the cause of the worker and of the untouchable, the over
riding cause of liberation—were his causes.
That Gandhiji’s leadership developed at a time when the
people of India may have been ready for and in need of a new
leadership, of a new approach; that the time of his advent on the
Indian scene may have been fortuitous, all this is of secondary
importance. It is always thus in the great episodes of history.
The time, the people and the leader rendezvous. But in the leader,
Gandhiji, were found congenially wedded qualities of deep
spiritual dedication, devotion to truth, unflinching integrity in
principle with flexibility in tactics, realism and a masterful under
standing of practical action which enabled him to inspire con
fidence in the people and to free them from long-endured shackles
of fear.
I think it no detraction from Gandhiji to say, out of my
unwavering belief in people, that no leader can ever achieve great
ness. unless the people led are also great.
And history will
certainly record the greatness of the people of India in their long
and painful struggle. There were millions who accompained the
leader to the jails of the country and thus demonstrated qualities
that ensure for the people and the state of India a future of out
standing contribution to the family of nations.
I must say also, that in my view, leaders, however great, are
to be revered but never idolized or deified. They provide guidance
and inspiration. But leaders are men, and men die, while
societies live on, in the present and into the undefinable future.
Times change, needs change, and philosophies and tactics must
accommodate always to the needs, the hopes and the will of
people. Absolute truth is always difficult to define in human
affairs; the well-being of the people, less so. Dogmatism becomes
static; societies, to grow spiritually as in material well-being, must
ever be dynamic.
The historic significance to the larger world of Gandhiji’s role
in India is that through his guidance, India attained its freedom
without resort to violence and war. This was a remarkable and
highly encouraging departure from the classical pattern of
emancipation of dependent peoples from imperialist rule. The
175
United Nations, in its Trusteeship for non-Self-Governing Terri
tories, functions in the same way and seeks the same end—an
assurance to colonial peoples that their aspirations for self-govern
ment or independence may and will certainly be achieved by non
violent means.
It seems to me that although Gandhiji’s efforts were con
centrated on India and the Indian people, he was a true inter
nationalist. Indeed the liberation of India was a signal service
to the advancement of all mankind. He was a servant of humanity
the world over in (a) his unyielding opposition to violence and war,
and his demonstration that intense conflict-situations could be
resolved by non-violent means; (b) in his compassion for mankind;
(c) in his devotion to the elimination of human suppression and
misery; (d) in his disavowal of hatred as an instrument of policy
even to attain a coveted goal, while practising unparalleled tolerance
and promoting understanding among peoples; (e) in his belief in
freedom for the individual and for peoples and in the dignity and
worth of individual man; and finally (f) in his implied if not explicit
assumption that no problem of human relations is insoluble, and
this by peaceful means, if there is the will and the moral force to
do so.
The vital lesson which the peace-loving peoples of the world
must learn from Gandhiji—and we all hope and pray that this
lesson shall be learned in time—is that an irresistible force may
be wielded by a people who are determined to achieve an honest
goal, if they are willing and ready to endure self-sacrifice and selfdiscipline to that end. World differences may be settled without
resort to force and peace may be preserved if the peoples of the
world, all or some of them, are willing to make the effort. Peace
cannot be won without cost and sacrifice. ‘ Gandhiji. the world
may well recall, worked with peoples, never with arms and armies.
The lesson is here for all to read: there are greater forces by far
in the world than arms.
Gandhiji freed the people of India of fear and thereby they
acquired a tremendous strength.
Fear is the outstanding
characteristic, as Pastor Niemoller has pointed out, of the relations
among nations—and particularly the Bia Powers—today. The
peoples of the world can never be strong nor peace ever be
made secure until this fear is eliminated.
In this regard, Gandhiji also provides a highly pertinent
lesson. It is the lesson of moral force and the confidence to be
derived from its possession. As I read the Gandhian way, it
counsels people to do always what is right and let the adversary
beware of the new strength thus acquired by those who follow
that path.
176
1 2 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
There are many, for example, who scoff at the United Nations
because it has not at its disposal a vast international army pr security
force, and who assert that without such force it can never prove
really effective. Except in the unfortunate instance of Korea, the
United Nations has never had any sanction behind its actions
other than moral force.
In a
number of situations,
■even situations
involving actual fighting, this moral
force has proved sufficient to stop the fighting and to make sub
stantial progress toward peaceful resolution of the difficulty.
This, despite the fact that nations and peoples throughout the
world have paid little more than lip-service to the principles of
the organisation and have made few if any sacrifices on its behalf.
Even so, United Nations’ experience has adequately demonstrated
that military force is not indispensable to the effectiveness of an
international peace organisation if peoples and nations will provide
it with the moral force at their command.
Democracy also has much to learn from Gandhi, Gandhiji’s
foundation-stone was always truth, his force was satyagraha, truth,
force. What must this imply for democracy? I believe firmly in
the democratic way of life. I believe that democracy is the only
way of life worthy of the dignity of man, and when I speak of
democracy, since words to-day often have different meanings in
different places, I mean a political, social and economic structure
in which government and the State are the servants, and not the
masters of the people; in which the individual is free, endowed
with inalienable rights and can walk with dignity in his own right;
in which all people irrespective of race, colour, creed, culture of
national origin are equal, accepted and treated as equal; in which
men may worship according to their conscience, speak, write and
assemble freely; in which men are assured of a standard of living
which will make for a decent life free from fear of want. This
is the theory and profession of what some call “Western demo
cracy”.
*
Truth for democracy, if we take truth in the Gandhian .sense,
obviously must be more than these beliefs and ideals of democracy,
with which in themselves, there can hardly be quan*el or quibble.
Truth must be more than the profession of these great ideals, no
matter how often and fervently reiterated, since professions, are
only words and truth is not found in words alone. Truth, fheri,
as Gandhiji would have it, tnflsf "flhd expression in practice and
actions. It is only in the application of democratic ideals 'th a t
democracies can find truth. True democracy must be lived by
aad for all the people.
^ .
I t is precisely because art increasing number of the American
people have cOme to a realisation of this fact, of this acid test o f
177
9? M. o f Edu.
J
the democratic way of life, that the struggle of my own group for
full equality in the American Society has met with much more
success in recent years than ever before. The test has not been
fully met, not by any means, but it is being met with increasing
earnestness and determination to do the right, and I have con
fidence as to the ultimate outcome.
I have full confidence also that any society which is free and
whose government is devoting its utmost effort to free its people
from fear and from want, which eliminates its own internal
tensions, need have no great anxiety that its people will be seduced
by totalitarian or any other alien ideology.
In conclusion, I interpret non-violence as an instrument, as a
means to an end. But even though the end is right, it will be
dissipated if it is sought by means that are not right. Non
violence, the disavowal of resort to force, is the only right means
to worthy ends whether within a society or in the relations among
nations.
The fact is that there is no rational alternative to non-violence
in international affairs to-day, since war solves nothing, achieves
only death and devastation, and begets more war. Thanks to
the combined efforts of science and the machine, against whose
control over man Gandhiji warned, his message of non-violence
has become truly prophetic for the world at large.
Thank you.
Lord Boyd Om
Thank you. Now we have fifteen minutes left for comments on
the excellent paper we have heard from Dr. Bunche. He has not
disappointed us and we expected big things from him.
Kaka Kalelkar
Are we to take it that the use of force in the Korean war was
the greatest misfortune and that the problem ought to have' been
tackled in a non-violent way—whether we get a solution or not?
We must be clear in our minds that no physical force ought to
have been used.
Br.Boncbe:
Yes,. I have said dial ft m s ft great tragedy for the United
Nations that a situation developed in which the United Nations
—an organisation dedicated to peace—had to resort to force.
As I have indicated a short time ago, this was a situation that
developed because of tensions which had been permitted to grow,
because of the lack in the world and in the United Nations of the
moral force to relieve these tensions short of the eruption into
178
1 2 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
war. When the war situation developed, when resort to force was
undertaken, there was not the strength in the international com*
munity to provide any means other than the opposition of this
effort by its own force* This is certainly the weakness of the inter
national organisation at this stage. But it is not the weakness of
any organisation; it is the weakness of the people of the world who
alone have to suffer from resort to violence. It is in the interest of
the people of the world that they must come to the realisation that
their own interests can be secured, that their own future can be
preserved, only by the application of moral force in the Gandhian
way. Only in that way, in my view, can we build a secure founda
tion for the world of the future.
Kaka Kalelkar:
Mention has been made in our discussions of a united front of
the peace-loving peoples in the United Nations. I thought that
the whole U.N. and all its members profess to be peace-loving.
Therefore we must have some criterion, some definition, by which
we can distinguish peace-loving nations from the others.
Dr. Bunche:
Actually, if you take people, the definition will be very easy,
because I think there are no people who are not peace-loving.
People everywhere—East or West or whatever side of the so-called
Iron Curtain—long for peace. Governments and leaders—that is
another question.
Kaka Kalelkar:
People are peace-loving except when they*go mad. We must
be able to decide on punishment for aggressors. We may be able to
arrive at some definition of peace-loving nations. Particular
nations can be called peace-loving only so long they abide by certain
conditions.
Dr. Bunche:
Again Gandhi stated it in simple terms. For him truth was to
be found in expression, in deeds and action, and this must be the
test whether a nation is or fs not peace-loving.
Acharya Kripalani:
Everybody agrees that individuals are all peace-loving. The
difficulty only arises when these men form into groups and nations
and submit themselves to a certain government. Often times gov
ernments do not necessarily represent the will of the people. For
instance, the League of Nations was only a league of governments.
179
Would it not be better if it was possible that there should be a
democratic league of people, the organization of people over and
. above the United Nations?
Dr. Bunche:
Mr. Kripalani, the United Nations is constituted exactly to be so
The very first words of the preamble of the United Nations Charter
say, “We The People”. The fundamental defect of the organiza
tion is that governments do not so often give real expression to the
will of the people. Unless it is assured that the United Nations
will unitedly reflect the aspirations of the peoples of the world, we
have no hope for the future of the organization jior for the future
of the world. Tam quite in agreement with you on that.
Kaka Kaielkan
May I know if in the constitution of the United Nations there
is provision for membership of private groups of people? Or is it
that according to the constitution of the United Nations, only
j representatives of governments of nations are there and there is no
provision for the membership of persons who represent the people?
Dr. Bunche:
Representatives of the people have a voice in the Economic and
Social Council, representatives of organizations which are non*
governmental, which are not official. It is entirely true that in
terms of the official decisions of the United Nations, representatives
of governments sometimes give the impression that these repre
sentatives do not represent people. That, as you know, is not
exclusively a characteristic of the United Nations; the same
situation is sometimes found to prevail in national parliaments.
Kaka Kalelkan
The representatives of goveramerits alone can deliver the
goods. I was going to say that since it will be admitted that all
acts of governments will never be fully non-violent, is it not possible
for the United Nations to have a platform where non-goverruhental
organizations which believe in the method of non-violence can
cooperate and thus can become also an integral part of the
United Nations?
Professor Kabin
I might answer that question by asking you another question.
Is it really necessary that we must proceed on the assumption that
people will never induce their governments to adopt non-violent
ways? I am inclined to think that there is defeatism in that.
180
' F ^ rra N u ' jiuY gihrtotfi not assume that governments are and
must remain so uni$£g&&tintative or so unresponsive to the _wishes
of the people. Such an assumption would only create further
tensions between the government and the people of that country.
ItzU a waiv hi tqai
^ > 32t$f«oH3a4bii re^fasenlatives of the people that form the governakwridfl tm
the people in entirety. I shall show this
iThh^picader is my representative in a court of
law. The pleader wbivrepresents me in the court is not allowed
to be generous even when I quarrel with my brother. In the same
way, the representatives of the people that form the government
dfcp&SG«frto oU>e*«iere for the security of the people.
odt T lisîra,/crucial point. Is not the question hypothetical?
iSwMuly palled self-sufficiency is narrow nationalism. The
real expression in the development of an inter
national, community is based on principles of mutual confidence
•and good faith in which the fundamental objective is well-being
o f all and not well-being of one or the other group or nation. W hat
is wrong with the world today is this bid to achieve national selfsufficiency in every field, in the matter of food, in the matter of
.industries, in the matter of armaments mid so on and so forth. I
have not understood this at all. On die one hand we talk of one
-world, one government and on the other we have this narrow
-nationalism. In my view, we find the real expression of the people
of. the world in the creation of an international family, in a brother
hood that believes in self-sufficiency for all of us.
^Kaka Kalelkar.
As I gave the instance of a pleader in the law courts, people
rlo expect the entire support of their chosen representatives in the
government, but the representatives often fail in their duty, because
They do not represent die higher side of the people.
Dr. Bunche:
' If people were really so stubborn and blind in this respect would
"it have been possible for Gandhi to do what he did? He appealed
to the point of self-immolation, even to the point of self-sacrifice,
precisely because he was able to appeal to the higher nature of
ihtfri. Discussing freely, I have to think that when such things were
possible With GandW, there is a possibility for hope and faith in
the future of mankind because these things can be done by other*
also.
181
Professor Kabin
A really good lawyer does advise his client to come to a com
promise with the rival rather than go on fighting.
Dr. Zakir Husain:
The important point that has to be kept in view is that
Gandhiji did not believe that all people are necessarily violent.
If there is an aggressor, the masses sometimes react violently
because they do not know what else to do. Gandhiji did not rule
out struggle for rights; he employed his people in a different form
of struggle, a way other than the violent way.
Lord Boyd Orn
We are now coming to one o’clock. With the consent of you
all, I may speak a few words. It is a most interesting discussion
indeed on non-violence. I think there are more and more people
in the world who are getting to realize that non-violence is the
ultimate road which can lead tp the establishment of a more stable
peace. The last two wars, the present wars in Korea, in Indo*
China and so on are examples, many people say, of a great many
people being uselessly killed. Now the hope of the world lies in die
fact that so many people are beginning to realize that violence
does not pay any nation at all. It is a very hopeful sign indeed that
people are beginning to think of Gandhi’s conception of non
violence, and to agree that violent means even for good causes
do not bring forth the desired ends. It is very interesting to talk
of the United Nations. We all agree that United Nations is im
perfect. But no sensible person can say that because it is im
perfect we should not have anything of that kind at all. It has a
tremendous power. Anyone pointing out the defects of the United
Nations must not, however, be regarded as an enemy of the United
Nations. A nation of two million people has one vote—the same
as a nation of two hundred million people. The representative of
two million people can speak up against the representative of two
hundred millions in the U.N. Their representative has obviously
the same right to say that his country cannot agree with the United
Nations. In my own country there is a crusade for world govern
ment, which wants to get a new form of United Nations, where
delegates would be elected not by foreign offices of governments,
but elected by the people. They would have a different election
and would be elected quite apart from the governments. They would
speak on behalf of the people but not for governments. But a
difficulty at once arises. The delegates should naturally be chosen
on a population basis. If a nation of ten million is allowed to send
in five delegates, think of the number of delegates that countries
182
1 2 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
like India or China will have to send. The Western nations whose
populations are not so big will have to be content with a lesser
number, which means they will have to submit to the fact that they
will have a lesser voice in such an organisation. Whether they
would welcome such a proposition or not is doubtful.
Another solution which we can suggest is this. We cannot do
things quickly, we have got to go slowly. Let us-rbave a place
which expresses the will of the people, an assembly* elected on the
basis of population, and their recommendations and resolutions for
warded to the executive body of the United Nations. All these
attempts till us with hope that more and more people are begin
ning to realise that violence is no road to anything that we want.
Now the United Nations has been formed and has great achieve
ments to its credit. For the first time in the history of the world,
we have an organisation to fulfil the great hopes of the Atlantic
Charter. I am sure the world will move towards these great ideals.
We had hoped that it would move very rapidly—but we must
remember that ten years is a short time in the history of human
life, and human family. I know the people in the United States—
they are a wonderful people. We had Wilson’s idea of the League
of Nations, we have now the United Nations, Hotsprings Confer
ence, Roosevelt’s1Four Freedoms and so on. These are worldwide
ideals,—many of them contributed by U.S.A., and that is why we
are impatient that the United States does not go even further in
the direction of international ideas, but 1 am convinced that if the
desire to march towards them is there, we will surely get there.
Pastor NiemoUen
I do not think I have anything essential to add. I must say
that I can agree with the presentation of Dr. Bunche. I see two
ways of developing the United Nations, so that it might be able,
not only to represent governments, but to have at least the door
open by which people of various countries can ventilate their real
feelings, and true aspirations. That is the kind of thing which w®
have all advocated just now. If this is achieved, as far as we can
see for the moment, a step forward has been accomplished, that is
my conviction. So I am grateful for what I have heard since tliis'
morning.
Lord Boyd O rr
Tomorrow we sit in committee when only delegates will be
allowed. On Wednesday, we have another session here and those
friends who have net given their papers will give their papers.
Thank you.
(The meeting then adjourned).
m
The Seminar met, in Camera, in Hyderabad House at 10-00 A .Af.
on 13th January 1953 with Lord Boyd Orr in the Chair.
Lord Boyd Om
Gentlemen : In this secret meeting today we are going to
consider what we ought to do in the light of our discussions—
whether we are going to issue a report, or shall we issue ntf
report, what time, what lines, etc. I think we should decide all
these things to-day.
Dr. Bunche:
The meeting would be interested to hear Professor Kabir’s
views on the matter.
Professor Kabin
You will remember that at our preliminary meeting, I put
forward two suggestions for your consideration. As a result of
our discussions, we hope it may be possible to arrive at certain
recommendations which we might transmit, through Unesco,
to the various member States, Our recommendations must be
of a nature which would have some possibility of application.
If we make recommendations which are desirable but not
practicable at present, our recommendations would not recei*
the attention they deserve. Since this is a seminar which has
brought together primarily thinkers, though some of them are
active also in the field of politics, our recommendations will have
to be more on the ideological plane.
We might make certain suggestions with regard to educational programmes.
Maybe other members have other sugges
tions, but I am thinking primarily in terms o f' educational
programmes.
The second point I mentioned at the beginning was that we
• tnight try to give a permanent shape to the results of our disr
cussions. If we are able tc produce a good report, this itself
will be a service, as it will lead to a study of the ideas and ideals
of Gandhiji in other parts of the world.
I think we should not expect the Seminar to lead to any
startling results. As Professor Tucci pointed out, to do so would
be to invite disappointment. But the very fact that we have been
184
131 H JANUARY 1 9 5 3
able to interest people and that we have arrived at certain agree
ments on our concept of Gandhism is a gain. That so many people,
each with a different* background, with a different ideology, are
trying to arrive at a common picture of Gandhiji is itself a worth
while task. Indeed the picture that has emerged as a result of
our discussions is a unitary picture, though different people
have emphasised different aspects. They have also sought to
examine how the techniques are to be adapted to the different
context of different countries.
You will remember that I earlier suggested that: (1) we have
a short report on the proceedings of the Seminar giving a brief
gist of the general discussions, with our conclusions and recom
mendations at the end, and (2) we publish a volume in which
every participant contributes a paper, based on the statement he
has made here. If he likes, he can revise it. He could, if he
liked, refer to such aspects of Gandhian technique as would find
application in modern conditions. This volume would emerge
as one result of our deliberations in this Seminar.
We have come together from many countries and have
arrived at certain general conclusions. If we help to disseminate
these ideas among the people of the world and impress in their
minds the belief that violence as a solution of problems is out
moded, we will have rendered some service to the world. This
Seminar has been trying to find an alternative to war. We have
been discussing this and have agreed in principle that non
violent action is the only way of providing a substitute for war.
We have tried to examine how Gandhiji developed his technique
of non-violent resistance to evil. If the results of our discussions
are made available to people elsewhere, that itself would be a
great service.
May I now sum up briefly? Firstly, we oan make specific
recommendations, particularly with regard to the reconstruction of
education and the establishment of better relations among peopleson the cultural plane. I am not quite sure as to what we can
recommend on the political plane. In any case our recommenda
tions in this field are not likely to have any immediate effect
All the same, if we in the Seminar feel that we would like to
make some general recommendations on political matters, we are
surely free to do so. Secondly, we should concentrate on the
dissemination of our ideas. This can be done in two ways:
one, a brief report which will give the general findings of this
Seminar and second, a larger volume containing papers by
every participant based on his statement to the Seminar. If a
member wants to put in an entirely new paper, there need be
no objection to his doing so.
185
Dr. Bancbe:
There would be a third possibility; that you would under
take here to put out a composite report which would give a
factual summary of the discussions and the various points of
view put forward.
Dr. Daftary:
Pointing out also the different points of view.
Dr. Bunche:
And, of course, that would be a job of your editing.
Professor Kabin
This is what I meant when I spoke of a short report. Our
papers and statements may be published as a separate volume, and
we must arrange for the widest distribution of that volume.
Translations in various languages can be arranged either through
Unesco or some other agency.
Dr. Daftary:
Would you like to consider, among other things, a sort of
appeal through Unesco to the United Nations—a kind of appeal?
Professor Kabin
We would make only recommendations. Another idea has
occurred to me in the last two or three days. It is perhaps bold,
and I do not know how it would appeal to you. I have been
thinking of a manifesto—a Peace Manifesto like Marx’s Com:
munist Manifesto. Even the Communist Manifesto had no
immediate effect, but the ideas in it went simmering till it led to.
a great Revolution. I do not know what fate our Manifesto
would have, but I have all this in the background of my.mind.
It seemed to me an ambitious thought, and I was therefore
hesitating to place it before you in the first instance.
Dr. Daftary:
We can do it in the form of an appeal to the United Nations.
Pastor NiemoBer:
I think we all agree with Professor Kabir’s proposals. The first
thing, which is the easiest to dispose of, is the volume, of
contributions of members of this Seminar. I think we will deal
with this question very quickly. It would be best to have the
papers whieh the several members of this Seminar have prepared
and read to us, to have them—maybe a tittle bit shortened—
186
1 3 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
published in such a way that it does not take too much labour
to translate into various languages with an international appeal.
It is most important that this volume does not become too big
if we wish to find in every country somebody to translate it into
his own language if we cannot interest Unesco to do so. I think
it is even better to have groups built up in different countries
where they do not exist already, to distribute the material and
spread our ideas. I think we can dispose of this question as
Professor Kabir has proposed.
Then the second thing—the report of our discussion, and our
recommendations have to be taken at the end of this volume;
may be these will be added at the end. These conclusions are
not just material for information, but are proposals which are to
be sent to members of the Unesco and of the Assembly of
United Nations. We may also think of other organisations which
may take interest in them. We should therefore prepare small
pamphlets, say of eight to ten pages, to be distributed to the
various international organisations.
The third thing is whether a manifesto or something of that
sort could be issued. I think the first point is disposed of easily.
The second point is not very difficult—we have just to contribute
what we know. The third point will be the crucial point of our
today's deliberations.
Dr. Daftary:
We can have a book with photographs and pictures.
Lord Boyd Om ,
With regard to publications with pictures etc., I think there
are already many publications dealing with these, subjects and
attitudes. So it will not be much use adding another big volume.
Ours will have to be a relatively short one, say not more
than thirty thousand words. Individual contributions will have
to be shortened accordingly.
Pastor NiemoDen
Thirty thousand words, that means each paper o f about two
thousand words.
Professor Kabir;
, {
That will be thirty-two. thousand words, because there r are
sixteen delegates.
Lord Boyd Orn
We will say the statement of a delegate is not to exceed two
thousand words.
1S7 ?
Professor Kabir:
I would say about three thousand words or ten pages for each
person. That means one hundred and seventy pages plus about
ten to fifteen pages for the introduction and conclusions. ■ W£
also have the statements by Pandit Nehru and . Maulana Alfcatf
and we will have a statement by the President of Incija. In &ttr
the volume will have to be about two hundred pages o r perhaps
a little more. As you know, Unesco have been . publishing
books on various topics. The writers are allowed ten thousand
or at least five thousand words: I do not know ifw e c a n m a k e
our statements less than three thousand words each,
about
ten foolscaps. I do not think we will be ablet to say what we
want to say in a shorter space. If we try to make the statements
shorter, they will be a collection of disconnected point# and ,&ie
will not be able to convey what we intend. It is true that there
have been a number of publications about Gandhiji and his ideas,
but even then his ideas are not accurately known even in quf qwu
country where we talk so much about his ideas. So far 35 the
world outside is concerned, to many people he is only a name
or a myth. I feel that a book with contributions from members
of so many nations will have a great appeal.
:
Dr. Bunche:
I think it would be advisable that the papers in the volume
should be roughly the papers presented in the Seminar.
Professor Tncd:
i ■ t . s
I think it is a good idea to fix a certain number of pages or a
certain number of words for each paper.
*
Dr. Bunche:
There are two conceptions. One is to put out a Memorial
volume of essays on Gandhiji’s teachings; the other is to put out the
deliberations of the Seminar. If we are to prepare highly literary
and philosophical essays, that would take a lot of time. I think
the volume should be limited to the contributions made in the
Seminar.
Professor Kabin
It will be the statement made in the Seminar with some revis
ion and in about three thousand words—not exceeding three
thousand words.
Pastor Niemoller:
Everyone of us should give a paper not exceeding three
thousand words.
188
Professor Kabir:
By the 31st March.
Lord Boyd Orr:
I think it would be a good thing if the papers present different
points of view—the different parts of one picture.
Professor Kabir:
It was evident in the course of our discussions that even those
who have been very close to Gandhiji have presented points of
view which are similar but not identical. It may be that two or
three papers may be similar, but I think you can be sure they
would not be identical. Two such devoted and life-long
associates of Gandhiji as Acharya Kripalani and Kaka Saheb
Kalelkar also have minor differences in their approach to Gandhiji,
though the broad outlines are the same.
Lord Boyd On:
The statements should not be too long.
Pastor Niemoller:
I think the efficacy of such a volume depends a great deal
on this
that people not so famili&r with the ideas of Gandhiji
come to see how the most different people, men with the most
different backgrounds, come to similar conclusions. It would be
most convincing when people come to see that a Muslim from
Egypt and a Christian from Germany, let us say, and a Buddhist
from Japan, with their different approaches come to the same
conclusions in facing the Gandhian outlook and method. That
will have a power for people who are not easily convinced by
logical approaches. I think it is not a draw-back if, starting
from different points of view, similarities become apparent and
ipi this way convincing.
Professor Kabir:
Not only from different points of view, but from similar
points of view with minor differences. Even repetition has pro
paganda value. The Editor might be given this little freedom—
that no two consecutive articles are very similar to one another.
It could be that one from an Indian delegate should be followed
by one from a delegate from another country. There will be no
mcmotony in that way, but at the same time, repeating the same
thing, coming to the same sort of conclusion from different
starting points, would have a very decisive effect on people.
189
Lord Boyd Orr.
Suppose there are two similar papers from two friends, I
think Professor Kabir should have the authority to say: “Here are
two excellent papers, but they are so similar that would one of you
please like to change your paper where it is identical and enlarge
a portion which has not been dealt with by others.”
Dr. Haekab
In some of the conferences of Unesco where papers were
written, the manuscripts of all papers were sent to all the delegates
before publication. It was only natural that when they went
through the papers they noted the passages where there were
similarities with other papers and changed them. Only, I should
not like any one of us saying that so-and-so has said this and I
oppose that.
Professor K sbir
There will be some practical difficulties if we adopt the course
suggested by Dr. Haekal. One thing is that there will be un
necessary delay. Another, the papers may be lost It will be
hard enough for a delegate, once he returns to his own work,
to read and revise what he himself said, but to expect him to
read the contributions of others would, perhaps, be expecting too
much. Even Unesco has given up the practice now.
Lord Boyd Orr:
The notes of the discussions and the contributions of each
member may be sent to the member concerned so that he can
revise his paper.
Acharya Kripalani:
I would have expected that every contribution that we made
came to us the next day.
Protestor Kabir:
You know our difficulties. We are not in the Parliament and
even there papers are received only after forty-eight hours.
Dr. Bunche:
Well, we stand on the three thousand word limit.
Protestor Kabir:
Three thousand words is the limit, but in no case should it be
more than thirty-five hundred words.
190
1 3 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
-Lord Boyd Oik
, That is good so far. Then the other thing is putting out
a small report. I think it will be Professor Kabir’s responsibility.
Hr. Pyaretak
What is it going to be?
Profeasor Kabin
It would contain briefly some of the points from some of the
papers and. our conclusions.
Dr. Haekal:
It will be an introduction-like thing.
Professor Kabin
^
It should not be more than forty pages; maybe ten thousand
words, which you could read and grasp immediately.
Dr. Zakir Husain:
I think you may give a report of points that have emerged
from the discussions. Or, you might give a report of the whole
thing; take a whole view of the discussions of the Seminar and
give a report.
Mr. Pyarelah
But sometimes I find that such proceedings are published in
a very brief manner.
Professor Kabin
'
b r. Zakir Husain said that 1 should take the views from the
discussions, and put them in the report
Pastor: Niemolier:
Professor Kabir will have these discussions before him. The
second statement in which there is general agreement will
obviously'Be. in accordance with the discussions which have
taken placd—the recommendations on special activities and so on
which have come out of these discussions. I think that is what
you expect from this Report. It should be so written that it
may be intelligible to people who have not got all the papers with
them. It will not be an appendix but a sort of small report.
Mr. Pyardal:
Does this group formulate any schemes?
H 91
Professor Kabir:
We are just going to deal with that. I would refer to one thin|
which Pastor Niemoller has said. Three things will have to be
kept in mind: (1) the contents of the papers, (2) the general trend
of the discussions and (3) the conclusions. In the time schedule I
had originally presented to you, I had kept the 15th free inordieSf
to prepare some kind of a draft outline of this report. But the
way discussions are going on, it will be difficult to have a free
day on the 15th January.
Acharya Kripalani:
You have kept us so busy that we have scarcely met each
other outside the Seminar.
Lord Hoyd Om
I would like to raise this question. , We were discussing
Gandhian ideals in relation to national tensions and international
tensions. We have got to be clear in our minds as to what
Gandhian ideals were in respect of national or international tensions
and how they can be realised. Now, what are national tensions
and what are international tensions? Here gentlemen, we have to
change our opinion from time to time. When we get to details,
we might discuss one or two countries. For instance, take India
or Pakistan. What are the tensions that" exist there? Take the
United Kingdom—what are the tensions there? The United
States of America—what are the tensions there? Secondly, what
are international tensions? Why are they created? What is the
difference between conditions that existed in 1890, 1900 and the
present day?
Dr. Bunche:
The conception of the world in 1890 was very UmL|ed. There
was not so much interchange of opinion between thq . various
nations; this was due to lack of communication facilities and
various other things. People of one country were Udt much
affected by the events that were taking place in other countries.
Now the world has become very small in every sense. Besides,
due to the spread of education and the awakening of the masses,
we are more conscious of hidden tensions or injustices today than
in the past
Lord Boyd Om
I entirely agree. To the generations of today, fife has become
so very insecure because tensions in atiy one region affect people
in all other regions. Tensions are more keenly fc|t because
192
people have come so near to each other. Dr. Bunche has said
rightly that tensions have also become more apparent to us.
Although they were there even in the past, we were not able to
see them as clearly in those days. But now we come close to each
other and so we have become aware of the tensions.
Tensions arise when you impose your will on others; that is
the Gandhian j>hilosophy. If one group or one person imposes
his own will on the other* then tensions arise. We shall discuss
international tensions first. If you impose your will on the
opponent without convincing him that you are right, then you
are exerting force one way or the other. The remedy is that you
overcome your (Opponent by convincing him.
Professor Kabir:
You would suggest the substitution of persuasion in place of
compulsion. Is that what you mean?
Acfaarya Kripalani:
May I suggest that, first, let us take international tensions and
internal tensions afterwards; because international tensions lead
to world wars and I think the greatest problem today is the
question of war. So if we take international tensions first, I think
we will proceed more smoothly.
Lord Boyd Om
All right. What has happened to the world to bring in those
tensions? Let us consider that in different countries. Let us
think of general tensions in the world.
Dr. Bunche: •
Might it not be more economic in terms of our time if we
concentrate on those internal or international tensions which are
a danger to world peace? Some internal tensions may have little
repercussion outside but there are others which may lead to
world conflict. It is true that the world has contracted these
days. In 1890, there were tensions by v^hich only a small part
of the population of the world was affected. But today the
world has become unified for the first time and we will have to
take the world population into account. This creates the whole
difference in present day tensions, whether they are national or
international.
Lord Boyd Orn
Not that the world has become smaller, but the 1890 concep
tion no longer holds good today. But what is wrong in our
conception of the world today?
193
94 M . o f E d u ,
Dr. Bunche:
That is the basic problem.
Acharya Kripalani:
I suggest that we take international tensions first. My idea
is that we have to consider two questions, one is world peace and
the other is that of raising the economic standard of the people.
To my mind these are the two fundamental questions, the ques
tion of war and the question of a rising economy, a progressive
economy in the backward areas that were up to this time being
imperially ruled, It comes to the same thing as Dr. Bunche was
saying.
More people have come together, and have come to have new
inter-relations. Now the question of war is linked up with the
question of colcmial nations and colonial peoples, suffering from
imperialism. Economically, politically, a great awakening has
come into existence among the colonial peoples, and during the
course of our discussions we will have to take this also into
account.
Lord Boyd Orr:
There was the philosophy of the nineteenth century, that if
every man seeks his own ends, then the general good will be
achieved.
That was the Laissez faire philosophy. If every
member, every government is all right, then very soon the world
would be all right. That was the philosophy of the nineteenth
century; and it led to imperialism and big business. In brief,
the nineteenth century believed in competition in which every man
seeks his own and expects the government not to interfere. The
world is fast moving away from thaf philosophy today.
Acharya Kripalani:
I also want to say that in order to make wars less extensive,
we must make the colonial people lose fear. This was also
Gandhiji’s philosophy. In the present context, wars are the real
unmitigated evil. That we have taken as granted, but I would
like to raise one doubt. You will agree that the two World Wars
have been responsible for giving freedom to many colonial
peoples. Unless, therefore, the powerful nations of the world
fight and, to a certain extent, destroy one another, there seems to be
no possibility of the under-dog coming up. This point may be
considered. What I want to say is that we must find out a
method by which the under-dog may get justice without war.
Professor Kabir:
What Acharya Kripalani has said may be factually ffue, but
194
to me the most important cause of what has been happening during
the last forty or fifty years is that the colonial, peoples have be
come aware of the differing standards which exist between man and
man. It is this- consciousness of difference that has brought
political consciousness to them and they have sought to achieve
their freedom. The war gave them an opportunity, but they
would have struggled for freedom, and, perhaps, won it even with
out the wars. I will give just one example. Every person who
went to Europe from here, became a staunch nationalist after
having seen the condition of the common man in the different
European countries. During the World War, thousands of
Europeans and Americans came to India. The common man here
saw the much higher standard of life of these people. Those who
had no chance of going to Europe or America had, as it were,
Europe and America coming to them in India. They bfegan to see
things in a more correct perspective and wakened to new
possibilities in life.
Dr. Bunche:
I am not sure Mr. Kripalani, that you are not putting die cart
before the horse in saying that war is to provide the vehicle for
liberating peoples. Because there were unfree peoples, there was
rivalry for dominance among the imperial powers, and they created
the wars. Mussolini was looking for expansion in the Mediter
ranean and Africa and came to a clash with the interests of other
imperialist powers.
Dr. Daftary:
War always tends to widen the scope of imperialism.
Dr. Bunche:
It was the fact that we had these conditions that made war
necessary, conditions which were not obviating dissensions, which
were not correcting them.
Acharya Kripalani:
These rivalries started among the people whom we, as
colonial peoples, considered imperialists. These rivalries were
among them. We considered Germany and Italy, as imperialist
as England; maybe some were a little less so, but they were all
imperialists. The war was between imperial powers.
Dr. Bunche:
For exploiting the colonial people or backward people.
was for extension of imperialism.
195
It,
Acharya Kripalani:
If you abolish war, then the status quo remains for colonial ■
countries.
Dr, Bunche:
You can’t abolish war so long as there is colonialism or any
other form of injustice. That is the point.
Acharya Kripalani:
Wherever you have colonial people, you have imperial,
economic or racial exploitation. Then you cannot possibly
abolish war. If you abolish war, you will simply be keeping the
colonial people, in all senses of the term, backward. They
cannot stand up. Supposing for instance, Russia and the United
States combine together to bring about peace in the world, that
would be the peace of the grave. You will only terrorise the world
into remaining where it is. There will be the status quo. I am
afraid, excuse me, America’s methods today are such that they are
encouraging every reactionary force whether in Europe or in
Asia. Take the question of Franco, the question of re-arming
Germany or Japan, of assisting Chiang Kai Shek. America
seems to want to bring about the peace of the world by main
taining the status quo or helping the reactionary powers, but that
helps Communism more than anything else.
Professor Kabir:
I think we are all agreed that so long as there are inequalities
between nations, there are bound to be causes for friction. We
have to make suggestions in order to eliminate some of these
inequalities and frictions.
Dr. Zakir Husain:
The point is: peace should not break out in an unjust world.
The world must be just; only then, there can’t be war. If the
world is unjust, then there cqn be no peace.
Acharya Kripalani:
Some people have been thinking in terms of world government,
just as there have been national governments. The national
governments have been on the basis of exploitation, and yet there
is need for law and order. In fact, in every nation, there is this
question of the ‘Haves’ fighting the ‘Have-nots*. If you give
superior power to a group of people and perpetuate this again,
there will be other rivalries, and readjustments will become
necessary. I do not know whether I have made this clear.
196
l^ T H JANUARY 1 9 5 3
Lord Bpyd Om
I agree that where inequalities exist, there is danger.
If
Mr. Eisenhower and Mr. Stalin came together and said, “Look
here: You and I will exploit the world for the benefit of Moscow
and Washington”, that is not the kind of peace we are hoping for
Pastor Niemoller:
We have to consider how in a peaceful way the claims, the
justified claims, for progress can be achieved. We must not
content ourselves with a policy of containment or status quo.
Our efforts for peace should aim at the promotion of the progress
of the people in the world. It is not merely peace—it is a pro
gressive peace we want.
Dr. Bunche:
Mr. Kripalani has raised a fundamental issue in respect of
war. What are the conclusions which we would draw with regard
to war? I would not say, for example, that the necessary
conclusion is that wars serve no purpose, hold no hope for any
one. Secondly, would we be in agreement that war should be
eliminated by eliminating the conditions which give rise to wars?
What are the conditions which give rise to war? They are
colonialism and the exploitation of peoples. Doing away with
these would be very helpful. There should be no ‘haves' and
‘have-nots’. Thirdly, we stand for peace—progressive peace
Kaka Kalelkar:
' It may be that all underdogs wait for war. Acharya Kripa
lani is so far correct, but during the war it is often-times the
underdog that is killed. War is thus not a sure solution for the
underdog. Our problem is how to abolish war. Our problem is how to remove injustices, how to achieve freedom and progress
for the underdog and for the depressed and suppressed people
without resort to violence. We are studying Gandhism, because
Gandhiji has given us a substitute in his theory and practice of
resistance to evil, resistance, to injustice, resistance to tyranny. How
far can we utilise that for securing freedom and progress for the
people of the world? How are we to organise the substitute for
war, because war is not a potent weapon? How to utilise these new
tactics of Gandhiji in order to secure the freedom and prosperity of
the people? Another thing: the U.N. has given mandates to
certain countries. If you ask the countries administering these
territories, they say the people are progressing. But if you ask the
people who are governed, they tell a different story. Freedom
must be the chief thing—freedom and progress.
197
Dr. Zakir Husain:
Mere peace is not the ideal but peace with justice. Gandhiji’s
non-violence and ahimsa were not mere non-killing, but a politicosocial force to establish justice. So the ideal is not peace at all.
costs, but peace with justice—some potent method of fighting to
get that justice in a peaceful way.
Dr. Haekal:
Mr. Chairman, you asked earlier what brought the world to the
present state of things in the beginning of this century. I believe
that it is not only war, but it is the spread of education all over the
world. It is the spread of education that has raised national con
sciousness. There is a great difference between the percentage of
people who were literate at the beginning of this century and now.
I believe that through education we can work for progressive
peace. Now there is a certain national feeling even in the darkest
places of Africa. Because of the spread of education they now
believe that they have rights, that their nations have rights. A t
the beginning of the last century, you did not believe in the rights
of such peoples. Western thought and science had the upper
hand, and we could do nothing. Through the teaching of Gan
dhiji and others, there arose self-consciousness and self-respect in
the people, that they have every right to live in the same way as
the Western people. I do believe that if we want real progressive
peace in the world, we should first have to spread education as
much as possible. If the nations of the world sincerely want to
work for progressive peace, they will have to do their best to
raise the national consciousness, as well as the consciousness of
the individual. When we arrive in due time at international
consciousness, I think we will have this progressive peace and
then we can live in a world which Gandhiji wanted—in a world of
peace and of harmony.
Dr. Bunche:
Are we for making a new Declaration, because there are so
many declarations up to now? Or are we to make some useful,
practical suggestions which can be accepted without extreme
difficulty?
Lord Boyd Om
Education is a dangerous thing for imperial governments. If
the western people wanted to retain their domination, they should
never have given education to their subjects. Imperialism and
rducition are incompatible. Education made people realise that
there Are different standards of living in different countries and
198
1 3 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
they wanted to know why. Education has spread and it is a vital
factor for the uplift of humanity.
Dr. Bunche:
I think we must stress what is an obvious fact. Today, the
sheer wastage in war is increasing.
It seems to me that war
menaces the future and it does no one any good, neither the under
dog nor the overdog. Another point is: I want freedom and
progress. These two are interrelated. There can be no progress
for people without freedom. Peace with justice can alone assure
the future of mankind.
Pastor Niemoller:
I want that there'should be non-violent work for peaceful pro
gress, for freedom and for a sufficient standard of life. If we can
not altogether eliminate injustice, I personally feel that cold war
with injustice is to be preferred to hot war with injustice. Peace
must be with justice, otherwise we do not accept it as peace, and
in fact it would not be real peace, but still it would be better than
war.
Madame Meireles:
Each of us has a task to ask the Government to insist upon a
change of education to bring about these results.
Lord Boyd Om _
I am in favour of stressing the common
humanity.
brotherhood of
Dr. Daftary:
I appeal to you to support my idea of non-violent resistance to
the aggressor.
Lord Boyd Om
That is one of the most important points in our discussions.
Mr. Tsuruml:
The question I would like to ask is this: If the Seminar is to
issue a manifesto, to whom should it be addressed—to the Govern
ments, to the peoples of various countries or to U.N.? Also, if the
Seminar went beyond a statement of principles, would it have any
effect?
I have been engaged in the Pacific Conference since 1925. We
met every two years and the Conference had great success. The
reason for the success of the Conference was that it was a strict
199
rule to make the Conference a fact-finding mission. This -Seminar
also should seek to ascertain facts, and if facts are properly stated
we may be able to avoid war.
I want to make a suggestion that since we have gathered here
to learn about Gandhiji’s thought and discuss about what Gan
dhiji would do if he were alive, let us bring his teaching to the
notice of our own people. I would add that whatever may be our
conclusions, we must express them in Gandhian terms. This we
must do not only for the reason that this is a Gandhian Seminar,
but also because this is the only chance of our getting a hearing
from the people of the world.
Acharya Kripalani;
What was Gandhiji’s approach? Everybody claims to be
working for justice and peace and freedom to everybody—Bol
sheviks, Americans and ail other people say the same thing. We
have found throughout history that all these ideas have been mis
conceived. In Europe, they thought they were saving men’s souls
by burning their bodies. Therefore, Gandhiji said that we might
be mistaken even about justice and freedom. We might be suffer
ing from our passions, our prejudices, our hatreds and our particular
modes of thought That is why we need a check on our actions.
He imposed a self-denying ordinance that we may not injure any
body else. If I am wrong, at least let me not injure another man.
I take the burden upon myself and do not injure another man.
Since we are fallible human beings and we may have wrong ideas,
we must as individuals and groups impose this self-denying ordin
ance that we will not injure other parties. This point was
brought out clearly by Mahatmaji when he was having the Rajkot
fast. In that fast, he was fasting for something, but he thought
he was appealing to violence. There was, however, this safe
guard, that he did not injure anybody else but only himself. Move
ments for justice, for equality and, for freedom must be conceived
in non-violent terms so that even if we make a mistake, we do not
harm others. We should also recommend that all such movements
must be led by certain international brigades who believe in non
violence.
Pastor Niemoller:
I think what Mr. Tsurumi has said and what Mr. Kripalani has
said fit in together. We have to do non-violent work, peaceful
work for both freedom and a sufficient standard of life for the
peoples of the world. We have to come back to positive proposals
and I think what Madame Meireles has said would be the first
thing, I do not know if I understood you aright when you were
200
1 3 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
speaking of creating peace brigades, including non-violent work
for promoting human rights. We have something to build upon
in the United Nations and Unesco. We may ask Unesco to
organise seminars for the study of Gandhian outlook and tech
niques in different countries of Europe and America. They could
be made a basis for educating peoples of all countries. I think
we should put this item first.
But secondly, I think we all agree with Dr. Bunche that we
must not wait for the result of this education, but must do some
thing now. We have to appeal to all governments or powers in
this world who agree with the Gandhian general outlook that
they have to join forces to promote this ideal of non-violence.
They must agree not to divide the world between themselves and
others and thus avoid the creation of zones. They must try to
avoid tensions in a non-violent way and promote international re
lationships. This non-violent conception of Gandhi avoids pitfalls
caused by siding with, and acknowledging the alternative of joining
this power or that power. It was your proposal Mr. Daftary and
I think we have to take it up. So we should have two points of
recommended activity: one is an appeal for education for the longrange view and the other, a proposal or recommendation for imme
diate action on behalf of those who agree with the general con
ception of diminishing tensions by making it clear that here is a
group of nations or peoples who are pledged to avoid violence
because they are deeply convinced that the violent way leads to
a common destruction for all.
Mr. Pyarelal:
Wars are fought in the belief that they offer solutions to certain
difficulties that arise between nations; but we have often seen the
falseness of this belief, at least after the last two world wars. We
have therefore to go to grass-roots. Instead of talking about the
abolition of war, the appropriate thing would be to find out effec
tive non-violent means for the redress of wrongs. My suggestion
is that this group should declare that (a) we cannot attain right
ends by questionable means; if we depart from truth and non
violence, we shall not get to where we want to reach; (b) injustice
in whatever form and wherever it is, must be resisted; (c> success
ful application of the Gandhian technique of non-violent resistance
offers the only hope of resolving the crisis that is facing us; (d) the
United Nations ideal of a world government has the full support
of this Seminar; (e) one of the functions of the organisation for
world government should be, through its various organs, to pro
mote the spread of the non-violent techniques and to educate
member nations in the use of the same.
201
The next point to be considered ip—and it is the very core of
Gandhiji's teachings—that there are no watertight compartments
in life. The philosophy of truth and non-violence has to be ex
pressed not merely by individuals in their personal life but also in
social relationship; in the political no less than in the economic
sphere. That brings us to the question of under-developed races.
We have to tackle the problem of hunger and want and the con
quest of disease by international cooperation. There should be a
partnership for this purpose of all the peoples of the world and
that partnership should be unconditional. The helplessness of the
backward, undeveloped or coloured races of the earth provides a
temptation to big powers to exploit them and constitutes the
biggest menace to world peace. The remedy is to inculcate among
these peoples the technique of Satyagraha, non-violent mass dis
cipline and organisation through consciously directed constructive
activity. It will call for a missionary zeal and a crusading spirit.
If U.N. cannot provide this, it will be like salt that has lost its
savour. This would involve setting up an expert body under the.
U.N.—not to issue or regulate a mandate to big powers to exploit
the undeveloped countries under the pretext of “administering”
them, but to educate them, through constructive service, in the
arts of life so that they can produce the essential requirements of
life by their own cooperative effort, by simple, inexpensive pro
cesses and thereby end their exploitation. Thus, we can teach them
to take their destiny in their own hands and develop the non
violent strength to resist aggression.
Then,, there is the question of population control. Gandhiji
held that unless we learn to put a voluntary check on our material
needs we shall not be at peace with ourselves or with the world. If
we want to find a solution to our social problems along Gandhian
principles we have to investigate into the possibility of the control
of population through the following techniques: (a) provide to
the masses means and opportunities for healthy recreation and
creative work so that life force can find some other outlet for ex
pression than procreation only, <b) improve their standard of
living and housing conditions, (c) provide them basic education,
which gives the fullest scope to the creative impulse in the child
by harnessing it to socially useful productive, manual activity,
(d) popularise methods of population control based upon the
principles of self-restraint fully or in part.
Now, basic education was discussed yesterday. But I think a
little more can be mentioned here. Basic education is essentially
an instrument for building up peace. At the core of it is the
principle of non-violence. It is intended to train the intellectual
and spiritual faculties of the child, and direct them to the ideal of
202
1 3 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
establishing a classless, non-exploiting, non-violent social order. It
rests on the theory that the intellect and the whole personality of
the child can be developed through purposive, intelligently directed
activity of the ‘thinking hand’.
Lord Boyd Orr;
I think Dr. Bunche wants to say something.
Dr. Bunche:
I was going to give my idea as to what should emerge from our
discussions. First of all, I think, I agree with Mr. Tsunrah that it
would be very important for us to keep our êmphasis on the fact
that this meeting is a Gandhian Seminar. We must therefore
confine our thoughts to that framework. We should think in terms
of stating the results of our deliberations on the Gandhian outlook *
rather than think in terms of ourselves as promoters of manifestos
or recommendations. For after all, we are here representing no
one but ourselves, sitting at the feet of a great Master and
attempting to reach conclusions.
I have listened to the discussions this morning and noted down
eleven points on which we could readily find agreement. Before
I read them out, I would like to point out that we have not given
much attention to certain important issues. Mr. Pyarelal spoke
about economic tensions, about classes and societies, and about the
land problem. These are particularly important, and of them, the
most important is the land problem, in most countries, particularly
in Asia. We have not given enough attention to the problem of
minor irrigation, nor to the racial problem, racial prejudices, etc.
Then there are strains resulting from power which is a potent
source of danger to the world, and finally the subject of hatred to
which Gandhiji gave so much thought. There may be other
problems, but I am thinking especially of five which deserve special
consideration, viz. (a) Economic tensions, (b) Minority groups, (c)
Racial prejudices (because minority groups are not always racial;
they may be religious) (d) fear and the resulting hysteria, and <e)
hatreds.
I would now like to read out the eleven points on
which 1 think there is general agreement among all the
delegates:—
(i) War serves no end and holds no hope for any one.
<ii) War must be eliminated by eliminating the conditions
of war, like colonial exploitation., backwardness of
peoples, etc.
. (iii) peace must be progressive. There must be nen-violeat
work for peaceful progress.
203
(iv) War menaces the future of everyone including the
underdog who sometimes thinks, but wrongly, that
he may find liberation through the conflict of more
powerful nations. - (v) Justice is an essential condition for peace.
(vi) Education has had great impact on individual and
national consciousness and has helped to develop a
consciousness of human rights.
(vii) Peace is not the exclusive responsibility of any special
group but concerns every man and woman.
(viii) A spirit of non-violent resistance to aggression must
be developed in nations and individuals.
(ix) Since no man is infallible, we must impose a selfdenying ordinance on ourselves and support all non
violent methods for promoting justice, equality and
freedom.
(x) Since violence is self-defeating and contradictory, w$
have to find a method to redress wrongs by non-violent
means.
(xi) Brotherhood of man is no longer a mere idea but a
necessity on account of the progress of science.
Professor Kabin
May I make an addition? I think you will agree that we
should consider it. There is a general feeling that Gandhian ideas
belong specially to the Indian background and that they cannot
be applied in the European or American context. The result of
this Seminar should be to try to show that, perhaps with minor
modifications, the principles of Gandhiji can be applied in *
European or American conditions as well as in conditions
here. This is a point of fundamental importance for this
Seminar.
Another point I would like the Seminar to consider is that in
the world of today, the rate of change has been accelerated. When
ever the rate of change is accelerated, tensions tend to increase,
for those who are in a privileged or advantageous position econo
mically, politically or socially insist on a continuation of the
status quo. Where the pace of change is slower, the people have
a chance of making adjustments, but if the pace is too rapid, they
tend to resist changes. The resistance is foredoomed to failure
and only creates a situation where changes are effected abruptly
and violently rather than as a gradual process. A period of quick
change is therefore always a period of tensions.
Today, the risk of tensions is far more than in the past because
this rate of change is far more extensive in its scope. Today, every
204
1 3 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
region of the world is changing and doing so in all the different
aspects of life. That is why it is so necessary to educate ourselves
and others to accept the fact of change without trying to oppose i t
As pastor Niemoller so eloquently put it, if we .always move along
with the stream and accept changes as they come, and do not seek
to put obstacles in the way of gradual change, the changes can be
brought about in a peaceful and non-violent manner. It would
thus be significant from the point of view of this Seminar if we can
convince people that Gandhiji’s ideas can apply to the whole
world, and bring about changes in a non-violent manner.
Lord Boyd Orr:
I would mention here that I was President of a body in London
-—the National Peace Conference organised by the Quakers. We
have discussed these ideas and many books and pamphlets have
also been published. The Quakers are non-violent. They have
gone much further than we have. They are opposed to war in any
circumstances. But the question is: How can we apply Gandhi’s
techniques to the war in Korea? How can we apply these to
Africa? So long as we make general statements, everybody says,
“Excellent, excellent,” but the difficulty is to apply them in con
crete situations.
I want to start from the position that the great powers are
afraid of each other. They do not want war, but they also do not
know how to avoid war. They are very powerful in the U.N. and
the smaller nations have no real voice*in its affairs. The Soviet
bloc controls from Moscow and the Western bloc from Washing
ton—people do not know how strong their control is. These two
blocs get stronger and stronger and might precipitate a war, un
less some intermediate bloc is there as my friend suggested.
Small nations, peace-loving nations, cannot resist the pull of these
blocs unless they get together and raise their voice in favour of
peace. These small nations should say: we are against armaments.
If we were to get two-thirds of the nations in U.N. to come
together and put up a thing like that before the United Nations,
then it might have some effect. What I want is broadening the
idea of parliamentary association. The voice of Reason is being
smothered in the world today and if our report does not take
, note of this, it will be an innocuous document.
I am convinced that America does not want war. Russia also
does not want war, but these people find no road out. Nothing can
prevent them falling over the abyss unless there is a new voice of
Reason outside these power blocs. They have already created
war hysteria in their own people. So the peace of the world plight
come from the smaller nations. The big thing today is to avoid
205
GANDHIAN OUTLOOK AND .TECHNIQUES
war for the next five years, for if we can avoid war for five years*
the war may never come. We, the people of the world, must de
clare that we will not go to war. If that could be done, and war
stopped for the next five years, perhaps we would have averted
war forever.
Dr. Daftary:
You have explained my idea, Sir. I have explained it in my
paper. Thank you for explaining because you have given all my
ideas. I think it is quite advisable to put some words in our
manifesto or appeal to this effect.
Lord Boyd Om
One final thing. Every nation, large or small, should have
freedom to control all its resources, and develop them according
to its own gepius and experience. All should have that freedom.
But many people have not been able to go their own way. So the
smaller nations might get together and say “We will not go to
war”.
Professor Kabir
What you say, Mr. Chairman, about a nation’s right to develop
its own resources is very true'provided it is within limits. If we do
not remember the limits, the demand for economic nationalism
may become another cause of war. Many of the wars have been
fought because of the demand of a nation to exploit its, own re
sources to the fullest extent without considering the needs of
others. Therefore, we must be careful that the demand for econo
mic and industrial development should not lead to economic
nationalism. There is a risk that if a nation has a monopoly of a
particular asset, it may want to exploit others. Many of the wars
in history have arisen out of the demand of a nation for a parti
cular commodity from another nation. We have had national
sovereignty in the political field, and are now trying to get out of
the impasse created by it; let us not build up a new national
sovereignty in the economic field.
Lord Boyd Om
Each nation should be allowed to exploit its resources without
interference from others. Suppose a nation has petroleum.
It
should be able to exploit it without interference from others in the
interest of its own nationals.
‘ Dr. Haekal: ,
You have been speaking more than once for scientific advance,
206
1 3 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
but how can we use science for the benefit of the whole world if
each nation looks only to its own immediate interests? I should
think, and our friends from India have also said, that Gandhiji
was not at all against science. I believe that in whatever we may
propose, this question of scientific advance and science being of
service to the whole world should find a place.
Kaka Kalelkan
Can we recommend to the U.N. that at least U.N. should eschew
all violence in its methods and explore all non-violent methods
for bringing erring nations to book?
Dr. Buhcbe:
The United Nations is a collection of governments. I think
we can over-simplify the problem by saying that the sole threat of
war comes from the conflict between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A.
and that the rest of the world stands by, or is impelled to a position
by the power of these two States. It is not in fact always so. Let us
think of the conditions which give rise to restiveness in the world,
which give rise to war or threat of war. Let us take, for example,
the subject of colonialism. Many people in my own country re
gret very much that the traditional position of the United States
on the subject of colonialism has in fact been abandoned in order
to foster cordial relations with the colonial powers of Western
Europe. We feel, for example, that the United States is being
pushed around to the position of taking sides with Great Britain,
France and smaller imperialist countries like Belgium., The
position of the United States is determined by the attitude which
would be taken on specific questions by these colonial powers. On
the issues that have just recently come up at the United Nations,
Morocco and Tunisia, the position of the United States has been
completely at variance with all its tradition and policy of sym
pathy and support for colonial peoples fighting for freedom. The
United States has taken this position to foster and maintain cordial
relations with European powers because of the votes they have
in U.N. With regard to Belgium, the United States takes the
position of being very soft and going easy on questions of Belgian
Congo in order not to give offence to Belgium. The United States
wants to maintain friendliness with Italy and so it soft-pedals with
regard to questions of Somaliland. Eritrea, etc. In regard to
each, the position of the United States is very much influenced by
political considerations, specially the consideration of alignment
of power within U.N. Indeed the whole history of the Palestine
conflict is an example. My point is that even if we eliminate to
morrow the intense conflict between the Soviet Union and the
207
United States, the conditions for war will still be present, because
these basic conditions remain in the world. What will happen is
that new blocs will arise, new rivalries will develop.
Many of the positions taken by my country are not of its own
volition, but in order to get along with countries whose policies
are not right—and in which there are many tensions; these find a
reflection in the foreign policy of my own country.
We see the same contradiction in the Indian position. With
regard to specific issues, India also enters into all kinds of agree
ments with other nations in U.N. This sort of horse-trading is
going on all the time. It is all the result of national self-interest.
Therefore—it is necessary to eliminate all tensions.
Professor Kabin
If we can make practical recommendations for solution of ten
sions in the internal plane, I feel it would have an effect on the
international plane also. If we proceed with certain limited object
ives and make certain proposals with regard to these, there is a
chance of pur recommendations being accepted.
Professor Tucch
We should draft a summary of the conclusions we have reached with regard to these fundamental problems. We can then pass on
to the next point: whether we should appeal to the common people,
to the governments, or to, the intellectuals.
Dr. Bunche:
I don’t think we should submit specific recommendations to
Governments or to official international organisations.
Lord Boyd Om
We will now adjourn for the day. Dr. Kabir will give us
a summary of today’s discussions at tomorrow’s camera meeting.
20#
PHOTOGRAPH ON REVERSE
The Delegates with the President of the Indian Republic
„aw (L to R) : Pastor Niemoller (Germany), Lord Boyd Orr (U.K.), Prof.
Humayun Kabir (Additional Secretary, Ministry of Education),
Acharya Narendra Deva, and Mr. Pyarelal.
rout Row (L to R) : Prof, G. Tucci (Italy), Prof. Yusuke Tsurumi (Japan),
Dr. Mohamed Hussein Haekal (Egypt), Madame Cecilia Meireles
(Brazil), Lady Boyd Orr, Dr. Rajendra Prasad (President of India),
Madame Niemoller, Dr. Matine Daftary (Iran), Dr. Ralph Bunche
(U.S.A.), Kaka Saheb Kalelkar, and Acharya Kripalani.
The Seminar met at 10 A.M. on 14//; January, 1953 in Com
mittee Room of Parliament House with Lord Boyd Orr in the
'Chair.
Lord Boyd Om
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The meeting is called to order. Yesterday the delegates to
the Seminar met in Committee and got down to real business. We
should have more of these meetings. Today we would meet just
for one hour and then adjdurn to meet in camera. There will
not be any more of these semi-public meetings.
Professor Kabir will now give his views.
Professor Kabir:
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to place
before this Seminar some of the views that I would like the
delegates to consider. I have intervened occasionally, expressed
my views on various tophss, and it is with great diffidence and
humility that I now make a more connected statement today.
As we have been discussing, I have felt more and more that
while it is easy for us to admire what Gandhiji did, it is very
difficult for most of us to act as he did. It is perhaps, still more
difficult to find out concrete issues, particularly in the field of
international relations, where his techniques cart be applied.
Gandhiji had a genius which gave even simple things a great
potentiality.. All men cannot find out the secret, for it lay in
his personality. One of our difficulties in the Seminar has been
to find out methods which would have his kind of success when
applied, for he was concerned not with mere success, but with
success of a very special kind.
I will try to state first some features which are characteristic
o f Gandhiji’s outlook and then take up the question of his
techniques.
,
The first point is: Gandhiji was essentially a fighter and
■distinguished his own position sharply from that of a pacifist. At
one time, when his movement was described as passive resistance, he said that it was not passive resistance but Satyagraha.
Passive resistance in his view is negative, while Satyagraha is
positive—it is a going out to challenge evil and resist it, but
without resorting to force which is itself an evil. Satyagraha is
thus opposition to evil by, not another evil, but the good. He (
209:
94 M. o f E d u .
was thus a fighter, but a fighter in a non-violent way.
Her
believed in peace but not in passivism of any type. I believe he
would have applied his methods not only to a country like India,,
which is supposed to be passive in spirit, nor merely to other
oriental countries but also to western countries which are supposed
to have activism in their mental make-up.
The second point I would like to stress is that Gandhiji was
essentially a child of his age but he >vas also something more. I t
is because we try to put him on a pedestal that we often forget
this. If we think he was born full-grown, like Pallas Athene
out of the head of Zeus, we would not be doing justice to him.
We would not then be able to follow his teachings either. He
was influenced by the prevailing thought of the day though he was
not a systematic reader of other people’s thoughts. Of these
influences, three deserve particular mention. He was an inheritor
of the liberal tradition, of the tradition of philosophical anarchism
and of the tradition of collectivisation found in socialist thought..
He regarded personal liberty as a great value, he believed that
the State should interfere as little as possible with
the individual and he held that the sharing of things with
one another is essential for a truly human existence.
He imbibed
all these teachings, but he gave a new
turn to everything he learnt. He believed in personal liberty b u t
held that rights, accrued only from the performance of duties. He
was in favour of decentralisation, but not in favour of anarchic
abolition of the State. He believed that the good things of life
ought to be shared. He was not however prepared to accept themethod of violence often advocated by socialists to achieve this
goal. In fact, he altogether abjured violence as an instrument
for achieving any of his objectives.
This brings me to my third point, which, I think, is one of the
most significant things in Gandhiji. He was one of the very first
to understand fully the spirit of the age in which he was living. He
recognised that violence has become futile in the modern world.
Today, because of scientific development, the world has reached
a stage where violence has not only become a self-contradiction
but, if persisted in, would threaten the very survival of man. ■T hat
recognition by Gandhiji was, I think, his most significant
contribution to modern thought. It is the recognition of a truth*
which will have to be accepted by all countries, in their internal
as well as their external affairs, if man is to avoid disaster.
Gandhiji came to recognise that not only is violence futile,
but even political action has serious limitations.
He was there
fore one of the very first who recognised that many issues of the
modern world cannot be solved by political action alone. H e
210
1 4 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
realised that unless evils are removed—among them he included
also internal tensions—there could be no peace. There are many
internal tensions within India itself which he tried to solve during
bis lifetime. He also realised that many of the tensions within
society are due to internal tensions within individuals. That is
why he placed such emphasis on individuals.
People have a t
times wondered how a man, who was guiding the destinies of
millions of people, had so much time to spare for the individual
needs of' insignificant people who came into contact with him.
The answer is to be found" in his respect for the individual. He
held that every individual who is integrated, who has solved his
own internal tensions, becomes a dynamo of power and radiates
energy all around. By making individuals his main instrument,
Gandhiji sought to train a body of men who would have no
personal tensions and would thus help to resolve the problems
within society; and through the lessening of tensions within society,
Gandhiji sought to resolve international tensions.
These are some features in his general outlook to which I
would like to draw your special attention. I may now pass on
to what appears to me to be certain basic principles which under
lie all his techniques.
It was pointed out again and again during the course of our
discussions that Gandhiji’s attitude is comparable to that of a
scientist. He was an objective student of reality and his method
was essentially experimental. This, I feel, was due to his intuitive
perception of the-continual changes which go on in the individual
and in society. That is one reason why, I think, Gandhiji
never repeated a movement in exactly the same form in which
he had launched it on a previous, occasion. Every one of his
movements fixed upon some new symbol. For example, in the
1919-20 movement, the emphasis was on non-cooperatiori—non
violent non-cooperation. In 1930, salt became the symbol of
opposition to Government. In 1940, defiance of the law against
the assembly of people was the symbol he chose. In 1942, he
raised the slogan of ‘Quit India’ and asked the people to dare all
in a supreme effort of non-violent fight. The motto of the
struggle was therefore ‘Do or die’.
Thus Gandhiji was continually experimenting.
In saying
this, I am trying to emphasise that he was conscious of the fact
that changing situations, changing circumstances require different
techniques. When he himself recognised ■that within India
itself, a technique could not be repeated blindly, how can we
expect to transfer techniques bodily and without change to another
country and another people? What therefore we have to try to
learn is the principle of his techniques and to modify them to suit
211
the requirements of different situations. If we keep this in view,
Gandhiji’s techniques acquire an international applicability.
Unless this aspect is sufficiently emphasised, there is a danger that
the possibility of applying them in other countries may not be
fully appreciated. If we remember this experimental, scientific
attitude of Gandhiji, his outlook apd techniques can be applied
to any condition or any country at any time or at any place.
I should now like to refer to another point which has been
discussed, v iz . the question of Gandhiji’s identification with his
people. If we emphasise too much that he had completely identi
fied himself with his people, doubts may arise about the applica
bility of his methods to other peoples. If there was complete
identification with one particular people, this may make it
difficult to apply the same methods in the case of other peoples
with other traditions and beliefs. There is often a tendency
among Indians to regard Gandhiji’s methods as those of a mystic.
If that were so, they could not apply to other peoples or other
countries. It is therefore necessary for us to examine further
this question of identification. I now feel that I was perhaps
over-simplifying the issue when during the earlier discussions I
said that Gandhiji identified himself with the masses of India. It is
true that Gandhiji adopted the dress of the ordinary man. It is
true he spoke their language. It is true that he shared their beliefs
but the secret of his success, I do not think, lay in these externals.
There are hundreds who wear the same kind of dress, who follow
the same external modes of Indian life and Indian ideals.. There
are hundreds who become Sanyas is, ascetics or mystics,
but they do not appeal to the masses. There is a great deal of
difference between mere externals and the inner significance.
Gandhiji’s identification with the people was essentially a spiritual
identification. Such identification can cut across the barriers of
language, custom and convention. If we look at the question
from this point of view, we can understand how identification can
be achieved not only with one people Or one society, but with
the whole world. Gandhiji’s life thus acquires a tremendous
significance for us.
Gandhiji never made any demand from a person which was
impossible of accomplishment. So far as the Indian people
were concerned, he led them stage by stage till their spiritual
discipline became more and more complete. I gave on an
earlier occasion three examples:—how he undermined the fear of
jails, and then the fear of loss of property, and only after he was
satisfied that the people had achieved freedom from these fears
did he make the supreme demand on them—Do or die. Thai
came as the culmination of a long process of training.
212
14th
JANUARY
1953
I think Kaka Saheb was right in pointing out that Gandhiji
always insisted that his own fellow workers should go through a
process of spiritual training.
In his own Ashram as well as
other Ashrams spread out in the whole of India were trained a
band of workers for carrying Gandhiji’s message throughout the
country.
I might also point to another application of the idea o f train*
mg in the concept of Basic Education. There also the idea is to
develop the integrated personality of the individual. The aim of
the system is, therefore, the evocation of creative responses from
the individual and not the
mere imparting of instruction.
Gandhiji laid great emphasis on education and not mere instruc
tion, as he believed that only in this way could we develop
integrated individuals and such individuals alone can build up an
integrated society.
The emphasis on education and training derived from
Gandhiji’s respect for the individual. He believed in winning
over the individual by persuasion and not by compulsion. From
that point of view, I should say that he was probably the supreme
propagandist of his age. He showed what a tremendous power
rightful and truthful statement can have on the individual as well
as on the group. In a way, therefore, he is a pioneer in the
field of psychological warfare and he showed what effect it can
have, provided it is Tightly handled. Gandhiji, however, set one
limitation to his propaganda—that it would never resort to
untruth or even half-truth. He believed that untruth is the
greatest evil and harms both the propagator ctf the lie and the
listener. He, therefore, made it a condition that the propaganda
would never injure anybody. He wanted to undermine the
morale of his opponent by appealing to his sense of truth and
justice, and by reserving the suffering for himself. He^ therefore,
followed what we can call the technique of civilized conduct.
He wanted that even in dealing with our enemies, we must be
civilized. If his technique can be adopted in all types of actions,
most of our difficulties will be removed.
I now come to what is perhaps Gandhiji’s greatest significance
in the modern world. He was one of the first to realise that
violence is out-moded. He was one of those who ruled out
completely the use of force of any type in his dealings with other
people. From this point of view, we may look on him as a pure ‘
politician and not a militarist-cum-politician, as most politicians
are. Most politicians, regardless of what they may say, act on
the principle: If I cannot persuade him, I must compel him.
What is in the background of the mind of most political leaders
in subiect countries is that.if thev cannot persuade the rulers to .
213
listen to them, they would seek to overthrow them by military
action. Gandhiji ruled that out altogether. He said that his
method would be one entirely of civilised approach. His strategy
would be political action and not militaiy action at all. I have
earlier said that Gandhiji was a fighter and not a pacifist I
will now modify the statement and say that he was a pacifist il
you change the usual connotation of the term. He wanted to
rule out violence and the use of brute force. He was not however
averse to the use of moral pressure and in fact the essence o f
his method was non-violent resistance to evil.
Now I come to the last and most difficult part of my state
ment. What practical programmes can we evolve from the
principles which underlie Gandhiji’s techniques? First and fore
most, of course, is the reorientation of education. The other day
Dr. Zakir Husain very rightly drew a distinction between instruct
ion and education. He said that education is the creative res
ponse of the individual to a situation, while instruction is the
imparting of information or techniques. This is a valid distinct
ion and I entirely agree with him that we must emphasize the
aspect of education rather than that of mere instruction. Even
instruction has, however, to be reformed, for without the necessary
information or techniques, the correct responses cannot be evoked.
To take only one example. How can you expect a child to make
a correct response to a person of another country if he has
been given information which breeds hatred for that country in
his mind? If, for example, the teaching of history and geography
-were reorientated, and if instead of laying the emphasis on clashes
between societies, individuals and nations, we bring out the farflung co-operation of men throughout the ages, we would at the
same time have laid the foundation of a truly creative education.
My second proposal is based on the supreme principle of
Gandhiji, that we must try to achieve our ends by persuasion
rather than compulsion. We can first apply .this principle to
solve (a) labour troubles or (b) conflicts between minorities or
groups within the nation. We Should start with the individual
and seek his willing consent. Gandhiji himself had again and
again tried to reform the individual to reform society, the society
to reform the nation, and the nation to reform the world as a
whole. If this principle can be applied in the relation between
individuals, we will have taken a long step forward to apply it to
wider fields. Where persuasion does not succeed, we have the
Tesort to law or neutral arbitration in the case of individuals
belonging to the same society. This is now being gradually
applied to organisations or interests within the State or the Nation,
and we may look forward to the day when neutral arbitration
814
1 4 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
-will hold among States as well.
The third item in our programme should be an intensification,
'both nationally and internationally, of schemes of social welfare.
I have no doubt in my mind that a good deal of tension is created
through a sense of frustration, and this frustration is due to the
Tact that people have no outlet for their creative energies.
Individuals who are engaged in fruitful work are happy. The
-same applies to Societies and States. If constructive programmes
in which the energies of the people can be usefully employed are
undertaken, we will, in that way, help to ease the tension within
the society, within the country and by application of that
principle, we would also help to ease tensions among nations.
The fourth point in our programme should be to seek to
•canalise all aid from one nation to another through international
agencies. Aid that is bilateral is bound to be suspected, even if
no strings are attached to it. Not only should existing pro
grammes be channelled through the U.N,, but U.N. should prepare
a greatly enlarged programme of international help and develop
ment. Immediately after the war, disaster was averted in Europe
through the help of the Marshall Plan. It helped to rebuild the
material prosperity of large parts of Europe and diverted man’s
m ind to constructive activities. One of the finest examples of
creative cooperation between nations is offered by the group
-of French workers who went to Germany and of German workers
who went to France to rebuild ruined buildings of hospitals and
schools. These programmes of reconstruction should not only
be on a larger scale but should be carried out in a concerted
manner by U.N. We do not deny the value of all that U.N. is
doing, but that work is not commensurate with the needs of the
situation. This is particularly'so in view of what the‘Chairman
said. In the field of international relations, we are -literally
fighting against time. If programmes of cooperative reconstruc
tion can be launched in time, we can postpone the risks of war
and if we can avoid war today, we may avert it altogether.
There will then be the hope that sanity may return and we may
have crossed the precipice. To be truly effective, this kind of
reconstruction programme must be on a much larger- scale so
ithat it can fire the imagination of the people.
My fifth point is: Cannot U.N. enunciate some kind of doctrine
o f limits between nations so that the glaring inequalities of today
are mitigated? Some countries have enforced the doctrine of
limits for individuals through the Income Tax. Mr. Chairman,
in your own country, the necessities of life are guaranteed
to all. The Health Service is there to look after the
people’s health. The Unemployment Service is there for those
215
GANDHIAN OUTLOOK AND
t e c h n iq u e s
who have no jobs. There is a programme to provide accom
modation for all. Even in countries which are not Welfare
States, the gulf between the rich and the poor is being gradually
bridged. It is for the consideration of the Seminar whether we
cannot make a recommendation to the U.N. that U.N. may try
to lay down certain minimum standards which should be guaran
teed to alii people, if necessary by persuading the more prosperous
nations to share part of their surplus with their less fortunate
fellows in other countries. May I give one example of what I
have in mind? There is today in many countries an acute
shortage of paper. Text books cannot be had in many places
because of such shortage. When this issue was discussed in
Unesco it transpired that the United States alone could meet
a great part of the world demand if only its Sunday papers were
reduced by ten per cent. Americans would hardly feel the loss
and yet the world as a whole would greully gain.
My sixth point is : the more the world is coming together
through mechanical advance, the more are States making travel
difficult by imposing all sorts of control. Could not the Seminar
recommend that barriers should be relaxed? We ought also to
ask for the relaxation of barriers in trade, but since that may
arouse passions and provoke opposition, I would be content to
ask for increased facilities of travel as a first step. So far as
barriers to travel and communication are concerned, I do not
really see any valid reason for them. With all the barriers and
restrictions that human ingenuity can devise, the people whoYn a
State wants to keep out often get in, and those whom it wants
to keep in equally often get out. Not all the visas shut out the
spies and agents and smugglers who operate on an international
scale. Is there any doubt tha't there are people in the United
States who are agents of the Soviet Union, just as in the Soviet
Union there are people who act for the United States in spite of
visas and passes? It is only the bonafide traveller who is put
to difficulties by customs regulations, visas, currency restrictions,
and passports. I would urge that the Seminar may recommend
the relaxation of barriers to travel and communication.
This demand for facility of travel and communication may
seem a small thiqg, but in fact it would be a great step forward.
It would be a great solvent of international tensions, for more
travel would mean more personal contacts and more friendships.
One of the main reasons of national hatreds is lack of contacts,
between nationals of different countries. They therefore think
cf people of other countries in abstract terms. We can easily hate
abstractions, but we do not so readily hate individuals. I can
give you one experience from my own life. I was once in a camp
216
1 4 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
of international students.
Somebody asked me how many
Americans there were in that camp. I said four but when there
was an actual count we found there were five. I had said four
because there was one American whom I knew very well and had
not thought of him as an American but as Jeffrey Smith. I am
sure that others have the same experience. When we know a
person intimately, we do. not consider him as belonging to a
particular country or group. We do not think of him as a rep
resentative of Germany, or of England, or of America. There
fore, the more people come together and the more the barriers are
removed, the greater will be the possibility of creating international
understanding and of lessening tensions by developing personal
relationships between individuals.
I will now come to the next point, which raises a most serious
issue. The point was formulated first by Dr. Daftary as the
organisation of a front of peace-loving nations. I would like to
put forward some suggestions in that connection. I do not know
what exactly he had in mind, but I feel that our recommendation
should be on these lines. Let us have a peace front whose member
ship will be open to anybody who accepts its objectives without
any bar. There will be only two conditions to be fulfilled for
membership. The first condition is that only such nations can
join the peace front as would give up hate propaganda against
another country. You can criticise but you must not abuse. At
present, propaganda has degenerated into abuse. For me, the
elimination of abuse and hatred is one of the essential proofs of
the pacific intentions of a State and is fundamental. When you
go through some of the speeches delivered in the United Nations,
you very often find that the standard of the speeches is not that
of statesmen. The language would probably do discredit to the
worst fishmonger in the worst fish market in the world.
My second condition would be that those who wish to join
this peace front must allow the free circulation of an objective
newspaper to be published by this peace 'front. The newspaper
would report facts objectively. The difficulty in the present day
world is that people cannot get at the facts, for most newspapers
publish coloured versions in order to excite passions. News is
abused to further the interests of particular groups. The objec
tive, neutral paper I have in view would be an instrument for
fighting passions, for fighting selfish interests and powers by
psychological warfare. This paper should give out nothing but
the truth. If the peace front within the United Nations published
a paper like that—the cost of the paper would be insignificant
compared to what the nations are spending on armaments—it
would go a long way in allaying suspicion and hatred.
217
g a n d h ia n
outlook
and
t e c h n iq u e s
The question may be asked as to how such a newspaper is to
be financed. Obviously, it cannot depend on advertisement for
that would restrict its freedom. Nor can it expect a wide circula
tion at the start. It can be published under the auspices of U.N.
by levying a^small cess on those who join the peace-front. The
contribution of each nation to U,N. is—I am not quite sure of the
figures—but my impression is that it is not even one per cent of
the national budget. I would say if one per cent of the contribu
tion to U.N. is given for this kind of an objective newspaper, it
would suffice. If nations are prepared to allow the free circula
tion of that paper in their countries, it would also serve the
purpose we have in view. In order to ensure objectivity and
neutrality, the paper would be edited by an international board
of editors and would report facts without bitterness or bias. A ll
nations should be allowed to come in, provided they abjure
violent, hateful, or false propaganda and agree to free circulation
within their territories of this Peace-front paper and each
such nation may have one representative on the Board of
Editors.
.
My last suggestion is this. Gandhiji believed in the import
ance of the individual. Prof. Massignon brought out this point
very clearly in his statement. The Gandhian technique is
specially suited for operation by small groups. I therefore hope
that small groups will be formed in each country whose business
it will be to disseminate the ideas of Gandhiji, to examine issues
to see how the Gandhian technique can be applied to them and
to apply them as far as it lies within their power. Our Seminar
. may give an impetus to this by creating greater interest in
Gandhian thought and bringing together people who are willing
to apply his techniques.
Lord Boyd Orr:
Thank you for a very interesting statement.
is now open to questions and comments.
The
meeting
Dr. Bunche:
With regard to the idea of agreement by persuasion, now as I
interpret it in the international arena, this doctrine finds express
ion in the traditional methods of international intercourse—
methods which the U.N. is attempting to apply in a much more
determined way than before—the methods of negotiation, con
ciliation, mediation. These methods assume the willingness of
the parties in a conflict to make reasonable concessions.
Conciliation, mediation, negotiation necessities concessions as
i4TH
JANUARY
1953
the basis for agreement.
Therefore, there is implied always a
minimum, an essential minimum, of good-will in the relations
between the parties. What would be the answer of Gandhiji if
one or both the parties should be lacking in these qualities of
reason, in the willingness to make concessions, which would be the
only basis for finding amicable agreement?
My second question relates to the doctrine of limits. Does it
mean the correcting of the imbalance in wealth, in power? Does,
it mean the removal of the difference between the ‘haves’ and the
"‘have-nots’? If so, how do we bring this about peacefully, non•violently?
The third question relates to the peace-front, which I under
stand was envisaged to be developed within the United Nations'
■on the basis of the acceptance of the Charter and therefore the
principles of the United Nations. U.N. is formally an organisation
<of peace-loving nations and peoples. Every nation that joined.the
U.N.* undertook to accept these principles. I take jt, the front is
to be directed against all war—cold war or shooting war, war of
words, psychological war. Do you mean by that, you would
have psychological war against war and for peace?
Professor Kabir:
All these three questions raise fundamental issues.
First, you have raised the question: how would Gandhiji have
proceeded when one or both parties to .a dispute lack goodwill?
Gandhiji assumed that there is always some goodwill in every
one and tried to make up for any deficiency in the opponent by
greater good-will, on his own part. If there is sufficient good-will
in you, he said, the heart of the opponent would be softened. May
I say one thing? When I was trying to suggest all these prog
rammes of action, I drew a distinction between what we can
immediately apply and what could be applied ultimately. With
regard to this question of agreement by persuasion, conciliation
and mediation, I would repeat that we can start by trying to
extend its scope and application within the nation. If you apply
these principles in the national sphere and succeed in removing
tensions and develop a spirit of goodwill, later on they can be
applied to external tensions also. If we are going to talk in
terms of what is'practicable in the immediate future, I do not
say that we can depend only on good-will for the solution of all
international problems. Of course, there is no harm in trying
and I am sure~the U.N. is doing this all the time. Many issues
have been solved by the U.N. by applying this method. It has
not succeeded in every case, but every time it succeeds is a good
augury for the future.
*219
Regarding the question about the doctrine of limits, you have
yourself answered it. We all know the great inequalities and the
imbalance which exist in the world today—the extremely high
standard of living of certain people exists side by side with the
sub-human level of subsistence of a vast majority of human beings.
Your country took a very wise and generous decision when it
decided to come to the aid of suffering humanity in different parts
*of the world at different times. Your people have a warm
hearted generosity, but it is not organised, at least not
organised from the international point of view. What I want to
suggest is that your warm-hearted generosity should be given some
institutional form through the United Nations. People whose
1standard of living is above a certain level should give a certain
proportion of their per capita income to a Reconstruction and
Replenishment Fund for developing the backward areas. As you
know, the per capita income of an American is about 1,200 dollars,
whereas that of an Indian is not even 50 dollars and there arc
people whose per capita income is only 30 dollars. The difference
is very great indeed and is a source of danger to the world.
Inequality within the nation was a similar source of danger but
has been largely eliminated through the income-tax. When the
income-tax was first imposed, .it was only a penny in the pound,
but by 1940, the income-tax had risen from one penny in the
pound to nineteen shillings six pence in certain cases. If on similar
lines, there is a token international cess to be paid by countries
which have an excess of income over a certain minimum, and the
funds so raised are used to develop under-developed areas and
increase their wealth, it would be a great force for world peace.
This would be more so if the countries concerned would voluntarily
contribute a certain proportion—say one per cent in a dollar or
whatever it may be—towards such a fund. That Fund could
help to build up and develop under-developed countries under
international auspices.
The third point raises a fundamental issue. I was talking
of psychological war against cold war. If we could have one
newspaper which could express facts without fear or favour, one
of the greatest causes of friction in the world would disappear.
If you look up 1947 newspapers in India, you will find corrobora
tion of what 1 am saying. Some papers painted men of a particular
community as devils, but if you look at papers run by members
of that community, you will find the devils transformed into
angels and the angels turned into devils. This is true of other
countries also. Today also, a lot of subjective reporting goes on
in the world. Each country uses news to create strength among
its people and fear in others. W© therefore want at least one
220
^
1 4 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
paper which will give facts, and only facts under international
auspicps.'
I am specially keen about the need of an objective paper, for
we cannot make any extravagant proposals but we can appeal to
nations to help in the organisation of a paper of this type. It
will not be very expensive and will cost only an infinitesimal
fraction of what we spend on armaments today. As I have
already said, any country should be free to join in the editorial
board provided it allows free circulation of the paper in its territory.
Here, we may perhaps take a lesson from Gandhiji’s own example.
He chose very small things. He used those things in such a
way that they became dynamic. Can we not try to apply his
technique to the international field? If such a paper could be
started under international auspices, the world would know that
there is one paper which is attempting to state the truth and
develop friendship between countries.
Lord Boyd O it:
Anybody else would like to make any comments on
Professor Kabir said?
what
Acharya Kripalani:
The question of education has been repeatedly raised in this
Conference and Professor Kabir also raised it. It is true that
Gandhiji introduced or recommended to the nations a new scheme
of education. You will agree that that was almost the last thing
that he did. We must not confine the term “education” to any
system in' vogue in schools, even in schools he himself founded.
We must copy his example that while organising a movement, he
created a consciousness among people which was the greatest
education that could be achieved in such a short time. If we
are to rely upon formal education, I suppose it would take centuries
to educate people in particular ideas. Nations are educated and
groups are educated sometimes in a very limited space of time.
Education means creating consciousness of an idea.
Another thing was a peace-front. WhatT)r. Daftary suggested
was quite different from what Professor Kabir has suggested. If I
am not wrong it was not a peace-front of armed nations. It was a
peace-front of nations that were to come together on the basis
of disarmament. Any other peace-front would not succeed, as it
has been found that there are nations who want to introduce peace
through armaments.
Cord Boyd Om
Any other comments?—
221
i
Professor Kabin
With regard to Acharya Kripalani’s first point, I would only
say that I agree with him entirely. I agree that education cannot
mean only education in schools and Dr. Zakir Husain has madethat point very clear. As regards the second point, I am cons
cious that the proposal I made is somewhat different front
Dr. Daftary’s proposal, but Dr. Daftary’s point is different front
what Acharya Kripalani said now.
Dr. Daftary did not say that he wanted all nations immediately
to disarm. In any case, my feeling is that there is not much;
chance in the world just now to make a common peacefront of. disarmed nations. I think that if we want to have ' &
peace-front of disarmed nations only, we would have to wait for
a long time. What right have we to ask other countries todisarm if we are not ourselves prepared to do so? My suggestioa
therefore is that nations should be allowed to join on two condi
tions: (1) They should give up violent propaganda and dissemina
tion of hatred even against their enemies and (2) they should
agree to the circulation in their country of an internationally
conducted objective newspaper which tries to report facts and
not mere opinions or propaganda.
Dr. Daftary;
I have to give some explanation as to what is my idea. M y
idea is to unite only peace-loving nations in the front, for two
main reasons: firstly to apply all the aims and principles o f
.United Nations, specially the limitation of armaments programme
as prescribed by the Charter of the United Nations; and secondly
to redress all the injustices imposed upon weak nations by alf
nations during the nineteenth century and then to resist nonviolently every aggression, whatsoever it may be. That is my idea.
Dr. Bunche’s idea is that the United Nations is sufficiently large
and already embodies these principles. My reply is that we have a
Charter, but there are powers in the United Nations who refuse
to apply the Charter. We want to have a united front in the
United Nations to apply the principles of the Charter, because the
Charter is now more or less a dead letter. We want to apply thisCharter effectively. 1
Mr. Pyarelal:
I was very much laken by Dr. Daftary’s suggestion of having
a peace-front in the United Nations because what is happening is
that between the Anglo-American bloc and the Soviet bloc, they
are adding to the existing tensions instead of helping to remove
them. Each bloc is more anxious to add new recruits to its.
222
14T H JANUARY 1 9 5 3
ranks than to fight reaction and exploitation. In fact they have
not hesitated to condone and back reaction and oppression by
(heir adherents. The emergence of a neutral group outside these
power blocs would put a brake upon rivalries between these two
blocs and lessen the threat of war breaking out any moment It
will not put out the fire but it may prevent the fire from spreading.
If there are a number of nations saying they would not take
part in any war except when their own territories are invaded,
the danger of war would be greatly minimized. Professor
Humayun Kabir has pointed out that nations may not today find
it possible to disarm totally. But even if they come together with
the limited objective of keeping out of a shooting war it would give
us breathing space to put into action the long-term solution.
Prof. Humayun Kabir has also made an interesting suggestion
about starting an international paper. Having regard to the
actual difficulties in running a paper of the type envisaged by
Professor Kabir and its very limited, I may say, doubtful utility, I
feel that it will not be worth the trouble and expense involved. I
lay greater store by a group of peace-loving nations coming
together and acting so as to make their voice heard in the United
Nations.
Dr. Bunche:
In my country, and I presume in yours, there is a completely
free press. Anything can be printed and I know that responsi
ble and irresponsible things are printed, so long as they are not
libellous. If Mr. Vishinsky makes a speech in the General
Assembly attacking the United States, denouncing conditions in
the United States, the full text is printed not only in the Daily
Worker but in many other papers as well. Whom precisely is the
paper of the peace-front supposed to reach?
Professor Kabir:
With regard to the first question, there jvill be no difference
of opinion that anything which limits a shooting war is welcome.
At the same time, I would say that it is bad enough that there
are two blocs opposing one another, without another bloc emerg
ing. This may give rise to a triangular balance, but it may also
upset the balance by aggravating tensions.
Now about the second point. I know how difficult objective
writing is. But at the same time, it is necessary to aim at a
paper which will publish the truth in moments of crisis. Some
times its voice may not be heard. It may not have a large
circulation at first. But the object of this paper will not be only
to build up circulation, though I am sure that as its quality is
223
recognised, its circulation will go up. Its object will be only dis
semination of truth. We have arrived at a stage where scientific
and technological progress makes it dangerous for the very exis*tence of the human species to have a war thrust on it. Any
palliative would be welcome. The paper will reach whoever reads
it. As for the difficulties of journalism, I have conducted a daily
paper for several years and I know the difficulties, but I do not
think they are insuperable. In any case we can only try and
it is our duty to do so.
Lon) Boyd Orr.
The secret of success of Gandhiji was that he made his great
application *of his great ideals at special times when the response
from the people was tremendous' There was no other way out.
Non-violence did succeed witHin limits at least and won free
dom for his nation and freedom for the individual within the
nation. The question is: Has the time come, has the world
reached a stage when the non-violence technique of Gandhi can
be applied to international issues? I think the time has come.
I think that for the first time in the history of the world, the people
are ripe for the application of Gandhian principles and techniques
on a world-scale.
Peculiar things have happened in the world which make the
Gandhian principles the only hope of salvation of mankind. The,
first is the enormous development of technology. -Today we have
created huge industrial machines which can produce atomic bombs
■ m ’abundance and hydrogen bombs and biological weapons which
are much raoic powerful than atomic bombs for bringing death
to millions of people. Fortunately, these machines can also pro
duce more of everything that man requires—food, clothing. They
can abolish disease, etc. If the efforts made in the last war, if
the efforts being made for the next war had been devoted to pro
viding the things man needs—freedom from want, freedom from
disease—then we would have a new world within the next five or
ten years. If you go on 'making armaments and start a war,
civilisation is finished, except for the nation which is fortunate
enough to keep out of the war. Europe certainly is not for war.
If the war started, neither side—neither Russia nor America—
knows what would happen. Now a time has come when violence
has become impossible. No nation can apply it without commit
ting suicide.
There is another new factor which has arisen. With the spread
of education, the people of the world have realised that they can
be free. Now there is this revolt against colonialism, and no atom
bombs or gas bombs or anything else can prevent them from their
224
14TH JANUARY 1 9 5 3 v
.march forward. Nothing will stop them. If you want power to
dominate people, don’t educate them. The people are on the
march and nothing will stop them. They are on the march against
exploitation by economic power.* If the workers feel that they ,
are not getting their rights, not getting justice, they do not now
go and destroy machines. They have a sit-down strike. This is.
an application of non-violence to an industrial dispute. The idea
of non-violence is spreading to other countries. In London, the:
truck drivers went on strike. They brought to a stand-still trans
port without burning the buses?
These are two great things: first, the big machine makes war im
possible and everybody knows it; secondly, the people of the:
world are demanding freedom. The small nations are demanding
freedom and nothing will stop them from getting freedom. The
world is now so very small, thanks to technological advance,,
that I leave India after dinner here and have breakfast in London.
And, the nations are so close to each other that there are only*
two things they can do: they can fight and thus commit suicide;,
or they can cooperate to their mutual advantage. The time o f
violence and wars is finished. The time of oppression of the people
is finished. Therefore, there are only two alternatives; a war
of destruction which will completely destroy civilisation and will’
probably result in the annihilation of the human race; or co
operation between the peoples of the world, between the different
nations, to build a new world free from domination.
The power is now concentrated in the hands of a few people—
not more than one hundred people—in the world. These people
can decide the fate of mankind. A small group of men in
Washington, a small band of men in Moscow, they can say:
peace or war. These people who have power are not bad people.
They are not evil people. They do not want war but do not also*
know how to prevent war. I would suggest that they might doso by applying Gandhian principles.
When we are dealing with the problems of the world, we m ust
have men who represent the three hundred and sixty million people
as well as a man who represents so many atom bombs. Instead
of slanging each other, instead of Mr. Vishinsky telling us what
vile people the Americans are, if they get together and begin
complimenting each other, I think that would help to prevent an
other war. Instead of abusing America, the Russians could say:
What a wonderful thing you have done; you have given the world"
great ideals—the Point-Four programme, the Marshall Aid,.
Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms, etc. The Americans could tell the
Russians: You have achieved a great revolution; you have madegreat industrial progress and removed illiteracy and raised the94 M. o f E du.
GANDHIAN OUTLOOK: AND TECHNIQUES
poor man’s standard of life. If they get together and compliment
each other as Gandhiji did, if the United States and other associated
people say to the Russians you have done good things and put in
great schemes, let us congratulate you for that, we wish you all
success; if the Russians can say to America, we have great admira
tion for Point-Four Programmes, you have produced goods in
abundance, you brought relief to the world from hunger and
disease; if they say to Churchill, you have given up colonialism,
you have given India freedom without fighting, a spirit of good
will would be created all around and help us to solve many
difficult problems. I would say to my Indian friends, you must
give my country full credit for its Indian policy. You should say
to the British, “You are a wonderful people. You have
nationalised things—railways, mines, etc.,—not for small groups
but for the service of the nation. No person,in your country
need suffer without medical advice”. Similarly, I would say to
my Indian friends, “You are changing the face of the country so
fast. That is a tremendous advance in one generation”. If every
country in the world would begin to compliment the other, that
would create a spirit which will bring about a revival and hope.
Now, how to bring it about? The people must march on and
power must come to the hands of the people. If the people of the
world demand it by getting together, they will get it.
I think you will all agree with what Professor Kabir said about
working for greater equality of standards for all peoples. But the
under-developed people have to create wealth as independent
people. If America gives you one thousand million dollars, that
is not going to be a very good thing for you if it is given with
humiliating conditions, or as charity.
Mr. Pyarelal:
More important than money would be the know-how.
Lord Boyd Om
People in India are prudent people. They know how to use
their natural wealth. We know your food crops require to be
doubled, but not by exhausting the soil.
Mr. Pyarelal:
The West can help by providing the initiative, as you were say
ing last evening.
Lord Boyd Orr
The under-developed countries are not always willing to accept
an American loan because some of them feel it is humiliating.
226
1 4 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
This is true of some in Europe as well. They said they will not
accept a contribution from anybody as a charity. Let people
sit round the table and discuss as equals. If that had been done,
nothing could have prevented all die countries of Europe from
joining the Marshall Plan. Czechoslovakia would have come in
whatever the Soviet might have said. That would have been read
^generosity. But it was help through America, not through the
United Nations. We should not repeat that mistake in Asia.
Indians, Ceylonese and Japanese should sit round the table and it
should be decided as a business deal. As soon as the resources are
developed, the money lent should be returned by the borrowing
power.
I am sorry to disagree with Professor Kabir on one point. 1 do
not believe in a cess, for the nations who pay the cess may regard
themselves as the benefactors of those who receive the aid. That
is wh} I have suggested instead the idea of a Development Loan
to be repaid in due course.
Professor Kabir:
*
If I may explain, I never suggested charity by richer nations.
That is why I spoke of a Development Fund under international
auspices and administered by the United Nations.
Cord Boyd Om
There is also the question of Reparations. Always in war, the
conquering nations exact it, but they axe no better than the yan•quished. The victors demand money from the victim country,
though as victors they are in a sounder economic and financial
position. I suggest that instead of nations who have won the war
adopting the attitude of calling the defeated nations entirely
vicious, they should agree to share the war guilt. They should say
that we were all more or less at fault, so instead of recriminations
against one another, let us put our resources into an international
pool and see how fast we can rebuild what we have destroyed.
I want to say that the time has come when we should work on
Gandhian principles. These principles are the only hope of the
world. There is no other way out. Those in power should
realise it. I would say to them, play the game. The nineteenth
century is dead, gone and finished. If different nations would
realise that we can help one another not by condemning but by
^putting forward ideas, then there is hope for the world. The
people of the world should get together and realise that people
* -of different countries are all decent people and that they want
-one and the same thing. I was recently in Japan and was impres
se d by their strong desire for peace. If people of the world—
227
GANDHIAN OUTLOOK: AND TECHNIQUES
decent people—could get together they couid achieve a stage of'
freedom of nations, freedom of individuals and a complete elimi
nation of power blocs that would usher in the millenium.
Public sessions have now finished and we are now going t o
meet in Hyderabad House in camera.
A t the conclusion of the open session in Parliament House, a
meeting in camera was held at Hyderabad House on 14th January>
1953.
Lord Boyd O n
I would now call on Professor Kabir to present a report on the
discussions held yesterday.
Professor Kabir:
I would now call on Professor Kabir to present a report on the
agates:—
The camera meeting of the delegates resolved th a t:
(a) A volume should be published containing articles of
approximately three thousand words from each of the
participants with a brief'introduction. In no case
should any article exceed thirty-five hundred words.
All articles should be sent to Professor Humayun
Kabir, who would act as the Editor, to reach him by
the 31st March, 1953.
(b) A brief report of not more than ten thousand words
should be prepared and published as soon as possible.
This should take note of the contents of the papers
submitted at the Seminar, the trend of the discussions
and the conclusions and recommendations.
During the discussions on possible recommendations the
‘following points were mentioned:
Pastor Niemoiler- said that any imposition of one person’s will
'■on another is one of the root causes of conflict. Substitution of
persuasion for compulsion is, therefore, necessary if tensions
both internal and external are to be resolved peacefully. This has
become more urgent as the world has become smaller today and
people all over the world are on the march. It is, therefore,
necessary to undertake non-violent work for peaceful progress to
freedom and a sufficient standard of life for everybody. The
combination of peace with progress is essential if the world is to
avoid the disaster of another war. The Seminar must, however,
take up a practical attitude and recognise that all injustice cannot
be eradicated immediately. Men must, therefore, be prepared to
choose a lesser evil, and obviously a cold war is less undesirable
lhan a hot war even, if both are accompanied by injustice.
229
Acharya Kripalani laid special emphasis on the need to main
tain world peace and at the same time provide for an economy o f
plenty. He warned that a peace 'imposed by superior might would
be the peace of a graveyard. World Government by itself is*,
therefore, not enough, for, just like a national Government, a
World Government might also maintain the externals of peace by
suppressing the protest of those who have grievances. He, there
fore, urged that we should in the light of Gandhiji’s teachings im
pose on ourselves a self-denying ordinance not to inflict pain on
others. This is the more necessary as we are all fallible, and it is a
grave risk for any one to seek to compel another to do what may
after all be his way of error. Acharya Kripalani also suggested
the formation of international peace brigades which would stand
for opposition to violence in any form.
Lord Boyd Orr pointed out that the nineteenth century philo
sophy of laissezfaire is no longer valid. The world is moving
away from a philosophy of individualism and competitionf
to one
in which society guarantees protection to the*
individual.
Dr. Haekal pointed out that it is education which has led to a
new consciousness, both on the national and the individual plane.
He held that one of the main recommendations of the Seminar
should be for the promotion of education of a more constructivetype.
Madame Meireles remarked that peace, justice and liberty are
abstract words and often confuse people. What is necessary is to
improve the economy and the standard of life of the common man
and this can be done only through education with a moral bias.
There must be equality of opportunity of education for all, and all"
countries interested in peace should have similar programmes of
education.
'Pastor NiemoIIer said that education should include teaching
of the non-violent practice of human right. There should be an
appeal to Governments and others who agree with the general'
Gandhian outlook to solve tensions without violence. He also be
lieved in the development of an inclusive Third Force to dimmistr
international tensions as was proposed by Dr. Daftary in his paper.
His two recommendations, therefore, would be that (i) education'
should supply the answer on a long-term basis and (ii) Dr. Daftary’sproposal on a programme of short-term action.
Mr. Tsurumi raised the question that if the Seminar issued amanifesto, to whom should it be addressed : to the Governments,
the Peoples or the U.N.? He said that a Pacific Conference which’
was held was successful, because it confined itself to a fact finding
mission. He did not agree to the issumg’of at general manifesto
230
1 4 lH JANUARY 1 9 5 3
but believed that one based on Gandhian principles would have
great appeal.
Mr. Pyarelal pointed out that resolution of internal tensions is
necessary before war can be eliminated. He suggested that the
following methods might help to resolve tensions without violence:
(a) Identification of ends and means.
(b) Non-violent resistance to injustice.
(c) Conquest of hunger and disease in under-developed
countries.
(d) Partnership of all the nations of the world on the basis
of equality and irrespective of the ideology that a
particular nation may profess.
(e) Programme of constructive non-violence.
. <f) Control of population by increasing opportunities for
recreation for the general people and birth control
through methods involving self-restraint, fully or in
part.
(g) Basic Education.
Dr. Bunche then listed eleven points on which he said there
appeared to be general agreement among all the delegates:
(i) War serves no end and holds no hope for anyone.
(ii) War must be eliminated by eliminating the conditions
of war, like colonial exploitation, backwardness of
peoples, etc.
(iii) Peace must be progressive. There must be non-violent
work for peaceful progress.
<iv) War menaces the future of everyone including the
underdog who sometimes thinks, but wrongly, that he
may find liberation through the conflict of more
powerful nations.
(v) Justice is an essential condition for peace.
(vi) Education has had great impact on individual and:
national consciousness and has helped to develop a
consciousness of human rights.
(vii) Peace is not the exclusive responsibility of any special
group but concerns every man and woman.
(viii) Non-violent
resistance to aggression must be
developed.
<ix) Since no man is infallible, we must impose a selfdenying ordinance on ourselves and support all non
violent methods for promoting justice, equality and'
*
freedom.
(x> Since violence is self-defeating and contradictory, we
have to find a method to redress wrongs by non-violent:
means.
23r
<xi) Brotherhood of man is no longer a* mere idea but a
necessity on account of progress of science.
Dr. Bunche pointed out that the Seminar had not considered
in detail the problems of:
(a) Economic tensions like conflict of class, or race, or
labour-capital tension.
(b) Minority groups.
(c) Racial prejudices.
(d.) Fear in society and hysteria; and
(e) The existing atmosphere of hatred.
Professor Kabir drew attention to the need of emphasising the
validity of Gandhian principles and approach for societies other
than the Indian. Some people doubt if the Gandhian methods
would apply to the modern industrialised countries of the West
and their doubts must be met. In view of the tremendous accelera
tion in the rate of change, there is today greater risk of tensions
than in the past. Those who are privileged in a particular social
order tend to develop a vested interest in the continuation of that
order and the quick changes of today make it more difficult to
make the necessary adjustments. The problem before the world
is that men must accept change without violent disruption of society.
Lord Boyd Orr pointed out that the Quakers have gone very
far in developing the idea of resistance to war. The two power
blocs in the world are afraid of one another and at heart desire
peace, but are also afraid of losing face. Smaller nations should,
therefore, act as a steadying force. Dr. Daftary’s idea of a group
of peace-loving nations within the United Nations is, therefore,
very welcome, for it would help to arrest the movement for arms
and give time for return of sanity. The voice of reason is now /
being smothered because of war hysteria and if war could be
avoided for five years, then war may perhaps be averted altogether.
Lord Boyd Orr added that every nation, big or small, must be
free to develop its own resources and that there must be no
imperialism
Professor Kabir said that while he generally agreed with Lord
Boyd Orr. he wanted to point out that the economic development
of a country should not lead to economic nationalism. We were
today trying to avoid the dangers of political nationalism and
should not create new problems by emphasising too, much the
economic interests of individual nations.
Dr. Haekal pointed out that the u& of science for the uplift of
all peoples requires the development of a truly international outlook.
Lord Boyd Om
'
The members may now resume the discussion.
232
14-IH JANUARY 1 9 5 3
D r. Bunche:
The basic purpose of the United Nations is stated to be the
peaceful settlement of disputes among nations. In that sense, the
U.N. is committed to peace work. But-there is also provision in
the Charter for the establishment of a United Nations security force
which can be employed and is being employed in extreme situ
ations in order to enforce—by economic or military sanction—the
peaceful objectives of the organisation. If any nation—whether a
member nation or non-member nation—in the world pmploys force
despite its commitment not to use force in the settlement of dis
putes, then the United Nations through its security force may
take necessary action—may apply sanctions—against that nation.
Now the question is: Do we propose that in this regard the
-Charter of the U.N. should be modified?
Kaka Kalelkar.
Certainly, I suppose, especially after the experience of Korea.
'We entered Korea to save Korea and ended by destroying Korea.
If we come to the conclusion that the use of force by the United
Nations would be defeating its own purpose; if we see that violence
or war solves nothing; if that is the conclusion, then the U.N.’s
constitution must be changed to rule out the use of force.
Dr. Bunche:
We have to go further if we are to do that. We have to find a
reasonable answer to one big question before we can give up the
idea of a Security Force. Since we have referred to a particular
situation, let us apply, that question to that situation. We said
yesterday that had there been enough moral force, the Korean
situation could have been prevented. There was not the necessary
moral force. Force was used in the circumstances. The U.N. had
to save the Republic of South Korea. What course should the
United Nations have followed in that situation according to Gan
dhian principles? If we are to take the position you suggested, we
have got to find a rational answer to that question.
Kaka Kalelkan
We start with the thesis that war is no solution to any problem
whatsoever. Therefore, there must be an alternative method.
Supposing we have discovered that war is no solution, what ought
we to do? As the medicine which does not cure ought to be
eschewed, so also should war be eschewed. When once we eschew
war, we will have to find out other remedies. So long as we have
-got this war as a reserve, we will not consider alternatives. The
“position is just the same as in the educational field. If the teacher
233
is prohibited from using the cane, he will have to rack his brains,
and find out other methods of correcting the children.
I have listed seven points which I consider to be essential if
we are to be truly non-violent. They are: (1) Belief in soul and its
sovereign power, (2) Adherence to truth at any cost and to regard
secrecy as sin, (3) Eschewing all physical force, (4) Purity of means
and non-cooperation with evil, thus resisting evil through non
violent means, (5) Willingness to agree with the adversary, (6) Basic
education, and (7) Equality of all religions.
Dr. Bunche:
In a specific situation—it need not be in Korea—suppose
another military aggression takes place; what measures do wesuggest for the international community to take when confronted1
with a concrete situation, when aggressive troops move into an
innocent country, a defenceless country? We would owe it to '
ourselves and to .the people of the world to be able to say expli
citly what should be done in that situation. We subscribe to non
violence; but that is not enough. We have got to indicate how
we carry it out. We shall have to show how it works—how it
will help in maintaining the freedom of the victims, how it will
prevent their land from being overrun, how it will prevent their
womenfolk from being ravished.
Kaka Kalelkar
My reply would be, “These are arguments we use for
resort to arms. But resort to arms does not help. It only leads
to more violence. Take Korea itself. Korea has not been
saved, but on the contrary, now the greatest problem is how to
prevent the Korean war from developing into a world con
flagration.”
Professor Kabir:
May I offer a remark? The example of corporal punish
ment given by Kaka Saheb is a good one. Our aim is education
and the question of how to correct the child is one of technique.
Some of us are thinking of non-violence as a technique. We are
supporting it, because in the present world situation, the dangers in
herent in any other method are far greater. It does not mean
that force will not be used in any circumstances. We are not
all accepting non-violence as a creed Or as an absolute theory; it
is a method, and should be considered as such.
Acharya Kripalani:
After all, our experience is that U.N. has no, and can have no
physical force at its service. It utilises the services of some o f
234
the forces that are already in existence. In Korea, the war is
really between America and Russia, though not openly. T he
question of force arises Only if the moral force of U.N. is inade
quate. We can say that in the present state of the world situ
ation there is no moral force in the United Nations.
Kaka Kalelkar:
In my view, the use of violence has no place in the Gandhian
outlook. We must, however, be ready to resist evil. We should
first explore all methods of non-violent resistance. To start withr
I would have non-cooperation with a country that resorts to
violence. The second thing is to organise peace brigades. Let us
realise that war creates more problems than it solves. We should
- not say that war is not the best remedy, but that it is no remedy at
all. If we recognise this, we can understand why Gandhiji gave
no quarter to the use of violence.
Shri Pyarelal:
It is perfectly true that if we abjure violence, we must find a
non-violent substitute for it. Kaka Saheb has suggested that if we
rule out the use of violence it will automatically lead us on to ex
plore ways and means of discovering non-violent equivalents.
That leaves us with the question, what we shall do in the face of an
emergency, if we are overtaken unprepared? Gandhiji was at pains
to point out that it was no use making a pretence of non-violence
when we had not non-violence in us. Supposing, a ruffian assaults
a helpless woman in my presence, it will not do for me to stand
as a passive witness and say: What could I do, I had to stick to non-,
violence? Gandhiji said that if we have true non-violence in us it
must enable us effectively to resist evil, but if we have it not in us,
then we have to use whatever strength we may have, to resist evil.
Evil must be resisted in any case. Professions of non-violence must
conform to reality and not merely be a dogmatic statement of a
proposition. You will be surprised to know .that Gandhiji defend
ed the despatch of Indian forces for the defence of Kashmir against
aggression. While he had abjured the use of violence for himself,
he recognised that others could not be made non-violent by com
pulsion; they could be brought to accept a non-violent way of think
ing only by dint of good-will, persuasion and selfiess service. He'
never allowed his creed of non-violence to obscure *from him the
fact that even when both parties resort to armed force, it is possible
tc distinguish between the aggressor and the victim, and moral
support must be given to the weak against the strong. In the
absence of universal acceptance of non-violence, therefore, re
tention of an international police force under the U.N. cannot b e
235
ruled o u t But there is a sane limit even to the use of armaments.
If there is an effective peace group formed within the U.N., it
would be up to it, by the exercise of its moral influence to compel
the big powers to discard the employment of methods which destroy
human values and make the remedy worse than the disease, as is
happening today in Korea. It will be for such a neutral bloc to
say: We shall not countenance the use of saturation bombing,
or napalm or the atom bomb. In the meantime, our effort must
continue in the direction of complete disarmament.
Lord Boyd Orr:
The question of Gandhism is very important. I recall what
Lord Lloyd once said about Gandhi’s non-violent non-cooperation.
He said that it was a terrifying experiment, an experiment which
has never before been made, but which, if it succeeded, would make
war obsolete. Four hundred million highly intelligent people
having won freedom, and having won it non-violently, would die
rather than submit to a fresh conqueror. Lord Lloyd was afraid
that if Indians could do it, so might others. If sufficient nations
are prepared to accept Gandhi’s method, there is a possibility of
putting an end to war.
Suppose the Russians march into Western Europe, what would
happen if the people say: On no account shall we engage in
violence but neither shall we submit to the Russians. Suppose
they non-coopera ted with the Russians in a non-violent manner,
would not the Russians be non-plussed? I doubt, however, if the
Russians will march into Western Europe, for they are not a stupid
.people. If they had wanted to, the time for the experiment was
in 1948, when they had seven times superiority in armaments
over Western Europe. But I do not think the Russians will march
into Westerfi Europe; for if they do, it will destroy communism.
Once the Russian people see how much higher the standard 'o f
life is in Western Europe, they will repudiate their communist
masters.
I agree with Dr. Bunche when he says the U.N. is the only hope
of the world. If U.N. is to succeed, first, all nations must be in the
U.N.—Northern Korea, China, Formosa. They must all come
in.
How are we to apply the Gandhian technique if aggression
threatens some parts of the world? Now aggression does not arise
suddenly. Preparations are made for i t When aggression starts
in some part of the world, before any action is taken, the General
Assembly must meet within, say, forty-eight hours to consider
what has happened. If the nations agree that a particular nation
ffias started the war, that nation must be warned. That nation
236
1 4 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
must be told that unless the aggression is stopped immediately, then the whole world Is against it, the people are against it, the*
joint forces of the world are against it. You may tell that nation:
“The moral force of the world is against you. If you do not with
draw your forces immediately, all the forces of the world will be"
mobilised against-you.” If that is done, I do not think any nation
will be prepared to commit aggression. There is, as Lord Lloyd
said, the possibility of Gandhism becoming a world force and
completely outmoding the power of armies.
Dr. Bunche:
In the last General Assembly we had the Indian Resolution,
which was an extremely reasonable resolution. It went as far as
any device of man could to meet the objections of both parties. It
received an overwhelming vote; in the entire membership of sixty,
only five voted against it. But it had no effect; it made no impact
on China or North Korea.
Kaka Kalelkar:
This was so because it had no non-violent sanction behind it
Dr. Bunche: '
The Indian plan could not have been a better plan.
other party was not prepared to accept it.
But the*
Acharya Kripalani:
_ Let us now pass on to the topic of U.N. organisation.
eschewing of violence has been sufficiently discussed.
The"
Lord Boyd Om
I know fanatics. I myself belong to a sect which went to war
with the cry: “Jesus, and no mercy”. When people are fanatic,I don’t know what can be done.
Dr. Bunche:
I listened with great interest to what Mr. Pyarelal had to say onGandhiji’s approach to this question of armed force. If I under
stood him aright, the conclusion was that there may be circum
stances, specially if we do not have the strength of non-violence in’
'u s, where the use of force would be justified. How could that re
late to the position which, I understand, you take, Mr. Kripalani,.that no nation, including your own, should have any armed force*
irrespective of what the world situation may be, or what the threat
may be from your neighbours, and what the potential aggressive:
action against vou may be?
237
-
Acharya Kripalani:
First of all, I agree with Dr. Daftary’s proposition that there
should be a group of nations that should say that they will remain
neutral, that they will join neither this bloc nor that bloc. In
order to show their bonafides, they must at least say that they will
progressively disarm. Gandhiji has said: “Here I stand alone for
all I am worth”. If there can be a nation which is prepared to
■stand alone, it will be a great thing. My first proposition was that
a nation should stand and say: “We shall not increase our arma
ments, but will progressively decrease them and use them only for
constructive purposes”. I would go beyond Dr. Daftary’s pro
position and say, that the nations must put limitations to their
armaments and say that they would progressively diminish them.
Lord Boyd Orr:
Would a nation like India take up this stand and say: “We will
not engage in any war of any kind, we will disarm and we will
have the moral courage to disarm in the midst of an armed world”?
I doubt if any nation can take this stand, but it might say: “We
will maintain a force which can defend us but we will not allow
our army to come under the control of any foreign power. Our
army will never cross the border. We will use it only for the
^defence of the country”. I think this is possible.
t
Acharya Kripalani:
That may be another modification.
Kaka Kalelkar:
Then the question will arise: What is adequate for defensive
purposes? What are your defensive frontiers? Because we have
to remember that it used to be said in Britain that its defensive
frontier is on the Rhine.
Acharya Kripalani:
After all, all nations have an army, which is on a certain level,
and which is sufficient for defensive purposes and for all emergen
cies. I only want that we should recommend that in order to show
their bonafides, they might put limitations on their armed strength
and progressively disarm. I would also like that the army should
be used in peaceful constructive work during peacetime.
Mr. Pyarelah
The point is, in which direction do we aspire to move? If we
aspire to move in the direction of peace, then we shall at the same
lime be creating the power of non-violence in our country, and for
236
1 4 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
“that the first step is that the army in peace time should be* used for
■constructive service. If we set up a purely military caste in the
country, it will create a vested interest in the profession of killing.
But if it is trained to render constructive service in peace time, its
fighting role becomes incidental, to come into play only when
peace fails. Essentially, it becames an instrument for the preven
tion and cure of war.
Kaka Kalelkar:
When we say that we should not resort to arms, why not say we
should have no armies? If this is not accepted, we may at least
say that a country may keep an army as an ultimate weapon if
non-violence fails. It is possible for a nation to have a small
defensive army, or rather I would say, an armed police force and
yet not use it. Considering the state of development of non-violence
in the world today, a country without an army would feel impotent.
If, therefore, it keeps a small army, but it does not use the army,
and merely keeps it there in case the non-violent action fails, it
would not feel impotent. I would, therefore, say every nation
may have an adequate army for defence purposes, but not for
aggression. So I would vote for your formula that the armies
would not be used outside the country. Even within the country,
it must not use the army except for defensive purposes if non
violent resistance is to succeed.
Acharya Kripalani:
They must keep their powder dry.
Professor Kabir:
I have one difficulty in understanding what you say. You say
that the army is to be kept as a reserve and should be used only if
non-violent resistance fails. I don’t think I can agree that this
would be right. Such a course has three dangers. The first is
that if people have sufficient courage and strength to try notviolence in the first instance and yet fail, they would not be able to
do anything with the army. After all, it requires more courage
to oppose an enemy without resort to arms, and if the greater
■courage is of no avail, how can the use of arms succeed? Secondly,
to suggest that arms may succeed where non-violence has failed
-will be to undermine faith in non-violence and thus help to defeat
non-violence which depends on morale. The third difficulty is that
it may be too late. Resistance to the aggressor in Korea may have
saved many other Koreas. Gandhiji himself said that those who
■cannot depend on absolute non-violence may resort to such force
;as they have. Surely, they should not wait till violence has
239
gathered momentum. That would be a dangerous thing. Thosewho have experience of mob fury know that if you fire at the mobat a critical moment, you may save thousands by killing only a
handful.
Acharya Kripalani:
What I would have said is this:
(1) A peaceful group of nations should declare its neutrality
as between the blocs.
(2) There should be an army for defence against aggres
sion within each nation.
(3) There must be token disarmament which must take a t
least the shape of no further expenditure on armaments.
(4) The army should be used for ordinary constructive work :
in peace time.
Let the Seminar consider these and give its recommendations.
Lord Boyd Orr:
\
If all the nations would agree to use the armies Tor constructivework and not fighting, it would provide a solution. It would pro
vided way out for one of the difficulties of the present day. I tell
you that you cannot stop armament suddenly. If you do so you
will create an economic crisis. Men and machines must be
gradually switched from war operations to peace operations, and
you want some organisation and method to dovetail and divert all
from fighting to other things. I would like Professor Kabir to put
down what are the big points that we want to discuss and allocate'
time for each of them. . I would also like to discuss, along with the
question of peace-loving nations, such questions as that of repara
tions. There is a great moral gesture in giving up Reparations.
Then, racial and religious questions have to be discussed. If we donot get agreement, we do not, but let us at least make the effort.
Dr. Haekal:
I would like to say: all that we discuss should be in the light
of Gandhian outlook and technique, that is to say, we have not todeclare any new ideas of ours. We are invited here simply tO'
consider the Gandhian outlook and technique and then in a simple;
way we can put them to the Government of India; but if we were
to try to cover all national and international difficulties, it would
take us too far and would lead to nothing. The next thing is that
we should arrive at practical results and not theoretical results.
Lord Boyd Orr
You have got to discuss Gandhian ideas in relation to realities;
in the world and see how far they are practicable.
240
14T H JANUARY 1 9 5 3
A.
Dr. Bunche;
I would like an answer to the question: What might have been
Gandhiji’s view on the situation in India and the tactics that
would be employed in India had the British been ruthless, had
they employed tremendous force to put down this rebellion, had
they indulged in execution, in burning cities and villages, had
they been determined to use all-out force to counter India’s
effort? It has very great relevance to the subject we are
discussing.
Lord Boyd Om
The meeting is now adjourned till 10.00 a.m. tomorrow.
240
94 M.. o f Edu.,
The Seminar met in camera a? 10 o'clock on \Sth January,
1953 in Hyderabad House, with Lord Boyd Orr in the Chair^
Dr. Sushila Nayor was also present for part of the time with the
permission of the Committee.
i
Lord Boyd O m
Since we have got only two more days, we have got to try and
bring things to a head. We have got to keep in view the docu
ment we are going to produce. I t is impossible, I think, in such
a short time to get complete agreement on everything that we
want to put in. Professor Kabir will have to draw up a report
conveying the general sense of our discussions.
Professor Kabir:
I shall prepare a draft report and circulate it for comments
and suggestions.
Lord Boyd Orr:
In his report, Professor Kabir will try to sum up the general sense
of the meeting. We will entrust Professor Kabir with that. Each
individual will stand by his own paper or statement. That should
be quite clear. We do not want too many recommendations.
We shall only have the basic principles which may guide nations.
Let us now discuss the three or four main points that we raised
yesterday.
Professor Kabir:
There are four points that were raised by AcharVa Kripalani
and seven points raised by Kaka Kalelkar. One more point might
be added to these. There was the suggestion of a World
Parliament elected by direct franchise by all the countries of the
world. We should work a little on the world government idea.
The suggestion is that delegates to the United Nations may, if
possible, be elected by the people, or if this is not possible, by
proportional representation by the legislature and not nominated
by the Government of the day. They may hold office for four or
five years so that they can act freely.
Acharya Kripalani:
I want election by Parliament
242
1 5 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
^Professor Kabir:
If it is to be by Parliament, it must be by proportionate
representation.
Acharya Kripalani:
There should be a minimum and a maximum fixed. The
biggest nations should have not more than twenty or at most
twenty-five, and the smallest, at least one.
/Lord Boyd On?
We will discuss this issue. We will also discuss reparations.
Acharya Kripalani:
One other point is that all nations who are willing to be
members of U. N. should be allowed to be members of the Parlia
ment of the Peoples.
Lord Boyd Om
Universality of membership—I have put it down as a
necessary condition for fulfilment of the ideal of U. N.
Acharya Kripalani:
My second point is that the veto must go.
tProfessor Kabir:
At least for membership there should be no veto. No one
nation should stop another from becoming a member of U. N.
Acharya Kripalani:
The veto is a very unjust thing.
should go completely.
It is time that the
D r. Bunche:
You should know that there is no veto
Assembly but only in the Security Council.
in
the
veto
General
. ■
Cord Boyd Om
What are the points we are going to talk about? The first k
reparations. Veto might come next The question of a peaceloving group might come in. University of membership of U. ty,
should also be considered.
Professor Kabin
The question of elected membership of U. N. should also be
considered.
m
Dr. Haekal:
I thought we were going to discuss internal tensions this;
morning, tensions within nations. That is a very important
question.
Dr. Bunche:
We must also consider the canalisation
through U. N. and its Specialised Agencies.
of all
assistance-
Lord Boyd Orr
I have noted all these points. We confine ourselves to thesein the discussions today and tomorrow. They are, though not in
order of importance: (1) Question of reparations, (2) World Gov
ernment, <3) United Nations and front of non-violent nations
within it, (4) Universality of membership, (5) Internal tensions
and (6) all aid to be canalised through Specialised Agencies.
These are the various headings, but there might be others not
listed but coming under these various headings.
Dr. Daftary:
Do you have the peace-front?
Lord Boyd Orn
Yes. Peace-loving nations will declare, “We do not want
armament.” Now, shall we agree to limit our discussions tothese? Should we allocate how much time we are going to giveto each question? Otherwise we will find ourselves discussing?
endlessly.
Dr. Bunche:
Are the United Nations and world government separate issues?*
I do not see how they are separate.
Dr. Daftary:
You agree that the charter as it stands needs amendment?'
Dr. Bunche:
- It is all one issue of world government.
Dr. Daftary:
Amending the charter?
Dr. Bunche:
It is all involved in the evolution and growth of U. N.
244
1 5 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
SLord Boyd Om
U. N. specialised agencies, world government—all these are
really different aspects of one subject. If we discuss these today*
-that will be sufficient for us. That will leave the peace-loving group
-of nations, reparations and internal tensions for tomorrow.
D r. Haekak
Will not education come in?
Education for international
comprehension, for international understanding?
Mr. Pyarelal: '
Education, as well as some investigation into the methods
o f non-violence. Unless we present the techniques also to the
people, we do not do our job.
*
SProfemor Kabir:
If we try to do too many things, we shall not be able to do
ânything well, or even .finish our discussions.
fcPastor NiemoIleR
They are all different approaches to the question of principles*
*the question of methods and the question of facts. Education is
really related to all of them.
X ord Boyd Om
They are all related to one another.
Castor NiemoQer:
We better begin now.
'D r. Bunche:
If we tried to cover in two days a report on the major world
problems and their remedies, I am quite certain we would not gel
anything done. I think we would do better to concentrate fully on
trying to give specific ideas or tactics in the Gandhian outlook
which we think would have application to the rest of the world. If
we tried to think of major problems in the world, we would tend to
lose sight of our basic objective of being here. This is to examine
what the Gandhian outlook has to offer for the solution of world
tensions. It is only coincidentally that we find some ideas which
do not appear in Gandhiji but which would be a natural develop
ment of his outlook.
L o id Boyd Om
Such as, what bearing Gandhiji’s pi inciples can have on the
<United Nations.
245
Dr. Daftary:
The Charter of the United Nations is not eternal. It is subject
to amendments. We can suggest some amendments in the light
of the principles of Gandhiji. We are also for giving effect to thoseprinciples of the Charter which are not applied at present, for
example, the universality principle is in the Charter, but is n o t
applied because of the veto.
Pastor Niemoller:
There are big problems to which Gandhi’s principles have not
yet been applied. What bearing do Gandhiji’s principles have on
these? I think we have to study and report that the Gandhian
outlook and method has something to say on the crucial situation
in which the world finds itself today. With relation to the U. N.and its further development, we may say in a few words the direc
tion to which the Gandhian outlook and techniques* point. Then,
we have to say about a world government that we cannot simply*
keep sitting until it is accomplished. We must not merely wait
but see how we can work for a World Government by peaceful1!
means. At the same time, we have to suggest that the Gandhian
outlook and method is applicable in the educational field, in the
education of both children and adults. We have to stick to these'
major points and in this context we may say what the Gandhian
outlook and methods really mean in the present state of the U. N.
' Mr. Tsurumi:
I think we are talking of the results that our statement will-!!
have. There are two different points. One is the practical appli
cation of Gandhian outlook and techniques. So far as India is
concerned, these techniques have been tried, but what is more
important is how far the other nations besides India will accept
the Gandhian outlook. The. reason why I came to this Seminar»
why I am so interested in this Seminar is : how can I bring the
message of Gandhi to the millions of Japanese? In this Indian
environment, we have taken so many things for granted; but there
are millions elsewhere who may not understand these things. The
question is: How can we educate the people in other countries
and initiate them in the Gandhian outlook? That I think is very
important. Therefore, it comes to a question of practical application of Gandhian outlook.
Secondly, we are considering what result our report may have.
We must frame the statements very carefully and present diem tothe people. For instance, it would take a long time and a great
effort to present the Gandhian outlook and spirit to the Japanesemillions. Unless the people accept the message, out report will;
246
1 5 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
not get any support and will lead nowhere. This is where educa
tion comes in. We must find some means of spreading Gandhian
principles to all countries in the world ^ This is .where Unesco
can help. It should hold Seminars like the present one in Asia
Europe and America.
Mr. Pyarelal:
One of the fundamental principles of Gandhiji was that he did
not wait for all the world to be converted before he began practis
ing the ideal he believed in. He began with himself and expected to
take others along with him in due course. It wpuld be dangerous
to pare down the ideal and hesitate to present it in full because we
think that the people are not ready. We should not try to judge
people’s capacity like that. If the ideal is realized in any one part
q€ the world, it will have a profound effect all over.
Iftfldame Meireles:
We must first press for the revision of programmes of educa
tion all over the world, so that, being inspired by the Gandhian
principles, the people may build up a new world on social and
moral bases. As moral or social bases, we must accept the princi
ples of Truth, Non-violence and Purity of Means to be applied to
both individuals and groups!
Lord Boyd Orr.
When we discuss the Gandhian techniques, we have to con
sider what bearing they have on the United Nations, what bearing,
they have on education and so on.
Hr. Bunche:
I would like to suggest that the basic Gandhian principles.
Should first be stated. The form or design of our conclusions will
depend on our examination as to how these principles win apply
to different conditions, to different problems. If we start the
other way, with recommendations on some of the most funda
mental and controversial problems in the international community
— world government, disarmament, national sovereignty whidh
involves the veto—we are likely to make ourselves ridiculous. To*
avoid such a risk, let us first state the Gandhian position. Why
can’t we list, just list, the fundamental points in the Gandhian out
look? Then we can consider how they may be applied to the inter
national situation, to international tensions, and so on.
Professor Kabir:
I was trying to place before you one aspect of this very issue
yesterday when I said that the Gan&&fti techniques wdh'otlf modi
ft?
fication will not be applicable everywhere. There are certain
fundamental principles which will have universal application, but
in framing his programmes, Gandhiji always took into considera
tion local needs and local aptitudes. We have, therefore, to distin
guish between the basic principles of Gandhian outlook and the
specific programmes and techniques adopted by him in specific
situations. The basic principles can be brought to bear on interna
tional relations but in the case of specific techniques we have to
study each technique before we can be sure about its universality.
The second thing I would like to say is that we must learn by
Gandhiji’s example and start with modest beginnings. I feel that
our recommendations should not be too f^r-reaching in the interna
tional field. In the field of internal tensions, Gandhiji has great
achievements, and we can be much more categorical in any recom
mendations we may make. If we succeed in suggesting some solu
tions for internal tensions, we would first of all lessen the sum total
o f tensions in the world, and secondly, gain in confidence and
•experience. When we have reached that stage, then and then
alone can we consider what are the causes of the greatest tensions
in the world and see how far Gandhian ideas can be applied to
lessening some of them. I would give education a very high
priority, for correct education is necessary to lessen both internal
and international tensions. My concrete suggestion, therefore, is
that let us take first the question of education, then the problem
of internal tensions and finally the problem of international
tensions.
Lord Boyd Om
All of us agreed before we came here that national and inter
national tensions called for genuine co-operation and non-violent
-counter-action, both positively and negatively. We have been
convinced—and more convinced than before as a result of our dis
cussions—that Gandhiji by his example has proved that principles
o f Truth, Non-violence and Purity of Means can solve all sorts o l
tensions. The question is : how can these principles be applied to
the situations with which we are faced today? As suggested by
Professor Kabir, let us proceed to deal first with education, then
with internal tensions and thirdly with international tensions. This
procedure is worthwhile to begin with.
Professor Kabir.
Shall we then take up the question of education now?
Lord Boyd Om
We will discuss: (1) Education,
248
1 5 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
12) Internal tensions,
(3) International tensions.
Within this, can U. N, be mentioned or not?
IM e s s o r Kabir:
It can be mentioned.
ULord Boyd O m
Shall reparations be mentioned or not?
^Professor Kabir:
It should certainly be mentioned.
!Dr.
Limitation of armaments?
ILoid Boyd O m
Dr. Daftary’s idea of peace-loving nations also?
All that we want is to give general ideas in the light of what
■Professor Kabir has said. We shall do education and internal ten-sions today and international tensions tomorrow. Do you agree,
rgentlemen?
IPaator N iem oller
We shall have to reserve tomorrow for dealing with international
Tensions. This afternoon is pretty free, and if necessary, we can
^discuss internal tensions this afternoon. It would be better iff
>Professor Kabir could work tonight and have a general report
-ready on what are the findings of this group. We can then arrive
.at some conclusions by tomorrow noon.
ULord Boyd O m
If we havp time we could do more. It will depend on how
members would limit the length of their speeches. We may now.
Begin with education.
fProfessor Kabir;
The points already discussed and generally agreed upon are
tthese:
(1) All education, particularly up to the secondary stage,
should be linked up with some creative activity.
This is educationally sound, as it helps in the deve
lopment of the individual and makes for a more
integrated personality. It also creates a spirit off
co-operation and develops the right civic sense.
249
'
—
*
(2) Re-orientation of the study of history and geography to*create a better attitude towards other nations and
groups is necessary.
My personal feeling is that we need not go much beyond these;
general recommendations in a Seminar like the present one.
Detailed examination of these issues concern educationists and
many of these issues are already before Unesco. We should
limit ourselves to these two points: <i) Integration of the child as
an individual and a member- of society so that one of the major
causes of internal tensions is removed; and (ii) Re-orientation o f
the study of history and geography.
Lord Boyd Orr;
Would you not go back and say something about the defects:,
of education of the past? What I mean is this. Take my own?
case. I took my education at school with the impression that
Scotland was the greatest country in the world and that a particularset of people were the natural ruling class. Then I went to theU.S, and found that our big shots of history were not known at all.
I went to another country and saw a great monument in front of"
a hotel, which was not mentioned in my history books. A wrong:
teaching of history, by intensifying and magnifying the glories of
one’s own country and minimising those of others, has tended tocreate misunderstanding between peoples.
Dr. Bunche:
If we talk about education for international understanding, wehave to confront immediately the absence of internationalism among;
the people. Nor can we leave out questions of nationalism, since
education in various countries gives expression to the national'
feelings of the people. We would thus bring up everything we are:
going to discuss, whether international or internal tensions. I
think we may clarify the position at the very outse^
Pastor Niemoflen
Education must be recognised as the basis of all other pro
grammes. I come back to the suggestions Madame Meireles and:
' I made before this House. They may be starting points in speak—
ing on education. We take it that points on which all the nations;
in the world as represented in U.N. are really agreed are: —
(1) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This has.
to be realised by community action.
<2> Re-orientation of the study of history and geography..
We would then have to say how to bring about thisi
re-orientation and through what kind of combinations.
250
1 5 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
of creative work with intellectual knowledge. This would give a good structure to the whole thing.
This declaration of human rights must become something real
in the life of the people of the world. Nationalism over-shadows
all other human rights. To accomplish our aims we have to look
out for a new world in which education can be reformed and
re-orientated. This would mean bringing education near the life ~
of the people. Education must become a thing which appertains .
to the people and does not remain something aloof from personality
or society nor divorced from national or international life.
Mr. Tsurami:
I want to refer to one great figure of history who in the nine
teen-twenties developed his idea of re-writing tine history of the
world. I am referring to H. G. Wells. He came to the conclusion
that the greatest cause of wars is the glorification of nations ,
by national historians. Therefore, his main idea was to rewrite the
history of the world from the point of view of international man.
He has initiated a new conception of history of all the nations byconcentrating on the place of man in the universe. Each nation
has its good points. Instead of instilling in the mind of the child an
idea of the greatness of only his own nation, he should also be
taught the greatness of other people and the place of man in the
universe. In this way we may get out of the strong crust o f *
nationalism and become internationalists.
Professor Kabir:
Let us now try to state in specific terms how the Gandhian out
look can be applied to education. We have been meeting together and discussing Gandhism generally. We have had a fair exchange v
of views and we have come to certain basic conclusions as to how
Gandhiji’s principles worked in India in the circumstances that
prevailed in India at that time. We are now seeking to place these
before the world so that others may also share them for their
benefit. We must also say that we have tried to embody th&
principles underlying Gandhiji’s techniques but not the particular
techniques which he applied to India in the circumstances prevail
ing in this country. These principles may serve as a guide which
others may be able to adapt to their own conditions. W h a t:
applied to India may not apply to Japan or Germany. We must
not, however, put anything in the form of directives.
Supposing we say that the first recommendation of this Seminar
is that the Gandhian principle should be embodied in education
so that there may be reorientation of education in all countriesEach individual Will be trained to develop an attitude of coopera—
251
tion toward others, learn to respect manual as well as intellectual
labour and develop a spirit of understanding and friendship for
other peoples.
D r. Bunche:
That is exactly what Unesco has said. My point is that we
should not repeat in our recommendations what the bodies
of U.N. have already stated. That may give an impression of our
ignorance of what that world body is doing. Our aim should be
to put forward something new, dealing exclusively with Gandhiji’s
idealism and his principles. We should, I think, therefore, follow on
the basis of the following three broad applications of Gandhi’s
techniques:
(1) to Education,
(2) to Internal Tensions, and
(3) to International Tensions.
This is my submission to you.
Lord Boyd Om
I am not sure if we can assume the authority of making recom
mendations of such character to an international body. We are
after all a few delegates from a limited number of countries
■assembled here. In my opinion, we can say: “Here are great
problems like education, like mutual cooperation and so on. And
these are the Gandhian principles. We wish that all nations should
try to practise them and cooperate to bring about unity,, among
the peoples of the world, because we ourselves believe that these
principles are practicable and, if followed, will lead us on the road
to international amity and goodwill”.
Professor Kabir:
I am afraid we cannot avoid some repetition of what Unesco
•has already said. After all, we cannot invent any new theory, but
I agree with you that our report should be, not in the nature of
directives, but, as expressions of principle and opinion . . .
D r. Bunche:
Conclusions we draw . . .
lord Boyd Om
Exactly. The general conclusions that we draw. We did
mention this in our discussions on tensions.
Professor Kabir:
We must state that these principles can be applied
252
to
aU
1 5 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
nations and that it is our conviction that all nations can benefit
by them. We must also be careful not to say anything which may
add to the existing tensions in the world.
Lord Boyd Om
Professor Kabir says that owing to the tensions that are already
existing today, we should avoid any language that can be cons
trued as a directive on our part or disrespectful to the United'
Nations. In the light of the discussions of the Seminar, we just*
say all these principles of Gandhi can be applied by every nation.
The various branches of the United Nations will be channels
through which nations can be made to work together. Here we*
can only make suggestions in a general way. We make no recom
mendations to any particular nation to do this or th a t We do not
say that America will have to do such-and-such, or France will
have to do such-and-such. I agree with Dr. Bunche that we must:
eliminate words such as “we recommend that” or the like.
Professor Kabir:
We must also remember that if we want to address an audienceoutside India, we cannot take anything for granted.
Kaka Kalelkan
We must, however, know what are the Gandhian outlook and'
techniques. Let us adopt it and then proceed.
Lord Boyd Orr:
Regarding these principles of Gandhi—do not make it appearthat these principles apply only in India. After all, these are*
principles which so many countries admire. These principleshave a direct bearing on the great world problems. We think that*
the U.N. and all its units can canalise their energies for the imple
mentation of these, for instance, in the matter of education.
Dr. Bunche:
I must emphasize the necessity of correctly drafting our con
clusions with regard to the Gandhian outlook as a result of thisSeminar. I agree with all that Professor Kabir has said with regard
to the principles of Education, but if we put that out without*
direct reference to Gandhian outlook, we should look foolish. We
should understand clearly that the various organs of the U.N.
have been dealing with a great many subjects of world interest. In
the matter of education, Unesco has been trying to do its b est
ever since it was organised. If our observations are merely a sort,
of repetition of the objectives of that organ, we will be rev elin g253
tion toward others, learn to respect manual as well as intellectual
labour and develop a spirit of understanding and friendship for
other peoples.
<Dr, Bunche:
That is exactly what Unesco has said. My point is that we
should not repeat in our recommendations what the bodies
■of U.N. have already stated. That may give an impression of our
ignorance of what that world body is doing. Our aim should be
to put forward something new, dealing exclusively with Gandhiji’s
idealism and his principles. We should, I think, therefore, follow on
the basis of the following three broad applications of Gandhi’s
techniques:
(1) to Education,
<2) to Internal Tensions, and
(3) to International Tensions.
T his is my submission to you.
Cord Boyd Orr
I am not sure if we can assume the authority of making recom
mendations of such character to an international body. We are
after all a few delegates from a limited number of countries
.assembled here. In my opinion, we can say; “Here are great
-problems like education, like mutual cooperation and so on. And
these are the Gandhian principles. We wish that all nations should
try to practise them and cooperate to bring about unity,, among
the peoples of the world, because we ourselves believe that these
principles are practicable and, if followed, will lead us on the road
to international amity and goodwill”.
Professor Kabir:
I am afraid we cannot avoid some repetition of what Unesco
•has already said. After all, we cannot invent any new theory, but
I agree with you that our report should be, not in the nature of
directives, but, as expressions of principle and opinion . . .
Dr. Bonche:
Conclusions we draw . . .
Lord Boyd Orr
Exactly. The general conclusions that we draw. We did
mention this in our discussions on tensions.
Professor Kabir:
We must state that these principles can be applied
252
to
all
1 5 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
nations and that it is our conviction that all nations can benefit
by them. We must also be careful not to say anything which may
add to the existing tensions in the world.
Lord Boyd Om
Professor Kabir says that owing to the tensions that are already/
existing today, we should avoid any language that can be cons
trued as a directive on our part or disrespectful to the United'
Nations. In the light of the discussions of the Seminar, we just*
say all these principles of Gandhi can be applied by every nation.
The various branches of the United Nations will be channels
through which nations can be made to work together. Here we
can only make suggestions in a general way. We make no recom
mendations to any particular nation to do this or th a t We do not
say that America will have to do such-and-such, or France will
have to do such-and-such. I agree with Dr. Bunche that we must*
eliminate words such as “we recommend that” or the like.
. Professor Kabir:
We must also remember that if we want to address an audience'
outside India, we cannot take anything for granted.
Kalca Ksdellcar:
We must, however, know what are the Gandhian outlook and"
techniques. Let us adopt it and then proceed.
Lord Boyd Orr:
Regarding these principles of Gandhi—do not make it appearthat fbese principles apply only in India. After all, these areprinciples which so many countries admire. These principles have a direct bearing on the great world problems. We think that:
the U.N. and all its units can canalise their energies for the imple
mentation of these, for instance, in the matter of education.
Dr, Bunche:
I must emphasize the necessity of correctly drafting our con
clusions with regard to the Gandhian outlook as a result of thisSeminar. I agree with all that Professor Kabir has said with regard
to the principles of Education, but if we put that out without*
direct reference to Gandhian outlook, we should look foolish. We
should understand clearly that the various organs of the U.N.
have been dealing with a great many subjects of world interest. In
the matter of education, Unesco has been trying to do its b est
ever since it was organised. If our observations are merely a sort
of repetition of the objectives of that organ, we will be revealing;
2S3
- our ignorance of the fact that Unesco has already been doing
that. What is the new light that we are going to give it on the
basis of our examination of the Gandhian outlook? The report
of this Seminar is going to attract world interest. As you all
know, Gandhian outlook and techniques have a world-wide
importance today. If we only repeat what the international bodies
have been doing everyday, we will not be achieving the object
of this Seminar. That is why I say that we must keep more to
the basic purposes for which we have conducted this examination
of the Gandhian outlook.
Acharya Kripalani:
That is correct. The basic principles of Gandhiji are: “Truth,
non-violence, purity of means applied to both individual and group
lives”. This would be my summary of Gandhiji’s principles.
4
' Dr. Bunche;
Would you read it out again?
Acharya Kripalani:
“Truth, non-violence and purity of means as applied to both
individual and group life” . After we have formulated these
principles, we can take up other matters and see how they conform
to them.
. Lord Boyd Orr:
Now the question is: what bearing has this on our specific
problem? I want to be clear that we must produce something
new, that has not already been discussed and approved by people.
These Gandhian principles have come to be known all the world
• over. At the same time we should not say that we have discovered,
them.
Professor Kabir:
The bare enunciation of these principles is not enough—we
have to give them a more concrete form.
Acharya Kripalani:
If there is anything to be added to that...
".Lord Boyd Orr:
Let Professor Kabir add that
Professor Kabir:
AU the papers will be before me as well as the record of the
254
1 5 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
discussions. I will try to expand the statement with their help.
Tf you just say the three things mentioned by Acharya Kripalani*
that is not enough.
Mr. Tsorumi:
We must not miss the great opportunity that this Seminar
offers. Things which haVe been said by many leaders in various
countries may coincide with the teachings of Gandhi. Some
work may have been done on these lines by some person or organ
isation. But if we omit the mention of these by reason of this
fact, the report of the Seminar will not be complete. Secondly,,
these ideas have achieved a new'meaning by the methods Gandhi
adopted to implement them. His words give a new approach or
new re-orientation to the noble principles which have been tried
elsewhere. Therefore, if we repeat some eternal truths but point
out that they have a new approach, a new orientation, because
of the significance given to them by Gandhiji’s life, it would be
of great importance to the world. We should say that Gandhi
achieved them personally. If it is to be said that these principles
existed even before, it is all right; the message was there, but I
may say the world was not ready for it. I think this point
was brought out bv the Chairman very clearly. Today Gandhi*s
message is appropriate to the situation. Gandhi discovered no
new truths nor did he claim to do so. His principles are not
novel. The only novel element is that today the world has
Teached a stage where these principles have an application and
nothing else has application.
"Professor Tucci:
Mr. Chairman, referring to Acharya Kripalani’s formula o f
truth, non-violence and purity of means, I should like to substitute
"acts* for ‘means’ which seems to be more appropriate.
"Professor Kabir:
I think this question of Gandhian outlook need not be dis
cussed further. The main features of his outlook are already there
in the various papers. We should discuss only techniques today
and tomorrow. If we devote today to examine how these principles
can be applied to the promotion of education and the solving of
internal tensions, and tomorrow to the discussion of international
tensions, then only shall we be able to complete our work within
the time fixed for this Seminar.
iPastor Nieniollen
^
I think we have to start out from the problem for which this
255
*
Seminar has been called, namely for thinking out how to over-oome internal and international tensions which confront the whole world today. As we all agree, and in fact, the whole world agrees,,
we need to overcome internal and international tensions through
education, through cooperation and non-violent conduct. This,
alone can prevent a deterioration of the situation, ~ That would be
the first statement we have to make. Secondly, we have dealt with*
Gandhian outlook and methods and we are convinced that Gandhi
has shown that the use of his three principles as implied in truth,,
non-violence and purity of means can really resolve tensions.
Mr. Pyarelak t
We are all agreed on the ends of education. We have to see-'
whether Gandhiji has anything to offer which would make the
attainment of these ends possible. In Gandhiji’s conception of
education the emphasis is on duty instead of rights, because ashe put it, rights accrue only from duty well performed. The basis
of the system of education which he presented to India and''
through India to the world is that the whole education of the child
can be provided by teaching him in an intelligent and correlatedway how to solve the basic problems facing the individual and
the community.
The orthodox system of education often pro
vides knowledge, but does not necessarily ensure its right use.
The result is that it is very often misused. Gandhiji’s system of
education through the practice of a socially useful craft and com
munity service, while providing the child with all the knowledgeneeded for life, also conditions his faculties, so that, normally speak
ing, he would use the knowledge thus acquired in the rights
manner. At the core of it is the principle of non-violence*
Professor Kabir:
If I may interrupt, may I say that we need not discuss details? *
We have accepted the idea of basic education which is education
centred round some creative activity, and many of these points are included in the concept.
Kaka Kaklkar:
There is a difference between creative activity which is a 4
bourgeois phrase and socially useful and productive labour.
Dr. Haekal:
I do believe that we have two questions before u s: the question *
of education and the question of teaching. I would say that on ■
=
the question of education, we should not go too much into details,
because each nation has its own genius, its own problems and.
256
1 5 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
, methods. But we must see that education leads the child, the
youth, and the man towards the ideas of Gandhiji as was stated
by Acharya Kripalani—truth, non-violence and purity of means
for the individual and group life.
Then comes the question of teaching. As Dr. i Bunche has
said, the question of history and geography has been considered
at great length by Unesco, and as Mr. Tsurumi said, these
principles have been enunciated by sages all through the centuries.
The tragedy however is that history, as it is generally taught, is
leading the world towards strife. The effects in the international
field and in the relations between nations should, therefore, be
taken into consideration, not only in teaching geography and
history but also in teaching many other subjects. We should
not, however, go into these details, for otherwise we will get lo st
Lord Boyd Orr:
I would say that in the past, history has tended to emphasise
and create international tensions by giving wrong impressions.
Professor Kabir:
What Mr. Pyarelal has said is very right. Education must
emphasise the aspect of duties, but it should also teach the people
about the universal declaration of human rights. After all, there
are people who hardly realise that they also have rights. I would
suggest that we might conclude the section on education with a
reference to the declaration of human rights. The recognition
of these rights would enable us to link education with the methods
and techniques of Gandhiji.
Kaka Kalelkar:
When Gandhiji talked of education, it was not in the sense of
school or college, or even secondary education, but education of
the masses directly.
Professor Kabir:
I would again urge that we should not go into too . many
details. Otherwise, our report will become mainly an educational
document. Education means education of the people, ot the
masses, of children and adults of all nations.
Professor Toed:
In addition to history and geography, I would also lay special
stress on philosophy, because philosophy is the soul of the people
Philosophy expresses different concepts of the same thing. We
must show how philosophy all over the world is very much alike
2SB
94 M. of E du.
because the fundamental points are the same. We must not speak .
of Eastern philosophy and Western philosophy. There should be
a unity of human ideas.
Dr. Snshila Nayan
Education does not stop at any particular stage. It is a con
tinuous process from birth till death. In childhood, craft may be
the medium of education. In later life education becomes a means
of making a man into a better craftsman. Regarding the declara
tion of human rights, Gandhiji held that the fundamental thing
is duty rather than rights. Right accrues from performance of
duty as a corollary, it is not the central fact. Duty must be the
central fact
Mr. Pyarelal:
If we understand the declaration of human rights rightly, it
means not only my rights but also the rights of my neighbours.
That means they become my duties.
Acharya Kripalani:
In the context in which our friend sees it, our duties will come
to us as human rights.
Lord Boyd Orr:
The discussion on education is now closed.
ft
Dr. Bunche:
Before we pass to the next topic, I want to say one word. The
question of nationalism is a difficult one. In my own country, in
Los Angeles last summer, there was a strong agitation on the part
of an organised group in the community to eliminate from the
curriculum of one of the public schools- books from Unesco and
U.N. about world understanding, on the ground that teaching
children in schools world understanding was unpatriotic and detri
mental to citizenship. And, they succeeded. When Paul Hoffman,
now President of the Ford Foundation, and also connected with
the Marshall Plan, stood before the Board of Education in the
city of Los Angeles to support the teaching of world understanding
in the school curriculum, he was booed, perhaps more than any
German pacifist was ever booed in Germany.
Lord Boyd Orr:
Unfortunately, such a spirit expresses itself in many countries-,
and the wrong teaching of history is responsible. Professor Kabh
will keep this in mind in drawing up the report. Our discussion oi
15™
JANUARY 1 9 5 3
education is now finished and we may start with Mr. Kripalani’s
point that tensions must be resolved non-violently, as there is no
limit to the use of violence, while non-violence is limited by the
self-suffering of those who use it.
Dr. Bunche:
This is not quite clear to me and I think it might be clarified.
Acharya Kjrfpalani:
I might illustrate it this way. The Christians burnt people in
order to improve them spiritually. They may have been sincere
but they were acting under a misconception. Pakistan might
consider some things just, but in a misconceived manner. Similarly,
America may think it is fighting for justice, but it may be fighting
for nationalism. What I mean is that even in cases of such
mistakes, if you stick to non-violence, the total human suffering
is less, for you do not inflict pain on others.
Dr. Sushila Nayan
If one fights for a just cause using violence, the suffering is
inflicted not only on the opponent but on the neutrals, too.
Acharya Kripalani:
If I fight for a just cause violently, then I injure others. My
objective is to destroy the enemy without destroying myself. I
may or may not succeed but at least that is always the object. But
the primary object of the non-violent fighter is to take all the
inconveniences of the fight upon himself. The Satyagrahi stakes
his own life. The Satyagrahi does not inflict injury on others.
Lord Boyd Orn
What are the causes of internal tensions? What are the causes
of religious fanaticism? How can the application of Gandhian •
principles eliminate tensions?
Achaiya Kripalani:
In India there are some caste people who believe that it is their
duty, religious duty, to maintain untouchability.
Dr. Bunche:
Just as certain people in America thought that it was theli
religious obligation to maintain slaves.
Lord Boyd Orn
This racial business. How far is that a cause o f internal
tension?
259
17i
Dr. Bonche:
It certainly is a cause of tension, but I do not see how self
suffering will cure i t Take the racial problem in the U.S.A.
Suppose some Whites use violence against the Negro minority
group. They do more harm to the Negroes than to themselves.
If the Negroes decide to suffer in patience and not hit back, it
will not be a check to bigots. It will be an encouragement. I
don’t want to encourage bigots and aggressors.
Professor Kabir:
Acharya Kripalani is thinking of a person who believes in the
moral law. Dr. Bunche is thinking of the much more numerous
group among aggressors, who do not care whom they injure.
I want to suggest this: Whenever there is aggression it no doubt
hurts the victim most, but it is going to damage the aggressor also.
If the aggressor learns that he cannot harm others without harming
himself, this may act as a deterrent.
Dr. Bonche:
There are in the world individuals, groups, and forces who have
dc morality, no conscience. Pastor Niemollen
By using violence in the case where you yourself are in error
but you think you are right, you cause suffering to others. One
who uses violence to enforce his own conviction, if he is in error,
uses violence in order to make the right wrong. It is an awful
thing if you make other people suffer in order to put what you
think wrong right, and yet really you put right wrong. I think
this is the point Mr. Kripalani wants to make.
Professor Kabir:
Violence as an instrument for checking even a wrong is to be
condemned because it brings suffering both to those who use it
and those against whom it is used. Further, if violence is applied
to a cause which is not right, but mistakenly taken as such, the
moral damage to the user of violence is greater still.
Dr. Snshila Nayan
Take, for instance, a case where violence is used to serve a just
cause, I may be sincerely convinced that untouchability is a bad
thing and must be eradicated root and branch. But if I use
violence, I do not touch the hearts and heads of those who
practice untouchability. The result is that though they may do
the right thing out of fear, the moment the compulsion or the fear
260
t$ T H JANUARY 1 9 5 3
thereof is removed, they will revert to the practice of untouchability.
Moreover, the use of force even in an admittedly noble cause like
the removal of untouchability brings suffering not only upon tile
evil-doer but also on the victim by accentuating hatreds; the old
enemy comes back under a new face and the remedy proves
worse than the disease. Thus the use of force will harm both the
untouchables and those who practise untouchability. It will
defeat completely its purpose.
On the other hand, if instead of inflicting suffering upon those
whom I regard as wrong-doers, I invite suffering upon myself,
it would make the wrong-doers pause and try to understand
what I stand for. My death, if it comes, might provide a shock«, cure to their obstinacy and open the doors of their understanding
and make them see the error of their ways. The result would
be that they would become my friends and allies. But even if
that does not come about, it would not make the fate of the un
touchables worse, I alone shall suffer. At the same time my
vicarious suffering for their sake might have an uplifting effect
upon the untouchables and stimulate internal reform among them,
e.g. in the matter of drink; dirty habits, eating of carrion, gambl
ing, superstitious practices and educational backwardness. There
will be no excuse left for discriminating against them on that score,
Now, take another example where an individual pursues a
wrong course under the mistaken belief that what he is doing is
right and worthy. Hitler might have sincerely believed that Jews
Were the enemies of Germany and plotting its ruin. By using
violence under that mistaken notion he brought about his own ruin
and untold suffering upon the Jews, Germans and the whole
world. If he had chosen the path of self-suffering to focus his own
people’s and the world’s attention on the supposed misdeeds of the
Jews, he would have rallied world opinion to his side and effectively
exposed the misdeeds of the Jews, if there were any as he fancied,
or it woiild have cured him of his delusion,, if it was a delusion,
as indeed it was. Even if he had died before any of these results
materialized, his fate would not have been worse than it ultimately
was. He alone would have paid the penalty of his error and the
whole world, including Germany, whom he wanted to serve by
the elimination of the Jews, would have been saved the horrors
of die war and its-aftermath. In either case non-violence would
" have better served the end sought than the use of violence.
T o take still another example. I may have persuaded my
self that Professor Kabir has done a great disservice to India by
bringing all these people from -various parts of the world to
Delhi, because they will see our weaknesses and do propaganda
against Us. I may be quite sincere in believing this. Now if
m
GANDHIAN OUtLOOK AND TECHNIQUES
t go to Humayun Kabir’s house and say: you have done some
thing very wrong which you must undo or I shall fast till you
are weaned from your unpatriotic course, I shall not be harming
any one except myself. I may see my mistake or pay the
penalty of my folly by dying as a result of my fast. In either
case India would gairt. On the other hand, if I go to Humayun
Kabir’s house and break his head to cure him of his obstinacy
or come here with an infuriated mob of misguided fanatics and
chase you all out of this hall, I shall be promptly sent to the
lock-up or to a mental hospital to test my sanity and, in
addition, I will drag India’s name into the mire as no propaganda
by outsiders could do. Thus, when the end sought is right,
the attempt to secure it by force defeats its purpose. In non
violence, whether it succeeds in its object or not, it does not
make things worse for either party. On the other hand, if the
end sought is wrong, the use of violence brings inevitable suffer
ing upon the user as well as those against whom it is used
while non-violence harms nobody except the person using it. In
either case the use of violence does more harm than good.
Dr. Bunche:
Could you indicate how this might apply to labour disputes
and other internal tensions? »
Lord Boyd Om
Racial hatred and racial exploitation certainly create internal
tensions; but are these the only causes of such tensions? What
can you say about Malaya? There the tension has nothing to
do with race or religion. The main cause is cheap labour at
ten shillings a month. It is purely an economic thing. It is
for the sake of profit that the exploiter wants to keep down the
wages of coloured people. The result is great internal and, in
fact, international tension. The exploiters do not realise that
what they are doing is fundamentally wrong; they are not only
doing injury to themselves and to their cause, but they are doing
injury to their nation. The same thing applies to Africa, One
hundred and fifty million Africans are not going to sit forever
under the feet of less than five million Whites. All forms of
hatred create internal tensions. Gandhiji offered a solution' for
all such tensions. There is racial tension in Africa today and it
may mean death to millions of people. Similar was the religious
hatred, between Hindus and Muslims, just after the partition of
India. But Europe also has known religious wars. As Professor
Kabir pointed out, these have ravaged Europe during the Thirty
Years War. Prejudices, have led to the killing of millions of
262
i$TH JANUARY 1953
people. Racial war is intensely cruel and destroys all* higher
humanitarian feelings in man. It is very important in times of
tensions to remember the evil effects of violence and seek to re
solve conflicts by peaceful means.
Acharya Kripalani:
There are honest people who honestly feel that it is their duty to
preserve the purity of race, as some Hindus felt it was their duty
to kill Muslims and some Muslims believed that it was their
duty to kill Hindus. When men, and simple good men, are
liable to such illusions, in these circumstances, if violence is
not totally eschewed and we do not have *5on-violence, humanity
cannot survive.
Lord Boyd Orr:
I entirely agree with you.
Pastor Niemollen
,
We have three topics under the heading internal tensions.
We have, first, class tensions: they are found everywhere in the
world today. I think* it is the most widespread internal tension.
Secondly, there is the religious tension, but *this is on the
decrease. It is no longer strong in Europe. In* America, it is
still strong. There are a few countries where there is no religious
tension at all in spite of the existence of different religions. Then
there are race tensions. In Germany or Europe today, we do
not have race tensions but they are yet strong in America and
still more so in South Africa.
Kaka Kalelkan
It is there in the whole of Africa.
Pastor NiemoDer:
The question is: How can we apply the Gandhian outlook
and Gandhian methods to class tensions, religious tensions and
race tensions? We must find a method to persuade mankind
that one class is not to dominate over another class, one religion
should not dominate over another religion, one race over
another, by power of force. The question is to apply the out
look and methods of Gandhiji to achieve these ends.
Mr. Pyarelal:
Racial prejudice is a complex of several 'tensions. There is
colour prejudice; the . clash of economic interests; very often
religious tension is added on to it, and all these are used aa
263
a cloak* or excuse for the economic exploitation of the backward
races. The remedy for all these is education. We must teach
the members of undeveloped races hqw to stop their economic
exploitation by producing by their own effort the essential re
quirements of life, and how to soften down racial and colour
prejudice through non-violent self-suffering in a disciplined, and
organised manner. The remedy for religious tensions is to incul
cate an attitude of equal respect for all religions. Satyagraha is
the most effective means of education of oneself and others.
We should master the technique of Satyagraha and teach the
victims of racial prejudice how to apply it. There is no quicker
or more effective way of removing racial tension than the
sovereign way of Satyagraha.
Dr. Haekal:
I do believe that as a matter of fact, all these tensions have
one ultimate reason, the economic reason. When we think, for
instance, of what is going on in South Africa, or what has
been going on in Europe in the past centuries, crusades and all
that kind of thing, I do believe that the economic factor is the
most important cause of these events. It Is for our material
interests that we create these tensions. As our Chairman
pointed out, in Africa there are five million Whites trying to
maintain superiority over the others, not out of any real conviction
that because they are white they are better, but. in order to have
the greatest economic benefit out of this. I think this has been
the case all over the world during the centuries. If we may go
back to the crusades, to the very first contacts of Islam , and
Christianity, we always find the economic factor predominating.
As Pastor Niemoiler said, the first tension we have is not the
religious tension or the race tension, but the class tension, and
the class tension is due to economic reasons. I think, if we
go into the question of class tension and find out how we can
solve this, then we can come to a solution.
Professor Kabin
I quite agree with Dr. Haekal when he says that economics
is the predominant factor, but I think he will agree with me
that it is not the only cause. Economic inequalities and jealous
ies are responsible for a great deal of tension, but there are
certain psychological factors which must also be taken into
consideration. Let us take one example. There is a kind of
peculiar, shall 1 say, sexual jealousy which operates in the
relations between communities. When one marries into another
community, the members of the group* to which the man
264
15th
Ja n u ary
1953
belongs do not often have any objection, but the group of
community to which the woman belongs often shows a sense
of resentment. You Will find this in many countries of the
world. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, but if you were to marry
an Indian woman, I do not think the Scottish people would have
so much objection as the Indians. You will find this sort of
sentiment throughout history. I will concede that even in such
situations, economic forces may play a part, but there is, I believe,
a residue of biological factors that cannot be ignored com
pletely. I will, however, concede that if the economic differences
are lessened, this kind of racial exclusiveness will also decrease.
The racially exclusive groups which we have built up and whjch
lead to racial tensions arise out of several complex factors:
(1) There is a feeling of otherness or lack of identification.
(2) There is the feeling that the other group is becoming
more powerful.
(3) The power of the other group is felt as a threat to
the existence of one’s own group, and
(4) There is a persistent idea that one’s own group is
superior and should not merge with the other group.
This feeling of exclusiveness has different degrees, but the
ultimate test is inter-marriageability between members of
different groups. * To accept inter-marriage is to accept equality.
Let us now consider how Gandhian techniques can be appli&d
to these three different types of tension. For class tensions
which are mainly economic in origin, Gandhiji held that we
should not have these classes sharply separated. He did not rule
out private property, but he held that if there is to be private
property, the rich must regard themselves as trustees for the
community. If 1 may say so, I am not sure how far this idea
of trusteeship will work. Once you accept private property,
some rich men might regard themselves as trustees but I believe
that the majority will use their wealth for personal ends. The
State can of course intervene, and the State does so through
legislation, by imposing the income-tax and other taxes. Wealth
will thus be re-distributed and I am completely in favour of
such measures, Gandhiji, I am sure, would have favoured suph
legislation so long as it was carried out with the support of the
majority of the people.
So far as religious tensions are concerned, Gandhiji’s atti
tude was one of complete acceptance of differences. It was one
of his deepest convictions that whatever be the differences in
beliefs, nobody has any right to impose his pattern of religion
on others. There must be toleration, or perhaps, we should
not use the word toleration as it has a suspicion of superiority
265
and condescension. Gandhiji held that there should be love for
and acceptance of the diversity and variety of individuals and
societies and their faiths. .
*
So far as race tensions are concerned, Gandhiji believed and
demonstrated throughout his life that he regarded men and
women of all races as his brothers and sisters. He judged men
and women as individuals and not as mere members of this
group or that.
I may conclude with one example of how he sought to apply
his method, for solving economic issues. He applied his
method of negotiation and conciliation successfully in Ahmedabad where he organised one of the most powerful trade unions
in the country. This Union followed his principles and acted
through the method of conciliation and refrained from strikes,
as far as possible.
Dr. Bunche:
The point is how did he get the
his methods?
Indian people to accept
Dr, Sushila Nayan
Before I try to answer your question, I would like to point
out that in my opinion, all tensions to a large extent originate
in, and are aggravated by economic inequality. At the bottom
of untouchability also is the economic factor—the desire to make
the untouchables do the mean jobs for very little money. If
they become our equals, they would not do those disagreeable
jobs for us. The racial problem in the U.S. can also be largely
explained in these terms. If the Negroes became equal with
Whites, they would not do the various menial and laborious jobs
that the White people want them to do. Similarly in South
Africa the Whites are afraid of the economic competition of
the non-Whites. The major factor in almost every case would
be found to be economic. In Pakistan, the Hindu had money
and property, the Muslim had been denied these. So the
Muslims found it convenient and easy to kill the Hindus and
appropriate their jobs and wealth by appealing to the fanatical
passions of the Muslim have-nots. Thus, behind religious pas
sions also, there is the economic factor.
Now about the application of the Gandhian techniques to
all these various types of tensions. I think it ultimately resolves
itself to one thing—persuasion and education. The essential
thing is to educate and make the other party see that what they
are doing is in the larger context harmful to themselves. In
order to make the other party listen to us, we use various
266
i5TH
JANUARY
1953
techniques of Satyagraha, non-cooperation, and self-sufferingInner purity and unselfishness is the rock on which the Satya
grahi must stand in order to touch the heart of the opponent
and kindle in it the dormant spark of goodness or divinity.
Dr, Bunche:
The racial, problem cannot be explained simply in terms of
economic conflict. Of course, it may go through a stage of
economic conflict. In the later stages of the struggle, the con
flict is, however, more psychological and social than economic.
The White worker has recognised that his interests are identical
with those of the Negro worker. At the present time, the
psychological factor—the prejudice, the stereotyped views—
looms much larger than the ecpnomic factor, at least in America.
Pastor Niemoller:
I am in consonance with what Dr. Bunche has said.' It is
necessary to warn against over-simplyfying the real causes of
what we have before our eyes as class tensions, religious ten
sio n or racial tensions. The economic reason is one of them;
but it is not even the original. There are irrational elements in
man’s make-up, and these elements cause all these tensions
between human beings and human groups. If we have to bring
them to a general denominator, I would call it a tendency in
the human being to lord it over others, to be a superman, not
only for his economic welfare and better standard of life, but
to satisfy his craving to be superior, to fclaim irrational superio
rity. .To bring forward the economic factor as the basic thing
in the religious and race questions is, I think,' a simplification
of Karl Marx. Few scientists accept such over-simplification
today, at least in Europe.
We have facts of class struggle. We have facts, of racial
tensions. We have facts of religious diversities and so on.
Like Professor Kabir, I also do not like the expression ‘tolerance*;
because the moment we speak of tolerance we put everything
on the same plane. We cut down the possibility of evolution.
Not everything has the same value, and we must recognise this.
But we must not try to exert superiority.
We have to ask: How are the Gandhian outlook and
Gandhian methods to be applied to class struggle or religious
tensions and race questions in this our situation? I am of the
view that we need not try to make an analysis of the basic
reasons, but should try to find out how Gandhian methods are
applicable to the class tensions in our days. I think we ought
to say definitely that according to what we know about human
267
GANDHIAN
outlook
AND TECHNIQUES
duties, nobody is entitled to oppress his fellow-meri* becausfc
he is meant to be the brother of his fellow-men. And that
makes us immediately take a stand against violence or suppression
of any individual or group. The formulation refers to class
struggle as well as to race superiority and other tensions.
Mr. Tsunnni:
I am quite in agreement with Pastor Niemoller. We must
not try to over-simplify the reasons of the tensions. 1 made
some study in the tension existing between the Japanese immi
grants in California and the Americans there. The Pacific Con
ference made a thorough study extending over ten years and
came to the conclusion that it was not basically economic, it was
not religious, it was simply racial.
Dr. Daftary:
I still hold that the economic factor is the major factor.
Kaka Kalelkar:
In India, untouchability was due to prejudice. How ,did
Gandhiji overcome the prejudices in the minds of the people?
The reply is that only those who are morally and spiritually
superior, only they are able to influence people. Satyagraha or
voluntary self-suffering is the way by which man acquires that
position. Society drops its prejudices only when such a man
asserts himself.
Mr. Pyarelal:
The starting point in the Gandhian technique in respect of
this particular problem would be that there should be no race
prejudice in ourselves. Then only would we be able to stand up
against racial injustice wherever we may find it. Gandhiji
gave to this process the name—self-purification. In the U.S.A.,
attempts are being made to overcome race prejudice by non
violent means. Mr. Bayard Rustin, who was here, told us how
he offered Satyagraha in order to bring to a focus the inherent
injustice of race prejudice. I understand there are other groups
too doing the same in the States today. Removal of racial pre
judice means a double process of education. The education of the
oppressed and of those that oppress. The oppressed have to show
by their example that they are as good citizens as others. By
virtue of the great service they rendered to the State in the world
war, the Negroes have earned the right to assert their equality by
means of Satyagraha, even by offering civil disobedience against
State laws.
268
1 5 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
Dr. Bancbe:
I do not think your last statement is quite correct My
people did not attain equality because of their contribution to
the war effort, but in viûe of the law of the land: The
Negroes have the right of equality by the Constitution. The
struggle has been to achieve it in the practical sense. That
struggle has been helped by the growth of civic sense and a
higher morality among a large section of the White Americans.
Dr. Daftary:
According to the law of the American Constitution, every-*
body is equal. There is no inequality.
Acharya Kripalani:
We are getting away from the point. The point is this. How
are these various tensions to be remedied? Are they to be
remedied by non-violence or by violence? That is the question.
Gandhiji’s method is non-violence. We admit there are ten
sions and we have to right the wrong. How is the wrong to
be righted so that it may not produce another wrong? That
is the problem before us.
Dr. Bunche:
The point that is made takes me back to the question raised
in yesterday’s meeting. Let us take the case of the struggle
of American Negroes. If in the United States there had not
been from the beginning a strong section of white population
which had more spiritual sense, a conscience to which an appeal
could be made, the whole course of our struggle for equality
would have been different. Non-violent means require organised
effort which appeals to the conscience of the people. There
must therefore be a conscience to appeal to. In the struggle
of the American Negro for equality, action is taken through
recourse to the law of the land without reprisals.
The substance of my question yesterday w as: Had the masses
of India been different, had the rulers been of a different menta
lity, had there been Hitler or Mussolini in India who would
have executed leaders (including Gandhiji and all of you sitting
around this table), what would have been the course of struggle
in India? Had there been not the British administration in
this country, had the English not set certain limits to the measures
that could be employed in retaliation to the resistance by the
Indian masses, can you say that the struggle here would have
followed the same course? So the conclusion is that under cer
tain circumstances, it is clear that non-violent methods can be
269
used and have been used. They are used by my own people
in the United States. But the situation is different if there Is
no conscience to appeal to and if there are forces that are com
pletely irresponsive. What would we do then?
Professor Kabir:
Mr. Chairman, I have to say two things. First; the examples
which Dr. Bunche gave themselves prove that in certain cases
there is an alternative to violence. In fact we can extend the
examples and say that in certain situations, non-violence is an
'essential condition of success. I have some experience of
labour strikes. The moment a strike becomes violent, it is sure
to be defeated. The second thing Dr. Bunche said was about
the Indian situation. Well, if the British had acted differently,
had they been un-British, certainly they would have killed
thousands of men and women. Probably Gandhiji would have
been killed before attaining his great stature. I doubt if the
Indians could have remained completely non-violent and there
would have been a certain amount of violence. But my belief
is that our people would soon have discovered that they could
not succeed without accepting non-violence. They would there
fore have accepted non-violence and succeeded. The whole
thesis of non-violent struggle is that there is conscience in man
and that conscience is there in everybody, be he Hitler or
Mussolini or anybody else. If the aggressor is more intolerant
and unjust, then the non-violent fighters’ self-suffering has to be
greater and more intensive. Non-violence is not a remedy
which can be used only in some cases and not in others.
Lord Boyd Om
I think Pastor Niemoller raised a fundamental point. If a
person wants to develop his ego and his personality, there is
nothing wrong provided he does not suppress others. When a
person is oppressed he is frustrated. He suffers from psycho
logical inhibitions and wants to revenge himself on others. In
a competitive society, we have the economic urge that expresses
itself in individual action but if we properly condition the per
sonality, it can express itself in cooperative activities. Then a
person feels for the greater group and is not confined to him
self. He feels magnified and is able to direct all his energy to
some great aim.
It is in this'power of development that we can find a key to
the solution of tensions. A society in which persons are not
inhibited is a happy society, but such a society requires the
elimination of inequalities. This can be done non-violently
270'
I 5 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
and has been done to a very large extent in my own country.
There we have had a long struggle and found that violent
methods failed and non-violent methods succeeded. The world
does not yet fully understand this interesting development. The
Welfare state in Great Britain has established equality and knows
no classes. There has been a change over from the ruled to the
ruler. The power of a minority has been broken, not by a
movement of violence, but by the spread of education. In the
past, a few persons had great wealth and controlled others.
That system has been completely broken. There is today no one
above us, because the wealth of the aristocracy has been taken
away. Formerly there were castles which the ordinary citizen
could never hope to enter, today he can walk through them
after paying half-a crown. Great accumulation of wealth in
private hands is being destroyed, not by cutting the throats of
people, but by taxing the rich. There are now lots of things
being done in my country without violence.
AH these changes became possible because of a higher moral
consciousness in the world. I realise there is still crookedness
in the world but for a great majority of people there is a much
higher level of morality, of a sense of community. That is a
big factor. Gandhiji is great because he recognised this new
ethical standard and sought to solve his problems in the light
of this moral awakening, I do not say that Gandhi is the only
man who did so, but the greatest thing about him is that he
based his movement on world conscience and that is why his
movement is getting stronger all over the world and has crossed
all frontiers.
Professor Kabir:
Tomorrow morning, we will talk on international tensions.
Then we have to settle what points to put down. I think we
are not going to finish the report day after tomorrow but I
would like at least conclusions to be reached, so that I can get
something definite on which to proceed. On the question of
internal tensions, we have covered a wide field but We have not
formulated any definite conclusions yet.
Lord Boyd Orr:
We wiU now adjourn and meet again tomorrow at 9-30 a.m.
in Bhangi Colony.
271
The Seminar met in Camera at 10 of the clock on the 16th
January 1953, at the Bhangi Colony, with Lord Boyd Orr in the
chair.
Professor Kabir:
It is right that on this Last day, the Seminar should hold at least
one meeting in the Bhangi Colony in the very room where
Gandhiji conducted his negotiations with members of the British
Cabinet Mission for the peaceful transfer of power to India. We
are all thankful to Mr. Pyarelal for giving us the opportunity of
meeting here.
Lord Boyd Om
On behalf of all the delegates, Professor Kabir may convey our
thanks to Mr. Pyarelal.
In beginning our proceedings, I would like to say: let us be
objective and brief in our speeches today. Yesterday we discussed
internal tensions. Today we will discuss international tensions,
and in discussing this let us keep in view the Gandhian technique
and methods and how they can be applied to the United Nations.
We are all agreed that U.N. is the great hope for the future. How
can the Gandhian techniques be applied to the United Nations
and the allied organisations like the Trusteeship Council, the Food
and Agriculture Organisations?
Dr. Daftary:
What about the Peace Front?
Lord Boyd Om
No doubt nations are arming for war and tensions are increas
ing. But we want to. have a small group of nations who will say:
“We are opposed to violence or war. We will only keep sufficient
force for self-defence but we will not engage in any war. We will
not hand over our troops, our navy to any country, and we will
not take part in any war.” If we have a group like that in the
United Nations, then there will be a. considerable easing in inter
national tensions.
Then, there is the question of reparations. When a nation is
defeated, it is customary for the conquerors to leave them nothing
but their eyes to weep with. Would Gandhiji have agreed with
that way? Or would he have said: “In a war we are all guilty. The
272
16th
JANUARY
1953
whole, society of man is guilty. How can we repair the damages
which have been done?” W hat we should have is an international
fund and the nations which have suffered must legitimately get the
benefit Look at the treaty of Versailles. The Germans were left
with nothing but their eyes to weep with.
Acharya Kripalani;
Then we should say something about a Popular House in the
U.N. where the delegates will be elected.
What we want is to
establish, side by side with the United Nations, an advisory body.
We are all agreed on that?
Professor Kabir:
The first point should b e : All nations who want it are to be
admitted to the United Nations.
Lord Boyd Om
What you wish to lay down is that all nations should co
operate in all the United Nations organisations like the Trusteeship
Committee, of which our distinguished friend is the head. Then
only can you have world unity.
Acharya Kripalani:
Financial and technical assistance etc., should
the United Nations.
be
through
L oti'teyd Oirrt
Let us take up these points one by one. I take up first the
question of the Popular House—it is open for discussion.
Padftir Niîhollen
There have been suggestions that it is the peoples of the world
that should be represented in U.N. The peoples’ representatives
should become members of the United Nations. I am in agree
ment with this. In so far as the Gandhian outlook is concerned,
Gandhiji’s methods are meant to produce the best in his opponents;
not to let an opponent go, but to engage him.
Look at his
method of fasting. Or at his non-violent methods. He always
contacted his opponent and engaged him. In a family if one
member makes a mistake, we do not let him go but try to correct
him as a member of the family. So should it be in the family of
nations. Do not ju$t let a nation go out. We should produce in
them the best as Gandhiji did in his opponents by his outlook and
methods. The danger is that, for instance, some nations may say:
‘"The United Nations do not want to have us.
So we can act
273
94 M. of Edo.
against them.” But the Gandhian outlook means to bring every
body in and make them responsible, to get from them the best co
operation. 1 think we should make this point clear in. our state
ment. We are making suggestions in the spirit o! the Gandhian
outlook, in such a way that the family of nations can be built I
want this point to be said in the beginning, because it is
basic.
Professor Kabir:
On this point we are all agreed: that the United Nations, if.
it is to be United Nations in fact and not only in theory, must be
open to all.
I would, however, like to point out that we are discussing two
different questions. One is that membership is to be kept open to
all countries for all organisations of the United Nations; and the
other is the suggestion for a kind of advisory body of the peoples.
Can we not have a peoples’ organisation side by the side with the
official delegates to U.N.? At least an advisory body, where all
peoples are admitted?
This Seminar holds that the United
Nations must be open to all nations.
Lord Boyd Orr:
Universality of membership.
Mr. Pyarelal:
I was just going to say that I have here a note which Gandhiji
dictated on this question. If the group is interested I will read it
out. It is addressed to Maurice Frydman who was very much
interested in the idea of World Federation:
I have your letters. You still misunderstand me. I told yoil
that 1 was at one with you and that I was trying to take the
Congress and everybody towards world federation. I also told
vou, that if it ever comes, it will come through Sevagram or the
Sevagram way. I want Free India, too, for that purpose. If I
can g^t freedom for India through non-violent means, power of
non-violence is firmly established, empire idea dissolves and the
World-State takes its place in which all the states of the world are
free and equal, no state has its military. There may be a world
police to keep order in the absence of universal belief in PQtF
violence.”
This is dated Sevagram, 28-7-42,
Acharya Narendra Devas
This was included in the resolution passed ip August 1942.
224
1 6 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
Lord Boyd Orr:
We are all agreed on the universality of U.N. The idea of
the human family and the prodigal son should be kept up.
Or. Bunche:
Any nation or people who wish to join U.N. should be permit
ted to do so on the sole basis that they would agree to the principle
of settling disputes by peaceful means.
Pastor Niemoller:
Before you can be reconciled to the family, you have to be a
member of the family. The door must be kept open. I agree
with the way Dr. Bunche put it, but I do not agree that we should
lay down too many conditions for joining. We all agree to the
Charter of the United Nations. The nations agree to come into
the family. We do not keep them out. We treat them in such
a non-violent way that they are engaged, and we keep them
engaged, for peace. Then they will become reconciled to every
body and be amenable to permission.
Professor Kabir:
We should not try to examine their motives or intentions. If
wc start on such examination, we do not know where we will
end. Who can look into the heart of others?
Dr. Haekal:
As a corollary, the veto will not apply to admission of new
members. We must make this clear.
Professor Kabir:
Instead of putting it that way. we can say: This Seminar is
of the view that all nations of the world who wish to secure mem
bership of the United Nations should be allowed to do so without
any hindrance. It is not necessary to mention here the question—
of veto. We need not raise it here.
Acharya Kripalani:
Veto is always being talked of.
Dr. Bunche:
The most important thing is to remove the bar to membership:- Acharya Kripalani;
Certain resolutions have been vetoed.
275
Dr, Haekal:
We should mention the veto here.
Pastor Niemoller:
The veto is not related to the membership of the special
organisations set up inside the United Nations. Veto should be
another point, and does, not properly come here in the discussion
on membership.
Dr. Haekal:
This question has been raised in the past in the United Nations
—the question of veto. It is global. If you want to abolish the
veto completely—that it must not operate either in the General
Assembly or in the Security Council—I think then we will arrive
at nothing, for the big powers will not accept our recommendation.
We should, therefore, ask that the veto will not apply only in the
case of membership. If you say that you are going to have uni
versality, that all nations should come in, and there shall be no
veto in this particular matter, then it will be easier for the United
Nations to accept it. I do not say it should be a recommendation
but we should put it simply as an idea. It will be much easier for
the United Nations to accept if, instead of the whole question of
veto, we concentrate on a single simple issue.
Lord Boyd Orr:
Dr. Haekal is quite right. It will have to be very simple. To
be one human family means to settle matters by way of discussion.
The general issue of veto is a separate subject. We are all agreed
on universality of membership. The second point is the question
of a popular assembly for U.N.
Professor Kabir:
This is a question which is not easy to settle. Let us first get
agreement on points which are simple and then we can take up
the more difficult matters.
Lord Boyd Orn
Professor Kabir is right. Let us first dispose of two things
that can be easily dealt with; the first is whether the United Nations
can provide immediately any concrete good through its various
branches. You have got the World Health Organization, the
F.A.O., Unesco., the World Bank, the Economic Commission and
so on. We would be in favour of all nations cooperating through
these and not acting independently.
m
16th
JANUARY
1953
K # ;
That is to say that all aid, whether technical assistance or
otherwise, should be canalized and given through the United
Nations and allied organizations; all assistance, technical, educa
tional, economic or of any other type. .
Pastor Niemoller:
May I make one more point? The agencies of United Nations
are to be used for giving as well as for receiving. Bilateral giving
and receiving shall be excluded. According to our intentions, no
nation shall give or receive except through the United Nations. I
think we have to state it from both ends, neither give nor receive
except through agencies set up by United Nations.
Professor Kabir:
1 would agree with the positive statement that help should be
given through U.N. and its agencies. I would not agree with the
negative dictum that aU other help should be forbidden. I see
the reason for Pastor Niemoller’s suggestion, for where assistance
goes from one nation to another directly, there is always fear of
strings. To promote good-will and peace, the Seminar would be
right to suggest that all assistance should be canalized through the
United Nations organizations.
We should not, however, make
our suggestions too restrictive or rigid, for then we may rub some
body wrong. When a country is in need and some other country
says it is going to offer it that assistance, say in the matter of loan
ing experts or sending food grains or supplies of medicine and the
like, we should not grudge i t
Lord Boyd Om
For instance, India wanted certain help in the matter of food
or finance. The request should go through the United Nations.
These great projects which your country has undertaken and which
are meant to abolish poverty require great assistance in every field.
That must be done through the United Nations. But if some
private organizations or some individuals in a country are ready to
offer any assistance to your country, I think, we cannot have any
objection to that. We should not make it absolute.
Dr. Bunche:
For instance, in my own country there are private organiza
tions like the Ford Foundation which are assisting other countries,
assisting projects of other countries.
Acharya Kripalani:
Ours is only a recommendation. From our point of view,
227
QANtfgWN OUTLOOK AND TECHNIQUES
'this one-sided giving and receiving or bilateral giving and receiv
ing leads to dependence which we do not intend to establish.
'Such direct aid helps the creation of blocs and may militate
against peace.
■
Dr. Bunche:
If we go a step further, we would have to say that no nation
may be permitted to receive or permitted to give. That wquld
be an extreme position.
Pastor Niemoller:
My question is not yet answered. Was not our starting point
this, that any aid. in the nature of a bilateral giving, may conduce
to the building up of power blocs? Such gifts by way of money
and supplies are likely to have strings attached to them and may
be dangerous to world peace. I see that in my own country. For
example, newspapers in Western Germany are getting subsidies
from a foreign power and thus they have the obligation to follow
the wishes of those maintaining them; their writings are enough
proof of this. Some strings are always attached to such help..
That is the point. If on the other hand, this help would be given
by an agency of the United Nations, it would be quite clear that
no conditions whatsoever, implicitly or explicitly, are combined
with it. That is really the point we want to make. Otherwise,
we do not intend to restrict the liberal giving by a wealthy man
or organization or nation. We want aid to go through the
channels of the agencies of the United Nations in order to give
it the outlook of a united family of which we are dreaming and
which we wish to realise. We do not want that giving and
receiving aid should become a means for building up blocs inside
the family.
Mr. Pyarelal:
All assistance or aid, Governmental or private, should be
canalised through the United Nations organization. Every nation
that becomes a member of that organization will naturally have
to abide by the Charter of the U.N. It would be fatal to
exempt from this rule the giving or receiving of assistance by
member states privately from corporations.
/
Professor Kabir.
1 want to make a suggestion. We all agree with Pastor
Niemoller that we do not want to develop blocs through these aids.
All governmental assistance from one country to another, for
economic reconstruction or development, should be canalized
278
if>TH JANUARY
through the United Nations and its special agencies. The
assistance that is available from cultural organizations and private
bodies need not, however, be so restricted. We must draw a
distinction between help given on a governmental basis and help
given by non-official and voluntary agencies. I would again say
that we may make a positive statement that Government help
should be through the United Nations organisation and its agencies,
but if we go further and make also a negative statement that no
help shall be given or shall be received except through U.N., no
body will listen to us. I am in favour of a positive statement and
not in favour of the negative statement.
Mr. Pyarelal:
Would you exclude from this rule big corporations which are
as powerful to give aid as governments?
Professor Kabir:
Unless the Government of any country passes special legisla
tion to stop such aid from non-official agencies, they should be
at liberty to give it. If you are willing to receive and the other
party is willing to give, we should not want to restrict that. The
condition of channelling aid through U.N. agencies should apply
only to governmental assistance.
Acharya Kripalani:
We are concerned with governmental
Philanthrophic societies can do what they like.
activities
only.
Dr. Bunche:
1 agree with Mr. Kabir. We must take one subject at a
time. We cannot establish a new world order. There are
normal relations between
governments about assistance
from one to the other. If any government wants expert assistance
from another
government,
in the matter of
loan of
experts etc., they must be at liberty to do so, although it is a form
of assistance.
Lord Boyd Orr:
Let us take a concrete case. Suppose Ethiopia asks for some
help to eliminate disease there. The W.H.O. will be requested
to render such assistance and it will go through that organization.
We do not want one country to dominate another by this method
of offering assistance where it is necessary. We do not even want
to create that impression either on the giving or on the receiving
nation. That is why we want to give the help through U. N
279
We have to consider this very carefully. When a nation seeks
assistance directly from another country, and the other country
renders it without reference to the United Nations, that is bad for
the nation giving it and also for the nation receiving such help.
The United States, for example, put forward the Marshall Plan
which is a great plan. It has done great good and helped to put
Europe on its feet. Its results, I think, would have been even
greater if U.N. had administered it.
Suppose the United States undertakes a plan on a world-wide
scale and the U.N. tells the United States Government, “We have
a bigger organisation in which East and West will all cooperate,
and if you render such assistance through this organisation, it will
be much better”. If the United States accepts this advice, it will
bring all in, and help to unify Europe, unify the whole world.
On the other hand, if you do it by bilateral agreements, that
France will get so much, United Kingdom so much and Asian
countries so much, you will humiliate Europe and Asia, and you
will create the very feelings you want to avoid. The evil lies
in this. When the United States gives such aid, you will raise
very great hatred against the United States, for the nations will
feel they are receiving charity. You know proud nations do not
like to be humiliated. A great deal of harm will result and that *
will weaken the United States. If, however, such aid is given
through the United Nations, there will be no such feeling against
the United States.
Dr. Bundle:
Mr. Chairman, we all agree on th at I understand the issue
goes, however, beyond that. After we accept this principle, on
which we all agree, that help should be channelled through U.N.
and its agencies, do we then project it as establishing a new
international law, whereby a nation is prohibited to give to
another even though it is in its interest to give and of the other
nation to receive?
Lord Boyd Orn
As you know, these organs of the United Nations are working
to bring nations together. All assistance outside the knowledge of
the U.N. and its agencies weakens it and tends to divide nations
rather than unite them.
Mr. Pyarelal:
I want to ask whether in regard to direct aid in the matter
of money and material, you will allow big corporations to
operate directly?
280
i6 T H JANUARY
1953
Professor Kabir:
Yes, so long as they are non-GovemmentaL
Lord Boyd Om
Then we are all agreed on this. 1 would now take up the
next point
I would start with complimenting the nations on the great
advance, the great step towards cooperation taken by establishing
the U.N. The United Nations is a great advance on the League
of Nations. The United Nations has created specialised
agencies, whereby many problems have been solved. It is
doing great jobs throughout' the world. These should be
strengthened as far as possible. The major projects in the world
Should; a& far as possible, be carried out through these agencies
and h o t independently or bilaterally because it is bad for the
nation giving aid and for the nation receiving assistance. It
humiliates the nation receiving assistance.
:
Dr. Bunche:
When you speak of specialised agencies, would you also add to
that the Technical Assistance Programme of the United Nations.
Lord Boyd Ohm
I mean the U.N. and all its organs.
We will say: What a wonderful thing you have done. You
will also be able to achieve greater things—double food produc
tion, abolish disease, if all these projects are carried through.
Acharya Kripalani:
The U.N. can even impose conditions. These would be consi
dered ihore fair than the conditions others may impose.
Professor Kabir.
If the U.N. imposes any conditions, there will be no suspicion
about i t
: ' ::
Lord Boyd Om
There is another very important point I was in Pakistan for
four 'months. There is the utmost confusion there. There are ex
perts under the Point-Four Programme, experts Under the
Technical Assistance Programme, then the ones under Hie
Colombo Man, etc. I know that they had four experts on the
same subject in the country at the same time. F know another
thing. The Government pile up these reports—some of the
experts contradicting each other and sometimes competing With
each other to justify their existence. 1
211
Professor Kabir:
If help to under developed countries is not canalised through
one of the U.N. organisations, there is the danger of duplication
and waste and confusion.
Lord Boyd Orr:
We will leave it to Professor Kabir to draft the recommendation.
Professor Kabir:
Could 1 suggest this idea? There may be some kind of world
fund under the U.N. to which nations with a per capita income
above a certain level will contribute a small cess or tax. The world
organisation will use this fund for equalising inequalities which
exist and developing the under-developed areas. I am thinking
of something on the lines of an international income-tax.
Dr. Bunche:
There will be pitfalls in that. There is immediate wealth that
you appraise in terms of the per capita income of the people.
But that is not a realistic basis, because there are countries in this
world with vast resources untapped—minerals and others—that
for one reason or another have not been exploited. I can think
of some of the Latin American countries, also of Canada,
Australia. They are huge territories. Their present wealth in
terms of per capita income may seem to be small, but their
potential wealth will be very great.
Professor Kabir:
1 would accept fully what Dr. Bunche has said and ask
for an international fund on that very ground, viz. in order to
develop the potential wealth of undeveloped areas under
international auspices, so that _ there may be no suggestion of
exploitation.
Acharya Kripalani:
Practically all the help—in money and material—comes from
the United States of America. There are few others who can
help with money and material. Therefore, if you impose a cess
of any sort, the U.S. would feel she would have done her duty
by paying the amount, and this would be much less than what
she is now giving.. That is one disadvantage.
Dr. Bunche:
Take the instance of Belgium. It is a small country.' The
ntetropolitan territory has no resources. But it controls the
282
16 t H JANUARY 1 ^ 5 3
Belgian Congo, which is tremendously wealthy in minerai
Resources. How would you apply your cess to a small country
with a vast colonial empire?
Pastor Niemoller:
1 agree in principle to Dr. Kabir’s point. But how is this
to be set to work? The standard of living is very, very different
in different countries. For example, in Germany, if you have
thirty thousand dollars, that is a tremendous fortune for a German.
But it is not much in the United States, because the standard of
living is quite different in the U.S. If you compare the standard
of living in the U.S., for instance, with that in Turkey, or a middleeast country, you come across quite different results. Dr. Bunche is
quite right; there are a number of pitfalls. We will have to make
a very diligent study about it. If we want to mention it in our
report, it would have to be said in a general way; it will be only
a mild intimation that according to the Gandhian outlook, this
is something we have to work for, that we have to march in that
direction.
Lord Boyd Orr:
1 am in favour of an international fund, to which all nations
will pay a proportion of what they spend on their fighting forces.
There is no nation which is so poor that it has no army. If the
nations can pay, say, ten per cent of what they are spending on
ihetr armed forces, for developing the resources of the world to a
world fund, it could be directed to constructive ends. It will
mean that while nations are spending money for weapons of death,
they will also be spending money for making weapons
for life.
Dr. Bunche:
This is the first time I am in violent disagreement with the
Chairman. And I would tell you why, Sir. Because if we get
to that point, then it seems to me we could never think in terms
of-disarmament in the world. Nations would pay the cess and
go on with their armaments.
Disarmament should be the
principle on which we shopld work. If we can get disarmament,,
then the resources of the world could be developed with the
money that is spent on armaments. The basic principle must b e
disarmament.
Acharya Kripalani:
" 1 Tdo not want to set up the principle that it is all right for you
16' Sift! if you pay for it. You pay as you go on sinning.
283
G A NttttA N (HJTLOOK AND
Pastor NiemoHen
1 You do 1 not’want to tax liquors and build froip the taxy^ an
asylum fordrunkkfds.
1
Professor Kabir:
If I may have a word. I see the difficulties which have Ipeen
put before us,Jbut I ’ feel that’ the different points which havy
b 6en raised cancel ohe another. One of the difficulties raised &
How are you going to assess the nations? After all, the United
States; or any other member State is contributing to U.N. and its
igendes on the basis of some kind of national income. ^ c^pi
the Same basis; it is not an insuperably d ifficu lt/
Dr. Bunche
' That is precisely the basis on which contributions, which the,
member states m ate to the technical assistance programme, etc,,
is made. ‘
*
: •'
Professor Kabir:
If that is so, if this is already being done, then what I want is
already partly in operation. Nations should recognise this, as
a point of international obligation.
Acharya Kripalani:
It will dry up rather than increase the funds of charity. The
United States is already paying so much by way of private
charity.
'
Dr. Bunche:
The Americans are a warm-hearted people, but they hate taxes.
Professor Kabir
Another objection raised is: How are you going to consider
the case of a nation which is under-developed? If you made an
assessment on per capita income, the amounts received from the
more developed and therefore the richer peoples could be used
for the development of such less developed areas.
Acharya Kripalani:
’May I again suggest that when you have the peoples* repre
sentatives, then only can you tax properly?
'
Professor Kabir
I admit that at present there are difficulties, but I feel that the
difficulties can be overcome. It would develop interuadomd
284
v
.
...............-
16th jANttxfcY 1953
solidarity if prosperous nations felt they had an obligation &
develop less prosperous areas, and poorer nations knew they can
» ctnmt bn the help of richer nations.
NoW regarding a tax on armaments, I am entirely in favour
of Lord Boyd Orris idea. If we can persuade all the nations to
pay a definite proportion Of what they spend on their armaments
for constructive and peaceful purposes, we will have killed two
birds with one shot. On the one hand, we impose an indirect,
limitation bn the armaments, and on the other, we divert some of
the resources to peaceful and c o n stru c t^ activities. More
important than diverting the resources, I think, is the diverting
of the attention of the people towards important constructive
activities. One of the most important problems in society is to
utilise the available energies in constructive effort. If this is not
done, then people take to destructive activities. This applies to
individuals and to societies. A lot of friction is caused because
energy is not properly utilised. From this point of view also, I
entirely agree with and welcome the idea. There may be one
difficulty, viz., that the total armaments budgets are not always
revealed, but We can base the
tax on the revealed
budgets.
Lord Boyd Om
Just one word. One difficulty in getting peace today is the
fe&r of unemployment and tiie economic crisis that may result if
War industries are suddenly stopped. In my country,
(he
people, even members of the Labour Party, are saying,
“Do
nbt' stop rearmament completelyor suddenly, but
keep
th’eiti going at the present level till you have provided alternative
emplbymetit.” By drawing off ten per cent for constructive pur
poses, ybii will avoid unemployment, you will be gradually having’
fdlt employment, and gradually you will be applying the money
to constructive ends. But I do not think we should mention this
in the gdneral report. Are we agreed on that?
fn fd a o r Kabfat
I suggest that we may accept the proposal that ten per cent
o f wh&t a nation spends on armaments be diverted to constructive
purpbs^: We' might start with ten per cent and increase it by
about five per cent a year.
Lord Boyd Qm
Put it in the personal statement, but it is not to be put into the
R eport We may now 1 take up for discussion the idea of a
Popular Assembly.
285
Dr. Bunche:
I am fully in accord with the idea of a more popular
Assembly, but I want to point out that it is not so simple as it
looks. The fact of the matter is, we have in the General
Assembly, in the United Nations today, some sixty member
nations. There are representatives sitting, who are speaking
on behalf of societies which have never had an election in their
history, where the people of the country have never voted. T his'
has to be taken into account when we talk in broad terms of
the international General Assembly. There are some societies
which have not advanced to the point where there is franchise.
Achaiya Kripalani:
If we say representatives to U.N. will have to be elected
by popular vote, this will help such countries to develop elective
institutions.
Dr. Bunche:
That is not so easy. I fear that if we insist on elected repre
sentatives. we will talk on the one hand of universality and automa
tically exclude from the Popular Assembly certain countries in
which there is no franchise.
Professor Kabir:
If you agree, the recommendation may be like this. We
want that popular opinion should be reflected more and more in 1
the General Assembly. This can be done in one of two ways. One
is by direct election in the different countries so that national
delegations to the General Assembly will be elected. If you feel
strongly, we can send the suggestion that the delegates should
be elected by the people, but my fear is that even if we make
this recommendation, it will not go through in the United
Nations, Not a single Government is likely to agree that there
should be any general elections of the delegates. Even the
most democratic or popular Governments do not want a rival
power or rival centre of authority.
I would, therefore,
suggest as a second alternative, that the delegates to the U.N.
may be elected by proportional representation by the Parliaments
wherever Parliaments exist. Where Parliaments do not exist, we
should seek to establish some machinery by which the popular
opinion is reflected in the selection of the delegates.
Dr. Haekal:
There is already what is called the Inter-Parliamentary
Union. It is not at all a Governmental organisation, It is an
286
16t h JANUARY 1953
■'
I
■ ’ "h
i'
■
■ '
organisation of the Parliaments. Whenever this conference
meets, there are always members of all parties from every
country. One thing which is remarkable, many times it has
happened, is that when you ask for the vote on any issue, the voting,
cuts across countries or States. You very often find there are three
votes ‘Yes’, and two votes ‘No’ from the delegation of the same,
country. I think the proposal of Dr. Kabir will work quite well,
if the Governments appoint representatives, who will reflect the
public opinion in the country, on the basis of proportional,
representation.
Lord Boyd Or*:
The body that we are considering putting up is merely an
advisory body which can consider things and make recommenda
tions, It has not got the authority to take decisions. That is
done by the representatives of the Governments, which means
representatives of the Foreign Offices. They will have the autho
rity while the popular assembly will be only advisory.
Professor Kabir:
I think this will not work. Two bodies will mean more
expenses, and besides there will be tension between the two
bodies, for they are bound to become rivals.
Dr. Bunche:
The point is, under the present system we get a much better
calibred delegation. Those in charge of foreign offices are
generally very able men. They will not like their countries to be
represented at U.N. by representatives in whom they have no confi
dence as regards ability or integrity. In my country, the
President will always try to appoint the best people. If he is to
stick to proportionate representation, he will have to take into
consideration the constitutional proprieties and the result will be
that we will get a poor delegation. That is the practical side of
the question. We will have to be very careful with regard to
U.N. Under the present system, the representatives are all deputed
by governments. I have observed very carefully over a period
of seven years how the representatives act in the United Nations.
I am- absolutely convinced, that on any given Issue, the
representatives, they come from sixty member nations, though
they are nominees of Governments, very often act strictly on their
own. They are making up their minds on the spot Without any
instructions from their governments. The delegations that are
working strictly under the instructions of their governments are
the big delegatipfts, United States, Great Britain, U.S.S.R., France
287
1. .1 '
f
(f
t.
1
1
&ANDHIAN OUTLOOK AMD TBC&NIQUBS
t
- f : 11 , ■
• . •
5
j
H; . . • s >
'
:. i
■:
.
i ■
-
•• •»
.
ana CbinaVi Rcpi^scptativc^ of smaller, countries do not always
act as representatives of their governments.
Acharya Krfp£lani:
I fan. say about India that they are acting op behalf of pur
Government; I am sure of this at least as far as major political
issues are concerned.
Dr.* Bunche;
I know with regard to India that I have often seen the delegates
taking immediate decisions and coming with completely new
proposals. They come out on the spot and say this is my proposi
tion.
Wc cap pnly
a general recommendation.about what the.,
Seminar feels.. X personally dp not accept the idea of an alternate^
popular assembly. So far as the election of delegates to the
General Assembly is concerned, what I gather from the members
is that they fear that elections may not give us the right people
and in fact sometimes give inferior representation.
The
Chairman's suggestion was that we make only a general reference
to the election of representatives to the General Assembly, apd.
request that every attempt be made to associate persons of inde
pendent opinion who reflect diverse points of view in the country
and not only the government's point of view.
Dr. Bwtcbe;
This point has. a great significance because we have a great
many people in the colonial countries who are represented in the
United Nations by their ruling powers only. Colonial people as
such thus have no voice in the United Nations at all. We must
secure them this right. Apart from the representadves chosen
for the General Assembly by the governments, we must have the '
peoples* representatives who can throw light on the true aspira- ,
tions of these millions of people who are still not free.
Lord Boyd Orr.
Ttf. Bunche has raised a. very important point The Africans
have today no say at all. It is a point I feel very strongly about;
two hundred million of these people have no voice at all.
Professor Kabir:
In order to overcome these difficulties, the United Nations
may devise some machinery by which representatives of these
2*1
16th
JANUARY
1953
groups may be associated with the deliberations of the General
Assembly. I think on this point we all agree.
Lord Boyd Orr:
There is another point which should not be lost sight of.
The backward races are in such a sorry state today that they do
not always understand what is really good for them. Even if
they know, their total illiteracy is a great hindrance for ventilat
ing their grievances before great assemblies like the United
Nations. It is only a person with outstanding abilities who can
put forward what is necessary to be done in their behalf.
Pastor Niemoller:
Where are we now?
Lord Boyd Orr:
We are discussing that the people of the world may be directly
represented in the United Nations instead of having only the
representatives of the governments. We do not know what
instructions are given to such representatives by the governments
and their foreign offices.
Mr. Pyarelal:
Since the recommendations of U.N. are going to be imple*
mented by governments themselves, there are bound to be govern?
ments’ representatives there.
Lord Boyd Orr:
One thing must be clear to all of us. The body we are
contemplating need not take the place of the existing United
Nations. We only say that we have found out some defects and
here are our proposals, and here are the advantages which will
result from them! I think we had better leave the drafting of it to
Dr. Kabir. I know he will be very careful in putting it. Now we
may take up the question of the veto.
; Dr. Bunche:
This question of veto as it operates in U.N. today is very
important. It is the Security Council which is most affected by
it. The decision of the majority in this eleven-member body
can be set at naught because of the operation of the veto. The
power to veto puts certain nations in a superior position to
others.
Professor Kabir:
I think that the veto should be abolished, or at the least, Its
289
94 M. of Edu.
use should be limited. The veto should not apply to applications
for membership of U.N. and allied bodies.
Dr, Bonche:
As the Charter stands today, it enables certain powers to
exercise the veto. When the question of its removal was consider
ed, everyone of the great powers expressed disagreement, for
instance, my o,wn country, and also the United Kingdom, U.S.S.R,.
France and China. The basic reason for this is a clause in the
Charter of the United Nations which makes the Security Council
responsible for the use of force. It is for the Security Council
to call upon the members of the United Nations to provide forces
to put down violence and aggression. These five powers, espe
cially the Soviet Union, the United States and the United Kingdom,
insisted that there should be a check, a safeguard for them in the
form of the veto so that the Security Council could not order-the
United States, U.S.S.R. or the United Kingdom to provide armed
forces to United Nations unless they themselves agreed. Without
the provision of the veto, they would have to give such forces and
have no option of refusing. The veto was meant to save them
from such a situation.
Dr. Daftary:
In the League of Nations none had the veto.
Pastor Niemollen
In the United Nations only five powers have the power to
exercise veto.
Acharya Kripalani:
One is not even entitled to be a member, and yet Chiang Kai
Shek has still the power to exercise the veto. For psychological
reasons also, it marks out some nations as superior nations.
Dr. F ^ 'h e :
In my own mind, this position cannot be changed so long as
U.N. can call upon members to supply armed forces.
Maybe the best way to get the veto out is to raise the question
whether there should be a provision in the U.N. about the
employment of force.
Professor Kabir:
Another way out is that such forces should be a world security
force, so that the concurrence of any particular nation would not
be necessary.
290
I 6 l H JANUARY
1953
Dr. Bunche:
The General Assembly can request members to contribute
forces, but it cannot order them to do so.
Professor Kabir:
I think it may be better to say that armed force may be used
only if three-fourths of the members of the Security Council or
three-fourths of the members of the General Assembly agree to the
use of armed force.
Dr. Bunche:
Under the American constitution, nobody but the President has
the authority to order the United States to send troops. The United
States will have to amend its constitution in order to enable the
United Nations to order it to send troops outside its borders.
Pastor Niemoller
I put the question: Are we to discuss this question of veto, or
have we to deal with the suggestion that, according to Gandhian
outlook and methods, the question of using armed forces must be
taken out from the set-up of the U.N.? I think we might say that
the use of the veto again and again in the Security Council makes
for much bad blood, that the veto would be made superfluous by
the use of Gandhian outlook and methods of non-violence. We
are not committed to reform the United Nations, but as a Seminar
we have to send out intimations as to the Gandhian outlook on
Non-violence and Truth to. be applied to the future of the United
Nations. One member put in very strongly that there should be a
definite recommendation that whoever may or may not use force,
at least the United Nations must never use force.
Dr. Bunche;
The veto prevents the use of force and is therefore Gandhian!
Russia would have used the veto against the Korean Resolu
tion and there would have been no United Nations forces in Korea
if she had then been present in the Security Council. The veto
would thus have served to prevent the use of force.
Lord Boyd Om
We will now adjourn and meet in Hyderabad House at 1l-30l
291
The Seminar reassembled at 11-30 o'clock on the l&th January
1953 in Hyderabad House with Lord Boyd Orr in the Chair.
Lord Boyd O m
Shall we now take up the question of over-population as a cause
of racial tensions?
Mr. TsHrami:
It is the proportion of the population of the world to the area
which they inhabit, and the lack of free movement which create
difficult tensions. Take, for instance, the case of Japan at the
moment In 1924 we had a very deplorable experience when the
American Government passed the Anti-Asiatic Immigration Law..
For seventeen long years, we had the so-called “gentlemen^ agree
ment” between America and Japan by which Japan promised to.
restrict the entry of Japanese labour to America. Later, when the
Anti-Asiatic Immigration Law was being passed, Japan almost
hnplored the American Government not to pass the Bill and
leave the matter in the Japanese Government’s hands. We pro
mised that if this were done, we would see that not one emigrant
went to America.
It was not a matter of economics or law, but just a matter of
psychology. Japan, since 1868, had one ambition—to be equal
with the nations of the west, and for that, Japan had to work hard
in reducing illiteracy, and we succeeded in bringing it down to
the level of four per cent, of the whole population. We had the
highest record in the world of school-going children—ninety-nine
point three per cent. On that basis, we could be admitted as a
sister to all the nations of the world. Up to 1924, we had, as.
you may remember, a very liberal Government. We tried everything to avoid friction with America. I myself had to make
speeches on this emigration law in fifteen different universities.
As I said, the Government then was very liberal, but we were
also realistic. The trend in Japan was to change the policy, the
whole policy, from
international cooperation to creating a
stronger Japan at home. The internal change was a result of the
shock to our self-respect given by this American Law. I had then
already predicted and, unfortunately it came true ten years later,
that Japan may become militaristic. I do not want to go into
details, but let us face this fact and try to amend the situation in
some ways, by peaceful cooperation between, nations. Through
292
16TH
JANUARY
1953
the United Nations, through an academic body like this Seminyf,
we can point out the crucial fact that inequality in the pressure
of population will cause great tensions among the nations. Unless
we face this fact we will not get anywhere.
Lord Boyd Om
I am glad our friend from Japan has raised a very fundamental
issue. This is very like in my own country. Our population in
creased from ten millions up to forty-seven millions. We had to
expand. We sent our men to North and South America, Aus
tralia, Canada, New Zealand and all the colonies. We got wealth
from the colonies. The surplus population was drafted to North
and South America.
They control the world today. Japan’s
population also expanded at the same rate. Japan is a small
island, with a population of seventy millions. A great nation com
pressed in such a short space. So their surplus population had to
find out some outlet, or develop international trade, so* that if it
was a free world market, the Japanese could, by their industry,
import food and raw materials directly from the outside markets.
Whenever there is such rapid increase in population, one of two
things must happen. Either you find that the surplus population
is drained off to have free access into the unpopulated regions of'
the world, or they must produce more to compete in the world
market and import food and other things to support the popula
tion. If neither alternative is available, there is bound to be tension
leading ultimately to an explosion.
Mr. Tsurumi:
This is partly an internal tension and partly an external ten*
sion. For this reason, where you have a congested population you
have to find an outlet for free export. If the problem is not solved
peacefully by emigration and/or trade, one of two things happens.
Either there is internal explosion in the shape of revolution, or
there is aggression to fight for food. Until 1924, we had a very
liberal Government. You may remember that it was Japan alone
among the nations that desisted from retaliating against Chinese
insults. It was Japan who started the movement to return tariff
autonomy to China, but after this came the American immigration
law. This changed the attitude of Japan and thereafter Japan
lost her moral power. Japanese politicians then said, “We must
face realities, we must turn to realities. We have to fight for our
own bread.” That was the turning point and you know the
consequences.
Now, after defeat in World War II, there is a tremendous revul
sion of feeling and all Japanese are anxious for peace. We have a
m
firm copviction in the innate ability of the Japanese. Given fair
conditions, we can support our growing population. If we can
have some peaceful moans of alleviating the situation, Japan will
follow in the Gandhian way. If that is denied, I am afraid diffi
culties will arise.
Lord Boyd Om
It is a paradox of the modern world that free movement of the
peoples may be denied, but there is no denying of the free move
ment of capital. British and American capital can start factories
in other countries, get cheap labour, and control the factories. I
agree with Mr. Tsurumi that, unless we can restore the freedom of
movement of peoples, tensions are bound to arise, but there are
many difficulties in the way of free movement of peoples.
Dr. Daftary:
*
What about the other questions?
Professor Kabir:
Let us first dispose of this very important question. The ques
tion, as the Chairman has put it, is this: if a country is highly
populated, there are only two ways of solving the problem of
population, either to allow them to migrate to other countries
which are not so densely populated or to allow them freedom of
trade. I would add that they need not be alternatives but might be
complementary policies.
Kaka Kalelkan
I have found this in the European people always. Europe is a
small continent and it has appropriated to itself North America,
South America, Australia, Africa etc. The Western countries,
which are far more advanced and industrialised, are in a position
to dump their goods, what their factories produce, anywhere if
freedom of tradq is given. It will be a great boon for them. In
the East, we have countries like Japan which can also send their
goods to other countries, but theirs is only a small island country.
They must have space to live. Flooding undeveloped countries
with your own materials amounts to subjugating them perpetually,
which is not our aim. Therefore, what seems to me more appro
priate is that surplus population in any one country must be
allowed to go to other countries where there are vast tracts of land
uninhabitated so far, and there must be equalisation of population
throughout the world. There must be this definite assurance that
we do not want to export our population for slave labour or any
thing like that as has happened in the past. Those who have gone
294
:i6 T H JANUARY
1953
out must be allowed to lead an honourable life. Freedom to trade
is not enough. There must be equalization of population. So if
we start with this, I think the problem will be solved. .
Lord Boyd Orn
We do not want that countries should export their surplus
population to other countries only as labourers. We do not mean
this at all. We mean only circulation in a regional way. There
are the industrially advanced countries. Your men can go there
and take up work in their factories. If they are not allowed to go
to the cities, there are vast tracts of uncultivated land where they
can settle down as agriculturists.
Kaka Kalelkan
That will again amount to forcing people to live in small
places. People must be allowed to adopt agricultural as well as
city life, whichever they may choose.
Lord Boyd Orn
I am not going into the question whether city life is good or
bad. There is not the slightest doubt that the population of the
world is increasing tremendously. In the past, we have always
employed this excess of population for exploitation or for wars.
The best solution would be to offer complete freedom of move
ment to people. With that we must give complete freedom of
world trade so that nations which have a dense population may pro
vide themselves with means to live. We are aware of the fact that
there is this racial barrier today. Australia or America does not
give the same equality to Japanese or Chinese or anybody else as
they give to a person belonging to the Western nations. This
problem of the rapidly increasing population of Asia has given
trouble so many times: it is at the root of all the crises in world
history and it is again staring us in the face.
Kaka Kalelkan
On the question of reedom of trade, if we accept that all
countries are allowed free trade, those countries of Europe which
are highly industrialised will be able to dump their articles on
other countries, thus impeding their own industrial growth. Under
developed countries must have the right to regulate the amount
of goods given to them. Freedom would be advantageous to
those only who are highly industrialized. Therefore there must be
protection for the industries of countries which are called back
ward and underdeveloped. Therefore, I say that freedom of trade
is not a complete solution of the problem at all.
295
Professor Kabir:
The Chairman made it clear that we do not want exploitation
by the more advanced. The idea is only to destroy the idea of
racialism.
Cord Boyd Orn
We want to render aid, to apply modern science to satisfy the
needs of man. Now take the cotton market. Cotton wherever it
i« grown has an important place in the commerce of the world.
There are countries which are highly developed in textiles. The
cotton that is grown in countries in excess of the quantity con*
sumed in the country can be freely exported to countries where the
textile factories need it. We have the Economic and Social Coun
cil. of the U.N. to direct industries to meet social needs.
Mr. Pyareleb
There should be no restriction on any race or people going and
settling down in any other country. The people already living in
a country should not discriminate against the newcomers. At the
same time the settlers should not try to dominate or exploit those
in the midst of whom they have settled. They must love the
country of their adoption and show a keen awareness of their duties
and obligations towards it and its people as becomes loyal citi
zens. The only question then will be how much surplus popula
tion a country can absorb without detriment to its own interests.
The question of free trade, I am afraid, is a different matter.
Free trade can very well become a pretext for the economic and
political domination of one country by another. Flag follows
trade. The whole history of colonialism in the East is an illustra-,
tion of this. Finally, these expedients of increasing production etc.
do not solve the bed-rock question of population control. So we
come back to the position that there must be a check put upon
the growth of population and if a nation will be improvident, well,
it must pay the penalty for it. It has no right to go and exhaust
the natural resources of another country that is more thoughtful
about its future or to kill its indigenous crafts by dumping upon it
cheap machine goods produced by slum-sweated labour.
Mr. Tsurumi:
In bringing up this problem, I am not trying to propose a fan
tastic thing at all. If we adopt the idealistic way for solving the
problem of population, it creates another problem. I realise it
may create new tensions if too many Japanese seek to settle down
In Australia or U.S.A., but apart from such countries, there are
vast areas where people from over-populated countries could
296
16t h Jan u ar y 1953
settle without causing any friction. Take the case of New GuineaV
It has a size twice as large as Japan with a population of only one
million. Importing some Japanese into New Guinea will thus
create no friction among the regional people of New Guinea and
yet help Japan. At the same time, I want to make it clear that
we are not out to create another colony in these island countries.'
Now, a second and more important issue is this. It does not
materially affect the American or the Australian people if fifty or
a hundred Japanese are allowed every year but it does have a
tremendous psychological impact on the Japanese people. Japan
or China will be prepared to take in people from their neighbour
ing countries, but Canada or America do not do the same.
Similarly, not a single Asian could formerly go and settle in the
Dutch colonies.
I am not proposing any fantastic thing. As I said before, if
there is a gentleman’s agreement, we shall see that not a single
Japanese goes to United States to settle, but the legal bar, the slur
must go. I am anxious only to ease the psychological tension by
asking that nations who have great areas which they do not use
should be generous and allow others to come in and settle there.
I think we can solve this problem of overpopulation by applying
some practical policies of admitting new populations into thinly
populated areas. That is my first suggestion.
In the second place, about free trade, there is no doubt the
question of cheap labour. We have explained to the satisfaction
of experts from all countries that Japanese labour is not cheaper,
but is more efficient. Some reasonable amount of trade must be
allowed to all countries by not putting up impossible tariff barriers.
That is my suggestion number two.
My third point is for more rational trade relations. We are im
porting coal not from the Asian mainland, but from Belgium, via
Panama, jlnstead of sending our cotton textiles to China, we are
sending them to distant countries. How can we have fair competi
tion in these circumstances? We have no free access to raw
materials nor nearby markets. I agree we must also control the
growth of population, but it will take time before results can be
seen. Population control is being practised, but it does not meet
the present situation. Japan began to realize the need of controlling
population in 1930 and the study made showed that by 1966 the
increase of population will stop. So we have to do something to
meet the immediate problems.
Acharya Kripalani:
Let there be a summing-up of the position.
292
Professor Kabir:
We can make only general observations in our report. As Mr.
Tsurumi points out, the problem is as much psychological as eco
nomic or political. Our report should point to the need of free
movement of people, perfect freedom and equality of all indivi
duals of all nations including members of subject groups. We
should also indicate the lines of long-term and short-term solutions.
In the long run the solution is to place greater emphasis on
teaching the essential aspects of racial equality in institutions
throughout the world. Through such teaching the idea of equality
can be strengthened and ideas of racial exclusiveness or superiority
gradually eliminated. Short-term measures must provide for
freer movement of peoples without however creating fresh prob
lems of friction which may result from the introduction of large
immigrant groups or by enhancing competition between the under
developed and the more developed countries. We must find out
areas where, without creating such difficulties, some temporary
solution may be found for settling a proportion of the excess *
people of over populated countries. We must also enquire whether
the discriminating factors in immigration laws of different coun
tries may not be eliminated, even though the country concerned
may have the right to prescribe certain figures which would deter
mine the quota from different countries.
Pastor Niemoller:
In making this statement, Professor Kabir might start from the
facts on which, as far as I see, we all are agreed—that these restric
tions on the movement of population and on the movement of
goods are working in such a way that wars are provoked and that is
a point where as a Seminar on Gandhism we have to offer some
solution. We might then point out that the family of nations
really have to be concerned about not only the explosions of force
but also about the tendencies for the production of tensions within
nations, which are enhanced and furthered by this sort of restric
tions in our days.
Lord Boyd Om
Now we will take up the question of veto: I can only give five,
minutes to the veto.
Dr. Bunche:
For psychological reasons, namely, the reason that it creates
inequality among members, veto is undesirable. We need not go
into details. We only offer general observations.
298
16th
JANUARY
1953
Lord Boyd Om
Is this agreed? Let us. then deal with the Peace-Front.
Dr. Daftary:
The most important cause for war is the balance of power and
the dividing of the world into two blocs. We must avoid it. There
are many people in this world who are not in and cannot join any
bloc. For instance, take the situation in my own country. We
cannot join the Western Bloc, because we are the immediate
neighbours of Russia. We cannot join the Russian bloc because
it is not in our interest. There are many other people who do not
want to join either of these blocs. There should be a bloc of
peace-loving nations who could use moral force and who could
preach and propagate Gandhian ideals of non-violence and truth.
It will restrain these two blocs and it will help the United Nations
in putting its principles into practice. We must do our best to
abolish, to eliminate these two blocs. We tnust have a peaceloving front open to everybody—to every nation that is for
peace.
Pastor Niemoller:
From the standpoint of Gandhian outlook. I want just to say
this. In Europe, the western part of Germany has joined the
Western bloc and Eastern Germany has gone to the Russian Bloc.
In this way, the nation has been disrupted and peace is threaten
ed. Propaganda is working in this way: we are always told that
there are only two alternatives in the world—either you have to
go with the Western bloc or you have to go with the other bloc. It
is the responsibility of the United Nations—from the view-point of
the Gandhian Seminar—to break this spell and, to tell the world
that we have to develop moral strength in order to bring peace to
the world without the use of violent means. We have to spread the
idea that the world must not be divided into two blocs and we must
not fall a victim to this sort of thinking, this sort of propaganda.
We must try to remove the tension between the two blocs.
Mr. Tsurumi:
About the goal we have in mind—to attain peace by the Gan
dhian method—there is no difference of opinion in this Seminar.
That we take for granted. The point at issue is this. How can
we implement this most desirable idea? In what form? In what
way? There I have some doubts. We can talk of peace-loving
nations in general terms, but it is not easy when it comes to action.
I should like to see some concrete steps for the implementation of
the idea.
299
G a n d h ia n
outlook
and
ih c h n iq u e s
Professor Kabir:
You will remember that we have already had some discussion
on this and I would like to go back to the suggestion I made ear
lier. If you say peace-loving nations it does not help us, for no
body admits that he is non-peace-loving. I see the force and
attraction of the idea of a third bloc. But there are certain risks
in i t Human nature being what it is, if the third bloc is created,
it may negotiate with one bloc or another for furthering its own
interests. In this way, instead of relieving tensions, it may end
in creating a new tension.
My feeling is that if we try to do something which is spectacular
Or immediately effective, we will not probably succeed. I would,
therefore, be content with a very small beginning. If we have a
^group of nations who are willing to abjure abuse and hate-propaganda, I would be willing to describe them as peace-loving nations.
As a corollary, I would plead for a neutral and objective newsfpaper. This idea I have already mentioned, and it seems to have
•appealed to some people. If we have a paper which is neutral and
is generally recognised to be neutral, that will mean at least xme
point of contact between nations which are now divided. That
paper may no doubt have to face the criticism that it is not really
■neutral, but as a safeguard against this, I had suggested that the
•board of editors must include representatives of all nations who
wish to join. Of course such a* paper will not* be commercially
‘profitable, and it will have to be subsidised by those Governments
which come into the peace front. So I would suggest that nations
who join the front may pay one per cent of what they pay to U.N.
itowards the expenses of the paper.
With a small beginning like this, we would be able to practise
;some of Gandhiji’s principles. The paper would preach non\violence because propaganda of violence, abuse and hatred would
tbe eliminated. Secondly, insistence on truth will be the main
(•object of the paper. It will seek to be truthful as far as it lies in
ihuman power. Thirdly, men only believe when they see sometthing done. If we make a small beginning, once we have taken
ithe first step, the second might be easier to take. -
Lord Boyd Orr:
The question before us is not of a paper. The suggestion is
:that a small bloc takes up the position: We are not prepared to
hand over our army, our navy to any other country. We are not
Tor any violent methods except in the defence of our own coun
try. When we have a group of countries who will say this, who
will not join any of the blocs, a long step towards peace will have
been taken.
300
16th
JANUARY
1953
t)r. Daftary:
Something like the Kellogg Pact.
Professor Kabir:
T will not press if you disagree^ but I do think this is a practical
step we should consider and I propose to put it in my paper.
Lord Boyd Om
We agree that it should be in your paper.
Acharya Kripalani:
1 have already given these four points to Mr. Kabir:
(D A group of nations must declare neutrality as between
the blocs,
(2) Nations may have armies only for defence against
aggression,
<3) Nations must agree to token disarmament,- or at the
least agree that there will be no increase in expendi
ture on armaments, and
(4) The army must be used in ordinary constructive work
during peace time.
Lord Boyd Om
I fully agree with the suggestions which you have given to
Mr. Kabir. ' There are two big blocs and the world is divided
between them. Take my own country. With other countries of
Western Europe, it forms one bloc and the countries of Eastern
Europe form another. If we have nations however small who will
say that we will not engage in a war or violence of any kind, we
will not allow our troops to join any side which fights, then it Mill
be a tremendous moral force.
Professor Tucci:
I am afraid the Big powers will not allow smaller nations to do
that.
Lord Boyd Om
Switzerland is doing it. Their Government is doing that.
Acharya Kripalani:
It is our right to appeal to the people to put pressure on their
Governments.
Dr. Bunche:
How would you draw up the statement that. Governments
should declare their intention to remain neutral? How broad is
~3 t o
that? Will it be absolutely unconditional, or should Governments
be free to help weaker nations that are oppressed? Would not
absolute neutrality help the aggressor? Remember that there are
all kinds of problems in the United Nations. If we take your
statement literally, the Government of India should not pursue the
policy which it has been doing, of identifying itself with the Asian- African bloc or helping the colonial peoples’ struggle.
Dr. Daftary:
The peace front I want is not regional. It is open to every
*country. It will be a moral force to educate all nations, to preach
the principle of non-violence in the United Nations.
Lord Boyd Om
Before we close the discussion, let us see whether we can agree.
The proposal is that certain nations should take the position: We
will not place our army or navy under the control of any great
power and we will not engage in any War outside our own territory.
If we are compelled to fight, that will be only within our own
country and in self-defence.
Professor Kabir:
It might be put in this way: Nations should enter into a pact:
We will not send our army or navy to fight outside our boundaries
and we do not want to resort to war unless we are forced to for
the defence of our own territory, but I see many difficulties even
in this formulation.
Lord Boyd Om
We will leave the phraseology to Dr. Kabir.
Mr. Tsnrumi:
The thing is to build up public opinion to induce Governments
to stand for certain policies. If you leave it entirely to Govern
ments, then I think there will be very few Governments which will
take any action on these lines.
Pastor Niemollen
I think we have to start from the statement that the accumula
tion of offensive armaments by the nation is wrong; secondly, the1
division of the world into rival blocs is a danger to peaceful and
non-violent development of the family of nations, and therefore,
we appeal to the Governments and the peoples to abstain from
joining blocs in this very dangerous situation of the world family.
Then I should say, if one nation comes forward and takes a lead
302
16th
JANUARY
1953
in this move for peace, there are many peoples and even a few
Governments in Europe who would really welcome this initiative.
If the three hundred and sixty million people represented by the
Government of India say: We are not willing to contribute to the
aggravation of the situation by joining the one or the other power
bloc, but we will stand for the non-violence principle, then many
peoples would look up to India, Their countries would also take
the same stand and say, “We are of the same mind, \ye are filled
with the same anticipations and we do not want to contribute to
this increasing tension in the world”.
Mr. Tsununi:
The most important thing is to be clear whether we are dealing
with Governments or with peoples. The second thing is the
matter of phraseology. The word ‘Neutral’ for instance will de
crease the number of Governments participating in our proposal.
There is a large number of Governments who are opposed to the
aggression of Russia in the name of communism.
Pastor Niemoller
The main point according to my opinion, Mr. Chairman, is not
the question of armament but joining one of the two power blocs.
Lord Boyd Orr
We are agreed on the first point. The second point is about
defence against actual aggression.
Acharya Kripalani:
Not potential defence but defence only against enemies that
will actually attack.
Professor Kabir
I am not fully convinced that it will be easy or even wise to be
too specific on an issue like this. Yesterday Dr. Bunche made
a very good point in^ his talk to the Indian Council of World
Affairs. Speaking of Korea, he said that from one point of view
it was a defeat for the United Nations, because this was the first
occasion when it had failed to make its point by moral persuasion
and had to resort to force. But from another point of view, it
was a great triumph for the United Nations, because this was the
first time that force was being used, not for any particular national
purpose, but for the defence of the collective good. There may
be difference of opinion as to whether Korea was a clear example
of this principle, but about the principle itself there can be no
doubt If therefore we seek to confine the use of force ‘only
303
against aggression within its own territory’, then U.N. can never
•come to the help of a nation which is threatened, I would there
fore suggest that we should declare ourselves against the use of
force except only under the auspices of the United Nations.
Dr. Bunche: ,
Are we losing sight completely of our interest in freedom?
There is the question of the right of people to freedom—is that not
to be taken into account in what you now seek to formulate? I am
afraid from what I have heard in the last few minutes that we have
rgiven up the idea of preserving freedom. As I understand it, we
are now taking the position that in the interest of peace, we are
against blocs and will not come to the help of a nation that is *
attacked. We are proposing in other words neutrality not only
as regards blocs, but also neutrality between the aggressor and the
victim. We may dislike blocs but let us not forget that it is the
issue of freedom that is the eaison-d’etre of these blocs. I can
not in my thinking separate freedom from peace.
Pastor Niemoller:
The surest way of losing freedom for a nation is to join one of
the blocs. We see what is happening to us. Out of our fear of
Russia, we are losing our own freedom. T am however convinced
that Russia will not easily attack Western Europe, for that would
mark the end of Communism. If the Russian people, the Russian
masses, see the higher standard of life of the Western European
countries, they will refuse to remain Communists.
Professor Kabir:
I think the only thing we can say on this point is as follows: In
view of the total destruction which follows modern wrar, and its
utter futility as a means of settling any issue, this Seminar appeals
to Governments as well as peoples of the world to refrain from
any action that may give rise to war and further to agree to settle
all disputes by conciliation and discussion and failing these
methods, by arbitration. If force is to be used at all, it may be
only for self defence and under U.N. auspices. This, I think, takes
care of the point about liberty raised by Dr. Bunche.
Lord Boyd Orr.
The next question is that of limitation of armaments. We
should say that there should be no further expenditure on arma
ments. because it is not desirable that nations should spend huge
sums on this when important nation-building activities are await
ing attention. We must appeal to all nations that they should
304
1 61H JANUARY 1 9 5 3
agree to this: they will not take up any further expenditure on
adding to their armaments.
Kaka Kalelkan
This pious resolution has been discussed for the last fifty years
without any result.
Pastor Niemoller:
We shall put it this way. This Gandhian Seminar views that
so much expenditure on armaments is deplorable.
Lord Boyd Om
There is a suggestion that the army should be used for cons
tructive work in peace time. Are we agreed on this or shall we '
reject the suggestion?
Professor Kabir.
I am not quite sure if this is a practical suggestion. By
accepting this proposal, you will allow the army to be kept as it is.
In fact, you may provide a chance for enlarging the army because
countries will say that their armies are being utilized for construc
tive jobs only and so the expenditure on them is not wasteful. Take
the case of U.S.S.R. The Soviet States have vast nation-building
schemes and they do employ their armed forces in these schemes,
but this enables them to maintain a larger standing army than
they could otherwise afford. A State may call an army the labour
force and while employing the men for certain peaceful purposes
during limes of peace, it will be able to develop a tremendous
striking force for use during war.
Acharya Kripalani:
We have provided against such a contingency in the third item
nf my suggestion. We have said that nations must not increase
the army but utilise what army they have for peaceful purposes.
Kaka Kalelkan
My idea is that there should be some reduction in the army as
we have said already and the minimum army needed for the defence
of a country should be clearly stated.
Pastor Niemoller:
I must point out that the army has to be kept occupied in many
ways. Primarily it is maintained for security and so it has to be
continually trained. If you want it to be used for peaccfu! cons
tructive jobs, it will really lead to an expansion of the army and
305
94 M. of Edu.
' an increase in expenditure. You have to equip the army to make
it fit for its real purpose, and the addition of other functions will
mean an increase in the size of the army. There are more dangers
than good in this suggestion.
Kaka Kalelkar:
If the armies are used for constructive work, their psychology
changes. I believe armies would refuse to fight violent wars.
Pastor Niemollen
I think a majority of the delegates are against the use of army
for peaceful constructive work in peace time.
Dr. Daftary:
Army is not meant for constructive work, it is meant only for
destruction.
Lord Boyd Om
The discussion closed on this issue. We have now only a
few minutes to discuss a most important issue, viz., Reparations.
The principle now in vogue is that the country which wins the
war declares to the world that its cause was right. It claims for
itself all righteousness and attributes all evil to the defeated nation.
We must recognise that war is the result of collective guilt. Both
the victorious and the defeated nations are to blame, though the
degree of blame may not be exactly the same. The truth is that
great damage has been done and the first thing should be to
restore peaceful conditions as quickly as possible and then repair
the damage done. Will all agree?
Professor Kabir:
To ask for reparations is to show that real peace has not been
established—it is a continuation
of the war with a new
means.
Pastor Niemollen
Professor, Kabir says that reparations mean the continuation of
war with changed means and are therefore in themselves a danger
to peace. I think it is a very important point.
Lord Boyd Om
I may add that reparations are economically impossible, for the
defeated nation is weaker than the victor and cannot carry the
victor in addition to its own burdens.
306
167H JANUARY 1 9 5 3
Mr. Tsurumi:
The important points are: ( 1 ) War is a common guilt, (2) Re
parations often lead to another war, and (3) Reparations are eco
nomically impossible.
Members:
We all agree on this issue.
Lord Boyd Om
Well, Gentlemen, our time is now up. Dr. Kabir will draft
the general view of all the delegates to the Seminar and he will not
include any point to which objections have been raised. We have
to send him our prepared papers by 31st March. Is that quite clear?
Dr. Bunche:
On a matter of procedure. What happens if when Dr. Kabir
gets the comments, he finds contradictory comments from members?
This is quite possible. One member agrees with a certain point
and another disagrees, then what has he to do?
Lord Boyd Orr:
Dr, Kabir has to have a safeguard. We have got to put in that
this is a general statement of the Seminar and all the members are
not individually committed to all the opinions expressed.
Professor Kabir:
The Report will not commit the individual members. It will
express the consensus of opinion only.
Lord Boyd Om
We have to put in a note that the Report is drawn by Professor
Kabir and does not commit any member to every single statement
made in it.
Dr. Haekal:
We all agree to that.
Professor Kabir:
I shall prepare a draft as soon as possible in about ten thousand
words. I shall then send it to members and set a specific date for
comments. If I do not receive any comments, I take it that the
member has agreed to the points in the paper.
'Dr. Bunche:
But what is the time you are going to allow for comments?
303!
Professor Kabir:
I will allow a limit of fifteen days excluding the time taken in
transit. Will it be all right if we say one clear month in all?
Dr. Bunche:
You must allow sufficient time. If I am not at my head
quarters* when your letter arrives, and I return from outstation and
findyour papers there and find the time allowed has almost lapsed,
it would be difficult for me to let you have my views. The transit
of papers will itself take some time.
Professor Kabir:
I am allowing seven days for transit each way. That is so far as
this general report is concerned. So far as your own statements are
concerned, they must reach me by 31st March. In drawing up the
Report, I shall indicate that it represents only a consensus of
opinion. Since it has been drawn up by one member, other
members are not committed to every single statement in it.
Dr. Haekal:
Before we close this Seminar, I, with the consent of all
members, wish to thank the Chairman {Cheers).
Dr. Daftary:
And the Vice-Chairmen too. (Cheers).
Dr. Daftary:
And the Secretary General, too. (Cheers).
Lord Boyd Orr:
I am thankful for your good feelings. I hope that if during
discussions, I stopped any speakers, you will excuse me. We all
met here with a desire to get our points of view together. I was
glad of the courage 'and freedom with which you have all express
ed your opinions and made it a most interesting and fruitful Semi
nar. I do hope that the Report will be very widely circulated and
that it will have considerable effect in moulding world opinion
towards the Gandhism principles of truth and non-violence.
Dr. Bunche:
I am particularly anxious to mention that we have high appreciatoin for the excellent work of the Reports, the several officers
and various staff who have been working under Professor Kabir’s
extremely able direction.
308
Professor Kabir:
Except for the help of my colleagues, this work would have
been impossible.
Lord Boyd Orr:
Gentlemen, the meetings of the Seminar are over and we have
the Plenary Session tomorrow to conclude our work formally.
m
The Concluding Session of the Seminar, was held at 11 A.M.
on Saturday, the 11th January, 1953, in the Central Halt of Parlia
ment House, under the Presidentship of Dr. Rajendra Prasad,
President of India.
Professor Kabir:
We are deeply grateful to you, Mr. President, for your presence
here today. That you acceded to our request to deliver the con
cluding address to the Seminar in spite of your recent illness is
no doubt due to your devotion to Gandhiji, but all the same, it
enhances our indebtedness to you. I also welcome the distinguish
ed company that has cdne to participate in the concluding session
of the Seminar.
The genesis of the Seminar can be traced to a resolution
passed, in 1949, by the Indian National Commission for Co
operation with Unesco declaring that it would present a Gan
dhian plan of peace for the world. To some of us it seemed that
the resolution was the expression of youthful enthusiasm of a
new-born institution and we did not know how exactly to proceed
with its implementation; but then it occurred to us that perhaps
the only way of dealing with the issue was the Gandhian way.
Gandhiji was against the imposition of a solution on anybody and
always wanted the initiative to come from the people themselves.
In this case also, we felt that the only way would be to gather to
gether friends from different countries and regions of the world
to cooperate in the preparation of the plan instead of'asking the
Indian National Commission to do so on its own.
Once this Gandhian way was adopted, everything became easy
for the Seminar. We have received an abundance of cooperation
from some of the most distinguished persons of the modern
world and in a measure which has laid us under a deep obligation
to them. They have put themselves to considerable difficulty and
'hardship in attending the Seminar. Two of them spent hardly a
fortnight at home after prolonged travels in the Far East or the
Far West in order to come to the Seminar. Another came even
though his wife was ill and he got the message that she was out
of danger only after he had reached India. We are deeply grateful
to all of them for their participation in the Seminar* and the valu
able contribution they have made to the discussions. My colleagues
in the Ministry have also worked very hard and some of them
behind the scenes are responsible in a large measure for whatever
310 '
Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru delivering ihe Inaugural address
Dr. Rajendra Prasad addressing the Concluding Session ot the Seminar
r / T i : JANUARY 1 9 5 3
success the Seminar has achieved. I may, with your permission,
Mr. President, make special mention of Dr. Junankar and Shri
Nagappa and also of Shri Khushal Singh who was willing to take
out the car at any hour of the day or night at a few minutes*
notice.
v
The discussions in the Seminar have covered a wide range and
our Chairman, Lord Boyd Orr, will be presenting to you shortly a
brief summary of some of our conclusions. We have often differed
—as vehemently as was possible within the limits of non-violence—
but I am happy to say that the Gandhian spirit pervaded all the
discussions and all our conclusions were arrived at unanimously.
One thing which impressed all who participated is that though we
came from so many different regions and with such differing back
grounds, we found that there was a universality of appeal in Gandhiji’s teaching to which the heart of everyone could respond.1
My function today is however only that of a curtain raiser and
I must not stand between the audience and the speakers of the
day. Among the delegates to the Seminar we have asked only our
friends from abroad to speak, because they will be leaving us and
we may not have an opportunity of hearing them again soon. The
main reason however is .that wc are anxious to hear from you, as
one of the closest associates and fellow workers of Gandhiji, an
interpretation which may inspire all who are present here and
evoke in all of us a determination to work in the Gandhian spirit
l'or the cause of world peace.
The President:
Lord Boyd Orr will now present the report o f the Seminar.
Lord Boyd Orr:
Mr. President, Fellow Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen. As
Chairman of the Seminar, I have the high honour and great
responsibility of informing the President and you all of the results
of the Seminar so far.
First I would like to speak of the members of the Seminar.
Apart from the Chairman, there are. fifteen members—all men of
very great ability, men with national and international reputation,
men who are recognised as great leaders, men who have experience
in the political fields of their countries, some as Prime Ministers
or as leaders of political parties. Many have had experience of
work in the United Nations. Two have held high office in the
United Nations, and two have been given the Nobel Prize for
Peace—quite a unique gathering of men—I. must not forget our
distinguished woman colleague—from different parts of the world.
Another thing that struck me about the Seminar; About half
3H
of the delegates came from India with the background of a great
Asian civilisation, men who had been saturated with the teachings
of Gandhi and had practised in their own life and in their own
environment the principles of Gandhi; the other half from
different civilisations of the West and the East. These men from
the East and the West had come, together to consider the great
problem of whether and how far the teachings of Gandhiji could
be applied to lessening national and international tensions in the
modern world.
First, we considered and reached agreement on what were the
essential features of Gandhism, We from the west had to get
• some instruction and had gradually to absorb what we learnt. I
will not go into these details, but you know, I think, that funda
mentally, these features are: Truth, and truth is attained by '
contemplation; Justice for all men; Freedom for all nations to
develop their own resources according to their genius; Freedom
for individuals within nations, that is complete freedom, no
matter what colour, creed, what religion or political views they
have; Freedom from disease, hunger and poverty; in a word,
complete freedom for all so that each individual could attain his
highest innate capacity for physical, psychological, and cultural
well-being. And the striking feature of Gandhi’s principles was
that these great ideals could only be attained by non-violent
measures. That, I think was the most important part of the
Gandhian teaching in our deliberations.
Now, the question which we asked ourselves, and a question
I was continuously asking myself, was: Is it possible that these
great principles, these wonderful ideals, could be applied on a
world-wide scale, because, today the world is so small that any
action has to be on a global scale. I think the time has come
when they can be applied, they must be applied, and they will be
applied, because, people realise that there is no other hope, with
modern science and the abnormal powers which the scientists have
let loose for destruction, and which cannot be bottled up again.
If science be applied in violence, to a global war, it will lead to
the destruction of civilisation.
Distinguished physicists and
chemists have said that war may lead to the complete exterm ina• tion of the human family. If, therefore, you proceed as violent
nations have done so far, you cannot continue for long. Non
violent methods must therefore be applied if you want to survive.
And if non-violent methods be very sincerely applied, you create
a new world, a world free from poverty, a world free from
preventable diseases, where all mankind, all nations, the
wealthiest as well as the poorest, have a very much higher level
of cultural and spiritual well-being.
312
17 t k JANUARY 1 9 5 3
Now, how can Gandhian ideas be applied? We realise it is
very difficult, and we ^realise it was not within our function to
give special recommendations to be carried out. That was the
job of the politicians of all countries, but we thought that we
could consider these principles and state the general principles
whereby they could be used to gradually lessen the tensions and
make possible the universal application of Gandhiji’s principles.
Now, first and foremost, we took education, because, it is the
people of the world who will ultimately decide. We all agreed
that there may be great learning and little education; there may
be great technical skill but little culture. We thought that
education should be a process to bring out the best in the indivi
duals, to give them full light, to make individuals free from
hatred and free from fear. These are the two main lessons of
Gandhi’s teaching, for one of the most striking things about
Gandhiji was his enormous courage; it was as great as his love. I
will not however enlarge upon it and simply say that education,
that is, fundamental education, in all countries must be directed
along these new lines.
Then, when we considered national tensions, we realised
that there is a danger of over-simplification. Tension is due not
only to the economic problems but there is the racial problem
and there are religious tensions. All these must be got rid of as
rapidly as possible. Provided people within nations, those who
have privilege and power, get rid of their fears, get rid of their
lust for power, Qf their desire to dominate their fellowmen, if
gradually these things are got rid of within the nation, then
internal tensions will also gradually disappear.
Then we came to the all-important subject of international
tensions. We are all agreed that the United Nations is the hope
of the world. We all agreed that the very foundation of United
Nations in these times was something quite unique in world
history and marked a very great advance in international organisa
tion. It made it possible that such ideas could be applied all
over the world. We also realised the defects in U.N.
Mr. President, first the League of Nations, and then the United
Nations have been created, all within such a short time, within
the last twenty-five to thirty years. That is a very very short
time in the history of our civilisation, and the fact we have to
recognise is that the United Nations has evolved as a world body
which will maintain peace and bring about equality.
Now, certain changes in U.N., we thought, might be needed.
First, we thought that the United Nations is to be a family of
nations. No family throws out a son whether he is errant or
not; all nations who want to be admitted should be admitted,
313
because, in this small world you have got to engage them, not
with guns, but in peaceful directions. Another thing we thought
was that international aid should be through the agencies of the
United Nations, like Unesco, the World Health Organisation, the
Food and Agriculture Organisation, the Trusteeship Council.
These new agencies in the world have been created so that the
nations would cooperate as equals, in abolishing hunger, raising
the standards of living of the peoples, eradicating poverty in the
world, eliminating disease, helping to develop under-developed
countries, and so on. All efforts should be canalized through these
organisations, because, we thought, if powerful nations act alone,
it may possibly create an unwarranted position; it may create a
suspicion that they want to have economic domination over those
whom they help. These powerful nations who are prepared, and
are doing wonderful work for the welfare of mankind—even they
might be suspected. So we thought that all these efforts
should be canalized through these United Nations Organi
sations, of which all countries of the world will be meinbers,
and it* will be members who will be givers and receivers.
Another thing on which we had a lot of discussion—and it
was a most difficult question—we realised that the world is being
divided into two blocs which is really dangerous. A few
members at the top of each bloc, filled with power or hatred,
may suddenly precipitate a world war. We thought that it might
be a good idea if you can get a peace front of nations, which will
say: We believe in non-violence. We believe that war is utterly
wrong. We will not engage in any global war. We will not use
any kind of violence except only in self-defence or when an enemy
enters our own territory.
. Another point which we thought of was the question of
reparations. In the past, the nations which won a war wanted
reparations from the nations which lost. As was said in the first
world war, the victors will leave the defeated nothing but their
eyes with which to weep. It was the general consensus of
opinion of the seminar that reparations of that kind are morally
wrong. No nation has any right to exact indemnity from another,
for if a war breaks out between nations, it is a common family
guilt. I say it is a common family guilt because every nation
has some responsibility and no nation is' entitled to punish any
other nation.
We thought also that the desire to extract reparations from
a defeated country which has been reduced to poverty leads to
the desire on the part of that defeated country to avenge itself
and this sows the seeds of another war. That is exactly what
has happened after the first world war. Furthermore, we
314
realized that reparations are economically impossible. If a
nation is defeated and is in a state of poverty and is compelled
to pay reparations, you will upset the world economy as we found
out after the first world war. It is a good thing to suggest to the
United Nations, So far as the last war was concerned you should
consider it a global disaster; all the nations should get together
and repair the damage which has been done as quickly as possible.
. If at all there are going to be any reparations, it should not be
on the basis of what each victorious country had to spend, but
reparations, we should think, are to be in proportion to the damage
which has been suffered by a country.
Now these are some considerations which have been put
forward by the Seminar but not in any dogmatic sense at all; you
must understand the enormous difficulties in realising them in
practice. Our distinguished and very able Secretary-General,
Professor Kabir, will prepare a report which will give the general
findings of the Seminar. The summaries of the opinions freely
expressed by participating members will be included there, but
each individual member will not be committed to every statement
made therein. The Report will give only a general idea. In
addition, there will be a volume, edited by our Secretary-General
and containing a statement from each member from his own
point of view, because each will approach it from a different
angle; for instance, 1 approach it as a scientist and my desire is
that science should play its part to remove poverty and hunger;
an educationist approaches it from his own angle and so on, but
no statement may exceed thirty-five hundred words.
Now we might ask ourselves, “Well, this meeting and this ■
■report, would they be effective in doing any good?” It is
possible that these principles which we are seeking to formulate
will be applied; I think it is possible and I hope they certainly
will be applied. I say so, because all nations have given them at
least lip service; every nation gives them lip service, as nations
have done to the great Atlantic Charter. But I may tell you
that nations are beginning to apply these Gandhian principles in
their own countries. I talk of my own country. After they have
seen the evils that wars have brought in quick succession, my
countrymen have come to the resolution that if they can do any
thing in the matter, and they feel they can, there are going to be
no more wars. They want that everything be settled by mutual
agreement and goodwill. They have recognised the evils of
colonialism and people of my own country are determined that
colonialism will end in every shape and form. When colonialism
ends,, let us bring together all races and all religions inhabiting
the world; let us ease the economic tensions whereby poverty will
315
be abolished and there will be no distinction between rich and
poor; let us rise over all petty racial and colour prejudices. We
shall thus be able to build a welfare state for the whole world on the
lines of Gandhian principles.
All over the world people are sick of strife and discord. We
will have given a start to the noble cause of peace if we resolve:
“We will settle all disputes by discussion and by agreement. We
will abjure violence or violent action arid create a welfare state
by cooperation, and not by creating hatred between classes.”
The great change in Britain has come in the last thirty or forty
years. Other peoples are moving in the same direction; so that
the Gandhi movement is already in the process of being applied;
we only hope that it will be applied quickly.
I hope the report of this Seminar will be read by hundreds
and thousands of people all over the world so that the message
of this great man, the message which is the only hope of the
world, will be understood in its true spirit by all. I also hope it
will lead to the creation of a new spirit in the world and help to
eliminate hatred and violence. The hope of the world is in the
evolution of justice and freedom by non-violent means. If, Sir, this
Seminar, in which all these distinguished people have taken part,
representing as they do the nations of the East and the West,
inspires that enthusiasm among all peoples of the world, then
it has been well worth its while, (Cheers).
The President:
I now call on Mr. Tsurumi.
Mr. Tgnramfe
Mr. President, our Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen.
It is indeed a great privilege for me to address such a distin
guished audience on the very day when we are leaving this great
country. The present world is faced with dangers and difficulties
of a collosal nature unparalleled in the history of mankind. There
are, as explained by our Chairman, tensions both internal and
external. What are the solutions? We seek not only partial
solutions, but the entire solution of all these tensions. The minds
of the world are perturbed. How can we meet this dangerous
situation? Now at this very moment, a call came from New
Delhi to study the philosophy and techniques of the greatest man
of the modem world, Gandhiji. It was timely and most
opportune. And so we responded to this call from New Delhi
and came in hunger from all corners of the globe. After a dis
cussion of two weeks what have we found? The summary was
given by our Chairman, but I have got to state briefly one out316
standing feature of this seminar which impressed me profoundly
and which 1 am taking home to bring before the hundreds of
thousands of the coming generation of Japan. I am going to
start a nation-wide movement to serve the great cause, in a very
modest way, left by the moral heritage of Gandhiji.
There is one thing which disturbs my mind more than any
thing else in this great ailing society of humanity. That is the
spirit of defeatism born out of great disillusionment and frustra
tion. I see specially people-suffering from a dislocation of physical
and intellectual nature, knowing not what to do in face of these
great dangers which might end in the ultimate destruction of
humanity. In this frustration and defeatism, where can we seek
a new light to find a solution? One thing which impressed me,
as a Japanese, in the life of your great moral leader, t Gandhiji,
*is that he was not a mere lover of peace, justice and human
compassion, but he was, if I may say so, a militant-pacifist of
outstanding courage and fearlessness. He not only lived but
died for the causes in which he believed. Now, in the history
of Japan, we had many occasions in which we found some
leaders who were fearless enough to die for the cause they had
in mind but here comes the new light, a new message, from the
old country of India which has the heritage, the unbroken
heritage of a continued civilization of six thousand years.
This message particularly impressed the Japanese mind.
I wanted to find out how it was that this noble figure attained
to this spiritual height of fearlessness. In the book that was
given to me by an Indian friend, Mind of Mahatma Gandhi, I
find a chapter on the gospel of fearlessness. Gandhiji succeeded,
if I may say so, to emanicipate himself from the fear of losing
wealth, reputation, the family and even his own life. In the
great book of Gita, in the sixteenth chapter, fearlessness is in the
first rank of the noblest virtues of mankind. With this fearlessness
and conviction, he fought for the ultimate emancipation of India.
We find in the world today millions of people loving peace
This is so, particularly in Japan. You cannot understand how
much we crave for peace after the destruction we have seen,
perhaps the greatest destruction in the history of mankind. That
longing for peace is there all over the world but you cannot find
peace by merely sitting around and craving for peace. You must
fight for it and Gandhiji taught us how to do so without violence.
The message that t am taking to Japan is to start a modest
campaign of re-orientation, to teach the Japanese youth to fight
for peace by new and non-violent methods. We in Japan have
a history of maintaining peace, internal and external, for over
two hundred and fifty years without a single interruption. I
317
GANDHIAN
outlook
and
t e c h n iq u e s
doubt if any other country has such'a long spell of peace in its
history. This pacifism of the Japanese was due largely to the
teaching of Buddhism—a message which came to us from India
in ancient days. Why cannot we come back again to Japan’s
old peace-loving philosophy of life and find in the teachings of
Gandhiji a new weapon to channel the passion and enthusiasm
of the ardent crores of our country in the modern age? If 1
succeed in establishing a link between the ancient teaching of the
Buddha—which we imported from India and for which we are
permanently indebted to her, it is the great moral heritage’ of
Indian culture which has served other nations and which has
now been restated by Gandhi—and Japan, my mission and my
sojourn of two weeks in New Delhi will not be in vain.
Gentlemen, you will not misunderstand me if I say that b
have seen so many hundreds of thousands of Japanese youth
going to death for a misguided mission. If they could die for the
cause of the country in a war, they can surely be trained to die
for the peace of the world. If we cannot raise their energies for
this nobler cause, these young flowers who died during the war
laid their lives in vain. We Surely do not want these young souls
to have died in vain. I am very happy that when I go back I shall
bring them something which will fill their empty lives and give
them a cause for which they can die non-violently. 1 thank you.
The President:
Dr. Matine Daftary will now speak.
Dr. Daftary:
Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, The
twelve days which I have spent in the beautiful and historic city
of Delhi, participating in this International Seminar, have become
an *unforgettable spiritual experience in my life. This Seminar
held under the spell, under the luminous spirit of the Great
Gandhi, succeeded in assimilating properly the view points of
persons drawn from the Middle, the Near and the Far East, and
also from Europe and both North and South America and has
given to the world a stimulating tonic which, to my mind, may
well be reckoned as the quintessence of humanity’s aspirations.
Ladies and Gentlemen. Today there exists not a single nation
on the surface of the earth which has not tasted the ravages of
war. The Victor and the Vanquished, they all discover, when
in a mood of stock-taking, that war, has never been, nor can
ever be, a bocn to any. It brings forth devastation and ruin which
calls for years of repair and reconstruction work. While this is the
real state of things, the world stands aghast at the sight of man’s
318
17TH JANUARY 1953
frenzy which has taken us in its grip. While humanity is still
bleeding and the women of the world are lamenting the loss of
husbands and children, we are all made to tremble at the prospect
of yet another world war which, if it occurs, would blow up com
pletely this planet of ours into space.
1
Further, unfortunately, the progress of science has resulted in
the production of horrible weapons of destruction like the atom
bomb and the hydrogen bomb, each one of which is powerful
enough to send one whole island to the very depth of the Pacific.
The capitalists are only concerned—it seems to me—in the
exploitation on a larger scale of the world’s natural resources for
material gains. Huge sums are spent in running factories which
only produce the weapons of the deadliest type. When these
weapons annihilate completely the splendid towns, turning them
into hillocks of debris and rendering their inhabitants homeless,
Capital again comes forward with assistance and aids to enable
them to bear the shock of yet another war. AH this is done
from apparently humanitarian motives, but in fact out of greed
for capturing fresh markets. Yes, that is what actually happens.
Whereas God has intended Science and Capital .to work for the
welfare of man and for serving the purposes of truth and justice,
it would be the utmost ingratitude if these were harnessed to the
furtherance and promotion of violence and .untruth.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I should like to ask if it is at all a fact
that the authors of both the first and the second World Wars,
as claimed by them in their high-sounding declarations, took up
arms in defence of eternal values and in order to put an end to
injustice and oppression. If they were sincere, then why did
they, the victors, turn to quarrelling and contending over the
spoils of war after sending millions to death, to hunger and to
disease? Is it not a fact that the victors set up the League of
Nations, and now the United Nations, in the name of peace and
for guaranteeing peace, justice and equality to mankind? If it is
sc. then why do these same powers have the temerity to stand aside
from their commitments contained in the Covenant or the Charter
and to torpedo the very foundations of the peace organisation?
The world has grown completely sick of the deceitful words of
these nations and desires now to hear words which would have
some meaning and truth as applied by Mahatma Gandhi. The
useful initiative, therefore, taken by the Indian Government in
bringing together representatives of the different schools of
thought—both in the East and in the West—so that they may deal
with truth is to be greatly commended. We are extremely grate
ful to the Indian Government for having asked us to come to
Delhi to seek *uidance and inspiration from a mighty soul who
319
GANDHI\N OUTLOOK AND TECHNIQUES
fought for truth and justice, laying down his life in the pursuit
of both in the end, which in itself is an eloquent testimony to his
great courage and sincerity.
Fortunately, we who have assembled here can discuss things
frankly and freely, being actuated by no particular political
motives whatsoever. I hope, therefore, that wh^t we have said
here and what may be published in our names later, would be
deemed the language of truth and not diplomacy. W0 in our
expressions are, and have been, really meaning what we say.
Now a few words about myself, Mr. President. I have lived
through all the horrors of both the world wars and have , seen
all the dreadful consequences of them and have fully realised
how war tramples down truth and the rights of people completely.
Despite belonging to an independent country, I was caught hold
of by the foreign troops in my country and kept under detentionfor a pretty long time. The day I left the concentration camp I
pledged to myself to fight agaihst war and work for peace as long
as I live. Up till today, therefore, I have continued this
struggle. We in this Seminar have spoken words which consti
tute the language of the people. Wc are all great believers in
the United Nations organisation. We want to see the Charter
implemented in the fullest sense of the word. The U.N. is a body
whose doors should be open for all the peace-loving nations. The
United Nations organisation must take off the shoulders of nations*
the heavy weight of armaments and divert them to constructive
activity. The U. N. must be an organisation whose participants
must be the real representatives of their peoples. Lastly, only
through the U.N. and its agencies should assistance—financial and
otherwise—be given to the under-developed areas equitably and
without any discrimination.
We believe that all peace-loving nations must join hands in
order to check aggression from whatever quarter it might come.
The Peace Front we want to build must help the United Nations to
put into effect its responsibilites in accordance with its Charter
and also help to create an international climate in which the
values of non-violence, truth and purity of means must reign
supreme. We also believe that peace in the world can be
guaranteed only when imperialism and exploitation are eradicated
totally and every nation is entirely free to control its national
resources. We believe that education should be so imparted in
the countries of the world that it improves members of each
nation and at the same time develops fellow feeling towards
humanity. Education should also inculcate love of truth and
justice. Through such education alone can the tensions within
and among nations he removed in an effective manner
320
17t h JANUARY 1953
I
M r President, Ladies and Gentlemen, these are our aspira
tions. We are aware of the difficulties and obstacles which stand
in the way of the fulfilment of these. Nevertheless, we must so
relentlessly pursue our ideals and make such sacrifices that some
day what the nationsôf the world desire today may spring into
effect,—exactly as Gandhiji, through his pursuit of Satyagraha,
achieved what seemed some ten years ago to be impossible and
inconceivable.
In conclusion, I must thank warmly the Government of India
for setting up the Seminar. I must also thank the distinguished
officials of the Education Ministry who with utmost sincerity and
, magnanimity took pains for us. And it would indeed be sheer
ingratitude if I did not mention the hospitality of our gracious
hosts. To the Indian people, I convey the greetings and sincerest
good wishes of myself and my countrymen.
The President:
Will you now speak, Professor Tucci?
Professor Tucci:
Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen. Italian
by birth but almost an Indian by spiritual education and pro
pensities, I came to attend this Seminar fully aware of the
grandeur of the personality of Gandhiji and of the universal
value of his principles. This conviction has become all the more
intensified within me by the discussions which have taken place
in this Seminar. They have been extremely useful to me per
sonally. In the course of these discussions, I grew fully con
vinced that if we had the power to persuade nations and men to
apply the principles of Gandhi—truth, non-violence and purity of
means—all existing tensions in the world would be appeased. We
do not want to attain absolute perfection but only to strive
gradually for our improvement.
The greatness of Gandhiji’s principles lies in their simplicity,
but therein also lies their difficulty. Truth is difficult, because
words seem to have the privilege to hide rather than to express
■our thoughts. Non-violence is difficult, because individuals and
societies find it easier to constrain others than to repress the
inborn instinct of self-assertion. Purity of means is difficult,
because when man hgs chosen his ends, he has nothing else in
mind than to attain them at any cost. But then, I asked, and
still ask myself, who can accept and adopt these principles except
Man?
' Not man dehumanised in impersonal abstractions, but simply
man, the concrete man, the peoples of the world united by the
321
04 M. of Edu.
GANDHIAN OUTLOOK AMD TECHNIQUES
fundamental feeling of being brothers in suffering, co-travellers on
the same painful route from birth to death. This means that we
are confronted with an ethical issue, fundamentally based on the
individual and as such universally valid. Gandhiji has shown
the way, a way open to all, the noble and the humble, the rich and
the poor, the ruler and the subject.
Unfortunately, often we start from the wrong end. We insist on
changing others, while we should begin by changing ourselves.
Our life should be as his' was: an experiment with Truth. The
life of everybody is an experiment; but generally, man experi
ments on others; rarely he asks himself whether his opinions and
judgements are sincere or influenced by his hopes and fears;
whether there is harmony between his theorising and practice.
This holds good for individuals and societies as well. It seemed
that our world could boast of principles of freedom and equality,
but still there are men opposed to men, religions to religions,,
nations to nations and races to races. The lust for power is far
from being dead; power on resources, power on the bodies, power
on the spirit of others. But the lust for power breeds
violence.
To all this Gandhiji opposes his way, the ethical way, the
way chosen by Asoka who for the first time in world history
founded an empire based on tolerance, love and compassion
extended even to animals. It is the way, the ethical way, of some
ancient Chinese Emperors who before declaring a war, after all
peaceful means had failed, asked their subjects for forgiveness.
This is the way which spread Indian culture all over a large
part of Asia in a peaceful conquest—conquest by culture, not by
arms. This was the way which the discussions in the Seminar
have shown to me, in an atmosphere of sympathy and compre
hension, in the common attempt not to impose on others one’s
own opinions but to learn.
I have no power to change another’s will, but have the duty to
improve myself. I will be a messenger of Gandhiji’s words. I
will address myself not to governments, not to leaders, not to
rulers, but to writers, to poets, to artists, to educationists, so that
they might feel and make others feel the universality of Gandhyi’s
message. I will address myself to the common man, to the man
in the street, in order that the inspiration might grow in him to
truth, to self-sacrifice, to equanimity, to respect for human dignity
and rights of all men, of all nations, of all races and of all
creejds.
Hie President:
Pastor Niemoller will now speak*
32?
(I7to
JANUARY
1953
Pastor Niemoller:
Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen. Coming
as a German, from a country which because of its disruption, is
no State, coming from a people which, because of their being
separated into two halves, is no nation, I have brought to this
Seminar, a special and deep feeling of impatience and urgency.
1 must say, I am happy our Seminar has worked with an aware
ness of this urgency. For, it is obvious that we have to do every
thing possible in order to reduce the internal as well as the inter
national tensions of our days to such a degree that they do not
endanger the very existence of the whole of our human race as
is the case today. This awareness of the situation and Its
demands has permeated every session in which we have met; and
behind every single issue to which our attention was turned, we
have found the same basic element of immediate practical bear
ing. I mention this in order to recall that our work in itself, has
followed a Gandhian principle, in so far as we have not dealt with
abstract theories or Utopian plans, but have tried to face the
facts and to adjust our thinking to the tasks which must result
if we look on the facts with the eyes and in the spirit of
Gandhi.
My impression is that we have been able to do this with in
creasing clarity of mind and that we have avoided the treacherous
sideways of mere expediency, which so easily recommend them
selves whenever the path becomes steep, stony or dark. There
fore, it has been of the greatest importance that again and again
we were reminded of what the Gandhian outlook and methods
have really been, and are, by those in our midst who continue
the spirit and work of the Mahatma in their own lives; and that
Gandhism can by no means be turned into a technical instru
ment ready for use, and applicable under all circumstances, and
in any way and by everybody. This instrument can be used only
by those who identify themselves with it, who follow the way of
non-violence, not because it just seems useful and easy, but
because they know that this is the way, the true way, and that
to leave it, or not to pursue it, is basically wrong, a self-deception,
an illusion.
Consequently the question of education has come before our
eyes, as our Chairman has already mentioned, as a basic question.
We must do something to spread and promote the basic insight
and principles of non-violence and truth amongst nations, specially
amongst the young generations all over the world and so continue
the work of Gandhiji on a world-wide scale and with a clear vision
ot the future. This is urgent because the spirit of power and
violence is spreading again, wherever tensions develop, into a
323
menacing degree and we cannot deny our deep disappointment,
that this is happening today in nearly all parts of the world.
Accordingly we cannot restrict ourselves to an educational pro
gramme alone, which will bear its fruit only in a more or less
distant future, when nobody might be able to use these fruits. The
tremendous plight and responsibility of the present situation asks
for immediate action, for immediate attention, for a witness and
a call which, with its warning and guidance, may help to avoid
the ultimate catastrophe. Otherwise we may see the internal and
international tensions explode in a last big outburst of an all-out
national and at the same time, civil war, which will not be a war
only between nations but which will be a civil war all over and
in all the countries of the world; a war in which mankind will
commit suicide in the name of freedom and justice and human
ights, but freedom and justice and human rights will themselves
oe the victims of the violence used in order to defend
them.
We have to acknowledge, according to the teaching of
Gandhiji’s outlook and methods, that the spirit of domination marks
the basic evil underlying the various tensions with which we have to
deal, be they of personal, or internal or international, of economic
or racial or religious character. The longing for domination pro
duces the power complex and thereby in the end the use of violence;
and since violence always calls forth new violence, it starts that
vicious circle which, in the interest of the human race, must be
broken before the catastrophe occurs.
It can be broken only if the idea of non-violence is put into
action, if really somebody takes the risk of taking the first step,
wherever this decision becomes due in one of the tensions of our
days. We ought to have had the family of nations long ago; we
must be grateful to have a beginning of it at least now, and we
ought to do and contribute everything possible in order to make it
more effective in the interest of the peoples of the world. But it
will not suffice that here in the United Nations we have a declara
tion of human rights, that here a promise and guarantee of free
dom and justice is given to the peoples of the world. If this instru
ment really shall work, it must be spiritually implemented and
integrated as envisaged in the Gandhian outlook. The human
rights are the rights of my neighbour as well as mine, and to
create, to secure and to fulfil these rights of my neighbour as well
as mine is my duty. Freedom does not mean that I must get my
way even at the expense of others; that would mean domination,
not freedom; but freedom means that we are bound to each other
and fully and freely acknowledge this mutual responsibility.
The corresponding truth has to be stated in all our human relation324
I7lfe iANbARY
ships, internal or international. This truth can be put into action
and can be realised only in the non-violent way.
Violence means I rob my opponent of his basic human rights,
for he is entitled to my solidarity in spite of the differences between
us; and by acting violently I lose and forfeit my rights since I deny
my duty in favour of domination or my interest. Violence means
the end of freedom, for I ought to keep my opponent engaged in
the common responsibility that is our common freedom and by
acting violently I forfeit and lose my freedom since thereby I deny
my solidarity in exchange for domination. Non-violence in the
spirit of Gandhi means that we take the suffering on ourselves first
rather than inflict it on others and on our adversary; thereby
we take the first step, thereby we invite others to join us in
doing the same, and call upon the adversary of today to re
examine and to change his attitude and become the friend of
tomorrow.
In the Seminar we all acknowledge, know and have come to
see that the Gandhian outlook and method has a most important
bearing upon the outcome of our various tensions, that it may
spare humanity a new total war and thereby not only the great
threatening catastrophe but also the deepest self-humiliation of the
human race; and that we shall have to continue the work, which
we have begun under the auspices of the Government of Gandhiji’s
home country, in our own respective countries and instill our
peoples with the same sense of urgency and sense of common res
ponsibility which we have experienced in these days of a most
fruitful and happy human fellowship and cooperation.
The President:
Inext call on Dr. Mohamed Hussein Haekal.
Dr* Haekal:
Mr. President, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen. In
expressing my best feelings and my heartiest thanks to the
Government of India and to the Indian people for the kindness
they meted to us during our stay in this beautiful country, may I
say on my own behalf that I have profited so much by coming to
this Seminar of Gandhiji and that I expect to profit still more
during my stay in this country? An example that I may give you
of this great profit is this. Yesterday I went to visit the Birla
Temple. I was so much impressed to see that all Indian creeds
were represented and I was still more impressed by the fact that
the fundamentals of these creeds are the fundamentals of all human
religions! viz., unity of God, love of man, brotherhood, devotion
to Truth and the Uke.
323
OANtJHlAN
OUTLOOK ANt> TECHNIQUES
I remember during my visit these words of Gandhiji “Though
religions are many, Religion is one”.
Mr. President, we in the eastern countries and specially in
Egypt have always turned our eyes during the nineteenth and this
century towards the west. I may say that I have visited most
of the western countries, but in my eastern travels, till now I
never went further than the surroundings of Egypt. This wffs
due to the belief that we here in the East must depend for our
living, for our food, for our spiritual life, on modern thought. It
was only after the second World War that unofficial relations
between my country and eastern countries were opened. Very
many of my countrymen came to India and to other eastern
countries and we found that great truths have been expounded
here to humanity thousands of years ago. We found that
in order that humanity may gain real peace, we should
learn to live together. It is through peaceful cooperation,
peaceful collaboration in all fields, that we can come to this
great end.
Ladies and gentlemen, you have here in India a very great
accumulated wealth in the cultural, moral and spiritual fields. I
sincerely believe that collaboration and cooperation in these fields
is by far more important to humanity than collaboration and
cooperation in political and in economic fields. This great
accumulated wealth in India, in other countries of the East as
well as in the West, is the basis on which' we can cany on our
cooperation and our collaboration.
Our Chairman and the speakers before me have been telling
you something about education. Gentlemen, it is through educa
tion that, throughout the ages past, these passions and hatreds
that have led to wars have been aggravated. All over the world,
for all humanity, we have been trying through the ages to create
as much as we can things that divide us instead of trying to
find things that unite us in different nations and in different
countries.
This Seminar on Gandhi has taught us that it is not through
violence that humanity can progress; it is not wars that can bring
humanity to any good end but it is through these peaceful means
continued through the ages that we can do anything good for
humanity. Non-violence means, in this connection, that we are
all trying to understand one another so that we all can come
from methods which divide us to mutual comprehension.
Through violence we can never come to such a comprehension.
Wars have continued for thousands of years. They may in the
past have done some good to humanity at times but the evil they
brought to humanity is thousands of times more than the good
326
i? T l i MNtlARY 1 5 5 3
they did. The general principle of non-violence, as applied by
Gandhiji, can be applied anywhere but you must change the
techniques according to your own nation's needs.
It will be our duty, of the people that took part in this Seminar,
the people that have been discussing through the last two weeks*
to propagate this idea of Gandhiji concerning non-violence and
to tell our people that this is the only way to peace, the only
way to progress. The only way to prosperity for humanity is the
technique of Gandhiji, which we in Egypt have employed for our
freedom and succeeded in getting it. I will tell my people that
these techniques are not meant only for Indians. We can change
them according to our circumstances. In arranging them we must
only remember that we must not deviate from non-violent way.
We can then come to results which Gandhiji attained for his own
country. This Seminar has done much in this respect in making
clear to us how Gandhiji worked. Our Chairman has told you
what we achieved, and, I hope that, if what we achieved will be
accepted by the political men in the world, it will do the
greatest good to mankind.
Thank you.
The President:
I now call on Or. Ralph Bunche to speak.
Dr. Bunche;
Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen. We have now come to
the end of what has been for me a rich and stimulating educa
tional adventure. 1 am deeply grateful to the Ministry of
Education and the Government of India for the invitation which
brought me here. What indeed could be more appropriate for a
servant as I am of that great international peace organisation,
the United Nations, than the opportunity to examine at first hand
how a subject people under the inspired leadership of Gandhiji
successfully employed non-violent methods in a desperate struggle
for freedom? We who came to the Seminar from abroad have
been privileged to learn and to exchange ideas with men who
walked and who suffered with Gandhiji. Indeed the President
who honours us with his presence this morning has been a life-long
associate and fellow-worker and fellow-sufferer with Gandhiji. I
assure you that 1 shall return to my duties at the United Nations
richly inspired, Mr. President, with renewed faith in the ability
of mankind to do what must be done to avert catastrophe, and
with my original optimism about the prospects for peace in the
world no little reinforced. Not the least of the benefits and
pleasures deriving from participation in the Seminar has been
m
dA N fititA N O U fL O b k AND t£ fcH N lQ U £S
this first opportunity to visit India, a land In Which unlimited
promise and critical need are locked in titanic struggle.
In the few minutes appropriate to this occasion, I shall en
deavour to present only a selected few out of the many impressions
I have gained from the Seminar’s deliberations, with particular
reference to international tensions. The Gandhian way is the
way of non-violent action. Gandhiji was against the use of
force and always kept himself outside the orbit of violence. But
for him, as I read his life, non-violence did not necessarily imply
a prohibition against striking back. It was not an advocacy of
cowardice. Mahatma Gandhi recognised, if I understand him
orrrectly, that if violence is discarded as both immoral and im
practical there must be some effective substitute for it. in his
own person and actions Gandhiji adhered strictly to the ideal and
would accept no deviation from i t But he realised that
it would be unrealistic to try to employ the method of non-violence,
if the moral strength indispensable to its use should be lacking.
In that event, such strength as may be possessed may be used.
Fortunately he found the people of India possessed of that moral
strength in sufficient quantity.
Now this is the condition in which the world finds itself today.
Nations and peoples have not as yet developed in themselves the
moral strength to enable them to use exclusively the method of
non-violence. This is why the United Nations at its inception
could not, and I fear cannot now, rely exclusively on peaceful,
non-violent methods of settling disputes, even though its funda
mental purpose is to secure and maintain peace in the world.
Although the only such instance as yet in its history, the United
Nations thus has had to resort to armed force to repel aggres
sion against the Republic of Korea. I deplore that necessity
even while recognising it, for had the moral strength of a united
international community been powerful enough and had it been
exerted early enough, the tragedy of the devastation of
Korea and the heavy casualties of that war might well have been
averted.
But this was not the case and that is regrettable. Still I
cannot escape the conclusion with respect to the United Nations,
armed intervention in Korea that even though force has been
employed there, this intervention, this show of a determination
by the international community to resist aggression and to protect
the unprotected may very well have spared us the anguish of
other "Koreas” elsewhere in the world. May we hope that the
United Nations can end the fighting in Korea soon arid that
efforts to re-establish peace, led by India’s earnest conciliatory
work, will meet with early success?
l? fH lANtfAkY 1933
It is well to bear in mind that though the Gandhian outlook
is against violence, against the use of force, Gandhiji regarded meek
submission to aggression or other injustice an even worse evil
than the employment of force. Non-violence is an instrument
solely for the courageous; cowardice is the mark of the doomed.
As things stand today, I fear that the meek are not likely to
inherit the earth or even keep what they have of it, through
meekness alone.
It is said, if I understand it correctly, that the techniques
employed by Gandhiji were somewhat relative, depending upon
the exigencies of the prevailing situation. It is in the light of
the dangerous, divided world, most of it rapidly and fearfully
arming to the teeth, that the potentiality of a broader utility for
the Gandhian way must be measured.
It is in this formidable world that governments, acutely con
scious of their sobering responsibilities for the well-being and the
security of their nations and peoples, must choose their courses
of action and their tactics. What each government does in this
regard relates quite directly to what other governments are doing,
the motives of each being the subject of anxious, suspicious and
often excited speculation. And thus a vicious pyramid of arms
and fear is erected which if very long continued unchecked, cad
have only fatal consequences for most of us.
In this world complexity, it would be no cause for wonder if
India itself, the mother of Gandhiji, might now find it difficult
always to undertake an unqualified and unmodified application
of the Gandhian way in its external relations.
Another highly significant aspect of Gandhiji’s philosophy of
human relations was his disavowal of hatred. The seeds of
hatred are being widely sown among peoples today, and the
ultimate harvest will be bitter beyond measure. I have been
tremendously impressed by the many manifestations of tolerance
in evidence in this country, despite the fact that your long
struggle for freedom ended only a few years ago. This is a
rich heritage which every society should envy, it would mean
much for the world if peoples everywhere would emulate India’s
example in this regard.
I would now, Mr. President, like to conclude these remarks
with a word about democracy. It is often said that the wonders
of modern transportation and communication have made our
world a very small one. In terms of distance, in bringing us
all so much closer together, this is entirely true. But in another
sense, thinking historically, the world today is very much larger
than it was fifty or even twenty-five years ago; that is to say, in
terms of people who count or who must be taken into account
329
fiAfcfckiAN o trrt6 6 k
and
ttoiNiQtifeS
In the past quarter Century, a vast revolution has been taking
place among the formerly forgotten peoples of the world—the
people of Asia, the Middle East and Africa—where indeed, the
preponderance of the world’s population is to be found We no
longer have a world in which only a few people counted and
controlled the country, and the rest were ignored, subdued and
suppressed. Peoples the world over, of all races, colours and
cultures, have emerged and must now be reckoned with on a
basis of complete equality. There is, for example, a new Asia,
and in most of this Asia, only the Asian’s word is law. This
is good for Asia and good for the world at large. This is the
only kind of human progress worthy of the nam e..
The same development has occurred in the Middle East, and
it cannot be doubted that it will not long be delayed in Africa.
We must have a world in which all men walk with full equality,
with equal dignity and freedom, irrespective of race, religion, or
language. There must be no more under-privileged peoples, no
untouchables, racial or religious, anywhere in the world. People
everywhere are entitled to and must have a decent standard of
living in the broadest sense, in food, housing, clothing, health and
education. They must have freedom, but above all they must
have the respect, not the tolerance, not the paternal condescen
sion, but the man-to-man respect of all other peoples.
And, I say this from my heart, for 1 am identified with a
group in my own country which knows a great deal about the
struggle for equality and human dignity. I am happy to say
that my people in America are winning that struggle day by day,
and we are doing so, by and large, through non-violent means.
In the history of racial conflict in America, there have been
regrettable episodes of violence, for my people are not a cowardly
people and we have at times fought to protect our homes and
our rights, as we have always fought willingly and patriotically
for our country. But incidents of violence become increasingly
less frequent, as our struggle for equality is conducted through
the courts and by appeals to the very conscience and morality of
the American people, within the framework of a constitutional
structure that is at once free and democratic. You may be sure
that our effort will be unrelenting until full equality is won. We
gained much inspiration and encouragement from the glorious
success of the determined effort of the people of India.
As a veteran in the ranks of the campaign for freedom, I
know that words about the glories of democracy are a cheap
commodity and often very hollow. Words never bring freedom
or equality to any one, and only politicians seem able to grow
fat from mouthing them. For my part. I will always take an
m
1?TH JANUARY 1 9 5 3
ounce of freedom and equality in practice for a pound of words
and promises.
In short, the proof of democracy is in the practice of it, in
deeds, not in words. I would rather have a poor man shake my
hand with sincere respect than a millionaire put a fortune in it
with smirking condescension. Now when these ultimate lessons
are well and earnestly learned, a sound basis for mutually
friendly and trustful relation's between the new Asia and the rest
of the world will exist and democracy will be secure. I doubt
if there is any other way to make it secure.
Finally, may I be so bold as to express the hope that the great
new democracy developing in this country, expressed so magni
ficently in your general elections of last year, will grow strong
roots and flourish vigorously? The future -of freedom in the
world is likely to depend upon it more than any of us can now
calculate.
1 shall not leave India worshipping Gandhiji, for I do not
believe that men must be gods to be great. But this opportunity
to live for a fortnight with his thoughts and actions has opened
to my mind, Mr, President, a new vista which I shall explore and
utilise to the fullest. I shall leave both wiser and humbler, and
with profound respect for the man, Gandhiji, and his historic
work, and with a warm affection for the people of this country.
Thank you.
The President:
Lord Boyd Orr, Your Excellencies, and Ladies and Gentlemen.
With your permission I would like to speak sitting. Please do not
regard it as want of courtesy on my part, but attribute it as a
concession to the weakness of my flesh.
Yesterday when I had the first opportunity of meeting the
illustrious members of this Seminar, I put a question jokingly as
to what they would expect me to say today.- Yet, behind that joke
there was a certain seriousness, because I felt some difficulty as to
what I should say. You have had the advantage of discussing
in detail and coming in contact with some of those who were life
long co-workers of Gandhiji. You have listened to what they have
had to say about his life, about his work, about his principles,
about his technique, and I fear that without knowing what they
have said, I might innocently and unknowingly be striking a jarring
note here and there, or simply repeating what you have already
heard. But I felt that Gandhiji, his teaching, his philosophy, his
life, all have many facets and we, who have had the privilege of
coming in contact with him, have not always been able to take a
comprehensive view of his entire teaching and have occasionally
331
fiAfcbiiiAN ouT i66k
and
ffcdHNfQtffifl
In the past quarter Century, a Vast revolution has been taking
place among the formerly forgotten peoples of the world—the
people of Asia, the Middle East and Africa—where indeed, the
preponderance of the world’s population is to be found. We no
longer have a world in which only a few people counted and
controlled the country, and the rest were ignored, subdued and
suppressed. Peoples the world over, of all races, colours and
cultures, have emerged and must now be reckoned with on a
basis of complete equality. There is, for example, a new Asia,
and in most of this Asia, only the Asian’s word is law. This
is good for Asia and good for the world at large. This is the
only kind of human progress worthy of the nam e..
The same development has occurred in the Middle East, and
it cannot be doubted that it will not long be delayed in Africa.
We must have a world in which all men walk with full equality,
with equal dignity and freedom, irrespective of race, religion, or
language. There must be no more under-privileged peoples, no
untouchables, racial or religious, anywhere in the world. People
everywhere are entitled to and must have a decent standard of
living in the broadest sense, in food, housing, clothing, health and
education. They must have freedom, but above all they must
have the respect, not the tolerance, not the paternal condescen
sion, but the man-to-man respect of all other peoples.
And, I say this from my heart, for I am identified with a
group in my own country which knows a great deal about the
struggle for equality and human dignity. I am happy to say
that my people in America are winning that struggle day by day,
and we are doing so, by and large, through non-violent means.
In the history of racial conflict in America, there have been
regrettable episodes of violence, for my people are not a cowardly
people and we have at times fought to protect our homes and
our rights, as we have always fought willingly and patriotically
for our country. But incidents of violence become increasingly
less frequent, as our struggle for equality is conducted through
the courts and by appeals to the very conscience and morality of
the American people, within the framework of a constitutional
structure that is at once free and democratic. You may be sure
that our effort will be unrelenting until full equality is won. We
gained much inspiration and encouragement from the glorious
success of the determined effort of the people of India.
As a veteran in the ranks of the campaign for freedom, I
know that words about the glories of democracy are a cheap
commodity and often very hollow. Words never bring freedom
or equality to any one, and only politicians seem able to grow
fat from mouthing them. For my part, I will always take an
m
l^ T H JANUARY 1953
ounce of freedom and equality in practice for a pound of words
and promises.
In short, the proof of democracy is in the practice of it, in
deeds, not in words. I would rather have a poor man shake my
hand with sincere respect than a millionaire put a fortune in it
with smirking condescension. Now when these ultimate lessons
are well and earnestly learned, a sound basis for mutually
friendly and trustful relations between the new Asia and the rest
of the world will exist and democracy will be secure. I doubt
if there is any other way to make it secure.
Finally, may I be so bold as to express the hope that the great
new democracy developing in this country, expressed so magni
ficently in your general elections of last year, will grow strong
roots and flourish vigorously? The future o f freedom in the
world is likely to depend upon it more than any of us can now
calculate.
I shall not leave India worshipping Gandhiji, for I do not
believe that men must be gods to be great. But this opportunity
to live for a fortnight with his thoughts and actions has opened
to my mind, Mr. President, a new vista which I shall explore and
utilise to the fullest. I shall leave both wiser and humbler, and
with profound respect for the man, Gandhiji, and his historic
work, and with a warm affection for the people ef this country.
Thank you.
The President:
Lord Boyd Orr, Your Excellencies, and Ladies and Gentlemen.
With your permission I would like to speak sitting. Please do not
regard it as want of courtesy on my part, but attribute it as a
concession to the weakness of my flesh.
Yesterday when I had the first opportunity of meeting the
illustrious members of this Seminar, I put a question jokingly as
to what they would expect me to say today.' Yet, behind that joke
there was a certain seriousness, because I felt some difficulty as to
what I should say. You have had the advantage of discussing
in detail and coming in contact with some of those who were life
long co-workers of Gandhiji. You have listened to what they have
had to say about his life, about his work, about his principles,
about his technique, and I fear that without knowing what they
have said, I might innocently and unknowingly be striking a jarring
note here and there, or simply repeating what you have already
heard. But I felt that Gandhiji, his teaching, his philosophy, his
life, all have many facets and we, who have had the privilege of
coming in contact with him, have not always been able to take a
comprehensive view of his entire teaching and have occasionally
331
fiAfcntftAiir o tritd fik ANb tEftiNiQuiS
kept Oiitselves immersed iil particular aspects with Which we wefd
individually concerned.
Gandhiji had the knack of selecting people for different kinds
of work, and he gave to each what his genius was fitted for, what
his training, his upkeep, his capacity was suited for.
Therefore, while accepting the general background and the
principles underlying his entire teaching, we have occasionally
made ourselves narrow in our outlook, laying emphasis more than
was necessary on one aspect, ignoring some other aspects. This is
not a reason for blaming anyone, because this thing has arisen
because of deep attachment to that particular aspect, because of
deep conviction in regard to that particular aspect; and I felt that
the very lack of that depth of attachment, the very lack of that
depth of conviction might sometimes prove to be an advantage,
particularly in my case, and I could place before you a compre
hensive view which would not emphasize any one particular aspect
but could take into account the whole of what Gandhiji stood for
and wanted.
You will understand the significance of what I am saying when
you remember that Gandhiji established a number of institutions
each dealing with one particular aspect of his teaching, Wc have
had the Spinners’ Association, the Village Industries Association,
the Talimi Sangh, the Go Seva Sangh, and last but not the least,
the Indian National Congress which, though it had been in exist
ence and had been functioning for many years before he came on
die scene, he reorganised; he galvanised it, vitalised it and ex
panded it beyond all recognition. Now all these various institu
tions—I have not named all—all of these devoted themselves to
particular aspects. Gandhiji in his own person formed the one
co-ordinating factor, the one connecting link between all these
different institutions.
Gandhiji was not a philosopher or a thinker in the sense that
he sat in his study, thought out a philosophy of life and chalked
out a programme of action which he left to others to study and to
implement. He had some fundamental principles to which he
stuck in his life; but with regard to the rest, he took up the work
that came to him, found solutions for problems that presented
themselves to him, and in that way, without defining and putting
down on paper, as in a text-book, his entire conception of life and
society, he dealt with particular individual questions and covered
almost the whole of life, particularly in this country. There was
no department of life in India which he did not touch, which he
did not influence, and in which he did not make his own contri
bution. In that way he evolved a complete picture of society,,
arising not from a study, arising not from abstract thought, but
17th
JANUARY
1953
arising out of practical experience of everyday problems, finding
their solutions, meeting the difficulties and getting others to see
his point of view and accept it
I had another difficulty also. That was more or less a personal
difficulty and yet it was not entirely personal.
Gandhiji’s name is associated with non-violence, with no-war,
and I felt a kind of incongruity in my addressing this conference.
I am supposed to be the head of a State which has not renounced
war, which has not abjured violence, which still maintains her
army; not only that, a State which has not accepted and imple
mented Gandhiji’s economic programme also. What right had I,
as the head of that State, to address you gentlemen coming from
distant countries to know what Gandhiji did and wanted to do?
But I felt again that while you could draw inspiration from what
Gandhiji had achieved, you could draw guidance from what he
attempted to achieve but did not achieve and left his work and his
experiment incomplete. You could also draw some lesson from
our attempts and perhaps even more from our failures. And I felt,
if I could not do anything else, I could draw your attention to this
side and you might perhaps make some use of that.
Now, Gandhiji had a picture of his own for society, because
he felt that non-violence could not be established and violence
could not be abjured unless the causes which lead to violence,
which make non-violence difficult of application, are removed.
We know that all conflict in this world arises because of conflicting
desires of individuals and these desires relate to something mate
rial, something external, desires to have something which the
other man also wants, but that thing cannot be made available
to or shared by both.
Paradoxical as it may seem, Gandhiji made removal of the
poverty of our people as one of the fundamental planks in his
active programme, but at the same time, as far as I can judge, he
was never enamoured of an undefined, indefinite, unlimited, rise
in the standard of our living as dependent upon external things.
While he wanted that we should have our essentials of life, that no
one should be troubled by want of these essentials, he also felt
that no one was entitled or at any rate no one should desire to have
more than the essentials. These essentials were not to be deter
mined by the individual himself, but by other considerations.
One of these considerations must be that what is essential for
him must be essential for others also, and, therefore, it should be
capable of being shared by all; and so long as that was not pos
sible, 1 had no right to regard it as an essential for myself. In
other words, he insisted on a limitation of our physical and mate
rial needs. Again, in a society which is based primarily on a
333
desire to extend and expand these needs, he felt you could not
avoid violence. And therefore, we have to go back to a stage
when you have to limit your requirements and when you have to
set a limit not only upon what you want for yourself but upon
what you want also for others, because it is this want which is at
the basis of conflicts and has in it the seeds of violence. Therefore
it was that he wanted a society in which the principal factor would
not be the multiplication of wants or the means for supplying these
wants in the quickest manner possible but a society which would
ensure to all what is absolutely necessary and at the same time not
create conditions which cannot but end in competition and, ulti
mately, in violence.
Whenever we think of conflict, we have to consider the various
aspects which create conflict. I have mentioned one. There are
various other things to create conflict. We have got differences of
opinion, maybe with regard to religion, maybe with regard to
our ideas of society, maybe with regard to the individual's
rights and duties. And Gandhiji wanted that you must remove
from society the causes which lead to these conflicts also. By
limiting our physical and material requirements, we would be
removing one such cause. We would be removing the other causes
by recognising the right of others to have similar rights and our
own duties-towards others to allow them to enjoy those rights.
This could be done only by non-violence.
In a society if some people want to force their own opinions
upon others, be they religious opinions, be they opinions relating
to politics, relating to any other department of human life and
thought, you cannot avoid conflict. There must be violence. It
is only when that complete freedom is assured to everybody, and
that can be done only when this duty is recognised and emphasised
—rather the right to have your own opinion—that you can
succeed in removing that conflict. These are some of the aspects
of that society which he envisaged for himself, which he envisaged
we should have, at any rate, in this country.
As I said, he did not start with a clear-cut programme or a
chart. He took up individual questions as they arose. The
biggest question in this country was the question of freedom and,
naturally, his attention was very largely concentrated on the
attainment of that freedom. In attaining that freedom, he limited
1he means which we were to use and he insisted not only on not
using violence but also on not having even thought about violence
or talk about violence. I am aware that while this was his own
attitude, he did not refuse cooperation with others who were not
prepared to go so far. In adopting non-violence as the method
for attainment of our freedom, while he himself believed in that
334
17th
JANUARY
1953
kind of non-violence as a creed, he cooperated with others who
were not prepared to go so far, but who were prepared to observe
non-violence in action while engaged in this struggle.
Thus it was that he was able to gather round him a large
number of people who would otherwise have not gone to him tf
he had insisted upon non-violence in thought and word also. I
know very few people who were really able to exclude violence
from thought and there were not a few who betrayed violence
jn words. But those who actually betrayed violence in action were
few and that is how he succeeded. He was fortunate that he found
in this country soil which was fitted for his experiment. We have
our own old tradition of non-violence. Friends from Europe will
excuse me if I mention one fact. I have not travelled much and
cannot claim to have seen much of any other country, but I paid
a short visit to Europe and going through the streets, I was struck
by one fact and that was that everywhere you saw memorials to
warriors, you saw memorials to wars and victories. You don’t see
that kind of thing in this country. And we have the proud tradi
tion that in our long history there has not been one instance when
India sent out, for invading or conquering, her army to another
country. We have sent out conquerors of a very different type,
conquerors in the realm of culture, in the realm of knowledge, in
the realm of religion, and if we look at the history of the world
you will see that our conquest has been more lasting, has been
more fruitful than the conquest of one country by another country
that we know of. We have still got silken bonds of relationship
with those countries with which we established our cultural rela
tions and it was this background of history which gave Gandhiji
an advantage.
There was another thing which also gave him ah advantage,
although it is of very doubtful value. We were disarmed, we were
unable to fight with arms, and not a few of us saw in his method a
way out of our difficult position, when we could win our freedom
without resort to arms. There it was, a doubtful advantage,
because to that extent it weakened our faith in non-violence. Any
how, we carried on and we succeeded to some extent.
And the question now that you have to tackle and which, as I
understand, you have been tackling, is the question whether the
same method can be applied in dealing with tensions between
nations and within nations. Gandhiji thought that it could be
applied and that it should be applied; not that he was not con
scious of weakness of human beings, not that he was foolhardy and
would take risks. We have several instances in our own country
when he called off a movement which was supposed to have
reached its height, when he notice^jiggie^weakness. And it was
335
not until the second World War had made some progress that he
gathered courage enough to place before the world this weapon of
non-violence. There.were occasions when he was invited by other
countries to take his message to them, but his reply used to be,
“Let me make good what I claim in my own country, and then
there will be time for me to go elsewhere. Otherwise, unless I am
able to make good my claim in my own country, what right have
I to expect that other people will listen to me?”
During the last war, a situation, which was a very difficulty
situation, arose, and I am afraid there was a great misunderstand
ing of his attitude. The Rulers of this country—the Government
—misunderstood him. That is understandable, and in my view,
even excusable, because they knew no other method and they felt
that in that war which was a sort of a life and death struggle, any
one who was not with them was against them and they were there
fore entitled—because Gandhiji did not like to be with them in
the war—to treat him as being against them. But the misunder
standing was not only on the part of the Government; the mis
understanding, to some extent, was among our own people and
perhaps amongst us also, those who claimed to be near him and
round about him.
Just when the second World War started, when he saw Lord
Linlithgow, he broke down in the course of the interview, when
he pictured to himself the ruin and devastation that the war would
bring to London, which he knew so well. And yet he did not have
the least hesitation in declaring that India should not and could not
participate in the war or help the war efforts. There is a seeming
contradiction in this position, but really there is no such contradic
tion. He had sympathy for England, just as he would have
sympathy for any other people in trouble, but at the same time he
was firm in his conviction that war would not solve the problem,
that war would not really lead the world anywhere, and therefore
while sympathising, he was not prepared to yield on the funda
mental principle.
This was in contrast with what he had done in the first World
War, when he had actually supported the Government, gone out
of his way to help recruitment of soldiers in this country. Many
friends belonging to the pacifist school were unable to understand
that position. Gandhtji’s view then was that the British Empire
was on the whole for the good of the world. At any rate, India
was deriving certain benefits from it. He also believed that it was
capable of being converted, of being induced to change its own
viewpoint and accept that of its opponent. He had experience of
that in South Africa. He had some experience of that in his very
first large-scale movement which he led in Champaran in 1917,
336
1 7 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
He had not yet lost faith in that Empire and therefore he felt that
if he was prepared to enjoy security under its aegis, it was his duty
to help it in its time of need,
* ;
That position had completely changed in 1940, He had lost
that faith and he had engaged the whole country in a serious
struggle against the Empire—not against the British people, but
against the British rule.
And therefore, in 1940, he was in a position to say, ‘We do not
Want your protection. We do not care whether you defend us or
not; leave us, leave us to chaos or to God’. And having reached
that stage, he was in a position to say, ‘No more help of any kind
in this war’. We of the Congress parted company. Some felt that
it was a good opportunity for bargaining, getting what we wanted
on condition of help. Others took a more altruistic view and felt
th a t'lt was necessary to help the Allies because their cause was
just. Neither of these things moved Gandhiji because he felt that
we would not be serving really either the cause of non-violence or
even the cause of those who were engaged in this war, and he
therefore stood out against any kind of assistance in this war.
It was, if I may say so, the folly of the British Government’
that they did not accept the help which was offered by the
Congress, and thus created a situation in which though the
Congress and Gandhiji had parted company, they were againr
brought together, because having lost in their attempt to get what
they wanted from the British Government, they also felt that there
was no go but to say that we shall not help in this war. 'A nd this
is what happened in 1940, and on a very much bigger schle in
1942.
I said, perhaps, you might draw some lesson from our failures.
It is this aspect of our struggle to which I desire to draw your
particular attention. We failed at that moment and we adopted a
course which was not liked by him, which was really the course of
expediency but not of principle, not of truth, not of non-violence,
and no wonder that thereafter we have not been able to catch up
to Gandhiji’s ideals and Gandhiji’s programme. Having slipped
there, we have not been able to feel that we can do away with
violence and need not have to resort to violence in any circum
stances. It was at this stage that Gandhiji wrote his letter to Herr
Hitler. He published his appeal to Czechs to resist non-violently,
and addressed his letter to every Briton not to indulge in war but
to achieve what they wanted by non-violence.
Unfortunately, and to our shame, to our indelible shame,
Gandhiji was taken away from us just at the time when he would
have been in a position to make this bigger experiment. We have
in history individuals who have experimented with non-violence in
337
0 4 M . etf E d u .
GANDHIAN OUTLOOK AND TECHNIQUES ‘
their own lives and taught others to experiment with non-violence
in their lives. Gandhiji it was who brought it into play on a
large scale to settle differences between groups, between nations.
‘As I said, he found suitable ground in this country and he
found also—I must confess—noble adversaries who were capable
of yielding to the appeal which non-violence makes. They had
set a limit to their own action below which the British could not
and did not go and we must admit, we must confess, that
Gandhiji’s success was due very largely to himself and his people
but also to the British. I do not know, and it would be merely
speculating as to what would have happened if we had got an
adversary of another kind altogether, who put no limit to his own
atrocities, who put no limit to what he would do to an adversary
whd was proving himself dangerous. I do not know what would
have happened. Whether we would have been able to stand the
strain or whether even such an adversary would have been won
over and conquered by non-violence, is a matter for speculation.
There the experiment remained incomplete, and it is for you
all now tp extend that experiment to that sphere and find out how
far you can succeed in the present age and in present conditions.
I know there are innumerable difficulties, but the people ought to
be educated. Gandhiji did not, therefore, neglect education, but
the education that he envisaged and programmed was of a some
what different kind from the education that we hear of in other
countries. His programme of education was a programme of real
unfoldment, all the time bringing out something that was within
the child by removing all the outward inhibitions and external
obstacles. His scheme of education did not contemplate levelling
everybody to one dead level. His scheme was not what we see on
our roads where the big and the small pieces of stone are alt rolled
down by a big steam roller to one level. It was a scheme in which
every child would have full play to go in its own way, and because
there will be no violence, not only would every child grow in non
violence, he would also be able to understand and appreciate it,
I am. therefore, glad that the Seminar has given so much atten
tion to the question of education but I would like you to consider
also—not now in this Seminar, but in your own respective spheres
and whenever you meet again—whether it is not desirable to bring
in Gandhiji’s idea of society in which needs would be limited.
Without that I feel exploitation cannot be ended. If exploitation
cannot be ended, it means violence cannot be ended.
I heard with great attention and respect the report which Lord
Boyd Orr made. There was one sentence which rather struck me
in a peculiar way. You have decided that you would permit
maintenance of armies for defensive purposes. I do not know of
33ft
1 7 t h JANUARY 1 9 5 3
any war which an aggressive party regards as ah offensive war.
Every war in world history has been a defensive war, and so long
as you keep this room, this loophole open for defensive war, non
violence in its fulness will not be established. Someone has to take
the courage. Gandhiji took the courage so far as our own country
was concerned' when he said ‘leave us to chaos and to God, but
please do not involve us in this war and do not expect us to give
help in the war*.
I do not know what he would have said and what we would
have done if he were alive today to guide us and to give us his in
spiration. But I do feel that he made the position perfectly clear
when he made an appeal to the fighting parties during the last war
in his various writings to desist from war. It will be wrong to
imagine that he at any moment contemplated submission to wrong.
That was against his whole nature, his whole being. What he
objected to was submission to the lower part of our own natures
that is to say. submission to the sense of hatred, submission to a
sense of retaliation, submission to a kind of cowardice, which can
not protect the individual or the nation without striking somebody
else. He wanted that kind of courage which would stand the
worst that the enemy could do without even feeling resentment
against that enemy. He would resist him to the last, and he would
successfully resist him because the last step would be the loss of his
own life, and the loss of life meant his victory and defeat for the
opponent, because the opponent could not get him to submit to
him. Unless some nation today takes its courage in its own
hands and comes out with a clear-cut programme of no-war under
any circumstances, defensive or offensive, no armament of any
kind, the battle for non-violence will remain continuing and will
not end in its victory.
Some nation has to take that courage; I clo not know who will.
Evidently, today we are unable to do it although we claim to be
the inheritors of Gandhiji’s teaching, but somebody has fo do it,
and, let me hope, that as a result of the deliberations that you have
had, you would be able to carry this message to other countries.
There is a saying in our country that sometimes there is no light
directly under the lamp, although there may be light all round. I
hope we shall not prove the truth of that statement, but let me
hope that you will prove its truth by taking the light,
I am sure this Seminar would have done a great deal if it could
lay before the world this aspect of his teaching, which is. I con
sider, a practical proposition, which I consider to be a proposition
which can be implemented if only we have the courage to do it.
I thank you all for the patience with which you have listened
to me, and t am grateful for the opportunity that I have had of
339
coming in contact with such illustrious persons and of listening
to them, although only for a short time. I wish all success to your
noble endeavour.
Madame Meireles:
Mr. President, the kindness of my colleagues has added to the
joy of coming to your noble country to take part in this Seminar
which ends today, the honour, at this moment, to present to ypu
our warm thanks, and to bid you farewell.
We thank you not only for this invitation we had the honour to
receive, to reflect during these twelve days about Gandhi’s work
and the possibilities of the application of his doctrine to diminish
the tensions that have been tormenting the world—but also foi
the kind welcome ot the Government and of all those who from
the day of our arrival helped and guided us in every possible way.
We received all this as a unique reward which at times was far
above our merits. We have, however, something else to be thank
ful fo r: we have profited from this meeting, from the daily dis
cussions, from this exchange of ideas, and, now when leaving,
every one amongst us can ask himself which of the two contri
butions has been greater; the one every individual brought to this
Seminar, or the good this Seminar did to us, fostering our acquain
tance, establishing our friendship, and stimulating through the
solidarity of our life in common, during this short span, the
brotherly dispositions that related us when we were distant.
From different parts of the, world, we arrived here with our
gods, saints and prophets, the language of our ancestors, the parti
cularities of our peoples and traditions. We were a group of
strangers, coming towards each other, answering to a great appeal,
roused by the life of a man, who, amidst the bustle of our
century, decided to make the experience of Truth and who built
with this experience his life, his death and his eternity. When we
arrived we were a group of strangers, and suddenly we discovered
we were distant friends, united by our common admiration for the
man who not only liberated his country in a unique campaign of
Self-Sacrifice. Resistance and Non-violence, but also awakened in
.his country, and throughout the world, the conscience of humanity,
which constitutes, in my view, the greatness of his work and the
life of his doctrine.
Almost all of us carry within a very vivid notion of individual
conscience. Collective conscience is rather a frequent notion also.
Conscience of humanity, this spark and fire, the revelation of our
image in every being, the bond of friendship and brotherhood with
our fellowmen. is not. however, always present and aliye. And it is
this conscience of humanity alone which can destroy within us
340
n iH
JANUARY 1 9 5 3
the power to offend, to be cruel, and disguise the thousands of
forms of oppression with a lie. I remember the old Greek story of
the passer-by who covered with his cloak an unknown person asleep
under a porch. Someone who had witnessed his gesture inquired
“Why did you do that? Did you believe perhaps, some disguised
god was lying there?” The passer-by replied, “No. I did it
because I noticed it was merely a man”.
This respect for human dignity has a capital importance in.
Gandhiji’s work. He was essentially a man of action. One could
say he .was bora into this world to teach ,that human limitations
could put into practice divine laws, to prove that through moral
strength, man could rock empires, reconstruct the world, reconcile
enemies and establish peace, to preach the gospel of man’s
humanization.
This conscience of humanity gives one a full understanding ot
all the errors, and of all the means of correcting them as well. It
confers upon man the dignity and capacity for wilful betterment
Excessive love for truth can lead to fanaticism, excessive observa
tion of non-violence can lead to cowardice. Between these twe
extreme positions, consciousness of human dignity ,is the point of
equilibrium. We arrived here, Mr. President, and were only
strangers coming from afar; yet we realized soon we were friends
separated only by large seas and high mountains, united, however,
by the same views and hopes. There was a meeting, of our
language and of yours; ^your landscape arid horizon, everything
here has become familiar to us. On leaving we might say that we
shall return to our countries richer because our belief in every
different faith has grown during this Seminar, as well as our love inresponse to the love of each people. You, belonging for us to the
land of sunrise, are the heirs to wisdom immemorial. We, belong
ing for you to the land of sunset, are the builders of a scientific era,
an era of speed, contrasting with your imperturbable time. We
are thankful for this encounter of time and speed, of science and
wisdom, hoping for an alliance of the machine which serves man
and of the spirit which governs him.
' Each one of us returns to his country moved for having parti
cipated in a great moment of the world, for having been in
Gandhi’s presence, for having heard, through the voices of his
faithful and devoted friends and disciples, his very voice, courage
ous, clear and full of confidence in the future of the world, through
the enactment of those fundamentals known to us all, but which
we are not always capable to put into practice.
I think that all those who remain here shall remember the
sincerity of our efforts and the purity of our friendship, in this
meeting which was really brotherly.
341
GANDfllAN OUTLOOK ANt) TECHNIQUES
For all this, Mr. President, we the Indian and the Foreign
delegates to this Seminar thank you very much. Our meeting in
memory of the great personality of Gandhi, besides being a reunion
to study, and any concrete results we might have attained, repre
sents a bringing together of nations, an act of faith in human
values, an attempt to unite all creatures; for once the transient
saadows of disagreement are dispelled, the gem-like light of love
shines forth alone.
342
APPENDIX A
PARTICIPANTS
IN THE
SEMINAR
(names arranged in alphabetical order)
Lord John Boyd Orr (U.K.):
Former member of the House of Commons and now member
of the House of Lords; former Director-General of the Food
and Agriculture Organisation; Nobel Prize for peace; Chancellor
of Glasgow University; Honorary President of Movement jfor
World Government;, was elected Chairman of the Seminar.
Dr, Ralph Bunche (U.S.A.):
Director of the Division of Trusteeship and Information for
Non-Self Governing Territories of the United Nations; former
acting United Nations Mediator in Palestine; represented United
States at the San Francisco Conference 1945 at which the United
Nations was founded; author and publicist; was elected ViceChairman of the Seminar.
Dr. Marine Daftary (Iran): Former Prime Minister of Iran;
Iranian Judge of the International Arbitration Court of the
Hague; Iranian Delegate to the League of Nations; Professor of
Law in Teheran University; Chairman of the Iranian United
Nations* Association; well-known author and jurist
Acharya Narendra Deva (India): Vice-Chancellor of Banaras
Hindu
University; former ViceChancellor
of Lucknow
University; Chairman of the Primary and Secondary Education
Committee in Uttar Pradesh; former Chairman of the Socialist
Party-of India; member of Central Executive of Praja-Socialist
Party; author of books on Buddhism etc.
Dr. Mohamed Hussein Haekal (Egypt):—Former President
of the Senate; former Chairman of the Liberal Constitutional
Party and Minister for Education; Leader of the Egyptian
„Delegation to the General Assembly of the United Nations;
Editor of A l Siassa\ Recepient of die Faud I Prize in Arabic
Literature; was elected ViceChairman of the Seminar.
343
Dr. Zakir Husain (India):
Vice-Chancellor, Aligarh Muslim University; former President
of Hindustani Talimi Sangh; President of All-India Federation of
Educational Associations; Member of Parliament; Author and
educational
leader.
%
Mr. Humayun Kabir (India):
Former President of Peasant, Labour
and
Student
Organisations; Poet, Novelist and Philosopher, was elected
. Secretary-General of the Seminar. *
' Kaka Saheb Kalelkar (India):
Member of Parliament; editor of Mahatma Gandhi's journal,
the Nava Jeevan; Vice-Chancellor of Gujrat VidyapeetK, founded
by Mahatma Gandhi; now President of the Hindustani Talimi
Sangh; Director of the Gandhi Smarak Sangrahalaya (Gandhi
Memorial Museum); author and social worker.
Acharya J. B. Kripalani (India):
Former President of the Indian National Congress; Chairman
of the Praja Socialist Party of India; close associate of Mahatma
Gandhi; Principal of Gujrat Vidyapeeth; thinker and author.
Professor Louis Massignon (France):
French Historian and Sociologist; Professor in the University *
of Paris; Editor of Revue des Etudes Islamiques; orientalist and
author.
Madame Cecilia Meireles (Brazil):
Well-known Brazilian poetess and educationist.
Dr. D. Martin Niemoller (Germany):
President of die Evangelical Church in Hessen and Nassau;
Member of the Executive Committee of the World Council of
Churches; Retained ' in Concentration Camp as “Personal
Prisoner” of Adolf Hitler; three and a half years in solitary con
finement; author and lecturer.
Mr. Pyarelal (India):
Private Secretary to Mahatma Gandhi; Editor of Young
India and Harijan Weekly—both founded by Mahatma Gandhi;
Thinker and Writer.
Dr. S. Radhakrishnan (India).
Vice-President of India; has held the
344
offices of Indian
APPENDIX A
Ambassador
to
Soviet
Union,
Vice-Chancellor
of
Andhra University and Banaras Hindu University' Chairman,
Indian Universities Commission, Spalding Professor of Eastern
Religions and Ethics at the University of Oxford and President
of General Conference of Unesco; Philosopher and Humanist
Mr. Yusuke Tsuromi (Japan):
Former Member of the Diet and Secretary-General of the
Progressive Party; one of the promoters of the Pacific Conference;
Visiting Professor at the Universities of Chicago, Yale, Columbia
etc.; well-known Author and Novelist.
Professor Giiiseppe Tucci (Italy):
Professor of Religion and Philosophy of India and Far East
in the University of Rome; Member of Law Academy of Italy;
author and explorer. *
One of the invitees, Dr. J., C. Kumarappa, President of the
All-India Village Industries Association, wa*s unable to attend.
He sent a paper which is included in the proceedings as
Appendix G.
345
APPENDIX B
THE
GANDHIAN
WAY
By
Acharya J. B. Kripalani
To understand, appreciate and apply Gandhiji’s technique of
truth and non-violence to settle individual and group problems it
is necessary to study its origin and'development in his life and per
sonality. Gandhiji does not belong to the great ones in history
who were as if born to their mission in life. The great geniuses
of the world, its master-minds, appear to have come out of
Nature’s workshop more or less as finished products. The parti
cular qualities that in later life distinguished them were born with
them. Early in life they gave proof of their unusual and extraor
dinary powers in the direction of their subsequent growth. In
some cases the original capacities were matured by education,
training and experience. But the particular bent of their abilities
was there from the beginning in an unusually marked degree.
Nature’s original contribution to the growth and unfolding of
their personalities -was much greater than that of education and
training. In many cases the capacities that marked them out as
exceptional bloomed to maturity in comparatively early years.
Some of them, even when they died young, left their work round
ed off and completed. Those who lived long made their most
original and significant contributions in early life. In after years
they generally elaborated their basic thought or provided detailed
commentaries on it.
Gandhiji does not belong to this distinguished galaxy of the
great. He rather belongs to the ordinary and average run of
humanity from whose ranks exceptional individuals have some
times arisen through sheer force of will and effort by an evolu
tionary process. In early life Gandhiji does not appear to have
shown any promise of his future work and mission in life. His
career as a student was not marked by any particular outstanding
ability or brilliance. He went to England to qualify himself for
the Bar, as any young man of his time belonging to a middle class
family might have done, whose parents had for him or who had
for himself an ambition to rise in the world. His going to South
Africa was a professional accident that might have happened to
any young Gujrati barrister of the time. His prolonged stay in
34$
APPENDIX B
South Africa came about through circumstances over which design
and choice played a small part. That he slowly drifted to the
field of Indian politics there was also due to circumstances. All
that distinguished him at the time was his truthful nature and his
sincerity. Added to this was his capacity for hard work and
attention to details. He manifested some curiosity in religious
problems early enough. But that was natural to an educated
youth of the times. India, owing to the Christian contact, was then
in some sort of religious ferment, resulting in a number of reform
movements.
In his professional work Gandhiji adhered to the highest pro*
fessional standards. Often he went beyond them. He would not
accept a brief unless he was satisfied about its merits. He con
scientiously laboured to give satisfaction to his clients. He thus
endeared himself to them. Many of them trusted him with their
private affairs and confidence. The clients belonged chiefly to
the comparatively rich community of Indian merchants in South
Africa. They had some influence with their countrymen there.
Gandhiji at the time was the only Indian lawyer of some ability.
He was, therefore, not only consulted in legal but also in political
matters. The Indian community in South Africa was suffering,
as it does even today, from a variety of political, economic and
racial disabilities and restrictions. Gandhiji’s advice was sought,
first as a lawyer. This brought him in to, the political field. Once
inît he brought to bear upon it the innate honesty of his character,
the tenacity of his nature, his industry and his shrewd “bania”
corrirnonsense and practical ability. Ever since that time his per
sonality continued growing and evolving and his field of activity
expanding and widening with years of experience.
This Continuous evolution invested him with perpetual youth.
Times change and along with it ideas and fashions. The greatest
difficulty of age is to keep pace with youth, to understand, sym
pathise and appreciate its new ways, aspirations and dreams.
Gandhiji somehow kept abreast of the times. So far as funda
mentals went he always caught up and outstepped the boldest
of the young reformers and revolutionaries. This was possible be
cause some of his fundamental principles and ideas are so much
ahead of the times that humanity may not be able to realise them
for centuries. However, he worked on them so that they became
practical and yielded some tangible results. The principles repre
sented the unfathomed possibilities of human nature, which have
ever guided and inspired great prophets, reformers and revolution
aries through the ages.
Gandhiji’s consciousness about his work and mission in fife
had as slow a growth. In early years he had no conception of his
34?
mission as a world teacher. At least he showed no consciousness
of it. In Champaran in 1917, where he first began his political
. career in India, he often talked to his colleagues of his experi
ments and experiences in South Africa and his new method of
Satyagraha. These talks were interesting and educative. Often
they were instinct with the thrill of romance. Gandhiji narrated
them with a perfectly objective detachment. He rarely talked of
his future plans. The future for him then was his programme and
time-table in Champaran and the development of his Ashram at
Sabarmati.. He had no clear idea of how he would fit in. and work
in the political field .of India. Even in after years, when he had
become world-famous, he did not think that he possessed any
extraordinary ability or power which an average man or woman
could not acquire, given the will and determination and the neces
sary self-discipline. Speaking at the All-India Congress Com
mittee as late as 1942, in connection with a speech made by
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, crediting him with Mahatmic non
violence which could not be practised by the common run of erring
humanity, he said. “I was not a little perturbed when the Maulana
raised me sky-high. I do not live up in the air. I am o f the
earth, earthy. I have never seen an aeroplane. I am like you,
an ordinary mortal made of common clay. Had that not been
the case, we would rf6t have been able to work together these
twenty years. Ahimsd*(hon-violence) with me. is a creed, the
breath of my life. But it is never as a creed that I placed it be
fore India, or for the matter of that before anybody else, except
in casual informal talks. I placed it before the Congress as a
political method, to be employed for the solution of political ques
tions. It may be a novel method but it‘does not on that account
Id$e its political character. I tried it first 'irt South Africa...........
The question there was exclusively of the political exist
ence of Indians who had settled in South Africa as merchants,
petty hawkers, etc. It was for them a question of life and death,
and it was in dealing with it that this method of non-violence came
to me. The various measures that I adopted there were not the
work of a visionary or a dreamer. They were the work of an
essentially practical man dealing with a practical political ques
tion.” (I give this long quotation for it is widely held in India
that even our greatest and best cannot attempt what Gandhiji
attempted more or less successfully).
This was not said out of modesty. Gandhiji felt it. He was
not a particularly modest person about things he knew and could
perform. At critical times he put himself forward as the supreme
director for the conduct of Satyagraha or as the sole representative
of his nation, as he did at the Second Round Table Conference.
348
APPENDIX B
Nevertheless, Gandhiji, besides being a political revolutionary,
developed into a man of religion. This is true, but his kingdom
is not merely of the spirit. All through his life he occupied him
self pre-eminently with social, economic and political questions.
When he began his Satyagraha in South Africa he was thinking
neither of his individual soul nor of its salvation. The occasion
for the turn in his life was not, as in the case of the Buddha, just
to know the why and the wherefore of suffering, disease, old age
and death, and the means of freedom therefrom, but a social,
economic and political situation, in South Africa and later in India.
Gandhiji did not take to the forest or the mountain top to perfect
his spiritual discipline—sadhana. He worked and experimented
and grew in the busy haunts of men. He had to discipline and
lead the masses in the field and factory and try and work out
their economic, social and political emancipation. Often, when
people from the West, hearing of his reputation as a Mahatma,
approached him for yogic and spiritual knowledge he had nothing
better to offer than to ask them to work for the social, economic
and political uplift of the people. He did not ask men to seek
the Kingdom of God within but invited them to seek and establish
it in this world and through it to realise the Highest. For him, as
it is for the average man and woman, “the here” was as impor
tant as “the hereafter”. True spirituality must manifest itself in
-every action of an individual as individual and also as a member
of society. As the body physical so the body social, economic
and political is the habitation of the spirit; and even as one spirit
ualises and moralises his surroundings, so he grows and develops
his individual self. Gandhiji did not, like the ancient sages, say:
“Reform yourself and the world will be reformed.” Rather he
said, “If you have to reform yourself you must do so while re
forming the world”. He said: “ 1 do not believe that the spiritual
law works in a field of its own. On the contrary it expresses
itself through the ordinary activities of life. It thus affects the
economic, social and .political fields.” (Young India, Sep. 9, 1925).
Religious reformers in the past were generally men who had
retired from life and its mundane concerns. These they never
tackled directly but indirectly through their spiritual behaviour.
For instance, the Buddha, while he preached the doctrine of Ahimsa
(non-violence), preached it to individuals to mould their lives and
not to groups to regulate their conduct and their affairs. He
counted among his disciples many kings and princes. Yet he
did not ask them to abandon their kingdoms or war. He preached
non-violence for their personal lives and acts. Not that he would
not have liked to see the end of crooked diplomacy, aggression and
war, not that these did not offend against the moral law and
349
against spiritual advancement, but that was not the object or the
central theme of his mission. He wanted to lead men and women,
as individuals, to the Light. That such Light may better the
social order was of course wished for but not directly worked for. «
Christ advised people to “Render unto God the things that
are God’s and unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” and his
concern was with the former and not with the latter. He did
not concern himself with the political independence of his people
or his native land, Palestine, against the foreign imperial rule of
Rome. Gandhiji, however, concerned himself most directly
with the whole of life, individual and social, moral and material,
with the Kingdom of God in Heaven and within us and His
Kingdom on earth. His Swaraj was concerned with the in
dividual’s inner freedom as well as his external freedom in
society. He was as much interested in his morals as an' in
dividual as with his political independance, his civil rights and
his economic competence and freedom. For him to separate
the individual from society was to do
violence to both.
The individual and society act and react upon each, other. They
have both to be raised simultaneously. It is this simultaneous
reform of the individual and society as conceived by Gandhiji
which I propose to discuss here.
Social, economic and political ideas and schemes of reform can
be studied and judged only against the background of history. It
is, a fact of human history that throughout the ages individual
and social morality has been far in advance of political, especially
inter-group morality. While individual and social conduct is pro
gressively based upon mutual trust, cooperation, truth and non
violence, group and political intercourse is marked by selfishness,
distrust, fraud, violence and war. Here Might alone is Right and
success its own justification. While in their social intercourse
individuals are enjoined to act as neighbours and on occasion to
sacrifice their self-interest for that of others, groups and nations, in
their mutual intercourse, are enjoined to consider each other as
actual or potential enemies. A nation that sacrificed its selfinterest for its neighbour would be considered quixotic. Among
nations Hobbes’s law of the jungle prevails, where all are the
enemies of all. This distrust and enmity is heightened a thousand
fold by war. War unleashes the basest of human passions, and
does it under the guise of altruism, patriotism, bravery and selfsacrifice. The individual is thus unconsciously betrayed into
immoral and anti-social conduct.
All this is powerfully illustrated by the last hundred years of
human history. The world of the latter half of the nineteenth
and the first few years of the present century, was marked bv
350
APPENDIX B
comparative security and stability.
It was marked by
intellectual, scientific and technological advance. Distance was
annihilated by travel facilities on land, sea and air.
The human voice could, in a
few seconds, go round
the world. Distant events could be seen as happening
before one’s gaze. Physically all men had become neighbours.
Not only did men come near each other physically but they
approached each other in comradeship and sympathy. Any
calamity from which a section of humanity suffered evoked almost
universal sympathy. Help, succour and rescue for the victims
came from all over the civilised world. In their individual lives
men and women in advanced countries became progressively more
educated, cultured and refined. Health, comfort and happiness
were on the increase. In the intellectual and cultural fields there
was greater world cooperation. In tjie political field, after the
French Revolution, in European and American countries, autocracy
of kings and oligarchies yielded place to democracy. Internation
ally there was greater cooperation by means of economic and
political conferences and international courts, that tried to settle
questions that were likely to lead to war. There were also perma
nent international arrangements with regard to postal and telegraph
services. There was an all-round advance. True, the fruits of this
advance were confined to the upper classes; but progressively, with
the advance of democracy and ideas of social justice, these benefits
were descending to other classes, the workers in the field and the
factory. If colonial people had no share in this general advance,
it was believed that they too, as in Japan, would participate in it,
with the overthrow of foreign domination. There were powerful
liberation movements in many colonial countries. The general
advance was so great and rapid that it appeared that the dreams
of the reformers, the philosophers and the poets of perpetual peace
based upon continuous progress were soon to be realised, and
wherever on the surface of the globe an enlightened man went,
he could say: “This is my country”.
However, these optimistic hopes have been shattered by
two global wars. The buoyant optimism of the pre-World War I
period has given place to fear and insecurity. In spite of the anni
hilation of distance, foreign travel has become more difficult than
ever. It is encumbered with passports, visas, customs barriers,
photographs, identity cards and letters. A traveller to foreign
lands, however peaceful his mission, is treated with suspicion as a
spy or fifth columnist Sometimes a visit to foreign lands is al
together forbidden on the slightest suspicion, or if the intending
visitor happens to have leanings towards a political faith different
from that of the authorities of the country he intends to visit. In
353J
spite of the press and the radio, foreign news is doled out by
Governments, nay, there are countries from where all except
approved news is cut off by what is called* the Iron Curtain.
Physical barriers have diminished but war has imposed moral and
psychological barriers more difficult to break through. Instead
of security and stability, there is uncertainty and instability, increas
ed by exchange regulations and inflation. In many countries,
especially colonial and the vanquished, famine conditions prevail.
Instead of democratic advance there is autocratic regress. Under
war neurosis, democracy is becoming more complex, formal, cen
tralised and bureaucratic. Individuals are deprived of their ele
mentary human and civil rights on the least pretext. Communism
which gave new hope to the poor and the dispossessed, instead
of becoming democratic and peaceful, is becoming more totalitarian
and aggressive, in self-defence, as is loudly proclaimed. However,
it is well known what self-defence means. Historically it means
. “strategic” and “scientific” borders. This again means the swallow
ing up of less powerful neighbouring lands. Imperial self-defence
for the British Empire that had spread its tentacles all over the
world meant strategic borders everywhere. Such an empire could
not be safe without world domination. So also Hitler’s Germany
could not be safe unless it had swallowed up the whole of Europe
and dominated the rest of the globe. Japanese Imperialism could
not be secure unless it had conquered the whole of Asia, the
Pacific Islands and Australia. It is conveniently forgotten that it
is these rounding off of the borders that have through the centuries
caused wars. The new world organisation for peace,, like its
predecessor, is infested with power politics and the ambition and
rivalries of the victorious powers, under the guise of ideological
differences. The result is that war tension continues and there is
apprehension of a new global war. Today it is believed that if
international disputes are to be settled by the atom bomb and even
more destructive instruments invented by science, there is no hope
for human civilisation or for the human race. It would appear that
Nature is taking its revenge on scientific and technological progress
achieved in advance of an adequate morality to regulate it. A
moral group life is degrading individual and social morality.
Corruption, bribery and black-marketing are rampant every
where. Worse still, belief in higher values is replaced by moral
cynicism.
Why is this so? It is, first, because, as Gandhiji believed,
humanity is trying to solve its group problems on bases on which
they can never be solved. As in individual and social fields, so in
the economic and political fields, evil cannot be cured by greater
evil nor can hate be conquered by more hate. Satan cannot be
352
a p p e n d ix
b
.exorcised by Satan. There must be some other way. This way,,
we believe, is shown by Gandhiji. The second cause for this is
that there is no co-ordination in human life, individual and
collective. This co-ordination cannot be brought about except
on the basis of some morality, not of custom and convention or
of primitive fear, superstition, taboo or of the will of a Pope,
Priest, King or Dictator, but on the basis of some principles
which must regulate the conduct both of the individual and the
group.
Gandhiji’s solution for the present state of confusion in the
internal and international political and economic life of today is
to work out a synthesis between the individual and the group,
between social and economic and political life. This synthesis,
Gandhiji believed, can be achieved only on the basis of morality.
The moral standards that guide civilised human beings in their
individual and social conduct must also regulate group behaviour.
Differing moral standards create conflicting loyalties. When
loyalties cannot be harmonised, they create internal and external
conflicts. In the individual they create a split personality. Con
flicting moral standards produce social, economic and political
contradictions and maladjustments and cause violence, revolution
and war. It is, therefore, necessary to moralise group and political
life, which under the complexity of modern conditions almost
encompasses the whole of our existence. It must be considered
as wrong and immoral to lie, cheat, exploit or kill fellow-beings
for political, economic and ideological as for any other reasons.
Political and group activity, as individual and social activity, must
be rationalised, moralised and civilised. The need is the greater
as the low standards in group life ultimately adversely affect in
dividual conduct. A person who habitually lies and cheats in thf
political fields, even though he observes conventional rules ot
conduct in other departments of life, cannot be classed as truthful,
honest and just. His whole moral outlook gets warped. The
tendency always is for Dr. Jekyll to become Mr. Hyde.
The first need, then, is that humanity must recognise the need of
moral values in political and group life as it does in the individual
and social fields, and that there can be no two consciences, one
individual and social, and another political. As Gandhiji says:
“We have to make truth and ndn-violence matters not merely for
individual practice but for practice by groups, communities and
nations. That at any rate is my dream.” (Harijan March, 1940).
When once political and group life is moralised, it may not be diffi
cult to devise external machinery for the effective working of the
new outlook. Gandhiji considers certain moral categories or prin
ciples as having universal validity. They are the norms and
353
94 M. pf Edu.
g a n d h ia n
outlook
and
t e c h n iq u e s
standards, to which human conduct must conform. These principles
are truth, non-violence and scrupulous regard for means. These
three principles are inter-connected. Wherever there is violence,
untruth must sooner or later come in. Untruth is itself a species
of violence. But these two principles are not sufficient. Often it
has happened that desirable ends have been sought to be achieved
by morally doubtful means. In history zealots and fanatics of
all faiths and creeds, religious, economic and political, have tried
to accomplish approved ends by immoral means. To save a parti
cular brand of doctrine, faith or ideology there have been persecu
tions, religious wars and crusades. To save their souls from
perdition men have been put in dungeons, tortured, crucified and
burnt at the stake. Institutions like the Inquisition have disgraced
religion. If, in the past, religious doctrines and dogmas hqve been
sought to be established by means that are immoral, in recent
years economic, political, national and racial aims are sought to
be established by means that are in direct contradiction to the
ends they are supposed, or are designed, to accomplish. For
instance, the Communists’ ends are supposed to be the establish
ment of justice and equality and the elimination of war. But
Communism seeks to establish these desirable ends by means that
are diametrically opposed to the ends. It seeks to establish them
by war violence and cunning diplomacy. Apart from such a view
being immoral, it is untenable even scientifically. Scientifically
every act must have its appropriate result. It is not an act as an
end that alone bears fruit. As a matter of fact every act is in
pursuance of an end. The end is merely the result of a series of
acts that are undertaken as means. If, then, each action has its
appropriate result, good action creates a good karma and a bad
action creates an evil karma. Immoral means must ultimately have
their effect on the ends. The ends will not be the same as contem
plated. If then, desirable ends are necessary, moral means to
achieve the ends are at least as necessary.
However, insistence on moral means does not imply that evil,
injustice and tyranny are to be tolerated. That will not solve any
ot humanity’s problems. Gandhiji, working in the sociological
field, believed that evil must be resisted and eliminated. He held
that if injustice and tyranny are not resisted through means that
are in consonance with morality they will be resisted anyhow.
They will be resisted through hate, war and violence, creating their
own karma of evil. These traditional methods employed so far
have not brought humanity any nearer to its civilised goal. Rather
they have aggravated the situation. Gandhiji has, therefore,
evolved a way of resisting evil through the organisation of truth
and non-violence. The organisation of non-violent resistance takes
354
a p p e n d ix
a
the form of civil-resistance, norvcooperation and downing of tools.
Gandhiji believed that injustice prospers by the active or passive
cooperation of the oppressed. Cooperation is rendered through
fear or narrow self-interest or both. If there is to be non
cooperation with evil, its victims must shed their fear and be
prepared to sacrifice their narrow self-interest. If cooperation
is withdrawn, injustice will not be able to function or prosper.
This method of non-cooperation or strike has been tried for
the last hundred years and more in the industrial field with cons
picuous success. It has made the labour movement what it is
today. It has secured for it relief undreamt of before. Fair wages,
short hours, compensation for injury, holidays with pay. medical
assistance in sickness, insurance, old age pensions, elimination of
child labour, elimination of woman labour in certain industries as
mining etc., maternity leave with pay and many other reforms have
been secured with the minimum of violence through non
cooperation, These results have been achieved through organised
non-violent resistance even though mental violence and hate were
not eliminated. The spirit behind non-cooperation of Gandhiji’s
conception is however different. It is not as in industrial strikes
a consciousness of military weakness, combined with hatred of
the opponent, but one of bravery and active love. Therefore,
instead of calling his opposition to evil passive-resistance, or
non-cooperation, Gandhiji called it by the more significant and
positive term ‘Satyagraha’, pursuit of truth, which is possible in
its completeness only through non-violence.
Gandhiji, however, did not apply the principle of non-violence
as the religious mystics do. They throw the burden of judgment
upon God and with it the responsibility of righting inequity and
injustice. Their non-violence is non-resistance to evil. They
believe that “ judgment belongs to God for He alone knows the
hearts of men”. The mystic, therefore, offers no resistance to evil.
By resistance I here mean physical or external resistance. The
mystic’s resistance is spiritual and psychological. Christ said,
“Resist not evil”. Evidently he was thinking of physical and
external resistance. As for psychological resistance to evil his
whole life was that. Sometimes, however, a little physical reaction
to evil was not wanting in him. as when he overturned the tables
ol the money-changers in the Temple and used for them and the
Pharisees strong, choice epithets in the style of the prophets of the
Old Testament. Often the mystic seems to encourage the evil
doer in the belief that such encouragement will have a psycho
logical reaction for.the good. Christ says, “Whoever shall smite
thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also”. “Whosoever
-shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain”. That this
155
non-violence did work for the good is testified by the biographies
of saints and sages of all religions. Instead of being resisted,
rebuked, thwarted or punished, the evil-doer is rather invited to
do his worst. He does not expect this. He is, therefore, taken by
surprise and shocked into an analysis of his actions. Thus, some
times he turns over a new leaf.
Gandhiji, however, does not refrain from judging. He does
not leave judgment entirely to God. He judges evil as evil and
resists it. Only he does it non-violently; for he believes that
violence creates its own reaction {Karma) which cannot but be
evil, and to that extent deflects the good that is sought to be
achieved through violence.
Gandhiji’s non-violent resistance, at its highest, is both psycho
logical and sociological. Group action is chiefly external. In
sociological action one cannot avoid giving due consideration to
external means and acts. Society has no criterion to judge even
inner motives and intentions except through external action.
Social action works through external rules and laws, rewards,
punishments and resistance. So far punishment and resistance have
been of a violent nature, Gandhiji, in accordance with advanced
and up-to-date methods in social psychology, did not believe in
violent punishment. It is inflicted in anger and hatred on the
evil-doer and often takes the form of revenge and reprisals.
Gandhiji, therefore, where external action has to be taken, advo
cates non-violent methods both of punishment'and resistance, and
if I may say so, of coercion. However, the motive is never coercion
but so to use external non-violent measures as to make indulgence
ir evil difficult, painful and non-worthwhile. In this kind of non
violence something of the keenness and quality of the purely psycho
logical non-violence of the mystic is probably lost, but the loss is
compensated by the range and extent of the non-violence practised.
While psychological non-violence can be practised by the select
and the spiritual elite, external non-violence can be practised under
proper leadership by average men and women. It also creates
habits of non-violence which, in course of time, develop into
permanent attitudes. Even today most non-violence in society
is of this nature. In civil life generations of people have earned
their livelihood and settled their disputes through means that are
externally non-violent. They have thus acquired habits of non
violence which have been socially transmitted from generation to
generation. To this is added the upbringing and education of the
child in a civilised society.
The result is that a respectable number of people in modem
society will not under ordinary circumstances indulge in physical
violence. In thus refraining from violence they will neither think
356
a p p e n d ix b
iri terms of social obloquy nor of the police and the magis
tracy. It is as in spiritual training. The prophet preaches
inner and psychological prayer. He says, “When thou prayest
stand not at the street corners so that thou be seen of men”. He
again says. “When ye fast show not by your depressed countenance
that ye are fasting; neither mumble your prayers nor count your
beads for men to see you”. But yet those who do these things
“have their reward”. The reward is the forming of desirable
habits which in time may ripen into attitudes of civilised social
conduct. In the case of some who joined Gandhiji and practised
external non-violence it has come to pass that their constant and
intelligent practice of non-violence has induced in them inner faith
and belief in non-violence. We find this phenomenon in war too.
The soldier, who to begin with is timid, may, in course of time
through discipline and obeying orders and acting in conformity
with instructions given, acquire physical bravery. Gandhiji,
therefore, does not altogether reject external action and conformity,
though he always insists on the genuine stuff of non-violence in
thought, word and deed, in short, the non-violent way of life. ^
Satyagraha as a method of redressing group and political
wrongs was first tried by Gandhiji in South Africa with some
measure of success. It was again tried on an extended field in
India to achieve national independence. Though not worked
entirely in the spirit in which Gandhiji would have had it. it
achieved conspicuous success. No revolution for national inde
pendence throughout history has been as bloodless as the Indian
revolution. The amount of hatred generated between Indians
and their erstwhile masters has been the least. The two peoples
have parted company in comparative friendliness.
But Gandhiji was not satisfied merely with elaborating a non
violent method for the settlement of political and group disputes
and redressing wrongs. He has also shown a way by which inter
nal social, economic and political conflicts can be minimised if not
altogether eliminated. Internal .conflicts and contradictions often
lead to external and international aggression and war. Therefore,
along with elaborating a non-violent way of redressing wrongs, he
has also devised a political, social and economic programme for
minimising internal conflicts and contradictions. In the economic
field he has given us the ideas about regional self-sufficiency at least
in the primary necessities of life, and a decentralised industry free
from exploitation. These minimise the points of internal conflicts.
They also help democracy and world peace. Centralised big indus
try, organised on a capitalistic basis, produces injustice, exploitation
imperialism and war, and in the process destroys true democracy
and endangers international peace. On the other hand centralised
357
G a n d h ia n
outlook
and
t e c h n iq u e s
big industry communisticalJy organised leads in effect to stateeapitalism, which cannot function without the expert, the bureau
crat and ultimately the dictator. The Boss in the factory is the
prototype of the Dictator in the State. The state, that centralises
not only political but also economic power in its hands, cannot
in the nature of things be organised democratically. It can have
no place for fundamental rights and civil liberties or for the initi
ative of the individual. In such a dictatorial state, there are no
checks and balances as in a democratic state. Such concentration
of political and economic power is dangerous. Ultimately it is
bound to result in aggression and imperialism.
In the social field, Gandhiji wanted not only the removal of
the “sin”, as he called it, of untouchability, but also the elimina
tion of all distinctions of superiority and inferiority by birth or
service rendered. For him the work of the weaver, the mechanic,
the cultivator and even the scavenger, if properly performed, is as
exalted as that of the administrator or the diplomat. He once
said that if he had his own way he would make a Harijan girl the
head of the Indian State. She would discharge her high duties
witlFthe help of wise ministers. He called himself a cultivator
and a weaver. He and the inmates of his Ashram performed all
the so-called menial services themselves, including the work of
scavenging. The Ashram was a colony where the Communist
ideal of “from each according to ability and to each according to
need” was fully and literally carried out.
In the political field Gandhiji stands for democracy; but not of
its formal and centralised variety. He wants as much of local
self-government as is consistent with the unity of the state. The
India oferhis conception after Swaraj was to consist of semi-in de
pendent* republics, which entirely managed all their affairs,, in
cluding the administration of justice and keeping the peace in
the locality. Thus he stood for the devolution of political power.
How can Gandhiji’s weapon of Satyagraha work best? The
soldier in the, Satyagraha fight must fit himself for this kind of
resistance. The first condition, then, is that the Satyagrahi’s own
life must be regulated and disciplined on the basis of the principles
he proposes to employ in his fight against injustice and tyranny.
But before we talk of the individual Satyagrahi and his discipline,
let us see what discipline Gandhiji prescribes for the community
that wants to wield the weapon of Satyagraha for redressing
wrongs and injustice and fighting tyranny. Gandhiji believes that
such a community must progressively shed injustice and inequity
within its own ranks. For instance, to fit themselves for the Satya
graha fight against foreign domination, Indians must cease to
treat millions of their countrymen as untouchables. The disabili35*
APPENDIX B
ties from which Indian womanhood suffers must be removed. Eco
nomic exploitation within India must progressively be eliminated.
Religious fanaticism and exclusiveness must disappear from Indian
life. The drink evil must cease. Education must be organised on
the basis of activity and useful production. In short, Indians must
reorganise their own national life to conform to the conception of
a non-violent and integrated society, where individual and group
tensions that make for injustice and inequity within the nation are
eliminated. Gandhiji, therefore, often called his movement of
Satyagraha a movement of national ‘purification’. The schemes
of his constructive programme were devised for the establishment
within India of a non-violent equalitarian order free from social,
economic and political exploitation. In short, both individual and
group life must be integrated on the basis of the fundamental
principles of morality, truth and non-violence.
The importance of the idea of national purification can best
be brought out if we compare the Indian national struggle under
Gandhiji’s lead with like movements in the West. When the
American colonies fought against the British it never occurred to
the revolutionary leaders there that slavery in their own land was
any impediment to their demand for justice at the hands of the
British.
Nor did the American leaders think that their economic
and social life was based upon inequality and exploitation. In
other countries too national liberation movements were never
conceived in terms of national reconstruction on just and equitable
bases. International, social and economic reform had to wait
upon subsequent revolutions. Gandhiji wanted to work simul
taneously the double revolution, the political, to free the country
from foreign domination, and the social, to establish a demo
cratic and equalitarian society in India. His schemes of what
he called the constructive programme based upon social and
economic equality, as they had to be worked under the
handicap of foreign rule, were of an experimental and pioneer
nature. He expected them to be pushed forward on a nation-wide
scale after independence. In so far as our governments have failed
to implement the constructive programme, they have failed to
create a new life and a new hope in the country.
So much for the community. The individual soldier of Salyagraha as we have said, must also discipline himself for a non
violent society, where group tensions and conflicts are settled
non-violently, as even the soldier in an armed conflict is drilled and
disciplined for war. The discipline here is achieved through
participation in the constructive programme. A Satyagrahi must,
in his individual life, progressively cultivate non-violence and
359
g a n d h ia n
outlook
and
t e c h n iq u e s
truth. He must not live by the exploitation of others. He must
participate in some physical activity of a productive nature every
day. He must shed from his life all ideas of caste and religious
exclusiveness and untouchability. If he is habituated to intoxi
cants he must give them up. He must practise Swadeshi and in
this - prefer articles that are made through decentralised industry
free from exploitation. In short, the Satyagrahi must himself live
an integrated life, the integration made possible through the moral
Law.
Gandhiji often said that a Satyagrahi must be a believer in
God, but then his conception of God was peculiarly his own. He
often warned his listeners that Ram, whose name he chanted in
his prayer, was not the historical person, the son of Dasaratha,
the husband of Sita, but Ram who resided in his heart and in
every human heart and in the Universe and yet was not merely
immanent therein. He was also transcendental. Sometimes
Gandhiji identified God with the moral law. He did not merely
say that ‘God is Truth’ but also that ‘Truth is God’, When he
talked of religion and spirituality he thought of these in terms of
morality. As a matter of fact whenever he used the word ‘spiri
tuality’ the more philosophically accurate word to convey his
meaning would be ‘morality’. Whoever acted in accordance with
the basic principles of morality was for him a spiritual person
whether he believed in God or no God, whether he was a Jew
or a gentile, a heathen or a Christian, a Muslim or a Kafir. Every
one, to whatever faith he belongs, is a true believer if he has a
living faith in something higher than merely material values.
Gandhiji’s spirituality was not bound up with any school of
metaphysics or philosophy or any particular kind of dogmatic
worship or ritual. His prayer was not petition for any material
advantage but an inner probing and the raising of the individual’s
spirit in adoration to some “undefinable Higher Power” which he
felt to be there, but whose existence he could not demonstrate by
mere logic and reason but which manifested itself in Love and
Truth.
Having come so far, it is time that we formulated the postu
lates of Gandhiji’s philosophy, individual and social. These
are: —
1. The Fatherhood of God (in Gandhiji’s sense of God)
2. The brotherhood of man
I. The supremacy of the moral law
4. Truth
5. Non-violence or Active Love
6. Purity of means.
These postulates are correlated. They act and react on each
360
APPENDIX B
other. For instance, unless one believes in the brotherhood of
man one cannot have active love for his neighbour. One may at
best be indifferent to him. Brotherhood of man for Gandhiji
means “that we are one of another”, that I cannot injure my
neighbour without injuring myself. This brotherhood is built
upon the Vedantic conception that all humanity participates in
one Universal Atman (Soul). All humanity is one family. There
fore, Gandhiji often said Satyagraha is nothing more than what
we practise in our quarrels and wranglings within the family.
However sharply and violently we may disagree, in the family, we
never use violence. However we may part in anger we do not
use the sword or the pistol or the bomb. Satyagraha therefore
equally works in the family, in the nation and in humanity. It
can be put in motion by the individual and the group. The indi
vidual here need not wait for the organisation of the group as in
war. Alone and by himself he can oppose tyranny and injustice
and vindicate the truth. As Gandhiji says: “A call may come
which one dare not neglect, cost what it may
Whert the
neglect of the call means a denial of God, civil disobedience be
comes a peremptory duty.” (Young India—August 1942). It
was this individual Satyagraha that was practised by Jesus Christ
and Socrates and many other reformers and prophets in history.
They and their like have ever vindicated the lone and heroic
dignity of the individual against all odds. Satyagraha is thus a
universal principle of life that works in all human relations.
Brotherhood of man then implies that all humanity is one. As
the individual cannot lead a healthy and integrated life without
the group or the nation being properly and justly organised, so
groups and nations cannot prosper except as integral parts of
one humanity. It is, therefore, that as human civilisation has
advanced there is a tendency towards wider and wider groupings.
Also, historical experience shows that no human problem has
been or can be solved in isolation. If slavery is to be eliminated it
must be eliminated everywhere. Hunger and poverty are no more
national problems. They are global. The problem of population
cannot be tackled except on an international basis. There are
countries with too little population and too much land and natural
resources. Again there are countries with too much population
and too little land and other natural resources. The latter will
ever claim a place in the sun and fight for it and disturb the world
peace. Disease cannot be eliminated from one nation alone.
Therefore in all modern developed nations there are health regu
lations and quarantine arrangements for foreign visitors. The
postal, the telegraphic and the radio systems have become almost
universal and they girdle the globe.
361
The tendency in all human knowledge is to become interna
tional. The great works of religion and philosophy are no more
the exclusive possessions of a tribe or a nation. The Upanishads,
the Gita, the Bible, the Koran and the Buddhistic scriptures are all
to-day the treasures of common humanity. Every effort to confine
ideas, ideologies and systems of thought spiritual or material, fails.
Stalin wanted Communism in one country. If he meant it in all
seriousness he has already abandoned it and wants help from
Communist Parties all over the world, even as he has promised
Russian help to them. America as strongly feels that unless there
is some kind of free economy in all countries, it cannot maintain
the American way of life even in America.
So far humanity has been recognising human unity sometimes
for peaceful purposes and sometimes for conflict and war. But if
there is to be world peace—and it is clear that it cannot be achieved
by war and violence, it can be achieved only through the recogni
tion of the idea of the brotherhood of man, without distinction of
caste, creed, nation, race, political ideology or stage of civilisa
tion—individuals and groups must function non-violently
through mutual aid and cooperation. There seems to be no other
way. Whatever human advance has been achieved and universailsed so far has been through mutual goodwill and cooperation
Whenever there is conflict, and to the extent there is conflict, co
operation and inter-connection break down. The telegraph and
postal connections, as soon as war breaks out between two nations,
come to a stand-still, and so far as it is possible radio connections
are interfered with. Exchange of goods and money stops. All
mutual contact through art, literature and science ceases for the
time being. Yet such are the needs of humanity that all these
connections have to be partially and indirectly resumed through
neutral agencies. The pity is that humanity is not yet intelligent,
wise and moral enough to recognise and accept the obvious. How
ever, not individual men and women or groups or nations are
arbiters of the world. God, or call it nature if you will, fulfils his
pre-arranged purpose anyhow, if not through peaceful means,
then through carnage and bloodrhed. Gandhiji shows the peace
ful way.
But the peaceful and non-violent way is not through pacifism
in its narrower sense which views war as an isolated phenomenon.
I,ike every other human problem war is intimately connected with
our lives, individual and group. It is the reflection of our indivi
dual and group conflicts and contradictions, born of anger, hate,
passion, pride, cupidity, fear, egotism and our inordinate ambi
tion and lust for power. We cannot allow the causes of war to
remain and yet expect it to be eliminated from the world. If we
362
APPENDIX B
are to eliminate it we must first eliminate its causes in our indivi
dual and collective lives. It is here that a wide and extensive in
tegration of life, individual and collective, is needed. War is a
disharmony. Peace is a harmony. World peace means world
harmony, the harmony of an orchestra, where every instrument is
well and properly tuned for the central purpose. It is, therefore,
that Gandhiji wants individual and group life to be justly and
properly organised for the central purpose of world peace. He has
also indicated the moral principles on the basis of which this com
prehensive harmony can be achieved.
What is the meaning of the supremacy of the moral? It means
that we have to follow the right course irrespective of consequences
to us or ours. Moral law does not calculate in terras of apparent
and immediate success. It is its own standard and justification.
No amount of mathematical calculation, however nicely made in
terms of happiness, utility, progress or success can give us the
moral law. The effort to derive it from these sources has only led
humanity to opportunist conduct. Morality then becomes a highly
intellectual calculation, not possible to average men and women.
This does not mean that morality does not or cannot satisfy
reason. It only means that it cannot do this always. Gandhiji,
therefore, as every moral reformer before him, relies on some kind
of faith, as he used to say, not opposed to reason. As the world
stands today the morally good have rather a raw deal in life. Moral
conduct, therefore, becomes a kind of slow martyrdom. We may
not always pay the supreme price of life, but we do, unless we
are very fortunate, suffer daily and hourly. And how has spiritu
ality and morality found currency in the world? It is through the
martyrdom of man. Even such things as political freedom and
economic equality have triumphed through the sufferings of men
and women in every new generation.
Truth, non-violence and purity of means are inter-connected
ideas. Wherever there is violence untruth will at some stage or
the other come in. Untruth is the sign of fear and cowardice.
These ultimately lead to violence. Purity of means is based upon
the recognition of the supremacy of the moral law.
By moralising politics and group life on the bases of truth, non
violence and scrupulous regard for means, by adopting Satyagraha
as the method of settling disputes, by his constructive programme
based on regional economy and the decentralised industry free
from exploitation, by a healthy and vigorous local self-government
through village panchayats (republics) and above all by an in
tegrated life of the individual and the community, engaged in
fruitful work, Gandhiji proposed to co-ordinate and synthesise
moral, social, economic and political life, establish effective demo363
cracy, and work for world peace. To sum up then, Gandhiji wants
to solve the problems of political conflict and economic inequality
and over-centralisation in industry and administration and establish
his social order where personal liberty and initiative will be made
consistent with authority and the general good, by a strict
adherence in collective and group life, as in individual life, to the
basic principles of society, truth and non-violence and the purity
of means.
It is often asked, did Gandhiji’s experiment succeed in India?
Was not the final result brought about by world political forces and
circumstances rather than his non-violent Struggle for indepen
dence? But are not the final results of every war and revolution
the consequences of a combination of circumstances, in which in
ternational politics plays an important part? Could American
independence have been achieved merely by American armies un
aided by the international situation as it existed in Europe then?
Mere military success unaided by other favourable circumstances
can rarely bring about the success of a cause.
Whatever critics may say, for the impartial observers here is
something new, something revolutionary, something which, if it can
be repeated and extended, holds the seeds of future possibility of
moralising and humanising international political relations and
bringing about world peace. Can humanity neglect such possi
bilities when the alternative is not only the physical degeneration
and destruction of humanity but much worse, the destruction of its
culture and civilisation, of all that it has held as most precious and
most sacred? Must we make no new experiments? In this con
nection Gandhiji says: “If we are to make progress, we must not
merely repeat history but make new history. We must add to the
inheritance left by our ancestors. If we make new discoveries and
inventions in the phenomenal world, must we declare our bank
ruptcy in the spiritual domain?”
Gandhiji demonstrated the working of non-violence and its
efficacy against* an established foreign tyranny. To that extent his
canvas was limited. He had no occasion to show how that non
violent strategy could work in the face of an invading army. He
however, always held that an invading army could be resisted
through non-violence before it had become an occupying force.
Even if it could penetrate into the country, if there is non-coopera
tion on the part of the people, it will soon find its occupation of
foreign territory unprofitable and not worthwhile. But is it in the
first instance possible to oppose an invading army non-violently?
He held that it is within the range of human possibility for a
determined people to immolate themselves before an army rather
than allow it to get through. There are instances in history of
364 ‘
a p p e n d ix
b
armies when at bay or overwhelmed by odds* having perished to
a man rather than submit. Can unarmed soldiers of a just and
non-violent fight undergo such martyrdom? It is not beyond the
range of human possibility, given the proper leadership, organisa
tion and disciplined training. For religious ideals, not only indivi
duals but communities have for centuries borne persecution
patiently and never given way. Can groups and nations believing
in peace and having a firm faith in the moral law behave likewise?
Who knows? Gandhiji never placed limits to human possibilities.
No true prophet has ever done so. “Be ye as perfect as your
Father in Heaven”. That has ever been the human aspiration and
inspiration. When Gandhiji wanted to achieve a national revolu
tion through truth and non-violence there were many who scoffed
at the idea and considered it beyond human capacity and therefore
unpractical. But Gandhiji demonstrated its possibility and con
verted the doubters. If non-violence in group relations is to prevail,
its scope must be extended to the international field. But whatever
further experiments are made they will have to be made in Gandhiji’s spirit and faith, an unshakable faith in the moral law and
the readiness for self-immolation for the cause.
I have said that we must work in Gandhiji’s spirit, for there is
a tendency in this country to follow him mechanically. We cannot
follow a genius mechanically, more so a genius like Gandhiji who
was progressing and evolving throughout his conscious life. In
his various Satyagrahas he rarely repeated himself. In a sense
Gandhiji was greater than his principles. That does not mean that
he did not work in conformity with his principles. It only means
that while principles are abstract and work mechanically, a living
person, a genius, is self-regulating. Like an expert dancer his
steps are never out of tune. Even his seeming deviations from the
law are improvised to fulfil it more comprehensively, not in the
letter but in the spirit. For future progress, then, we can work
only in the light of the spirit of Gandhiji.
The path of human progress has never been easy or smooth. It
has throughout history been whitened with human bones. Weary
pilgrims have laboured and striven and have undergone great
suffering and martyrdom. Gandhiji’s ultimate triumph, too, was
martyrdom. All steady following of the moral law. as we have
said, is a kind of slow martyrdom. Morality rarely yields dividends
in the shape of goods or comforts of this world. Its rewards are
often an easy conscience and an inner satisfaction that one has
not been conquered by forces of evil but has asserted his divine
origin by rising superior to them. That is the only triumph worth
striving for, even as Christ says: “How does it profit a man if
he gains the whole world but suffers the loss of his own soul?”
365
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY OF PROFESSOR MASSIGNONS STATEMENT
1. Personal approach of a French sociologist to Gandhi's
methods; publication of Satyagraha’s pledge in “Revue de
Monde Musulman” April, 1921 showing its main accordance with
Islam, where, over the Holy War, is the Abrahamic Right of
Sanctuary (Sanskrit: Caranya-dharma). Attempts to help India in
gaining spiritual self-determination by realizing for France,
among some little “ pilot-cells" the same. “Nouvelles de l ’Inde”
(published since 1926 by Me L. Guieysse). Practical attempts:
“Amis de Gandhi” wire of November 2nd, 1949. Theoretical
study of the Sanskrit terminology (with Professors P. Meille and
O. Lacombe).
2. Value of the words in Gandhi’s written works in English
influenced by Tolstoy and Ruskin; but regaining through prayer
in Gujrati primitive Sanskrit conceptual purity (see his Com
mentary to the Gita); how can we transpose, for action, Gandhi’s
tactical words (their realization is not technique> but personal
life, sanctifying) for Europeans? Now Gandhists of India must
persuade conservative isolationists of pure “Aryan” tradition
that Gandhi has not betrayed the Law of the Indian Community,
but has kept the oath, through his atonement for the mass of
believers in the Creed.
Study of Gandhi’s meaning of Truth (Satya; see also Moslem
Haqq specially in India); realized gradually in his life; ray
visit yesterday to Mehrauli, reminding me of January, 24th,
1948. By intelligible, and conceived interiorization of prayer.
By realizing the oath (for the Law) through a vow (Capatha, by
Vrata).
“God is the essence of Vow,” he said (from
Yeravda): the God, essential (Abrahamic for Islam as
Christianity, and as Israel) requires pilgrimage (Yathra), making
us guests of others {A tit hi, Manu-3, 80); (through the Atithi-pu]a).
The Mahatma realized divinely the vow.
3. How to make Gandhi’s methods available for modem
thinkers, even in official organizations like Unesco?
Satyagraha
versus the “Tension”
of IGineberg and
Levi-Strauss (just as Ruskin’s economy versus Ricardo’s). Not
every desire is functional in mankind; we must select the Tension
towards good, the desire of Truth and Justice (Satyagraha).
366
APPENDIX C
it is a tension; (cf. S. Alinsky’s Gandhian work, though unaware,
in Chicago, among refugees).
Love is not a felt weakness, but a tension towards personal
Purity and Truth.
Heroism is not insignificant, though homeopathic.
Brahmacharya, versus birth control.
Hospitality, against racial and caste discrimination.
Right of sanctuary for Refugees (carana-dharma) (caranarthin;
the budhist mendicant for protection).
Supranationalization of disinterested research for science, before
supra nationalization of Labour (now awfully nationalized).
Gandhi’s last appeal.
Immediate proposals against war.
Zones of security for:
L Wounded (see Red Cross Convention of Geneva, 1949).
2. Refugees (permanency of the problem).
1 Shrines and artistic monuments.
T67
APPENDIX D
STRAY T H O U G H T S O N T H E G A N D H I A N TECHNIQUES
By
Kaka Saheb Kalelkar
We have met here to consider how the Gandhian outlook and
technique can help in the solution of tensions between Groups and
Nations. We all have met here at the instance of Governments
that are trying to find a way to Peace and Brotherliness.
We know that Gandhiji succeeded to a large extent, in his mis
sion by using only moral or spiritual means and by scrupulously
eschewing what he called brute force in all his activities. He never
appealed to the baser instincts of men. Governments on the other
hand resort, in the ultimate analysis, to(brute force. The Police
and the Army being their final sanctions, Governments swear by
Law and Order. No doubt they husband the conscience of man
kind but they generally believe in prudential considerations and end
by working on the non-social springs of action, namely, fear, greed,
pride and hatred. Governments, therefore, cannot, by their very
nature, accept the Gandhian Technique of eschewing physical
force. Governments try through education and propaganda, to
cultivate high social ideals but they themselves are formed with the
sole motive of organising the self-interest of a particular nation.
Their chief function is to work for the safety and security of the
community. And then they seek to promote the ambition for
aggrandisement.
Governments, therefore, will have to change their very basic
nature if they are to accept the Gandhian Technique in its entirety.
Gandhiji believed that even Nations could change and respond to
a high moral appeal, as much as individuals and communities.
Gandhiji paid the highest compliment to the British people when
he appealed to them to change from war to non-violent resistance.
Only people endowed with the highest bravery could be expected
to discard their arms and armaments in order to oppose Hitler and
his forces with Soul Force. Britain did not respond to this appeal.
No nation would in the midst of a war. But I do believe that
Britain may some day rise to that height because the British are
very, very experienced politically and they are a brave people.
368
APPENDIX D
We must remember here the distinction made by our great poet,
Tagore, between the People and the Nation. The same people
when organised politically, become a Nation'. The Nation thus is*
spiritually something less than the People. And the Government
of a Nation, in the same way, is much less than the Nation and
the People. We can therefore, work on the minds and emotions of
the people and lead them to do things which Governments may
not dare or feel themselves competent to do. It was with this
belief that Gandhi worked for the people and through the people.
Let us then, pause a while to study the evolution of Gandhiji’s
Technique of Non-Violent Resistance, eschewing both physical
force and hatred.
I once asked Gandhiji whether he was conscious of being
different from the ordinary run of people. At what age did he
feel conscious of his power and whether he had not to struggle
within himself to overcdme motives that were not conducive to the
success of his Mission? His answer was very simple. He said
that he was quite an ordinary man with no special powers, but he ’
had an instinct for leadership even when he-was a school boy. And
as for struggles in the heart, he had had very few of them. He was
like a horse with blinkers on, and with him “to think was to act”.
In South Africa, he discovered himself. He knew that
physically he could not resist successfully when he was assaulted,
but he had the spirit to overcome the weakness of the flesh; and
therefore, he could resist with his will—a will that was too proud
to accept defeat, or submit to injustice.
That he gained some prestige in South Africa or with his
people in India was the least part of his achievements. The im
portant thing is that he discovered himself in Africa, and having
discovered the strength of Sdul, he discovered the same in the
hearts of his fellow-countrymen there, who were leading lives of
abject submission. He also discovered that women could rise
to the occasion when men lost their nerve. The greatness of
Gandhiji consisted in believing in the common man, in the down
trodden, the oppressed and the outcaste. He could also persuade a
rich merchant, a man of the world, to confess his guilt pubKcly,
and restore his ill-gotten gains to the Government. Having develop
ed the power of the Soul within himself, he could evoke the same
Soul-force in others. We have a proverb in Hindustani.. .‘Chiragh
se Chiragh 3alia haV
“Only a living flame can ignite another”.
Another strength of Gandhiji’s was his instinctive identifica
tion with all those with whom he came in contact. This was
merely an extension or expansion of the domestic virtue of com
pletely ignoring oneself in the service of the family. Gandhiji set
no limits to this extension,. He was always partial to the under369
94 M. of Edu.
dog. Not only did he secure redress for him but he also revived
the soul of the under-dog and made him conscious of his dignity.
His was never a softening process. That is why he could create
heroes out of clay and lead people gradually to the height of any
sacrifice.
I remember here, an interview which Gandhiji granted to Rev.
Mott of the Youth movement. The visitor asked Gandhiji what
it was .that sustained him in his darkest hour. Gandhiji said,
“The spirit of Non-violence which the people of India maintain
even under the gravest provocation”.
Let me give here the next question and its answer which was
mpst disconcerting to me. “ What is it that is of the greatest con
cern to you? The thing that makes you most uneasy?” Gandhiji
thought for a moment and answered with a heavy heart, “The
hardness of heart of the Educated”. Is it then any wonder that we
of the educated classes find it difficult to discover the secret of
Gandhiji’s hold on the masses and his capacity to energise .the
Nation into acts of unparalled heroism?
Gandhiji started an institute for the training of workers. He
called it, “The Satyagraha Ashram.” It was “a home of service”
where people were expected to train themselves for overcoming the
weaknesses of the flesh so that they might lead a life of dedica
tion. Gandhiji wanted these workers to be a leaven for social
regeneration. The discipline of this institute appealed to the
masses. Many similar institutes sprang up in the country and
supplied Gandhiji with a band of workers in all parts of India.
These workers gave a good account of themselves during the
Freedom movement; and also in maintaining the morale of
soldiers of freedom in jail-life. But the politicians and the
intelligentsia criticised the ascetic discipline and belittled
Gandhi’s contribution in this direction. Gandhiji’s Constructive
Programme also met with a similar fate. Today, the leaders of
the Nation are bemoaning the lack of workers dedicated to the
work of nation-building. It is not easy now to get riches after
killing the hen that lays golden eggs.
Of the two questions that we have set before ourselves, Gandhiji
had the .opportunity of tackling only the first, namely the problem
of internal tensions. No nation can build for social solidarity un
less it has removed the causes of social injustice, oppression and
exploitation. Gandhiji succeeded in educating social conscience
against the curse of Untouchability. This was his greatest triumph
because untouchability had a strong ‘religious’ sanction behind it
and it had taken root in society for at least a thousand years. He
succeeded in overcoming social barriers and he broke the back of
the Caste system. The world has much to learn from Gandhiji’s
370
APPENDIX D
technique of transforming the social concepts of a hoary civilisa
tion. It was only by accepting and living up to the spiritual ideals
of the race that he cultivated the strength to stem the tide of
orthodoxy and other reactionary elements. Other social reformers
in India did not succeed because they did not cultivate the neces
sary spiritual strength. There is a proverb in Sanskrit which can
be freely rendered as “People hanker after the fruits of discipline
but fight shy of discipline itself”. “Punyasya phalam icchanti;
Punyam necchanti manavah”
Gandhiji did not stop at preaching non-violence. Nejther did
he stop with leading powerful movements of non-violent resistance.
He started laying the foundatiotis of a non-violent society, based on
decentralisation and regional self-sufficiency. You cannot hope to
banish war unless you banish the causes of war. We have been
saying ad nauseum that prejudice, misunderstanding and hatred
lead to war. But no individual or society clings to prejudice or
hatred without some self-interest and exploitation being involved in
it. It is a case of giving a bad name to the lamb because the wolf
is interested in justifying his preying upon it.
To some pacifists Gandhiji said, “It is no use our decrying war.
It is only a symptom of a deep-rooted disease namely the exploita
tion of the weak by the strong, of the simple folk by the shrewd,
and of the unorganised by those who have' learned the secret of
organising self-interest. This leads of course to jealousy and
competition among the various exploiters themselves. What the
pacifists have first to do is to remove the war that is inherent in
their lives in the shape of exploitation in its myriad forms.”
The modem world is now surveying and mapping the geography
of hunger. It is helping undeveloped countries to raise their
standard of living. This is all to the good. But it will not solve the
problem of social injustice or war, unless it carries on a parallel
movement for the reduction of the standard of life of the extremely
rich individuals, societies and nations. It helps to the extent of
stopping starvation from death but can it create the feeling of
equality without which it is not possible to develop the feeling of
universal brotherhood? We must, therefore, arrive at a scientific
and ethical optimum. There must, of course, be a sufficiently wide
range in this optimum standard to suit the varying needs of different
people. But no one can transgress the two limits of the optimum
without causing social debility or ill-health. The-modern world is
not yet willing to reduce the standard of life of the extremely rich.
What is claimed as individual freedom is, more often than not, a
sanction for social or economical injustice, or for a fife of exploita
tion. Gandhiji was prepared to allow a measure of inequality as a
concession to the. weakness of the upper classes. Even in the
37JL
Ga n d h ia n
outlook
and
t e c h n iq u e s
Ashram he paid the teachers their monthly salary according to their
needs* but he asked them to realise that onf penny an hour was thejust wages due to them, and whatever extra they got was really a
concession,
In the matter of production Gandhiji wanted the masses to beefficient and industrious, without industrialising them. That is why
he fostered village industries and handicrafts. He devoted all hisenergies to the development of the villages and thus saved their
being exploited by the cities and foreign manufacturers. The ten
sions caused by religious fanaticism and class antipathy stand on a
different footing. .Gandhiji tackled these problems with the utmost
tact and sympathy. He preached fhe equality of all religions. He:
had equal reverence for them all. His own teachings were the
quintessence of the moral! and spiritual ideas of all religions. The;
result was that people of all religions enthusiastically received him
as their own representative. But in the then India under British,
rule, religious groups had political values. Men of religion,
ceased to be the leaders of their own denomination. Self-seeking;
politicians encouraged prejudices and distrust and the rulers,
fostered all fissiparaus tendencies. Communal leaders defeated
Gandhiji’s efforts but Gandhiji was not a man to own defeat
He struggled with all his might almost single-handed and ultimatelypaid the supreme sacrifice in vindication of his technique of non
violence. It is too early to understand the far-reaching conse
quences of this sacrifice. The edge of Communalism is broken
to-day. But on the other hand there does not seem to be any
Immediate prospect of a chain of sacrifices which Gandhiji’s
technique demands to root out communal hatred completely from,
our hearts.
Even in the matter of untouchability, communal leaders think
ing politically have discovered in untouchability an asset rather
than a curse! So the story is repeated that reformers try to*
improve the world through moral and spiritual means, whereas thepoliticians play on the worst instincts of men and use their fol
lowers as pawns in their power-politics. There is a tragic humour
and irony in politicians’ consulting moral reformers for finding
effective means to abolish war!
Gandhiji’s solution is clear enough. Decentralisation of pro
duction and regional self-sufficiency: avoidance of the extremes of
wealth and poverty; equal reyerence for all religions; removal of the
sense of high and low in the social scale: acceptance of wealth as a
trust for the betterment of the whole of humanity: raising of the
moral standard of life, by reducing the material standard of luxu
rious living: renunciation of all vindictive punishment and
reprisals: and reducing the use c'f physical force to its minimum
372
Appendix t>
In the task of maintaining law and order,
Gandhiji had not the opportunity of tackling international
tensions. But he did suggest the non-violent technique to Britain
to resist aggression. When the Asian countries met here in New
Delhi, he advised them not to form an Asian Bloc but to cultivate
the idea of One World. He once recommended the non-violent
'technique to China also, but the leaders there failed to understand
it. My own feeling is that the Chinese and the Japanese with their
traditional contempt for death are eminently fitted to try the tech
nique of non-violent resistance to evil. The efforts of our Prime
Minister Nehru towards the establishment of world peace may be
regarded as fair samples of the Gandhian Technique.
Gandhiji had seriously suggested the formation of Peace
Brigades—Shanti-Senas, as a remedy against communal riots and
’mob-frenzy. The same idea could be developed and we could
have a non-violent army for peace that would immolate itself, if
heed be, in. order to prevent a world conflagration. The best
amongst all nations could form themselves into a peace army. But
tthe idea has to be fully developed in order to achieve practical
results. Armies start functioning only when a war is declared.
Peace Armies will have to function continuously during peace
times, before a war starts. Selfless service and impartial
humanity will be the moral capital with which they will start.
But the most effective agency for developing a non-violent
technique of overcoming tensions, both between groups and
nations, is Education, education not of the schools and colleges,
with their hide-bound teaching staff, but of the masses in general.
It will be an education for life, for lifting the moral standards.
The schools and colleges will change only after a change has been
effected in society. Meanwhile students should be encouraged to
train themselves in constructive physical labour, and a hardy life
devoted to social welfare. Emulation and not competition should
be encouraged; and History should be taught from the new angle
o f universal brotherhood. Gandhiji suggested an elaborate system
o f Basic Education that would produce leaders o f a non-violent
social order.
The land gift movement carried on by Shri Vinoba Bhaye is
a dynamic instance of the Gandhian technique and I would recom
mend that foreign delegates to this Seminar make a close study of
it on the spot, before they leave India.
The Gandhian Technique of non-violent resistance for the
solution o'f all tensions and conflicts is a technique of both indi
vidual and social discipline. The world of today has accepted
some discipline as necessary for the physical well-being of men. It
has accepted some discipline as necessary for intellectual progress
373
(t has developed organisational discipline to a great extent, but it
has sadly ignored the moral discipline which alone can make peace
ful existence on earth possible, consistent with social justice and
universal brotherhood, Gandhiji has given the basis for this moral
training. It has to be studied and developed to suit the world
situation today. This can be done only if we accept the Sotil as
the ultimate fact of Life.
324
APPENDIX E
T he
G a n d h ia n
T e c h n iq u e
A nd
H ow
It E ases
T e n s io n
I n t e r n a l l y A n d I n t e r n a t io n a l l y .
By
Dr. Mohamed Hussein Haekal
To what extent in the present state of international mind
can we apply the ways and means of Mahatma Gandhi to solve
tensions, internal and international, in the world of today? This,
is the question to which we are trying to find an answer.
If a reply had to be given to such a question at the beginning
of this century, I doubt of an answer in the affirmative. It is true*
that Gandhiji began his campaign against the ill-treatment of
Indians in South Africa in the last decade of the nineteenth century.
It is also true that he obtained some success there, but to believe
that his technique would have been of any help in the solution of
international tensions when the policy of the Balance of Powers
and armed peace was prevailing, would have been a dream.
Gandhiji himself did not at first think of his A hims a and
Satyagraha as being a weapon in international life. He; simply
thought of them as weapons to force the Government and authori
ties of South Africa to remove, as far as possible, the humiliating
discrimination to which his co-nationals were subjected. At this
stage, he did not even think of employing these methods to
achieve the independence of any country. On the contrary, he
believed, at that time, like many other Western-educated men in
the East, that Eastern Civilisation was doomed, that Western
thought and science would always have the upper hand and it was
this belief that led him, during the Anglo-Boer War, to organise
an Ambulance Corps for the benefit of the British troops engaged
in that war. Even when the First World War broke out, he did
'n o t change that attitude and he was of great help in recruiting
Indian troops to serve in the war for the benefit of Great Britain
and her Allies.
This First World War brought about a tremendous change in
international thought. The United States of America realised
deeply that its isolation did not save it from the dangers of attack
by German torpedo-boats and thus it took part in the war on the
side of Great Britain and her Allies. President Woodrow Wilson
375
thought at that time that his country was fighting the war to, end
all wars. When he felt Germany breaking, he proposed his con
ditions for the armistice, believing that a peace treaty, in fulfilment
of these conditions, would lead humanity to an era of durable
peace. One of the points of the armistice conditions was the right
of all people to self-determination. Here was a turning point in the
life of Gandhiji and in his political activities. It was also a turningpoint in framing the aspirations of colonial people seeking liberty
and freedom.
Gandhiji made it his mission to liberate India from foreign rule,
employing his own teachings of Ahimsa and Satyagraha in a
gigantic endeavour. During twenty-eight years, he was evolving
and developing his techniques of non-violence, of truth force, of
non-cooperation till after the Second World War and owing to a
new development in international thought, India gained her
independence due to Gandhiji and the Indian people’s efforts.
The evolution of the ideas of Mahatma Gandhi, since his
campaign in South Africa till Indian independence, is very great,
though the basis is the same all through. His first aim in South
Africa was the recognition and the respect, by all, of human
dignity regardless of nationality, creed, colour, language, social
and economic status or whatever other factors that led and still
lead to the creation of social and international tensions.
When he came to India, the universal evolution of international
thought towards freedom convinced him that there can be no human
dignity for the people of a nation governed by another nation and
that the freedom of a nation is a first condition for the due respect
of the dignity of its inhabitants.
The idea, of due respect to human dignity is no creation of
Gandhiji. It is as old as human thought. In all generations, it
has been considered a vital and fundamental truth. It was re
peatedly declared whenever a new era began. In all religious, as
well as in all political movements, we find at the head and at the
root of all statements, the declaration of human rights with human
dignity at its base.
, It may suffice to recall the declaration of the French Revolution
of 1789 and the last declaration of human rights by the United
Nations in 1948.. Still, human dignity suffered and continues to
suffer badly in practical life. The issue on which Gandhiji launch
ed his first campaign in South Africa sixty years ago still comes
annually on the agenda of the United Nations since its creation.
Other examples in other parts of the world-can easily be given.
How can such an evident truth be overlooked in our democracies
today? And how can we have it respected everywhere? This
was the questioc for Gandhiji ai.d this is the question for us today.
376
APPENDIX B
Since the remotest times, the root of the evil lies in the material
sphere of life and man’s desire to exploit man, a desire which spread
from individuals to groups and to nations and which has distorted
our manner of thinking even in the religious realm. When the
first Moslems invaded Iraq in the Seventh century A.D., that great
General Ibn-El-Waleed, seeing the riches of the country, said to his
soldiers, “These riches suffice to induce you to war, even though
it is not a Holy War, for the cause of the religion.” The
Encyclopaedia Britannica, speaking of the crusades* in the medieval
ages says, “Nor was the Church merely able, through the crusades,
to direct the martial instinct of a feudal society; it was also able to
pursue the object of its own immediate policy, and to attempt the
universal diffusion of Christianity, even at the edjje of the sword,
over the whole of the known world
.Thus was renewed on a
greater scale that ancient feud of East and West which has never
died”.
This state,of mind had, for centuries, its influence on our ways
of thinking and living, and it had this influence even on our ways
of education. Three years ago, at a meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Council at Nice, the question of the teaching of history
was brought before the humanitarian and cultural committee of
that Council. I ventured then to say that the way in which history
was taught prepared the mind of youth for war, by teaching
them that the history of mankind is the story of battles fought and
that the greatest glory was that of victorious generals and kings,
whereas the true story of mankind is that of peaceful, arduous, and
continuous evolution in morality, philosophy, art, science and in
all spheres of action, benefiting peace. I concluded that teaching
of history in this sense is more truthful and more apt to bring peace
to the world. To my amazement, many a member of the Com
mittee considered my scheme utopian, and the subject was left
for further consideration.
This desire of exploiting man by man led to a strengthening of
the ego in material life at the expense of the spiritual and moral
side of life. This was more apparent in international life. It was
found'difficult to codify international law for this'reason.
This
codification was proposed in the First Post-War Conference of the
Inter-Parliamentary Union in Cairo in April, 1947. The subject
was postponed to the next year and in 1948, at Rome, all we were
able to achieve was the drawing-up of some principles of inter
national morality which were sent to the United Nations to help
them in the scheme of codification of international law, a scheme
still in ‘ the making. If this egoistic desire of man for exploiting
man were to vanish, and if moral principles were to take its place,
a new chapter in the history of human kind would be written.
322
6Attt>HlAN OUTLOOK ANt) TECHNIQUES
The basic idea of human dignity for which Gandhiji fought is a
self-evident axiom admitted by all. It is a truth to which we all owe
allegiance and which we ought to defend.
How then can we defend it? In the light of the new evolution
of the human mind, Gandhiji proposes an extensive programme
covering the entire field of human activities—moral, intellectual,
social, economic, educational, and the like. This programme *
also covers international relations, although in a much narrower
sphere. Many parts of this programme are universally acceptable.
I have doubts, however, of the universal acceptance of some of its
parts, the more so of his economic outlook. Swadeshi and the
spinning wheel may be morally good, bu,t Science cannot go
back on its steps. His ideas concerning education and his project
method are excellent as far as primary and secondary education
are concerned.. But I greatly doubt if in the actual conditions of
modern world economy, swadeshi and national self-sufficiency can
be achieved even in the first necessities of life. I equally doubt if
the project method of education can be applied in the universities.
But his moral programme is really excellent. It is a grand con
tribution to the betterment of human life.
A most striking feature in Gandhiji’s technique is his respect
for all religions and his great campaign against untouchability, I
greatly admire his religious outlook. It is not mere tolerance, but
something more. It is a real brotherhood. You can pray to God
in the way of your ancestors or in any way you choose; you are a
brother to all who pray to God in whatever other religion, so long
as you are all sincere in your faith and prayer. For God is Truth
and Truth is God in all religions. In fact, the moral principles in
all religions are the same. While I was reading Gandhiji, many
of the ideas in the Gita about religion struck me by their similarity
with similar Moslem principles. Both, for instance, say that your
faith is never complete until you love for your brother what you
love for yourself. The same moral precept is found in Christianity
as well as in other religions. So also moral precepts concerning
truth, behaviour, family life and the like. Why, then, instead of
being brothers, applying the same high moral principles, common
to our religions, and finding in them what unites us as brothers, do
we seek trivialities which divide us and lead to tensions and . to
wars?
If we apply to the economic and social field the same precepts
of truth, altruism and abnegation which we ought to apply in the
spiritual and moral field, and apply these precepts in all sincerity,
most of the tensions will vanish and we can live a life of brothers
in a world happy and prosperous, as happy and prosperous as it
can be. It is easy to convince everybody to accept these precepts
m
Amtfcix fi
willingly and to show their gain in applying the technique of
Ahimsa and Satyagraha. Otherwise, non-cooperation non-violently
fulfilled will convince everybody of the need to follow the example
of all. Evil-doers have been always a small minority in society,
but an active minority forcing the peaceful majority to submit to
their activity. The practice of Gandhiji has proved that even a
minority implementing truth* non-violently can force a majority to
accept its precepts.
Can these precepts apply in international life and can they apply
in the United Nations and its affiliated organisations? I am sure
they can. And if they were applied there, it is the United Nations,
more than any other organisation, which will lead the world to
peace, on condition that it becomes fully, universal, embracing all
the nations of the world.
All countries, all men and women of goodwill all over the world,
are longing for peace, and will be happy to apply these precepts with
the final aim that they will lead to durable peace.
In such a case they will all rise high above all national con
siderations. But the reason for the non-application of these pre
cepts in the United Nations is the lack of confidence among its
members, and the belief that he who speaks there, is saying some
thing he does not believe to be the truth, but is trying to cheat and
to deceive his fellow delegates of other countries.
It is truth and truth alone which will save the world from the
calamity hanging over our heads. Truth force, soul force, satya
graha in the Gandhian way are the only remedy to this lack of
confidence. Once we have faith in one another, once we believe
that everyone of us is saying what he believes to be the truth, we
can collaborate and cooperate with one another, thus paving the
way for a world movement to attain high ideals and to obtain a
world government with a durable peace.
If any country, small or big, strong or weak, still refuses to
collaborate truthfully with the others, it is in Gandhiji’s technique
of non-violent non-cooperation, economic, social and political that
we find the effective weapon to force this country into the way of
truth. I am convinced that such a weapon will not fail and will
bring the most unwilling nation to the right way. If, however,
we fail and if war comes in spite of all our endeavours, this will
bring the doom of humanity. Let us hope that no man or woman
in any nation will take such a stupendous responsibility and refuse
cooperation to attain the long-cherished world peace.
m
APPENDIX V
^ G a n d h u i' s S a t y a g r a h a — I t s
T e c h n i q u e A n d A p p l i c a t i o n ’*
By
Shri Pyarelal
We are living in an age of mounting tensions—tensions between
group and group, class and class, nation and nation. In thought,
humanity has advanced. Never perhaps has the acceptance of the
ideals of equality, brotherhood, and world peace been so ubiquitous
as it is today. And yet, never has humanity or human values stood
nearer to the brink of total destruction than they do today under
the menace of the atomic bomb. The explanation for the paradox
lies in the contradiction between the ends and means that charac
terizes the present age.
When we use brute force to settle a problem, it sets into motion
an opposite force of a like character which in its turn necessitates
the use of greater force, and so the chain of retaliation and counter
retaliation lengthens and strengthens. From the clubs of the
primitive warriors we came to bows and arrows', bows and arrows
led to firearms; firearms created the need for artillery and that
in its turn created the atom bomb and the hydrogen bomb.
This then is the explanation of mounting tensions in a world
which is sick of strife and yearns for calm. When both sides resort
-to the same or siifiilar means they inevitably partake each of the
Character of the other. There is an ancient myth, I think in one
of the Greek classics, of a Knight and a Python engaged in a duel.
Furiously they attack each other, neither side asking for quarter
or giving any. Neither of them yields an inch of ground, but in the
end a strange thing happens. Instead of either party vanquishing
the other, they are transformed one into the other! And.in our
own times, did we not see indiscriminate bombing of the Luftwaffe
being outmoded by the saturation bombing of the Allied A ir
Forces, and the whole thing culminating in the mass murder of the
innocent and the guilty alike at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? In
Korea both sides are resorting to the same means, with the result
that the ‘War of Liberation’ is turning into a *War of Annihilation’
of the very people that are sought to be delivered. The ideologies
of the parties may run counter to each other, but inasmuch as380
APPENDIX P
both sidps are resorting to the same means, in the end there seems
to be nothing left to choose between the one or the other.
Another instance, if one were needed, of how the means deter
mine the end is provided by the Communist experiment. The
professed aim is to create a stateless, classless, free society on the
basis of absolute equality, a society from which all violence has
been eliminated. But this end is sought to be achieved by violent
means. The result is civil coercion and civil violence on a scale
which is staggering, and the State, instead of showing any sign of
withering away has become more absolute, more authoritarian and
more all-embracing than any we know of today. The inner com
pulsion of the means* for achieving a goal seems completely to
overrule the conscious will of those who employ them and dictates
a line of advance which seems to be independent of them.
Is there a way of getting out of this vicious circle? Is there a
force different from and better suited for resolving tensions than
brute force? Gandhiji showed us one. He gave it the name
Satyagraha, i.e., the power of Truth. He also called it Soul Force
because it opposes the material force of the opponent—the power
of the spirit. The simplest illustration of this power in action is
when a child struck by its irate mother clings to her for protection
and thereby not only subdues her anger but converts it into over
flowing love.
What is the nature of this force? What are the laws governing
it? How can it be organised and turned into an instrument of
action? And finally, what are the techniques of its application to
various- situations?
To begin with, Satyagraha, or Soul-force is a power, an energy
as objective and capable of producing tangible results in society as,
say, steam or electricity, but is infinitely subtler, more potent and
all-pervasive. It is the opposite of brute force. It represents the
power of Ahimsa or non-violence which, in its positive aspect, is
known as love. Secondly, it does not depend for its propagation
on a material medium; it is self-acting.
Thirdly, it is governed by laws which are as definite, precise
and capable of being objectified as physical laws. It has its science,
—an exact science—which lends itself to investigation, experi
mentation and demonstration. At the time of his death its author
was still experimenting with it.
But there is one important difference between the laws of
Satyagraha and the laws of physical science. The laws of physical
science are inert laws; those governing Satyagraha are living laws
subject to the principle of growth, evolution, adaptation and
change. The instruments which a physicist, for instance, uses,
consist of inert matter. In Satyagraha the instruments are living,
381
\
4
sentient beings, as is also the material acted upon. The science of
Satyagraha, therefore, does not admit of being stated in rigid,
static formulas or set theories; it represents laws and principles in
a state of flux. Satyagraha does not admit of* mechanical repeti
tion of a set pattern of conduct. The Satyagrahi is, therefore, very
often precluded from seeing more tfian the next step immediately
in front of him. He does not plan in advance the next move. He
prepares himself for it by attuning himself to the laws of Satya
graha by dint of rigorous self-discipline, self-analysis and sustained
correct practice in terms of truth and non-violence,
Gandhiji derived his theory of Satyagraha from his doctrine of
Truth. Finite man cannot grasp the whole truth—not even rela
tive truth in its entirety. What may, therefore, appear as truth
to one person may appear to be error to another person. And yet
both of them may be right from their respective points of view.
Proceeding on this reasoning, Gandhiji early came to the conclu
sion that pursuit of truth does not admit o f violence being inflicted .
upon one’s opponent.
Therefore, the doctrine of truth—or
Satya—which Gandhiji described by the word Satyagraha or hold
ing on to truth—means vindication of truth by bearing witness to
it through self-suffering, in other words, love. Ahimsa and Truth
are thus the obverse and reverse of the same coin—one is the
means, the other the end.
Gandhiji’s Satyagraha was not an abstract philosophy but a
philosophy in action. Truth to him meant not the uttered word,
not the professed belief but something that has to be lived. If we
say one thing and do another, profess one thing and do not practise
it, we live untruth. The hiatus between thought and word, profes
sion and practice, interposes a barrier which, acts as a damper
and chokes the action of soul force which is latent in every being.
To work out in his life to the full all the implications of the ideals
he professed, was Gandhiji’s Sadhana or striving for truth. In his
case, it took the form of strict observance—with full implications
of the five cardinal vows of Truth, Ahimsa, non-possession, nottr
stealing, and Brahmacharya.or chastity. The last four were in his
case the natural corollaries to and flowed frota the first. I must
not enter into an explanation of these here. Suffice it to say that
while the principle of the practice of truth as one sees it is basic
to the development of the power of Satyagraha, its implications,
and therefore the forms of discipline, will vary according Ur
different individuals, different people, representing different
religions and different orders of society. The one thing which is
unvarying is that one’s practice must conform to one’s belief.
There must be complete accord between thought, word and deed.
Arguing on this basis, Gandhiji went so far a§ to say that for the
382
APPENDIX V
success of a Satyagraha movement he did not need believers in the
theqry of non-violence, full or imperfect, as far as the rank and file
were concerned. Tt was enough for the purpose if they carried out
the rules of non-violent action in a sincere, disciplined, soldierly
spirit. For leadership in Satyagraha, however, discipline ~ and
training of a higher type are naturally required.
How does Satyagraha work? Attempts have been made to
explain it in terms of modern psychology, but the explanation
cannot be considered to be complete. Courageous, innocent
suffering by purging in the opponent the emotions of anger, fear
and pride makes the Satyagrahi more receptive to new attitudes
and values. Self-purification that accrues to the Satyagrahi by his
loving self-suffering enables him, on the other hand, to have a better
understanding and sympathetic appreciation of the opponent’s
view-point, his weaknesses and redeeming virtues. All this pre
pares the way for what is known as “integration” , integration
consists in first “analysing the expressed desire of the opponent
into its elements and more fundamental meanings and then work
ing out a wholly new solution which satisfies all or most of the
fundamental needs of both the parties in a situation”, so that there
is no balked feeling at the end on either side. Let those who feel
interested refer for further study to Richard Gregg’s classic on the
subject, The Power of Non-violence. Here are two extremely
illuminating instances mentioned by him—(1) “An insistence on
having a table in a certain place in a room might really mean a
wish to have light on one’s writing while working at the table,
together with an inability to see how it could be secured in any
other way. (2) An insistence upon political control of a certain
territory may mean a need for food and industrial raw material
and a desire to satisfy pride,- and an inability to see how. the satis
faction of these needs can be made wholly secure in any other
way.” In both the cases there will be no difficulty in finding alter
native ways of satisfying the need in question, once the inner
meaning of the insistence is understood.
In the ultimate analysis, the action of Satyagraha proceeds
through the technique of “identification” and “involvement”. By
suffering for truth and justice in his own person cheerfully instead
of inflicting suffering upon the opponent, the Satyagrahi establishes
his spiritual identity with the opponent and awakens in him the
feeling that he cannot hurt him (the Satyagrahi) without hurting
his own personality.
Here it is necessary to note the distinction between Satyagraha
and passive resistance. Passive resistance can be an expression of
t one’s anger. Satyagraha is an expression .of the purest Ahimsa,
or non-violence. It precludes hatred, anger, deception or untruth;
383
It is the opposite of coercion. A Satyagrahi is not out to injure
or destroy the opponent, but to convert him and turn him into an
ally. Again, passive resistance is the weapon of the weak.
■Gandhiji called it the “coward’s expedient”. A passive resister
would resort to force if he could. A Satyagrahi adopts non
violence as a weapon of choice because he feels that it has a
potency greater than that possessed by any other weapon known,
It is the weapon of the brave—it calls for courage of the highest
type. “A Satyagrahi is ever ready to forgive personal wrongs.
But since abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to
punish, it becomes meaningless when it proceeds from a feeling of
helplessness.” Gandhiji summed up the principle of Satyagraha
in the form of an equation:* man for man, the strength of non
violence is in exact proportion to the ability, not the will, of the
non-violent person to inflict injury.
The principle o£ Ahimsa or non-violence is as old as the hills
hut whereas non-violence used to be regarded before as a passive
attitude, good only for individuals aspiring to attain spiritual
beatitude, Gandhiji showed how it could be made dynamic and
effectively used as a method for the redress of wrongs and estab
lishment of social justice. Oppression and exploitation, Gandhiji
argued, are made possible only by the cooperation, willing or
forced, of the oppressed in their own exploitation or oppression
through cupidity, ignorance or fear. If all good people ceased
completely to cooperate with an unjust or a tyrannous system, it
must collapse under the weight of its own unadulterated iniquity.
Non-cooperation with evil thus takes the form of self-purification
in the Satyagrahi himself, and withdrawal on his part of coopera
tion from the institution which embodies the evil. If non-coopera
tion is complete, non-violent and universal, it must bring to its
knees even the mightiest power.
To be effective, non-cooperation must be an expression of one’s
anguish rather than anger. A wife who refuses to part with her
ornaments to her drunkard husband and braves his beating, yet
never ceases to love and serve him, uses this weapon in its purest
form and in the end generally* weans her husband from drink. In
the same way, a good citizen will refuse to offer cooperation to
Government with a view to wean it frorti wrong-doing out of his
very desire to cooperate with it consistently with truth and justice.
He will, therefore, bear no ill-will or grudge toward the agents of
the Government with whom he is non-cooperating. Nor will he
want to take advantage of its difficulty. “His non-cooperation is
but a prelude to cooperation on honourable term.”
Non-cooperation to be successful must mean cooperation
amongst all the sections of the community. That calls for the
384
APPENDIX F
removal of glaring economic inequalities and social injustices that
create the gulf between the haves and the have-nots, the top dog
and the under dog; it calls for equal respect for faiths and religions
other than one’s own and a broad tolerance in regard to the beliefs
and practices of other members of the community, to knit together
in a common bond of fellowship the millions and weave the pattern
of non-violent conduct into their lives. Gandhiji devised his
eighteen-fold constructive programme and set up a number of
constructive organisations to work it out. He called it constructive
non-violence.
Equivalent forms of activity suited to Western conditions for
inculcating non-violent discipline have illustratively been worked
out by RichardjGregg in his “A Discipline for Non-violence”, fo
which those who might feel interested are referred. Constructive
work is for a non-violent army while drifting etc., is for an army
designed for bloody warfare. Such preparation, Gandhiji found,
was not essential for non-violent resistance or a civil disobedience
plan by individuals on a small scale and for the redress of specific
or local grievance, but for vital issues involving large numbers of
men such training in constructive work was an absolute necessity.
“Trust begotten in the pursuit of continuous constructive work
becomes a tremendous asset at the critical moment. Individual
civil disobedience among an unprepared people, or by leaders not
known to or trusted by them is of no avail, and mass civil dis
obedience is an impossibility”
An outstanding feature of Gandhiji’s Satyagraha was the ele
mental simplicity of its plan. It arose directly from the choice
of his weapons. Non-violence is the strength of the weak. It
works best through apparently small and insignificant things. It
depends for its potency on its capacity for repetition by large
numbers of humble, simple, unsophisticated folk. Gandhiji
found that little things performed by millions of people together
produce results out of all proportion to what any individual can
achieve or the sum of all individual efforts put together. He,
therefore, sought for a type of activity that could be understood
and practised by millions—even by children, women, illiterate
village folk and others whom we reeard as weak. That also ex
plains his emphasis on the Spinning Wheel and the phenomenal use
to which he put it as a symbol and instrument of non-violent
political struggle.
The same simplicity characterized his technique of propaganda.
It rested on the capacity of truth to propagate itself when it is
expressed in action rather than on the adroit repetition of a lie.
His experience showed that no amount of the lattefr can for long
prevail against the former.
385
94 M. o f Edu.
A classical example of the application of Satyagraha
for the removal of racial discrimination is provided by
the story of the South African Satyagraha struggle. The
struggle lasted for nearly twenty years, but it was carried out with
out rancour on the Indian side. When the struggle was at its
height, a strike broke out among the European railwaymen of
South Africa, who were not wedded to non-violence. Not to add
to the embarrassment of the authorities, the leader of the Satya
graha suspended the Satyagraha struggle till the railway strike was
over. Almost immediate results followed. General Smuts had to
yield. Twenty-five years afterwards he put on record his expe
rience of the struggle as follows: “We had a skeleton in our cup
board in the form of what is called the Indian question in South
Africa
His (Gandhi’s) method was to break the law ..........
large numbers of Indians had to be imprisoned for lawless
behaviour
For him (Gandhi) everything went according to
plan. For me the defender of law and order—there was the usual
trying situation, the odium of carrying out a law which had not
strong public support, and finally discomfiture when die law had
to be repealed.” In 1931, and again in 1943, when Gandhiji was
up against heavy odds, literally immured alive behind the prison
walls, it was General Smuts who stood up for him and defended
him against false propaganda.
An outstanding source of tension in the present day world is the
struggle between labour and capital. The reason why in the fight
against capitalistic exploitation, labour very often fails, said
Gandhiji, is that instead of sterilizing the power of capital by refus
ing to be party to its own exploitation, labour wants to seize capital
and become capitalist in its turn. Thereby, it puts itself at a dis
advantage, The capitalists are better equipped for the game—
better organized and better entrenched than labour. They find
in the ranks of labour candidates aspiring for the capitalistic role
and make use of them to suppress labour. On the day that labour
realises that ultimately it is not pieces of so-called precious metal
that constitute true capital but productive, useful labour and
learns to wield effectively the weapon of non-violent non-co-opera
tion, said Gandhiji, the citadel of exploitation would fall. He
envisaged all industry as a joint enterprise of labour and capital
Accordingly, in the conduct of labour strikes, the attitude he incul
cated in the labourers was that they must regard the interest of the
industry as a whole as their own and direct their attack against the
corruption, injustice, inefficiency and short-sighted greed of the
owners.
inculcating this attitude, Gandhiji was able to mobilise
the better sense of the owners of industry to his side. By his in
sistence upon non-violence he was able to disarm their fear, and
386
APPENDIX F
by making it a fundamental condition that the demands of the
strikers must be clear, feasible and just, he was able to enlist the
sympathy of the public on the side of labour. Further, to ensure
non-violence on the part of the strikers, he recommended that the
strikers must acquire some manual craft so, that they might not
have to depend altogether upon the strike fund to maintain them
selves and their families during a prolonged strike. The readiness
and ability of the strikers to perform socially useful labour pro
vided, too, a nexus between the strikers and the public and a
medium of co-operation among themselves. It kept up the morale
of the strikers as nothing else could.
The most potent form of Satyagraha is by fasting. It is also
the most dangerous, because it can so easily be misapplied.
Fasting may be for penance and self-purification, it may be for the
atonement for wrong done by those we cherish, to chastise and
bring them to repentence, or it may be as a protest against a glaring
injustice and a challenge to the conscience of society. Barring the
first instance, fasting presupposes that the person who launches on 4
a fast has established a claim upon the love and consideration of
those to whom it is addressed. It cannot be addressed to those
who regard you as their enemy. It then becomes a form of
coercion. Finally, it requires a high degree of purity, selfdiscipline, humility and faith on the part of the faster. The right
to it does not accrue to the lazy or the spiritually undisciplined,
but only to him who is spiritually wide-awake and has proved his
sincerity and earnestness by his strenuous endeavour to serve the
cause for which he is out to suffer. It is not the physical act of
fasting, but the spiritual content of the fast that gives it its potency.
When it is properly done, it stirs up as nothing else “sluggish
consciences and fires loving hearts to action
Those who have
to bring about radical changes in human conditions and surround
ings cannot do it except by raising ferment in society. There are
only two methods of doing this—violence and non-violence. Non
violent pressure exerted through self-suffering by fasting...........
touches and strengthens the moral fibre of those against whom it is
directed”.
Of such a type was Gandhiji’s Yeravda Pact fast, as a result
of which the British Government’s decision regarding the electoral
arrangements for the “Scheduled Castes” (Untouchables), was
reversed and the age-old citadel of “untouchability” laid low.
During the Second Indian Round Table Conference the British
Government had announced that owing to the failure of the Indian
delegates to find a solution to the communal question, the Govern
ment would devise its own solution. Gandhiji said that segregation
of the “Scheduled Castes” into a separate electorate would create
387
a formidable political vested interest in the institution of “untouchability” which would perpetuate the “bar sinister” and disrupt
Hindu Society of which the so-called “depressed classes” constitut
ed an integral part. This would be good neither for the “depress
ed classes” nor for Hindu society, nor for India but would only
enable the British Government to use the “depressed classes” as a
pawn in the political game of divide and rule. Wedded, as he was,
to the complete eradication of untouchability, Gandhiji in the
Conference declared that if the plan was proceeded with, as
rumoured, even if he were alone, he would resist it with his life.
Within a week of his arrival in India, he was arrested. When the
British Government’s decision was published, he declared a fast
unto death from behind the prison walls, unless the electoral
arrangement for the “depressed classes” was suitably modified.
The British Government’s reply was that it could be modified only
by an agreement between the “depressed classes” and the Hindus
themselves.
The news of the fast electrified the whole country. The Hindu
conscience was stirred. The Hindu and “depressed class” leaders
met in a Conference at Poona. The solution which the Conference
achieved was a model of the “integration” technique. Dr.
Ambedkar got a larger number of seats with reservation than the
British Government had given him, but coupled with such provi
sions Jhat the British Government were not able to exploit the
“depressed class” issue in the political struggle. Dr. Ambedkar
who had begun by dubbing Gandhiji’s fast, when it was com
menced, as a “ political stunt” , reverentially touched his feet when
he broke his fast. The main resolution adopted by the Leaders*
Conference at Bombay declared that “henceforth no one shall be
regarded as untouchable by reason of his birth
” and that “it
shall be the duty of the Hindu leaders to secure, by every legitimate
and peaceful means, an early removal of all social disabilities now
imposed by custom upon the so-called ‘depressed classes’, including
the bar in respect of entry into temples” . Untouchability has since
been legally abolished under the present constitution, though much
work yet remains to be done for the levelling up of the social and
economic conditions of the Harijans.
For a full story of this great fast and its technique, the curious
are referred to the writer’s “The Epic Fast”,
His other two fasts were undertaken to quell the frenzy of
communal madness, the one in Calcutta in August 1947, the other
—his last fast—in Delhi (January 1948). The secret of the pheno
menal success of his last two fasts was perhaps that they were
undertaken when he had all the armed resources of the State at his
disposal to make uê of, if he were so minded, but preferred the
388
APPENDIX F
weapon of self-suffering. The other reason perhaps was the com
pleteness of his self-surrender to the Divine will—so much so that
the very urge to live except through His grace had almost com
pletely vanished.
Can the non-violence technique be extended so as to meet the
hypothetical case of foreign armed aggression? Gandhiji did
indicate a plan, though he had not any opportunity to test it
out.*
His plan of action was in. three parts—before the
invasion, during the invasion and after the invasion. Before the
invasion the technique consisted in preventing it by an “invasion”
of the aggressor nation in advance by good-will, friendliness, spirit
of reconciliation and selfless service. How he planned to apply
this method to check the trans-border raids in the North-Western
Frontier Province—that land of fierce Pathan warriors renowned
in history—will be found described in the writer’s “A Pilgrimage
for Peace”.
During the invasion the technique would consist in offering
non-violent resistance up to death and to the last man to the in
vader and total non-cooperation with him, while not missing any
opportunity of rendering human service to the individual members
of the invading hosts in their personal capacity whenever they
might be in distress. A detailed plan of action in this regard was
developed by Gandhiji at a time when India was menaced by
Japanese invasion and the British Government had decided to
withdraw their forces to a remote line of defence, which would
have left large parts of the country open to the invader.
Should action outlined in the first two stages prove unsuccess
ful and the aggressor come to occupy the country, resistance would
take the form of non-violent non-cooperation and all other forms
of Satyagraha, that were practised during India’s non-violent
freedom struggle against the British Power.
The sceptic will here perhaps interject that all these techniques
can be of no avail against the terrific coercive power which the
totalitarian dictatorship today wield and the philosophy ofc brutal
ity by which they have insulated themselves against all human
sentiment. The fact of the matter, however, is that it is the
emergence of this very phenomenon that makes the adoption of
these techniques inevitable if humanity is not to be utterly destroy
ed. During the last war, the appalling destructiveness of arma
ments gave rise to the technique of frightfulness which means you
do not need to kill if you can demonstrate yuur undoubted capa
city to kill. By the use of this technique the totalitarian powers
*“Gandhiji’s correspondence with the Government” 1942-44, pp.
307—311.
389
found it possible to subdue and enslave whole nations almost with
out firing a shot. It is not without significance that although the
destructive power of armaments and the numbers involved in the
last World War were far greater than in World War I, actual
casualties were tess. Proceeding on this analogy, Gandhiji argued
that as the number of people groaning under the iron heel of mili
tarism grows, it will pave the way for the discovery that if the
oppressed masses only shed thf fear of death, it might not be neces
sary for them to die to regain their freedom. The deadlier the
weapons of destruction become, the greater becomes the necessity
and therefore the possibility of humanity learning to confront them
with a power of a different kind against which they cannot prevail.
Armaments can but destroy. Yet, total destruction is not what the
tyrant seels, but cooperation, willing or forced, of the victim and
this no power of armaments can extract from a people if they
have developed the strength to say ‘No* when they mean ‘No’. The
moment, therefore, the people become aware of soul force or the
power of the spirit, which is latent in every human being, and
which armaments can neither destroy nor subdue, the power of the
latter will be sterilized and the spell of frightfulness broken. Gan
dhiji postulated only two conditions: (1) There must be a recogni
tion of the existence of the soul—as apart from the body—and its
permanent nature, “and this recognition must amount to a living
faith”; (2) in the last resort “this technique does not avail those
who do not possess a living faith in the God of Love”.
Gandhiji did not believe that the ideal of peace could be realised
in society so long as the wide gulf between the rich and the hungry
millions remained. The difficulty, however, is that if we try to
make men equal by forcible expropriation or by State action they
cease to be free. If, on the other hand, they are left free they
become unequal owing to what Professor Haldane has called the
inherent “inequality of man”. In nature all men are bom equal, in
the sense that they have a moral right to equal opportunity. But
all have not equal talent. Some will, therefore, have the ability to
earn more than the rest. Gandhiji did not want to cramp talent by
preventing people endowed with superior talent from earning more
or to violently dispossess those who had more of their possession.
To bridge the gulf between the haves and the have-nots, he
suggested instead that they should use their talent and the bulk of
their earnings not for themselves but as a trust for the good of
society. As ‘trustees’ they would be entitled to retain for them
selves a reasonable rate of commission in recognition of their
service or usefulness to society. In the transition period this would
be left to be determined on a reasonable basis by themselves in
consultation with society. Within certain limits the rate of com390
APPENDIX p
mission itself would not matter very much so long as they agreed
to surrender their existing titles based on absolute ownership for a
trusteeship basis. In due course, when the ground was sufficiently
prepared, trusteeship would become the law of land, and
its operation, including succession and inheritance of wealth,
acquired or otherwise, would be regulated by the State with the
“minimum use of force”, in conformity with the principle of
trusteeship.
This, however, did not mean that pending the necessary legisla
tion the transformation of the capitalists into trustees would be
left to the sweet will of the capitalists. If they did not accept the
new basis of ownership voluntarily, or proved impervious to
reason, the weapon of non-violent non-cooperation would be
'brought into play. For instance, if a landlord refused to accept the
principle of trusteeship, agricultural labour would boycott his culti
vation and public opinion would not allow black-leg labour to be
brought in or the State police to be used for evicting the boycotters
in case they performed a sit-down strike on the acres of the land
lord. He summed up his trusteeship idea in the following
formula: —
1. Trusteeship provides a means of transforming the pre
sent capitalist order of society into an egalitarian one;
it gives no quarter to capitalism, but gives the present
owning class a chance of reforming itself. It is based
on the faith that human nature is never beyond re
demption.
2. It does not recognise any right of private ownership of
property except inasmuch as it may be permitted by
society for its own welfare.
3. It does not exclude legislative regulation of the owner
ship and use of wealth.
4. Thus, under State-regulated trusteeship, an individual
will not be free to hold or use his wealth for selfish
satisfaction or in disregard of the interest of society.
5. Just as it is proposed to fix a decent minimum living
wage, even so a limit should be fixed for the maximum
income that could be allowed to any person in society.
The difference between such minimum and maximum
incomes should be reasonable and equitable and
variable from time to time so much so that the ten
dency would be towards obliteration of the difference.
6. Under the Gandhian economic order the character of
production will be determined by social necessity and
not by personal whim or greed.
Would not “the legal fiction of trusteeship”, as a cynical critic
391
put it, only serve to give to the institution of private ownership,
which is the fruit of exploitation, a new lease of life? Why not
put all property straightaway under state ownership? Gandhiji’s
reply was that whilst he agreed that the accumulation of capital
by the individual in the present set up is largely the fruit of ex
ploitation, i.e., violence, he preferred the violence of the individual
to State violence as being the lesser of the two evils. “If the State
suppressed capitalism by violence, it would be caught in the coils
of violence itself
and fail to develop non-violence at any
time. The State represents violence in a concentrated and organis
ed form. The individual has a soul, but the State is a soulless
machine...............Hence I prefer the doctrine of trusteeship.”
Again, the State can conscript the surplus wealth through a
steeply graded system of taxation, but it cannot conscript the
talent and good-will of the privileged class. Trusteeship, on the
other hand, while it puts an end to the capitalistic order, ensures
to the capitalists the moral freedom to develop and turn their
talents to good account for the service of society and thereby
annexes their good-will for the amelioration of the masses. There
is nothing that is realisable under a violent revolution and is intrin
sically good which cannot be achieved in an equal or even greater
measure under trusteeship. In addition, trusteeship avoids the
evils of violence, regimentation and suppression of individual
liberty. Even if large sectors of industry are nationalised and
put under State ownership, the existence of individual enterprise
side by side with it under a trusteeship system would provide a
healthy antidote to slackness, inefficiency, corruption, lack of
enterprise and bureaucratic autocracy which very often characterise
State-ownership. It alone thus provides a possible escape from
the cliche: “Make men free and they become unequal, make
them equal and they cease to be free.”
Could not trusteeship doctrine be used to justify one nation
constituting itself as a trustee of another? The reply is that
'trusteeship” is a means for removing or transforming inequalities
that are inevitable in nature, not an excuse for creating fresh in
equalities so that some might play at “trusteeship”. That would
be a travesty of its real purpose and meaning.
There was another reason why Gandhiji was opposed to in
creasing occasions for State interference in the regulation of
society. He attached the greatest importance to “moral free
dom”. He wanted all reform to come from within and from below.
He did not want progress to be imposed by an outside authority.
He sensed danger in increasing what has been called the “fiction
of the State”, viz., that “State is a sort of a super-individual en
dowed with inexhaustible power and resourcefulness which can
392
APPENDIX F
accomplish what nobody would expect from an individual” As
Jung has very pertinently pointed out: “The dangerous incline
leading down to mass psychology begins with this plausible think
ing in big numbers and powerful organisations, where the indi
vidual dwindles away to mere nothingness.” And again, “Every
thing that exceeds a certain human size evokes equally inhuman
powers in man’s unconscious” and thereby unleashes the “totalita
rian demons.” Jung goes on to add: “The destructive power of our
weapons has increased gigantically and forces this psychological
problem on all mankind: Is the mental and moral condition of
the men who decide on the use of these weapons equal to the
enormity of the possible consequences?”
Gandhiji was, therefore, against vesting more power in the
State than was absolutely necessary or encouraging people to think
that their salvation would come through some agency outside
themselves or their own individual or collective effort. He wanted
them to take their destiny in their own hands and realize their
moral freedom without which economic and political freedom by
themselves are incomplete.
The world looks forward to the day when the law of the jungle
that has so far ruled the relations between nations will be replaced
by the rule of just law, as it has in the case of individuals and
groups within nations in all civilised society. But it needs no
argument to show that a true United Nations Organisation will
come into being only when all nations big and small comprising it
are fully independent; and a nation as Gandhi pointed out, is inde
pendent only to the extent to which it has assimilated non-violence.
The democracy or freedom of the masses can never be realised
except through non-violence for the simple reason that the natural
corollary to the use of untruthful and violent means would be to
remove all opposition through the suppression or extermination
of the antagonists. “That does not make for individual freedom.
Individual freedom can have the fullest play only under un
adulterated non-violence.” It would be idle to expect the United
Nations to fulfil its purpose so long as it or the nations composing
it do not adopt truth and non-violence as their guiding principles
instead of being ruled by considerations of power-politics and
diplomacy, as unfortunately is seen today.
Wars do not originate at the battle fronts. Nor does peace
return automatically to people when the actual fighting ceases.
International tensions are very often an extension of the tensions
within nations and the roots of war lie in causes that are endemic
in society. That is also the reason why the conscientious objector’s
traditional attitude of negation in regard to fighting has by itself
hitherto proved inadequate. The problem of international peace
393
therefore necessitates an investigation into the nature and causes
of internal stresses and strains in society and the way to their
removal.
We are today confronted with an unresolved contradiction
between democracy and abundance, equality and individual free
dom, progress and peace cutting across all ’cracies and ’isms in
the problem of privilege which comes under a variety of forms.
Under democracy it comes as monopoly of the means of produc
tion and distribution, under dictatorship as monopoly of political
power, and in both as monopoly of intellect, technological know
ledge and specialised experience.
The system of mass production, which a desire to have more
and more material goods has brought into being, has made the
frontiers of society so remote and undefined and its problems so
intricate that an average individual, who has to work for his living
to make both ends meet for himself and his family, has not enough
time to understand them, and so he can really influence his en
vironment but little. He has to let the politicians and experts
largely do his thinking for him. His initiative and power of
decision are taken away from him. Advance of technology has
thus actually resulted in the decline of individual liberty and a
terrific concentration of power in the hands of small groups or
bodies of men. Political bosses are today armed with far more
effective instruments of coercion and propaganda, with which they
can overcome popular resistance and hypnotise the masses, than
their predecessors were before, while the people have nothing
comparable at their disposal with which to defend their liberties.
The increased vulnerability of society, owing to its growing com
plexity, has further aggravated the situation. Nations that have to
depend on food supplies from outside live always under the fear
that a foreign power might starve them into submission by severing
their life lines. The city-dweller and the industrial proletariat,
further, as a rule live under the fear of unemployment and in
dustrial instability resulting from economic fluctuations, slumps,
etc. That creates a feeling of insecurity, a psychology of fear,
which the war mongers can easily exploit to create mass hysteria.
Closely related to the question of peace and war is thus the
question of the mental health of the people. Combative instinct
is inherent in human nature; it cannot be eradicated. It can only
be transmuted. Unless it can find expression in the shape of
socially useful creative activity it results in neurosis. The present
day methods of production, by depriving the workman of the
opportunity for socially useful creative work, have induced in him
a state of neurosis. Close partnership with Mother Earth, on the
other hand, gives to the peasant an ingrained feeling of security
394
APPENDIX F
and mental poise. The peasant too is exposed to the vagaries of
weather etc., but these disasters only spur him on to renewed
aggression against the elements or he can fall back upon the
manual crafts and so on. That makes him predisposed for peace.*
The same applies to the handicrafts man. “His combative instinct
finds expression in creative work and so he lacks the desire to give
expression to his destructive impulses.” t
Gandhiji, therefore, advocated a return to a system of rural
communities more or less self-sufficient in the matter of their basic
needs. In this order of society agriculture will go hand in hand
with industry. Machines will not be abolished; people will have
many more of them. But these machines will be simple machines
which people can themselves operate, own and control. In this
simple set-up, society will be composed of small, manageable
units, cooperatively knit together. People will be able to under
stand their environment and therefore effectively control it. Work
will not be the anti-thesis of life, but a means of realizing the full
content of life. People will live in close contact with nature and
enjoy free sunshine, fresh air and the aesthetic delights which
nature freely provides but which it costs so much to make avail
able to the urban industrial workers, even in a niggardly measure,
synthetically.
This does not necessarily mean a “low standard of life” or a
life of drudgery. For, there will be no limit to the employment of
more efficient processes and tools. The level of machinery and
organisation that a community may ultimately adopt cannot be
arbitrarily fixed. Probably it will vary from time to time and from
place to place according to the needs, capacity and outlook of the
people concerned; the guiding principles always being that they
must be within the mental reach of the common people who have
to operate them and their financial capacity to own them indivi
dually or collectively. They should aid human labour, not dis
place it. The same will apply to the motive power used.
This system does not aim at evolving what Gandhiji called
“the civilization of the rose without the thorn”. It will not abolish
all physical labour. Nor did Gandhiji regard all bodily labour as
“the curse of Adam”. On the contrary, he held that the principle
of eating one’s bread by the sweat of one’s brow was an essential
condition for the health, contentment and inner peace of the indi
vidual and society and that many of our present day social ills
were traceable to an infringement of the law of “bread-labour” .
Jung very aptly observed in the course of one of his addresses
before the Swiss Society of Psychology: “Life demands for its
consummation and fulfilment a balance between joy and suffering;
but since suffering is in itself unpleasant, people naturally prefer
395
not to think about how much care and sorrow belong to the
natural lot of man. So they use comforting words such as progress
etc.................... forgetting that happiness itself is poison when the
measure of suffering has not been fulfilled”. Behind the neurosis,
which the world is today showing, is concealed, as Jung has point
ed out, “all the natural and necessary sufferings which the patient
was unwilling to bear.” And again, “the highest aim of Psycho
therapy is not to transport the patient into an impossible state of
happiness but to help him to attain the firmness and philosophical
patience which will enable him to endure necessary suffering.”
This means that we have to learn to put a voluntary curb on
our physical desires and return to spiritual values and spiritual
basic disciplines. There is no escape from it. Even as it is, “dis
persion” has become the watchword of the day in the West, under
the fear of the atomic bomb. But apart from and in addition to
it, we have to realise the necessity of the slogan “back to the soil”,
back to regional self-sufficiency in all vital respects, back to simpli
city of living and back to spiritual values for the maintenance of
the mental health of the people on which alone the structure of
world security and world-peace can be erected.
396
APPENDIX G
A NON-VIOLENT WAY OF LIFE
By
Dr. J. C. Kumarappa
I shall divide my talk into three parts: the first part will
ooncern itself with a philosophical approach, or if you like an
academic approach; in the second part I shall deal with the
practical turn which we in India are trying to give it; and, in
the third part I will humbly place before you certain suggestions
for not only India but for the whole world.
Now I want first of all to give you our approach to the human
factor. Non-violence really is a thing we have got to look upon,
not as a negative force, but as a very active element in Indian
culture that has functioned since the days of Buddha. What we
want to do is to introduce into society such non-violent factors
to combat war. How is it to be done? Even Buddha was
only representing the philosophy that was curretUfor thousands
of years before him. It is nothing new except to those of us
who are new to it. We cannot banish war while we are per
petuating war within ourselves. Wars are not organized by any
external factors. Wars come from the violence that is within
us. The tremendous amount of hatred and injustice within us
accumulated in a national form leads to war. Therfore, banish
ing war cannot really be brought into effect without the selfcontrol of each individual. It has to start with you and me.
Hence,-if we want to stop wars we must stop them within ourselves
in our everyday life, and that is the starting point.
People say that self-sufficiency would mean a lower standard
of life. The Americans might well say that by exporting articles
to suffering people in Europe there will be less to share at home
and so their standard of living will be lowered. Naturally, if
you must share your fellowmen’s suffering, you must be prepared
to part with things. It may be lowering your material standard
of life but it is increasing your spiritual standard by serving your
fellowman and sublimating your personality.
The present Western system of organization has emphasised
the products of work. By work also, we hold, man develops,—the
^
397
material manifestation of work being but a bye-product. Man
works on a material thing which grows into a finished product
and at the same time, in the process of making the finished
product, man grows spiritually. Therefore work is a medium of
personal development. The Wardha Basic system of education
is based on this philosophy. The product of work is useless
when compared to the reaction of work on man. Work is not
merely for producing things, it is the means of educating man.
It means developing self-discipline and self-control. When the
material manifestation is over-emphasised, work is missing the
function of culture-creation altogether. The West has been doing
this, forgetting the man behind the articles. The result has been
that man is not considered an entity by himself. He is not a
person but an animal, or worse still, a cog in the machine of
production.
Animals live and die on the earth. They are of the earth
earthy. Man rises higher than this only when he begins to see
that he is a social animat Even the bee works for the whole
colony. At this stage there should be a spiritual sublimation of
our individual instincts—the sublimation of fatherhood, mother
hood, brotherhood. To feel that our standard of living will
come down when we relieve the sufferings of others, is to bring
ourselves down to the animal level.
In his death Gandhiji was numbered amongst the greatest of
princes. His body was burnt with sandalwood.
Not even the
greatest of. the Moghuls were treated like that. When he was
living he was not clothed in beautiful
silks. Why not? He
sublimated his personality into those of the poor people. To do
this we have to control the animal within us.
Even the animal is capable of being classified into various
groups according to the purpose of its work. Taking us at the
animal level, we work to satisfy our hunger. Animals go about
to satisfy theirmain
primary need by, say, five different
approaches. The first one is the simplest. The tiger goes and
takes other creatures that live in the jungle. This is the parasitic
state. Then there comes the predatory stage. The monkey
takes the apple from the tree. It does not consider if it has
done any work for it. Here, the violence of the tiger Is
lessened. But in both there is consumption without contribu
tion. Thirdly, the bird that builds a nest, in economic terms* is
both a producer and a consumer, and there is a further decrease
of violence. This might be called the “enterprising stage”.
The forth stage is noticed in the life of the honey bees. They
don’t produce for their own benefit, they produce for the benefit
of the whole group. Then we come to the final stage, the
398
APPENDIX G
service stage, as when the mother bird picks up food and takes
it to the baby birds in the nest and gives without expecting any
return.
We all function in these five stages at different times. The
moment we begin to develop the people towards the service
stage, we are reducing the need for and chances of war. The
nearer we get to the service stage the less and less violence
shall we find in society.
These five stages can be seen in the caste system of India.
As you begin to balance rights and duties, civilization comes
in. With the tiger and the monkey, there are only rights and
no duties, but as man grows higher and higher duty begins to
enlarge. Unfortunately labour unions, etc., are all right—centred
and therefore their efforts lead to general conflict. We have got
to come to the duty-centred economy.
Our ideal must he to reach that stage where there would be
no wars at all. To this end we must educate the people into
the service stage.
War has to be abolished by taking away the motives for war.
So long as there are tigers in society there will be wars. We
may be intensifying wars if we don’t approach them from the
right end, and the right end is your life and mine. It is in our
everyday life, in our private life, that our mission has to begin.
People in the city who buy milk are stealing it out of the
mouths of the children if the milk is not out of a surplus. When
you get raw material from other countries, how many of you
know that they are not being stolen from hungry mouths? When
you get food from other countries, how do you know that there
are not dead bodies behind it? Unless there is a surplus, one
has no right to buy from others. Every country has to be selfsufficient in food, clothing and other primary needs. Unless
you are self-sufficient you cannot maintain your independence.
I am not against international trade, but the natural foods and
things of that kind which you need must be grown or produced
in our homeland, otherwise it is not possible to remain non
violent.
!
'***
When a new mill is brought info existence, the raw materials
for it are got from the land which is growing food today. This
is a further pressure on the food-growing land. Tobacco is
being grown in rice lands. The Government had opened a
seed depot for the Imperial Tobacco Co. of London. Under
such conditions when Indian trade has to import food we are
coming down to the tiger stage and this will lead to violence.
When India gets her claws and fangs you will have to sit up and
take norice. It will be a menace to world peace. There are
399
four hundred millions to make gun fodder.
At a certain village an old woman told me, “When I was
a little girl all this land was for rice growing. But we were
given good prices for the land and so we sold i t Now this
land grows coconut trees and we are too poor to buy the
coconuts” AH these lands had belonged to the villagers who
sold them for good prices and now coconut trees were grown.
Now they had neither rice nor coconuts. The coconuts go to
the mills where they are converted into coconut oil which is
used in the manufacture of soap and similar articles. The land
has been converted into a soap-makers land and the people’s
food comes from Brazil. To make certain that they get it, they
will need atom bombs. We cannot have foreign food and at
the same time avoid wars. Every country must produce its own
food or ultimately you must hold in bondage those who produce
it for you to see that they do send it to you. International
trade can be there, but not on the food line or the clothing line
or prime necessities line, but only in surpluses and luxuries.
There is a definite difference between the wars of the ancient
time and the wars of the present day. In fact they are two different
things and it is wrong to call them both “wars”. We must differ
entiate them by some other term.
In olden times, wars arose out of animal instinct for greed.
In the twentieth centurv war is a very different thing, it is not just
brigandage.
Churchill
or Roosevelt or Hitler were not
brigands. They were the victims of what is called democracy.
The violence that is within the people expressed itself through
them. By an educational process, people are brought to sing
in unison hymns of hatred, hymns of denunciation against other
nations. War propaganda is a poisonous injection into the
body politic. The warring of nation against nation is altogether
a new thing. By a process of education we can bring the
nations together. We should take up that constructive part of
the work of educating the public and of bringing them to a
service economy. We have got to isolate the cause and deal
with it. You cannot have peace without attacking the cause
of wars.
We have seen that the cause of wars is greed of man for
material things irrespective of consequences. That is why
centralized methods of production have been introduced, which
ultimately lead to the control of other people’s lives. Modem
industrial magnates control the liyes of so many thousands of
people and then we call ourselves democracies. If you are
working up to a democracy in politics, you must have a democracy
in economics. There is no meaning at all in the terms Com400
A ££e n d ix g
munists, Fascists, etc. The distinction should be betweeh
centralization and decentralization. The test of a country being
democratic or not is when it is in trouble. In times of stress
and strain, what were the nations of Europe? Dictatorships.
You must ultimately decentralize control if you are to abolish
war. Then a man’s conscience will be the sole dictator as to
whether a thing is right or wrong. Ideally this is something we
may never attain, but we must move towards the ideal. We must
have certain centralized productions, communications and the
like, but these key industries must be sterilised of the profit
motive; they should be like public utilities owned or controlled
by the State.
In a village in South India I found the owner of six looms
worked by power twiddling his thumbs. I asked him why the
mill was not working. He could not get enough raw material.
He was also selling cloth 400 miles away and there was a
bottleneck in the transport. He wanted to know how to ensure
his supply of raw material and his market. I advised him to go
to Madras where he would find a whole lot of brigands. He
should get 200 of these men and let each be armed with a dagger
and take them to the yarn mills. The moment the people at the
mills saw the daggers they would run away leaving all the yarn
he wanted. Then he could go to Delhi and those who deal with
transport would not also like the look of a rifle or a dagger.
They would give him anything he wanted. Such is the basis of
all Imperialism. When you need to control your raw materials
and control your markets, you cannot do that without bombs. It
is no good denouncing the bombs. You cannot have your cake
and eat it too. We must begin with ourselves. Indeed
Gandhiji gave us a programme of all kinds of cottage industries
starting from this end as he realised the need for decentralization
in the production of consumption goods. This leads us to
regional self-sufficiency ultimately.
Gandhiji was not interested in the economic side of things
for its own sake. He was interested in only one thing, that is
truth and all things that lead to untruth, all things that lead to
violence he wanted to remove from society. Hence this
programme of work.
We must not meet once in a year, or once in so many
convenient years and disperse after receiving reports, but we must
get together and organize and get a definite move on what we
are going to do. Even Gandhiji’s last message was that we
should harness our energies to do something. We must attack the
tremendous enemy in our own land of poverty and starvation.
There are a number of institutions that Gandhiji had formed
40J
94 M. of Edu.
Ga n d h ia n
outlook
and
t e c h n iq u e s
together with an educational programme.
In a non-violent State we cannot have His Majesty’s
Opposition. Yet the function of the Opposition must be
performed. No Government can work without it. The real
function of the Opposition is to direct the Government into
certain channels. You require critics but they should be taken
out of the field of violence. The Opposition in England is a
violent type of political order. I suggest that it should be like
rock banks to a river. The banks of the river, so long as they
are solid rock, direct the flow to the bed of the river, but the rock,
being rock, does not come and sit in the bed of the river and silt
it up. In England it is so today. The Opposition is always
influenced by the thought that it may come into power one day.
So far we have dealt with the qualities in man and the
qualities in human relationships.
We should now consider
nature.
We have got to go to nature to obtain raw materials for
all our economic needs. There are two kinds of sources. One
is a reservoir, such as minerals, iron, copper and all sorts of
such things which in nature are in a reservoir form to some extent.
Things like cotton, wool, wood, exist not in reservoir form, but
as a current, like a river running all the time. These latter do
not get exhausted as we go on using them, as they are in current
form. Current economy is non-violent, the reservoir form is
violent as it gets exhausted.
For instance a person dies and leaves to two sons Rs. 10,000
each. One goes to Bombay and spends his capital in luxurious
living. The other sets up a little grocery shop, say in a village
and gets from it two or three hundred rupees income a year
and lives on that income. One is living on his capital, the other
on his income. What is the psychological effect of these two
methods of living? The village man develops into a man who
is provident; while the man who spends his capital, .after it has
gone, looks round to see who else has money from whom it can
be obtained easily by gambling, forgery, etc. or becomes a
brigand to get money quickly. When you live on a reservoir
economy you develop different mentalities from the one that
current economy develops. Imperialism has arisen out of our
getting away from current economy into the reservoir economy.
One hundred years ago there were no global wars. Why?
Then England was on a horse economy. The horse was the
motive force. The horse belongs to a current economy. In
India the cow is the motive force—the sacred animat of the
country. What is called the industrial revolution in England
was the ultimate result of the discovery of steam power.
The
402
APPENDIX G
horse economy gave way to the coal economy, a reservoir economy,
which develops violence, and then came along another reservoir
motive force, namely petrol. Petrol has got into short supply, sc
that the Middle West is being looked upon with covetous eyes.
Therefore there are these global wars, which really began with
the industrial revolution. America, with her tremendous supply
of petrol which is now going down, is beginning to turn towards
the East. Violence is increasing as you go on shifting your
methods of production from nature in the current form to
nature in the reservoir form. Thus houses that are built of
bricks and wood, can largely be said to belong to current
economy, but when you come to concrete and steel you are
coming into the reservoir economy. To what extent can we go
on wastefully exhausting supplies as we have been doing and
calling it a high standard of living—living with no security?
Wherever there is an over-emphasis on the reservoir economy, we
should be on our guard as it will increase violence in society and
culminate in wars.
It is no good saying this is an “over-simplification”. Because
by looking at these things you will ascertain the causes of war
or root of violence. It should be our intention to live as far as
possible on current products, to use the things we produce. We,
in India, believe in using our own home-spun yarn.
That is
what Gandhiji wants us to do. Abolishing war has to begin at
our breakfast table. Let us begin with ourselves and start with
our daily lives and the accumulated violence that comes out in
the form of war will take care of itself.
There is something more fundamental than taking away the
pistol or disarming nations. Nations will disarm of their own
accord provided they can be moved up into the mother-service
economy. The national government will then take their rightful
places. They need not formulate Leagues of Nations or U.N.Os.
The real thing is to isolate the factor that produces violence,
which is our method of living today and our present type of
economic organisation. We shall have to shift from a rightcentred economy to a duty-motivated economy, from self-centredness to love for our fellowmen. We must bring about selfconquest and banish untruth and violence from society. Until we
do not do that there will be no peace in the world. We must attack
this problem at the source. It is only by remoulding our daily
lives that we can bring peace and plenty to this war-distraught
world and banish violence from our midst.
Gandhiji’s last
suggestion was of converting the Congress from a political to a
constructive body—the Lok Sevak Sangh was a step directed
towards that end. Have we the will and courage to follow his lead?
403
APPENDIX H
S u m m a r i e s o f D a il y D i s c u s s i o n R e l e a s e d t o t h e P r e s s .
The discussion of the Seminar began with a statement by Lord
Boyd Orr, who said that there are four significant factors in the
modern world which we have to keep in mind in considering the
possibility of applying Gandhian techniques to the solution of
internal and international tensions. The first is that the advance
of science has created conditions which can eliminate hunger
and disease, but which if not properly used, can also annihilate
mankind. The second is the concentration of power in the hands
of a small minority, whether it be in the field of economics or
politics. This has led to the third factor which is the political
transformation of the world, so that instead of a large number
of states of more or less equal strength, there are today only two
nations which can deploy overwhelming military power.
The
fourth which, in his opinion, is a hopeful factor in the present
situation is the great development in the ethical consciousness of
the general masses, mainly as a result of the progress of education.
These four factors together have created in the minds of men a
great desire for peace but people all over the world are groping
for a way by which to achieve this aim. Lord Boyd Orr con
cluded by saying that every participant in the Seminar should
come with a completely open mind and without any mental re
servations. They had assembled there as individuals and not as
representatives of any country, nation, party or organisation.
They must therefore be prepared to change their views in the
light of their discussion and he hoped that some practical re
commendations would result from the Seminar which would
help in solving what was the most decisive issue of the modern
age.
The first formal statement on the subject for discussion was
made by Acharya Kripalani. He began by saying that he would
give his own interpretation of Gandhiji, for it is inevitable that
a rich and complex personality like Gandhiji would appear in
different light to different persons. The first thing which in his
opinion distinguished Gandhiji from many of the great leaders
and thinkers of the past is that he was not primarily seeking a
solution to the problem of the misery of the individual. For
Gandhiji, the answer to human misery, whether individual
404
APPENDIX H
or social, could be found only through social action, and he was
therefore essentially a social reformer. A struggle against evil
is necessary if society is to be transformed. Since society is
already full of struggles, it was one of Gandhiji’s main concerns
to develop a technique by which such struggle could be carried
on without adding to the existing tensions.
Gandhiji formulated certain principles to regulate individual
conduct and thus achieve harmony between the individual and
society. The first of these is that society as well as individuals
must be wholly and unconditionally truthful.
Till now, in
dividual moral standards have not usually been applied to
society. Gandhiji held that unless this is done, there could be
no true morality for either the individual or society. Gandhiji’s
second principle is that inequity and injustice must be resisted
at any cost. Gandhiji felt that wars can no longer solve any
problems, but if the choice was between cowardice and violent
resistance, he would have had no hesitation in advising resort
to violence. He therefore declared that Poland’s resistance to
Germany, or China’s resistance to Japan was the nearest approach
to non-violent action by a group that he could think of. Thirdly,
Gandhiji always made a sharp distinction between systems and
individuals. While he was prepared to condemn British imperia
lism, he was not prepared to condemn Britishers and counted
scores of them among his personal friends. He maintained these
cordial relations even when he was carrying on the struggle to
overthrow British power in India.
History is full of instances of exceptional honesty and courage
by individuals, but instances where they have acted in union to
fight evil and dishonesty are not many. Gandhiji tried to
organise the common man and raise him morally by devising pro
grammes of constructive activities. It may be admitted that his task
was comparatively easier in the freedom struggle, for here the
majority was already united in purpose and he was opposing a
few by organising the many. The problem before the world today
is whether his principle of non-violent resistance can be applied
to the conflicts between nations. Gandhiji believed that this is
possible. If a nation acts truthfully and honestly and is prepared
to suffer for its faith, the aggressors would in* course of time be
exhausted. International organisations have till now failed to
maintain peace, because they seek to do so by achieving a balance
of power. Gandhiji tried Jo achieve peace by the recognition of
the primacy of moral principles in'international affairs. He was
terribly in earnest and that is why he was prepared to risk his
own life and that of his friends for achieving the goal. The only
limitation he imposed was that he and those who believed with
405
him would themselves suffer but not inflict suffering on others;
they would be prepared to be killed but would never resort to
violence.
Acharya Kripalani concluded by saying that just as standards
of morality for the individual have been achieved by the individual
sacrificing himself for the cause, international morality can be
realised if an individual nation is prepared to make the same
supreme sacrifice.
Dr. Ralph Bunche, Professor Humayun Kabir, Lord Boyd
Orr, Professor Massignon. Kaka Saheb Kalelkar, Acharya
Narendra Deva, Professor Tucci and Dr. Haekal took part in die
discussions which followed.
During the discussions, special
emphasis was laid on the techniques used by Gandhiji in creat
ing a sense of urgency among the masses and in developing the
power to resist evil. His identification with the Indian people
was one of the main sources of his power and was born out of
his deep respect for the masses. The discussions concluded for
the day by drawing attention to the dangers inherent in any over
simplification of the issues. Men talk of peoples or nations, but
forget that within each nation there are many groups. Besides,
individuals as well as societies are swayed by conflicting loyalties.
Almost all peoples desire peace, but at the same time most of
them are willing to fight for what they regard to be in the interest
of their nation.
n
The second session of the Seminar began with a statement by
Professor L. Massignon who laid special emphasis on the
significance of the mystic tradition of Indian culture which
Gandhiji had inherited. Gandhiji’s use of terms like Satyagraha
was clear evidence of his affinity with ancient Indian thought.
He did not try to invent new terms or ideas but rediscovered the
significance of the traditional concepts. This he was able to do
through meditation; though with him meditation and action formed
one indivisible unity. One of the chief lessons of his life is that
we must learn to meditate till our ideas become an essential part
of our being. For him, words were like vows and they carried
with them a sense‘of dedication.
Professor Massignon then drew a distinction between an oath
and a vow. An oath is imposed by an external authority whereas
a vow is self-imposed. This is brought out clearly in the Indian
concept of Vrata. Professor Massignon illustrated the difference
between the two by referring to the Kellogg Pact. The nations
which had signed the Kellogg Pact did so without any inner de
dication and that is why the Kellogg Pact could not stand against
406
APPENDIX H
the claims of national interests. The Kellogg Pact was thus
like an oath, but not a vow or Vrata.
Professor Massignon went on to say that he was introduced to
Gandhiji’s thought by two Muslims, Dr. Ansari and Suleiman
Nadvi. They as well as Dr. Abdul Majid taught him that the
practice of Satyagraha was in accordance with the spirit of Islam.
One special point of identity between the concept of Satyagraha
and the Semitic way of thought is seen in their attitude towards
the grant of sanctuary. In ancient Indian tradition, there is the
concept of Saranya Dharma or absolute protection to one who
seeks refuge. This was an equally strong tradition in Islam.
Professor Massignon had himself met the widow of a Bedouin
Chief who gave sanctuary for three days to the murderer of he*
husband because he had claimed from her the right of sanctuary.
This attitude towards the refugee or fugitive is born out of a
sense of sacred ness of human life. It is also a recognition that
the law of asylum has a greater validity than the law of war,
even when the war is what we may regard as a war in a just
cause. This sense of sacredness of life has been largely lost in
modern Europe, for the sacred is often kept confined only to the
church. In India, however, the religious and the secular are
merged in a unity and Gandhiji’s actions were always inspired by
the sense of sacredness in the affairs of every day. He therefore
recognised no division between the spiritual and the temporal.
Professor Massignon reported that when he met Gandfijji in
1931, he enquired from him if and how religions could help to
prevent war. Gandhiji replied that the official religions could
not do so but the true spirit of religion transcended divisions and
achieved a sense of brotherhood among all men. Such conscious
ness of unity was however realised only by the pure in spirit.
They may be few in number but their influence on events is out
of all proportion to their numbers. An individual could achieve
this sense of purity only if he reformed himself and that is why
Gandhiji placed such emphasis on individual effort and Dersonal
contacts.
Professor Massignon held that while Gandhiji was essentially
a child of the Indian tradition, he was helped to rediscover the
truth of these Indian ideas through his study of Tolstoy and
Ruskin. This as well as his intuitive perception of the universality
of truth helped him to give a new richness to the Indian heritage.
Traditionalists in India did not, however, recognise this and often
disapproved his approach to the basic concepts of Hindu religious
thought. It ought to be a first task of the followers of Gandhiji
to convince the traditionalists that Gandhiji was not breaking
away from the Indian tradition but recreating that tradition by
407
finding new meanings in ancient truth through his compassion and
sense of identity with men of all religious faiths.
It follows from this approach of Gandhiji that his methods
are particularly suited to action by small groups. Small cells
can be built up with individuals who adhere whole-heartedly to
his teachings. There are such small groups of men throughout
the world and they could take the pledge in the sense of
Gandhiji’s vow or Vrata. In France, a small group is preparing
a manual on non-violence in this spirit. Gandhiji’s life was an
example of how such small cells can have an overwhelming impact
on society. Such cells would rise above traditional patterns of
conduct and penetrate into the inner truth of man. Professor
Massignon held that it is significant that Gandhiji’s last pilgrimage
was to Mehrauli, the seat of a Muslim saint, only four days before
his martyrdom. This is evidence of his dedication to social
participation and his sense of communion with men of different
religious faiths.
The practical programme for a Gandhist should, therefore,
be to create centres of sanctuary in which the true dignity of man
can be realised. Such sanctuaries should give unconditional
asylum to the wounded, to all refugees and to all shrines and
artistic monuments. The establishment of such sanctuaries would
restore the sense of sacred ness of life. Professor Massignon said
that this could not be explained scientifically. Science deals only
with, averages while spiritual issues can be understood only in
terms of unique experiences. It was only in this sense that he
would agree with those who said that Gandhiji was not an
intellectual genius but he would immediately qualify it by saying
that Gandhiji was a spiritual seeker discovering eternal truth.
Like Lessing, Gandhiji was also one who wouTd prefer to be
eternally searching for the truth rather than enjoying it.
Professor Massignon concluded by saying that Gandhiji’s
programme could be applied in the modern world in a fourfold
way. Gandhiji advocated Brahmacharya or the vow of chastity in
family life as a means of limiting population. He advocated the
organisation of community life in small units based on the idea
of sarvodaya and it is significant that his last testament was a
draft for a sarvodaya community. In national life, his principle
could be realised by creating zones of security for minorities of
every type. This would mean that such groups would be given
the freedom of retaining their culture and no attempts would be
made to make them conform to the pattern of the majority.
This idea could be developed in international life and would lead
to the recognition that to force a people to fight is a sin against
the spirit. This will also involve die abolition of exclusive rights
408
APPENDIX
and privileges for particular social groups and guarantee equal
rights to all individuals on the basis of their common humanity.
The discussion was opened by Lord Boyd Orr, who was
followed by Dr. Bunche, Acharya Kripalani, Dr. Zakir- Husain,
Professor Humayun Kabir and Professor Tucci. The main
doubts raised were whether too much emphasis on the creation
of zones of security might not divert the attention of the people
and thus weaken the effort to avert a third World War. It was
generally agreed that any special safeguard for minorities could
be only a temporary measure and would automatically disappear
when human society was based on the principles for which
Gandhiji stood.
Ill
During the third session of the Seminar, Madame Cecilia
Meireles and Professor Tucci made their statements which were
followed by a most lively discussion.
After drawing attention to the many points of similarity
between India and Brazil, Madame Meireles referred to the present
day crisis which was the result of growing materialism and undue
stress on physical well-being. This has induced in the young a
tendency to place acquisition of wealth or power above other
values, and contributed to the undermining of social and personal
morality.. According to her, even more grievous than the losses
on the battle-field in the two World Wars has been the moral
damage to mankind. The young have been the first to suffer,
for the lowering of standards has prevented them from getting a
proper orientation in their early youth.
Madame Meireles confined her remarks primarily to the
question of education. She was struck by the fact that great
attention has been paid to the methodology but not to the content
of education. It is, however, obvious that it is more important
to decide what should be taught than how to teach it. Present
day education thus tends to be superficial. What is worse, it
neglects the moral education of the youth. Religious institutions
or the family cannot in the present day world cope with this task
adequately. Madame Meireles stressed the need of developing
habits of concentration. Men must learn to meditate over the
fundamental problems of life. Today we take decisions without
thought. The press, the radio and the cinema tend to retard the
development of personality by pandering to the craze for
sensationalism.
Madame Meireles pointed out that Gandhiji was typically
Indian, but he was also international and did not belong only to
one country. He was a teacher and friend of humanity.
409
Nowhere was this more clearly seen than in his identification
with the untouchables.
It was thispower of social participation
which gave Gandhiji his unique appeal to men and women all
over the world.
Madame Meireles proposed the reconstruction of education
with a greater emphasis on the unity of mankind. The history
of man should be studied objectively and without any political
or religious prejudices. Gandhiji should be presented as a hero
of peace and a builder of the modern world. Western universi
ties should encourage the study of oriental languages, eastern
philosophy and comparative religions.
Madame Meireles concluded by stressing Gandhiji’s teaching
that the machine is good when it serves men and evil when it
masters them. Use of handicrafts in schools and other educa
tional institutions is a recognition of the dignity of labour and
also desirable educationally. It also stimulates the creative
instinct in man and helps him to develop spiritually and physi
cally. Textbooks should be revised and a proper emphasis
placed on spiritual values for the solution of all conflicts.
Professor Tucci in his statement described his approach to
Gandhiji as that of a student of Indian culture. As such he was
concerned more with the ethical attitude of Gandhiji than his
political programmes. Gandhiji in his enunciation of truth and
non-violence placed greater emphasis on action than on mere
intellectual recognition of -their value. He was concerned
essentially with the individual and felt that good individuals would
automatically create a good society.
We live in a period of transition but this need not make us
unduly optimistic or pessimistic. The crisis today is essentially
an ethical crisis. People say one thing and do something else.
This is true at both the individual and the social level. The
attempt to distinguish between individual and social morality is
itself evidence that there is something wrong with our concept
of morality. The truth is fhal morality must be one and the
same at all levels. Organised propaganda has dulled the power
of free thought and encouraged the growth of a spirit of intole
rance. The attempt to impose uniformity of thought on all is
the greatest danger that man faces today.
Gandhiji sought an answer to the problems of today bv
stressing the ancient values of religion. The best tribute we can
pay to him is to attempt to live according to his teaching. One
essential step would be to increase personal contacts between
individuals of different nations and communities. Gandhiji
taught us that we must not think of nations in the abstract but
seek to establish personal relations with their members.
4T0
7
APPENDIX H
Professor Tucci thought that a reform of the educational
system could help in developing an attitude of toleration. Greater
importance should be laid on the spiritual unity of man than on
differences of abstract theories or dogma or creed. It is necessary
that Gandhiji’s thought is brought to the notice of those who are
in positions of power. If the rulers of the world are influenced
by Gandhiji’s ideas, the problems of the world can be solved
peacefully and without war.
Professor Tucci concluded by sayings that it would be unwise
to expect any phenomenal or instantaneous results.
Insistence
on the ideas of Gandhiji is valuable in itself for he emphasised
purity in social and individual conduct. This alone can give real
happiness to individuals and society.
The discussion on Madame Meireles’s paper was opened by
Dr. Matine Daftary and converged on the use of the machine as
a necessary condition for the development of under-developed
countries. Dr. Bunche, Acharya Kripalani, Mr. Pyarelal,
Dr. Haekal, Professor Massignon, Dr. Zakir Husain and Lord
Boyd Orr examined the question from various points of view in
an attempt to find out if Gandhiji was opposed to the machine as
such or only to the misuse of the machine. It was suggested that
the tool which helps man would have been accepted by Gandhiji
but he would have rejected the machine which tends to replace
man. There was general agreement with ^Professor Tucci but
it was felt that we must recognise ethics as co-terminus with the
whole of life and not as one of its special departments.
IV
The fourth session of the Seminar was addressed by Professor
Tsurumi, Professor Radhakrishnan and Kaka Saheb Kalekar.
Professor Tsurumi started by saying that Japan was greatly
interested in the teachings of Gandhiji and hoped to find from
him the answer to three specific questions: How to avert
another war? How to solve internal difficulties arising out of
the war? How to fill up the vacuum created by the destruction
of ancient ideals?
Gandhiji was simultaneously a prophet, a practising econo
mist, a politician and a teacher. Essentially a religious man,
there was no divergence between his professions and his practice.
That is why he influenced millions, for ideas may appeal to intel
lectuals, but it is only personality that can move the masses. As
a practising economist, Gandhiji was mainly concerned with the
reconstruction of the village economy of India, but his programme
had also helped in the development of national industries. Even
in the field of economics, he was primarily a humanist. This is
411
seen in his conception of village economy, in his handling of
labour problems, and still more clearly in his attitude towards the
untouchables. As a politician, his unerring instinct is seen in
the symbols that he used to arouse the enthusiasm of the masses.
His greatest significance to other countries is however in his role
as a teacher. Pandit Nehru had compared him to Socrates and
Professor Tsurumi felt that in the present spiritual depression of
Japan, his message would have the greatest value.
Professor Radhakrishnan agreed that Gandhiji was essentially
a religious man. An authentically religious man rises above group
loyalties and owns loyalty only to Truth.
All religions
proclaim the same truth, though their adherents do not always
practise them. Gandhiji’s greatest significance lies in his adhe
rence to his ideals unconditionally and completely.
In working for the cause of Indian freedom, Gandhiji at the
same time sought to demonstrate the validity of his non-violent
methods. He regarded his Indian experience as an experiment
for the whole world. His nationalism was a means to true
internationalism for he sought to show that national liberation
can be achieved by methods of truth and non-violence.
Gandhiji always distinguished between evil and the evil doer.
He therefore condemned exploitation but not the exploiter.
Though he had his differences with the British, he had nothing
but friendship for the individual Britisher. He was inspired by a
spirit of comprehension and compassion. He sought to under
stand his opponent and not to judge him. He recognised that
what we oppose in others is often only an exaggerated reflection
of some tendencies within us. It is this which explains his
spirit of toleration and deep spiritual humility. He knew that
every religion is a reflection of some aspect of the truth and should
therefore be respected. If our Constitution is inspired by a
spirit of respect and understanding of other creeds, this is due
primarily to his teaching.
Commenting on Professor Tsurumi’s remark that communism
is born in the vacuum created by the destruction of old ideals,
Professor Radhakrishnan said that communism is the result of
our lack of loyalty to our own religious convictions. Militant
atheism is the reply to dishonesty in religion. Our failure to
conform to our ideals creates a dichotomy between conduct and
belief and the communist tries to resolve this dichotomy by
denying religious values. The East-West conflict is due to a
failure to recognise that the difference is not one between black
and white, but between different shades of grey. We must
scrutinise our national policies with the same care as the policies
of those whom we may regard as our enemies. Gandhiji
412
APFENDlk k
examined his own conduct even more carefully than the conduct
of his en

sandman outlook and techniques

Transcription

Similar documents

Hotmail/Live/ MSN/Outlook.com

Mahatma Gandhi: Letters to Americans

ACCESSING YOUR CHAFFEY COLLEGE E

Financial Strength - Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance

How to configure your email client

Magazine Q4 - Hindu Education Link

AGI Remote Access Guide - Allianz Employee Remote Access

Theta Chi sanctioned

Are you having a hard time picking the perfect gift for that special

The Right to a Healthy Environment – Canada`s Time to

Information Regarding Mr. Hatch`s Case