Lanka Everything Everything Sri Lankan Web Portal

I would also like to thank the Indian High Commission for the gift of 350 photographs of Mahatma Gandhi obtained from the Mahatma Gandhi Museum in New Delhi which provided the people of Sri Lanka with the opportunity to see for themselves the inspiration of Mahatma Gandhi. Over 15,000 people visited the exhibition at the Art Gallery and many were young people. The exhibitions in Kandy and Matara also attracted over 5000 people within a period of three days. Many school children attended these exhibitions. I realized then the hunger that the younger generation had for role models – my country unfortunately has a serious deficit of inspirational role models. 

Next month Sahajeevana Centre will be holding an exhibition of photographs of Martin Luther King Jr. to Obama, in Jaffna, Batticaloa and Colombo. These efforts are intended to inspire our younger generation to eschew violence and to pursue the path of non –violence. Today, in the aftermath of a deadly and horrendous war, it is important that all Sri Lankans reflect on the folly of violence and what it has done to this paradise isle. 

Mahatma Gandhi and his legacy

What I wish to explore with you is the influence of Mahatma Gandhi in the world, which is far reaching, necessary and still has the power to transform societies. Mahatma Gandhi is many things to many people. 

He is an icon to be venerated as the man who inspired the Indian independence struggle and who did it without resorting to arms.
As a man who stood for ahimsa, non violence and courage amidst all odds.
As an indomitable fighter against injustice, against all forms of injustice and violence from caste oppression, the emancipation of the untouchables , to injustice against minorities, against the discrimination of women, to the degradation of our planet.
 
 

Gandhi stood primarily for truth and the search for truth was a spiritual quest based on his own experiences.  He was inspired by the Bhagavat Gita, that extraordinary epic of man’s quest for truth and meaning, as well as by the teachings of Buddhism and Christianity and Thoreau, the great American anarchist. My reflections however will be on one aspect of Mahatma Gandhi’s legacy, the core of his entire life work, i.e. the struggle against injustice and violence. What is non-violence? Gandhi suggests that: 

“Non-violence is a creative, planned, positive active force which, because it does not use violence as a means of resolving conflict, is a truly revolutionary approach for those who seek social or political change”.

To achieve this purpose he developed the concept of Satyagraha. Satyagraha, according to Gandhi’s definition can mean “an effort to discover, discern, obtain or apply the truth”. His definition of Satyagraha relied on three basic tenets: satya or truth, implying openness, honesty and fairness; ahimsa, meaning physical and mental non-violence; and tapasya, literally penance, in this context, self-sacrifice. To quote Gandhi:

“In the application of satyagraha, I discovered, in the earliest stages, that pursuit of truth did not admit of violence being inflicted on one’s opponent, but that he must be weaned from error by patience and sympathy. For, what appears to be truth to the one may appear to be error to the other”.

This technique consists of many methods, which can be grouped into three categories: non-violent protest and persuasion, non-cooperation and non-violent intervention. 

Let me now discuss the modern discourse on injustice and violence, and the relevance of Mahatma Gandhi. To help me with this discourse, I would like to go back to one of my gurus at the International Peace Research Institute, Johan Galtung, who was profoundly influenced by Gandhi. Galtung developed a discourse on violence which has the following three components:

Structural violence- Defined as exploitation of humans by humans through iniquitous systems where rapacious capitalism was one of them. We see today the results of cowboy capitalism at its worst, with the current recession, and the rapacious greed of finance capital.
 

Direct violence- The use of force to settle disputes, in its modern form. It is the weapon of mass destruction, and the so called poor man’s weapon of the human suicide bomb, the claymore mine detonated from a distance and other forms of deadly weapons. Its latest form is called fifth generation warfare, where a small group can cause devastating damage on cities, countries etc. The role of Diaspora communities in 5th generation warfare cannot be underestimated as we saw by the mobilization of the suicide squads who took part in the September 11 attacks, in the devastation caused to the World Trade Centre in the U.S. When one talks of violence,  the SIPRI Yearbook notes a reduction of civil wars from 32 in 1989 to less than 15 today. But, it also draws attention to the expansion of small scale conflict, violence and wars, where the numbers killed is less than 500 but which can, if not prevented and addressed, lead to large scale violence. Another form of violence is the use of hostages and large numbers of civilians as instruments of war, as we recently witnessed in the North of Sri Lanka by the LTTE.
 
 

Cultural violence - Is the legitimation of violence through culture, ideology and religion.  Such violence takes many forms:
 

- The denial of the Other. President Obama, in a speech during the US Presidential election spoke of the problem in Sri Lanka as a problem of the Other. I think this is the correct characterization of the problem which has dominated our history since independence. 

- It takes the form of an idea of a chosen people, destined to rule others, the so called white man’s burden, justifying slavery to recent forms of the chosen people. In its recent manifestation, it is the idea of a chosen people often articulated by pan Sinhalese ideologies. 

-The demonisation of the Other, profiling other ethnic groups, calling all the others as potential terrorists. This phenomenon can be witnessed in the so called clash of civilizations and the demonisation of Islam.

-Another form is the humiliation of the Other. Humiliation has been one of the most potent forces of violence. Humiliation takes many forms and it is the denial of humanity in the Other. In its current manifestation, it is the demonstration of triumphalism and humiliation against the Other. 

Ethnicity and the Muslim question

In 1947, when riots broke out across Punjab, Delhi and Bengal, Gandhi was helpless when confronted with large scale ethnic cleansing and hatred between Hindus and Muslims. His despair is best epitomised by his “no one listens to me anymore. I am a small man. True there was a time when mine was a big voice. Then everyone obeyed what I said; now neither the Congress nor the Hindus nor the Muslims listen to me. I am crying in the wilderness” .Gandhi opposed the partition of India, but was unable to prevail and had little of an alternative to offer. During this period, Gandhi was attacked mercilessly by Hindu extremists and was eventually assassinated by a young Hindu extremist, Nathuram Godse at Birla House, New Delhi, on 30th January, 1948, at the age of 78. Godse believed that Gandhi was harming the Hindus by being friendly with the Muslims. Gandhi worked tirelessly to promote co-existence between Hindus and Muslims and visited many places of religious strife and carnage. He lived in places where Muslims were a minority. His death did however serve to cool down the ethnic anger and hatred as nearly everybody was shocked and affected by his assassination.
 
 

Gandhi and terrorism

 One of the most vexed questions in the confrontation with violence is modern form of terrorism, particularly after September 11, with the emergence of Al Qaeda and the invention of systemic violence. How do we deal with this? There are no simple answers to this question. If you look at Gandhi’s stance on terrorism,  his support for the Allied Forces against fascism in Europe during the 2nd World War stands out. He did not hesitate to support the Allies against fascist Germany and he had the utmost sympathy for the fate of the Jews. Gandhi also took part in the Boer War in South Africa.

It would seem, the most important empirical answer in the prevention and the escalation of violence is the principle of  not engaging in politics of humiliation and triumphalism. There is sufficient empirical evidence today to suggest that non-violent strategies of resistance are not simply morally superior to their violent counterparts; they are also more effective, according to the study, "Challenging Goliath: Comparing the Relative Strategic Effectiveness of Violent and Nonviolent Asymmetric Warfare" by Dr. Maria Stephan, Director of Educational Initiatives at the International Centre on Nonviolent Conflict and Dr. Erica Chenoweth, who seek to examine the successes and failures of different asymmetric means of warfare, in which a weaker non-state actor challenges the state. In doing so, Stephan explains, they aim to assess "the relative strategic effectiveness of different asymmetric warfare types (i.e. guerrilla warfare, terrorism and non-violent conflict) and look at the extent to which these groups have achieved their stated objectives". Stephan and Chenoweth's initial research suggests that campaigns driven by civilians wielding non-violent "weapons" (i.e. boycotts, strikes, protests, civil disobedience, creation of parallel structures, etc) have a higher rate of success than those using guerrilla warfare or terrorist attacks, the former achieving "partial to full success" in almost 90% of cases, versus 50% in the case of the latter. Terrorist and guerrilla campaigns furthermore incur greater levels of suppression. While states are typically less inclined to negotiate or bargain with violent actors, the use of non-violent strategic action tends to increase the political cost of suppressing internal dissent. At the same time, it more effectively applies pressure on the adversary.

In this study they argue that the reason why we are seeing such a high rate of success with non-violent movements is because non-violent resistance is more apt to achieve legitimacy while imposing significant economic and political costs on the opponent. This type of resistance is also tougher to defend against. After all, when you are confronting a regime with traditional police and military security forces, the regime is in a much better position to combat violent elements and violent resistance - this is what they're trained to do. Unified, strategic non-violent movements on the other hand, are able to raise the political cost when the state uses such repression, thus gaining greater strategic advantage.

Gandhi and the Importance of Role Models

Here, I would like to examine the power and salience of those who chose non violence against violence and demonstrated in their life work the efficacy of non violence, reconciliation, and truth. One is clearly the example of Nelson Mandela, who was profoundly influenced by Gandhi. He influenced Mandela during the early phase of the African National Congress and it was only in the last phase, given the brutality of the Apartheid regime that the ANC resorted to limited forms of violence. For more than ten years, Mandela and the ANC clung to Gandhi’s example of non-violence as a political tactic. When increasingly violent repression by the South African government finally forced the ANC to abandon non-violence in favour of militant action in 1962, Mandela justified the decision by citing a 1938 statement by Gandhi that violence was preferable to "emasculation of an entire race”. Gandhi’s philosophy of reconciliation determined the final outcome of the solution where Nelson Mandela and De Klerk were able to agree on a non violent transformation.

At this point, I would like to bring forth some personal reflections of the application of reconciliation as practised during the final stages of the Apartheid regime. Lord Carrington had arrived in South Africa to bring about reconciliation between the African National Congress led by Nelson Mandela and De Klerk, the leader of the National Party and Buthelesi, the leader of the Zulu people. The negotiations failed and Lord Carrington predicted a bloodbath as a result of an acrimonious election. I am personally aware how in the last stages, a mediator by the name of Washington Okumo, who stayed behind when Lord Carrington and his team left and engaged in personal diplomacy and eventually persuaded the three leaders to come to an accord, and it was this understanding that was vital for multi ethnic harmony. 

The concept of reconciliation and forgiveness as was practised in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission headed by Archbishop Tutu was influenced by Gandhi. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established in 1995 to deal with the harm that had been caused by Apartheid to people’s dignity, which affected their state of self worth. It underscored the fact that the process of reconciliation is not about forgetting the past but  about acknowledging the  crimes committed and thereby  acknowledging the other person as a human being who had suffered. The perpetrators of  crimes relating to human rights violations who gave testimony were given the opportunity to request amnesty from prosecution. The mandate of the Commission was to bear witness to, record and in some cases, grant amnesty and reparation as well as promote rehabilitation. This  process  was heavily influenced by  the traditional practices of  Ubuntu societies in South Africa.

Now to reflect on the leadership qualities of Nelson Mandela - he spent 27 years of his life in Robin Island and I had the opportunity to visit the prison and witness the room he spent an entire lifetime. The room was full of books of Gandhi and many other classics. The twenty seven years he spent in jail were spent in meditation and reflection and it is said that throughout the years, the bitterness left his soul and he provided the leadership to steer South Africa to be a multi ethnic state. He stands tall amongst our contemporary leaders, for his ability to forge unity amongst traditional enemies. I wish that our leaders would take a leaf from the great man’s example.

Another example of Gandhi’s influence is Martin Luther King. The latter’s admiration of Gandhi began after a sermon by Mordecai Johnson who had just returned from a trip to India. He went out and purchased as many books as he could find on the life and teachings of Gandhi and found that they held many of the same beliefs.  King visited India in 1958 and his visit inspired him to take the idea of non-violence back to  America and use it in the civil rights struggle. They both believed that by not protesting one was agreeing to wrong. Many times though the years King repeated the Mahatma's words, ‘non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as cooperation with good."  Martin Luther King,  through his non violent approach was able to steer the frustrations and anger of the black community into constructive engagement. Allow me to quote extensively from Martin Luther King from his Tribute to Mahatma Gandhi on the tenth anniversary of the assassination of Gandhi:

  "Mahatma Gandhi has done more than any other person of history to reveal that social problems can be solved without resorting to primitive methods of violence. In this sense he is more than a saint of India. He belongs - as they said of Abraham Lincoln - to the ages. In our struggle against racial segregation in Montgomery, Alabama, I came to see at a very early stage that a synthesis of Gandhi’s method of non-violence and the Christian ethic of love is the best weapon available to Negroes for this struggle for freedom and human dignity. It may well be that the Gandhian approach will bring about a solution to the race problem in America. His spirit is a continual reminder to oppressed people that it is possible to resist evil and yet not resort to violence. The choice is no longer between violence and non-violence. It is now either non-violence or non-existence.
Oppressed people can deal with oppression in three ways. They can accept or acquiesce. Under segregation they can adjust to it. Yet non-co-operation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is co-operation with good. The minute one accepts segregation, one co-operates with it. Oppressed people can, on the other hand, resort to physical violence, a method both whole nations and oppressed peoples have used. But violence merely brings about a temporary victory and not permanent peace. It creates ever new problems. Gandhi has come on the scene of history with still another way. He would resist evil as much as the man who uses violence, but he resists it without external violence or violence of the spirit. That is what Gandhism does. It is a method of the strong. If the only alternative is between cowardice and violence, it is better - as Gandhi said - to use violence, but there is another way. I myself gained this insight from Gandhi. When I was in theological school, I thought the only way we could solve our problem of segregation was an armed revolt. I felt that the Christian ethic of love was confined to individual relationships. I could not see how it could work in social conflict. Then I read Gandhi’s ethic of love as revealed in Jesus but raised to a social strategy for social transformation. This lifts love from individual relationships to the place of social transformation. This, Gandhi helped us to understand and for this, we are grateful a decade after his death."
 

Now finally I would like to give the examples of how Gandhi influenced Obama. Prior to becoming President of the United States, then-Senator Obama noted that:

  ‘Throughout my life, I have always looked to Mahatma Gandhi as an inspiration, because he embodies the kind of transformational change that can be made when ordinary people come together to do extraordinary things. That is why his portrait hangs in my Senate Office: to remind me that real results will come not just from Washington - they will come from the people”.

In September 2009, during a speech at the Wakefield High School, said that his biggest inspiration came from Mahatma Gandhi. It was when a question was posed to him as to 'who was the one person, dead or live, that he would choose to dine with?' and his quick reply was 'Gandhi!' He continued and said that - "he's somebody I find a lot of inspiration in. He inspired Dr. King with his message of nonviolence. He ended up doing so much and changed the world just by the power of his ethics". Today, as I speak, President Obama has been nominated for the Nobel Prize.

There are many more people that were influenced by Gandhi . One is Abdul Ghaffer Khan, who founded a group called the Khudai Khidmatgars, or servants of God, known as the red shirts for the red cotton clothing worn by members, who defied ancient local and religious divisions to join. They were representatives of many different tribes- Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians and Buddhists. Khan taught people from the warrior world that their oppressors “may kill, but we won’t. They may harm us, but we won’t harm them.” He argued that religiously justified violence was “not God’s religion.” Known as Badshah Khan to his followers, the devoutly Muslim leader was called “the frontier Gandhi” and built an Islamic parallel to Gandhi’s violence-eschewing ideals of compassion for one’s enemies and peaceful resistance to oppression as a means of overcoming it.

The Dalai Lama was also influenced by the Indian leader. During the campaign led by the Dalai Lama for the independence of Tibet from China (he has famously said "Tibet will be free when China is free" and that his people should not take up arms against, or hate, the Chinese people. Tibetan Buddhism is very much in harmony with Gandhian non-violence. In fact, the Dalai Lama has said:

“I have the greatest admiration and respect for Mahatma Gandhi. He was a great human being with a deep understanding of human nature. He made every effort to encourage the full development of the positive aspects of the human potential and to reduce or restrain the negative. His life has inspired me ever since I was a small boy. Ahimsa or nonviolence is the powerful idea that Mahatma Gandhi made familiar throughout the world. But nonviolence does not mean the mere absence of violence. It is something more positive, more meaningful than that, for it depends wholly on the power of truth. The true expression of nonviolence is compassion. Some people seem to think that compassion is just a passive emotional response instead of a rational stimulus to action. To experience genuine compassion is to develop a feeling of closeness to others combined with a sense of responsibility for their welfare. This develops when we accept that other people are just like ourselves in wanting happiness and not wanting suffering. What is the relevance of nonviolence and compassion to the future of humanity? As Mahatma Gandhi showed by his own example, nonviolence can be implemented not only in politics but also in day-to-day life. That was his great achievement. He showed that nonviolence should be active in helping others. Nonviolence means that if you can help and serve others, you should do so. If you cannot, you must at least restrain yourself from harming others. I believe that it is very important that we find positive ways in which children and adults can be educated in the path of compassion, kindness and nonviolence. If we can actively do this, I believe we will be fulfilling Mahatma Gandhi’s legacy to us. It is my prayer that, as we enter this new century, nonviolence and dialogue will increasingly come to govern all human relations.”

Last but not least, let us look at the Burmese leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been placed under house arrest for several years by the Burmese  government. She was influenced by both Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence and by more specifically, Buddhist concepts. Aung San Suu Kyi entered politics to work for democratization and helped found the National League for Democracy.

There are many others who have been inspired by the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi. His influence has been all pervasive, from the revolutions which transformed the Soviet State, to the Velvet Revolution of Eastern Europe, to the overthrow of despots like Marcos in the Philippines. Gandhi remains an icon and an inspiration for the future.